[ Page 193 ]

CONTENTS

Motions on Notice

Motion 10 (Man in Motion world tour) –– 193

Mr. Vant

Mr. Rose

Motion 42 (Man in Motion world tour) –– 194

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy

Mr. Barnes

Routine Proceedings

Budget debate

Mr. Stupich –– 196

Ministerial Statement

Compensation advisory committee for provincial court judges. Hon. B. R. Smith –– 202

Mr. Sihota

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I'm really pleased today to be able to introduce two good friends from the great constituency of Kamloops: Mr. John Moser, director of planning for the city of Kamloops, and his son Jonathan. I would ask the House to welcome them.

MR. LOVICK: I have a list before me that almost approximates the length of the member for Cowichan-Malahat's (Mr. Bruce) list, but I'll hold back. I certainly won't name them all.

First I'd like to welcome a special group from the Chemainus Native Education Centre, sitting directly above and behind me. Please join me in welcoming them if you will.

I would also like this House to join me in welcoming a group of individuals from the city of Nanaimo who are here to listen to my colleague's response to the budget speech: Ms. Betty Marlow, Ms. Betty Kennedy, Ms. Dee Kennedy, Mr. and Mrs. Dick Forester and Ms. Marjorie Stupich.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure to welcome two couples from your constituency of West Vancouver-Howe Sound, Dr. Charles Mielke and Mrs. Mielke and Mr. and Mrs. Eric Cant. Would the House please join me in welcoming them.

Further, Mr. Speaker, on this first day of spring it is my very great pleasure to ask you to join in welcoming to this House our daughter and son-in-law, Mary and Barry Parsons, and especially their three little children, my grandchildren, Christopher, Matthew and Shannon.

MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to introduce to this House some very good friends and neighbours who reside in Aldergrove: Ralph Snell and his wife Merle, and their two daughters Deanne and Julie Ann. I might add that Ralph Snell is a member of our constituency executive, and the whole family are very solid supporters of this government.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Will all hon. members join me in sending out happy returns to senator Austin, our Deputy Speaker, whose birthday was yesterday.

MR. BUD SMITH: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today is a friend of mine and a friend of the Minister of Social Services and Housing (Hon. Mr. Richmond) from the place of his birth, Blue River, in the northernmost area of our constituency: Steve Quinn.

Orders of the Day

Motions on Notice

HON. MR. STRACHAN: This is a momentous day in British Columbia as we welcome some time this afternoon Rick Hansen, our British Columbia hero. With that said, I call by agreement resolution No. 10, which will be introduced by the second member for Cariboo. Later on the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) will be speaking to resolution No. 42.

On Motion 10.

MR. VANT: Today is a very important day in the life of our entire province. Right now a young man is approaching the eastern border of our great province. Indeed, our Premier and the second member for Vancouver-Little Mountain (Mr. Mowat) and several members of this House are there to welcome this young man back home after a two-year journey. I'm referring to Rick Hansen, who is a Cariboo boy who attended Columneetza Senior Secondary School in Williams Lake. As a 15-year-old teenager he suffered a broken back on his way home from a fishing trip. Naturally Rick initially thought that his life was over. Since then, instead of staying in the poor-me club, Rick Hansen has excelled in wheelchair sports.

He started his supermarathon two years ago, to wheelchair through 34 countries and to travel over 25,000 miles around the world. Today, when he enters British Columbia, he will have 1,761 miles to go. Rick Hansen has chosen to go an extra 498 miles in British Columbia to go through as many of our communities as he can — no less than 84 of them. Also, Rick will go the extra miles to make sure he has gone around the world.

It has been challenging for Rick and his crew. He has had to put new tires on his wheelchair every three days. He has had to get new, heavy-duty leather gloves every week. The cold, windy prairie; the special clothes with the necessary high-technology temperature sensors.... And he has gone through hot, dry deserts. Rick Hansen has put in long 12-hour days. We know that today Rick Hansen will get a terrific welcome to British Columbia, and in the weeks to come all British Columbians will join in.

As he completes the very successful Man in Motion world tour, I therefore, in accordance with my notice of Motion 10, now move: be it resolved that this Legislative Assembly recognize the great contributions made by Rick Hansen who, having begun his successful Man in Motion world tour to raise funds for spinal cord injury research and rehabilitation, has created a worldwide awareness of the potential of disabled people, the value of research, rehabilitation and sport, and the positive changes that can be made for all disabled people.

MR. ROSE: On behalf of the New Democratic Party I take pleasure in seconding the motion. I think all of us are extremely proud and pleased that the long and very arduous journey of Rick Hansen is about to reach its culmination. I know that he has been a tremendous inspiration to all of us and all Canadians, but he's reached beyond Canada, far beyond Canada, to the outreaches of the world, I guess. And I think he has demonstrated to everyone that you can be disabled but not handicapped. I think he's been a tremendous inspiration to those people who have had to be confined for various reasons and to use wheels instead of their limbs.

His inspiration, he says, came from one of my ex-constituents, Terry Fox, and he has always, I think, been very generous about the fact that if it hadn't been for Terry Fox and his epic Marathon of Hope, Rick might not have even had the idea. Then, of course, we've had Steve Fonyo also triumph because of an idea that happened to Terry Fox. In my community of Port Coquitlam we have named a library and a high school after our local hero, Terry Fox.

[10:15]

[ Page 194 ]

1 think that we should all recognize, though, that what we have learned about these marathons is far more than merely raising money for cancer research. We've learned a great deal about the limits — and we thought they were much smaller — of human endurance. Already, aside from the spinal cord research, as my hon. friend pointed out, we've learned things about circulation and clothing. But beyond that we've learned a great deal about human endurance. Already teams are studying Rick and how putting his body under great stress...how you respond to work and then rest, and then resilience, and how you bounce back.

Mr. Speaker, while Terry Fox's Marathon of Hope ended in tremendous drama and pathos.... It might be said he gave his life for his run. He really didn't, in one sense, because his name is going to live forever as a leader in this kind of activity on behalf of those people who suffer either disabilities or disease. Rick's, on the other hand, we hope — and we know — is going to end in a tremendous triumph; not drama and pathos but in the marriage to his beautiful physiotherapist, Amanda Reid. We wish them well. We'll welcome them here, and we congratulate them wholeheartedly.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion moved by the second member for Cariboo (Mr. Vant) and seconded by the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose) is: Be it resolved that this Legislative Assembly recognize the great contribution made by Rick Hansen, who, having begun his successful Man in Motion world tour to raise funds for spinal cord injury research and rehabilitation, has created a worldwide awareness of the potential of disabled people, the value of research, rehabilitation and sport, and the positive changes that can be made for all disabled people.

Motion 10 approved.

HON. MR. ROGERS: I call resolution 42.

On Motion 42.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: It is my great honour today to speak to the motion on the order paper, motion 42, which was placed there by my colleague the second member for Little Mountain (Mr. Mowat), who is with the Premier and the Provincial Secretary today en route to meeting Rick Hansen as he enters and crosses the border of British Columbia. I'm speaking to an event that all British Columbians will remember for a very long time to come. This day, our Man in Motion will cross the British Columbia border from Alberta to a hero's welcome.

Along with a multitude of well-wishers, our Premier, our Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Veitch) and the second member for Vancouver-Little Mountain (Mr. Mowat) will be at the Yellowhead Pass to provide a homecoming worthy of the magnificent effort this young and determined athlete has made in the cause of the disabled. I am sure members on both sides of our House will wish me to record their warm admiration and, indeed, a certain awe for Rick's accomplishments.

Two years ago this young man set out from Vancouver with his small entourage headed for the United States border at Blaine, and early next May he will arrive back in Vancouver from his epic journey — a journey that has covered 23, 612 miles. By the time it is all over he will have wheeled 40,073 kilometres or 24,901 miles — the actual circumference of the globe and the distance he set his sights on at the start. It's a staggering accomplishment, one worthy of the record books. This great journey around the world has covered 33 countries, nine provinces so far, 38 states of our good neighbours to the south and hundreds of our Canadian communities from the big cities to the tiny hamlets.

His courage and his enthusiasm have become legendary. They have inspired people from North America to Europe and from the Middle East to the Orient. He has upheld the cause of the disabled in many comers of the world and received in return the warm admiration of millions. His journey has given the disabled new hope, and from a most practical point of view, so far he has raised more than $7.5 million for spinal cord and rehabilitative research, wheelchair sport and for a greater public awareness of the disabled. Rick has left funds in many of the countries he has wheeled through — many countries that have not recognized the disabled to the point that our country has done for these many years.

In China he raised $1 million, which he left to the aid of the disabled. Rick is a fighter — a fighter who has never been down for the count. First he trained himself to be a world-class wheelchair athlete. Then he achieved international recognition in basketball and wheelchair marathons. On this journey he has met a multitude of physical challenges — from temperatures that range from a high of 45 degrees Celsius to a bone-chilling low of minus 30 degrees. Over all types of terrain he has propelled his wheelchair for an average of 12 hours a day.

Today, Mr. Speaker, Rick will be less than 1,800 miles from his arrival and a hero's welcome in Vancouver in May. What a great day that will be for all of us. He will pass through more than 80 communities in British Columbia and stopover points on his way home. There is an air of expectation and excitement. It is already building up throughout our province in anticipation of his arrival.

My colleague the second member for Vancouver-Little Mountain ( (Mr. Mowat), who himself has met many challenges.... May I say how proud I am to be his partner in this House, because I believe he is the very first disabled person to be elected to public office in this chamber, and he too lives, as does Rick, in a wheelchair. He has been involved in Rick's dream from the very beginning as chairman of the Rick Hansen Man in Motion tour, and he personally feels a tremendous surge of excitement building up as Rick gets ever closer to that finish line. I know that all of us in this House share that enthusiasm.

Rick's globe-girdling marathon has helped ease the barriers that face the disabled. He has made the world more aware of these hardships that can indeed be overcome. By his own effort and sheer willpower, Rick has shown the true grit that marks a champion. He once remarked: "I know that one day people are going to be able to walk away from an injury like mine, and a wheelchair will be something that you see in a museum."

Mr. Speaker, we are immensely proud of all of those British Columbians who strive each day to overcome physical disabilities. Today, advances in research and rehabilitation have provided new hope for those injured in this manner. Their life expectancy has improved to a point just slightly below the average for the able-bodied.

To heighten public awareness and support for the needs of the disabled, we have in this province led the way in Canada with the most advanced regulations in the country governing building requirements for the disabled. Our own Premier,

[ Page 195 ]

Premier Vander Zalm, in 1979 was instrumental in making these regulations into law. The disabled are now able to negotiate our public buildings and our streets in comfort and safety. When we consider that one in every seven Canadians has a disability associated with aging, or a permanent physical handicap, easing their path through life is a priority for our government and for people on both sides of this House. By paying attention to this priority so that the handicapped are better able to develop their talents, exercise their skills, pursue their dreams and participate fully in our society with a minimum of assistance, we are all committed to that ideal. We want increased job opportunities for the disabled, which will be the aim of a task force which has been named in the Speech from the Throne during this session.

This momentous journey was made so that others who are disabled may find their lives made easier in the future through research. In his travels, Rick Hansen has become one of the most effective ambassadors of good will British Columbia has ever seen. We salute him and all of those who daily face and surmount their disabilities with fortitude and determination. I now move the motion.

MR. BARNES: I'd like to second the motion moved on behalf of the second member for Little Mountain (Mr. Mowat). You know, I don't feel really adequate to comment on the magnitude of what is happening in the life of this individual, Rick Hansen, but that isn't to say that he hasn't connected with me and people all over the world in a way that only the individual can explain. I think that's probably the thing about Rick Hansen, far more than the $7.5 million or maybe more that he will be raising before he has finished his journey, and even more so than the concern for research and for rehabilitation of those patients who have suffered injuries to their spines. Be it, though, that these things are vitally important, we must always try to use technology, to use our scientific ability to try to improve humankind. But there is something, you know, that Rick Hansen is doing that sticks in my mind. He found something in himself when he had his automobile accident. He rolled over and found himself unable to move, totally paralyzed. What went through his mind is what we want to understand, because what he is saying is that there is no such thing as no can do. There is no such thing as can't. He has begun a movement, I feel, that is going to revolutionize our understanding of the so-called disabled person.

I believe that his message comes from within; it's not a without situation. He's telling everybody, every so-called disabled person — and I say so-called because I'm mindful of the words of Terry Fox, some seven years ago when he started out on his journey across this country to run some 8,000 kilometres, that he was not a person who was disabled, but a person who happened to have only one leg. I think that's really what Rick Hansen is telling us. This is what he is telling people who are functionally unable to look after themselves, people who can barely move limbs or who have the inability to speak for themselves. He is saying that where there is a will there is a way. He is beginning to put life into things like courage and into concepts like hope, faith, determination, willpower, concentration. In fact, you will recall just a few weeks ago when he was coming across the province of Alberta that he was criticized because he wasn't available to speak to the media. He was conserving his energy. He said that the problem with this challenge is that many people don't understand what kind of determination and concentration it takes to fulfil a dream such as this. This is the thing; it is not a show. We are watching a person who is inspired by forces that we should come to understand much better than we do. It is not just physical; there is a spiritual thing about Rick Hansen; there was a spiritual thing about Terry Fox, Steve Fonyo and even Al Howie, who didn't get as much publicity as these other people.

This is the thing, I think, that he is saying and that he has said around the world. When you look at those young children reaching out, holding his hand, and him in his wheelchair, and him having the patience and the time to touch them and to let them express themselves — that's what important. That's what they're going to remember. They aren't going to remember very much else, but they're going to remember this man in the wheelchair, whirling himself around the world, 24,000-plus miles in a wheelchair. We talk about challenges; this is unbelievable.

[10:30]

I've been up against a lot of challenges in my life, but I do not believe that this is the act of a so-called normal or average person. This man has connected to something that I think Terry Fox was trying to tell us, and all the other people in the world... You can go to Mahatma Gandhi or even Martin Luther King. I know that we all have our religious beliefs, but whatever your religion, think about inspiration, determination, willpower, desire, conviction and dedication. These are the things that Rick Hansen is talking about, and no amount of money will substitute for that. I think that is what we should remember.

Cooperation. Rick Hansen, though he is an individual with all these powers and determination, is not alone. He has a team of people with him — a team of dedicated, committed people who themselves are inspired, and that's what it's about. I think that's what it's going to be about for us in this House; that's what it's about for us in this province; that's what it's about for us in this country; and that's what it's about in this world — that we are not alone. No matter how much individual power we may have, we have to reach out and get some help. Rick Hansen is getting that help. We recognize it. We appreciate it, but I think it would be unfair to attempt to explain what is really happening with Rick Hansen. He will tell his own story, but I'm pleased to have had an opportunity to speak on behalf of the opposition, on behalf of the New Democratic Party, and I commend the movers of those two motions, and the government, for bringing this matter before the House so that we could speak in a non-partisan way about this very great and important individual and this great moment in history in this province.

On a final note, let me say that all three of those people, curiously enough, are from the province of British Columbia: Fox, Fonyo, Hansen. Isn't that interesting?

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is moved by the first member for Vancouver-Little Mountain (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) and seconded by the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes): Be it resolved that this House congratulate Rick Hansen, resident of Vancouver-Little Mountain, who is nearing the completion of his truly heroic journey around the world for the cause of spinal cord research, and that we extend to British Columbia's own Man in Motion our most sincere appreciation for his inspiration to all British Columbians and to all citizens of the world.

Motion approved.

[ Page 196 ]

ON THE BUDGET
(continued debate)

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. STUPICH: Including the list offered by my colleague for Nanaimo, there is another family in the gallery this morning. I'd like the House to welcome Kevin and Maria Roberts and their two boys Anthony and Jonathan.

Mr. Speaker, before I get into the body of my remarks about the budget, I'd like to say something personal. I've always had a very good relationship with the Minister of Finance over the 11 years, I guess it is, that I've been debate leader in Finance, in particular with the predecessor who came from the same constituency. It's a relationship that I valued and which I felt was good for all of us. Never, though, have I had the confidence and courtesy expressed that I did yesterday when the Minister of Finance made a copy of his speech available to me at 9:30 in the morning. We normally get it one hour before. I want to say that I appreciate the confidence, and I appreciate the trust that he placed and the courtesy that was shown to the opposition by doing that.

I think it's a reflection of the new spirit there is in the House, and I believe we all welcome that — particularly those of us who have been here before and know what it was like before. We do appreciate the way the atmosphere in the House has changed and hope that it lasts.

Mr. Speaker, it may sound like I'm going to be critical as I go on with my speech. None of it is personal; it's strictly dealing with what the minister had to say, rather than with the person who said it.

I first want to start with a quotation. "Job creation is the top priority for my government, and I intend to devote a great deal of my time to directing the use of our financial resources to that end." That was from the Premier, as quoted in the Globe and Mail, August 15, 1986. "We do not anticipate income tax increases." That's a quotation from the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier), as reported in the Vancouver Sun, January 17, 1987.

There have been eight months of anticipation, and now the denouement. This assembly is debating a budget which contains 29 pages of bad news for the average British Columbian — a budget which totally fails to make jobs a priority, fails to offer hope to young people, fails to outline in an open and upfront way the real fiscal situation facing British Columbians. We are debating a budget which proposes to pick the pockets of the average person in the province of British Columbia while further aggravating the unfairness of our taxation system. It is a major disappointment. It is not a budget which ordinary British Columbians will soon forget.

In reviewing this budget, it is important that we think back for a moment to last fall's election campaign and the mandate of this government. British Columbians were promised a fresh start last October. They were promised jobs; they were promised opportunities. They were not promised that taxes would rise; they were not promised that senior citizens would be asked to pay more user charges or more property taxes. The party opposite did not commit itself to exacerbate the intolerable inequality for women, to reduce support for farmers or to cut economic development programs. When I think back to the last election, I do not recall the hon. Premier travelling from one end of this province to the other telling British Columbians: "Elect us, and we will raise the provincial income tax rate. Elect us, and the tax rate for small business will increase. Elect us, and property taxes will go up. Elect us, and our senior citizens will pay and pay and pay again and again." No, the Premier and his party did not campaign in that way, because they did not have the courage to do so. They did not have the courage to reveal their true agenda. They have no mandate to present a budget of this sort.

This budget continues the Social Credit tradition of saying one thing before an election and doing quite the opposite afterwards. This is in no way a fresh start. This approach is reminiscent of the 1983 campaign and the terrible budget in July of that year. This budget is fundamentally unfair to the average person in British Columbia.

With respect to jobs.... Before looking at the budget in detail, I must review briefly the record of Social Credit governments over the past six years, paying particular attention to the events of the past eight months and the record of this new government with regard to the most serious problem in our society, unemployment. In 1975 employment in British Columbia was just under 1,000,000 –– 995,000; unemployed –– 92,000. In 1981, six years later, employment had increased to 1, 270,000 — that's an increase of 4 percent per year; unemployment stood at 91,000 — actually a decrease of 0.18 percent per year. In 1987 employment stands at exactly the same figure as it did in 1981 –– 1, 270,000; unemployment is up to 197,500 from 91,000 — the average annual rate of increase in unemployment is 13.79 percent. These figures are based on seasonally adjusted data made available from Statistics Canada. These figures overstate employment growth because they do not show the number of British Columbians involuntarily working part-time in our economy. In 1975 there were 17,000 of these; in 1981, 30,000; in 1985, 83,000; and in 1986, 79,000.

The year 1981 — the year before the longest depression since the Second World War — was our best year. That year 1.27 million people were working in British Columbia. In the first two months of 1987 there were still only 1.27 million people working in B.C., and we were still stuck in the mire of depression.

Last August the Social Credit Party selected a new leader, the hon. Premier. He said he was concerned about unemployment. He said four times during a 10-day period in August that he was pursuing specific ideas on job creation and that he wanted to create jobs immediately. Stimulus to the private sector was mentioned; public works were mentioned. The operations of the Finance ministry were so closely linked to those operations, he said, that he had to be Minister of Finance as well as Premier in order to achieve what he wanted to achieve. British Columbians took him at his word and returned his government in the subsequent election.

So what has been the result of the so-called fresh start on jobs? Even given seasonal factors, 16,000 more British Columbians were unemployed at the end of February than when the Premier promised quick action. Since those promises were made in August, each and every day additional British Columbians at the rate of 71 a day have joined the unemployment line.

Now, in spite of that fact, the Minister of Finance has the audacity to bring forward a budget which is completely silent on solutions to the unemployment crisis. In fact, the minister's own forecast — and I refer to the budget speech, page

[ Page 197 ]

57 — indicates that the average unemployment rate will rise by 0.5 percent to 13.1 percent in 1987, that employment will grow by only 0.5 percent, and that our rate of real economic growth will increase by a mere 1.5 percent this year. Some performance, Mr. Speaker. Some fresh start.

As a former Minister of Finance, Mr. Curtis, said during his first budget speech in 1980: "Opportunities can be realized, but only if challenges are met through good planning and hard work." The number one challenge of our time has to be job creation. This government is not only failing to meet that challenge, but failing even to address it. This budget contains no short-term plan and certainly no practical long-term strategy for dealing with the job crisis. In fact, the proposals in the budget will likely make the problem worse, picking the pockets of low- and middle-income earners. Here I am indebted to my hon. colleague the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Miller), who says that it will take out of the pockets of each wage-earner in the province one week's pay every year. Picking their pockets, siphoning off forest export tax funds which are badly needed for employment through silvicultural projects, restraining housing starts through a new tax on property transfers — all measures which will dampen growth and reduce job creation.

While it is true that we are employing as many people as we did in 1981, six years ago, it is also true that there are 106,500 more unemployed than in 1981, and of those working, 49,000 more than in '81 are working part-time because they can't find full-time work. While it is true that the number of jobs in B.C. has increased by 6,000 since the end of 1986, the number of job-seekers has increased by 16,000, a very bad omen for the unemployed of British Columbia — the unemployed youth, a generation that is being ignored by a government which doesn't seem to care.

[10:45]

What hope is there in the budget for the unemployed? More money for job training, a token acknowledgement. But even that is for jobs that don't exist in the province of British Columbia. We will continue to train teachers who will find jobs in California. We will continue to train carpenters who will find jobs in Manitoba. According to the Globe and Mail, Manitoba will lead all provinces in economic growth through 1995, eight years into the future, with an average annual rate of 3.3 percent in growth. We will continue to train workers to go and work in Manitoba. We will continue to educate nurses who will find jobs in Ontario — job training for jobs for which they will have to go to other jurisdictions.

Strategy — talked about, but what strategy? We agree with the minister when he says that if British Columbia is to achieve its full potential we cannot rely on past solutions to tide us over until normal times return. However, the minister invites comparison with earlier governments when he makes such a statement. The government claims to be making a new start, but the economic philosophy appears to be: let the chips — and the trees — fall where they may. Somehow that sounds depressingly familiar.

Throughout the late 1970s British Columbia Finance ministers were telling us: "The real stimulus must come from the private sector." That was in the 1977 budget speech. In 1978: "The private sector provides the key to long-term growth and job creation." In 1979: "The private sector is the key to future economic growth and prosperity." They were easy statements to make for Finance ministers to fall back on in the context of a resources-driven boom.

By 1983 the buzzword was "restraint," and vicious cuts in people programs were the order of the day. As is now commonly understood, that process severely restricted growth. But even this knowledge was not sufficient to prompt development of a comprehensive plan; they did nothing, nothing positive. By 1986 the rhetoric had changed and the government was arguing that the only permanent way to increase employment was through investment — investment in people. But then, as now, no clear strategy, no vision and no consensus were provided about where we were going or how we should get there.

This quick review of the last 11 budgets makes at least three things clear: in good times the private sector does well so the Social Credit government sees no need to plan; when times get tough, people services must be cut because Social Credit has no other solution; when times stay tough, as they are now, Social Credit has no plan other than to make a major tax grab while leaving it to the private sector, the federal government, the Americans, anyone else other than themselves to solve our problems for us.

A policy of muddling through has never been good enough; it's a scandalous policy today. British Columbians expect a good deal more from their government than the drift and confusion we heard yesterday. Promises, promises. When the Premier originally took on the Finance portfolio, he said he was doing it in order to "bring back an economic strategy, " and that "it will require a hands-on involvement" — as quoted in the Province, August 15, 1986.

It is not clear what happened to that strategy. Perhaps it was revealed through the "New Economy" paper — also known as the "Love Boat" strategy, which promised a coordinated team effort, a federal-provincial agreement, participation of the best minds in the community, and a new B.C. airport authority. Clearly that was not a strategy adequate to the needs of the new economy facing British Columbians. The throne speech claimed that job one is to get the government off the back and out of the way of the private sector. Apparently that is the new, fresh strategy.

The budget says industrial diversification cannot be accomplished by government fiat or subverting market forces. But the Premier's record of announcing strange projects before they have been properly evaluated or discussed with industry planners belies that. Examples include a meat-packing plant which has no source of supply and no conceivable market, and privatization of Crown corporations — "Let's sell off the Crown corporations; they're losing money" — if we can find anybody that will buy them, and an international banking centre which is predicted to provide jobs for some two to three people.

To add insult to injury, yesterday's budget actually cut economic development programs. The special investment interest subsidy program has been reduced. The grant portion of the venture capital corporation program has been eliminated. Low-interest loan assistance has been reduced.

In the economic development area, I would like to address two particular sectors; first is management of reforestation and silviculture, which is a particularly glaring example of the haphazard and totally irresponsible approach of this government. Our natural resources continue to be the lifeblood of our economy. The forest industry in particular remains firmly entrenched as the primary capital generator in the province. We owe it to ourselves, and more importantly to our children, to ensure that our forests remain capable of supplying capital materials and jobs far into the future. The

[ Page 198 ]

most important single undertaking the present government can make to ensure the continued viability of the forest industry is to introduce a permanent and wide-ranging program of silviculture. Unfortunately this government, like previous Social Credit administrations, is following a now too familiar pattern of announcing programs and then following those announcements up with announcements of their cancellation.

For example, the Premier announced on September 9 last year that one of the priorities of his government would be to undertake an intensified program of reforestation and silviculture. Just two weeks later, on September 24, the former Minister of Forests announced in Duncan that $30.6 million would be spent in 1987-88 on additional reforestation. This announcement was greeted with great enthusiasm by everyone. Particularly pleased was the present member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mr. Bruce), then the mayor of North Cowichan, who, along with several other mayors on the Island, proposed silviculture as a strategy for survival. In fact $8.3 million of the additional $30.6 million was to go to the Vancouver Island mayors' proposal. Much of the strategy used by the government in its election campaign on the Island revolved around the establishment of this fund. The former Minister of Forests' unfortunate cancellation of this program in early February was an affront not just to rational and thoughtful government but to the voters who really believed in the integrity of the former minister and of the government.

The budget yesterday claims the government will increase expenditures on silviculture by $54 million. Let's examine this claim. Of the $54 million, $36 was required under the terms of the British Columbia-Canada forest resource development agreement; $18 million of this $36 million is contributed by the federal government, and we either spend in that program or we lose the federal participation. It's an agreement. The provincial expenditure has increased by only $36 million. Two hundred million seedlings will be planted in 1987-88 — that's the goal. That number still does not replant the trees harvested in the previous year. We're not keeping up to what we're currently cutting, let alone keeping up to what we lose through fire, what we lose through insect damage, or trying to catch up on any backlog.

When the 15 percent export tax was announced, the Premier committed his government to increase silviculture and reforestation. He said at the time: "The tax moneys will be used for reforestation, silviculture and other needy programs." This is from the Vancouver Sun, December 31, 1986. Yet this budget almost completely ignores that promise. All we're doing is spending enough additional provincial money to keep up to the additional costs incurred in maintaining the existing programs.

The government's own estimates put the lumber tax windfall to the province at $350 million. Not including increased federal contributions to reforestation, the ministry budget has increased by $52 million. In other words, this government has used only 15 percent of the export tax moneys for reforestation. The government has ignored a perfect opportunity to bring stability and permanence to reforestation.

In order to ensure the continued viability of the forest sector, we must commit to a stable continued program of reforestation. The on again, off again approach of the present and previous governments is totally unacceptable to the people of British Columbia. It's breaking faith with them. It's not fair.

The New Democrats introduced in this House last year, and continued to support, arm's-length measures which would establish a permanent fund to be used for silviculture. This fund would be created in part from the additional revenues gained from the export tax. The design of the fund and allocation of its resources would be controlled by a committee made up of all sectors of the forest industry, including trade union representation, government and environmental interest. Such a fund would ensure the continued health of our forests and, at the same time, create over 15,000 full-time jobs at decent rates of pay. The failure to commit to such a fund in yesterday's budget is a major abdication by the government of its responsibility to today's and to future generations.

One other economic initiative which ought to have been a priority is the Island Highway. Our party has worked for a new inland Island Highway for 12 years. In June 1986 the Association of Vancouver Island Municipalities, the Associated Chambers of Commerce of Vancouver Island and the New Democrats called on the government for the immediate construction of an Island inland route. The highway is not only identified as timely and necessary, but its construction would provide at least 3,100 person-years of work. It would represent an important boost for the economy of the whole of Vancouver Island.

The Social Credit Party picked up on this issue during the election campaign, with their Premier promising $450 million to upgrade Vancouver Island highways, which would include the new inland route. The Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Michael) has been given a June 1987 deadline by the Premier to come up with a plan for a new Island Highway. Public meetings have been held through February and March 1987, with the minister stating that the decision on whether or not to go ahead with the project "is now in the hands of Treasury Board." It would appear from yesterday's budget that Treasury Board said no.

My party and this caucus are concerned with the delay. As the Leader of the Opposition said on one occasion: "The Socreds always borrow our promises before an election campaign, during an election campaign, and then give them back to us when the election is over. They have no further use for them." Yesterday's budget says that savings will be obtained through lower highway capital spending. There's the answer to Vancouver Islanders waiting for a highway: they're going to save money by not building it. There is no mention in it of any Island highway commitment — just another election promise. Vancouver Islanders are waiting for an answer.

I'd like now to move on to some of the major elements of yesterday's speech, among them being of course new taxes, more taxes and higher taxes. That's the theme of this speech. If it needed a title, that would be it: new taxes, more taxes, higher taxes. If the 1983 post-election Social Credit budget is remembered for the devastating restraint program it contained, then the 1987 post-election budget will be remembered for the tax increases it proposes.

Average British Columbians are being asked to pay and pay and pay again. This budget is a tax grab of major proportions. Our conservative estimate is that the various new taxes, fees and user charges in yesterday's budget will remove a net average of some $566 from each British Columbia household. The minister's figures are different, but he's including the reduction in sales tax, half of which will be a saving to business and industry, not to household expenses. Per-household costs of the 1987 budget, from Table H4 on page 100 of

[ Page 199 ]

the budget, taxation revenue less corporation income and corporation capital tax — total taxes paid by the people in 1986-87 are $5,014 million; taxes to be paid by people in 1987-88 are $5,426 million. Calculated on the cost per family, we take the number of families as 727,680, then come up with a figure of $566.

This follows on the massive new personal taxes imposed by the kissing cousins of this provincial government, and the provincial government will share in that — the Mulroney-Wilson Tories. Low- and middle-income earners have already been hit hard by federal tax hikes of one kind or another. They cannot afford the sort of bite they got yesterday. The real question following yesterday's speech is not who will be hurt — everybody will be hurt — but who will be hurt the most. I don't have an answer to that question, but I can assure you that we on this side of the House will fight hard to protect the average person who is hurt by yesterday's budget.

There is an important omission from yesterday's speech which puts the tax hikes for ordinary people in context. On page 26 the minister notes that recent relief measures for business and industry are costing the treasury some $600 million annually — hardly fair given the new taxes and increases in fees impacting on people that were introduced yesterday. That $600 million would do much to obviate the perceived need to raise other taxes. The Finance minister exhibited considerable chutzpah when he was bold enough to state that the measures in the budget will improve fairness in our tax system. In the absence of any overall tax reform to ensure that the wealthy pay their fair share, a 7.3 percent increase in the provincial tax rate, based on an effective current rate of 48 percent, is not fair.

The rise in the tax rate, in combination with the 10 percent surtax on high-income earners, will place a very heavy burden on average taxpayers. Those with a taxable income of $60,000 will see their taxes increased by only 3.4 percent, while those with a taxable income of $20,000 and $10,000 will see theirs increase by 8.4 percent. Indeed, as I pointed out yesterday, the minister boasts in his budget speech that British Columbia will be the second-best province in the whole of Canada for the high-income people to live in if they want to minimize their income tax contribution to the economy — a tax haven for the highest-income earners.

The small business sector will be hoodwinked by a 37.5 percent increase in the rate of tax, and that's not fair either, Mr. Speaker. While it's reasonable enough to protect personal tax avoidance due to incorporation, this measure should not have been implemented either, in the absence of a general tax reform to ensure that the largest corporations pay their fair share. There's no mention of them at all in the budget.

[11:00]

In terms of fairness, the approach of the present government of British Columbia is in sharp contrast to that of the NDP government of Manitoba, which tabled its budget last Monday. Manitoba's truly fair approach, which has been complimented even in the Globe and Mail, involves a 2 percent flat tax on all net income in order that the overly generous grants and exemptions arranged by the federal Tories can at least be partially offset. In addition, the Manitoba treasurer has introduced tax reductions for those in the lowest income brackets. For a family earning $25,000, for example, that tax reduction will total $695. That's being fair. Rather than offering big business no-strings-attached tax reductions, as has been done here, Manitoba has introduced measures which will ensure that businesses continue to pay their fair share. Finally, it is important to note that Manitoba, while doing all of this, has been able to reduce its deficit from $567 million to $415 million. With the kind of growth they're getting as a result of the policies of the government they have there, it's obvious that they can afford to do it. The hon. minister ought to have followed the example set by Manitoba, but he did not. Manitoba was fair to the average person; the British Columbia government chose not to be fair to average people. The list of the unfair initiatives is lengthy.

A new property transfer tax of 1 percent up to a value of $200,000 and 2 percent thereafter is one such proposal. Some $140 million in new revenue will be garnered by a "sales tax" which will likely threaten the fragile recovery of the housing market owing to recent lower interest rates. Housing starts had previously been projected to decline 3.3 percent in '87. Mr. Speaker, what is that going to do to a young couple starting out? Their first home: they've arranged for a first mortgage, they've arranged for a second mortgage, and they have to come up with the down payment. It's not 1 percent additional to the down payment; they'll have to come up with an additional 1 percent of the total price of the property, and they'll have to come up with it in cash, because that money has to be turned over to the Minister of Finance promptly. Perhaps the minister has heard from some of those people already; I have. In addition, as a straight-across percentage of the value of the property, the new tax will hit hardest those whose property is of least value and who likely have the least income.

Health care premiums: another regressive tax which will increase 10 percent.

The property tax rate on recreational residential property in rural areas will rise by 121 percent from 1.4 percent up to 3.1 percent. The minimum property tax before the homeowner grant will rise 75 percent to $350, and senior citizens, of all people, have been singled out to pay a minimum property tax of $100 as opposed to the $l they previously had to pay. To many of us an increase of $99 in the course of a year would not be noticed, but I have a letter on my desk that I haven't been able to deal with yet, from an elderly couple in Nanaimo, both of them getting a lot of medication, both of them using the services not of someone being paid for out of the health plan but of an acupuncturist, and one of them in particular gets tremendous relief — whether it's mental or physical or psychosomatic, it's important that he gets that relief. They have to limit the number of visits to the acupuncturist, because they haven't been able to afford it. Mr. Speaker, we calculate that the various increases levied on that family — even taking into account the increase in GAIN that they're going to get, or the increase to meet the dispensing fee increase — are going to cost that family an additional $25 per month as a result of this budget. Mr. Speaker, they don't have 25 cents a month to spare right now. I expect the minister will be hearing from some such people as well.

ICBC car insurance premiums will rise as the corporation is assessed in insurance premiums. There's got to be an increase in the premiums. You might just as well have made an increase in the premiums. The effect will be the same, except that the money will be coming to the Minister of Finance rather than being kept by ICBC.

New fuel taxes, new user charges for Pharmacare for seniors as well as new user fees for services such as physiotherapy and chiropractic services — the list goes on and on.

[ Page 200 ]

The Minister of Finance justified all of this because of a reduction of one point in the social service tax and the elimination of the tax on restaurant meals imposed in 1983. I suspect that this latter move in particular will be welcome. I think everyone will welcome that. It's been difficult to administer, and it hasn't been bringing in that much money. Certainly we'll welcome it. Perhaps the thousands of people lining up at food banks this morning will not fully appreciate what we're doing for them, but the rest of us will welcome it.

As I pointed out, Mr. Speaker, just over 50 percent on the basis of previous figures is the saving for business and industry, and that will not be passed on by lower prices. That will just be additional profits for business and industry.

There's another funny feature. I must comment on this, Mr. Speaker. I don't know what the minister was thinking of. If you're going to reduce a sales tax you don't say, "I'm going to reduce it sometime in the future," and then specify the time, because anybody going to buy a big-ticket item will hold back. I bought a car last week. Do you think I would have bought it last week if I'd known you were going to reduce the sales tax 1 percent now and 1 percent later on? I would have waited. I can't think of anything more damaging to sales in the province than to say that the sales tax was going to come down at some future date. If you're going to increase the sales tax, then phase it in. Then you get them both ways: they buy before and after. If you're going to reduce it, do it at once. Had you reduced it two points immediately, then it would have had a significant effect. But you weaken even the one point by saying: "Later on we're going to drop it another point." Mr. Speaker, that was a bad move.

This minister and the government don't fool anyone, Mr. Speaker. They want to make average British Columbians pay now for the Social Credit government's years of mismanagement, and they hope the public will forget by the time of the next election. They've been successful in hoping that in the past. It's very cynical, Mr. Speaker, but people this time may not forget.

Just while I am on the topic of fooling people, I want to comment briefly on the hocus-pocus surrounding our provincial deficit. Last year's budget speech projected a deficit of $875 million. Now revised forecasts say the actual figure will be some $1.17 billion. That of course casts a bit of doubt on this year's projection of an $850 million deficit. I really wish this assembly was asked more often to debate estimates, rather than politically inspired calculations of estimates. In the last three budgets — not including this one because I don't have any performance figures yet — the excess of the total of the actual deficits as compared to the estimated deficits was $695 million. The deficits were understated three years in a row by very significant amounts totalling almost $700 million in three years. I suspect that is not the case this time — Mr. Speaker, this isn't in my notes — I suspect this time that the minister is deliberately underestimating revenue. Perhaps he is just being careful, but I think he is significantly underestimating revenue, and I think he wants to come before us, perhaps around this time next year, and say that due to good management and fiscal restraint and due to what this government has accomplished, while we predicted a deficit of $25 million lower than the one that was predicted last year — not the $160 or $360 million or whatever it is; $25 million — instead of the reduction of that amount, a significantly larger reduction. Now that's my prophecy for next year, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: You've been right before.

MR. STUPICH: Well, unfortunately I have been right when I said that they were wrong in predicting a low deficit; I hope I am right this time.

The budget had not much to say about women, but I feel I must. Much remains to be done for the women of B.C. before they will enjoy equal benefits, equal rights or equal opportunities. That is why it is so shocking that there is so little for women in this budget. There's not a mention of pay equity. There are some improvements in day care, and we must say that they are welcome; they don't go nearly far enough, but they are welcome. And there's a $2 million slap in the face for those who are fighting to oblige hospitals to obey Canada's Criminal Code.

In 1986, 67 percent of minimum-wage earners were women; 165,000 women were part-time workers; 60 percent of women working were working in three categories, sales, service and clerical, which are all characterized by low pay, few prospects for promotion and reduced mobility. On the average women earn 60 percent of what men earn. As well, 37.5 percent of British Columbians under the age of 65 and living below the poverty line in 1986 were women. The outlook for future employment prospects for women is a matter of grave concern, a concern that has been ignored by this government. It is estimated that by the year 1990, 30 percent of current secretarial and clerical jobs will be cut by office automation. As many as one million Canadian women will be unemployed due to the introduction of technological change. This budget does not help women. Under Social Credit, women in B.C. continue to be shortchanged in the areas of social services, health and educational programs. Why is there nothing in the budget about affirmative action for women? Why is there no move towards pay equity for women? Why are we so far behind provinces such as Manitoba and Ontario in this regard? It’s just not good enough. It's not fair, Mr. Speaker.

With regard to child care, the budget states that there will be an increase of 30 percent to $26.7 million in day care funding. Our figures show this increase to be actually 5 percent. We don't understand the discrepancy. If the 30 percent increase is strictly based on an increase in subsidies, and the budget doesn't make this clear, then it must be acknowledged by the government that licensed day care will simply not be available to any of the people receiving these funds. In fact, their children will end up in unlicensed day care situations. We need real action on the establishment of affordable, accessible and community-controlled day care centres.

[11:15]

As to reproductive choice, the budget says that $2 million in funding will be provided specifically to encourage alternatives to abortion. Will this money be spent on a propaganda campaign? According to the Canada Health Act, accessibility to medical services is the right of every citizen. Will the women of B.C. continue to be denied their basic right to medical services? Community clinics and referral services need to be established throughout the province. These clinics would emphasize preventive health measures and be equipped to deal with health problems unique to women, such as abortion counselling and referral, birth control, family planning and pre- and post-natal care — people programs. While I applaud the move to increase social assistance rates for families, GAIN support allowance needs to be

[ Page 201 ]

increased for all income tax recipients. If we're going to do it for the needy, everybody on social welfare needs an increase. The last one was in 1981. The increase provided in this budget for some of the people receiving social welfare brings them up to where they should have been at the end of 1982, because the cost of living increased by 10 percent in 1982 and the increase adds up to 10 percent during the course of the year. So they're still back where they should have been in 1982, and this is 1987.

Poverty is becoming a way of life for more and more British Columbians every day, in spite of the recurring promises by the Premier that he will increase overall welfare rates. While welfare rates will rise 10 percent this year, a greater increase is so obviously necessary.

The budget speech has stated as its first major priority providing greater assistance for the disadvantaged. Surely young people ought to be included in that category. Yet landlords housing GAIN recipients will likely be the ones receiving an increase in their incomes of some 6 percent; that's where the GAIN will go. An increase in the shelter allowance will, in most cases, be absorbed immediately and directly by the landlords.

An increase in the minimum wage was also not addressed in the budget. It's generally acknowledged that a minimum wage of $6 per hour is necessary to bring many of the working poor out of poverty. Instead they will sink deeper because of the increases they face under this budget: increases in personal income taxes, health care premiums, property taxes, supplementary health services, drivers' and motor vehicle licence fees, etc.

Seniors as a group will be hit by major increases in costs under changes to Pharmacare. Unless they have very low incomes, our pioneers will now have to pay 75 percent of the fee for dispensing prescriptions. Mr. Speaker, you and I can afford that, but you and I both know constituents who can't afford that increase — about $5 per prescription according to the budget. While there is a ceiling of $125 per year on those fees, they will still create hardships for seniors on limited incomes.

The budget mentions the cost pressures of an aging population. Are older persons going to be asked to bear these costs alone? What is happening to the $85 million in returned federal funding if we must ask our oldest citizens to pay user charges for services they tend to need, such as physiotherapy and chiropractic services?

Finally, the seniors hit hardest by the budget are renters who had hoped for some change to SAFER, the shelter allowance program. Funding for this program needs to be improved by 30 percent if it is to help older persons remain in their neighbourhoods and prevent their spending more than 30 percent of their incomes on rent.

Alternatives. There's much in yesterday's speech which ought not to have been there; a good deal which has been omitted. Just a few of the alternatives I think we should have seen include a labour force strategy which would recognize the special need for adequate training for young people, and women in particular. This government cut its public education services by 23 percent between 1982 and 1986, and the increases in yesterday's speech do not make up for years of fiscal neglect. The triple whammy of underfunded public education, inaccessible post-secondary education and limited job prospects must be overcome to be fair.

The municipal infrastructure program. Basic services and utilities have been allowed to deteriorate since 1983. A new five-year cost-sharing approach is urgently necessary to bring essential urban services up to accessible standards and to provide as many as 10,000 person-years of construction employment in the lower mainland alone.

Investment capital support for business development centres, venture capital corporations, community development corporations and employment cooperatives: yesterday's budget contains only S13 million for all of these programs, and most of this money will be spent on a showcase enterprise centre at the B.C. Pavilion.

Another alternative is a task force on tax reform to recommend a thorough and complete tax reform which would restore fairness and progressivity while increasing revenues. There are many more good ideas from this side which my colleagues will be discussing and presenting as the budget debate and the debate on estimates proceeds.

Mr. Speaker, we are approaching the witching hour, and I fear if I go over that hour I'll lose the attention of my audience, since it will be more on the clock than on me.

Ordinary British Columbians will remember this budget. It's not fair to take one week's pay out of the pocket of the ordinary working person in this province. The unemployed will remember the unfairness of the measures that will increase their costs while doing nothing to provide job opportunities. Women will remember they have not been given fair recognition in this budget. Young people and those on social assistance will remember; it's unfair to all of them. Senior citizens' households will remember; they'll be counting this $25 a month in additional costs. It's not fair to them. Those standing in food bank lineups will remember; their plight has been totally ignored. Those concerned about the future of our forest resource will remember. There's no fairness for present or future generations in the way we're handling our forest resource in this province.

All of these people that I've mentioned, and many others, will remember how unfair, how unimaginative, how unhopeful yesterday's budget was. No jobs, no fairness.

This government and the Minister of Finance had a tremendous opportunity. There's another $350 million in unfound revenue suddenly to be dumped on his doorstep this year from the forest resource tax. There's an additional $91 million suddenly handed to him from Ottawa for giving up the practice of charging user fees in hospitals. There's an additional income tax revenue, which I haven't been able to calculate yet, coming to the province simply because our provincial tax rate is based on the federal basic rate. Perhaps that was worth another $100 million.

The minister had available in new money, without increasing any taxes at all, in excess of half a billion dollars. Had he the imagination to do something with it, this budget could have been something that the opposition would have had to have been silent on and listened to the minister extol its virtues, not a budget as he presented it, totally unfair to British Columbians. This government and this minister have failed the ordinary people of British Columbia. They have failed to produce jobs. They have failed to produce any imagination to deal with this half a billion dollars that was suddenly handed over.

This government has some three years left in its current term. It should consult widely with the many British Columbians who will remember this budget and garner some useful input I'm sure those people could provide. That would be fair consideration. They should do this in order to receive the

[ Page 202 ]

good ideas that will prevent a recurrence of yesterday's mistakes.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

British Columbians expected, wanted, need a fresh start. They didn't get it yesterday. But if the government takes special cognizance of the debate in this assembly in the days ahead — and the debate from outside this assembly, the views of average British Columbians — then next spring, when once again the minister presents a budget, perhaps that new, fresh beginning will be possible.

Mr. Speaker, there has been some agreement that we would adjourn at approximately this time. I would like to move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting

Motion approved.

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, I request leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. DUECK: With us today in the public gallery we have a delegation from the Central Fraser Valley, the Pacific Christian School: teacher Theodore A. Klassen, fifteen students and seven parents. Would the House please welcome these people.

COMPENSATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE
FOR PROVINCIAL COURT JUDGES

HON. BRIAN SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a short statement and to file the report of a special committee known as the compensation advisory committee for provincial court judges. This report and this statement are made as a result of legislation that was passed in the last session of the Legislature setting forth a new procedure to review the salaries paid to judges of the Provincial Court of British Columbia. Under those amendments, in October 1986 the government established a compensation advisory committee consisting of three lay members: chairman Dr. Anne Autor, a scientist in Vancouver; Mr. Ellison Framst, a farmer from Fort St. John; and Mr. David Wilson, a Vancouver entrepreneur and a member of the Vancouver Police Board.

The compensation advisory committee has delivered its report to me, and as required by statute, I now lay the report before the assembly. A copy will be delivered to the office of each member of the assembly today.

I want to express my appreciation to the committee members for a job very well done. At this point I can only say that I find the recommendations, in the main, to be reasonable, fair and sensible. With perhaps a few changes, it would be my recommendation that the proposals set forth in the report be adopted.

But before a resolution is placed in this assembly, as is called for in the Provincial Court Act, it is appropriate that the report now go to the Select Standing Committee on Labour, Justice and Intergovernmental Relations. It will be my intention to move that just as soon as that standing committee has been struck; and I will accompany my recommendation in that regard with the suggestion that after study by the committee, in reporting to the House they set forth a resolution recommending its adoption. So I have great pleasure in filing the report, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SIHOTA: First of all, in keeping with the new tone in this House, I want to thank the Attorney-General for making this report available to me in advance of the announcement today. I appreciate that it is going to committee. I have some reservations about some of the recommendations in the report, but I think that could be best dealt with at the committee stage.

MR. SPEAKER: Before I call on the government House Leader, hon. members, on Wednesday last the hon. member for Coquitlam-Moody and opposition House Leader (Mr. Rose) raised a point of order relating to the scope and content of a ministerial statement made by the Attorney-General (Hon. Brian Smith).

The essence of the hon. member's point was that the statement was made without notice and was too detailed a reference to previous debate. In some respects the point of order was well made by the hon. opposition House Leader. However, I cannot find that there is any requirement to give notice of a ministerial statement. Under some circumstances informal notice might be considered appropriate, but this is not a judgment for the Chair to make. The Chair does, however, commend the developing practice of giving notice, although notice may not be required under the rules.

[11:30]

I have now had an opportunity to examine Hansard in relation to the content of the statement in question. It is my opinion that while the content of the statement was clearly within the proper bounds of a matter of ministerial administration arising from an alleged misrepresentation or an allegedly inaccurate recitation of events, it is also clear, upon review, that some parts of the statement, contrary to permissible limits, alluded too precisely to previous debate in an argumentative manner, rather than being limited to concise statements of fact surrounding ministerial administration. On the subject of ministerial statements, Mr. Speaker Schroeder adopted with approval the following statement of practice from Dawson's Procedure in the Canadian House of Commons, at page 165:

"These announcements are not made by the consent of the House, nor are they recognized by any rule; but at least one Speaker has ruled that the practice is one of such long standing that a minister may make such a statement by right. This right may not be exercised without restraint, for although there is no set limit on the length or content of the statements, a minister who persisted in long and argumentative recitals would soon find himself in trouble with the opposition."

Under the practices of this House and in accordance with the Speaker's rulings previously made, ministerial statements should generally be brief, be factual and be specific. General arguments or observations beyond the fair bounds of explanation, or too distinct a reference to previous debate, are out of order and will result in appropriate intervention by the Chair. There are, of course, similar limits to replies made to ministerial statements.

Hon. L. Hanson tabled the annual report of the Ministry of Labour for 1986; the Trade Practice Act annual report for 1986; the Travel Assurance Board annual reports for 1984-85

[ Page 203 ]

and 1985-86; the liquor control and licensing branch annual report for 1986; and the debtor assistance branch annual report for 1986.

MR. LOVICK: I ask leave of the House to make one more brief introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. LOVICK: I would like the House to join me, please, in welcoming a member of the Nanaimo and district school board and the editor of the Gabriola Island Flying Shingle, Ms. June Harrison.

Hon. Mr. Rogers moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:32 a.m.