[ Page 231 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Budget Debate

Mr. Rose –– 231

Mr. Crandall –– 232

ML Cashore –– 234

Mr. Loenen –– 237

Mr. Harcourt –– 240

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. PELTON: Mr. Speaker, on your behalf today I would like to welcome two of your constituents to the chambers, Mr. Gary and Mrs. Helen Powers. I would ask everyone here to make them welcome, please.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, at the outset, my apologies to the official opposition and particularly the first member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich). I had indicated last Wednesday that we would be discussing interim supply this morning. I am advised that the bill will not be ready until this afternoon's session. So I do offer my sincere apologies and hope that we can proceed this afternoon with interim supply.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, that's my advice. There might be more to the problem than that, in answer to the Leader of the Opposition.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I call adjourned debate on the motion that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the House to go into Committee of Supply.

ON THE BUDGET
(continued debate)

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, I don't know if the world is waiting breathlessly for my remarks this morning, but I know I am. I've just gone through a series of legislative aerobics, thinking they were going to have interim supply and then finding that my notes were somewhere else down in the back 40 somewhere. So if I'm unprepared, so is the government, not having their stuff ready.

Anyway, I'd like to use my seven minutes to take my first excursion. I'm glad the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries (Hon. Mr. Savage) is here, because I want to take my first excursion, somewhat timidly, I guess, into agricultural policy and our reaction to it. I say somewhat timidly because I know and recognize, and so does the farming community in British Columbia, the tremendous background that the minister has had in this — I was going to say "field" but that sounds like a pun. We know of his deep interest and long and deep commitment.

We wonder, though, since we have a farmer Premier and a farmer Minister of Agriculture, why we saw a cut in the agricultural budget this year. We find that disappointing. We know, incredible as it may sound, or maybe it isn't incredible, that the farm situation all across North America is appalling. It's a crisis. Their own insurance company down in the United States has gone broke because they couldn't insure the loans, despite tremendous — tremendous — fantastic subsidies. We see that the European Common Market is subsidizing beef for, say, 80 cents a pound, and grain and all these other things. So are the Americans, to billions of dollars. How can our farms survive without a similar kind of treatment?

Now you may want to get rid of all subsidies. You may feel that you're mired in subsidies, that you're up to your ears in butter, like they are in New Zealand, or you're up to your ears or eyebrows in wheat because there are no sales, because people have subsidized competition into our markets. It's all very well to say we want to be pure, but what do we do about it when everybody else is doing it? How can you run a business if everybody else is paying off the cops? You can't do that and still survive in the business.

So the crisis is appalling. The farm union was here the other day. The feds are going to put $8 million into the Peace River. Are we prepared to do the same? I don't know. But if we don't, there are a couple of ridings up there held by Socred members — they're certainly not New Democrats up there — and if you're going to cast these people adrift, maybe you should tell them. They don't want to know now; they want to know before the next crop year, because if they don't, the banks won't lend them any money. So the problem is serious all across the country. It doesn't just exist in certain parts of the country.

The minister has terrified the people out in the Fraser Valley with his attitude towards free trade. It's all very well for the minister to tell us: "Well, the national marketing agencies will speak for the farmers out in the Fraser Valley" — say, CEMA or the poultry and egg producers. But that isn't particularly reassuring, because we've not seen any benefits coming to those people from so-called free trade acts. I talked about that yesterday, so I'm not going to bore the House with it again this morning, but it is a particularly serious matter. The minister is going to go down to meet with all his counterparts provincially on March 30. What proposals is he going to take with him? Is he going to tell us about this, or is this going to be sotto voce. Is it going to be sort of in a soft voice under the table? What's going to happen? What's B.C.'s position in all this? Is it going to be ideological? We don't believe in subsidies.

AN HON. MEMBER: Speak in English; they didn't understand that.

MR. ROSE: Okay, I will repeat it allegro vivace fortissimo. A strong voice for British Columbia in agriculture is what we need. We need a strong voice. So anyway, what are we going to do? Because the banks won't lend him any money now prior to planting, because the farm income is so appallingly bad.

One of the most respected agricultural economists and deans in the country, Freeman McEwen, is dean of the Ontario Agricultural College. In a recent article in the Agrologist, he had this to say: "Sustainable agriculture in Canada and the survival of the family farm rests heavily with the government." Isn't that an article of faith, to protect and enhance the family farm? Well, how are you going to do it— by wishful thinking? What programs have you got for it? Are you going to cut more things out — interest rates, that kind of stuff; that's all going out? When are we going to start doing some secondary and tertiary manufacturing of agricultural products?

You have closed down the things that were started by my colleague the former Minister of Agriculture in processing frozen foods and also poultry. They didn't go broke. There is nobody there now manufacturing at all.

AN HON. MEMBER: Twelve million dollars in profits.

[ Page 232 ]

MR. ROSE: Twelve million dollars' profit the first year. There hasn't been an act in agriculture in this House since 1977. That's got to be performance. The last one was the Bee Act; the next one will be the behind act, because that's where we'll be.

I have a few questions that have been puzzling me. Since I'm a tyro, a virtual newcomer to this interesting area of our economy, I don't know what your intentions are, but I've got a few questions.

[10:15]

My first question is: we talk about free trade and we talk about buying Canadian or buying British Columbia; but how can you have free trade, with maximum penetration both ways, and still have a buy-Canadian policy? I don't understand that. It seems to me that's mutually contradictory. You tell me if you know how that works. I'll be really pleased to know about that. I think we should be favouring our own producers and protecting them. But in free trade, boy, they'll be just in here like a dirty shirt. One farm in the United States will produce all the eggs for Canada. Their surplus alone is more than our total consumption in milk. We're going to be drowning or scrambled. You're going to scramble our egg producers, and you can't unscramble an egg producer once he's scrambled.

What do we do about overproduction in the rest of the world? In the EEC they've got 600,000 tonnes of beef. Are we going to export sausages to those guys? These are only two of the many questions that I have to address to the House. I thank the House for its courtesy, and wish them well with the remainder of the budget speech.

MR. CRANDALL: It may seem strange that we're into the third week of this session of the Legislature, and we're only just now hearing the last of the new, rookie Socreds. I think that's a tribute to the results of the October 22 election.

It's, of course, an honour and a privilege to represent Columbia River in this House. I want to thank the electors of my riding, and I certainly want to thank those who worked in my election campaign.

It's also an honour to be the MLA who succeeds Jim Chabot. Jim Chabot was held in very high esteem by this House. I recognized that last week when he was here sitting in the gallery, and we first of all had to fight over who was going to introduce him. I might say that I lost to the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Veitch). He also had the honour of being recognized by the opposition. He was also held in very high esteem in our riding. He was held in that high esteem because he was an achiever. Jim Chabot built highways, he built hospitals, he built schools — he got things done for our riding, and he will be missed. Not only will Jim Chabot be missed, but his wife Grace will be missed. She was in the position of being a political spouse, and she handled that position very well for those same 23 years. Not only did the Chabofs serve their riding and this House well, but when their term was finished, they continued to serve our riding by serving as my campaign manager in the election. They not only served well but they did their best to leave our riding in good hands. Jim was my campaign manager, and Grace worked 12 hours a day in the Invermere campaign office. I thank them, and I wish them both the very best in their retirement years.

I also want to congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Speaker and the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole on their selections. I know that each of you will do a good job.

Even though he is not here, I want to extend my good wishes to the Leader of the Opposition on his retirement. He doesn't know it, but he was a little bit of a thorn in my side in the last election. It seems that he and I are about the same height; we both wear glasses, and I guess our hair is coloured and in quantity about the same to where some of my constituents mistook me for the Leader of the Opposition. It is nice for me that if things go as they appear to be going in the opposition leadership race, if the member for Vancouver Centre is the new leader and if hairlines and hair color and hair quantity are distinguishing features in the next election, I won't be mistaken for the Leader of the Opposition.

I am proud to represent the Columbia River riding. It of course is the small riding nestling between the beautiful Canadian Rockies to the east and the mighty Selkirks and the Purcells to the west. Our major industries there are forestry, mining, tourism, agriculture and transportation. Our riding is unique in another way and that's in our location near to the province of Alberta. We are a border riding. That does two things for us: first of all, it gives us Mountain Time; secondly, it puts us in the area close to Alberta with no sales tax.

Several speakers in the past have mentioned major concerns and objectives in their ridings but I'm not going to do that, with one exception. It's important, I believe, that I recognize the change in the economy in our city of Kimberley.

Kimberley has been a mining town for much or most of its existence. We have the Sullivan mine there, which for the last 75 years has been bringing in dollars to that city and to our riding. The Sullivan mine is nearing the end of its ore body, and I want it recognized that it will be one of my objectives — and I hope one of the objectives of this House — to do all we can for the city of Kimberley. This does not mean we will not also be doing what we can for the rest of my riding, but certainly the city of Kimberley, with the possibly ending ore body, is a major concern of mine and, as I say, I hope of this House.

I want to comment briefly on some thoughts brought up by opposition members in last week's debate. First of all, I want to say how much I appreciated some of the comments from the opposition House Leader. He made some very nice comments last week about our Premier, about how harmonious our House appeared to be, and I appreciate those comments. He also mentioned how he hopes we deal with issues and not buzzwords in this session of the Legislature, and I agree with him there.

He also came to the defence of the political occupation. Some of you might recall how the second member for Nanaimo (Mr. Lovick) had mentioned that many people on the streets today do not have faith in the political people. I want to quote how the opposition House Leader rendered service to the political people. He said — and I assume in reference to the second member for Nanaimo:

"I regret that, because I think most politicians are very interested in providing a service to their constitu ents and doing a job. When we get squalling with one another and calling each other crooks or liars and that sort of thing across the floor, even though we might fudge just a little bit once in a while and maybe sort of put our own best foot — or is it feet? — forward, I think that the bulk of the people who come here that I've associated with over a long period, both here and in the House of Commons in Ottawa, are generally

[ Page 233 ]

honourable men and women, and that's the way it should be."

I just want to say that I agree, and I'm sure that that's the reason why most members in this House, regardless of which side they're on, decided to run and serve this province.

I also want to comment on some of the comments of the first member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich), and I want to salute that member because I believe he is the senior member of this House, having served since 1963, and that's indeed a significant accomplishment. He said that he felt that most of the rookie MLAs' speeches were good, and I want to agree with him on that, but I want to disagree with him when he said he felt the NDP rookies had done a better job than the Socred rookies. He attributed this to more experience. I want to speak in defence of the Socred class of '86, because I feel that we have brought a lot of experience to this House.

I thought the House might be interested in a comparison of previous local government positions and experience between the rookie Socreds and the rookie NDP members. On school trustees we were tied, in fact — three Socred rookies and three NDP have school trustee experience. But there's a clear shift in emphasis on experience. Twelve rookie Socred MLAs have aldermanic experience; there are only four represented in the NDP rookies. The Socred rookies brought six former mayors; the NDP rookies brought only one. The Socred rookies brought three regional district chairmen, and the NDP rookies didn't bring any. In terms of scores, I want to mention that there is only one score where the Socred rookies trail the NDP, and that's in apologies, where we trail one to nothing. Mr. Speaker, the rookie Socreds will serve this House well.

I would now like to put into perspective the 1986 budget introduced by the Minister of Finance last Thursday, and to do that I want to quote from a book many of you may well have seen. It's a book entitled Conversations with W.A.C. Bennett. I hope all of you on this side have read this book or have a copy of it. On page 54 of this book the former Premier is quoted: "If you want to be in politics, you have to be on the firing line." I want to suggest that with this budget it's the Social Credit Party that's on the firing line. It's this Social Credit government that has been given the continued responsibility of managing this province in tough times. It's this Social Credit government, through this budget, that has the task of trying to get the economy moving and yet provide increased services for health, education, welfare and several other areas.

Of course the opposition cannot really be on the firing line, because they did not form the government. But they did form the opposition. Surely the people of this province expect something positive from the opposition. The people of any free country value freedom of speech and the presence of an opposition in the governing process. The opposition, I would suggest, has a high calling. One of the things that the opposition party should do in fulfilling that calling is provide alternatives. Even if they're not on the firing line in terms of being Premier, a cabinet minister or government MLAs, even if they're not on the firing line in those positions, they should be willing to put their ideas on the firing line.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

The opposition, I would suggest, has let us down. They've let the government down, they've let the Minister of Finance down and they've let the people of this province down.

Mr. Speaker, I'm a newcomer in this House. I didn't know what was going to happen last Friday morning when the Finance critic got up to criticize our budget. But I do know what I expected to happen. Last Friday morning the Finance critic should have presented a shadow budget. They have a shadow cabinet and they should have presented a shadow budget. They didn't need any advance notice in order to prepare a shadow budget. They should have been willing to put their ideas on the firing line. If they were good enough ideas, the government could have heard them and maybe adopted them. The people of the province would have had them to feed back to us. But instead the Finance critic used his 60 minutes to say, in many different ways, only that the budget was no good.

[10:30]

Let me make a little forecast, Mr. Speaker. I want to forecast what's going to happen during this debate and during question period for the next several days. I'm afraid that the opposition speakers for these next several days will continue to concentrate only on the negative things in this budget and do their very best to picture the Social Credit government as the party that heaps problems on the backs of senior citizens and those in need of health care. They will not mention the fact that the budget increases a good number of expenditures.

I'd invite you to turn to page 9 in the budget. They'll forget to mention, or they'll fail to mention, that this budget increases the benefits to those in the GAIN program to.... The increases will cost $51.7 million. And the opposition won't mention that. They won't mention that we've increased funding for services for disabled in the Ministry of Social Services and Housing by 15 percent. They won't mention that we increased funding for the Ministry of Health by $237 million. They won't mention that the Education budget is over $2 billion. They'll pick away at the little negative things and they will not provide alternatives. They will talk about taxes. They won't say that the reduction in the sales tax will generate more consumer sales and create more jobs. And they won't say that we eliminated the restaurant meal tax to make our hospitality industry more attractive.

Instead what I heard on the intercom yesterday afternoon was that we didn't have the guts to do what they did in Manitoba. Well, I want to say to that member: we don't have to do what they did in Manitoba, because we have inherited a government of good management from the previous Social Credit government, a government which I am proud to salute, because those Social Credit members brought good management to Canada.

There are still several Social Credit members of that government here, and I appreciate them being here. Not only did they bring good management to this country — and I mention again "to this country, " because good management started in British Columbia and then moved across the country — not only did they do that, but at the same time they completed projects such as Expo 86 and the Coquihalla Highway, projects we are all very proud of. Yet the opposition member says that we don't have the courage to do things that they did in Manitoba. Well, what I want to say is that we don't have to do the things that they did in Manitoba. Manitoba, you may recall, just recently introduced a new 2 percent flat tax on income. We didn't do that here. They also bumped the sales tax from 6 percent to 7 percent, and we did the exact reverse; but they won't mention that. And then Manitoba —

[ Page 234 ]

listen to this one carefully — put on a very special made-in-Manitoba payroll tax some time ago. This year they have boosted their job tax from 1.5 percent to 2.25 percent — a 50 percent increase, Mr. Speaker.

The proof of the pudding, I would suggest, is in the eating. If Manitoba is so good, why are people leaving Manitoba and coming to British Columbia? Let me tell you that in the years 1981 to 1986, B.C.'s population went up 20, 000 while Manitoba's went down 4, 000. We don't need to do those things like they've done in Manitoba, especially that made-in-Manitoba-for-Manitobans job tax.

I want to speak to one other issue that our Minister of Finance has had the courage to highlight in his budget. It has to do with health costs. It is on page 11 of the budget, and I think it is so important that I want to quote from it.

"We face relentless cost pressures. The aging of our population, demands to acquire the latest and best technology, expectations of ever-higher service levels, and the growing income expectations of those working in the health care field all contribute to the upward spiral of costs.

"It is this government's view that responsible use of the health care system can be encouraged by modest user fees, with provisions to protect or exempt those on low incomes." And now listen very carefully to one other important paragraph.

"The issue is critical. Unless attitudes change, growing health care costs will gradually eliminate our ability to finance other government services."

Mr. Speaker, my concern is that we have no financial judgment in the delivery of our health care system. We have financial judgment in most of our other purchases. Just last week I went out with my wife to buy a new tie, and I bought one for $7.50. There were others there for $12 and others for $20, but I bought the one for $7.50. Do you know why? Because I used some financial judgment. My concern is that we don't have any financial judgment on the delivery end of our health care system. We don't have $10 worth; we don't have $2 worth; we don't have 30 cents' worth. And we can thank the federal government for that. Someday our federal government is going to have to be honest with the Canadian people and tell us that we can't afford the present system.

I want to quote from the Globe and Mail of Monday, March 23, which dealt with federal government decision-making in terms of political expenditures, at least in regard to the misuse of unemployment insurance. Here's what the Globe and Mail said: "Canada's unemployment insurance program is filled with rotten boroughs, but nary a politician in the land is interested in cleansing the system."

Now we've got the same problem in our health care system. We need some financial judgment in our health care system, and in fact our very survival depends on it, but politicians across this land.... Again I salute this Social Credit government for putting sound financial management into its expenditures in 1983. Governments across this land are reluctant to make the decisions that they know they should, and our friends in the media — and they are colleagues of mine, Mr. Speaker — are now starting to point out that we are going to have to start using some financial judgment in our health care systems, in our unemployment insurance systems and perhaps others.

While I mention this important item, I want to provide you with a caution that all the free enterprise people in this country need to be aware of, because when governments across this land continue and the federal government starts to do what the B.C. government started in 1983 We'll have to realize that when that happens, there are going to be bleeding-heart socialists crying from the rooftops across this land and trying to keep those governments from making those moves. But governments already take enough of our expenditures without taking even more, and without more of our paycheques going to finance the interest on the national debt.

Mr. Speaker, I'm concerned about the long-term future. We've got to have some financial judgment put into our major expenditures. The major budgetary thrust of my words here today was that the opposition has provided no alternatives. I will remind them that as opposition the province values the opposition. We on the government side value the opposition, but they have a higher calling that so far in this session of the Legislature they haven't lived up to.

I would like the remaining opposition speeches that we will hear in this debate to give us what you think the budget should have contained, give us some alternatives. Each member of the opposition who hasn't spoken yet has 30 minutes, or 1,800 seconds, to speak to us. Surely in that time they can give us something that they think the budget should have contained. Give us some alternatives. You owe it to the governing side; you owe it to the people. Be willing to put your ideas on the firing line. It doesn't need to be in minute detail. Just give us even one major alternative, including how that alternative can be funded.

I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if the opposition is up to that challenge. I hope they are. I would suggest that if the opposition cannot give us some alternatives, they will have paid the ultimate compliment to our Minister of Finance and to our budget.

I am pleased to be here. I'm pleased to support this government, and I'm pleased to support this budget. When we vote on it, I will support it. But again I ask — and I hope — that the opposition be willing to rise to the challenge that government, that this side of the House and that the people of this province expect of them: to provide some alternatives to us so that we can put some substance into all of their nitpicking criticisms. We don't want to deal in nitpicking criticisms. We want some viable alternatives, and if the alternatives are good enough, I'm sure they'll be considered. I hope the opposition rises to the challenge.

Mr. Speaker, I support the budget.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Speaker, there is a mystique, a mythology, about budgets and matters of finance that too often results in average people leaving those matters to the so-called experts. I can't imagine anything this government could have produced that would be more effective in breaking down that mythology than the budget that we have before us at this time. The hon. member calls for alternatives. The hon. member who just spoke seems to be incapable of the fine art of listening and hearing. If he is not willing to hear what is being presented in so clear and concise a fashion as that which is being presented by the members on this side of the House, then I would suggest that he might consider the kinds of background that he has been referring to in the Socred farm team and try something else.

What we have here in this budget, Mr. Speaker, is not a blueprint for structural development that will give rise to renewed hopes and dreams for our youth. What we have here

[ Page 235 ]

is not a game plan to enable participation of those who have been shunted off to the sidelines; what we have here is a cynical treatise devoid of creativity. It betrays a willingness to watch middle- and low-income people pushed further into the mire of the Socred-created recession. It betrays an insensitivity to the hopes and aspirations of working people. It betrays seniors, youth and women.

[10:45]

I have heard speech after speech from the government benches, speeches extolling the virtues of the Premier and of the Minister of Finance and all the wonderful things they are doing. But after a while, the phrases in those speeches sound so much alike. I would be interested to know whether there is one person or two people writing the speeches for the Socreds. But the phrases sound awfully much alike, and to the credit of the most recent speaker and one or two others I would say yes, I think you did write your own speech.

But we hear phrases like this, Mr. Speaker: "I want to congratulate the minister for his plan to raise welfare rates for those most in need." How many times have we heard that in different speeches? Look it up in Hansard and you'll find that that phrase shows up again and again and again. Do the government back-benchers read those speeches over before saying phrases like that over and over ad nauseam? Do you read your speeches first? Mr. Speaker, surely if they would stop to think about what they are saying, they would realize that the phrase "those most in need" as it pertains to this budget is simply newspeak. Can't they see that they have been co-opted by their official rhetoric?

I've noticed that a great many members of the government side have been standing up and been counted for their faith. I feel they have the right to do that if that is what they choose to do within this chamber, but I would like to know if just one Socred MLA will stand up today and be counted for independent thinking. Independent thinking, Mr. Speaker. By the Finance minister's own admission, income assistance rates have been frozen since 1982. He could have taken it a step further and admitted that for single employables the rates were actually diminished in 1983.

Now can any fair-thinking person who wants to stand up and be counted honestly say and mean what the government speech writers have written down for them to say, that the increase in this budget is for those most in need? I am of course referring to the SPARC report, a report of the Social Planning and Research Council, and I would hope that you would pay some attention to it over there because you might learn something. You try having your income frozen for over five years. You try being on the receiving end of age discrimination such as under-age-25s are on income assistance rates. You try getting by on $334 your first month on welfare, and then on $359 from the second to the eighth month and then on $384 after that.

You try that, and you tell me if you think this budget is addressing those who are most in need. You tell me that in the spirit of witnessing and fairness. Just think about it, and then ask yourself if you in all conscience can repeat by rote, as though you were reciting some ancient creed, that single employable young people who have been ignored by this budget, that these young people are not among those most in need. Who will be the first government back-bencher to stand up and be counted for fairness, and say to the authors that, in the spirit of fairness, all income assistance rates should be increased, having been frozen since 1982?

I am sure the previous speaker would want to encourage independent thinking on the government side. I am sure that he would want to take his cue from those disillusioned people on the Mulroney back bench who have become so disillusioned with the activities of their cabinet, and I would hope that he would have the intellectual integrity to follow suit. If hon. members won't take my word for it, then the Social Planning and Research Council, which functions as a nonprofit social policy and planning organization, and their highly qualified research, their scientific research, is worthy of a careful look.

Their most recent findings were released March 17, two days before the budget. They provide those of you on the government side who ought to do some independent thinking with research data which prove what some of you knew already, and I submit you did know already — that single, employable, out-of-work young people are among the needy. In fact, according to the SPARC report, they are found to be the ones who are most in need, and that's based on scientific data. Yet they are the ones left out. Why? Because the authors of the budget and the authors of your speeches either don't know or don't care about these young people. These are the young people that we're hearing about in some of the despairing news stories that we're reading in our media nowadays. Either the people who have written these speeches and have written this budget don't know or they don't care that these are the ones who are most in need.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Social Services and Housing (Hon. Mr. Richmond) is quoted as saying, just after the report came out, that he hadn't had time to read it. Well, now he has had time. You've been asking for alternatives; I'm presenting you with an alternative right now. I hope you're listening. I challenge him, in the cause of fairness, to announce that, in view of the new information — and you do have the opportunity to save face on this, because there is new information that came out on the 17th, just two days before the budget — in the SPARC report he will include single employables June 1 and December 1 in the announced 5 percent increases. I call on the minister to announce that increase and be fair to all people who are in need.

The government rhetoric says and promises that it adheres to a value of fairness for those who are in need. He can save face, Mr. Speaker. He can say: "I didn't know." He can say: "Honest, I didn't know, but then I read the SPARC report, and I saw the light." He can repent of the decision that was made prior to this time. Look at the SPARC report and see the light.

For the record, here is just a small part of what the SPARC report says about income assistance rates. I quote these in all seriousness, because this is an extremely serious matter. The report compares income assistance rates in target areas of the lower mainland to the minimum requirements for subsistence living. We're not talking here about the poverty line. What we're talking about is subsistence in British Columbia in 1987. These minimum requirements include food, clothing, personal care, transportation and shelter — which includes rent and utilities. Here is what is not included in this scientific study: debt repayment, school equipment needs, health care expenses, insurance premiums, maintenance and repairs, recreation or leisure.

Example one: a single employable male under the age of 25, living in Kitsilano, receives after eight months — when the rate is actually lower — $3 84; subsistence is $659. That's a 71.6 percent shortfall. That's unconscionable, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 236 ]

The irony of all this is that the group found by SPARC to be most in need is the very group eliminated by the budget that claims to be responding to those most in need. You want an alternative? Our alternative is to be fair to those who are most in need.

Example two: a couple — employable male, age 45, and homemaker, age 40 — living in a one-bedroom apartment in Surrey, receive a maximum of $636, while subsistence expenditures amount to $873.80, leaving this couple with a 37.4 percent shortfall below subsistence. No frills; no recreation; no debt reduction; no insurance. I would point out that as far as I can understand — and the minister may correct me on this — the budget fails to indicate whether or not a couple is a family, by their definition. I'm sure there are many couples who are waiting for clarification on that point.

What are we doing to our people? What are we doing to the people that we care about in British Columbia? Yesterday the first member for Langley (Mrs. Gran) referred to homes where there is no love, and cites that as a cause of social problems. I agree with her. I submit that it is stressful in the extreme and very difficult to create a loving environment when existence is marginal and when alternatives are nonexistent. Social problems are the consequences of poverty and no amount of love talk will help our society deal with the tragedies we are fostering by failing to provide even subsistence income for the needy. You know the old song from My Fair Lady, "Don't Talk of Love, Show Me." If you believe what you say, show the people of British Columbia that you care about them.

There are many examples in this report, but the last one I will cite is of a one-parent family. There are two children and the single parent is an employable mother aged 40. The son is 16 and the daughter is 14. They are living in a three-bedroom apartment in New Westminster. In this instance GAIN is $887.16. The subsistence cost — no frills, but for subsistence — is $1,274.72. That's a 43.7 percent shortfall. In this case, after the 5 percent increase is applied next June 1....

And I think it's a disservice to the people on income assistance that these forthcoming increases seem to be announced in various forms five or six times in the media before they actually happen. I think this is really unfair. It has been announced again within the budget, but it's not going to happen until June 1, the first 5 percent of it. But in their mind's eye, the public sees the headlines that say that income assistance rates are going up. These people have been waiting far too long, and during the time that they've been waiting the cost of living has increased by 23 percent.

AN HON. MEMBER: Taxes went on right away.

MR. CASHORE: And the taxes went on right away.

Now after June 1 this family could expect a paltry $22.50 to assist with five years of lost nutrition, five years of lost hope, five years of lost self-esteem and five years of bearing the burden of a recession that was put in place in the most unnecessary and unfair way. It isn't income assistance that is expensive in our society today; it's poverty that's expensive.

I don't know if the hon. member who just spoke is listening on the speaker in his office, but I hope he will listen carefully and realize that we are presenting him with alternatives. We have to do better than this. To quote the SPARC report a little further: "The single employable male under 25 receives enough money to live two days per week at subsistence. The other five days of his life are unfunded." Now we're getting into the type of thing here that we used to read about in speeches that were given by Disraeli and Wilberforce and others back in the days when we were trying to emerge from the industrial revolution with some kind of recognition that in a humane society we care about our people. We have slid back in a terrible way. The Horatio Alger myth simply is inappropriate and it's an affront. When somebody is able to manage to so-called pull themselves up by their own boot straps, well and good, but that is very rare and often it requires a certain type of capability and a certain type of talent. It certainly isn't there for everybody to do that on their own, and to expect that is absolutely ridiculous.

[11:00]

The single parent with two teenage children would have to wait until Wednesday morning to begin subsistence living. No food, no shelter, no utilities, no personal care, no transportation, no clothing for herself or her five-year-old child. Or to put it another way, if this family was on GAIN for one year, given the subsistence requirements, their money would theoretically run out on July 26. Is it any wonder that we have the problems that are created by stress within this institutionalized poverty that we find in our society today? The additional $39 they would be receiving after June 1 would only provide them with an additional day. They would be able to get from that day in July one day further. Is that the best this government can do for these people? A paltry $39 after six years — is that the best this government can do?

My colleague from Surrey-Guildford-Whalley (Ms. Smallwood) outlined very clearly yesterday the picture in regard to the ways in which poverty is affecting women in our society. I simply want to mention that I affirm the points that she made and I believe those points need to be made again and again and again. The budget speech failed to point out that, given the paltry increase for those most in need, the Canada Assistance Plan will provide for 50 percent of the cost of that increase. This diminishes the dubious virtue of what the government plans, although it provides an opportunity to remind this government that, when fairness is the principle that undergirds assistance rates, British Columbia will benefit through the infusion of federal dollars to be provided under the Canada Assistance Plan. That should be recognized.

Dollars brought into our economy are dollars that circulate through our businesses, many of them small businesses. In turn, jobs are generated. Confidence is restored, and as our finance debate leader, the hon. first member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich), has pointed out, such confidence has the effect of inspiring those British Columbians who have money in savings accounts and term deposits to invest those funds in the economy. Mr. Speaker, how long can this province afford the costs of poverty?

I turn now to the issue of housing, a concern I raised during the throne speech debate that I hoped would be addressed. The concern I raised was an alternative such as the alternative that the previous speaker was calling for; yet it was an alternative that was not recognized. It was a practical alternative. It was an alternative that would bring together housing need, the need for jobs and the need to market our number one product. It was an alternative that was ignored. I would beg the previous speaker to take note.

We are still calling upon this government to announce a housing program that addresses the need in this province for decent, affordable housing for the people of this province. If you had any grassroots experience with what it is to be low-

[ Page 237 ]

income, you would know that the 6 percent increase in shelter allowance that's been announced will be absorbed immediately and go to the landlords. Sometimes you have to go through the experiences they are going through to really know that type of thing. If you don't believe me, take a stroll through the downtown east side; go into some of the areas of our province where people are finding it very, very difficult to find adequate shelter, and you would realize that.

One of the items in the budget referred to the tax on the purchase of homes. I was listening to the Minister of Finance this morning on the radio, when he was asked what he was going to do about this because of the hardship this would cause for some people trying to get into their first home — young, low-income people who had scraped and saved so they could get into their first home and suddenly finding they had this increase. If I heard him correctly, he said that, really, they'll get it back because of the reduction in social services sales tax of 1 percent. That's how they will make up the loss. I find that a really convoluted kind of logic. It boggles the mind to try to understand what he is saying there, but he did explain it a bit when he was pushed, and his explanation was: "Well, there's the saving on the cost of the materials when the place is under construction." Is he going to give a rebate to those people who constructed buildings prior to the date of the budget? I mean, I really wonder if he read the budget speech before it was delivered.

The day of the budget, the hon. Minister of Finance didn't know the answer to the question when he was asked what's going to happen to people who have already undertaken offers to purchase homes. He said: "Well, I don't want to answer that right now because I'm going to have to find out." Mr. Speaker, I want to know who wrote the budget. The Premier's in California; he can't tell us.

When we had question period in this House yesterday, it was a travesty. The Minister of Finance wasn't here to answer questions, and when a question was put to the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet), he said, "I'll take it under advisement" — for the umpteenth time. When a question was put to the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mrs. Johnston), she said that it really should have gone to the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier), but the Minister of Finance wasn't in the House. How are we supposed to find things out in this province at this serious time?

AN HON. MEMBER: Phone California.

MR. CASHORE: I don't think, to be quite serious about this, that the members of cabinet were consulted with regard to measures that showed up in that budget, because they are obviously not prepared to answer serious questions that need to be asked about that budget. Mr. Speaker, I think you should send a wire to the Premier of this province right away, asking him to come home so that he can explain the budget to you.

There are a number of other topics I wanted to speak to in my remarks this morning. I'm going to have to save those until we get into the estimates. I would like to say, though, in view of the fact that the hon. member who spoke before me was asking for alternatives, that one of the alternatives that the vision of the New Democratic Party has to offer is an alternative with regard to social policy which is economically sound. It's an alternative that says that the present crisis intervention approach is inadequate. It won't work and it's expensive. It says that on the one hand; that's the negative thing. The positive alternative is a social policy that is preventive — a social policy that doesn't fire family aid workers; a social policy that sees the importance of keeping those workers in place so that this government doesn't get to play a cat-and-mouse game. They reduced funding in 1983, and then they give a few dollars back in 1987 for families. They're saying: "We love families. We want to support our families." What have they done to families in this province since 1983, Mr. Speaker?

In conclusion, there are members of this Legislature who have stood up in this House and witnessed to their faith. I would feel more comfortable about it if there were a facility and an approach in this House which would recognize the multicultural and multifaith diversity which is the reality. I would think it would be more appropriate, when we are using a public facility, that it involve the kind of consultation that consults with all the people in our society, who come from the rich cultural diversity that makes us the rich society that we are. One of the things that disturbs me is that when they talk about our Christian heritage as meaning that because we're Christians we follow a biblical tradition founded on the Ten Commandments and therefore on principles of justice, they mean: "Because I'm a Christian I must be fair." I would suggest you look at history. We would have to look at the ways in which the pages of history are littered with the results of the philosophy that says: "God's on my side." We can't afford that in British Columbia today. I'm appalled that that perspective would be present in this chamber at this time in our history. This should be a more enlightened age in which we are living.

It behooves us to recognize the diversity of who we are as British Columbians. In recognizing that diversity we will be able to go forward together and present the alternatives that are going to help this province to emerge and discover its destiny — hand in hand, people together, not one group setting itself up as somehow being superior and having a better handle on justice than any other group within our society.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, we've heard a lot said in the press and in this House about prayer. I know that in my tradition, when I pray I often pray with my eyes closed. But I think that there are people in our society who, because of their circumstances of poverty, have to pray with their eyes open. They have to pray with their eyes open so that they will see what's going on around them and so that their prayer of desperation will be one in which they won't have their eyes closed, because if they do they'll lose what little they already have, because this government will take it away from them, Mr. Speaker. We can't have that in our society today.

MR. LOENEN: Mr. Speaker, I do wish to reply to a few of the comments that were just made by the hon. member. I, too, know that religion has often brought out the worst in people, but I do not feel that we should ever have to apologize for drawing on our spiritual roots and heritage and traditions. And that goes for all the great world religions. There is nothing exclusive about Christianity. If you want to promote that, then you are to be responsible for that, but there is a proper use for our spiritual values, and I would recommend them to the hon. member, whom I believe is a member of the cloth. From some of the comments I just heard, I'm not impressed, Mr. Speaker.

[11:15]

[ Page 238 ]

I also wish to say a few things in response to the very valid request made by my colleague on this side. He asked and he challenged the opposition to present a shadow budget, and I think that is a valid request. Why don't we have real alternatives? We have been told that their alternative is fairness and justice. What does that mean? Please spell that out, and when you do, don't just tell us that you're going to give greater handouts to those in need. Also tell us how you're going to raise the taxes to do that. It's not only the members of this side of the House who are challenging you for real, creditable alternatives. I have a quote here from the Vancouver Sun of Monday, March 23, from Vaughn Palmer's column. The headline says: "NDP is Offering Few Alternatives". He writes "There was nothing very startling in Mr. Stupich's assault on the budget figures, for he could say only what opposition critics always say — that the NDP would spend more, tax less, and still cut the deficit."

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words about the budget, because I believe it to be innovative. I believe it to be fair and ambitious, and I think it is designed to instill confidence; it speaks of good management and prudence. Above all, I would like to characterize this budget as being a most responsible budget. It is responsible for a number of reasons, which I'd like to outline.

First of all, it is responsible because it invests in people. It places people ahead of profits. Instead of megaprojects and pavement, we are meeting the needs of people, as the opposition has asked us to do for all these years, and it's here and it's before you. What we're doing in this budget, more than anything else, is reaching out to those who are dispossessed, those who cannot participate in the good life, those who are marginalized. It's here for all to see, and I wish the opposition would recognize that and at least acknowledge that there is a real fresh start and a departure here.

AN HON. MEMBER: What hypocrisy.

MR. LOENEN: It's not only I who say that. Again, quoting from the Vancouver Sun of the same date — Monday, March 23 — Denny Boyd writes as follows:

"The surprising aspect of this first budget from a government that has yet to be accurately pinned to the political compass was its apparent concern for education and for welfare recipients. Significant parts of the budget could have come from a left-wing government, which would account for the fact it took the opposition almost 24 hours to shuck the predictable scorn."

I would have expected the opposition to say that Mikey likes it. I haven't heard anybody say that yet. I wish they would and would acknowledge the fact that, indeed, we are doing something about the very problems that the NDP is always telling us about. I would hope that as yet the members of the opposition will join with the members of this side in congratulating the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) in telling the people of our communities that there is a fresh start, that we are reaching out to those in need.

We have heard a great deal of talk from the opposition about the need to create jobs and to do something about youth unemployment. Well, this document, this budget, aims to do exactly that, and I sometimes wonder whether we're reading the same speech. In short, I believe passionately that we are reaching out to those in need, the ordinary British Columbians, and I want to document that and give a few illustrations.

Education — an 11.3 percent increase, and I know that the people of my constituency are going to welcome that because it was a great concern to them. Education is the key to a better future for all of us. There is nothing more precious than to enrich the lives of our young people. This government is committed to doing that and we are doing it, and we're coming through on the promises that were made. That in turn will lead to job creation, and it will lead to the kind of enriched lives that all of us wish for all of us.

I would just like to quote from a publication of the B.C. School Trustees, which delineates how much it pays, how education is not only rewarding in itself but also carries monetary values that are very significant: "It still pays to have an education in B.C. A person with elementary schooling has only an 11 percent chance of earning more than $30,000 per year, while with a university degree their chances increase to 44 percent." I think we all recognize the importance of education, and I congratulate the Minister of Finance for giving place and significance to that area of education. It will also increase our productivity. You know, Canada at one point among the leading industrialized nations was fifth in terms of productivity. Today we're number 13. That simply isn't good enough, and education is the key to upgrading our skills and creating a workforce that can compete in world markets.

Financial assistance to students is up by 50 percent. Special emphasis for studies promoting contact with Pacific Rim nations, and the importance of trade and commerce and jobs that will be ours if we reach out and if we educate ourselves are being acknowledged and recognized. One way of meeting the needs of the poor is to create jobs that are permanent, instead of simply providing handouts.

Social assistance: 5 percent in June, 5 percent in December. We're told by the members of the opposition that we're not allowed to talk about that any more; they've heard it too many times. But they fail to acknowledge that in this measure we are reaching out to those in need. There is job training for youth. There is job-training for people on income assistance. There is special increased assistance for the disabled and the handicapped. There is support for families. We all, I think, recognize the importance of the family unit for our society as a whole. All of these, and more, are designed to meet real human needs.

There is a reduced sales tax, to help especially those on low income, because they are the primary beneficiaries. There is more money for day-care facilities, to allow single parents to enter the workforce and be gainfully employed and gain some dignity as a result of being able to care for their own needs.

There is more money for legal aid; again, for those who cannot afford the court system on their own means.

In short, Mr. Speaker, this budget is humane, it's compassionate. It is an effort whereby the strong help those who are weak; whereby the powerful reach out to the powerless. I think we ought to recognize that.

Secondly, there's another reason why this budget is a responsible budget. This budget invites all British Columbians to become more responsible in their own lives, in their own affairs. It is so important that each of us in our own day-to-day activities exercises a degree of financial management, stewardship and accountability. If we all do it in our own

[ Page 239 ]

lives, that will have a cumulative effect that will benefit all of us. We cannot continue to live beyond our means. Just as we cannot do that in our own family situations in terms of our own private finances, so too we as a society cannot continue to do that without serious consequences for the future.

This budget introduces a variety of measures, all of which are designed to allow every one of us to participate in that program of greater accountability, better financial management and stewardship. It eliminates a variety of subsidies to business corporations. We have seen over the last number of years that governments have interfered endlessly by providing tax incentives, etc. for corporations and businesses, and often they have not been very productive.

Open competition leads to strong, healthy industries, and this budget does that and seeks to follow that and pursue that principle. In so doing it will make all of us, in the end, more accountable.

Health costs have soared beyond all expectations and beyond the ability of this society to carry them much longer. The Pharmacare system has increased by 20 percent annually over the past six years. That is a phenomenal increase which simply cannot be allowed to continue, because, as has been said, it will imperil all of our health care services in time. The 75 percent dispensing fee that must now be paid is a measure which will make for greater responsibility and better financial management. It will do that for the doctors. Instead of giving prescriptions that last only a week or two weeks, they will be induced to provide prescriptions that will last at least a month, or perhaps more. It will make pharmacists sit up and take note, because there is a disparity between one pharmacist and the other when it comes to the charges on dispensing fees. It will create an element of competition that will be healthy.

It will also make the seniors more responsible, because they will start to shop around, and those on GAIN and income assistance will in fact be reimbursed sufficiently to offset this additional user fee.

Interjections.

MR. LOENEN: Most of those people, Mr. Speaker, if they are prudent and frugal, will in fact be able to benefit, because they receive the $125 whether they use it or not, and we ought recognize that. I predict that in time these measures will be looked upon as the leading edge of the economy and the society to come, because I tell you, and particularly the members opposite.... They tell us about the virtues of the Scandinavian countries and other western European socialist countries. I was born in Holland, and I'll tell you what happened there. You better sit up and take note, because their socialization took place long before it started hitting North America. But they have retreated and they have had to introduce user fees. If you wish to point to those countries as examples, then tell the whole story, and don't be selective.

MR. CASHORE: Then don't read four-day-old newspaper stories.

MR. LOENEN: Mr. Speaker, because we have to write our own speeches, because we do our own research, because we're up here all night doing that, it is no wonder that sometimes we can't keep up. I find it offensive when the hon. member opposite keeps telling us that it's our ghost speechwriters who ought to be blamed or credited. I want you to know that I was working last night in order to prepare myself for today.

[11:30]

There are further measures in this budget speech that will lead to a greater sense of responsibility. I'm delighted to see that local governments will be invited to participate in a greater and more meaningful way. I've served on the local council, and I know that it's a credit to our local governments throughout this province that their track record for fiscal responsibility is absolutely second to none. There is no level of government in this country that is more frugal with taxpayers' money, more accountable, than local government. Let us use those people at the local level wherever we can. This government does that, and we ought to welcome that.

There are special funding provisions for community based economic development initiatives. That, too, the members of the opposition ought to welcome. They've called for that for a long time. I know that the Richmond experience — when, two years back, we started to ask for proposals from the community on economic development initiatives — was overwhelming. That was a good experience. They have an economic development advisory commission that is working extremely well. You'd be surprised, when we open up the opportunities for people to show their initiative, to assume responsibility and to become involved in a meaningful way at the local level, what the results will be. I think this budget, in acknowledging that and putting money towards that, is on the right track, because that is where our jobs will come from, that is what is going to build confidence, that is what is going to make our community strong and healthy.

In addition to that, there is the hotel tax. I think the provision for that 2 percent surtax on rooms, which can be used locally by local governments to promote their own area, their own region, is another measure that will be used widely to stimulate people at the local level.

Environmental concerns. There are provisions in this budget that will make all of us just a bit more environmentally sensitive. I know from my own experiences in our own riding that environmental concerns are real concerns and big concerns. We ought to welcome provisions in this budget that will induce and provide incentives for greater environmental sensitivity.

I believe sincerely, Mr. Speaker, that this budget will allow us to build a better British Columbia for all, because it recognizes that each of us has a place, a task, that we have a role to play, and that we join hands and do that; that we don't simply look up to big government to solve all our problems, but reach down to the initiative, the entrepreneurial spirit and the creativity present among our people in our own communities.

There is one main reason why I feel this budget is most responsible: it is fiscally responsible in terms of managing our overall affairs. If you look at the expenses, the expense increase is 4.8 percent; the revenue increase is 9.2 percent. That means that we are trying to do something about the deficit, and that is courageous. It is so much easier, Mr. Speaker, for us to hide our head in the sand, to act as though it doesn't matter a whole lot because, after all, it will be future generations that will pay the bill. The easy way out is to ignore the deficit and do nothing about it, but that is, in my view, quite irresponsible and, in the long run, detrimental. This government has the fortitude to stand up and say: "We are going to do something about the deficit — not all overnight or not in one fell swoop, but we're making progress."

[ Page 240 ]

And that is recognized here. I believe that we're sending out signals to the investment community. We're sending out signals abroad and among our business leaders and among our financial institutions that this government is fiscally responsible.

Just to highlight that a little, even with the present deficit in the present budget, our total indebtedness, or deficit, will be $5.2 billion. The interest on that alone is $530 million — and these are times of low interest. That is an annual cost to every man, woman and child in this province of $181. That is a very significant sum of totally useless, non-productive money, but it must be paid. Unless we tackle this problem, this will exponentially increase, and get worse and worse and worse. We ought to recognize that the easy way out is to simply ignore it. But here is a government that does not ignore those very real problems, which will come back to haunt us in time.

Furthermore, there's fiscal responsibility because the estimates, the assumptions, the premises that underlie this budget are prudent. The rate of growth, the rate of inflation and the rate of unemployment are all looked at without being overly optimistic, as would be so very easy to do. You know, it's easy to balance a budget on paper. There is nothing to it. In fact, it could be a very popular thing, but this government, this Minister of Finance, is realistic. I believe that in due time all of us will come to see that there is real merit, there is real wisdom, in not being overly optimistic but in looking at things realistically — not counting your eggs before they're hatched.

That is what this budget does, and I think we ought to applaud that and recognize that and appreciate that. I believe it's wise management. This budget does not, as has been suggested, plan for higher unemployment. It doesn't do that at all, but it recognizes that, indeed, we ought not to be overly optimistic. If things work out better than anticipated, the budget allows for an early further reduction in the sales tax, and that would be a welcome measure. This budget, in short, builds confidence because it is built on good management practices.

We need confidence; we need to rebuild confidence. For instance, the $254 million shortfall in income taxes last year was mostly due to a shortfall in the corporate income tax, which suggests that the profits of B.C. corporations were suffering very badly. What that means is that we have to do all we can to regain and rebuild confidence. Because the budget is so responsible in so many ways, I think it will do that. It will create a better British Columbia. It will create the kind of jobs we need, and I look forward to all of us backing this budget, selling its message. Let us get out there and encourage each other to be part of the solution rather than part of the problem.

There are a few items I wish to touch on. Independent schools: the suggestion was made that somehow this favours the rich. Well, I know from experience that by far the majority of the parents of students that attend independent schools are not to be classified among the rich. That is simply not true. I believe in choice. I believe in diversity. I believe in freedom, because I believe it brings out the best in all of us.

I've said earlier that for every dollar that goes into independent schools the taxpayers of this province save two dollars. We ought to recognize that. Independent schools, whether they are the private, rich man's schools or the Catholic church schools, provide a service. I think it's only fair that this government recognizes that. It's only fair that we recognize that the parents of the children that attend independent schools are also taxpayers. It's only fair that at least one dollar out of every three dollars that they put into the coffers for education purposes goes back to the school of their choice for the benefit of their own children.

A number of figures and statistics were given us yesterday, I believe, by members opposite. Yes, there is a 42 percent increase in the money that will be allocated for independent schools. This is made up of at least three different categories. First of all, they did not have any access to the fund for excellence. They are receiving $2 million, as yet belatedly, for remedial and slow-learner programs.

In addition, there is an astonishing growth in independent schools. The growth in enrolment is between 5 and 6 percent, so that 42 percent is made up of a number of factors, one of which is simply a reflection of the growth that has taken place in the enrolment. Then secondly, because they receive a percentage of the cost of educating a child in the public school, when the cost of educating a child in the public school rises, of course their percentage increase also rises in absolute dollars. That is a further factor that leads to this.

The actual increase that they are experiencing, the real increase, is nothing like 42 percent. The actual increase is that where right now they receive 30 percent of the cost of educating a child in a public school, that will be raised to 35 percent, and that represents a 16.6 percent actual increase. So when we talk about 42 percent more for independent schools, that in itself, unless it's put in context, is highly misleading.

A few more interesting facts, if I may. Our current budget allocates $126.6 million more for public schools, $12.3 million more for independent schools. The percentage of the total budget expenditures destined for public schools is 9.7 percent. The percentage of total budget expenditures allocated to independent schools is only 0.9 percent. We're talking about a very insignificant amount, even though when you say 42 percent it sounds like a lot.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I'm sorry, your time has expired, if you'd like to take a couple of seconds to wrap up.

MR. LOENEN: I was just told I had one minute, Mr. Speaker. I'm sorry that I'm going beyond my time, but I guess the burden of my message this morning is that we have an excellent budget, one that is responsible in many ways that you could look at it. But it is a responsible budget, and it is one that is going to be welcomed by the people who want to get on in terms of solving our problems.

[11:45]

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased to be able to comment on the budget. I listened very carefully to what the second member for Richmond had to say about how this budget was going to help get British Columbia going again, and I may say that was what the people of British Columbia anticipated. There has been a feeling of anticipation since last summer, and in response to that there has been a tremendous amount of initiative at the local level and in other areas of British Columbia. For example, the Vancouver Island mayors put together an economic development document with assistance from treasury officials and a consulting firm. They proposed an upgraded silviculture program. They proposed that tourism receive even more emphasis and that

[ Page 241 ]

the Island Highway be built as soon as possible. They said that aquaculture was a good new industry but that it required some environmental regulations. They said that there was a great opportunity in the very high-amenity and high-quality area of Vancouver Island for advanced technology and knowledge industries, and that there was further opportunity for agriculture and mineral development.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, the Premier decided that he was going to play a very active role in the planning of British Columbia. He originally gave himself the Finance portfolio because he "wanted to bring back an economic strategy, and it will require a 'hands-on' involvement." That quote is from the Province newspaper, August 15, 1986. However, he had to divest himself of that active involvement because of the obvious problem of having a personal banker for his economic activities also being the bank of the province of British Columbia. But that was proper.

He did not, though, also tell us who would take charge of that economic strategy — which industries, what follow-up was going to happen. We received no details. It just sort of evaporated into thin air. We then had it come back in the form of a think-tank that I think you, Mr. Speaker, participated in in September 1986, where the cabinet said that there was going to be a focus on the private sector, free trade, the development of overseas markets, getting a fair share of federal spending and an improved labour relations climate; that education and training was going to receive greater attention; and we were going to be involved with deregulation, reassessing taxes and fees, and much more going into research and development.

So there was a sense of anticipation among British Columbians that we were indeed going to have a fresh start. Well, Mr. Speaker, British Columbians have been disappointed. British Columbians were told they were on a love boat last October. There was an economic strategy announced on the love boat sitting beside that gorgeous new facility, Canada Harbour Place, which is now British Columbia's trade and conference centre. And that wooing of the people of British Columbia stressed very concrete proposals.

A coordinated team effort was one of the initiatives. The second initiative was to receive federal and provincial agreement. Another initiative was to get the participation of the best minds in our community in British Columbia. Very comprehensive and specific, Mr. Speaker. Then we get to the nub of this gem, this wooing of the British Columbia citizen: a new B.C. airport authority. When you strip the words away what it boils down to is a second duty-free shop at the airport.

This does not represent a comprehensive strategy, and that is why the people of British Columbia feel like jilted lovers — that the cruise is over. And what do they see while the holes are forming in the hold of the ship? They see the crew in a lifeboat out frantically rowing around with one oar, looking for this elusive economic strategy. It did not appear, Mr. Speaker, in the throne speech; it did not appear in the budget; it certainly hasn't appeared in any of the speeches that I've heard so far. I've heard cheerleading. I've heard: "Be positive." I don't have to be told about that: I'm an insurance salesman's son, and it's in my genes. I'm a New Democrat. We're very positive, optimistic people.

What the people of British Columbia need is a strategy — a vision — for this great province. I've been travelling this province for the last six weeks. It's a magnificent part of our world, with people who have chosen to move here from all over this planet. We have no shortage of resources, of wonderful skilled people or of opportunities. What we have is a leaky love boat with the captain out in the lifeboat with one oar, searching for the elusive Holy Grail of an economic strategy. Well, I hope and pray that he does succeed in finding that elusive economic strategy.

What this province desperately needs is cooperation and vision, cooperation between government, the private sector and organized workers and unorganized workers who generate the jobs, instead of a tax on Crown corporations and government employees and teachers and the public sector. Instead of looking at the labour problem, we should be looking at labour-management cooperation.

What we need is a will to develop regionally based economic strategies which are based on the wealth of talent and opportunities at the local level throughout this province. Instead, what we're getting are higher taxes on small business and a deep reach into the pockets of the middle-income earners of this province who make this province go. Instead, we're getting an ad hoc, disorganized, cliche-ridden, think positive budget and throne speech. There is no clear strategy that unifies some of the projects that have been suggested or the incentives that the government has spat out at us through the budget speech and other means.

What happened to the last puffball love boat that we had — the Partners in Enterprise program? Where did it go? It evaporated into the air, never to be seen again. That, indeed, was a fresh start. It was a terrific program; it was so great that this budget finally disowned it. It disowned it by saying, and I quote, that "generous tax holidays, incentive grants and other subsidies designed to lure new businesses are generally unsuccessful in the long run." Some partnership!

The problem is the lack of creativity and vision that this continuing government — it's not a new government, it's a continuing government — has. Its economic development programs are limited to traditional industry attraction methods that have the usual limitations. They rely on the hidden hand on the market of Adam Smith, that elusive Holy Grail of a market that existed for ten years in England from 1820 to 1830, never to be seen again since. It's a little late to look for it; it disappeared 150 years ago, Mr. Speaker. That classic, free, autonomous, individualistic market that we keep hearing about disappeared 150 years ago after a ten-year effort in a small part of England.

The assistance of the kind of economic development strategies that are still continuing from this government is marginal assistance that's so stretched out that it rarely attracts industries. It sometimes attracts the touchdown industries. That's not a football term; that is touchdown as in runway — a plane touches down and leaves again very quickly.

If you want to read a very good critique of this continuing approach, read the city of Vancouver finance director and city manager's report that was unanimously adopted by our city council — which has the same ideological breadth and depth as this chamber does. It was unanimously rejected, from Harry Rankin to George Puil; that covers three centuries of politics. Because the touchdown industries come in, they take the free land, they take the free grants, they take the free subsidies. Does this sound like the Peace? Does this sound like a particle-board plant? They grab the goodies and then they run where industry is more efficient, where they pay workers a dollar a day, where there's no pollution standards, where there's no proper housing or benefits for the workers, and they grab other goodies there, usually financed through the World Bank as incentives to take away those industries,

[ Page 242 ]

and those communities are left with an empty shell after all the goodies are gone. It is an empty, empty economic strategy.

AN HON. MEMBER: You don't know what you're talking about.

MR. HARCOURT: We have problems, I agree, to the hon. member. This province has lots of problems, and you've provided very few solutions, believe me — very few.

We have the Ministry of Economic Development's estimates which give such a great incentive to small business, such great incentives as a 38 percent increase in small business tax, and then eliminates three key programs that were developed: expenditures on low-interest loans have been reduced; the grant portion of venture capital corporation has been eliminated; and the special investment interest subsidy program has been cut. They've all been eliminated. So, Mr. Speaker, people have been waiting with anticipation and are now sorely disappointed.

Mr. Harcourt moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Strachan moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:59 a.m.