1990 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

FRIDAY, APRIL 27, 1990

Morning Sitting

[ Page

9229 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Ministerial Statement

Safety in the workplace. Hon. Mrs. Johnston –– 9229

Mr. Miller

Private Members' Statements

Safety in the workplace. Mr. Miller –– 9229

Hon. Mr. Messmer

Challenges of intergovernmental relations. Mr. Peterson –– 9231

Mr. Guno

Family violence. Ms. Marzari –– 9233

Hon. Mr. Dueck

Hon. J. Jansen

Fiscal responsibility. Mr. Rabbitt –– 9235

Ms. Marzari

Budget Debate

Mr. Chalmers –– 9238

Ms. A. Hagen –– 9240

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 9244

Ms. Smallwood –– 9247

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

Prayers.

MRS. McCARTHY :

Mr. Speaker, this weekend marks the seventy-fifth anniversary of the

Canadian Girls in Training. This organization was first established in

1915 by the YWCA, and it has always been a strong supporter of Canadian

nationalism. Much has changed in 75 years in this program for girls who

range from 12 to 17 years of age. But the commitment to their goals

remains unchanged, and they have been a positive influence on these

young people over these 75 years.

I would ask the members

in our gallery to welcome Ruth Cairns, who is representing the Canadian

Girls in Training, and I'd ask the House to join me in congratulating

their organization on this seventy-fifth anniversary of service.

HON. MR. MESSMER :

In the House today we have visiting us 28 grade 10 students and two

teachers from McNicoll Park School in Penticton. They are social

studies classes which have been dealing with the provincial and federal

governments over the last few months. I would like to welcome the two

teachers, Lea Sutherland and Bob Brownell, and the 28 students. Would

you please join me in welcoming them.

MR. CRANDALL :

I would ask the House to join me this morning in welcoming Sheila

Lorentz and the group of Pathfinders and Rangers who are in Victoria

today for the Duke of Edinburgh ceremonies. I would ask the House to

make them welcome.

MRS. BOONE : On behalf of the

second member for Boundary–Similkameen (Mr. Barlee), who asked me to

give greetings to the class that is here from Penticton, I would like

to extend congratulations, and hope that their stay here in the House

is a happy one today. I hope that we don't give them too much

entertainment today.

Ministerial Statement

SAFETY IN THE WORKPLACE

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a ministerial statement. I would like to

bring to the attention of the hon. members that tomorrow has been

proclaimed as a day of mourning for workers injured or killed on the

job. Despite all the best efforts of labour, management and the

Workers' Compensation Board, 218 workers in British Columbia were

killed on the job last year. Many more were seriously injured or

permanently disabled.

These bare statistics can in no way convey the grief and sense of loss felt

by the family, friends and co-workers over these tragic accidents. Their lives

are forever changed.

The

ministry and the Workers' Compensation Board are continuing to stress

our commitment to accident prevention by promoting health and safety in

the workplace and in the schools for students about to enter the

workforce. It is a priority to teach young people how to be safe in the

workplace, including the importance of wearing protective equipment and

how to recognize and avoid hazards. We don't want anybody to have to

learn by their mistakes.

It is a sad fact that almost a

quarter of all claims for compensation are made by young workers

between the ages of 15 and 24. Let us hope that these programs create

an awareness of safety on the job that will decrease the number of

tragic accidents in the future.

Retraining injured workers

continues to be a priority of the Workers' Compensation Board. The

vocational rehabilitation courses and programs create new lives and a

new sense of purpose for the people who have been injured.

Although

we are working very hard to reduce the effects of these workplace

tragedies, nothing we can say can compensate for the loss or injury of

a loved one. Mr. Speaker, I ask the hon, members to join me in a moment

of silence as a sign of respect for workers injured or killed on the

job.

MR. MILLER : Mr. Speaker, I'll be very brief. As

you are aware, I have a statement to make following this on the same

subject. I would only wish to join with the minister in recognizing the

tragedy and the trauma that is involved when people are killed or

injured on the job. The ramifications go far beyond the simple act

itself.

I would draw to the House's attention that the day

has been declared by the Canadian labour movement. I would also draw to

the House's attention that it is a sad fact that much of the best

scientific work on the impact of the workplace on workers' health and

safety has been initiated at the local or mill level. I'm familiar with

some of those studies, which have been done, in my view, at great

expense. Thorough analysis and scientific study are what we need more

of in this province. Unfortunately, they have not been funded to the

level that I think they should be.

I have certainly seen my

share of tragedy and trauma on the job. It's always painful when we're

dealing with young workers. I will leave my response at that and say

more in my statement.

Private Members' Statements

SAFETY IN THE WORKPLACE

MR. MILLER :

I don't intend to cite a lot, but some statistics indicate that we have

not really met the challenge of the tragedies that do occur on the job

and on the worksite. I don't think we have paid enough attention to

some of the more invisible tragedies, some of the things that you can't

— or don't necessarily — see.

[ Page 9230 ]

New

injuries reported over the last year are up considerably, from 192,515

last year to 207,019 this year. Fatalities reported: again, up from 212

last year to 218 this year — not a good record. I would note from the

reports of the WCB that occupational health and safety reports issued

were down by 8 percent, yet assessment income increased by some 17—

almost 18 — percent, up from about $440,000 to $520,000.

I said earlier, perhaps the most traumatic event that can happen — the

most shocking event in terms of its immediacy to us on the job — is a

death. Unfortunately, I have been, in my working life, witness to some

of those tragic events. But some of the trauma that we perhaps lose

sight of after the event I think needs to be spoken about today.

am talking particularly about injuries that are carried far beyond the

accident stage. Certainly many of the occupations that people are

engaged in, in this and other provinces, are very high-stress jobs. I

am thinking particularly of our policemen and firemen. The mortality

rates, particularly among firemen, are very high. In fighting fires and

protecting the public they often inhale smoke that in some cases is

toxic and detracts drastically from these people's longevity. It's not

a single incident but a series of incidents over a long period of time,

yet the result is just as tragic. I would include many others, as I

said — teachers, policemen, firemen — who work in a high-stress

environment. I would exclude present company in terms of that high

stress.

I am aware, Mr. Speaker, of the tragedies that have

occurred at sea. Many of my friends, and friends of my friends, have

been lost at sea as they went about the very useful occupation of

harvesting nature's resources so that we might enjoy them. There was a

death recently just south of the Queen Charlotte Islands. We are very

aware in my community of the trauma that flows from those kinds of

deaths.

There continue to be constraints to injured

workers. When you're injured on the job, it's necessary for the event

to be described as traumatic. If it is not, you seriously jeopardize

your chance of receiving compensation from the Workers' Compensation

Board. So workers have, over the years, evolved; in fact, they've had

to learn how to play the game in terms of trying to get these

compensations that are their due.

When you report an

accident, it's incumbent on workers — and sometimes they forget — to

describe a very traumatic event that led to the injury. If they fail to

do that, they end up fighting WCB forever and a day. I would note also

from the statistics that many of the claims that we are now starting to

pay for the first time — or paid for the first time in 1989 — indeed

are for accidents that happened many years ago. It illustrates that

people have sometimes had to fight for years and years to receive

proper compensation from an organization, the Workers' Compensation

Board, that was set up to serve the workers of this province and that

the workers pay for.

[10:15]

I want to talk about the trauma of the disabled. Again, it becomes

invisible. We tend to forget, after the event, that there are very real

people who suffer very real tragedies in trying to get on with their

lives. I have been personally involved in assisting workers who have

had great difficulty dealing with the rehab services of the WCB. I

think this is very, very critical in our province: when workers are

injured to the point where they are permanently handicapped, at some

point the Workers' Compensation Board says to them: "You are now fit

for some kind of work" — completely ignoring that these individuals may

have had 20 years or 30 years' seniority in a particular plant, and

completely forgetting that there is absolutely no obligation on the

employers' part to employ those disabled workers.

We have a

very bad record when it comes to taking care of people who have been

injured on the job. I think the employers of this land have not been

doing the job that they should be doing. They have not been making a

commitment to hire people who have been handicapped because of those

kinds of traumas.

In fact, the best work has been done by

the trade unions, and I am familiar with several cases where thousands

and thousands and thousands of dollars were spent pursuing these types

of claims through the arbitration process in fighting a very tough

fight on behalf of injured workers. So I don't think it's enough that

we say that we have a day of mourning.

Certainly it's a

tribute, and it's fitting that we do that for these workers. But we

have to make an ongoing commitment to make sure that their lives are

fulfilled as much as they possibly can be through the ability to have

meaningful employment, dignity and those kinds of things. I think there

has been an abrogation of that kind of responsibility on the part of

the Workers' Compensation Board.

HON. MR. MESSMER : I

would like to respond to the remarks that were made by the member for

Prince Rupert. Certainly I agree with much of the content of his

statement as far as the tragedy and the trauma that people and friends

and family go through when someone is killed on the job.

think it's very unfortunate that 25 percent of all the claimants that

we have in British Columbia are between the ages of 15 and 24. That

certainly leads us to believe that we have to do a better job of

education within our school system to make sure that this does not

happen. I agree that part of this has to be on the job site.

statistic to go along with it is that the number of fatal claims

reported rose by 2.8 percent, from 212 in 1988 to 218 in 1989. As a

percentage of total claims reported, the overall rate of fatalities has

not changed. That does not necessarily mean that the system is

completely correct. While these statistics are a reality, there is no

doubt that in our society they are not acceptable. Our goal must be to

reduce the numbers by education and by cooperation among management,

the workforce and the government to create a safer working atmosphere.

The elimination of claims is not impossible, but reduction certainly is

possible.

[ Page

9231 ]

As you are aware, the Workers' Compensation Board is now going to be

led by a board of governors which will have five representatives from

management, five from workers, two from the public at large and a

chairman. I'm very hopeful that when this board comes into full

operation, we will see fewer cases reported within the workplace for

workers' compensation. As we go through our lives, we realize that

people are injured on the job. While the claims are paid for from a

fund that is 100 percent self-funded through management, nevertheless

those workers created the income that allowed for management to pay

those funds.

While I agree partially with the remarks made

by the member for Prince Rupert, we in government — and also on the

other side — are very concerned about the number of claims and mostly

about the lasting years of those people injured on the job site.

MR. MILLER :

The Workers' Compensation Board was set up on the basis that workers

forfeited their right to sue the employer for negligence, and that this

fund would take care of them. They've been fighting it every since. I

think that has escaped the attention sometimes of the members opposite.

A pretty good argument could be made that it is not management who

funds the Workers' Compensation Board; it is the workers who fund it.

Then they spend the rest of the time fighting it.

It's not

surprising that one of the inducements to forming trade unions —

because trade unions are much more than just an economic association —

is that they also look after the interests of their members. Certainly

negligence on the job was one of the creative reasons why trade unions

were formed. I repeat: they were at the forefront of doing the best

scientific work in this province.

I think we've ignored a

range of issues when it comes to workers on the job — women and video

display terminals, for example. The kinds of constraints and situations

that workers on the job are faced with sitting in front of VDTs hour

after hour, and workers in canneries doing very repetitious work and

eventually developing carpal tunnel syndrome.... There are some very

elderly native women in my constituency who, in their sixties and

seventies, are still putting in those long hours in the canneries.

matter where you look — and I just want to reinforce this — the trade

union movement has really been at the forefront of raising these issues

and continuing to raise these issues on behalf of the workforce of

British Columbia. I hope that the government would pay heed to that,

and that we could eventually get to the point where we had an institute

that would have as its mandate the responsibility to carry out the

extensive scientific studies that are required.

The new risks that workers are facing are the many chemicals and environmental

hazards which are virtually invisible. I've seen people who were burned

out after working in pulp mills for 20 years. I've seen people whose lungs

were shot. I've seen welders whose eyesight was shot. I've seen all

of those things. We are not in the forefront as we should be. If we can devote

resources to analysis of economic issues, then we surely could set up an institute

that has as its prime mandate the scientific evaluation of on-the-job conditions

that are fundamental to protect the interests of workers in this province.

CHALLENGES OF

INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS

MR. PETERSON :

I wish to rise today to talk about the challenge of responsibility in

intergovernmental relations. I'd like to focus my remarks on the

responsibility of municipal governments to work with the provincial

government in approving zoning for more rental housing, specifically

for social housing. Make no mistake, the provincial government does not

control the supply of rental and social housing. The province can

provide funds and create incentives, but it's municipal councils which

must provide the zoning so that suitable land can be purchased and

developed.

An element of hypocrisy has arisen in the rental

housing debate. The NDP and some of those municipal councils dominated

by the NDP demand that the government do something; then, when faced

with actual proposals for rental and social housing, they absolutely

refuse to act.

Two examples come to mind immediately. On

January 26, the Victoria city council turned down two proposed projects

that would have provided 111 new rental units. Just recently, the

Esquimalt council rejected a proposal for 84 units of low-rental family

housing. In both of these communities, we hear of waiting-lists for

rental and social housing. Where do we hear most often of families on

waiting-lists for rental and social housing? Let me tell you, this is

truly incredible, but we hear it from the second member for Victoria

(Mr. Blencoe) and the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota).

What

have these poor timid souls done to convince their local councils to

provide land for rental and social housing? Mr. Speaker, absolutely

nothing. I think that's deplorable. They feel perfectly content to

berate government, then contentedly turn around and say nothing to

their NDP farm-team councils. Is it any wonder from whom NDP municipal

council members of Victoria and Esquimalt are learning hypocrisy.

Hypocrisy is no easy vice. Unlike gluttony, it cannot be practised

occasionally; it's a full-time occupation. It can be achieved, as we

see, with the second member for Victoria and the member for

Esquimalt–Port Renfrew.

It can be learned, as we have seen

with eminently quotable Rick "It's my money" Kasper and Leonard "We

won't raise the taxes — sorry, I can't say that" Krog. What about that

one?

I should not leave the impression that all municipal

councils have proven so insensitive to the needs of their community.

Let me name a few. I'd like to single out for commendation four

communities anyway.

[ Page 9232 ]

MR. MOWAT : Vancouver.

MR. PETERSON :

Vancouver. Absolutely, Mr. Member. And Burnaby. In my own constituency,

how about the city of Langley and the township of Langley. These

communities responded to the government's initiatives contained in last

year's budget to increase rental and social housing. Last year, through

the government's multi-pronged housing action plan, nearly $900 million

was spent on this problem. This year, I'm proud to say this government

will spend nearly $1 billion to assist low-income renters, create

rental housing and promote home ownership.

Since 1986, over

5,000 social housing units have been built. Out of the funds provided

for in the 1991 provincial budget, an additional 8,000 units will be

provided. What a government! You know our Minister of Social Services

and Housing (Hon. Mr. Dueck) is doing an absolutely tremendous job, and

we're so proud of him. That is good government.

[10:30]

I would also like to point out to my colleagues that the rental

housing market is improving at this time, thanks to the works of our

good minister and this government. According to the Rental Housing

Council of B.C. in a recent special report from October 1, 1989, to

April 1, 1990, the number of rental opportunities in the city of

Vancouver has increased by 260 percent — good representation from

Vancouver by these members over here. Overall housing starts totalled

39,000 units last year in B.C. alone. That's a 28 percent increase over

1988. What an action government this is!

But more can be

done, and it will be done by our Social Credit government. We will

fulfil amply our responsibility to the people of British Columbia and

to municipal governments. For instance, we are increasing the municipal

revenue sharing grant by 18 percent this year to $338 million —

tremendous!

MR. GUNO : Mr. Speaker, I am at a loss to

respond because when I heard that this member was going to speak on the

challenges of intergovernmental relations, as a critic I thought I

would be responding to a very reflective view on the challenges of

intergovernmental affairs. Instead we get a rant about housing, and I'm

not sure that I should be responding. Maybe we should have the Minister

of Housing (Hon. Mr. Dueck) respond, because they are the ones who have

been negligent in this regard.

Vancouver has expressed a

desire to do exactly what the member is proposing. In fact, the city

has asked for legislation to deal with this kind of housing strategy,

and for the last 15 years successive Social Credit governments have

refused to act on it. So with all the puffery that we have heard, the

fact remains that we face a major housing shortage in B.C.

I just want to take this opportunity, because it's on the challenges of intergovernmental affairs. In a recent

article in the Times-Colonist ,

the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) talked about his opinion

that on a straight dollars-and-cents basis it doesn't make any sense

for B.C. to be in Confederation. You can tell that election time is

gearing up, because it's fed-bashing time, show time. This is the time

that this government usually trots out that old bugaboo. It's really

ritualistic and rather transparent; it fools no one. It's a nudge,

nudge, wink, wink game.

This government has been negligent

in terms of responding to the GST, which represents an unconscionable

shift of the tax burden from the corporate sector to the working class

of Canada. Questioned on whether his comments would have any effect on

this very important crisis that we're facing with regards to Meech

Lake, the minister is reported to have said: "You know me; I'm a

bombastic and irresponsible sort of person who flies off at every

opportunity." Mr. Speaker, you're not about to get into any argument

about that kind of self-assessment from this side of the House. In

fact, it shows in his last budget. I think it's the height of

irresponsibility on the part of the Finance minister to make these

kinds of separatist statements when we in Canada are facing a serious

constitutional crisis. He knows that what he says as a senior cabinet

minister will have an effect.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

I'd

like to remind the House that it was the Premier who signed Meech Lake.

He was there, and he was part of that elite group who overnight struck

a deal that affects every person in the country. Yet he now wants to

abandon it. I'd like to know if he said anything about the aboriginal

people's concerns when the deal was struck. This accord shuts out any

chance of a constitutional recognition of a right towards aboriginal

self-government. Instead, when he reported his position to this House

shortly after that constitutional forum, he dismissed it by saying it

was a pig in a poke. There was no concern then, when this deal was

struck and when the Premier was present, about women's rights, about

minority rights, about northerners being shut out in terms of becoming

a province.

There are challenges in intergovernmental

relations, but this government has not shown any effectiveness in

representing the interests of British Columbians. I don't think they

have done it with much vigour and vigilance. It was this government

that was asleep when the GATT ruling came down last year, which will

now result in thousands of shore-workers....

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

MR. PETERSON :

When the member for Atlin stood up, his opening words were: "I'm at a

loss to answer...." Mr. Member, you have my sympathy. How could you

defend the actions? There's no possible way you could defend the

actions of the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) and the member

for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) — or the lack of action.

So what does he do?

[ Page 9233 ]

Interjections.

MR. PETERSON :

If you people over there don't see what intergovernmental relations has

to do with an MLA in his constituency dealing with his local member

councils to provide social housing in your constituencies, pack your

bags and leave, because you're failing your people, as you have been

doing on every other issue. Absolutely unbelievable! If they can't

understand that simple relationship, what are they doing here? Absolute

incompetence, that's what it is.

MR. CASHORE : What's the topic of the debate on the order paper?

MR. PETERSON :

The topic of the debate in the order paper is intergovernmental

relations. And let me tell you, Mr. Member, if you don't understand

that you, as an MLA, have a certain responsibility to deal with your

local council and you have not grasped that in the time you've spent in

this House.... Mr. Speaker, there's absolutely no hope for him — no

hope whatsoever.

As I was closing off before I was interrupted....

MR. CASHORE : Are you at a loss for words?

MR. PETERSON : I must have really touched a sore point over here. This guy can't shut up.

was saying that in this budget the revenue-sharing grant was increased

by 18 percent, which is $338 million. This should help to pay for the

municipal services that go to new rental housing developments.

Our

commitments to our responsibilities — and we are responsible to our

constituents, members of the opposition — stands in contrast to the

federal government, which is cutting back on its legally mandated

funding to B.C. by almost $1 billion over the next five years.

FAMILY VIOLENCE

MS. MARZARI :

I have seven minutes to address the issue of family violence. In that

seven minutes I hope to put together the results of a small

investigation I've conducted over the past four months into the issue

of family violence and violence against women and children and elders

and to try to condense my findings and put them into perspective.

Hopefully we will have an estimates debate in which we can elaborate on

some of these findings.

I started doing this because of a letter written to the Sun a few months ago by Barbara Grier in Salmon Arm, in which she says:

wish those who study women's achievements would assess their results in

the light of other relevant social statistics. For example, if sexual

abuse occurs in 25 percent of families, then negative female attitudes

flourish in probably 50 percent. If four out of ten grade 11 girls,

according to a ... study ... are sexually active, only six can be sure

of reaching post-secondary education without encumbrance."

She asked, and I took this personally: "So why should we be surprised to find gifted girls are still underachieving?"

come back, then, to the statistics that come out of numerous federal

studies that suggest one in four girls and one in seven boys are

sexually abused. The problem used to be something that was considered a

private problem inside the family. Recently we notice and we know,

through newspaper accounts of trials going on, and from judges'

statements, that it is not a private problem. It is a political issue,

and it is threatening, in fact, to become an epidemic problem in our

community that we can no longer hide and deny. In fact, our consistent

denial of this problem, I think, has cost us literally billions of

dollars as a nation, hundreds of millions as a province.

Family

violence is the hidden crime, because it takes place within the privacy

of the family. And there's a myth which we very often as public

representatives perpetuate about the natural goodness and the sanctity

of the family. It's simply not always true. We want the family to be

our cornerstone, but we must also be realistic for the sake of children

and the women and the elderly about the amount of violence that goes on

in a lot of families. It's unpleasant. We don't want to know about it.

It's horrifying, and we shun the information, but we still don't know,

in B.C., about its frequency. We still don't know about its severity.

We still don't know about the true impact on its victims lives, but we

do know....

I've talked to social service workers, mental

health workers, police, psychologists, psychiatrists and educators.

They are telling me that we regularly create $6 million children in our

province because of the lack of coordination of services and the real

lack of services. We pay a high cost. Is it worth it? Obviously not.

Why do we do it? Because we deny. Why does it happen? Going to the

roots, it's an attitude in our culture that devalues women, children,

feelings and elderly people. We live in a society that seems to value

power and the material success that comes with power, action over

reflection and men above women and children.

Abusers,

whether they're verbal intimidators, physical bullies or sexual

predators, are often victims of childhood abuse themselves. The

statistics that I've gathered on this are just astonishing. The experts

are telling me there's a 100 percent connection between physical abuse

and sexual offences later. There is a 90 percent connection between

alcohol, drugs and women who are victims of sexual abuse. There is a

100 percent connection between abuse and kids being on the streets.

There is an incredible connection, therefore, between the act of abuse

upon a child or a women and what that child or woman might do later,

and upon their ability to function in the community or their ability to

function at all.

[10:45]

The mental health workers tell me that people who are victims spend

years of their lives — very often their whole lives — unable to

function appropriately or deal with society's simple demands. The

[ Page 9234 ]

cycle of depression and incapacity travels on. Drugs and alcohol very often become involved with that.

What

do we do about it? Obviously that is the question we must ask. What are

the connections that must be made? Firstly we have to stop denying. We

have to go through that phase of politically denying that it's

happening. We can deal with the surface of it — the tenth of the

iceberg that appears above the surface — with a few lottery grants and

a few social service contracts.

We have a serious job to

do. First of all, we have to allocate responsibility. We have to say to

our ministries: "We have an epidemic here, and we need an

interministerial collection coordination." We have to say to Social

Services: "You're in charge of child sexual abuse." We have to say to

the Attorney-General: "You're in charge of wife assault and sexual

assault." We have to say to Health: "You're in charge of elder abuse."

Wouldn't it be nice if we could say that to one ministry? But I am

realistic. I have listened to experts talk, and we have to do it this

way This is what we've got now.

Now that we've separated it

out, we say to Social Services: "You choose a superintendent of child

welfare that, in effect, might be able to work at arm's length, act as

an advocate for children and set up a system that will connect the

point at which a child discloses to a school, police officer, perhaps

the Children's Hospital....

DEPUTY SPEAKER : I'm sorry to interrupt your most interesting statement, hon. member, but your time has expired.

HON. MR. DUECK :

Most of that statement I could have made myself and would have done it

just about word for word, because it is a very serious matter This

government — and I personally — is very concerned when it comes to

abuse of family, children or anyone in society. Therefore it's an

interministry approach that we have taken.

Of course, the

Minister Responsible for Women's Programs (Hon. Mrs. Gran) is not here

today, so I will take part of this time and ask the Minister of Health

(Hon. J. Jansen) to join me in a few statements later on.

asked a very prominent psychiatrist when I was in Health: "Is there an

increase in abuse, or is it just that we are coming more out in the

open with this whole subject?" He told me that it is both. We have a

serious problem on our hands, and we certainly have to address it.

would like to mention that we have 141 offices providing family and

children's services around the province and 882 social workers

dedicated to serving British Columbians, and the offices receive

investigative allegations and follow them through. The 1991 budget has

allocated an additional 35 FTEs exactly for that purpose. We have

emergency lines and a children's crisis line. The Attorney-General also

has a crisis line. He has just recently announced $150,000 for a wife

assault coordination project that he's following up with. Emergency

shelter and safe homes have increased this year. Last year we had

roughly 400, and we've increased them by 25 percent. There will be some

107 additional beds.

It's an interministry approach, as I

said. We have an interministry child abuse handbook in which we are

showing an integrated approach with protocols and how to look at the

various areas of this particular serious problem. An interministry

training video is available. The ministry, through community projects,

funds programs for various societies. Sixty-one family services

projects are in place at this time, and we're always reviewing that

area to see whether we can expand on it. Police, hospitals, legal aid,

crisis lines and community agencies are all involved in this area of

service.

You mentioned senior citizens. We also have a

senior citizen counsellors program which addresses a lot of these

issues. They come forward and are reported to us, and we try to deal

with them.

The ministry program for independence provides

another avenue of assistance to families in crisis, so I have to say

that, with the Minister Responsible for Women's Programs, we are

addressing all these issues and providing more funding. We are

integrating other ministries in this serious problem of crisis in the

family, whether it's sexual or other abuse. All I can say is that we

must all get on board and report incidents. We have a duty — every

individual has a duty — to report any signs of sexual abuse or other

abuse of children. It is under provincial law that you must report it.

Then we certainly will look after it.

I would like to turn over the last few minutes to my colleague the Minister of Health.

HON. J. JANSEN :

To carry on that this is a ministry issue, I was very interested in the

comments of the first member for Vancouver–Point Grey, but I disagree

with her statement that this is a political issue. I believe that it is

far more fundamental than that. It is an issue in society that we have

to address.

We are going to be making very extensive

announcements about our approach to this very serious issue, which will

involve an interministerial approach. It will involve significant

emphasis on community-based counselling in terms of treatment services

for victims of sexual abuse, their families and also the offenders.

Specific target groups will be outlined: children, persons with

disabilities, native persons and people in remote and rural areas.

We are also working with Health and Welfare Canada to deal with the issue of....

DEPUTY SPEAKER : I'm sorry, minister, but time has expired for the response.

MS. MARZARI :

Through you, Mr. Speaker, yes, we all want to climb on board, but the

train doesn't have any track to run on right now. The police are

telling me that there are three separate police communication systems

operating right here on the Saanich Peninsula. They cannot coordinate

and track abusers or the abused.

[ Page 9235 ]

When

a child is abused in Williams Lake and discloses in Vancouver, the

Vancouver police put their hands on their foreheads and say, "We can't

deal with it," because the overload is so great. When the Children's

Hospital gets a disclosure, it finds it difficult to know where to take

it, because there's no place to go.

School counsellors are

telling me that when a child discloses, they put their hands on their

heads and say: "Oh, my God, where's this going to go? How can we take

responsibility?" Yes, we are opening doors for disclosure, Mr.

Minister, but we are not giving a track for that treatment to follow.

That child has to be given an advocate. It's the Social Services

ministry that must be the advocate for that child.

In the

Health ministry we have to make sure that mental health workers are

prepared and ready and on salary, and that the MSP is going to cover

counselling for survivors and mothers. We are closing down the WCB

victim assistance program that provides some money now for counselling

for mothers of abused children. We can have a child living in Williams

Lake, a mother living in Vancouver, and an abusing father living in

Burnaby. Nobody connects those three people. As they move and are

transient, as they come together and fall apart again very often, we

have no way of tracking. We spend millions, but we don't connect. That

is my major point here.

The Attorney-General has to

establish a friendly court, a place where children can disclose without

being afraid of having to tell seven people their story. The police

have to coordinate their communication systems and understand and learn

how to work with social workers. Workers' Compensation has to reopen

its doors on victim assistance.

We need counselling; we

need treatment; we want to get on board. There is no railroad track for

the train to run on now. Simple coordination and local municipal levels

with little hubs of counsellors on salary are wonderful ideas, but they

have to be connected to an overall system: educators, psychiatrists,

children's hospitals, schools and day care centres.

DEPUTY SPEAKER : Before we proceed to the next speaker, the second member for Richmond has asked leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. LOENEN :

Mr. Speaker, it's a delight for me to welcome, on behalf of the Premier

and myself, a group of students from the great constituency of

Richmond. There are 40 grade 11 French immersion students in the

gallery this morning. They're accompanied by their teacher Ms. Zimich.

Would the House please give them a warm welcome.

DEPUTY SPEAKER : Members' statements continues.

FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY

MR. RABBITT :

Fiscal responsibility: two words that are a matter of great importance

to the future of this province. It may be foreign to the NDP

opposition, but it is crucial if we are to secure today's prosperity

for tomorrow. This year's budget again proves that our Social Credit

government has the capability, political will and foresight that is

necessary to protect British Columbians' long-term interests.

Responsible fiscal management is absolutely essential if we are to

continue to enjoy the quality of life that makes British Columbia the

envy of the rest of Canada.

The alternative is unthinkable.

The alternative is to follow the Leader of the Opposition, who in turn

is a follower himself of opinion polls and the media, a follower who

can't even keep track of the number of times he's changed his mind on

the issues of the day. Yet he wants the taxpayers of this province to

believe that he is a leader.

The people of B.C. don't know

where he's headed. It's a mystery. He's a leader who wants us to follow

him to who knows where. He certainly doesn't, but he knows the way to

get there is to follow the pack. That's not good enough for British

Columbia. British Columbians want to know where they are headed, and

they want to know how they are going to get there, and that they're

going to get there safely.

We've shown that a prosperous

future is the way to go. We have shown that it is possible to get there

with responsible fiscal management. Where would the NDP take us? To a

place we've already been before and that nearly killed us back then.

The Leader of the Opposition would take us back down the road to

spendthrift ruin.

Let us not forget that this is the same

person who, as mayor of Vancouver, had such great difficulty balancing

his budget, never mind the fact that the law requires him to do so. It

was the year of Expo when the Vancouver Sun

issued its report card on Mayor Mike. The story read as follows: "The

city of Vancouver coffers are almost $14 million in the red. A report

on the city's 1986 interim budget says: 'Council has to find some way

of bridging....'"

DEPUTY SPEAKER : Hon. member, I must remind you that it is extremely unparliamentary to refer to another member by name.

MR. RABBITT : Mr. Speaker, without debating with the Chair, I was referring to the former mayor of Vancouver.

DEPUTY SPEAKER : That really doesn't matter, hon. member. It's still obvious to those in the chamber who you mean.

MR. RABBITT : I will continue, Mr. Speaker.

report on the city's 1986 interim budget says: 'Council has to find

some way of bridging the $13.9 million gap between revenues and

expenditures be-

[ Page 9236 ]

fore the end of the month.' Under provincial law, municipalities

must not run deficit budgets."

Could

you imagine him trying to balance the provincial budget? He thinks that

balancing the budget is when you have money in both pockets. The

taxpayers of this province don't want a repeat of the kind of

spendthrift NDP government they got several years ago.

[11:00]

No more magical mystery tours. Socialism was a failed dream and a

bad trip. We don't need it now, and we didn't need it then. It was

foisted on us by a funny little guy. He tricked a lot of people to

experiment with the NDP socialists. He was a joker all right: outside

the doors here, in living colour on the wall, he was a joker. He got

turfed out of office because the cruel joke he played was at the

people's expense.

It's time the NDP learned that government

is a serious business. Now there's a new generation of very

serious-looking socialists wearing pin-striped suits, and they're

talking the big game. Now they are mature, they say. They were young

and naive when they said things that made them sound like socialists.

Now they are democratic socialists. Really, what's the difference? Are

they a little more democratic now, or are they just simply a little

more social?

Certainly they like to hang out at more

cocktail parties with the movers and shakers on Howe Street than they

used to. Now that they've learned the jargon, they can even talk to the

Vancouver Board of Trade about concepts like wealth creation and fiscal

management. If they could only learn what that jargon meant.

One

thing hasn't changed. They are still compassionate, especially with the

taxpayers' dollars and when it comes to spending them. The Leader of

the Opposition said in Kamloops in 1988 that our government is

underspending by some $3 billion a year. Imagine! He said that the

government services were not up to snuff and that we needed to spend $3

billion more each year. Where's the money going to come from? Collected

from corporate tax and social service tax combined, $3 billion is equal

to the figure. Three billion dollars is equal to 81 percent of the

figure that our government expects to collect from personal income

taxes each year. Three billion dollars is three thousand million

dollars. Where's this money going to come from? Are the NDP saying that

we should nearly double the income tax to raise the spending levels to

what they say are appropriate? Or are they simply planning on doing the

same thing the federal government has been doing for the last several

decades — running up massive deficits and mortgaging our children's

future?

To summarize, will British Columbia continue down

the path that is tried and true? Will we continue to balance the books

and provide programs and services that benefit all British Columbians

in the future, including these children in the gallery? British

Columbians will have to ask themselves these questions in the coming

months. They will have choices to make: the choice between continued

good government under Social Credit versus another socialist experiment.

MS. MARZARI :

Fiscal responsibility. Well, I've spent eight years on Vancouver's city

council. City councils aren't allowed to run deficits. I haven't seen

anything like what I've seen since I've come to this House in Victoria,

where the books don't get looked at, where the watchdogs aren't allowed

to meet, where feet get dragged before public accounts will be made

public.

Danny Kaye once had a song: in 60 seconds he

recited the names of 90 Russian composers to the tune of "Flight of the

Bumblebee." I don't deign to pretend I'm Danny Kaye, but I have my

small litany. In the next one and half minutes I'd like to go through

fiscal responsibility of the Social Credit government.

You

can't collect the money. You can't spend the money. You can't keep

control of the money, and you don't want anybody to see what you're

doing.

Collecting money. The first thing that happened when

I came into this House was Shoal Island. You didn't bother to collect

$300 million. Then I learned on public accounts that you engaged in a

little practice with the mineral royalties called double-dipping —

something that cost our taxpayers $6 million. You let the mining

industry get away with that. Then I watched the privatization process

take away the log-scalers. You fired 200 log-scalers and told the

industry to do their own log-scaling. What did that cost us? The

auditor-general said some hundreds of millions. You took commercial and

industrial taxes away from civil and school boards at the local level.

What did that cost? They used to collect $67 million 15 years ago. Now

you're collecting $11 million on their behalf. You're losing $50

million every year from something you did 15 years ago.

Then

I watched your fiscal responsibility. You can't even figure out how GST

is going to impact on this province. Do you realize what you've given

up by not protesting the GST sooner?

You want to buy high

and sell low. We've known that for a long time. You can't collect, and

you can't sell the properties you want to sell. We've seen the Expo

lands. We watched it being assessed at book value of $140 million. I

think it was worth more than that. We watch it now being worth over $1

billion. We watched the $140 million that you actually ended up getting

for the Expo lands being whittled away because you're going to have to

put $100 million into cleaning away the toxic wastes.

You

can't spend the money either. You fritter it away in lottery grants.

You're working outside of your own terms of reference, says the

auditor-general. You sometimes give money away without terms of

reference at all; that's obvious.

You have $67 million for

post-secondary education with no terms of reference at all. I'd love to

see how that gets spent. And a new $80 million for economic

development. You set up an $8 million fund two years ago for your

secretaries of state, and we have yet to see how that money has been

spent. We've

[ Page 9237 ]

watched

you switch money from vote to vote, as you did on the Coquihalla with

the $500 million overrun. We have watched you play around with money in

side votes, as you did on public education when you gave some money

over to the private schools a few years ago.

We know what

you're up to. But when it comes to actually trying to quantify the

extent of the wastage of money and of your inability to collect and

spend properly, I've watched the Public Accounts Committee not being

able to meet. And when it does meet, it's only been allowed to meet

maybe 12 or 13 times a year if it's lucky.

Fiscal responsibility? You've got a lot to learn.

MR. SPEAKER :

You have a little time left, hon. member. I was just going to remind

you to please debate through the Chair. I notice you're not.

MS. MARZARI : Absolutely.

Ministerial

behaviour around finances, It's become more and more arrogant in our

three years here. We have a Minister of Finance who can't tell the

difference between one-sixth and one-fifth of a year — a slight slip of

$200 million just a few weeks ago. We have a $5 billion supply bill,

trying to whip it through in five minutes — a billion dollars a minute.

We have, of course, the legacy of this session and this government, the

BS fund — the pice de rsistance . It expresses such contempt, such smoke and mirrors, such complete puffery. Now it's here; now it isn't.

DEPUTY SPEAKER : Your time has expired, hon member.

MS. MARZARI : Now it's collecting interest; now it isn't. No, we're not referring to fiscal responsibility, we're talking skullduggery here.

DEPUTY SPEAKER : Your time has expired.

MR. RABBITT :

The hon. member across the floor talks about ministerial behaviour in

reference to our Minister of Finance, the finest provincial Minister of

Finance in all of Canada today, bar none. The NDP still doesn't realize

that the money that governments manage is not theirs but the

taxpayers'. I'll give you a couple of examples.

We all have

heard of the candidate in — what's it called — Malahat–Juan de Fuca,

Rick Kasper. He's not a member, so we'll mention him by name. He was

recently taken to task in an editorial in the Times-Colonist

which criticized him for referring to the taxpayers' money as though it

were his. What they concluded was: "Some politicians need a message

tattooed in fluorescent orange on the backs of their hands. 'It's not

our money.'" Is that what you understand over there? It's not your

money; it's the taxpayer's money.

MR. MOWAT : They don't know that.

MR. RABBITT : How true, Mr. Speaker. The NDP still is not concerned about

deficits. The member, who was speaking on behalf of the opposition, should understand....

When she talked with the Western Report magazine last summer, this is what she

had to say: "Certainly the NDP could balance the budget. But is that the

end objective?" What is the end objective? Selling these future generations

sitting up here down the drain? No.

can recall what the NDP finance critic from East Vancouver said in

response to last year's budget. Remember? That's not too long ago. He

said: "Paying the government debt is not a priority at this point. I

think the priority is money being spent creatively and not paying off

the debt." Let me tell you, you guys across the floor are experts at

spending it creatively. You can think up a new way with every breath

you draw.

The Leader of the Opposition himself has echoed

this argument. He criticized our responsible fiscal approach, saying:

"I think this government is too occupied with what I call macho

politics deficititis." Let me tell you, Mr. Leader of the Opposition,

if you or your financial critic were in this House: yes, if that is the

fault, and if I'm to be called guilty of wanting to eliminate the

deficit and the mortgaging of the future generation's future, then I am

guilty.

Just a week or so ago we heard from the member from

Vancouver East in his role as financial critic. He said that government

expenditures aren't a problem at the federal level. Where are you guys

coming from? Smell the coffee!

DEPUTY SPEAKER : Time has expired, hon. member.

MR. RABBITT : If Robin were here, I'd extend that to him too.

DEPUTY SPEAKER : That concludes Members' Statements.

MR. MILLER :

I rise on a point of order. It has been tradition that the Rag be flown

at half-mast to respect the day of mourning that we discussed earlier

in the House. I would ask that the Speaker attend to that for tomorrow.

DEPUTY SPEAKER : That is not a point of order, hon. member, but I'll certainly take it under advisement.

HON. MR. VEITCH : Democracy at its best here this morning.

Adjourned

debate on the motion that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair. The hon.

House Leader adjourned debate on behalf of the hon. second member for

Okanagan South.

[ Page 9238 ]

Budget Debate

(continued)

MR. CHALMERS :

I am pleased to rise today and speak to the budget debate. Certainly I

am in favour of the budget. I am pleased that the Minister of Finance

is with us here today, and I would add my congratulations and those of

all the people of Okanagan South for yet another fantastic budget.

fact, with this new budget, the constituency that I represent — and

indeed all the people of British Columbia, I think — have much to look

forward to. Advancements in our constituency in areas such as health,

education, advanced education and the environment truly point to a

bright future.

It was a balanced budget. We've heard much

about that here from both sides. It's important that we have not only a

fiscally balanced budget — which it is — but I think it's just as

important that we have a politically balanced budget which meets the

needs of the people of British Columbia. Certainly the people of my

constituency are pleased with the way it's meeting their needs.

my constituency, the major municipality is the city of Kelowna — a city

that we're all very proud of. It's rapidly expanding. It's taking

advantage of the expanding economy throughout British Columbia, and we

haven't been spared the growth being experienced in many other parts of

the province.

In fact, one of the statistics that I have

used in this chamber before — but I like the statistic, Mr. Speaker, so

if you'll forgive me I'll repeat it — is that the number of building

starts in the city of Kelowna in 1989 totalled 2,306. That's just in

the city of Kelowna, not in the district. To put that in perspective,

that's 300 more building starts in the city of Kelowna alone than in

the entire province of Saskatchewan for the same period of time. The

first three months of this year are outstripping the starts of last

year. Much growth is taking place in our area.

[11:15]

Our

business incorporations are increasing at a rate much above the

provincial average. The population is continuing to grow faster than

the provincial rate. In fact, one moving company operator told me that

for every family he moved out of Kelowna last year, he moved eight in.

Many of them are coming from eastern Canada, and I don't blame them for

that.

I guess the only thing that seems to be dropping in our area is the number of business bankruptcies.

I mentioned earlier, the budget covers many areas that are of interest

to the people of Okanagan South, but one of the most important issues

in our region is health and health care. The community of Kelowna has

been waiting for some 17 years for a new health unit, and I am pleased

that an announcement was made not too long ago that a new $6.1 million

health centre will be built in the city of Kelowna. That's going to

bring four health services together under one roof: community and

family health services; continuing care services; vital statistics; and

hospital inspection staff.

The contract will be awarded on

May 1, with completion set for about one year later. It's going to be a

new building of 35,000 square feet located at Haynes and Ellis Streets,

and it will accommodate 110 staff members to serve the people of our

area.

Planning funds have been approved for the Westbank

extended-care facility, a facility that the people of that area have

been waiting a long time for. The planning funds totalling some

$560,000 were recently approved by our government for a 100-bed

extended-care facility in the community of Westbank.

The

construction of that new $8 million facility demonstrates that we are

committed to working with local groups for the betterment of the entire

region. The financing will be cost-shared between the Ministry of

Health and the Central Okanagan Regional Hospital District on a 60-40

basis. Our area should be proud to be the site of a brand-new,

up-to-date, 100-bed facility.

Planning funds are approved

also for the Kelowna General Hospital phase 2, and I was proud to

participate just last month, along with my colleague the first member

for Okanagan South (Mr. Serwa), in the announcement providing planning

funds totalling $2.1 million for the second phase redevelopment program

for Kelowna General Hospital.

We will soon see a new 20-bed

intensive-care unit, surgical suite, coronary care ICU, a 30-bed

nursing unit, laboratory and extensive renovations to departments in

the existing hospital — much needed expansion. Kelowna General will

soon be unique in the interior. The surgical suite will be the first

facility in the British Columbia interior to be capable of providing

open-heart surgery. We in the interior, being an area with a large

percentage of retired people, are very concerned about the long lineups

for that type of surgery, and those needs are being met by the Minister

of Health.

We can expect phase 1 of the redevelopment to be

completed by December 1991, and we will see a new radiology department,

support services and additional acute-care beds. We are looking forward

to a new cancer clinic in Kelowna in 1996.

The provincial

government will spend nearly $20 million over the next seven years to

expand our province's cancer treatment facilities. The cancer clinic in

our area will be able to serve not only the residents of Kelowna and

the immediate area, but in fact residents from throughout the interior

of the province. It is believed that our new centre will easily be able

to attract and retain the highly specialized staff needed to operate

that facility.

It has been said in some of the newspapers

in my area, because it's a fruit-growing area, that the budget was

fairly silent with respect to agriculture. This is of concern to me

because we have a lot of fruit growers throughout the Okanagan Valley,

and certainly many of them are located in my constituency. The Minister

of Agriculture a few months ago announced that a commission would be

undertaken to take a complete and independent look at the fruit-

growing industry and all of its concerns and needs.

[ Page 9239 ]

have a proud 100-year history of fruit-growing in our area, but to say

that they have fallen on hard times would be an understatement. They

are experiencing severe difficulties in the short term. Also, although

the commission will come in with recommendations on solving the long

term, I have on many occasions — and will continue to — pressed the

Minister of Agriculture for assistance for the short term, because it

makes no sense to me to protect the farmland if we're not prepared to

protect the farmer. We must help and we must help soon. Their needs are

urgent and they are real.

The agriculture community

contributes some $135 million or $140 million to our economy each year,

but many millions of dollars beyond is put through the tourism industry

that is so important to the province. I can't imagine what would happen

to the tourism business in the interior if we woke up tomorrow and

found that our orchards and vineyards were gone. So this need is real.

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

The

Okanagan communities worked very hard together the last few years to

ensure that we had an opportunity for the young people who live in the

Okanagan and other communities around to obtain a university degree

without moving to the lower mainland, where you uproot families and

move at great cost to achieve a higher level of education. We were very

pleased when the Minister of Advanced Education announced, through the

Access for All program, that Okanagan College in our area would obtain

degree-granting status. This budget will provide for the funding

necessary to see that those programs are put into place.

bachelor of fine arts program has been approved for Okanagan College,

with third-year courses to begin in 1991. The Ministry of Advanced

Education will provide start-up funds for this program in the 1990-91

fiscal year. Funding will be provided for the college to offer

fourth-year courses in arts, sciences, education and nursing. Other

major program areas will grow slightly and with a new program,

rehabilitation assistant, will be approved for the 1990-91 year.

in our constituency have much to look forward to. New programs will be

offered, attracting students from throughout British Columbia and the

provinces. Of course, our own students, as I said earlier, will be able

to live and work in the Okanagan instead of moving to Vancouver or

Victoria. The statistics showing participation rates of persons 18

years or older are indeed headed in the right direction — up. The

Okanagan has witnessed increases in university transfers, career and

technical studies, college preparatory and non-vocational programs.

With our government's further commitment to the advanced education in

the Okanagan, we will see that participation rate increase even more.

I'd

like, if I may, to take this opportunity to congratulate all of the

people of the Okanagan who worked so hard to bring that to being.

Certainly the previous Minister of Advanced Education is to be thanked

on behalf of all of the people in the Okanagan for the work that he did

on our behalf.

The budget provides for some $3.5 billion

for transportation and highways under the Freedom to Move program. A

number of months ago it was announced that through regionalization each

of the eight regions throughout the province would prepare a

transportation study and make recommendations. These were not made by

members of government or by bureaucrats; these recommendations were

made by people in the communities on behalf of the communities —

another opportunity for communities in each of the regions to work

together to decide what their transportation priorities should be.

Those recommendations were all turned in through the Ministry of

Regional and Economic Development. A great deal of work was done by

those many people. In our area of Thompson–Okanagan, Mr. Paul Mitchell,

a lawyer in Kelowna, worked very hard as chairman of that advisory

group. They listed their priorities and submitted them.

announcement has been made in this budget that $3.5 billion will be

made available over the next five years to meet our transportation

needs throughout the province. Anyone who lives in the Okanagan or in

the interior or in the northern part of this province understands the

need for roads and transportation facilities. That has obviously been

missed by many of the members of the opposition, because during the

period 1973-75 1 can't recall one highway being constructed in this

province. In fact, I can remember complaints of the fact that they

weren't even being maintained during that time, when the Transportation

minister was known as Pothole Lea. I think that indicates the

commitment made by that side of the House to the transportation needs

of the interior and the northern part of this great province.

is important that the fund be established, because this allows some 29

communities throughout the province to make their plans for the future.

It allows long-term planning, not only for those communities and the

people who live in them but also for the industry that builds our

highways and bridges and the infrastructure that we are so proud of in

this province. We have developed one of the finest heavy construction

industries anywhere in the world. Now they can look forward to the

amount of work being done over the next five years and lay their plans

so that they are not sending their equipment to auction, thinking that

the work will not be there for them. This is very important not only to

all those who are directly involved in that industry but to those who

benefit indirectly.

I have heard comments here this morning

about the Coquihalla. We in the interior are very proud of the fact

that phase 3 of the Coquihalla Highway will indeed open this fall. I am

sure it will open on time and on budget — if anybody on that side is

listening.

I would like to pay tribute to the previous

member for Okanagan South, who was the Premier of our province for some

ten years, and thank him for the work that he did to ensure that the

Coquihalla phase

[ Page 9240 ]

3 was started so that we in the interior can enjoy that fine highway when it opens this fall.

Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased about the amount of money that has been made

available to our Minister of Environment. We in the interior and the Okanagan

have the finest place in the world to live.

One of those reasons is our water quality, and we want to

protect that for the generations that will follow us. One of the

problems that we have had is an infestation of Eurasian milfoil weed in

our lake system. With my constituents, I welcome today's announcement

of government funding to help in the fight against the milfoil problem

in the Shuswap and Okanagan Lakes areas. I have been told that our

government has committed $730,000 to developing and building new

milfoil control equipment. The funding, representing 75 percent of the

total cost of the new equipment, will enable the Columbia–Shuswap

Regional District and the Okanagan Water Basin Board to vastly improve

the efficiency of clearing milfoil-infested areas. The Okanagan Water

Basin Board has, for a number of years, watched this problem closely

and done all that they can to improve it with very little funding. They

have done a superb job. This new $730,000 being made available to them,

I am sure, is going to be most welcome. Everyone in the Okanagan will

benefit from our government's commitment — people involved in the

tourism sector and residents who enjoy our area's natural beauty.

MR. WILLIAMS : Let's take it as read.

MR. CHALMERS :

That's good, Mr. Member. I hope you are listening too. I particularly

hope that the first member for Vancouver East is listening to my

comments about the Coquihalla Highway, because that announcement, along

with a picture of that member, sent to everybody in the Okanagan, will

help re-elect this government very quickly, whenever the next election

is called.

[11:30]

As I said, we are very concerned about the quality of the water in

the Okanagan, and one of the major problems of the lakes is phosphorus

from sewage treatment, septic tanks, agriculture and forestry. The

sewage treatment plants that have been developed in the Okanagan,

particularly in Kelowna, are state of the art and doing an excellent

job to clean up the problem. The Okanagan water quality control project

is a $40 million capital works project. Those funds will be putting in

place the most advanced treatment facilities in the world in areas like

Kelowna, Westbank and Penticton by the end of the next project year.

Land disposal irrigation is now being used in Vernon, Oliver and

Osoyoos, and hopefully in Armstrong very soon.

The ministry

is now addressing the septic-tank problem through waste-management

plans, with enhanced regulations through the Ministry of Health. In

areas of my own community like Black Mountain, and now in the Glenmore

valley, the septic tank problems in many of these projects that were

approved between 1973 and 1975 with little care about the soil

conditions at that time have now come home o roost. We are now trying

to address those by providing enhanced funding so the people who live

in those areas are not going to be faced with that burden by themselves.

Another

area that all of the growth I spoke of earlier has put stress and

strain on is our education facilities. Since 1988-89, School District

23 has been fortunate to receive almost $3 million in funding from our

provincial government for certain capital works. These funds have been

used in a variety of areas: installing automatic fire-sprinkling

systems, purchasing school buses, replacing school roofs throughout the

district and providing equipment for special education students.

Purchases included computer-assisted instruction equipment and

equipment for visually impaired students.

I have been very

fortunate indeed for the last few years to represent a riding like

Okanagan South and to be part of one of the best governments, I

believe, in British Columbia history. My work as parliamentary

secretary to the Minister of Regional and Economic Development over the

last while, and the previous work I did through the Select Standing

Committee on Labour, Justice and Intergovernmental Relations on the

Fisher report and other things, has been very rewarding. I'm looking

forward to the election that many members from across the floor have

been calling for. The people in my area have been well represented by

the Social Credit Party for many years, and they look forward to many

more years of good representation.

MS. A. HAGEN :

It's accountability time, and we've just listened to a rather bland

speech from the member for Okanagan South about the real issues that

people out there in British Columbia are talking about these days. This

is probably the last time we're going to be able to look at financial

accountability before an election and, through that accountability, at

what this government has done, what it has promised to do and what it

might promise to do in the future.

It's interesting. I want

to put on the record that I've just come, at the end of our fourth week

of sitting in this House, from a brief revisiting of the Public

Accounts Committee, for some information about how that committee

works. It's a sham; that committee doesn't work. It hasn't even been

appointed yet. It hasn't met. It hasn't had any opportunity to deal

with the accounts and the accountability to the people of this

province. It's not allowed to meet, because of the government opposite,

outside the parameters of this House sitting. It's an absolute shame

and disgrace, the way this government treats the whole public accounts

process. I want it on the record and known that it is part and parcel

of how this government treats all of the areas in which it, in fact,

could use its members and be accountable for its affairs.

This

government came in in 1986 with a set of promises and, I think, a lot

of expectations on the part of people that there was something new and

fresh, because the Premier had changed and a lot of people who were

sitting on the other side of the

[ Page 9241 ]

House

were different too. They were new. In 1990, at the start of the next

decade, boy oh boy — what a disappointed, frustrated and angry group of

people we have out there in the province because of the failures of

this government to live up to any of those promises.

I want

to talk about some of those areas as we look at this year's budget,

which the government is promoting as another set of promises — which

allows us to look once again at the way in which they move figures

around and try to create the illusion that they are doing something,

when in truth, in reality, we've got the same old government, the same

old issues and the same old gang.

If we look at the reality

of people's lives — and most of the people in this House know that I

tend to devote my comments to issues, programs and concerns that touch

people in their daily living — if we look at what this government has

done for them and what this government reveals for them, I'm going to

take the side of the negative. The answer is: not anything that we can

be assured is going to change people's lives.

When we look

at the true believers over there and the spots they have worn with

their personal choices and moral values, and at whether there's been

any change there, I'm going to argue that there has not been one bit of

change. When we look at the specific areas in which people's lives are

affected — health, education and housing — what has changed? I will

argue that not very much at all has changed for the majority of people

in this province.

I'm going to talk about real people:

women, seniors, children and families. Those aren't separate groups;

they all interrelate and interlock with one another. I'm going to start

with women, because if there's any area of provincial endeavour where

there have been failures and inaction, it is programs and services for

women. The reason we have failure in that area is that the government

is not, in fact, supporting equality for women or choice for women.

saw that in the last day or so when we had the incredible discussions

in this House about this government supporting the mailing of a letter

that is full of attacks against women. It attacked women Supreme Court

judges because it calls them feminists; it attacked women's centres

because it claims they dispense anti-government literature; and it

attacked AIDS victims because it claims AIDS victims are the authors of

their own illnesses. The letter from REAL Women blamed the grievous and

wanton murder of 14 young engineering students in Montreal on a

feminist who may have been involved in the abortion of a child of the

man who committed the murder.

What have we had coming out

of this sorry affair? We have had a Premier who I have watched in this

House run back from an exit because he wanted to avoid talking to the

media about it. We have a Premier who has absolutely refused to disown

the contents of that letter. He has stated that it would be censorship

for government not to mail out such literature.

That tells

us — as the editorialists have said very tellingly — that we're looking

at a leopard who cannot, will not and has not changed his spots. That

has to mean that the women of this province — who need a government

that is prepared to work with them and for them — know that it's not

going to be the government opposite, it's not going to be the

government under the leadership of the Premier and his cabinet.

the past year finally, after much promising, we have a Minister

Responsible for Women. We have been watching and listening to what she

has to say about her mandate and what the government has asked her to

do on behalf of women. Mr. Speaker, the women's ministry has a mandate

that lacks one essential ingredient: money. Most of us know that it is

pretty difficult to do very much without money.

Perhaps the

minister herself is not very clear about what she should do. She talks

about coordination, and maybe she needs to coordinate some of her own

ideas and statements so she can give us a clear picture of what she's

about.

On the letter from REAL Woman I've just spoken about

— a group that she will be addressing tomorrow at Fantasy Gardens — she

stated that she doesn't know whether she will condemn the letter when

she speaks to them. That is an astounding admission of lack of

certainty about what her role is. Surely it has to be about advocacy

for women.

She has made statements that young women, if

they are to achieve equality, will have to be more like boys in making

choices of careers. This is a statement from a woman who at the same

time is going around noting that she wants to do something about equal

pay for work of equal value. She then says to women: "You have to look

beyond clerical jobs." Automatically it puts hundreds of thousands of

women in the pink ghetto where we know they are, because there is not

equal pay for work of equal value. In fact, we have her putting the

glass ceiling up there for women if they're not prepared to be more

like men. In fact, she has exhorted men to be the guides to women's

equality.

In the riding of the House Leader and Minister of

Forests (Hon. Mr. Richmond), she is noted to have suggested at a

luncheon that men in the community must get out and help women achieve

economic independence. I might note that at that same meeting, she is

reported to have said that the same minister is the only person from

whom she would tolerate — and I quote — "a joke about my butt, and let

him get away with it." Iona Campagnolo knew a little better about those

kinds of issues.

She has stated that she cannot support

women's centres, because businesswomen are not prepared to support

them. The minister's mandate is a mandate to do nothing. It has the

princely sum of $2.5 million available to her for women's programs. We

already know, even before we get into the estimates, that $1.5 million

of that goes to salaries and administration. It's a very significant

and interesting figure, because that's the $1.5 million that was cut

from the federal budget, the $1.5 million that women's centres were

involved with last year for their very, very economi-

[ Page 9242 ]

cal operations, run mostly by volunteers with just a little bit of help from the government.

Will

this minister advocate for choice? No. Will she advocate against the

use of referendums for hospital services that provide for reproductive

choice? No. Will she advocate for the opening of doors and the breaking

down of male bastions like the Union Club and Vancouver Club — like her

Conservative colleagues Ms. Campbell and Ms. Carney? Not on your life.

This

is the women who is holding herself up as the person who is going to

revitalize and renew the tarnished vision of this government with

respect to women's programs.

[11:45]

In spite of what I believe are her very sincere feelings, which she

conveys to us with great frequency and sincerity in the House, I would

contend that they have not changed since her maiden speech in this

House, when she said: "I would like to dwell for a few moments on the

cry from the opposition on behalf of women about women's rights, equal

rights for women and on and on and on. Let me tell you what kind of

damage left-wing activists have done to women and children. The

left-wing women's groups demand programs such as universal day care,

full pensions, homemakers' wages and equality with men, whatever that

is." Yes indeed, that's what we do demand.

Unlike the

minister who has put together a politically correct committee to work

in six weeks to bring in a pro forma plan for the future for women —

another of the election year promises — this side of the House, under

the leadership of the first member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Ms.

Marzari), has been travelling the province. We have a White Paper that

already has been around the province and has been the product of much

consultation. We will be proud to continue to work with women on

refining and improving it, so that we can genuinely get on with

equality and choice for women — unlike the members on the opposite side

of the House.

I can never speak in throne or budget debates

without speaking about health care, because it is such a key part of

the activities of my riding, with three excellent hospitals and an

incredibly dedicated staff of people working in those hospitals and in

community health services. I want to speak of two issues in stories,

because stories tell what the issues are.

Once again, in

the budget speech we have no indication of the goals this government

has for improving health services. I have stacks of letters on my desk

from people asking for that very initiative and wanting to see very

specific goals set by this government for health care.

First of all, on the issue of seniors, would you believe that in the last 11

years — since 1979 and through nearly all the years of Socred administration

in this province — there has not been a single adjustment upward of the top

level of home support service available to a senior living in his or her own

home? After all the rhetoric of aging in place and keeping seniors independent,

we still have a maximum of 40 hours a month, ten hours a week and two hours

a day for people living in their own homes.

want to tell you the story of a blind, frail woman on two canes, who is

singularly alert and tremendously independent. She is in need of double

that amount of home care to supplement the family and community support

she has available, so she can continue to live in her own home as she

wishes — I might note, at risk. She is not able to get that additional

10 hours of care a week.

By virtue of that decision, this

government is prepared to have that woman cost the taxpayers of this

province an extra $10,000 or as much as $20,000 a year. That woman is

being denied, because of antediluvian policies by a government that has

not established goals for seniors and for home support. That woman is

being denied her choice, and she is forcing us into capital costs and

care costs that we don't need to undertake.

At the same

time, yesterday in this House the Minister of Health (Hon. J. Jansen)

made what I thought was a most inappropriate comment about a current

dispute involving home support workers. In this House I have advocated

that home support workers need to be paid fair wages and fair benefits.

In the midst of a three-month labour dispute that is hurting workers

and seniors in five different communities of this province, the

minister stated his view, which was that benefits for home-care workers

should not be accorded. The very fact that he commented about that

dispute was inappropriate.

We now know where this

government stands on home support workers. It doesn't stand for fair

wages, fair benefits or for the improvements that people in that field

need to have if we're going to have services to keep people independent.

The

other issue I want to speak about briefly in respect to health is a

very tragic event that involved the death of a well-respected resident

of my city. The actual health problem — a very serious heart problem

that triggered his death — occurred while he was in Kamloops. That man

waited for a bed in one of the two hospitals that could provide him

with the surgery he needed to save his life. That bed availability did

not occur, and eventually we sent him to Calgary — as we're sending

heart patients to Seattle. It was too late. That man, who had for 20

years been bursar of the college in my city, who had given great

service and had just enjoyed one year of retirement, died.

Yesterday

we talked about air ambulances and air ambulance service. We might have

had some air ambulance service, but we didn't have any place to take

that person. We didn't have, in a hospital in B.C.... In spite of

medical evidence that the cause of his illness required the most

emergent treatment and was life-threatening, we did not respond. That

man is no longer there in his community, with his wife, to provide the

services I know he would have continued to provide, as well as enjoy

his retirement.

It is a great tragedy in the city, and it

has hit people very hard. Better than any other story, it tells us what

happens when we're not prepared to tackle those issues and get on with

the job of ensuring that

[ Page 9243 ]

people

have that care. There is no excuse for the failure of government. Once

again, we have a royal commission which is going to put off any

decisions for as long as they can possibly manage it.

Mr.

Speaker, we've already had that putting-off with the seniors' task

force, where the report is down. What is there in the throne speech

about seniors' programs? What's possible? We know after three years:

not much.

As people know, I'm the education spokesperson

for our party and our side of the House. As people know, too, I have

been a constructive critic of the work of government over the last two

years since the royal commission came down.

Interjection.

MS. A. HAGEN :

I liked the royal commission. It was something we called for for years

and supported the government in when it called for that commission. In

fact, it tapped a nerve out there in people who were absolutely jaded

from trying to have an education system developed healthily out of the

policies of this government. They poured into the commission hearings

to provide their input, and the commission and its staff listened. I

believed for a time that the government listened as well.

I look at this year's budget and the litany of the Minister of

Education's (Hon. Mr. Brummet'

s) statements, I realize that what we

have here is much more of an election ploy than a real commitment to

education. Let me tell you why I've come to that conclusion.

The

government claims that it has brought stability, flexibility and

accountability to the education system. It's not true. It has made no

commitments whatsoever for this past year. It has simply put up a kind

of smoke-and-mirrors game to try to get it over the hurdle — coming out

of the years when things were really tough for education — and carry it

over into the next election.

The increased dollars that we

see this year are dollars that barely get us — in fact, they don't get

us — to the point where we were in 1981. The government is claiming

that it is going to provide taxpayers with a $250 tax relief on

homeowner grants. I have talked to people in every kind of community in

the province and in every kind of house — even on the west side of

Vancouver. I can't find anybody — and I must say I didn't talk to

anybody who owns a million-dollar house on the west side of Vancouver —

who is getting even close to $250 in tax relief. I can't find anybody

who is getting close to $150 in tax relief. Most of the people that I

can find are going to have a little bit of tax relief.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

New Westminster it's going to be somewhere in the order of $75 or $80.

That is perhaps enough for a family to be able to go out and buy — to

the minister from Point Grey who has young children — a pair of runners

and maybe a pair of pants for a young child. If one is really shopping

around and going to Value Village, one might, from $75, be able to get

enough to outfit a youngster for spring. It's certainly not anything

that's going to provide the kind of relief that this government is, in

a charade, suggesting.

On top of not providing any

commitments for this year and leaving school boards trying to figure

out what the budget for next year will be, as a little bit dribbles

down here and there and a picture emerges like some kind of a tulip

with many layers that come out slowly, we have the referendum scheme.

We have a referendum scheme whereby the Minister of Education first

said that referendum schemes would produce inequalities, and then said

no, he hadn't studied what had happened where referenda occurred in the

past in B.C. or other jurisdictions.

The referendum scheme

is one that has been so universally condemned that I'm surprised this

government hasn't withdrawn it, since they're looking for something

that will give them some credibility with people in education.

The

Minister of Education finally went off to Surrey, as I'm sure my

colleague from Surrey–Guildford–Whalley (Ms. Smallwood) will describe

with great colour. He finally went to Surrey three weeks after they had

tried to arrange a meeting with him to defend the referendum system.

What did he say? Exactly what he has been saying. He's got the script

and says it over and over again; I know it in my sleep, I've heard it

so many times. It is exactly the same script. He's not listening.

fact, Surrey was finally able to convince this minister that the very

formula that was unfair in the first place was even more unfair for

them because he had not acknowledged that last year they were working

with a surplus from the previous year and hadn't built it in. Quietly,

secretly, Surrey got a little bit more money because they finally were

able to convince this minister that, yes, it was unfair. But he's not

listening. That's so characteristic of this government: they are not

listening. They do not want to hear. They are the people who can create

the universe as it should unfold, and try, with nice buzzwords, to

convince the world that it is true. The world is much wiser after three

years of this government — much wiser and much less likely to be taken

in by a smile or a sleight of hand or a protestation of deathbed

repentance and reform.

[12:00]

Finally, because I think my time is beginning to run its course, I

want to make one more comment. Again, it has to do with that whole

business of the government trying to blame the victims. At this stage

of the game, the victims are the municipalities of this province, who

are being blamed — I cannot believe this — for the housing problems of

the province. We have all said — and it bears repeating — that the

housing situation in the lower mainland of British Columbia is the most

critical housing situation in the whole of Canada.

We have

said that the need for private and public sector cooperation is great.

What does the government do in its budget speech? It says: "The only

[ Page 9244 ]

reason we haven't been able to do anything in housing is those awful left-wing councils."

want you to know that in New Westminster we already have the largest

stock of affordable housing per capita in the lower mainland. I want

you to know that the pressure on that housing stock is absolutely

phenomenal. I've spoken about what's happening to families and to

seniors in my riding with their housing needs. This government has not

come up with any programs that will, in fact, work for the needs of my

community. It's absolutely not happened. I am here to say that my

council is willing to work with any government that's prepared to come

up with something. Just get on with it, friends, and you'll have

councils who can work with you.

We have a budget that

should give us a blueprint. We have a ministry of women without a

budget. We have a Ministry of Health without goals. We have a Minister

of Social Services and Housing (Hon. Mr. Dueck) who blames the victims

— the families and people in municipalities — instead of developing a

program that will deal with our housing crisis.

We have a

Premier and leader who remains true blue in his attitudes that are so

offensive to many people in this province. We have a Minister of

Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet) who has forced the communities of this

province to go to referendum — the only program to require a referendum

in all of B.C. — as a means of getting hard-needed dollars for programs

for children.

What do we have to say for women? What do we

have to say for seniors and people who are in desperate need of

life-saving health services? What do we have to say for children? What

do we have to say for families? That we don't trust this government,

that this government is out of touch, that this government has not

changed, and that we will, when the time comes, be able to tell them

that that's exactly how we feel. We look forward to the day when that

happens.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make an introduction on behalf of one of our members.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

Mr. Speaker, in the House today is the mayor of Towa, Japan, Mr. Kazue

Oikawa; the head teacher of Towa Junior High School, Tetsuo Lino; and a

group of students. They have come today to visit with the Minister of

Municipal Affairs (Hon. L. Hanson) who, unfortunately, is out of town.

I would ask the House to make our visitors from Japan most welcome.

MR. VANT : Could I ask leave to...?

Leave granted.

MR. VANT :

Thank you. It's not too often I have the pleasure of introducing

constituents of mine, but this morning, we have no less than 32 grade

11 students from the Quesnel Secondary School. Indeed, it's many years

ago that I finished my education at that same school. We welcome them

and their teacher, Mr. D. Short, from Quesnel.

MR. SPEAKER : The first member for Vancouver Point Grey asks leave to make an introduction. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

MS. MARZARI :

I'd like to recognize April 26 — yesterday — as the sixth anniversary

of the closure of David Thompson University in Nelson. I'd like to

extend greetings from this House to those protesters who are having a

reunion after six years on the campus of the former David Thompson

University.

MR. SPEAKER : The next order of business.... I presume the Solicitor-General (Hon. Mr. Fraser) has no one he wishes to introduce.

HON. MR FRASER :

Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure to take

part in this budget debate and to

support the budget of the great Minister of Finance of the government

of British Columbia.

Let me start with part of a letter

from the Institute of Chartered Accountants of B.C. I will put into the

record the second paragraph, which says: "We could nitpick and find

small things to criticize, but overall we have to say that our

provincial government could give lessons in fiscal integrity and smart

money management to the federal government." How about that, Mr.

Speaker? That's leadership. I know they're going to squirm and want to

leave the room. The microphones all over the building are going to be

turned off, because they don't want to hear it.

I want all

of the students up there — everybody in the gallery — to listen,

because there's lots of good news in this budget. If I had the chance

to speak over and over again, I would, because I'd like to repeat the

message that's out there.

I want to start with something

that's near and dear to my heart: pay equity. We've heard a bit about

it. I will begin my presentation by reminding the House that in my days

as an employer, I was doing things like paying people equal pay for

equal work, which in that day was a reasonably advanced step. We have

gone one further....

MRS. BOONE : Oh, oh!

HON. MR. FRASER :

You say, "Oh, oh!" Madam Member for Prince George North, but I'll tell

you what: a lot of people didn't do it, so I speak from the position of

one who set some examples. That is the example of the provincial

government.

Now we have equal pay for work of equal value,

which is a step up from what I just spoke about. That's the commitment

of this government: to make sure that the women and men who work in the

service of the province of British Columbia get compensated according

to the job they do. That is a

[ Page 9245 ]

great

step, and I hope that every woman and man in the province hears that

message, because equity is what we're talking about. It doesn't sound

very big, but it is if you're a woman who is sitting beside a man and

getting paid less than him. That will no longer exist. It will no

longer happen, and it will be better for everyone.

It is

particularly significant when we see the social changes taking place in

the province and note that more and more women are entering the

workforce. The social changes taking place in the community indicate

that more and more women will work. If that is to be the case — and

many of them are to be the senior breadwinner in the family — then, of

course, we have to make sure that fairness and equity takes place in

all sectors of government. We are leading the way. Of course, if you

lead by example, you can anticipate that others will follow. Naturally

we are hoping that everyone in industry will see the example we have

set and follow it. It is very important to do that.

I would

like to give you a few examples of what the Ministry of

Solicitor-General is doing. For one thing, we are making a conscious,

definite and obvious effort to make sure that women are represented on

the boards and commissions for which we are responsible. We are making

a conscious, concerted and determined effort to make sure that women

find places in management in the ministry and that there is a lot of

opportunity. To get that done, we have established a full-time director

of women's programs in the ministry. She reports directly to the deputy

minister. That focus should give you the idea of the importance we

place on that work, and that's why we've done it.

We are

making a conscious effort to be sure that men and women are represented

on the boards and commissions of the ministry. That is done so that it

will be conspicuous that we are searching for and seeking the

contribution of women in the community Indeed, we have women on boards

in other ministries, such as Education and Advanced Education.

will be providing counselling to the women in the Ministry of

Solicitor-General so that they can move ahead more quickly. In fact,

next week we are having a conference, which will end on Thursday,

involving the women from the ministry, so that they can take maximum

advantage of their potential in society. That is a critical thing that

I am dedicated to pursuing. I know that the people in the ministry

understand that and support it totally.

In short, then, we

suggest that this minister and all ministers in this government are

determined to make sure that everyone in the province, male or female,

is treated equally, so that they can reach their maximum potential.

sounds easy; it sounds simple. It's not historic, but this is the lead

that's been taken. This is the determination that has been demonstrated

by the government, and that is why we are doing it. That's probably why

more and more women will end up joining and supporting the Social

Credit Party and the Social Credit government. They will see that the

fairness is there, the programs are there, the plans are there and the

opportunity is there. When I talk about things of that nature, of

course, all of you will remember— you've heard it all before — that I

am encouraging all women to seek careers.

Interjection.

HON. MR. FRASER :

The member for Prince George North thinks it's a comedy act when I talk

about pay equity for women. I don't think so. It's no comedy to this

government and to this minister that women should have a good

opportunity. She thinks it's funny, but I don't. I hope people remember

what you said about comedy — the efforts we've made for women. I hope

they understand that you think it's funny. I remind you that I have

consistently in this House encouraged female students to think of

careers in what is considered to be non-traditional work. I certainly

hope that the women in school will think about taking careers in

science, or if they wish to have a career driving a truck or all those

things that are considered non-traditional for women....

MS. SMALLWOOD : Do you want women to be more like men? Is that the message?

HON. MR. FRASER :

No. The member from Surrey suggests that I want women to become more

like men. That's not it at all, Madam Member. What I'm suggesting is

that there should be no restriction on the careers that women seek. I

encourage women to pursue those careers that they want, whatever they

might be, and without restriction. That's what we're talking about on

this side of the House, Mr. Speaker, and that's what we're looking for.

Education

is key. I think you will note from the budget, which is here and which

is very easy to read — and I know the opposition's having a great deal

of difficulty talking about the budget, or at least attacking the

budget, because it's difficult to attack a near-perfect budget — the

hundreds of millions of dollars going to education for students all

over the province.

There has been a complaint about the

referendum from some people who do not seem to understand that the

funding for schools in B.C. is unbelievably high. In the city of

Vancouver alone, for example, the budget for schools approached $280

million a year. The cost per student is about $5,300. I think that's a

major and significant contribution by the taxpayers of the province. We

should be able to educate a student for $5,300 a year.

AN HON. MEMBER : Ask those students up there.

HON. MR. FRASER :

Yes, ask the students in the gallery. That's a good question, my

colleague, because I think the fact that they're here indicates that

there's some money out there for them to see what goes on down here,

and to relate governments from across the land, whether provincial,

municipal or federal.

[12:15]

[ Page 9246 ]

When

you think of what's happened in our budget — the '90-91 block, which

started off with an economic adjustment, enrolment adjustments, program

adjustments — you can be sure that the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr.

Brummet) has made no small effort to ensure that every single student

in the province gets a good education.

The other thing

that's important to note is that all students in the province of B.C.,

no matter where they happen to live, should be provided with the same

educational opportunity, at least to the maximum possible. And that's

the commitment of this government, so those students who wish to go on

past the 12 level can move into a college anywhere in the province and

know that the marks that they have earned will qualify them equally.

It's important to let them know that they can go to the University of

Victoria, if they wish to, or the University of British Columbia, or

Simon Fraser, or indeed get a degree in the interior. And in the not

too distant future I hope to be able to get away to attend the

graduation ceremonies at the university of the north. I will be looking

for my friend from Omineca, who, along with me on that day will be

representing one of the new ridings in the province.

It's

also important, in talking about the Ministry of Solicitor-General, to

mention some of the things that we are doing to spend our money wisely.

To deploy our forces effectively and significantly, we have introduced

some new technology. It's ongoing, and I'll report to you briefly.

now have a little electronic monitoring system. Those guilty of

offences that would at one time have placed them in the prison system

can now have a little electronic monitoring bracelet put around their

ankles, and we can monitor them with a telephone system. We now have

people being incarcerated pretty much at their own expense. That seems

sensible, doesn't it? Why should society pay all the costs for those

who do things wrong? We can now say to people, "You have committed an

infraction against the traffic regulations, and for that you will now

stay home between the hours of 8 and 4:30 in the afternoon," or, if

necessary, 24 hours a day. If you're guilty of an impaired driving

offence, for example — and that would be a typical offence where you

would find yourself in this program — we will monitor the program by

dropping into the house from time to time to make sure that you're not

drinking. We will endeavour to enable them to work if that's within the

scope of the sentence, so that their families will not suffer because

of their own thoughtless activity. Then we will burden them with the

cost of keeping themselves, and that makes sense to me.

We're

doing a few other things that some people have initially not liked. I

remember the former Leader of the Opposition, who one day was caught

three times, I believe, going through a radar camera speed trap on the

Island Highway. He came roaring in here, furious, ranting and raving

about science. But science and technology are going to make this world

work better, more effectively and more efficiently.

We have

a test program going on. We put a radar camera out on the highway so

that those who speed will be getting a ticket in the mail. Therefore,

instead of putting out three or four policemen, we now can put out one.

We have the record — time, date, car licence plate, the whole thing —

and those convicted of that offence will pay a fine. Instead of having

three or four policemen out there making sure the highways are safe —

this is the whole the objective here — we can have one and use the

other two or three for something else — for example, trying to control

and eradicate the drug problem in society.

Clearly we do

not want British Columbia to get into the same scene we hear about in

other parts of the continent, where drugs are rampant and a disaster to

society, and where large percentages of the population are addicts. We

don't want that here. So we should make sure that we deploy our police

forces, whether its CLEU or the RCMP, to endeavour to keep our

community safe from those people who would wantonly create havoc and

destroy our children, families and lifestyle in B.C. For those reasons

you can say to yourself: well, maybe the radar camera, which I

initially didn't like, is a good idea, so that we can spend our dollars

wisely and get value.

We do other things for safety in the

ministry, and that's why I like this budget. We now have a vehicle

inspection program covering all vehicles in British Columbia, with

commercial vehicles and taxis twice a year. We have said to all those

who like trucks and passenger cars that we have a program in place now,

not just in three locations in B.C. — the lower mainland, Victoria and

Nanaimo — but in 1,300 places, where you can get your light vehicles

inspected. And I'll tell you what: it's working. You can have your

vehicle inspected — that's why I like this budget — and you can fix it

yourself, have it fixed where you had it inspected or take it to some

other place. There's no necessity to feel bound by the inspection

report that you get. You certainly have to....

Interjection.

HON. MR. FRASER :

You certainly drive to the polls safely because of this government — no

question about that. It's interesting how it's working. The opposition

hates all this good stuff, because it's so difficult for them to fight

it. It's too positive for them. They can't handle it. I know they'll be

going out and doing the things they should do to make sure that they

drive safely, because goodness knows you wouldn't want to find yourself

as a member of this assembly not doing everything you could to make

sure it's done well and safely.

We encourage all people to

take

part in this great budget debate, and I want everybody to talk

about this budget and every budget for.... Mr. Speaker, as you know, we

are the only provincial jurisdiction in Canada that has such a budget —

a balanced budget. If we could only get the federal government to do

what we do, this country would be in great shape — unlike the NDP who

would borrow us into deeper trouble. What are we doing? We don't want

to pay

[ Page 9247 ]

the

money on interest; we want to pay it into services. That's why we don't

have a big debt. That's why we're paying down the debt. That's why the

budget is balanced. That's the whole motivation. You can't borrow

yourself out of debt, although some would think you can.

There

are other programs that we haven't heard too much about, certainly not

from the opposition, that I'm aware of at least. One is called the

science and technology fund. We believe that industry in British

Columbia has to go forward. We can't rely constantly on just the raw

materials that we have. We have to do other things. We have to do some

research. We have to build some high-tech products here. We can do

that. We now have a science and technology fund program — a multi-year

program. That is leadership. We are projecting to the year 1994-95,

when the program will have totalled some $419.7 million. It's so easy

to roll off these large numbers. But it couldn't be done if the

opposition party was in power. They would squander again as they

squandered once, wasting those hard-earned tax dollars that should be

spent wisely. An ongoing recognition of science and technology in the

province is one of the great things that this province has done. We're

addressing those needs, funding the universities and funding the

schools.

Not only that, we're facing the environment as we

should. My colleague the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Reynolds)

has a new solid waste management strategy, a new hazardous waste

corporation coming on and a vehicle emission program, which I will be

cooperating with, in the 1990-91 year. In those areas where there is

air pollution caused by automobiles — as we understand most of it is

caused, especially in the lower mainland — we want to make sure that

all those cars out there are operating to the standards that they are

designed to operate to. Someday soon, when we're flying over Vancouver,

we won't see that yellow haze hanging over that great city.

didn't hear anybody over on the other side of the House talk about

that, because it's a good program. It's not that we're going off on a

wild goose chase, as they might suggest from time to time. There are

people in this business. We will be evaluating their programs and

coming up with one of our own.

That's the whole idea of

this government: to be thoughtful; to be sincere; to make sure we spend

the taxpayers' dollars wisely; to make sure that those who need help

get it; to make sure that those who need health care get it. Goodness

knows the hundreds of millions of dollars that go into health care.

It's amazing. If I remember the amount in the budget book, I think it's

$4,000 per household — isn't that the average? Thirteen million dollars

a day.

I must compliment the Minister of Health, by the

way, because it seems that his approach to solving some of the present

waiting-list problems is excellent. What you want to know, Mr. Speaker,

is not necessarily the name of your doctor, it's whether the doctor

doing the operation does it well. You don't really need to know the

name of your car mechanic either, for that matter; you just want to

know that he's qualified.

With the safety valve here, with

the government managing to get a cooperative agreement with an agency

or agencies outside British Columbia, doesn't that make sense? Would I

do it? You bet. So would any other sensible person. Why wait if you

don't have to? If you choose to wait at your own risk, I guess that's

your choice, and I know that people have chosen to do that. When they

have been advised by an MLA, a colleague of mine on this side of the

House, if they want to leave their hometown and have the operation done

in Vancouver, Victoria or wherever else they can have it done next

week, or if they have it done in their own town, they could wait seven

months. Some have chosen to wait. But I guess in a country like this,

our fortunate country of Canada — and how fortunate we are — we can

make those choices.

A democracy — what a great country we

live in! Anybody who has had a chance to go anywhere else in the world

can't find a place like Canada or British Columbia — no possibility.

This is such a great country. That's why we have to be so careful of

it, so thoughtful about it. That's why we need to plan for it. That's

why we need the kind of government that gives the leadership that lets

people keep their own money instead of spending all the money on

interest. When is the day going to come, across the country, when we

face the fact that you can't spend more than you make? It's really

quite simple.

I know that when the ministries around this

room make presentations to the Minister of Finance that they need money

for this, they need money for that.... We all need more money; who ever

wanted less? But the fact is that you have to have a priority list. You

have to manage it cooperatively. You have to make sure that all your

efforts are done directly and that you don't duplicate unnecessarily or

duplicate at all if possible. That's why all the ministries work so

closely together, whether it's Women's Programs, the Ministry of Labour

and Consumer Services, the Ministry of Attorney-General or any of the

others — Education, Health — all trying to work together to make sure the

people of British Columbia get a decent shake for the tax dollars that

they send in here.

That's what I'm in favour of and that's what I support, and that's why I'm defending this budget and supporting it.

MS. SMALLWOOD :

It was extraordinarily difficult not to heckle that other member, but

the business of my constituency, I think, is more important than

dealing with some of this government's distortions. I want to talk

about what's going on in our municipality, and I want the members in

the House to think about what I've got to say.

[12:30]

Surrey is a special municipality, and not only because we are

represented in three different ridings. I want the members to think

about the fact that Surrey is the municipality where the Premier of this

[ Page 9248 ]

province

was at one time the mayor. You would think that he'd have an

understanding of the difficulties that our municipality is facing. The

Premier was at one time a resident and a representative in this House

for our municipality. In addition, we have two influential cabinet

ministers in this government who are currently representing ridings in

this municipality. And what is the legacy? What does this government

bring to the municipalities of Surrey and White Rock? They bring a

legacy of Socred infighting, a legacy of crisis management and a long

list of scandals and service to Socred insiders.

We have

the member for Surrey–White Rock–Cloverdale (Mr. Reid) disbursing

lottery grants to his and government's friends. We have the Premier and

the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Michael) supporting friends and

insiders through the president of REAL Women. For the south Fraser, the

list of Socred mismanagement goes on through the Delta Giordanos and

Knight Street Pub, through the fiasco around farmland. The list goes on

and on.

But what do the people in Surrey have to face? They

have to face the reality of our schools — our schoolchildren doing

without, being second-class citizens. The Minister of Education (Hon.

Mr. Brummet) came out to White Rock a couple of nights ago and

suggested that Surrey should be satisfied with their lot, that they

should be prepared to do with less and that it was okay with him that

the kids of Surrey were second-class citizens. Surrey is seventy-fourth

out of 75 school districts in funding in British Columbia.

Keeping

in mind that we have two senior cabinet ministers, or did have before

one of the cabinet ministers was caught with his hand in the cookie

jar.... We have the Premier coming from Surrey. What good has it done

us? I ask you, the other members in this House: what good has a Socred

government done for you? The reality in the lower mainland...

MR. REE :

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I believe the member alleged a member

of this House was caught with his hands in the cookie jar. I would

consider that offensive for any member in this House, and there has

been no such evidence, convictions or charges. The opposition

threatened to charge, Mr. Speaker, but they haven't got the guts to do

it. Now I ask the member to....

MR. SPEAKER : Order,

please. Don't abuse the rules of the House when bringing up a point of

order. Your point of order is valid, but points of order are not the

opportunity to engage in argument. I would ask the member for

Surrey–Guildford–Whalley, if she imputed any improper motive to a

member, to please withdraw it.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please.

MS. SMALLWOOD :

If I have offended anyone in this House, I would be glad to withdraw.

I, too, find it offensive — the Socreds' record. I'm not surprised that

the Socred member would get up and comment on that.

I want

to talk about the kids in Surrey and our schools. I want to talk about

the fact that our school grounds now look like concentration camps. The

Minister of Education says: "That's okay." Our school grounds are

covered by portables and the kids have nowhere to play. I think that is

reprehensible, and I would love to have the Minister of Education or

any of the representatives from Surrey get up and express their

reprehension on that.

The students in Surrey get $4,500

per pupil. The average for the province is considerably higher.

Abbotsford, Coquitlam, Delta, Richmond, Central Okanagan, Burnaby,

Maple Ridge, Kamloops, North Vancouver, Victoria, Vancouver, Prince

George, West Vancouver and New Westminster, just to name a few, all get

more money per pupil than our municipality. We are not prepared to

stand by silently. For the last three years in this House, I have

brought to the attention of this government that our students are not

being treated equitably. It's not good enough, and the government

should know better. They have turned a blind eye to that reality.

Surrey is the fastest-growing municipality west of Toronto. We have

over 40,000 students. We are expecting an additional 2,200 in the

municipality in the next school year. What do we get? We are the

second-lowest-funded school district in the province. We get over $700

less than the pupils in Vancouver. I want this government to explain

why have they not dealt with the needs of the kids in a growing

municipality like Surrey.

If you can turn your back on

these families and these kids, what have you got to be proud of? The

Premier, two senior government members and the Minister of Education

coming in and hearing what these families are having to deal with, and

they think it's okay that a municipality like ours, a young community

like ours, can do with less. That's your message: we will cost you more

in taxes. You're satisfied with the children of this province being

treated like second-class citizens. Shame on you!

Seven

hundred dollars per pupil less than Vancouver. That means over $17,000

less per classroom. That means $351,000 less for the average school

with 20 classrooms. When we're talking about the discrepancy in funding

for our municipality, it is significant, and this government's value on

education is exposed.

When this government talks about

caring about children and families and about caring for education in

this province, and you look at what is really going on, it makes a

complete sham of all those nice words that are printed in your leaflets

at the taxpayers' expense — an absolute and total sham, and you should

be ashamed of it.

When you look at this government's record

in the south Fraser Valley, the reality is that our taxes are paying

for your mismanagement, our taxes are paying for those grants and

Socred giveaways to their friends and insiders, and our taxes — when

they go

[ Page 9249 ]

year after year with this Socred government — are not delivering the

services that are needed for the children, for the future generations,

and are not delivering the services that the people in Surrey are

paying taxes for. I think you should be ashamed of that.

When

we look at not only the education system.... I intend to stand up again

and again when we get to the estimates to talk about what is really

going on in people's lives, to talk about not only education and what's

happening to the children in my riding and in the south Fraser

district, but about health care also.

We talked about

health care in the throne speech and the reality that Surrey Memorial

Hospital has a waiting-list of 2,600 people. We heard a previous

speaker talk about people in small communities with a waiting-list of

seven months. Do you know what a waiting-list of 2,600 people does for

a hospital?

What it means is that people have to wait 16

months for operations. What it means is that people who are in some way

waiting for an operation.... Perhaps it's a hip replacement or an

injured worker. It's timely for us to be talking about injured workers

on a day like today. When an injured worker has to wait for an

operation in Surrey, what that means is that they have to sit at home

waiting for the time when they can finally get into the hospital to be

able to get the surgery they need to be able to get back to work and

support their family with dignity and the commitment that they have

given their family over the years. That's what this Socred government

has left as a legacy in the constituency that I repr