1991 Legislative Session: 5th Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, MAY 23, 1991

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

12167 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Point of Privilege

Fantasy Garden World Inc. sales tax. Mr. Reynolds –– 12167

Mr. Clark

Oral Questions

Government borrowing. Mr. Clark –– 12169

Child safety. Mrs. McCarthy –– 12170

Government borrowing. Mr. Clark –– 12170

Seedlings for reforestation. Mr. Miller –– 12170

Criminal injury compensation for sexual abuse victims.

Hon. Mr. Messmer –– 12170

Motions on Notice

Appointment of conflict-of-interest commissioner. Hon. Mrs. Johnston ––

Mr. Harcourt

Budget Debate

Mr. Barlee –– 12172

Mr. Reid –– 12176

Ms. Edwards –– 12180

Mr. Crandall –– 12184

Mr. Lovick –– 12187

Hon. S. Hagen –– 12190

THURSDAY, MAY 23, 1991

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

HON. S. HAGEN: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to make some

introductions. I have a friend in the gallery today from the great

riding of Comox. Melanie Zimmer and her friend Dave Fedoruk are

visiting the Legislature –– I would like the House to please assist me

in bidding them welcome.

Also in the gallery today is Mr. John Watson, the president of BCIT.

He is in Victoria today for a meeting of the Premier's Advisory Council

on Science and Technology. Would you please bid him welcome.

MS. EDWARDS: It's my pleasure to introduce today two dear

friends from the constituency of Kootenay. I think it's a pleasure for

them, with their long interest in politics, to be able to fertilize

that interest every now and then with a visit here. Please help me

welcome Henry and Evelyn Mathias.

MR. REE: Each year at this time the province celebrates the

artistic talents and visions of its citizens by supporting the B.C.

Festival of the Arts. Yesterday the Minister of Municipal Affairs and

myself had the pleasure of opening it in North Vancouver. On behalf of

the people of North Vancouver, Mr. Speaker, I would invite yourself,

all members of the Legislature and the people of British Columbia to

attend North Vancouver on Thursday, Friday and Saturday for a fun time,

to see the 1,800-odd artists performing indoors and outdoors. They will

have a great ball.

MR. CASHORE: On behalf of the first and second members for

Vancouver–Point Grey and the member for Prince Rupert, I'd like to

introduce a very good friend, Angie Todd-Dennis. She is the coordinator

of the first nations health care professions program at UBC and is here

with one of her students, Joanne Nelson of Prince Rupert, a third-year

biology student. They are here seeking support for this very important

program that they are operating on behalf of native students seeking

employment in the health care professions field. Would the House please

join me in making them welcome.

MR. HUBERTS: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery we have some very

close friends of mine: Brent and Tracy Sheppard. Brent and his brother

accompanied me in 1980 to a country in West Africa called Upper Volta.

While I was doing some dissection on the animals and working on an

elephant that had been shot by poachers, Brent was right there beside

me in the 130-degree temperature. Will the House please welcome Brent

and Tracy Sheppard.

MR. CRANDALL: This afternoon we have about 24 grade 12

students from the great city of Kimberley. It's a long way from our

constituency to the capital, and I'd like the House to welcome those 24

students and their teacher, Mr. Terry Oscarson.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: On behalf of the first member for Dewdney

and myself, I'd like the House to welcome Mr. Jim Arthurs and Elsie

Derksen from Mission.

MR. PERRY: We have in the members' gallery today a visitor

from about as far as it's possible to come to attend this Legislature.

Dr. Christine Ebert-Santos is a pediatrician who is the director of

medical services in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. I

assume all other members are familiar with where that is, but in case

there are any, like me, who needed refreshing, it's about 160 km from

Guam, somewhere in the region of the Philippines near the Mariana

Trench.

I'd also like to welcome two first-time visitors to the Legislature:

Mrs. Charlene Gram from New Westminster; and a member of the very great

riding of Vancouver–Little Mountain that I'm sure the first member will

join me in welcoming, Mrs. Marjorie Smith.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I have two groups of guests here I would

like the House to welcome. First is a group of grades 3 and 4 students

who are visiting from Serpentine Heights Elementary School in Surrey.

Secondly, visiting from Vancouver are Mr. Andrew Saxton and his wife

Sophie, who are joined by Dr. and Mrs. Paul Fenje. They are here on

board the heritage vessel Saxony , of which Mr. Saxton is the proud owner. Would the House please make them all welcome.

MR. COUVELIER: I notice also in the gallery an old

protagonist of many of us in this House, but nevertheless a loyal

free-enterpriser, one of the important coalition that this party

represents, Mr. Maxwell Tracy. Would the House please welcome him.

Point of Privilege

FANTASY GARDEN WORLD INC. SALES TAX

MR. REYNOLDS: This morning I served notice of my intention to

raise a matter of privilege involving the member for Vancouver East

with respect to a statement he made in this chamber shortly before

adjournment last evening.

I wish to table that statement now, along with other relevant

information I will be referring to, in support of my contention that by

his actions and tacit admission a prima facie case exists that the

member for Vancouver East breached the collective privileges of all

members.

Specifically, the privileges at stake are the right of the

Legislature to regulate its own proceedings and the power to punish for

contempt, as identified in the second

section of MacMinn's Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia , page 36.

On May 14, 1991, the member for Vancouver East rose in this House

during the question period and implicitly alleged that a private

business, Fantasy Garden World Inc., paid no provincial sales tax last

year. Yesterday the first member for Richmond factu-

[ Page 12168 ]

ally refuted that allegation and asked for an

apology for the serious harm done to himself by the member's question

and the media's subsequent stories.

After considerable reluctance, the member for Vancouver East

conceded an apology, which was the only recourse requested by the

offended party. It was during this apology that the member for

Vancouver East defended his actions with the following words: "The

information provided to me in the first week of May 1991 from reliable

government sources indicated a sales tax delinquency on the part of

Fantasy Garden World Inc."

Note that the member states that information was provided to him in

the first week of May. Note also that he received this information from

"reliable government sources" and that the information indicated a

"sales tax delinquency on the part of Fantasy Garden World Inc." — a

private company whose tax records are a most confidential matter, as

every person in British Columbia knows.

I am mindful that the first member for Richmond sought no further

redress than an apology for the defamatory question put by the member

for Vancouver East. Whether a simple apology should suffice is

irrelevant to my point, which is simply this: confidentiality is a

central tenet of our tax system, which depends on voluntary compliance

based on a trust that private tax information will not be shared with

anyone other than those specifically authorized by law to be in receipt

of such information.

[2:15]

The member for Vancouver East knows that, and so does his leader.

Indeed, it was the Leader of the Opposition who, as mayor of Vancouver,

acknowledged the importance of keeping confidential information

confidential. In this regard it is worth recalling the following report

in the Vancouver Sun for May 27, 1981:

"Mayor..." — now Leader of the Opposition — "is

promising swift and tough action against any alderman or staff who leak confidential

council materials to the press.... 'If I discover a staff person doing

this, he will be disciplined or fired.' He added that if an alderman was

involved, 'he or she is not worthy of office'."

We know from past experience that these are hollow words, but they

may be relevant to this House at some point in the future in connection

with the privileges that I contend have been breached here by the

member for Vancouver East. What could be more confidential than

government tax records? Again I remind the House that the member

clearly stated that he based his earlier question on information that

he had in his possession that was given to him by "reliable government

sources."

I wish to draw this assembly's attention to

section 11 of the Social

Service Tax Act, which states clearly: "A person who has custody of or

control over information or records under this act shall not disclose

the information or records to any other person" than those specifically

authorized under the act.

Mr. Speaker, it is crystal-clear that the member for Vancouver East has sought

to denigrate the reputation of one member on this side of the House and, with

it, the party he used to lead. But more importantly, his gestapo tactics raise

serious questions for all British Columbians as to the confidentiality of their

private tax information. How can they ever feel secure about the system if they

have to fear that confidential information relating to them or their personal

affairs can be used by a member of this assembly, without fear of reprisal,

for purely political reasons?

Mr. Speaker, we must have the power to adequately regulate our own

proceedings in this Legislative Assembly to ensure that such

confidential information is never abused for partisan purposes or in

any other manner. We must also ensure that contempt for the House and

the laws of this province does not go unrecognized or unpunished.

I submit that the member in question has severely compromised the

privileges of all members and has further abused the right he enjoys to

speak freely in this House. For the privilege of freedom of speech is a

most sacred right, but so is the right of privacy, protected by law.

The integrity of our tax system depends on confidentiality, and the

integrity of this Legislature depends on the sworn duty of all members

to uphold it and to uphold the law.

I submit that the member's implicit admission that he was provided

confidential information by "reliable government sources," which he

elected to use to discredit another member of this House, constitutes a

breach of privilege. It is gross contempt to use such information for

cheap political gain and an affront to the integrity of all members and

the provincial tax system. It may well be contrary to federal acts as

well, including the Criminal Code.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I ask that you seriously consider the

gravity of the matter I have raised. I tender to you at this time a

motion which I would be prepared to move, should you find that a prima

facie case exists.

MR. SPEAKER: The member for Vancouver East wishes to add some information for the Chair's consideration?

MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, I received information that I believe

to be correct. On that basis, I asked for confirmation from the

minister responsible, the Minister of Finance. Subsequently, the first

member for Richmond provided material which clarifies the matter. I

believe I responded appropriately yesterday in this chamber, and I

believe the former Premier — at least as he was quoted — in saying that

he is satisfied. I can only suggest that this member and the motion

that he proposes.... It's nothing more than pure politics.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I leave it in your capable hands.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. As is normally the case in

situations such as this, the Chair will take the matter under

consideration and bring back a decision at the earliest possible

opportunity.

[ Page

12169 ]

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT BORROWING

MR. CLARK: A question to the Premier. Can the Premier advise

the House how much money the government must borrow this year to cover

its operating costs?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I would suggest that question would be better put to the Minister of Finance.

MR. CLARK: To the Minister of Finance. Can the minister

advise the House how much money the government must borrow this fiscal

year to cover its operating costs?

HON. J. JANSEN: I would ask that the member give me his

follow-up questions as well, because sometimes the follow-up questions

relate to the total problem, and the questioner doesn't understand the

answer to the first question. Maybe if I had a broader context I could

answer properly.

But the answer is very simply found in table H4 of the budget

document. I can go through it very quickly — or as long as the Speaker

will allow me to — and explain the differences in that particular table

respecting the operating account, the stabilization account and other

capital accounts at your pleasure.

MR. CLARK: I wonder if the minister could just give us a

straight answer. How much money do we have to borrow this fiscal year

to cover our operating costs this fiscal year?

HON. J. JANSEN: Mr. Speaker, that's why I gave the

preamble,

because obviously the follow-up question was the same as the first

question. The question asked — and I'll read it so the member has some

opportunity to refer to it in a documented way.... According to the

financial requirements on table H4 on page 82, the financing plan which

shows the general fund and special funds.... The operating deficit of

this year is $395 million. That is the amount we will borrow for

operating purposes.

MR. CLARK: I asked the minister — and I'll ask it in a little

different way: what is the total borrowing required for the province of

British Columbia to cover our operating costs? That's not for capital

costs or the debt. How much do we have to borrow this year just to

cover the operating costs in your budget?

HON. J. JANSEN: It's very difficult to respond to the question,

because I think the member for Vancouver East doesn't know what question

he's asking. If the member would be clear and would ask whether the amount

of money borrowed for both capital and operating.... If he could distinguish for

this House his understanding of the difference in those two items, I could answer

in a better fashion. But the correct answer in terms of the operating fund is

that for operating purposes, the government of the province of British Columbia

must borrow $395 million.

MR. CLARK: The certified general accountants, the Fraser

Institute today and every other credible financial expert has indicated

that the real deficit in British Columbia this year is $1.2 billion,

and that's how much you have to borrow to cover your operating costs.

Mr. Speaker, will the minister explain why he continues to pretend that

the deficit is $395 million, when the certified general accountants,

the chartered accountants, the Fraser Institute and the

auditor-general's own figures would show that it's $1.2 billion?

HON. J. JANSEN: Mr. Speaker, this may take a little time,

because I think I have to explain the difference between operating and

capital funds. I'm very pleased to hear the member for Vancouver East

use the Fraser Institute as a reference — it's the first time that has

ever happened in the House.

The funding requirements of a government are predicated on two

provisos: one is an operating account and the other is a capital

account. Capital requirements are usually in a business environment —

and I understand their lack of knowledge, because that side has never

been involved in business, so they don't understand the difference. But

in a business sense we would say that there is a source and application

of funds which deal with the capital and cash outflows and inflows;

when that happens, you identify the capital requirements of the entity

on a global basis. The deficit requirements — which is the operating

side; a deficit is an operating deficit — require borrowing the amount

of $395 million.

Interjection.

HON. J. JANSEN: Even the Leader of the Opposition is mumbling

that he doesn't understand what anyone is talking about, because he

doesn't have any sense of this whole concept of accounting.

There are two types of reserve funds: a statutory reserve fund and a

reserve fund within the balance sheet of consolidated revenue and

expenditure. A statutory reserve fund is allocated to dedicated

balances of cash and liabilities, and so on. A consolidated balance

sheet — the reserve funds — doesn't have specific allocations of cash

or liabilities. So what we do when we set up a reserve fund in those

situations.... We transfer the money into a reserve account, and we

either (

a) create an asset or (

b) reduce a liability. In this case, we

reduce a liability, and the $395 million he refers to....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Question period does not afford

the time and place for the Minister of Finance or his critic to debate

the budget. There will be a number of opportunities in the House when

the Minister of Finance will have an opportunity to clarify some

misconceptions that perhaps took place — when he closes the budget

debate later next week, or there

[ Page

12170 ]

will be another opportunity during the estimates of

the Minister of Finance to go into these rather detailed questions.

These really should be short, brief, sharp questions.

CHILD SAFETY

MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the

Solicitor-General. I'm going to ask him to give me a very short "yes"

answer, and in so doing, he may never become Minister of Finance.

I want to say to the Solicitor-General that in the whole province —

not just in the lower mainland around Vancouver — there is a dramatic

increase in threats to the safety of young people both in and out of

schools. I'm going to ask the minister if he would initiate a series of

community symposiums, bringing together parents, young people,

educators, police, social service representatives and other concerned

citizens, to develop effective community-based responses to what

threatens to become a problem of epidemic proportions.

HON. MR. MESSMER: I would like to thank the first member for

Vancouver–Little Mountain for her question and her concern. I think

it's a concern that affects all of us in this House and throughout the

province. Any time the situation involves schools and schoolchildren,

as well as parents, and what's going on in our society today.... When

we don't have an answer, it creates a problem. I can tell you that

the....

Interjection.

HON. MR. MESSMER: You may not take this seriously, Mr. Member, but I think most people in British Columbia do.

I can tell you that the police are doing as much as they can. They

are working with the schools, the schoolchildren and parents within the

communities. They have increased exposure within the school grounds and

have increased school patrols, which I think is very necessary, and

they have asked the parents to become involved in Neighbourhood Watch.

[2:30]

In answer to the member's question, I would say that I certainly

will take that under consideration, and I would ask for any input from

members in this House who have ideas on how we can solve this very

difficult problem.

GOVERNMENT BORROWING

MR. CLARK: Listening to the Minister of Finance, I thought

that Monty Python was alive and well, only this time it's the minister

of silly talks rather than silly walks.

I want to ask a very simple question, Mr. Speaker. On table H4 it says the

net direct borrowing is $1.262 billion. Can the minister advise the House whether

this is correct, and will he acknowledge, in the face of the overwhelming evidence,

that this is in fact a true statement of the deficit picture in the province

of British Columbia?

HON. J. JANSEN: Who was the scribe that said: "A little

learning is a dangerous thing"? The member — supposedly the Finance

critic — put the question to me: what was the debt requirement to match

the operating deficit of the operating fund for this year? I told him

the truth. I told him $395 million. What he failed to ask, and what

he's pointing to — because he doesn't understand the concept of finance

— is that in fact there are other borrowing requirements. They're

called capital borrowing requirements; they are not the operating

deficit. Mr. Member, I'll say it one more time, and I'll write it down

for you later. I'll offer my office environment for you to sit down

with me so I can give you a little lesson in terms of how this

statement works. The answer is: the government is borrowing $395

million to meet the deficit.

SEEDLINGS FOR REFORESTATION

MR. MILLER: To the Minister of Forests. Despite the major

announcement of the forest renewal plan in January of this year, you

advised the House yesterday that there were not enough seedlings to put

in the ground. Could the minister explain why those seedlings are not

available, given that — in your own words — this program has been in

the works since February 1990?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: As I tried to explain to the member

yesterday, we have made a firm commitment to the people of British

Columbia regarding the forests that we will invest $1.4 billion in the

forest renewal program over the next five years.

That program entails a lot of things. One of the things it entails

is the hiring of some 200 — and I don't know the exact number — new

employees in the ministry to fulfil the contracts that have to be let.

It's a very complex issue of site identification, site preparation, the

planting of the correct species of seedlings, making sure that they're

there on time to deliver and then letting the contracts, supervising

the contracts and monitoring those contracts to make sure the taxpayers

get value for money.

If perchance we cannot spend all that has been allocated for this

year because of the things I've just mentioned — the training of staff,

etc. — then those dollars will be spent in the ensuing years. I commit

to this Legislature and to the people of British Columbia that $1.4

billion will be invested in our primary resource.

MR. MILLER: The issue is: why aren't the seedlings available

now, when you promised us and have been working on this program since

February 1990? In 1989 you said that you were planning extra seedlings.

Last year you said you were planting extra seedlings. Now you're saying

the seedlings aren't available. Mr. Minister, are the seedlings

available to plant or not? You clearly indicated yesterday in the House

that the seedlings were not available.

[ Page

12171 ]

HON. MR. RICHMOND: This government even went so far that when

we could not reach an agreement with the federal government on forest

resources development agreement No. 2, we kept the planting program in

place with our own funds and with our own seedlings. I point that out

just to point out to the member and to the people of the province that

our commitment to the forest is genuine. We intend to do exactly what

we set out to do: the not sufficiently restocked land will all be

replanted by the year 2000, and the commitment is there for more money

than has ever been committed to the forest, to my knowledge, in North

America.

MR. MILLER: First of all, the minister announced in previous

years that they were planning extra seedlings. Yesterday he said there

aren't enough seedlings. In January 1990 he said fewer seedlings would

need to be planted. What's the true story, Mr. Minister? You've changed

your story three times in the last two years. What is the true story in

terms of the required number of seedlings in the planting program for

1991?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Maybe the member for Prince Rupert didn't

hear a bell, but I distinctly heard one. And I know it's not because

I've been in this place too long, I can tell you that.

I think the member for Prince Rupert wants to get into semantics

here in exactly how many seedlings were planted, etc. Last year, Mr.

Member, we planted approximately 292 million seedlings in this

province. The number of seedlings will come down from year to year as

the NSR land is replanted and we catch up with the backlog. So

naturally each year from now to the end of the agreement the number of

seedlings required is going to be smaller as we catch up with the

backlog and start planting on a harvested basis, which is the law. By

law, companies must replant everything they harvest as of 1987, and I'm

sure the member knows that.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: On behalf of the Speaker and the first

member for Vancouver South, I would ask this House to please welcome 55

grade 7 students and a number of adults from Walter Moberly Elementary

School. Would this House please make them welcome.

CRIMINAL INJURY COMPENSATION

FOR SEXUAL ABUSE VICTIMS

HON. MR. MESSMER: A question was put yesterday by the first

member for Vancouver–Point Grey to the Minister of Women's Programs and

Government Services, and the question was taken on notice. It so

happens that the question comes under my ministry, and I would like to

give the reply.

We have an excellent program, the most generous in Canada. We spent $12.1 million

in the 1990-91 fiscal year to provide awards and counselling to victims. Even

though $7.6 million is listed in my ministry's proposed budget for 1991-92,

this amount is not frozen. The program is statutory, and money will be provided

to meet all the valid claims received in the coming year.

Consideration has been given to making the act applicable to

incidents before July 1, 1972, and my officials are continuing to work

on this matter. In the meantime, counselling services for adult

survivors of sexual abuse are available through the Ministry of Health

programs, and community support is available through victims' programs

delivered by my ministry and through the Attorney-General's ministry.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair appreciates it when ministers answer questions taken on notice after question period.

Motions on Notice

APPOINTMENT OF

CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST COMMISSIONER

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I call government Motion 19 on the order paper in the name of the Premier.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I move Motion 19 standing in my name on

the order paper, which states: "Be it resolved that this House

recommends to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council that the Hon. E.N.

(Ted) Hughes, QC, be appointed commissioner, pursuant to

section 10(2)

of the Members' Conflict of Interest Act."

The cornerstone of the Members' Conflict of Interest Act, which this

House passed in July of last year, is the office of the commissioner.

The mandate of the conflict-of-interest commissioner is to advise,

investigate, educate and administer an ethical code of conduct for all

members of the Legislature. The establishment of the office may be

viewed as a significant step in reassuring the electorate of the

integrity of the Legislature and of the government, and an effort to

improve and maintain public confidence in our system of government.

The commissioner, like the ombudsman and auditor-general, is an

officer of the Legislative Assembly. It is essential that the

individual appointed to this position be a non-partisan and independent

adviser. The Hon. E.N. (Ted) Hughes, QC, is eminently qualified to

assume the tasks and responsibilities of commissioner of conflict of

interest.

Mr. Hughes has considerable judicial experience, first for 12 years

as a judge of the District and Surrogate Courts of Saskatchewan, and

for seven years as a justice of the Court of Queen's Bench of

Saskatchewan. In addition, Mr. Hughes has served the province of

British Columbia in senior public servant capacities as a legal

specialist in the constitutional and administrative law division,

Ministry of Attorney-General, and latterly for the past seven years as

Deputy Attorney-General.

In the role of Deputy Attorney-General, Mr. Hughes chaired the

Justice Reform Committee established by the Attorney-General to make

recommendations that

[ Page 12172 ]

would cause the justice system of the province to

be more relevant, accessible, understandable and efficient for those it

seeks to serve. Many of the recommendations of that committee have now

been implemented by government.

Mr. Hughes assumed the role of conflict-of-interest commissioner on

an acting basis on October 1, 1990. In this capacity, he oversaw the

implementation of the new public disclosure requirements and has

provided sound and valuable advice to members of this House respecting

their obligations under the act. Mr. Hughes has served as

conflict-of-interest commissioner on a gratuitous basis until now and

has also taken on the role of complaints commissioner with the Police

Commission. Concurrent with his permanent appointment as conflict

commissioner, Mr. Hughes will be resigning from the Police Commission.

As a result of his recent experience with the operation of the

Members' Conflict of Interest Act, Mr. Hughes has made recommendations

for changes to the act. The proposed amendments include a requirement

for members to provide ongoing disclosure respecting the acquisition or

disposition of material financial interests and the ability of

ministers to delegate their responsibilities in a matter to another

minister where they believe they may have a conflict of interest.

In addition, Mr. Hughes has proposed that consideration be given to

providing a linkage between the Members' Conflict of Interest Act and

the Premier's guidelines on conflict of interest for cabinet ministers

and parliamentary secretaries, which would enable the commissioner to

undertake investigations into an alleged breach of the guidelines.

All three proposed amendments have considerable merit and will be

referred to the Select Standing Committee on Ethical Conduct and

Conflict of Interest for its consideration and report to the House.

Mr. Speaker, this motion requires two-thirds of the members present

to vote in favour of the nomination. I therefore request that the vote

be conducted by division, and I now move the motion.

MR. HARCOURT: The motion put forward by the Premier deals

with the permanent appointment of Mr. Ted Hughes as the commissioner in

regard to the conflict legislation. We have made very clear that the

New Democrats on this side of the House opposed the legislation. It is

inadequate; it is not the tough legislation that is required. What I

have also said on behalf of the opposition is that Mr. Hughes is a

person in whom we have the greatest of confidence. We feel that it is

unfortunate that he has to deal with this totally inadequate act.

The reality is that we think Mr. Hughes can do the job that is

required of the commissioner. We made it very clear that we support him

personally. We will be voting for Mr. Hughes's appointment. But what we

are....

Interjections.

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the Premier, and this side

of the House gave her the courtesy of hearing what she had to say on this very

important matter. It's unfortunate that the government doesn't even

take its own legislation and appointment seriously; I think that's a shame.

I think they show a great deal of disrespect to Mr. Hughes for the tremendous

job he has carried out in investigating the misuse of the Premier's office

by the previous leader of this Social Credit government. I think he is a man

of great integrity and is certainly the person we could support for this position.

The changes the Premier has put forward aren't changes; they are a

referral to the committee. These are exactly the sort of changes we

brought up when the bill was brought forward last year. These are the

changes that....

[2:45]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The difficulty is that we're not

in second reading. We're in a somewhat unusual procedure in the House,

but we're discussing a motion. It's fairly narrow in its context. It

really has to do with whether or not members wish to discuss the

relative merits of the appointee for this position and not the

legislation that the appointee may be or will be dealing with. I'd ask

the Leader of the Opposition to confine his comments to the relative

merits of the case for Mr. Hughes to hold this position.

MR. HARCOURT: Thank you for that guidance, Mr. Speaker. I am

keeping within the confines of the statement made by the Premier, who

brought forward some of the changes that were recommended by Mr.

Hughes. I am commenting on what the Premier has stated and on the

changes that should be referred, as she has suggested, to the select

standing committee. There are a number of other changes that we will be

proposing when it gets to the committee. The argument has been put

forward already by the Premier. I think that if she is prepared to put

forward these recommendations, then it's totally proper for me to

comment on what she just talked about. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker,

that we will be making further changes so that Mr. Hughes can do his

job properly and deal with this government and its conflict.

MR. SPEAKER: There being no further speakers to the motion, I propose to put the question.

Motion approved unanimously on a division.

Orders of the Day

Budget Debate

(continued)

MR. SPEAKER: Debate was adjourned by the second member for Boundary-Similkameen. [Applause.]

MR. BARLEE: Mr. Speaker, it's nice to hear applause from the opposite side.

After examining the budget estimates, we should really take a hard

look at the priorities of this government. I question the priorities of

the government. I

[ Page

12173 ]

think this budget really reveals some deep-seated flaws. I will be discussing some of these flaws as we go along today.

The first member for Saanich and the Islands, the former Minister of

Finance — one of the four — talked about the misrepresentations from

our side of the House. I think that misrepresentation.... There are two

sides of that coin, and I think we should examine it very closely. The

present government says the total direct debt of the province of

British Columbia is $6 billion. They expect the public to believe that.

On the other hand, every expert and professional in British

Columbia, the auditor-general, who is a highly respected and competent

civil servant, the actuaries, the newspapers, TV and everyone else says

our direct debt is $9 billion. There happens to be a difference of only

$3 billion.

This government also states that their deficit will be $395 million in 1991-92. Anyone who has read the papers — the Times-Colonist , the Vancouver Sun , the Province ....

Listen to the experts, who say the debt is $1.2 billion. Quite a

difference. This government really reminds me of an old show I used to

watch when I was much younger. It was called the Edgar Bergen Show.

AN HON. MEMBER: Charlie McCarthy.

MR. BARLEE: Yes, he had a dummy there who was called Charlie

McCarthy. He had a real dummy there, and he was called Mortimer Snerd.

I think Mortimer Snerd is really in charge on that side of the House.

This government is concerned about Ontario's budget. We hear about

Ontario's budget ad nauseam, and I do mean ad nauseam. They pluck it

out of the air.

Interjection.

MR. BARLEE: I like history too. If you like history, you

should do a much wider overview. A wider perspective is this: there is

only one provincial government in Canada that has balanced the budget

for 20 years in a row. I know that the Minister of Finance doesn't want

to hear this. That government, by the way, is not the government of

British Columbia, which has come down with successive deficits, almost

without interruption, for the last 15 years. The government with 20

years of balanced budgets — a record in Canada — was the government of

Saskatchewan. That was a CCF and NDP government. It's rather strange

that the opposite side never mentions that record, which is an

unblemished record in all of Canada.

And then they mention the budget stabilization fund, the so-called

BS fund, which is very appropriately named. What about the BS fund?

When the former Minister of Finance was asked by this side of the House

where the BS fund was kept and which bank it was in, he couldn't

answer. We then asked him which numbered account it was. He couldn't

answer. Finally, when pressed, the former minister said: "Well, it was

really just a paper transaction." Now I call that misrepresentation.

That's real misrepresentation.

I come from a historic riding: Boundary-Similkameen. It happens to be a very scenic riding, and I'm fond of it.

AN HON. MEMBER: You and your carpetbagging. You move around quite a bit.

MR. BARLEE: My family has only been in the riding for a

hundred years, probably much longer than yours. My family has been a

ranching and mining family for the last ten decades in this province.

Like many of the constituencies in this province, it is hurting

economically. There are a lot of the interior constituencies.... The

member for Cariboo is quite aware of this: we are hurting economically.

The unemployment rate in my riding runs between 15 and 16 percent

continuously.

Let's look at unemployment. Let's look at misrepresentation. Over

the last 20 years.... I would suggest to the members on the opposite

side that they read pages 41, 42 and 43 of last year's budget, and get

a little lesson in misrepresentation. But they made a mistake: they

included the last 20 years of government. In the last 20 years of

government, there was only one that had a lower unemployment rate, the

lowest of any three years in that 20 years. That government was the

government of 1972 to 1975, the NDP government of British Columbia. The

average unemployment rate was 7.4 percent. Compare that to my riding,

which is between 15 and 16 percent. By the way, they set a record too:

they had the lowest unemployment rate in British Columbia since 1970;

it was 5.7 percent.

Interjection.

MR. BARLEE: This government made records, all right. They

made records of 16 percent. In some places in British Columbia that 16

percent went to 24 percent. That's quite a record.

Interjections.

MR. BARLEE: Okay, let's talk about 1974-75.

Where did I obtain these figures? Not from our researchers —

certainly not. And not from independents outside of the House. I

obtained it from government sources. So I won't question the government

sources.

Interjections.

MR. BARLEE: If you want to listen, listen carefully to this

one then. What else did I find out? I found out several other figures

in that very interesting book. I found out that the unemployment

figures were exceptionally high, and I found out — while we're talking

about misrepresentation — that the government also had an average

interest rate higher than anybody in the province since 1970. Their

interest rates topped 20 percent in 1983 and 1984. That's an extremely

high interest rate. It hurt all of the small businesses in the

province. It certainly hurt the businesses in my particular area, as

well as the wage-earners in my area.

[ Page 12174 ]

The interest rates were higher. Unemployment was higher under this

government. And the other thing.... Everybody has heard this story.

Gosh, I've heard it from all sorts of sources all over the province.

The old myth is like this: when the NDP were in power in British

Columbia, everyone fled British Columbia; there was a steady drove of

people leaving the province. Well, actually, that's incorrect. There

wasn't a steady drove of people leaving the province. The greatest

growth years in the province of British Columbia between 1970 and 1990

were 1972, '73, '74 and '75. So the absolute opposite was true. When

they left the province.... They started leaving in late 1975, '76, '77,

'78 and '79. I would suggest that those members check the figures on

that, because it's really quite revealing. The greatest growth was

under the NDP government, the lowest unemployment was under the NDP

government. Very interesting indeed. Talk about misrepresentation —

that's really misrepresentation.

[3:00]

It's strange: when I look at that side of the House, it's like

watching a revolving door. We've had four Ministers of Finance, three

Ministers of Forests, three Ministers of Agriculture, two Premiers and

six Ministers of Environment. It's absolutely astonishing. Something

like 110 changes of ministers. They are really out of control. In fact,

you would feel out of place on that side of the House if you hadn't

been a minister or weren't a minister. It's like watching a

merry-go-round of incompetence, with each of these guys trying to hang

on to the horse. Around and around they go, and where they land nobody

knows.

I perused last year's budget quite closely, and I found that this

government is not very good at many things. But they are excellent at

myth-making, and some people actually believe those old myths, which

absolutely astonishes me.

Let's continue with the misrepresentation theme. It's a good theme.

By the way, that was brought up by the first member for Saanich and the

Islands, the former Minister of Finance. Let's get away from interest

rates, growth and unemployment. We should examine the omissions in this

budget, and there were very definite omissions.

I come from the interior of British Columbia. What really affects us

most? A number of things affect us most. Agriculture wasn't mentioned

in the budget. In seventy-five minutes of reading the budget, there

wasn't one word about agriculture. Agriculture provides $1.2 billion

for the economy of British Columbia per annum. It's a steady industry.

It's our third- or fourth-largest industry; it's extremely important.

This government did not see fit to mention agriculture in the budget.

And when you examine the record, agriculture gets 0.6 percent of the

budget — 0.6 for the farmers and the producers of British Columbia, 0.6

for the individuals who are keeping the agricultural land reserve, the

greenbelts of this province, intact.

What did this government do last year? They had a budget of about $91 million.

And in their great wisdom they left $14 million of that on the table. They didn't

spend $14 million of the $91 million. Now that's clever accounting. That's

a smart move if the ministry doesn't need it. But this ministry needed it.

If you don't think the ministry needed it, you'd better ask the wheat

producers of the Peace River country, or the berry producers of the Fraser Valley,

or the orchardists of the Okanagan-Similkameen and Creston areas. These people

have their backs to the wall, and that $14 million was not spent. I believe

in judicious accounting, but not where it's foolish. If we are to preserve

the farmers of British Columbia, the greenbelts and our quality of life, then

let's take a very analytical look at it.

I know individuals on their last mortgage. They can't even hold

their farms together. And this government sees fit to leave that $14

million unspent. That goes back into general revenue. And what does it

do in general revenue? You make some dubious loans to some very

questionable companies — about $40 million. I think part of that $40

million would be better spent in agriculture, but it wasn't spent in

agriculture. There's no strategic plan for this government. They really

are going from day to day. They don't understand.

The second thing that wasn't included in the budget address was

tourism. Tourism is the fastest growing business in the world. It

didn't get one word. We sat here for an hour and a quarter. We listened

to the Finance minister. He didn't even realize that tourism was

important. Tourism is extremely important. It is a growth industry, and

it isn't all $5-an-hour jobs, which this government produces all the

time — short-term six-week jobs at $5 an hour and usually part-time.

Tourism is the wave of the future, but again, if you examine

tourism, you will see that there is no strategy at all. There is no

long-term plan. They don't know what they're doing. Other jurisdictions

excellent job. They set aside certain areas — areas of outstanding

natural beauty, they call them. We haven't got a clue. We destroy our

greenbelts. We take them out of the ALR. We use ELUC to withdraw some

of these valuable lands, and once they are lost, they are lost forever,

The government doesn't listen, of course; I don't expect them to.

The one thing that really amazes me is that they didn't mention the

impact of the free trade agreement. We all know that this government

was 100 percent behind the free trade agreement. There wasn't an

exception on the government benches. They thought it was a marvellous

deal. They thought it was a level playing-field. Well, they make me

laugh. I'll tell you about the level playing-field. They said we had to

compete. How can the Canadian farmer compete? He pays more for land and

more taxes. Washington State doesn't have an individual income tax; we

do. He pays more for fuel — about double. He pays more for wages and

more for equipment. If the government calls that a level playing-field,

I am astonished. But really, I'm not astonished. I accept it now.

What has this free trade deal done for British Columbia? Last year

that free trade deal cost us $800 million, and this year it will

probably cost us $1.5 billion. Those are one-way dollars going out of

British Columbia into Washington State, and when they go into

Washington State, that costs us jobs. It's cost us

[ Page

12175 ]

thousands of jobs so far, and will continue to cost

us thousands of jobs. That shows the seriousness with which the

government members consider these various points. It's really quite

astonishing. I guess they don't think that agriculture is important. I

guess they don't think that the free trade agreement is important, or

that it has had a devastating effect upon not only our small

businessmen but the country at large — and our outflow of natural gas

as well as tourism.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

What else did they do in this budget? They barely touched on

forestry. This government has a record of almost 40 years of

mismanagement in forestry. Forestry is grossly mismanaged. Their own

auditor-general pointed this out. They are now trying to catch up on

the planting, but they're 40 years too late. What is the result? I'll

tell you. I drove down the Similkameen valley about two days ago, and I

watched the river very closely. The Similkameen is one of the larger

rivers in my riding. It was flooding and the floodplain was about a

mile across. I thought that was rather unusual, but the Similkameen has

been flooding pretty consistently for the last ten years. Why, Mr.

Speaker, does a river flood consistently over the last ten years when

in the previous 80 years it hasn't flooded very much? I started

thinking about it. I came to the conclusion, and got some backup

evidence from the U.S. Forest Service — not from our Forest Service,

because we don't have that information — and they stated that....

Interjection.

MR. BARLEE: They haven't been given that mandate.

MR. KEMPF: What happened in 1948?

MR. BARLEE: Yes, if you want to go right back, there were two

major floods in British Columbia: one was 1894 and one was 1948. But I

think the member probably knows that I'm talking about the clearcutting

of the watersheds. What happens when you clearcut a watershed? I'll

tell you. It means that all those trees in those clearcuts are no

longer there, and then what happens to that winter snowfall? It all

comes down at once. That's what is happening. That's what the records

of the U.S. Forest Service indicate as well. Rivers like the Kettle,

Okanagan, Fraser and Similkameen don't have as many trees up there to

provide the shade to keep that snow up there in the higher levels in

the watersheds. When the trees are gone, there's no root system to hold

that water in. What happens? Well, it's logical. We get the floods, and

we'll continue to get the floods over the next decade until we finally

catch up to this miasma in the forest industry.

MR. KEMPF: Remember 1948, my friend.

MR. BARLEE: Yes, we get a flood every 50 years — '48 and '94. I'm quite aware of it.

I have a couple of other things. This government really didn't do

much about mining. They underspent their budget, of course. Mining is

our second major industry, and they underspent that by about 40

percent. Why is mining so important? It provides a lot of jobs in the

interior. The natural process of the mining industry is that a mine

only lasts as long as the metal lasts. But it's difficult for a small

miner. I'm a miner; I have a mining background.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're a placer miner.

MR. BARLEE: Yes, and I'm also a lode-miner. I used to get my

free miner's certificate, as the member for Cariboo is well aware. We

used to pay $5 for this free miner's certificate. This government saw

fit to put it up to $25. That's only a 500 percent increase. By the

way, that $5 had been there for well over 100 years.

I went to the mapping

section the other day. We used to pay 25 cents

for a topographical map. This was a service to the public provided by

the province of British Columbia. That same map now doesn't cost 25

cents, $1, $2, $3 or $5; it costs $8 plus taxes. A few years ago you

could get a dozen maps for $3; that same dozen maps costs you $108

today. That's only about a 3,600 percent increase. These are the

insidious taxes people don't really know about.

When we're talking about insidious taxes, let's look at another one.

This is one I like to hit you on because you're very vulnerable. This

is the gas tax. We all say: "Oh yes, the price of gas is high because

the provincial government takes too much and the federal government

takes too much and the provincial government has its hands in our

pockets and the federal government has its hands in our pockets." Guess

who else has their hands in our pockets? The oil companies.

Interjections.

MR. BARLEE: You may find this facetious. I have individuals

in my riding who find it very difficult to pay those high gas taxes. If

you go outside this House today and travel throughout Victoria, as I

have done, you'll find that the average price is 54.9 cents per litre.

The average price in the state of Washington is 30 cents — there's a

difference of almost 25 cents. Our total taxes are just over 22 cents,

so that means the oil companies are making about 33 cents a litre.

Shell, Imperial Oil, Texaco and Chevron in British Columbia are all

averaging, for the low-grade gas, 33 cents a litre in straight profit.

In the United States of America, you take off their 10 cents of federal

and state taxes and they make 20 cents a litre. So the companies in

British Columbia are making 65 percent more per litre. Why? I think

there's a conspiracy, and I've done about three months' work on it.

Perhaps you should read up on it.

[3:15]

I think there's a conspiracy between the oil companies — heaven

forbid! — and the government of British Columbia, because do you know

something? When the price was 69.9 there wasn't one government member

on the far side who said anything about it. That price

[ Page 12176 ]

could have gone to 79.9 or 99.9 cents. Why didn't

they say anything about it? I'll tell you why. I was in the House, and

not a member mentioned it. Because there's a floating tax rate as well

— 22.5 percent. So what does this government like? They like the gas

price to go up. They love it to go up, because they make more on their

floating gas rate, which is 22.5 percent, as well as a base rate.

What does that mean to the average consumer? Do you know what it

means to the average driver in British Columbia? Every time he stops at

a pump to get 40 litres of gas, he's paying the oil company not their

ordinary profit — he pays that willingly, I think — but an extra black

profit of $5. And how does that add up? I'll tell you how. It means

that the government of British Columbia is allowing the oil companies

of British Columbia to collect every year an extra $438 million — we'll

call it $440 million — in an unconscionable increase in their gas price.

There's a deal made there somewhere, and who's paying the shot? I'll

tell you who: the consumer. And by how much is he paying the shot?

Well, every member of this House averages over $200 a year extra to the

gas companies. Every driver in British Columbia averages just over $200

a year in extra profit, a black profit, to the oil companies.

Now you may think that that's great; I don't. I think the price of

gas should not be higher than 39.9 cents. They should get their 20

cents a litre that they get in the States, and the government should

not charge more than 19.9 cents between both of them. But

unfortunately, both governments — including your friends the

Conservative Party — are taxing the people to the hilt. You've got your

hand in the right pocket, the Conservatives have theirs in the left

pocket, and the oil companies have theirs in both back pockets.

You know something, it's just astonishing — and this is a government

that says it's the government for the people. Okay, they're taxing

people who are making over $80,000 a year a whole $100. Big deal. I'm

deeply impressed. That's about one-tenth of 1 percent. Now who else are

they taxing, really? Well, they're taxing the little guy, the guy who's

trying to grind to make a living, the guy who is working for maybe $6

or $7 an hour — and there are lots of them. And you know how they got

him? Well, they took about $58 million out of the pockets of those

individuals, and what did they do it on? On the medical services

premium. Now you don't call that a tax — it's a premium, so it isn't a

tax. But do you know something?

Interjection.

MR. BARLEE: Do you know, Madam Minister, how many provincial

governments in Canada even have a medical services premium? Try two out

of ten. This government is first and foremost. And what do you do? You

add insult to injury. You tack another $58 million on people who really

can't afford it. It astonishes me.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

What else did you do? You're raising the taxes by $208 million in a

year of severe recession. I have in my riding businesses with their

backs to the door — and what are you doing? You're adding another $208

million. And where else do they put it? They put another $16 million on

the various new fees and increases and admissions, and it goes on and

on. You'd think they'd be satisfied.

This government has set a provincial record in Canada since

Confederation — that's 1867, if you want to get back to dates. Only one

government in Canada has had 784 increases in taxes in four years, and

this is the one. On top of that they introduced 229 new taxes, fees and

admissions — it goes on and on. It's never-ending.

This government really didn't plan for the downturn. Do you know who

has to take the downturn? The taxpayer. You should have set something

aside in the good years. You didn't put enough aside in the good years.

When the economy slipped, an astute government would have been ready.

You're never ready. You're always overbudget. You talk about your great

Coquihalla Highway, but that highway was $500 million over budget.

SkyTrain was more than $700 million over budget. Northeast coal was

more than $1 billion over budget.

What else? We're $375 million over on Expo. What did they do to

compound that? They virtually gave the Expo lands away. Li Ka-shing

will make $1 billion dollars. You guys would not only lose the cookies,

you'd lose the cookie jar. It's astonishing. They talk about a

lame-duck government. You guys are not a lame-duck government, you're a

dead-duck government.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, this government would have preferred a

balanced budget with no deficit. However, this would have required cuts

in essential health, education and social programs. Instead we've

achieved a balance between our fiscal and social responsibilities.

We've managed the downturn so that the integrity of those programs is

maintained for people in B.C.

The total expenditures for 1991-92 will be $16,550,000,000. Total

revenues have increased by only 5.5 percent this year, down

significantly from the high growth rates of the past few years. The

total revenues for 1991-1992 are projected to be $16,015,000,000. The

net result is a relatively small deficit of $395 million.

Compare that with Ontario, whose deficit this year s $10 billion.

The interest alone on that is $1 billion over the coming year, which is

three times the total deficit projected for British Columbia. The

biggest provincial debt in Canadian history has been generated by

Ontario. The NDP's first budget in Ontario came in nearly $10 billion

in the red, and as they readily admit, this shortfall is not a product

of lower revenues; it is the direct result of a 13.4 percent increase

in public spending. Their treasurer has projected budgets of a similar

size in each of the next three years, bringing Ontario's accumulated

debt from $35 billion to over $70 billion within four years. That is

socialism; that is leadership by a socialist government.

[ Page

12177 ]

On September 6, 1990, when Ontario elected an NDP government — and

we have some cautions on that — it had the lowest unemployment rate in

Canada, and the government was committed to a goal of a balanced

budget. The NDP promised to exercise moderation and control if they

gained power. Eight months later the results are dramatically different.

Further, just last Friday, the bond-rating agencies in North America

reduced Ontario's credit rating by two points. It's just absolutely

astounding and fantastic what's happening in Ontario, which has a

short-term NDP government — for sure.

But it's comforting to know that we only have a small deficit in our

difficult year and that this deficit will be eliminated in five years

under the balanced budget requirements of the Taxpayer Protection Act.

British Columbia is in excellent fiscal health. Our provincial debt per

person is still the lowest in Canada, and we've introduced new fiscal

controls and taxpayer protections to ensure that government spending

stays in line with the taxpayers' ability to pay.

We've made it a legal requirement for the government to balance its

budget over five years. The 1991-92 budget is year one. This is a good

budget for an uncertain economy, and is compassionate to those in need.

It makes investments to build for the future, and it's affordable and

responsible. Our guiding principle is to govern with fiscal

responsibility, and we can provide that according to what the taxpayers

can afford to pay.

Expenditures for health, education and social programs will increase

this year by $1.2 billion to a total of $11.9 billion. The big three —

health, education and social services — use up over 70 percent of our

total provincial budget. Total spending on health care this year will

increase by $591 million to a total of $5.4 billion. Mr. Speaker, $591

million is higher than the total projected deficit for the province of

British Columbia in the coming year. We enjoy one of the world's best

health care systems with universal coverage and quality care.

Education. There is a great deal of evidence that higher quality of

education means better jobs and a better quality of life. Our kids will

have to compete in a fast-changing and increasingly competitive

economy. We must provide quality education, and we must provide it now.

Over the past five years we've made massive investments in our school

system in British Columbia. Funding for schools this year will total

$3.3 billion; it's a $232 million increase over last year.

There are some facts about education costs which are quite

important. Over the last four years annual increases to education

funding have been running from 8 to 10 percent. Even for the 1991

school year, during the time of economic downturn, overall increases

will amount to almost 8 percent. Additional money is being spent on

Since this government came to office in 1986, spending per pupil has

risen almost 40 percent, while the British Columbia consumer price

index has risen only 17.6 percent. The number was 40 percent versus

17.6 percent in the consumer price index.

Class sizes are continuing to be reduced. In 1990-91, the

pupil-teacher ratio is 16 to 1. That has been steadily decreasing over

the years. In 1985-86 the ratio was 18 to 1. Each reduction of one

student in the pupil-teacher ratio amounts to $125 million for

additional instruction salaries and increased classroom space.

B.C. teachers are well paid. In 1989-90, prior to the current round

of bargaining, the average teacher's salary in British Columbia,

including benefits, was $51,000. Future increases must be based on the

taxpayers' ability to pay. The current economic downturn means that

government revenues are reduced. To avoid tax increases which would

only hurt British Columbians, this government is asking teachers to

seek wage settlements that are in line with the overall growth of the

province's economy. All settlements have been seen in the context of

the taxpayers' ability to pay. In these uncertain economic times when

many people are losing their jobs, teachers who are seeking a fair wage

settlement must ask themselves how much is really enough.

[3:30]

The annual cost of recent settlements, including wages and

reductions in pupil-teacher education ratios, is approximately 10

percent. Making reference to that, I want to read one more time from

the Times-Colonist of Monday, February 11, 1991. This was an

offer rejected by the teachers in British Columbia. From the Greater

Victoria Board of School Trustees to the teachers' association.... They

rejected an increase of 15 percent over two years. They rejected an

increase in professional development funding from $66 per teacher to

$106 per teacher for the year. They rejected an increase in elementary

teacher preparation time from 60 minutes per week to 80 minutes per

week. They rejected recognition of support needed for classroom

teachers with regard to integration of special needs students. They

rejected teachers' relief of supervision duties before school, during

recess, at lunch hour and after school. A total cost increase over two

years of 18 percent and a total dollar value over two years of more

than $11 million — they rejected that.

I make reference to that because it's a Victoria situation. But I

can probably speak more effectively.... Remember this about my

constituency of Surrey–White Rock–Cloverdale: our budget prior to 1991,

because of the increase in enrolment there, was just $198 million, and

they were offered, as a result of the current block funding, a total of

$19 million incremental increase for 1991. The Teachers' Federation in

Surrey was demanding an additional $11 million, and $11 million was

advanced by the school board in hoping that they could reach that.

Fortunately the school board were able to put their heads together, and

over a period of 14 days they found $11.3 million in order to balance

their budget for 1990-91.

I want to make reference again to last year's request by the Surrey School

Board for the ombudsman to deal with the question of block funding. They challenged

the provincial government's Ministry of Education allocation. The Ministry

of Education didn't decide on a whim how to fund the schools in the future;

it was as a result of the Sullivan commission, the Royal Com-

[ Page 12178 ]

mission on Education. The facts and the results and

the recommendations and policy guidelines were as a result of a royal

commission conducted in every community across the province of British

Columbia, dealing with every community, all factions of the community,

including parents, students, educators, administrators, business

persons — everybody who had an interest in education. That was a very

effective document.

As a result of that, block funding was one of the references in how

to fund education in the coming years. This government implemented it.

They were challenged by the Surrey School Board, which referred the

block funding question to the ombudsman. It's a two-page response, but

in effect the ombudsman said: "We believe that the block funding

delivery system is applied fairly and consistently across all school

districts in British Columbia."

So you see, the question of funding for education continues to be a

choice between issues such as the Abbotsford School District.... The

teachers in Abbotsford School District decided to strike in their own

way. They decided to create a little strike that would put some

pressure not on the school board or on the parents but on the students.

They withheld the marks generated by the students through the course of

the year. I quote Stuart Bell, Abbotsford schoolteacher: "Sit on the

marks." It talks about how the teachers, by deliberately sitting on the

marks, by forcing the students to make a special case to the school

board to deal with that question about funding.... They were looking

for more money, so they picked on the students.

You see, the question of education is not only British Columbian;

it's universal. The cost of education is a universal question. We, as I

indicated earlier, have put significant moneys into education over the

last six to seven years — a 40 percent increase since 1985.

Mr. Speaker, there are other areas of North America where.... For

instance, in San Pablo, California, the school district went bankrupt,

had to shut down because they had no system of going.... They didn't

have a referendum process in order to go to the taxpayers for more

money. So when the demands went out by the teachers for more money,

they had to close down the schools. The same thing happened in New

York. New York put it to the teachers: 3,100 teachers were going to be

laid off unless the teacher component in the state of New York agreed

to some concessions in order to continue the employment of those

teachers — which they agreed to do.

These are economic times that have to be dealt with in every

community in North America. I cite those examples only because there

are more difficult times in other jurisdictions than in British

Columbia. So when our teaching force demands 8 percent one year and 16

percent over two years when the economy is growing at 3.5 or 4 percent,

we have a very serious problem — and it's the taxpayers' ability to pay.

When we're dealing with that, we're dealing with compensation fairness

in the province of British Columbia. This government respects the taxpayers'

ability to pay, and to do so government must continue to improve efficiency

and control costs. The wages of public sector workers account for 53 percent

of the total operations of the government of the province — about 53 percent

of the total cost of government. In this category we must include teachers,

health care professionals and others whose earnings are paid by the province

either directly or indirectly.

Even though job security is greater in the public sector, 1990

marked the fifth straight year in which public sector wage increases

exceeded the settlements in the private sector.

I'll repeat that, Mr. Speaker, because it's important. Even though

job security is greater in the public sector, 1990 marked the fifth

straight year in which the public sector wage increases exceeded

settlements in the private sector.

We chose to ensure that collective bargaining would continue, but in

a fair way, and that it would respect, by virtue of collective

bargaining, the taxpayers' ability to pay. We did this through the

Compensation Fairness Act. It will help to control the costs of wage

components of government spending.

Other governments have had to resort to harsher methods in order to

cope with their rising costs. For example, Newfoundland has eliminated

2,500 public service jobs and frozen public sector wages for a minimum

of one year. New Brunswick has frozen public sector salaries for a

year. Manitoba expects to cut over 900 positions from its service this

year, and Alberta plans to cut more than 800 jobs from its public

payroll to spend less this year. The federal government has placed a 3

percent ceiling on wage increases in each of the years 1991, 1992 and

Mr. Speaker, we're talking about affordable government, Government

must become more efficient in order to maintain the quality and extent

of its programs. The goal is to get more value for taxpayers' dollars.

The first member for Richmond this morning talked at great length about

value for dollars. To achieve this we are working with public servants

to find new and better ways to provide and manage government services.

They are responding to the call. Over the past four years suggestions

by government employees have saved the people of B.C. in excess of $5

million.

This year we are introducing several measures to make the B.C.

public sector more efficient, more accountable and more affordable.

Later this year we will be establishing a toll-free line for people to

call with recommendations on how we in government could do things

better and more cheaply.

Mr. Speaker, the economic slowdown is double trouble for government.

Revenues decline while expenditure pressures go up due to increased

demands for social programs, and nobody knows it better than we do in

the province of British Columbia. As a result of those demands we are

asked to do more with less. We are making major capital investments in

all regions of the province, as a result of regionalization, to lay the

foundation for a prosperous future with good jobs for British

Columbians.

There are many examples of what we are doing in that regard. I cite

the most recent example in my school district, Surrey. The Minister of

Education has

[ Page

12179 ]

just announced $123 million worth of capital

expenditures in Surrey School District. That means jobs. That means

B.C. purchases. That means schoolrooms for schoolchildren. We have

delivered a budget that is caring, responsible and affordable.

Mr. Speaker, the supplemental homeowner grant which we introduced

last year is being increased to 50 percent of the amount by which

school taxes exceed the maximum homeowner grant. As a result, many

homeowners will pay lower property taxes this year.

This year we are looking for new ways to increase the supply of

housing stock and to help families buy their first home. Young families

should have an opportunity to buy houses in their own communities. We

have earmarked from the privatization benefits fund.... Mr. Speaker,

let me refer to that for just a moment. There is a piggy bank held by

the province of British Columbia, generated in the last four years,

called the privatization fund. It's actual cash in the bank from very

effective privatization initiatives instituted by this government. As

of March 31 of this year it totals $477 million. Had I been the

Minister of Finance, I would have made one further recommendation in

this year's budget: I would have recommended that we lend $395 million

of that cash in the bank and balance the budget, because we could have

balanced the budget by using the piggy bank money called privatization.

In any event, the public has a little concern out there about a $395

million deficit. We have offsetting cash in the bank as a result of

privatization of the highway system, which has been the most effective

privatization ever implemented by any government. As the first member

for Richmond this morning so eloquently related to everybody, the

highway improvements.... I want to talk about the highway improvement

in my constituency alone, which starts at the U.S. border and goes

almost to the tunnel on 499, and the Pacific Highway. Both of those in

the last four years, as a result of privatization, have seen a dramatic

increase in maintenance. Litter is removed entirely from that

section

of the highway, which is the first major tourist entrance to British

Columbia. It really reflects upon the province and that maintenance

program. We did that. We saved money and we put money in the bank by

doing it.

We also see the privatization fund as a potential source of funding

for assistance to homeowners. The government will consult the housing

industry and interested groups to determine the best way to achieve

these goals in the coming year.

This is one I really want everybody to pay attention to, because

it's so important. Proceeds from the sale of the property of Riverview

and Woodlands, both of them in Coquitlam, will be used to develop

community-based housing for the mentally ill. I can tell you that the

sale of that land for the benefit of the mentally ill in British

Columbia is a very high plus in my mind, and I compliment all the

ministry staff involved with making that initiative.

Mr. Speaker, protecting our environment remains a key priority. This year Ministry

of Environment sustainable environment spending will be $184 million. The B.C.

government will work with the Pacific Northwest states, something initiated

last year, and I compliment all those involved: the former Premier and the former

Minister of Environment and others who drew together the northwest states to

talk about protecting the coastline from environmental disasters and improving

the air and water quality of this region. I emphasize water quality, and I wish

the second member for Victoria was here, because that is one significant area

where water quality must be a concern to everybody. That's one thing that

we've given a priority to in 1991.

B.C. will continue to play a leading role in attacking the overlap,

the duplication and inefficiency of government programs in Canada.

Earlier today the member from South Okanagan mentioned that this budget

had nothing in it for tourism. The fact is that the money for tourism

has been committed, as he well knows, to one of the most major tourism

initiatives ever implemented in British Columbia — the Year of Music

1991. The Year of Music 1991 is designed to create community pride

through performances by local artists, drawing tourists within British

Columbia to see products of our own community. The tourism increase

into the province since 1986 has continued to rise to the point that

it's now over four million visitors per year.

[3:45]

The important part of this is that the second-largest component for

the economy of British Columbia is the generation of tourism dollars.

And it isn't the $5-popcorn-salesman job which that famous bigmouth

Munro talks about. He talks about service jobs all being worth $5 an

hour. British Columbia is built on tourism, pride and morale, but it's

also built on other people's money.

The economy of British Columbia generates in excess of $300 million

annually with dollars from other sources, because people are drawn to

the attractions of British Columbia. The budget of British Columbia for

tourism this year has been allocated to local development rather than

external. Visitors are coming back because they came here during '86

and saw what we had to offer as a province. They saw that it was the

best, safest, cleanest and friendliest place in the world to visit.

As a result of all these things, they're here in large numbers. So

we are spending money internally within other ministries this year to

draw British Columbians into this product that everybody else in the

world has found. The success of Music '91 will be in the 100

communities across British Columbia where the small artist in each

community works together with a major Canadian artist. Most of the

artists coming to British Columbia — the headline artists — are major

Canadian artists: Rita MacNeil, Paul Anka, Anne Murray....

AN HON. MEMBER: Harry Belafonte.

MR. REID: Harry Belafonte is an external, but he's coming. Paul Anka's Canadian.

So that you understand the program — because the NDP doesn't

understand anything positive — let me tell you what they do. They send

a headliner into a little community like Williams Lake, Nelson,

Cranbrook, Fernie, Chilliwack, Cloverdale, Kimberley.... I

[ Page 12180 ]

use Cloverdale because we've had the most recent

example. The Cloverdale Rodeo was held just last weekend, and the

headliner entertainer, along with some local entertainers, was Tammy

Wynette. The highest attendance at the Cloverdale Fair in its history

was this weekend. That points out to anybody who had any doubt about

the success of Music '91 as it equates to tourism and drawing people

in.... I would guess that 70 percent of the people who attended in

Cloverdale this past weekend to hear Tammy Wynette and some of our

local artists perform were not from the community surrounding

Cloverdale. They were from the United States, the interior of British

Columbia and Vancouver Island.

That's what the economy is built around. That's called tourism. All

those people came to Cloverdale, found the neatest community in British

Columbia and were happy to visit where the best MLA is working. They

found out what an attractive community we have and what it has to

offer. Music '91 provides the component called RoadShow B.C., and it'll

happen across British Columbia. Every community will have an

opportunity to host headliners, and their local artists will be

highlighted.

The important thing for local artists is that British Columbians

will have some pride in what they're doing. The government of British

Columbia is encouraging this to happen, and we will be enthused about

what they're doing. But the pride in each community will be tremendous.

The pride in British Columbia will be tremendous, as will the pride in

visitors seeing what British Columbia has to offer — as we did in '86

and as we'll do this year. We'll continue to show that British Columbia

has the best fiscally managed province in Canada and is the leader in

economic management. Tourism is a big part of that. The economy is

built on natural resources, and the other natural resource is tourism.

I say to anybody who has any criticism of this province's goal: look

at what's happening out there. And you, Mr. Minister, I commend you for

Music 191 and all of your people who are putting together these

tremendous programs. Since it worked in my community called Cloverdale,

I know for a fact it's going to work in all the other 110. When this

year is through, all British Columbians are going to be proud of what

we have, not only as taxpayers but because of the qualified talent we

have within the bounds of British Columbia in the artists' community.

As we do all these things and make them happen.... This government

has the fiscal management foresight to do all of these innovative

things which have been criticized by the opposition: "We shouldn't have

put money into Music '91 because it's...." I don't know what's wrong

with it, but anyway.... The fact of the matter is that tremendous

numbers will come to British Columbia as a result of that.

MS. EDWARDS: It's always a pleasure to follow the modest member

for Surrey–White Rock–Cloverdale and to address the budget this time. It's

a common document, but you might think it weren't if you didn't know

that it was.

I want to address this budget document today by talking about the

neglect by the government that is felt in the interior and in the

northern parts of this province. That is a basic feeling that is

spreading and increasing. The people at the corners of empires always

feel as though they're not treated the same way as the people at the

centre; but the feeling that is happening in my riding in particular is

expanding exponentially. The people feel not only that they're

neglected but that sometimes they are insulted. This comes out in such

programs considered to be as magnificent as the Music '91 program. When

the children's festival in our area was promised and promised an artist

who never appeared in the community, the children's festival had to go

ahead, waiting and wondering whether they could advertise a headliner

they were promised. Eventually they didn't get one, so they got their

own headliners and ended up without any part of what they were promised

in the Music '91 program. That's an example of the kind of thing that

is considered beyond even neglect into insult.

This kind of feeling leads to all sorts of colourful behaviour,

including threats of secession and other things. These are very

amusing. It keeps all of us amused for a while when we say in the

southeastern corner of British Columbia: "Let's join Alberta." Or:

"Let's take over Alberta." Or: "Let's add on the northwestern U.S." The

member for Columbia River understands this very well: "Let's take over

the Idaho panhandle." If the Speaker had been here we would have done

that.

It's all very colourful and magnificent, but underneath it is a very

serious vein. The very serious fact is that the people in the interior

do feel seriously neglected.

Broadly speaking, what the budget does is give us a whole lot of

measures that have a much greater impact on the areas outside the lower

mainland and lower Island than they do inside the lower mainland and

lower Island. In general, there are all sorts of resource issues. What

is happening to inventory and land use planning? There are a number of

examples which I will go into in more detail later to show that,

despite all the promises of detailed resource inventory.... And please,

let's get to a specific land use strategy for this province. But the

budget doesn't show us one single thing more than budgets did in the

last four years that it's going to happen. That is probably the number

one need for the interior of this province.

Educational issues, particularly post-secondary educational issues,

indicate this government is much more interested in serving the needs

of the highly populated centre of this province than in addressing the

meeds that are very different and exist in the parts that are not so

close to the lower mainland.

In health and social services, there are no alcohol and drug abuse

measures for the interior of the province in such issues as the way

they are treated in home care versus institutional care. The programs

that are there are not meeting the needs of the interior or the north.

On the environment, the issues seem to be absolutely different. It may be more costly to deal with the

[ Page

12181 ]

environment when you're looking at the other parts of the province

rather than the centre, but it's nevertheless necessary. There are

issues that need to be specifically addressed and in a way that answers

the needs, I not broadly across the province but area to area.

One of the better examples of the kind of neglect I'm talking about

is the absolute elimination of the power and gas extension program.

That program wasn't very big. It was a $2 million program introduced

with great fanfare in the budget speech of 1990. One year ago the

budget said, for the Minister of Energy: "More people in the north and

the interior will be able to enjoy the full benefits of our energy

resources. Assistance will be provided to extend power and gas lines to

rural areas in these parts of the province. This government responds to

the aspirations of every region of this province." Well, Mr. Speaker,

this government did respond to the extent of putting $2 million in the

program last year. What has happened this year?

Nothing; it's wiped out.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Is there any indication that nobody demanded it? No way. In fact,

this year there were proposals put forward for more than 100 projects

just for the installation of natural gas. They would have served 3,300

customers or more in the first year, and double that in six years. It

would have replaced — if crude oil had to be used to replace the

heating that would come out of that natural gas — 610,000 barrels of

crude oil. It might not have been crude oil. It may very well have been

electricity, which we are trying to replace with natural gas as the

space heater in this province; it might have been wood for wood

heaters. They are creating a number of air pollution problems

throughout our communities. But for the more than 100 communities that

applied for assistance under this program, there will be nothing.

Mr. Speaker, I know that projects for the more than 100 communities could not

be served unless the budget had been expanded. But even if the $2 million had

been repeated, anywhere up to 50 projects could have been completed with the

assistance of the provincial government. That kind of thing is a shame.

Here we have a list of applications; these are communities that have

asked for natural gas. There is going to be no assistance from this

government, and therefore there will be no natural gas for these

communities, because they themselves cannot afford to pay the extra

cost to extend the gas line. Does this mean that the provincial

government doesn't care about improving the environment? Does it mean

that they don't care about doing it just because it's in the interior?

What does it mean?

There are a lot of other things. It's difficult to pick all the things

that indicate the reasons we have the feelings we do about being discriminated

against, Mr. Speaker. But it may be a good idea to sort of leaf through some

of the ministries and the estimates that have come out for them.

It's nice to start with the first A: the Advanced Education, Training and

Technology ministry. In this ministry, interestingly, the operating cost for

institutions went up by only 4.5 percent. Now that's very interesting, because

attendance at our post-secondary institutions is on the increase, and with inflation,

4.5 percent will barely cover the general costs. And at the same time we're

keeping the expense of post-secondary education down to about inflation level,

student financial assistance decreased by 1 percent.

[4:00]

Mr. Speaker, you may wonder why I think this affects our area more

than others. You know that the figures show that students in the

interior of British Columbia attend post-secondary institutions at a

rate that is far less — somewhere between half and 60 percent — than

the rate at which students in the cities, the lower mainland and the

lower Island, where the universities exist, attend. Put that together

with the fact that we're not having the kind of increase that's going

to get past inflation at all, and you know that the needs of the young

people and the older people who want to improve their education in the

interior of British Columbia are not going to be answered.

There is a reduction this year in the budget for job training

apprenticeship, labour market policy and skills development. This is

basically the area that should be increasing, because we are looking at

skill shortages coming up. When we get out of this slowing of growth

that we're in, there is no doubt that there will be a need for trained

people. This government frequently talks about the need for trained

apprentices and other people with skills; they talk about importing

them, when in fact we have the young people in the interior of the

province, where the resources are, who want to stay in the interior and

be educated there so that they can stay and make a living there. At

this time, that area of post-secondary education is losing 4 percent of

its budget compared to last year.

In the Ministry of Development, Trade and Tourism, the budget is

down by $4 million. This is a matter of some concern, and we will be

investigating that more during the estimates. But basically, when we're

talking bout an industry as important to our area as tourism, it is of

great concern when we see that the overall budget is down by $4 million.

We have an increase in education overall. But when you look more

closely at the budget, you find that operating costs for educational

programs have declined by 23 percent, and that's a huge percentage.

That's under the educational programs subvote which, interestingly

enough, deals with developing the content of educational programs and

managing public instruction through curriculum developments. It deals

with special education programs. It deals with policy liaison between

the ministry and school districts — an area where perhaps there should

be some more talks. It deals with native language and culture

initiatives, gender equity and governance initiatives and teaching

profession programs. It deals with support for textbooks and media

materials for public and independent schools. It deals with policy

direction resulting from the Royal Commission on Education, including

development and implementation of a four-year ungraded primary program,

development of a common interme-

[ Page 12182 ]

diate curriculum for years four through ten and a

revised graduation program. That area is supposed to deal with

education 2000. What's happened to it? It's been in decline by 23

percent. That's a lot of decline.

Now I mentioned before the major problem in energy being the loss of

power- and gas-line extensions. We will examine it more closely during

estimates, but we are wondering how the Vancouver Island natural gas

pipeline budget is going to survive, considering the overrun in costs

that it looks like the project is going to have.

We also see no indication of a roads-to-resources budget — if you

want to call it that. There was a promise last year of the Iskut road,

and it has been announced that the Iskut road is going to go ahead. But

is that the only road that's going to be done by this government? The

question is a good one and one that is not answered by close reading of

the budget and the estimate documents that went with it.

We're on to the Ministry of Environment. There are 14 more full-time

positions in the Ministry of Environment this year. It always pleases

us when we see that there might be.... Maybe that includes conservation

officers. We might just get the number of conservation officers that we

demand. That's excluding all the other demands that we have, but

conservation officers are always at the centre of the needs of the

Kootenay constituency. It would be nice if we thought that was there.

But the interesting part about these 14 FTEs is that if you put this

year together with last year, you know that there was a loss last year

of 12. So the net gain is only two FTEs in the Ministry of Environment

over the past two years. I'll tell you that we in our riding are

getting a little worried about what's going to happen again.

The Solicitor-General would like to interrupt my speech, and certainly he's welcome if he promises me a conservation officer.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you for your forbearance. The Solicitor-General

seeks leave to make an introduction. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. MESSMER: Id like to thank the member for Kootenay

for allowing me to make this introduction on behalf of the MLA for

Skeena, the Minister of Lands and Parks.

Visiting us today in the gallery are 29 grades 6 and 7 students from Kispiox

Elementary School in Hazelton, along with six adults and their teacher, Miss

Lynn Goetting. They are visiting Victoria, and I hope you will join me in welcoming

them.

MS. EDWARDS: It's always a pleasure to welcome school

students, and I hope they enjoy their visit. I'm a looking forward to

getting that conservation officer.

Mr. Speaker, one of the major concerns we have with the environment budget

is that we see that we may still be so short of personnel in the Ministry

of Environment that the resource problems we see happening cannot yet be addressed.

The inspection of plans by people in the Ministry of Environment — forest plans,

mining plans and all sorts of plans — has created a real bottleneck for a lot

of projects that could otherwise be going ahead much more quickly. That is affected

very strongly by the number of personnel that we have in the Ministry of Environment.

So it's very discouraging to know that there's only a net gain of two

FTEs over the last two years. Although that's a very broad figure and in

the broad sense it has to be examined, it is discouraging to look at it, and

that's what we have.

It's a matter of happiness — I should say I hope — to note that the

Fish and Wildlife management budget is up 7 percent, but there is only

a negligible increase in regional operations and enforcement. Again,

it's back to the same situation I was talking about before. That is an

area where we frequently see the results of the shortage, and it looks

like there's not going to be any increase in regional operations and

enforcement. Certainly it isn't there in the budget. So despite all the

promises of environmental friendliness from this government, they just

aren't willing to put the bodies in the field.

There's a reduction in the forest renewal budget, and we go over

this time and time again. It's a matter of concern to those of us who

live in a forest resource area. There is a significant cut in intensive

silviculture pending within the sustainable environment fund, and

budget for the preservation of natural areas is down by 46 percent.

This is very interesting, and it will show up again when we look at

Lands and Parks. The budget is down, and we are wondering, after the

beginning the government made in Parks Plan '90, which included not

only proposals for parks but proposals from the Ministry of Forests.

Now we have absolutely no funding for that whatsoever.

Mr. Speaker, my community wants to know why we went through these very painful

meetings if we're going to have to do it all over again, because there isn't

any money to do what should be done when — after going through these meetings

— we are going to perhaps come to some conclusions. That's what you hope

at these meetings; they are very difficult meetings. After they're through,

you work your way to a conclusion. If we don't have any money, and we have

to put this off again and start again, it creates nothing but disruption in the

communities.

In Health, Mr. Speaker, I can only say what is very general to the whole province,

but it affects my riding every bit as much as anybody else's. I think that

what happens in the Health budget, where the MSP premiums are increased, says

it all about this budget in general. If a family of four is making — I don't

know — an average.... If you're at the level where you have to pay your premium

for MSP, you're making $30,000, I would guess. You are going to have an

increase of $100 year, in order to pay your premiums.

That's in B.C., which is one of two provinces that still has MSP

premiums; the other is Alberta. B.C.'s premiums are higher than

Alberta's. The Finance minister says he doesn't like the premiums. But

here we are: the lower-income working people are going to make the

brunt of this by paying $100 a year more —

[ Page

12183 ]

$96, if you count at $8 a month. But it amounts to approximately $100 more

that they're going to have to pay just to have medical services coverage.

To offset that, says the Minister of Finance, we are going to tax those with

high incomes. So if you happen to be a family of four, you are going to be

taxed by a surcharge. At what point of income does this surcharge kick in? It

kicks in at $100,000, Mr. Speaker. Now that's not equitable in the least.

What are these people going to pay in a surcharge? Somewhere between $100

and $300, says the Minister of Finance. Well, $100 for somebody who is making

$100,000 a year versus $100 for somebody who's making $30,000 a year is

a huge discrepancy and a huge inequity. That kind of thing is going to hit

everybody right across the province and the people who can least afford it.

The interesting part when you compare somebody who makes $30,000 to somebody

who makes $100,000 — and it's pretty basic, but it sounds as though I maybe

should explain it — is that it doesn't matter who you are, you've

got to start off by paying for food and shelter. Once you've paid that

— and it comes to approximately $30,000 — it's a discretionary income.

But if you don't have anything above $30,000, you don't I have it.

That's what happens to people at that level, and they're the ones who

are being hit by this, as well as seniors who have a fixed income — most of

them.

The services for seniors are almost exactly the same as last year,

despite the fact that this government is predicting there will be a

large influx of people into the province — a large number of them

seniors. One wonders if you think that all the old people who come here

are not going to need any of those services at all.... So what are we

going to do when we begin to have all these retirement communities

developed?

In the Labour estimates — strange place for it, but that's where it

is — alcohol and drug programs are said to be at $50 million.

Interestingly, that is down from last year by $680,000, and this

happens at the same time that alcohol and drug counsellors are being

cut out of hospitals. That is a problem that affects my community as

much as any other community in this province, and it's a serious place

to cut the budget.

In Lands and Parks, there is a 9 percent falldown on the survey and

resource mapping budget. What's survey and resource mapping? That's the

inventory that the Forest Resources Commission reported we need;

everybody says that we need it. Instead of dealing with that and at

least leaving it at the same level, we have a 9 percent cut. That's

severe.

This is the ministry that came forward with the Parks '90 plan. And what's

the budget in Lands and Parks? It's down by 0.5 percent. Not a lot, but

it's down.

The British Columbia Cultural Fund is another area where my riding frequently

feels the impact of living in the southeast corner of the province. There's

a reduction from 1988-89 through to 1991-92 of $58,000 in cultural grants.

The operating costs have tripled, but the cultural grants themselves are down

by $58,000.

Considering that the level of cultural grants has been fairly tight — that's

about the most generous word I could use for it — it is a disgrace and a matter

of sincere regret for us in our part of the province that the cultural grants

are going to go down when they should be going up, and when they should be supporting

one of the best spinoff industries that you can name, the cultural industry.

[4:15]

Native Affairs. That's an interesting one, because there's a major

increase there. The Minister of Finance said that there would be an

increase to deal with the land claims negotiations. That's interesting

too, because going along with it is a huge increase from $58,000 to

$730,000 for publications and advertising. This is going to be spent by

the land claims negotiation division, not by the programs area. One

wonders where that's going to go. We know in our area that it's crucial

that the native land claims issue be settled. We are wondering whether

it's going to be settled and if this government expects to settle it by

advertising.

Another concern — and I've mentioned it before in his House — is the

First Citizens' Fund. My discussions before were not to do with the

fact that it was frozen, but that it wasn't adequate. The native people

in this province who want to be self-sufficient and independent have

too many restrictions and too little money in the First Citizens' Fund.

That is fairly straightforward, but the fact that it's frozen right now

and they can't get any funds out of it is another issue. It's a matter

that doesn't seem to have any answers so far.

We move on to Social Services and Housing and the at-home program.

This is the same sort of thing when we are talking about home care. If

people can live and be cared for adequately in their own homes, and not

have to be institutionalized for any number of reasons, we are going to

save money. Everybody is going to save money. The public purse will

save money. If the family can afford it they will be happier, and the

patient will be happier. The people who are former patients, or people

who for other reasons...without ever being so-called patients, will be

much better off.

This at-home program, which is an extremely important program and

has served a number of people in my constituency, has been cut by $1

million. In my constituency, if people can't stay in their own homes

they may not even have the option of staying in an institution in their

own community. This is more important in the rural communities than it

is in the centres where the institutions that they might have to attend

would be at least within driving distance — within a day or so.

Another thing that happens here is that the community projects

funding has been slashed by $1.3 million. How in the world, when the

situation is as severe as it is and when people are suffering

unemployment, can the community projects funding, which goes to service

agencies promoting programs for families...? How could this government

— which claims to be concerned with issues of the family, which in fact

put the family into the name of a new ministry — cut the community

projects funding by $1.3 million and expect to be believed that it

matters to them about the programs for families, low-income groups,

youth and the handicapped?

[ Page 12184 ]

I find all of these things to be matters of great concern in our

area, but perhaps the most amazing is the new discovery that if you get

a phone line you're in business. When I heard the Minister of Finance

say we were going to have a 1-800 number and that it was going to be

for waistlines, I wasn't sure whether he meant a 28-inch waistline or a

42-inch waistline, and whether people were going to order some garments

by that particular tag. Then I thought, no, he doesn't mean waistline

at all. People would get all mixed up by that. He means the wasteland.

When people phone in to 1-800 and say, "Is this the wasteland? April is

the cruellest month, " and they will only be talking about federal

income tax, the provincial government is going to cut out right away.

If the best that we can offer is a 1-800 number which probably has

nothing more at the end of it than a machine, and occasionally during

short working hours somebody to answer it, we're not any further ahead

than we were when we started.

MR. CRANDALL: It's interesting that the other half of the

East Kootenay representation would follow the member for Kootenay, and

I just want to make a couple of comments about some things that

surprise me.

The colleague of mine on the opposite side started out her speech on

the budget by saying that her riding of Kootenay had been neglected. I

want to tell you that if that riding has been neglected it hasn't

always been that way and it won't always be that way in the future.

That riding was represented very well from 1976 to 1986, and I expect

that some day soon that representation will change again, and we will

not be concerned about neglect in the Kootenay riding.

However, I am not so sure that the riding has been neglected,

because many good things have happened there. I think it may be that we

have been looking for bad news for so long that we forget to see the

good news. Just yesterday a $4 million expansion was announced for the

East Kootenay College in Cranbrook, an expansion that will serve

students from both the Kootenay and Columbia River constituencies and

perhaps Nelson-Creston as well. There's good in that riding — we just

have to look for it.

There was also an access centre built in the Kootenay riding in the

last couple of years. It is accessible and is serving the people in

that riding well.

The admission that it has been neglected though, I guess, has some

bearing when some of the residents in that constituency are talking

about secession. I want to say here that the citizens in the Columbia

River constituency are not talking about secession. There is no concern

there that we should become part of Alberta or Idaho or make those

jurisdictions part of British Columbia. I think we need to be aware of

the good news.

Mr. Speaker, in relation to the comments made by the previous speaker from

the opposition side of the House, I am reminded of some of the thoughts that

I had when I spoke for the first time in this House on March 24, 1987. These

thoughts are highlighted on page 233 of Hansard . I thought of those also when

the second member for Boundary-Similkameen said that an astute government would

have been ready. In 1987 I mentioned that I didn't know what was really

going to happen when the budget was brought down that year. I didn't know

how the opposition would react, and I was concerned that they may not present

a shadow budget but may instead just criticize. Well, not only was that true

for 1987, it was also true for 1988, 1989 and 1990, and now I see it's true

again for 1991. I think it would have given the opposition much to shout about

had they presented shadow budgets in each of those years and been able to go

back now and tell us how things would have been different in this province had

their budgets been in place. But they didn't choose that route. They have

instead chosen to criticize small issues through those years, and now we have

some of their ridings talking about seceding from the province.

I believe that this budget, like the four previous ones that this

government has introduced, is a responsible one. I feel that it's so

responsible that we should perhaps even call an election on it. Now the

opposition will chirp up and say: "Yes, let's call an election." But

it's interesting that the reason is different. Since the first four

budgets were introduced by this government we have had a government of

their political stripe elected in Ontario, and the opposition here

would be very anxious to see an election called now before any more

problems are created in Ontario.

This is a responsible budget, because the priorities are straight.

When this country was new and our pioneers were developing British

Columbia and the other provinces of western Canada, they asked for some

very simple services from government. They asked for things like

schools and roads. They didn't have a long list like we do today. It's

interesting that our priorities are health, number one, and education,

number two. Just as our pioneers asked for and received the small

country schools, so today this government is recognizing the priority

of education. Our priorities are straight: health, number one;

education, number two; and services for those less fortunate, number

three — for the handicapped, for those who need some income assistance,

across the entire spectrum of citizenry in this province.

Our priorities are not only straight for the highly populated parts

of our province, they're also straight for the remote areas — the

corners of the province that the previous speaker talked about as being

neglected. These priorities are straight for those parts of the

province. I know that the constituency of Columbia River, which I

represent, has been well served by this government over the past four

and a half years in health, education and social services. I'll talk

about those in a bit more detail in a minute.

The important thing is that we are elected to serve the people of

this province, and we have put the people programs at the top of our

priority list. It's not important to be in power; it's important that

when you are in power you serve the people of the province well. We

have done that by putting the people programs high on our priority list.

I am also pleased to see in this budget that even though we have had

to introduce a deficit budget, the deficit is small. I am also pleased

to see that over the

[ Page

12185 ]

next five years we have a plan to balance the budget — over the

five-year business cycle. That's a sign that this government recognizes

the necessity of good planning and the importance of balanced budgets.

One of the worst forms of political immorality is over the long term

to have deficits that our children, like these here today from the

great constituency of Skeena.... These young people will have to pay

our bills. Deficit financing is to be avoided at all costs, and in this

year of business downturn it is important that our deficit be as small

as possible.

This budget represents a very small deficit compared to the budget

that was brought down in the province of Ontario, a province the two

members from the opposition benches who are here at the present moment

should be crowing about from the street corners of our province. But

instead they are distancing themselves at every opportunity from the

government of Ontario, just as they now bury their faces in their

desks, just as they tend to their work and do not talk about Ontario

with its huge, huge deficit budget.

I am pleased that this government and the future Social Credit

government in this province, the day after the next election, will work

towards balancing our budget over the next five years.

The previous speaker talked about neglect in the southeast corner of

British Columbia. I'm proud to stand here today and tell you that the

southeast corner of British Columbia has not been neglected. In

Kimberley, in the southern part of my constituency, we have seen roads

constructed. We have seen roads constructed that were talked about

prior to the 1972-75 government that was administered by the

opposition. The road from Kimberley to Kootenay Lake has been

constructed. It provided jobs for the contractors in southeastern

British Columbia. We see a new 18-hole golf course under construction

in the city of Kimberley. We have seen many improvements to the ski

hill in Kimberley.

We have seen significant expenditures made to reduce the conflicts

between agriculture and wildlife in southeastern British Columbia, a

conflict that has existed for over a dozen years, including the period

of time when the opposition was in power. That agriculture-wildlife

conflict will be reduced, and both of those industries will be able to

move forward with less conflict than we've had in the past.

[4:30]

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

In the southern part of my constituency we've also reactivated the

secondary school at Canal Flats so that students there can go to school

in their hometown without being bused a long distance. Also, while the

previous speaker from the Kootenay constituency talks about neglect in

the southeast, we have built a new $6.2 million high school in the

community of Invermere to serve the Windermere Valley. We also will

soon build a new high school for $9 million or $10 million to serve the

students of the valley. When the present hospital has been moved to the

new hospital, we will also provide a long-term-care facility for our

citizens there so they too do not have to leave their community.

We've seen road construction there. We've seen restructuring

assistance for the new municipality of Radium Hot Springs, which I

believe is still the newest municipality in the province. We've seen

assistance for the Columbia Valley airport at Fairmont Hot Springs. We

see a new bridge being put across Toby Creek to the Panorama ski hill

at a total expenditure of $1.3 million.

It doesn't sound to me like neglect in southeastern British

Columbia. It sounds to me like significant expenditures being put into

that exciting and interesting part of British Columbia. We also have a

new Hydro office being built to serve the residents of the Windermere

Valley at Invermere. Each of these expenditures have been providing

jobs and services for local people in my constituency.

In the Golden part of the constituency — still a remote community,

still outside the lower mainland, still in southeastern British

Columbia, where the previous opposition speaker spoke of neglect — we

have a new $9 million high school which I expect will be opened in the

early fall by the Minister of Education. A $9 million high school being

opened to serve the students in the community of Golden: that doesn't

sound to me like neglect in southeastern British Columbia.

We also have a new Forest Service building and a new ambulance

station. We will soon build a new courthouse. Golden has been provided

with airport funding. We also have a new $3 million four-lane strip of

the Trans-Canada Highway being started soon in the commercial area

within the town of Golden. That doesn't sound like neglect. As well, a

new Hydro building is being constructed in Golden, so we have two Hydro

buildings being put up in Invermere and Golden.

Interjection.

MR. CRANDALL: The opposition bleats a little bit about the

former mayor of Golden, and let them. I want you to know that the

upcoming election will be an interesting one, because it will be a

contest between the former mayor of Golden and the former regional

district chairman and MLA, who will be pleased to debate the issues and

who will be pleased to take the record of this four and a half years of

provincial government service into the community of Golden. I would be

very happy if the Premier would call the election today so we could

start on that debate right now.

I want to tell you that in that part of southeastern British

Columbia where the previous speaker, the representative, the MLA for

Kootenay, complained about neglect.... I've left the last item, the

best item, for last. We've had some difficulty because of slow housing

starts in the American market. We've had some difficulty in the forest

industry, and because of that difficulty and because of the steepness

of terrain in the Golden area, we've had some difficulty in the forest

industry there. But let me ask you: was the forest industry in Golden

neglected by this government? The NDP MLA for Kootenay just talked

about the neglected part of southeastern British Columbia. I want you to

[ Page 12186 ]

know that this government has been responsive in dealing with the

difficulties we've had in the forest industry in the Columbia River

constituency.

In the Golden area, 800 people are employed in the forest industry.

That industry and those 700 to 800 employees, including the

woodspeople, with their livelihood at stake.... That issue was brought

to the MLA. The MLA took that issue to cabinet and to the Premier of

the day — today the first member for Richmond — and in that corner of

southeastern British Columbia this government provided some necessary

and important assistance for the forest industry. We now have buildings

going up in the community of Donald in Golden which will house

equipment that will be used to provide products at a more efficient

cost. That will guarantee the long-term viability of the forest

industry in that community.

The forest industry has not been neglected in southeastern British

Columbia. Health has not been neglected in southeastern British

Columbia. Education has not been neglected in southeastern British

Columbia. I would suggest that if the member for Kootenay would not

strive and look with microscopes to find the trouble spots in her

constituency, there would perhaps be more things done there and there

would be no citizens in Kootenay wanting to secede from there to the

province of Alberta.

Mr. Speaker, not only have we made significant expenditures in

Columbia River but we will continue to make significant expenditures.

I'm concerned — and I tell my constituents that we need to be concerned

— about the provincial taxpayers' ability to pay. We need to have funds

here in Victoria, because when there are funds here in Victoria, the

MLA for Columbia River can come here and get funds to build the

necessary infrastructure that we need in Columbia River. We are

continuing that process today, and along with the new high schools and

hospitals being built, we will continue to build the infrastructure in

Columbia River.

The history in British Columbia has not all been written yet. We've

got new roads to build and new facilities to put in. One of the most

important facilities that needs to be built in Columbia River over the

next few years is one that's already on the drawing board: rebuilding

the highway through the dangerous Kicking Horse canyon. This government

has already started public meetings and the engineering process to

build a new highway through the Kicking Horse canyon. That highway,

many members will recall, brought some significant vehicle accidents

last year. We responded as quickly as possible and will continue to.

The result will be a brand-new four-lane highway through the very

difficult Kicking Horse canyon. The canyon contains the ten most

difficult miles to build a highway in on the Trans-Canada Highway —

from coast to coast. It will take $300 million or $400 million. Those

expenditures will be committed by the next Social Credit government to

build that highway.

The previous speaker, the MLA for Kootenay, came here today and talked about

neglect of southeastern British Columbia. I do not see neglect in southeastern

British Columbia. I see positive building — building and writing the history

pages that need to be written, that have been written over the last four and

a half years and will continue to be written over the next four years.

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to see that those of us in the rural parts

of British Columbia have been remembered on the property tax side in

the budget. I'm glad to see that my rural taxpayers will not pay

increased taxes to any great extent this year. Action has been taken by

this budget to protect those taxpayers. I'm also pleased to see that

the supplemental homeowner's grant has been increased.

While we might talk about the toll-free telephone line for waste

being an insignificant facility, I'm pleased to see an attitude put in

place by this government where we will work to reduce waste as it

exists out there today and as it may creep in in the future. It's

important that not only taxpayers and citizens of this province

recognize and work to assist in identifying possible waste, but also

all of those who work for government and who may well be in the best

possible positions to identify waste. I would ask not only our citizens

but especially our civil servants who provide valuable services to

government to assist in that regard as well.

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased that the member for Surrey–White

Rock–Cloverdale talked about some of the initiatives that have been

taken over the past few years. That great initiative, Expo '86, was in