[ Page 3683 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Tabling Documents –– 3683

Oral Questions

Ambulance dispatch service. Mrs. Boone –– 3683

Ambulance transfer service. Mrs. Boone –– 3684

Ambulance fees. Mrs. Boone –– 3684

Pharmacare and AZT. Mr. Harcourt –– 3684

Toigo bid on BCEC properties. Mr. Williams –– 3684

Tabling Documents –– 3685

Budget Debate

Mr. R. Fraser –– 3685

Mr. Sihota –– 3688

Mr. Serwa –– 3691

Mr. Lovick –– 3694

Mr. Crandall –– 3697

Mr. Blencoe –– 3700

Hon. Mr. Veitch –– 3703

Tabling Documents –– 3706

The House met at 2:08 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. VEITCH: In the members' gallery today is my wife Sheila, and with her is her nephew from Sudbury, Ontario, a recent graduate from Waterloo University, Mr. Paul Boyce. I would ask you to bid them welcome.

MR. KEMPF: It is my great pleasure today to introduce to the House a Maori family visiting Victoria from New Zealand: Mr. Sidney Melbourne, his wife Jan, and daughters Maya and Mahina. Mr. Melbourne is a teacher of languages at the university in Hamilton, New Zealand. They are here visiting our province and our Legislature, accompanied by two Victoria residents, Mr. George Taylor and Mr. Jack Kelly. I would ask the House to make them very welcome.

HON. MR. DUECK: Today in the gallery are two young people from Calgary, Alberta. They are the niece and nephew of my wife. They are looking at this government, since they are involved in similar work. Helen Siemens is a specialist in home economics and health in Calgary, Alberta Department of Education; and her brother, John Siemens, is with building operations, Petro-Canada, Calgary. They are impressed with what this government has done in the area of AIDS, since I've sent the packages over to them. They are looking at it for their education department. Would the House please make them welcome.

MR. RABBITT: Today I have a list of guests that would rival my colleague from Cowichan-Malahat. We have with us two young ladies from Washington State, just south of the border. They are Jennifer Flynn and Michelle Claggett. Also, we have from Alberta Mr. John De Champlain and his daughter Laura, and two school teachers, Mrs. Margaret Hess and Marilyn Ogrodnick, all from Westlock. With us also from the sunny community of Victoria are Mr. and Mrs. Sandy Quesnel. Would the House please give them a warm welcome.

Hon. Mr. Veitch presented the forty-sixth annual report of business done in pursuance of the Pension (Teachers) Act.

Hon. Mr. Couvelier presented the 1987 annual report of the Assessment Appeal Board.

Oral Questions

AMBULANCE DISPATCH SERVICE

MRS. BOONE: A question to the Minister of Health. Last fall, despite opposition from northern communities, you proceeded with a plan to centralize ambulance dispatch in Kamloops. Is the minister aware that there have been constant problems with communication and the actual dispatching since the centralization occurred?

HON. MR. DUECK: We are continuing with that decentralization as planned, and there have been some problems, not necessarily due to communications because of decentralization, but because of human error. That could have happened in any event. The system. by and large, is working very well, better than it did before.

MRS. BOONE: Is the minister aware that within the past week there have been two separate occasions when Kamloops dispatch denied requests for backup and on one occasion sent the wrong station to a call with the wrong directions, and that both of these cases resulted in deaths of British Columbians that might have been avoided?

HON. MR. DUECK: I am not going to respond to something I don't know of at this moment, the exact incident that the member is referring to. However, I can assure this House that it is not because of decentralization, because any case that's been brought to my attention I've looked at very carefully. It was for other reasons, could have happened at any time and was not necessarily because of decentralization.

MRS. BOONE: The minister seems to have some problem here. This is centralization. You are centralizing the ambulance dispatch; you have not decentralized it. I have indicated some problems to you, and these problems are very grave. Is the minister now ready to personally investigate the effect that this centralized dispatch has had on service and to reconsider this move, which is putting the lives of British Columbians at risk?

HON. MR. DUECK: I am sorry that I said decentralization; I meant centralization. Thank you for that correction. However, I do say once again that it is not because of centralization that this has happened. It is very unfortunate that things happen the way they do. There are human errors. We're dealing with human elements, with people who are human and make errors. It's not because of centralization. However, if the member has some specific concern about a certain incident.... I have investigated every incident reported to me in the past, and have been assured — I am assured — that it is not because of centralization. If you have some information I have not got, I'd like to have it.

[2:15]

MRS. BOONE: Supplementary. Mr. Minister, these errors are due to centralization. They are due to the fact that the people in Kamloops are not aware of the geography, of where ambulances are. They are giving wrong directions to people. That is a centralization problem. Will the minister personally investigate these situations with a view to reconsidering, if necessary, this move that is putting the lives of British Columbians at risk?

HON. MR. DUECK: Again, I would like to tell the member that it is not what the member thinks it is. That information is really to the ambulance service, and those people are doing the dispatching — not from Kamloops. They just give that information to the local people. They are the ones who know where the streets are. It doesn't matter what the person in the central station does. He gives out information to the operator, and that operator or the driver knows where the address is.

I have gone through many of the same concerns that you express. Whenever there's a change, people will have concerns. To begin with, it was a concern about losing jobs, and that built on and on. I can assure the member that the operation is going well. Again, I challenge her: if she has an

[ Page 3684 ]

incident that has not been investigated, I would like to know, in order to bring back a report in full and tell you exactly what the reasons were.

AMBULANCE TRANSFER SERVICE

MRS. BOONE: I will meet with the minister personally to talk about this — I do have information for you on that, and I am not wasting my time on this point.

Next month the government will be putting more British Columbians at risk as it privatizes ambulance services in the lower mainland. The minister needs to be reminded that doctors call for ambulances for transfer service because there is a risk to the health of the patient. Will the minister confirm that he is still proceeding on May I with the transportation of priority 3 and 4 patients by private contracting rather than through ambulances?

HON. MR. DUECK: I think this question has been asked before, and I have maintained that we are not privatizing the ambulance service. It's always put in those words: "...I privatize the ambulance service." And then of course, in the second sentence, it's because of some transportation. We've always used certain transportation that is not necessarily ambulances for transporting certain people who aren't at risk. We will continue to do that. We're not privatizing the ambulance service.

MRS. BOONE: Mr. Minister, British Columbians count on our public ambulance service because they know it's staffed by well-trained ambulance paramedics, professionals who have saved lives during the course of so-called routine transfers. Will the minister tell the House why he is putting British Columbians at risk, and why he is transferring acute care patients by what he calls a transportation delivery service rather than by skilled paramedics and reliable ambulances?

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, I believe I answered the question, but I want to reiterate: we are not putting British Columbians at risk. How many more times do you want me to say that? We are not putting British Columbians at risk. When we transfer patients who aren't at risk, that has happened before. What more can I say?

AMBULANCE FEES

MRS. BOONE: Different question. On March 25, by this order-in-council and not mentioned in the budget, the minister raised ambulance fees for British Columbians from $28 to $35. Will the minister tell the House why he wants to establish a two-tiered health care system for B.C. by cutting back on safe ambulance services while increasing ambulance costs for the sick and the elderly? And why, Mr. Minster, didn't you have the guts to put this into your budget?

PHARMACARE AND AZT

MR. HARCOURT: Yesterday I asked the Premier why he has personally discriminated against AIDS patients by charging for the drug AZT. I'd like to ask the Premier whether he can confirm that AIDS patients living alone in British Columbia — not coming from other provinces — and making as little as $7,000 a year must pay the $2,000 user fee for AZT.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, if the member is not familiar with the Pharmacare program, I'd be pleased to send him that information. But in the meantime, if he wishes more particulars on the working of the Pharmacare program, I will defer the question to the Minister of Health.

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, all I can say to that is that we have a Pharmacare program in place. If they want to know exactly the information about the Pharmacare program, I will meet with the hon. member or send him the copy in the mail.

MR. HARCOURT: I'm pleased to see that the Premier of the province and the Minister of Health don't even know their own program and can't, in simple language, explain it here in the Legislature. I'm not pleased, though, for the people who are suffering because of those policies, so I'll ask a supplementary and hope for a better response.

In B.C. there are 60 children at the present time who receive the growth hormone drug to aid their physical development, at a possible cost of $2,000 to their families, and it's estimated that that number may grow to as many as 95 over the next year. Will the Premier confirm that a B.C. family of four who have a child receiving this treatment will be required to pay the $2,000 even if their family income is as low as $13,000 a year?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: If in fact they are able to participate in the program.... That's how the Pharmacare program works, not only for these particular drugs, but there are many other drugs. I've heard it mentioned by people, for example, who use drugs because of high blood pressure. Without their taking the drugs, obviously there's a great risk of a heart attack, and because of this they're always having to take that particular drug. Again, it's covered by Pharmacare. There are a number of these drugs that are covered by Pharmacare, some very expensive drugs, and there are more coming on the market all the time.

The Pharmacare program, I repeat, in effect says that you pay the first $300 –– 20 percent of cost. We've now put in a maximum of $2,000 in recognition that we're often dealing with very expensive drugs. But the practice is that people, if they're able to participate and contribute, do contribute. In doing this, obviously we provide a degree of protection that we're able to maintain. If, as is suggested by the Leader of the Opposition in the question, we make it available for free in one instance, we would have to expand it to others, and there is a limit to what the program can provide for. So we're dealing fairly with all situations, and if, in answer to the question, the person is in receipt of welfare or doesn't have the opportunity to pay and therefore is in need but can't contribute, he will be provided with the drug at no charge.

MR. HARCOURT: I hope the Premier recognizes the unfairness of his government's policies. He should put aside his own personal biases towards AIDS victims and lowincome British Columbians and ensure that those individuals and families seeking AZT and growth hormone treatment will not have to suffer financial hardship to get health care in our province. Will the Premier finally do that?

TOIGO BID ON BCEC PROPERTIES

MR. WILLIAMS: To the Premier. Why, after establishing the rules for bidding on the Expo site, did you consider

[ Page 3685 ]

the bid from Mr. Toigo on all of the assets of B.C. Enterprise Corporation? Can you confirm that you did make a presentation to cabinet to that effect?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, what goes on in cabinet is for cabinet.

MR. WILLIAMS: Further to the Premier. Last week you said that you did not intercede to put the Toigo offer on the agenda. Your Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) confirms in today's press that you did. Will you reconsider your statement of last week?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I cannot comment any more on press reports than that I suggest the member shouldn't base all of his questioning on press reports.

MR. WILLIAMS: Is the Premier saying that he did not present Mr. Toigo's offer to his colleagues?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: What goes on in cabinet is for cabinet.

MR. WILLIAMS: By putting that offer, since we've had confirmation from your senior minister in this regard, you are in effect prepared to cancel the tendering process with respect to the most valuable lands in British Columbia. Did you ever consider the ethics of that, Mr. Premier?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: If the hon. member who asked the question has a problem with ethics, then I think perhaps he should consider his own conduct. I don't have a problem with ethics.

MR. WILLIAMS: Again on the same issue, you said regarding the Toigo offer: "I don't think the majority of them" — the BCEC board — "would have favoured that" — the Toigo offer — "in any case. I only went to put their minds at ease...that we would deal with" the other land separately. Mr. Premier, do you have in mind cutting two big deals, one with some other buyer that the Minister of Economic Development supports, and the other one that you support, where you will transfer the rest of the assets of the Enterprise Corporation in that regard? Is it going to be two big friends of government that benefit?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I can only guarantee that if we cut a deal, it will be a better deal than was cut by the hon. member when he was a minister.

MR. WILLIAMS: Could the Premier explain why he would have to be more cautious and more discreet in dealing with Mr. Toigo than with anyone else?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I think because of people like the questioner, who perhaps potentially read things into a situation that shouldn't be, but obviously we need to be aware.

Hon. B.R. Smith tabled the 1987 annual report of the invasion-of-privacy sections of the Criminal Code.

Orders of the Day

Budget Debate
(continued)

MR. R. FRASER: Mr. Speaker and colleagues, I'd like to pick up where I left off yesterday, talking about the great budget that came down in British Columbia. Again. referring to my friends across the floor. who remain the negative party of British Columbia.... Always a surprise to me, but then, what do you expect? I know that we like to be government and you like to be opposition, so we will continue with that longstanding tradition in the province of British Columbia.

There were some interesting things in the budget. One that really kind of amused me was the Island Highway for $6 million, which didn't seem like a lot of money at the time. But then, when you look back at the criticisms that the government received about other highway projects that worked out very well, where there were some upgrading and hurry-up works underway, you would have to understand that the government wanted to spend a few million dollars upgrading and doing some engineer work, some surveys and some of that work, so that the opposition would have a full and clear idea all the time, as they would like to do. Even though they might not be able to understand what we're doing, certainly we would want to give them that information. And certainly we will want the great general contractors of British Columbia to be able to bid on a project, knowing what they were going to need, so the taxpayers would know what we wanted to spend. So the $6 million, which did seem very small, looks to me like a good start on a highway project that will do great things for the province of British Columbia.

Interjection.

MR. R. FRASER: Absolutely — surveying fees, engineering fees, all those things that people in this province take part in. The fact that I happen....

[2:30]

Interjections.

MR. R. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, this is getting....

There are some good things in the budget — as well as this one we just talked about — that we will see save an awful lot of money. I want to commend the government for bringing in the family maintenance enforcement order. I think that's good. There's no question that we will save $100 million a year of taxpayers' dollars. Maybe it's only going to be $90 million, but it will be substantial. I would like to think that every entitled spouse will get support for either herself or her children, and that spouses across the land, be they male or female, who are on support will get the income. As a matter of fact, I notice that men are now getting maintenance payments, which I think comes as a shock to many people. That's a very good program, and it's a positive program — one going across the country, which makes sense, because we can't have children abandoned because one spouse is not getting along with another. I would like to think, of course, that ex-spouses get along. But this budget proposal is good, and I have no trouble supporting that.

The other things that we're going for. Legal aid is up 11 percent. We're putting $23 million into substance abuse programs. For the disabled, $26 million, which brings it to $541 million.

Then, of course, the question you have to ask is: where are we going to get the money from? From you. And from me. And from everybody who makes an income and pays taxes. And from corporations. And all those people out there who have a tax load to carry. The people who drive cars will

[ Page 3686 ]

pay tax on their gasoline, those who drink will pay taxes there, and smokers are going to pay taxes. It's something that you have to understand — you can't get something without paying for it one way or another. So we have a responsibility as a government to say to people: this is what government services cost.

MR. JONES: You've brought back a head tax.

MR. R. FRASER: Mumble, mumble from the most disorganized member in the entire House — that one over there — lost as usual. It's interesting, though, that we've got an important project here to tell the general public in British Columbia what things cost. One of the ways we do it is to advise them of the services they're spending money on without having to pay the bill directly. I was very pleased to see that the government of British Columbia is asking the doctors to give a ticket, a notice, a statement to patients, so they will know how much money they have spent from the health care plan. It will not cost a nickel. It will be so much better for the doctors. I know the member for Prince George North (Mrs. Boone) is worried about the cost to the doctor. But if he has a computer terminal in his office and can punch it through to the medical assistance plan, they would get the printout right then and there. The doctor will probably be paid faster. The patient will know what it costs. He may want to reflect on the health care plan in general.

If we should worry about anything with respect to health care, we certainly want to have a look at what we're spending on this great system, because frankly, when you look at the national health care system in England and you see the kind of money they're spending, and you look at the disaster that they appear to be in, according to their own words, and you notice that all the doctors are on salary.... You notice they have a million employees. I'm told, according to this article, that the national health care system in England is the biggest single employer in Europe. That has to be incredible. We have to be as worried as the English are about our health plan, so that we do not find ourselves in that same circumstance. We have to make sure that the waiting-lists they have don't fall on us.

We have to let people know where the money is going and where the money is coming from. One of the ways to do it is to advise the patient on each visit. If we don't do that, we will be neglecting our duty. We'll be short-shrifting the patients. We can't do that. We talk about premiums. You know, they are going to go up if we spend more money on health care. There's no question about that; they're tied. They should be — the notice should be tied. It's part of your compensation package.

Interjection.

MR. R. FRASER: No, I've not lost my audience. You know, the real leader of the party is the member for Vancouver East, who sits over there and picks on this little member over here. It's unbelievable.

MR. WILLIAMS: You're the only one listening.

MR. R. FRASER: You always listen to good ones, don't you.

MR. JONES: How about the health care system in the States?

MR. R. FRASER: The member for Burnaby North asks me about the health care system in the United States of America — the most disorganized member in the entire building. What about the health care system in the U.S.A.? We all know that our system is better. We all know that the English system is in trouble. So what do you want to do with that information? You want to make sure that we don't go that way. You want to make sure that we don't burden our plan so that the whole thing crumbles. That's the whole idea of letting people know what the costs are. That's the purpose.

When people complain about costs going up or down, I know we use percentages to our advantage, and certainly the members opposite are no exception to that. But when we find that our seniors are paying now approximately the same or a little bit less for extended-care costs, we would have to say: is that right? Is that fair? Have they got any money left? Where are we? Are they eligible for GAIN and all those things? And the answer is yes. With the exception of Alberta, our seniors have more disposable income left than anybody else in the country. It isn't much, but at least it's more.

I don't know what Alberta is going to do, but I do know that recently Alberta had more people on staff per capita than any other province in Canada. When they had all the money in the world to play with, I guess it didn't matter very much, but it matters now, and I think they're going to have some problems with that. Luckily we've been able to face up to some of these problems, having come through some very difficult years.

Interjection.

MR. R. FRASER: We're all going to pay, Mr. Member. Everybody that works has to pay. Your obligation is never satisfied, and if you understand that, then you're coming along very nicely.

We look at one of the more interesting western politicians in the Canadian scene, who was involved with....

MR. LOVICK: Was he in this House?

MR. R. FRASER: No, he was never a member of this House, but he was in this House from time to time as a guest, I am sure. He is widely credited with doing a number of interesting things with medicare and social programs and the welfare state and that sort of thing. The interesting part about this man is that he once got himself into the pseudo-science of eugenics and he once was going to eliminate poverty and all those mentally unhealthy and morally unsound people by having marriage fitness classes. This was a colleague of yours, incidentally, whom I won't bother to name. However, it was one of his more unsuccessful programs.

What we have to be reminded of over and over again is: we can spend everything we want as long as we're willing to pay, and if we're not willing to pay, then we have to reload.

The one I left off yesterday, Mr. Speaker.... We were talking a little bit about colleges, and my particular college in Vancouver, which also affects you, is Vancouver Community College — a good, well-run college. They tell me that they've got a funding problem now with this new budget. That does raise some questions in my mind and I presume in the minds of many. I know that they're having a meeting with the Minister of Advanced Education and Job Training (Hon. S. Hagen) and presumably with the Minister of Finance. I want to assure the members of that college that they will get a

[ Page 3687 ]

good hearing from the minister and the government, because there must be some mistake in the numbers if we're not getting it. If they don't think they're getting the money, something is wrong and they should be given a hearing, and they are getting a hearing. If the numbers need fixing, I would like to think that they will be fixed.

One of the interesting things about what is happening, though, is that the minister, who has so far been praised to the skies by most people, now finds himself under sharp criticism from a former college instructor who writes that he has lost credibility because he is trying to do things in the college system the writer doesn't agree with. Funny he should run into that — not bad, though; it's been pretty long.

One of the more significant advances has been the advancement of aid for students. Student aid, I guess, would be a better way to do it. The enormous increase in funding for students should, in fact, lead every student to an opportunity to go to a post-secondary institution if he or she should happen to wish to do that. It is one of the great advances that we've had here that wasn't always possible. It is now, and I like to see that.

More and more I would like to see students finding their way into employment circumstances when they're not in school. This is going to come to pass more and more as the economy continues to improve. Our students will be better and better looked after as we move into the new economy of the province which we've worked so hard to get to and which we will obviously all work hard to maintain and enhance as it comes through to us day by day.

MR. JONES: When do you get to the good stuff? Pick it up a little.

MR. R. FRASER: Pick it up a little! That member! Really, isn't he unfortunate?

We've had some lively discussions lately, talking about the assets of British Columbia which may or may not be sold, in particular the Expo lands. I can assure you that as a member from Vancouver — particularly, of course, from Vancouver South — I am more than just passingly interested in what happens to those lands. I'm not sure at this point whether the bidding should have been public or private, but it really doesn't matter, because we'll get a chance to look at it after the fact — if that's the only way we're going to do it — and we will know that it's all clean and up front. When it's done, when the information is known, we can assess it. I know that my colleagues in cabinet would be worried at having someone look at it if it wasn't done well, so I'm sure it will be done well. The Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) has done a nice job with that.

What I find really interesting is that it seems to bother some of the members opposite when people come to British Columbia with money to invest. It seems to trouble them greatly that local funds aren't used. But it never seems to bother anybody when Canadians like Campeau and others invest heavily and buy into American companies. That seems to be all right. What the problem is with that I don't know. If we're going to go overseas, then overseas people should come here. We have to remember constantly that we're a trading nation, and obviously we're going to involve ourselves with trade from all sorts of other nations. What worries me about this particular aspect is that the Leader of the Opposition seems to be causing a problem with respect to investment from overseas. He is quoted widely in a newspaper article as being worried about Asian investment in particular, and then he wonders why nobody understands his point of view.

As it happens, the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Clark) talked in his reply to the throne speech about phony foreign investment in British Columbia begging for money from around the world. I don't know why he would want to do that. Money that comes to British Columbia creates work, creates employment; people will be able to buy houses, sites, apartment blocks and all those things. The creation of jobs, the employment of tradesmen and professionals, the building of huge new projects, the opening up of the market in the lower mainland, is very desirable, and we should be talking about the more positive aspects of that. Certainly we should be concerning ourselves with the possible liabilities of any project. but there are pluses and minuses with everything and we will have to measure those accordingly.

What I find troublesome in a way, Mr. Speaker, are the news releases I get from the president of the BCGEU, who says things that disturb me, particularly when I don't find them to be factual. In a news release here.... We all know that the mood of the House is better, and that's nice, but the words that Mr. Shields uses constantly in this particular press release are "confrontation, confrontation, fight, fight." He says the government seems to be wanting more and more confrontation, and then we have Elsie McMurphy talking about more and more confrontation. It's funny that the public sector union leaders would say that. In fact, the private sector union leaders — Jack Munro being one in particular — have said that the industry attitude has improved considerably, and he's not expecting any labour disruptions this year. I find that attitude very progressive. and I would certainly want that to be the case.

It is perceived by many that this new attitude is there, but when you see people like John Shields saying that the government has no right to sell parkland.... The fact is that the minister has said the parkland is not for sale. What he did say, of course, is that the operators of mini-parks will be from the private sector. What you want is to have the park open and operating. It really doesn't make much difference who does it, providing it's done efficiently, effectively and is open to everybody in the province — no restriction, all access, all opportunity, all operated efficiently and effectively and done well. If we can do that, then we've done fine.

MR. SIHOTA: Five minutes.

MR. R. FRASER: Five minutes? Did you check? Where have you been, Mr. Member from Esquimalt? I haven't seen you for a while. You've been missing.

[2:45]

MR. JONES: Is this the best defence of the budget you can come up with? Put up another speaker. You've got to do better than this.

MR. R. FRASER: I'm giving you a break today, Mr. Burnaby North. I certainly have some questions about every budget. In fact, the member from Burnaby — my friend over here, my colleague — who raised some issues about the budget had some points that I think we could look at quite refreshingly. We could do some pre-budget planning, with he exception of tax increases or changes. We could get into

[ Page 3688 ]

that. We certainly want to make it possible for people who have problems earning money to have some left at the end of the pay period, whenever that may happen to come. We want our young people to have employment; we want to create the climate that will bring investment opportunity to British Columbia; we want to create the climate of opportunity here, which we can do, and so the purpose of any budget that you may wish to present, whether it has been reviewed before or after, is to tell people where we've been and where we're going. If you really care about people, which this government obviously does, then you have to give them lots and lots of advice about the direction and the motivation and the incentives and the hope for the people of British Columbia that we can so easily provide if we work together — and I'm sure that we will continue to do that.

It's nice for me to note in the budget that we have 20,000 fewer people on income assistance. As I've said with respect to students, more and more students will find employment as the economic climate in British Columbia continues to improve. More and more people will find work. If we can, as I say, make sure that maintenance payments for spouses come through, then maybe their lives would be improved significantly, and certainly it would be a joy for them, I'm sure, not to be on the welfare rolls and not to be dependent on the taxpayer when I'm sure that most of them would like to be otherwise fixed and certainly gainfully employed.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will turn the place over to one of my colleagues across the floor, and I thank you for this opportunity. But there's one special thing I want to mention before I go. There was a little notice in the budget here that about one-third of our money spent on provincial correctional institutes is spent on people who are there because of impaired-driving convictions. I understand that it costs about $6 million a year to keep people convicted of impaired driving charges incarcerated.

The Attorney-General (Hon. B.R. Smith) came along recently and said: "We have some new devices now so that we can electronically contain people within their own houses and certainly within their own yards." It strikes me that a punishment almost worse — and maybe worse — than going to jail would be to have a person locked up in his own house being constantly harassed by his own family for being so dumb. I would like to think that we could not only keep the cost of jails down, but we would probably have people begging us to send them to jail rather than being at home and harassed by their families. If we can pick up $6 million and put it into some more useful activity than keeping people in jail, I would like to think that we would do that. I hope the Attorney-General will come forward with a report or a program or a discussion paper that we can work with and look at, so that those who get convicted of these quite unbelievably ridiculous offences will be housed and inconvenienced at their expense and not at public expense.

MR. SIHOTA: It's a pleasure for me to speak on the matter of the budget, and I'm delighted to see that the Attorney-General is in the room, because I intend to talk about court fees later on. So when he finishes talking with the member from Langley, I'll move on to the matter of court fees.

I'm also delighted to see that the Premier is here. I know that the Premier is currently engaged in quite a discussion about St. Ann's Academy, which I'm sure he'll do something about to assist the sisters at St. Ann's, because I know his heartfelt feeling for the sisters of the Catholic persuasion at St. Ann's. I'm sure that all of us who represent the Victoria area and particularly my good friend the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) look forward to a major announcement from this government in terms of funding proposals, particularly in light of what transpired on the radio this afternoon. I'm sure that the Premier will see fit to provide much-needed assistance.

While I've got the Premier's ear, I want to talk a little bit about what this budget is all about and to talk about what this budget really stands for and what this budget shows in terms of the type of government that we have in this province.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's cruel.

MR. SIHOTA: It is cruel. It is inconsiderate. It does not care. And it is prepared, for the sake of dollars, to run roughshod over all sorts of people in this province. I want the Premier to listen to this for a minute or two. There is an obsession....

AN HON. MEMBER: Why?

MR. SIHOTA: Why do I want the Premier to listen? Because this is the first time that I can remember the Premier actually being in the House at 10 minutes before three. Usually he leaves at 2:30 to lick his wounds after question period, and maybe from time to time.... I can remember the Coquihalla debate, when he was in here for a grand total of five minutes. I can remember the debate on Bill 19, when he was here for, I think, a grand total of 26 minutes over a five-week debate.

This Premier, this one-man show, obviously doesn't care about the statements that are made in the Legislature, and obviously, through this budget, doesn't care a lot about some of the people in this province who don't have it so well: people of modest means or limited incomes, seniors, those on assistance and, worst of all, children.

We've just witnessed today at question period the Premier's attitude about not funding drugs for children, saying that for families who have incomes greater than $13,000 or single parents who have incomes greater than $7,000 — which is a pitiful amount, an amount he's not prepared to concede in this House — this government is not prepared to pay for special hormone treatment required by those children. That is a total lack of sensitivity by this government that runs — as we saw yesterday — a major $20 million program on families, but can't provide for basic drugs for children. That's the type of callous attitude that people talk to me about.

I had the opportunity today to spend a little time in my riding. I visited the people in Sooke and the western communities, and I talked to a group of seniors in my riding at a housing project. Maybe the Premier, who's not listening, doesn't want to hear that these people are not exactly enamoured with this government. In fact, quite to the contrary, they're offended by what this government is doing.

This morning there were about 100 to 125 seniors gathered, and the questions all focused on the latest budget. I want the Premier to understand that these seniors who have contributed their taxes during their earning lives, when they just for once need a break, are robbed. They're told that if they're required to be in acute- or extended-care facilities, the government is going to require payment of 85 percent of their

[ Page 3689 ]

OAS and GIS contributions. As one woman said to me today, that leaves her with $40 for everything else. What type of sensitivity is that?

This government turns around and increases medical premiums payable by seniors and everybody else out there to $58, I believe, for a family — I think it's $52 or something like that for single people — as a method of gaining money. If you look at the budget, you will see a total of $555 million coming into government coffers, according to the budget, from medical premiums. On the other hand, you see $557 million — only $2 million more — projected to come in from corporate income tax. What kind of priorities are reflected in those two figures?

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: No, it's not because there are more people than there are corporations. It's because this government does not have the guts to turn around and make the large corporate sector in this province pay its fair share of taxes. In its overwhelming desire to protect its friends in the large corporate sector, it decides to punish families, to infuriate seniors, to attack individuals and raise money from individuals at the expense of these large corporate interests.

Today, Mr. Speaker, I understand the province of New Brunswick came down with its budget, and it increased by 6.7 percent its rate of taxation on corporations. This government — what did it do? It reduced the rate of taxation, particularly for large corporations. So we have an imbalance now under our tax system which obviously doesn't concern the Premier, as he wishes to chat with his House Leader. We have an imbalance now such that 83 percent of revenue that's garnered by this government comes from individuals — you and I — and 17 percent comes from the corporate sector. Where is the fairness in terms of taxation rates set by this government, as reflected in this budget? Where is the fairness, when you start saying to the average income-earner in this province,"You've got to pay 83 percent of what we raise as government," and you give the corporate sector responsibility for 17 percent?

Worse still is that the rate for taxation for large corporations in this province — again, as evidenced by the budget — went down to, I believe, 14 percent. Since the election of this government, it has gone down from 16 to 14 percent. Yet individual taxation rates have gone up. In fact, in the last budget alone, they went up 14 percent. I ask you: what kind of fairness is that? When was the last time that individual tax rates — for example, for myself — were reduced? Yet large corporations — I'm not talking about small businesses; I'm talking about large corporations — have seen their tax rates go down to 14 percent.

The government, if it is to be believed about its financial problems — and I want to talk about that later on, in terms of the mirage they're creating with respect to their financial problems — ought to be asking itself: if we've got a deficit, if we've got some financial problems and if we make the decision to tax people to raise more money, who do we tax? Well, it seems to me that it ought to be just basic common sense that you tax those best able to pay. Yet in this budget, Mr. Speaker, we saw the taxation rate for banks in this province go down, but seniors were asked to pay 10 percent more, to 85 percent of their income, for extended and acute care.

[3:00]

If the government honestly has a fiscal problem, which the Premier says it does, and if the government has difficulty getting money, which the Premier says it does — and that he can't pay for drugs for kids — and if you want to get money, why not get it from those banks instead of from those seniors? What kind of contorted, inequitable fiscal policy is that? It's totally irrational, totally callous, totally inconsiderate and totally, quite candidly, aimed at pleasing those friends of government that the Premier and his cronies on the other side of this House have. Nor does this budget....

MR. BLENCOE: No trouble.

MR. SIHOTA: The Premier had no trouble at all blessing that type of policy and then saying no to increases for welfare rates, saying no to seniors who wanted prescription drugs, saying...

Interjections.

MR. SIHOTA: ...no to St. Ann's Academy — if the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mrs. Johnston) wishes to heckle. He's quick to say no to those people who are desperately in need.

I see the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Reid) talking about JobTrac. Maybe I'll talk a little about that as well.

But there is no fairness. There's no fairness to small business in this budget. The members opposite like to stand up and say: "We reduced the taxation rate for small business by 2 percent" — again, like I say, you picked up the revenue, I guess, from seniors. But you like to say you reduced it by 2 percent. You quickly forget to mention that you raised it by 3 percent last year — I think it went from 8 to 11, a 38 percent increase — and you've reduced it back by 2 percent, so since this government came to power the taxation rate for small business has gone up by 1 percent. Fair enough, but then what does this government do? From the consumer, the average individual — to look at it from a different way than I came from originally when I discussed this matter earlier in my speech — what did this government do? It taxed the average individual, the average family in this province, by $700 in taxes and in fees. That's $700 that's now going to go to government out of a family paycheque. That's $700 that won't be available for discretionary spending. That's $700 that won't be going to those small businesses that sell refrigerators, TVs, microwaves, groceries and hardware goods.

So you've reduced the pay packet. Not only does that adversely affect small businesses, but it also places a significant escalation on wage demands. When people see their spending power going down — government employees, for example.... When they see that they've got that much less, then they go to the negotiating table to ask for that much more. That obviously has an effect on wage demands. It's not surprising to see the IWA workers saying that they want $2 an hour more, when this pickpocket nickel-and-dime government has ripped them off to the tune of $700.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Please withdraw that.

MR. SIHOTA: It is pickpocket; it is nickel-and-dime; and in fact I think it's the Minister of Finance himself who said that the government was nickel-and-diming the people of this province. So there's no need. Madam Member, to withdraw that comment.

[ Page 3690 ]

Now what does it do? It increases the demands at the negotiating table to make up for that loss of income, and of course that puts stress on both the private and public sector in terms of increased wage demands. That's the net effect of what this government is doing through its ill-conceived, poorly thought out financial policies. A little bit more clarity, a little bit of consistency in terms of economic policy, could have brought us to a decent budget situation.

The overriding problem with this budget is its theme; its theme of dollars, not service; its obsession with taking dollars away from people or taking dollars away from programs and curtailing service through various cutbacks. That's what this budget tries to do. Why? Because there is this bigger game being played. There is this political agenda of a balanced budget by 1989 or 1990, whenever it is that the government chooses to call the next election.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Are you saying balancing a budget is wrong?

MR. SIHOTA: What I'm saying is wrong, Mr. Member, is to manipulate the figures, to artificially escalate the deficit by putting in the allocation of $450 million for the BS fund; by underestimating your revenue and overestimating your expenditures to create the illusion that you're in a worse financial position than you really are. This government did it last year. It estimated its deficit would be $1.1 billion, and our finance critic said it would be about half that, and he was right almost to the dollar. This time, if the government wanted to balance the budget, it could, by accurately predicting its revenue and its expenditures and by eliminating the $450 million IOU note. It could have done that. But it didn't want to do it this year, Mr. Speaker, because it wants to play the larger political game of showing a balanced budget by 1990.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Are you against that?

MR. SIHOTA: You could have balanced it this year. When you say I'm against it, I'm saying you could have balanced it this year if you had wanted to. What I'm against — and I'll tell you again if you didn't hear — is purposely manipulating the figures to artificially escalate the size of the deficit, to try to suggest that there is a greater financial problem than there is, effectively misleading the public as to the extent of the government's financial problems.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

AN HON. MEMBER: It's a tradition.

MR. SIHOTA: I'll tell you what kind of tradition it is, and I'll tell you why I'm offended by the overall game of having a balanced budget by 1990.

The Social Credit Party has a habit of coming up with gimmicks before elections. BCRIC was introduced before an election. Remember BCRIC? It was a gimmick. Northeast coal came up before elections. But we know the financial failings of that. That was a gimmick. And in the last provincial election, when it was obvious that Mr. Bennett would not last, this government came out with the biggest gimmick of all — the Premier. And in 1990, the gimmick is going to be the balanced budget.

You're trying to run to the public and say: "Here we have it again." If you want to be honest with people, why don't you tell them what your accumulated deficit is that you've accumulated from 1975 to the current date? Why don't you tell them that you've driven this province into $20 billion of accumulated debt? Why don't you tell them the truth, instead of coming out with some gimmick in 1990 that balances the budget? Why don't you tell them the truth about your financial incompetence? Why don't you tell them about the disaster of Coquihalla, the disaster of SkyTrain? What kind of competence is this when a government continually and historically says,"Look, we're good at managing the books," yet every time underestimates revenue and overestimates expenditures beyond the wildest fiscal parameters?

What I'm saying is that this budget is not only offensive to seniors; it's not only offensive to small businesses; it's not only unfair in terms of the taxation regime established in this province — a taxation regime which, by the way, in some years allows a bank teller working for the Royal Bank to pay more taxes than the Royal Bank, and a gas jockey at Shell Oil to pay more in taxes than Shell Oil. That's the type of taxation scheme that this provincial government has set up, that it calls fair. That's the tradition of this government.

It's a budget that ignores seniors. It is unfair. It attends to the needs of large corporate interests. It doesn't even mention women or any programs for women.

I was hoping that the Attorney-General (Hon. B.R. Smith) would be back in the House by now, but I want to turn and deal with one and possibly two issues, depending on time.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're losing your audience.

MR. SIHOTA: The member says I'm losing my audience. The only reason for that is that I'm losing my voice, and I wish I wasn't.

I want to discuss one or two issues that relate to the Attorney-General's department. Let's take a look at the new schedule of court fees, because this government has come up with a new system of raising money — indirect taxation. You know, if you don't want to raise the personal tax rate anymore — and you really shouldn't, when the balance is 83 to 17 percent.... What this government is starting to do is charge fees for all sorts of services: fees if you want to go to the Utilities Commission, fees if you want to go to court. We've seen, through the fee schedule that is part of this budget....

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Let's talk about lawyers' fees.

MR. SIHOTA: We'll talk about lawyers' fees, the member says. We'd be more than happy to talk about lawyers' fees.

We've seen in this budget an introduction of new fees for court services. It used to be that if you wanted to go to court — and I think it's fair to say in principle that courts ought to be accessible, that people ought to have the opportunity if there is a dispute between parties to have it resolved without undue financial barriers, that people of modest income, that the working poor as well as the affluent ought to have an equal chance to get in front of the courts to resolve an issue....

[3:15]

It used to be in this province that if a father or mother wanted to contest custody, fine, you had to pay a $50 fee.

[ Page 3691 ]

Now, because custody cases can take four or five days, that fee is going to be $600. For a father or mother to go to court, just to get access to the system, to get a ticket into the courtroom, just to get in front of the judge costs you up to $600. What kind of fairness is that? What kind of total affront to the principle of accessibility to the judicial system is that? What type of caring is there on the part of this government for the woman who wants to enforce a custody order or to say that she or her husband ought to have custody of a child? Six hundred dollars to get into court. That's offensive.

MR. BLENCOE: Another pickpocket.

MR. SIHOTA: It's not just a pickpocket. It is a denial of access to the judicial system. It's a shame. For those on the opposite side who have affluent incomes, sure, you can pay $600, but not a woman of modest means who can't get legal aid to go into court and try to assert custody over her son or her daughter. Or a carpenter who has to go in and get paid through a builder's lien. Or just the average person who has been fired from a job wrongfully and wishes to launch a wrongful dismissal suit.

There are options available to government. Look, if you're that desperate, if you want to charge money for people to have access to the court system.... It's not something I agree with, but given the mentality opposite, why don't you just draft the rules to say that if a bank, which can afford it, wants to commence a foreclosure action, it has to pay $500 on a non-recoverable basis? Why don't you make those that are able to pay to maintain the judicial system pay for it?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Sounds like a good idea.

MR. SIHOTA: The member says it's a good idea. I invite the member to take a look at the schedule of fees. It doesn't apply for a bank that wants to commence a foreclosure action, but it sure as hell applies for a mother who wants to assert a custody order. What kind of respect does this government have with respect to the matter of equal access to the judicial system? The court fees....

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Are your fees based on ability to pay?

MR. SIHOTA: I'll have that member know that I would put forward my record as a solicitor and the number of pro-bono cases that I've done against any other lawyer he can produce in this province. I'll have you know that right now.

A committee was set up by the Attorney-General to go around this province and get submissions from people in terms of accessibility to the judicial system. Why did this government decide not to wait for a report from that commission before it implemented a new fee schedule? I'll tell you why, Mr. Speaker: because we saw from Bill 19 and Bill 20, from the privatization debate, from the decentralization debate, that this government does not want consultation. It does not want to listen to people. It is on its one-track, one-dimensional, one-man rule that is totally oblivious to the concerns not only of the people of this province, but in most instances to the back-benchers of its own party, the members of its own cabinet, who from time to time say to the Premier: "You're off the tracks and you're out of touch with people." That's what is happening in this province.

The overwhelming desire for dollars is now denying people the opportunity to go to court. Members can say: "Well, we increased legal aid by 11 percent." You didn't, first of all, if you look at your own numbers. Secondly, the increase went up by $2 million. Thirdly, and most important, the program is so inadequate that it doesn't cover custody cases.

I see my time is up. I want to reiterate that this budget is unfair, callous, uncaring, and it's becoming very typical of this government.

MR. SERWA: I rise today to speak in support of the budget.

Interjections.

MR. SERWA: Careful! I don't have much time and I've got a lot to say, so don't heckle.

Before I begin, allow me to take this opportunity to congratulate the hon. first member for Dewdney (Mr. Pelton) on his reappointment as Deputy Speaker. I also want to extend my congratulations to the member for Yale-Lillooet (Mr. Rabbitt) and wish him all the best in his new role as Deputy Chairman of Committee of the Whole.

I was very pleased that the budget emphasized the longterm economic development of our province. The elimination of the current deficit, reducing the burden of accumulated debt and stabilizing government revenues must remain one of our government's primary goals if we are to build a strong, vibrant economy. We have already taken some positive steps in this direction. By undertaking to develop a longterm economic and social strategy for the province, our government is building a base for the future development of British Columbia. I urge business, labour and community leaders to support this initiative and to share the vision by becoming involved in developing this long-term plan for our province. In order to make our province greater, better and more beautiful, we must all — each and every British Columbian — make a commitment to participate in and contribute to good government. Only in that way can we share the vision.

The budget stabilization fund will assist in long-term planning by addressing the problems of the boom and bust nature of our economy. By putting aside funds in good years, we can avoid borrowing or cutting back on social programs in years of revenue shortfall. I support our government's plans to provide for equal economic and social development opportunities throughout the province.

Okanagan South enjoys a diverse economy. Tourism, agriculture, mining, forestry, secondary manufacturing and service industries are our main employers. Two of the initiatives mentioned in the budget will certainly have a positive impact in my constituency. The 35.2 percent increase in the Ministry of Forests budget, with the emphasis on silviculture, the reduction in the mineral resource tax rate to 15 percent and the reduction of the mining tax rate to 12.5 percent effective July 1, 1988 will be very welcome in my constituency.

By the positive commitment of good Social Credit government to our forest resource, employers such as Crown Forest and Gorman Bros. will be assured of sustained timber supplies in the twenty-first century. Brenda Mines, a major employer in the Peachland area, recently received a concession that reduced hydro costs under the Industrial Electricity Rate Discount Act, thereby enabling the mine to extend its operations for another full year. The reduction in the mineral

[ Page 3692 ]

resource tax rate and the mining tax rate may permit marginal ore bodies in the Brenda mill area to be utilized to further extend the life of this employer.

Okanagan South needs to continue to build on this economic base to ensure healthy growth and jobs for a growing population. The population of Okanagan South grew from just over 85,000 to almost 90,000 in 1986. There is an increase in the number of residential and commercial buildings being constructed. Building statistics show that the value of total construction projects for the regional district, the city of Kelowna and Peachland has increased steadily in the last six years from $56 million in 1982 to $102 million in 1987.

An important new project is the proposed $18 million shopping mall, which is expected to replace the Dilworth centre by 1989. The developer estimates that 120 people will be involved in building the mall and about 200 permanent and part-time jobs will be created. The Orchard Park regional shopping centre has also announced a $3.4 million renovation expansion program slated for this spring and summer. These two projects demonstrate that our business community has faith in the economic future of Okanagan South.

There is tremendous potential for business growth. The reduction in the corporate income tax rate from 15 percent to 14 percent and the reduction in the small business tax rate from 11 percent to 9 percent effective July 1, 1988 are positive steps in this direction. The success of the Three Buoys houseboats, Western Star Trucks, Chemac, Northern Airborne Technology, Decor Doors, Northside Steel and many more small firms shows that the Okanagan has the resources and the skilled people to build successful business ventures. We need to carefully evaluate the products that are currently produced with an eye to the future and to potential market demands. We need to concentrate on producing more value-added products.

Suppliers and manufacturers set up primarily to provide parts for the Western Star truck assembly plant are finding that they can utilize production facility capacity more effectively and are diversifying their product lines. They are producing more goods to supply extended national and international markets.

My colleague the hon. member for South Peace River (Mr. Weisgerber) has built a strong case for ethanol production. The Hiram Walker distillery in Winfield has the potential to become a major producer of ethanol. The existing plant, with some modifications, could utilize low-quality grains to produce this product with minimal capital costs. Again, diversity of production has the potential to create more jobs for our people.

British Columbia is in a good position to build new markets for our products. Our geographic location means that we are in a good position to build economic ties with the Pacific Rim. The free trade agreement with the United States also opens up new doors for trade with our largest trading partner. I am pleased that our government will be helping those businesses or sectors which may need help to adjust to the free trade agreement.

Our grape growers and the wine industry are being hit hard by the free trade agreement and the recent GATT rulings. They are in special need of assistance. I have been consistent in my efforts to encourage special accommodation for the grape and wine industry. The concern of our provincial government resulted in a commitment expressed last December by the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services (Hon. L. Hanson) that negotiations would take place with the federal government to guarantee a purchase price per tonne for B.C. grapes that will reflect 1987 selling prices. It is expected — under the federal commitment to an adjustment program promised by the Prime Minister — that this agreement will cover subsequent crop years.

A proposal that would enable small farm or boutique wineries to be established has been submitted by me to the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services. The reduced volume of crushed proposed would allow small, vertically integrated family operations, which by combining the profits of growing, vinting and retail sales, would enhance economic viability. Wine tours of existing commercial and cottage wineries are extending the tourist season in the Okanagan. I see the small family operation with the multicultural base of our growers as an excellent opportunity to expand that element of tourism.

The commitment of our government to the grape growers and the wine industry is best summed up by remarks made by our Premier on December 16 in this House. He stated: "We're going to keep this industry in the Okanagan. As a matter of fact, we're going to make it grow more in the Okanagan. "

Mr. Speaker, an efficient transportation system is essential to the economic development of our province. Two former premiers from Okanagan South, W.A.C. Bennett and Bill Bennett, deserve recognition for their foresight in recognizing the importance of an efficient transportation and communication system. We have come a long way since the 1940s, when most of this province was inaccessible by road and most areas of the province were not served by the power grid. Social Credit governments have been responsible for opening up this province and creating economic opportunities for all British Columbians.

[3:30]

There were several transportation milestones which dramatically affected the economic development of Okanagan South. These include the opening of the Kelowna Airport in 1946, the opening of the Hope-Princeton Highway in 1947, the Okanagan Lake bridge in 1957, the Rogers Pass in 1963, and the three-laning of the Okanagan Lake bridge in 1985.

The development of an efficient transportation system was certainly essential to the development of tourism and agriculture as major industries. Forestry, secondary manufacturing and high-tech industries are even more dependent on superior transportation routes and systems. More people each year are discovering the central Okanagan as a vacation destination. Geography, climate, charm and beauty invite outdoor activities, from aquatic sports in Okanagan Lake to skiing the slopes of Big White Mountain. "The Four Seasons Playground," Kelowna's slogan, is a most appropriate description of the varied recreational opportunities in this city nestled on the shores of Okanagan Lake.

I know that our government's plans to preserve and enhance historic and heritage sites and to open up backcountry recreational opportunities will benefit Okanagan South. The introduction next January of a new deduction of 50 percent of assessed value of all tourist accommodation to a maximum deduction of $150,000 will also help our tourist industry.

Agriculture continues to be an essential industry in my constituency, and efficient transportation is essential to get those products to market. I am very pleased that our government will be evaluating ways to enhance our agricultural

[ Page 3693 ]

sector's economic viability by developing new markets and products. I also support the development of new programs to encourage the aquaculture and greenhouse sectors. Our region has tremendous potential for economic growth in the agricultural sector, especially in the added-value field. SunRype Products is an excellent example. We need to tap that potential.

The continued growth of our tourism industry, agricultural sector and other key elements of our diverse economy are only some of the reasons why we must continue to review our transportation and communication needs as part of our ten-year plan. I am pleased that our government will be reviewing areas of federal legislation within British Columbia, particularly communications and airports.

I have already referred to Kelowna Airport as an essential cornerstone in the economic development of the central Okanagan. In 1946, pioneers with a vision of Kelowna's future established a gravel airstrip. The airport was sold to Transport Canada by the city in 1959 to meet federal criteria for cooperative development programs. In the past four decades, Kelowna Airport has grown into the third-busiest airport in British Columbia, and the fifteenth-busiest airport in Canada. In fact, the Vancouver-Kelowna air service was the thirteenth-busiest city pair in Canada.

Despite this traffic flow through our airport, Kelowna is the only major non-international Canadian airport at a significant altitude with less than 7,000 feet of paved runway. This single runway is only 5,300 feet in length. The short length of the runway is restricting the economic growth of the central Okanagan. The size of the aircraft serving Kelowna is limited to Boeing 737s, which means that wide-body service is not possible. We need to be able to land larger aircraft, such as the Boeing 767, so that cargo and passenger services to local businesses and air travellers are improved.

We also need to be able to handle larger aircraft so that we can ship tree-ripened fruit straight to our eastern markets. Unless the physical barrier to improved air service and capacity is eliminated, the region will not be able to fulfil its potential to compete successfully in the North American marketplace as trade barriers are lowered. All the land which is required to expand the length of the airport runway to 8,000 feet is already federally owned, and a preliminary environmental impact study has already been completed. The time to go ahead with this project is now. I urge the provincial government to support the airport extension project by requesting the federal government to work to ensure that the airport runway extension goes ahead as quickly as possible. The economic future of the southern interior will depend on this regional airport.

The budget stressed not only long-term economic planning, but also long-term social planning. I am certain that every member of this House would agree that a quality education system, a world-class health system and support programs for families in need are essential to the future of this province. I was very pleased to see all of these areas addressed in the budget.

The budget stressed the importance of continued access to quality health care for all British Columbians. I am very pleased that the health budget will be increased to $3.9 billion, an increase of 10.2 percent from the 1987-88 estimates. That's more than $1,300 for every man, woman and child in the province.

MR. JONES: Premiums went up 40 percent.

MR. SERWA: Good stuff. I am pleased that the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck) will be exploring ways to provide certain medical services better and at less cost, by using highly trained and specialized health care workers. I look forward to seeing the results of the pilot project in Victoria to test the community-based, integrated health care delivery system for seniors. This type of program could be useful throughout the province, especially in Okanagan South, the retirement capital of Canada.

I believe that it is important that we in government continue to provide the type of quality health care services British Columbians deserve.

Kelowna General Hospital has been doing an excellent job serving the people of Okanagan South. However, the demand for services is steadily increasing, and Kelowna General is serving as a regional referral centre. I was pleased that the provincial government provided $2.8 million in 1987 for a 45-bed rehabilitation unit at Kelowna General. The funds are being used to replace an obsolete 23-bed unit and to provide for ten new beds for geriatric rehabilitation. The $325,000 in funding to expand the hospital's chemotherapy department and administrative facilities is also welcome. If Kelowna General is to continue meeting the growing needs of our region, more of our facilities will need attention.

Members of the community are to be commended for their support of Kelowna General. Last year the Kelowna General Hospital's fund-raising campaign raised $300,000 to buy a kidney dialysis unit for the hospital. This year they plan to raise $350,060 to build a therapeutic pool for the new rehabilitation centre.

Mr. Speaker, our young people are our future, and the educational opportunities open to them will determine their economic opportunities in the future. I was very pleased that contributions to public school operating costs will increase by $114 million to over SI.3 billion in the 1988-89 fiscal year.

MR. JONES: How about the colleges?

MR. SERWA: We'll get to that.

I look forward to the report from the Royal Commission on Education. I am pleased that the report's specific recommendations will be addressed quickly.

We also want to ensure that students who graduate from our schools are able to pursue a post-secondary education. The allocation of $8.5 million for the Passport to Education program and of $15 million to upgrade and add more computers in the classroom, and the addition of $32 million to student financial aid this year, for a total of $58 million, are certainly positive moves in that direction.

We have excellent post-secondary institutions in this province. I am very pleased that university operating grants will be increased by 5 percent this year to $322 million, and that operating contributions to colleges and institutes will total $287 million. We have an excellent institution right in Okanagan South that attracts students from throughout the interior. I am speaking of Okanagan College. Currently students who attend the college must leave the Okanagan to complete their education.

MR. BLENCOE: Did you mail this speech?

MR. SERWA: That's right.

This places them at a disadvantage. Many more students from the regional colleges in the lower mainland and Vancouver

[ Page 3694 ]

Island transfer to university as compared to college students from the interior. For example, in 1985-86, 21 percent of the interior students at regional colleges transferred to one of the three British Columbia universities, compared to 29 percent for urban students. It is readily apparent that accessibility to a degree-granting institution and the related costs of living away from home are the key elements in the differential.

I strongly recommend that Okanagan College be given degree-granting status, so that we can better serve the young people of the interior. The population of the Okanagan Valley is presently larger than that of greater Victoria at the time the University of Victoria was established. The population is continuing to grow, and Kelowna is centrally located to serve the entire area. In 1986 the population of the Regional District of Central Okanagan, including Kelowna, Westbank and Peachland, was almost 90,000; the population of the Regional District of North Okanagan, including Vernon, Armstrong, Coldstream, Enderby and Lumby, was almost 55,000; and the population of the Regional District of Okanagan-Similkameen, including the area from Penticton to Osoyoos, and Princeton, was 59,000. The number of students who live within commuting distance of the Kelowna campus facility exceeds by far any other centre in the interior of the province.

I believe that the decentralization initiative is a positive one for this province, and we should be examining postsecondary education as part of that process. I would suggest that giving Okanagan College degree-granting status would be a positive step in the decentralization process and make post-secondary education more accessible to the people of the interior.

I would like to see the private sector take a more active role in our post-secondary institutions. I support the new University Foundations Act which has been introduced in this House, and I believe it will be successful in attracting private sector tax-supported donations to our universities. I am pleased that our government will be reinforcing this initiative with $10 million to match private sector contributions to our post-secondary institutions. With the private sector cooperation, we could set the framework for turning Okanagan College into a university which will serve the interior of B.C.

I have spoken about only a few of the many initiatives in the budget which will benefit the economic and social development of this province. The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) deserves praise for his budget. It is a good budget, both in the short-term and the long-term context. It is an outstanding example in Canada of that which may be accomplished to reduce budget deficit and to increase future fiscal flexibility.

While on the whole, budgetary expenditures for 1988-89 are modest, I am pleased to see that the greatest increases are in the areas that can legitimately use more funds: Environment and Parks, Forests and Lands, Agriculture and Fisheries and Health are sound investments in the future prosperity of British Columbia by improving both natural and human resources.

This budget is a sound balance of tax increases and expenditure restraint, while reducing the deficit. British Columbia will become an even more attractive province for business to set up and expand. Clearly it demonstrates the determination, resolve and commitment of good Social Credit governments to the future of British Columbia. I am looking forward to working on behalf of my constituents and the people of this province to help make our government's plans for the future a reality.

[3:45]

MR. LOVICK: I want to assure members opposite that I don't require encouragement, but it's nonetheless appreciated.

I'm very pleased to take part in this budget debate, and I would like to begin by saying how nice it is to observe that we are actually seeing some manifestations of a real debate: that is, members opposite are attempting to engage with us on this side of the House and to offer something approaching rebuttal. That's a happy circumstance. Unhappily, their efforts at rebuttal and refutation don't seem to stand up terribly well, at least under any kind of close scrutiny and analysis. Let me touch on just a couple of those if I might.

I am mindful of the fact that I am going to begin by referring to people who spoke in opposition and in criticism of my colleague, the first member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich). I want to declare very clearly that the first member for Nanaimo certainly requires no help from me to defend himself, but given that we will have to wait some time before he has that opportunity, I would like to respond to at least a couple of statements made in response to my colleague's comments.

The member for Chilliwack (Mr. Jansen) — Lord, how I wish he were here — took issue with my colleague suggesting that the New Democratic Party record in government was not at all the kind of success that we had suggested, and he focused on one particular item, namely Ocean Falls and the Clarkson Gordon report. I want to touch briefly on what he said about Ocean Falls and Clarkson Gordon and demonstrate just how very wrong he was in his conclusions.

First, let me note for the record that the member for Chilliwack made quite a point of saying he dislikes referring to the past. I thought that's entirely understandable, given a ten-year history of Social Credit government. As a member of Social Credit, I too would dislike referring to the past. Rather, I would want to see it buried forever, out of sight, out of mind. I would certainly insist on that.

However, let's look at the point he made. What he said is in response to our claim that we took various assets; we made them into money-makers. He focused on Ocean Falls. Specifically, Mr. Speaker, you'll recall that he said that in 1975 Ocean Falls, according to the Clarkson Gordon estimate, reported a loss of some $310,000. In actual fact, the loss was $304,381, but we won't quibble. The important point is to remember what happened in 1975. The townsite and the mill had been mothballed. We started with a basket case; there was nothing there. We saw that — unlike those on the other side, who do not have the same clarity of vision, I fear — as an opportunity. We saw a potential there. We also saw a tremendous waste of capital, both human and physical, if we hadn't jumped in. In 1975 we bought in for a total cost of $789,582. But you know what, Mr. Speaker? Despite the fact that there was approximately a $310,000 loss in 1975, in 1976 — wonder of wonders — there was indeed a profit of $1,087,255. That profit in one year offset the loss of the first year and also the total cost. By anybody's reckoning, that's good business.

I appreciate the fact that members opposite have the temerity and the gall to suggest that we on this side are not prudent managers of the public's assets. Remember, Mr.

[ Page 3695 ]

Speaker, these are the folks who brought us BCRIC. These are the great managers. These are the guys who said: "Boy, that public operation was inefficient. We're going to privatize, and then you'll see great things happening." You recall the Premier of the day touring the province and saying: "We're going to give the people a lesson in how the stock market works." They sure did. Shares are now trading for about 85 cents a pop, as I recall. The BCRIC story could indeed be left in the ground where it belongs, except that we're on the threshold of another example. The whole new batch of privatization initiatives certainly is reminiscent and suggestive of BCRIC.

As a matter of fact, I want to share with the House a little story about BCRIC that probably has not been told. The biographer of the former Premier and of the current Premier attended a privatization conference I was at, and do you know what his part in the conference was? He argued adroitly, effectively and really stretching credulity to the farthest point imaginable that BCRIC, contrary to what we all believed, was a roaring success. It was a roaring success, said David Mitchell, this revered biographer — or hagiographer, probably more properly put. But do you know why he said it was a success, Mr. Speaker? I want to use this argument to make the point that this is the same kind of ideological leap of faith that's being made by this government now. The case he presented was that BCRIC was a success because, by heaven, they pulled it off: they were able to sell those assets. I thought, if one can actually say to people that a tangible asset.... The Premier of the province tells us: "You're going to get 30 bucks free; we're going to give you five free shares at $6 a pop." If we can't unload that stuff, what in the world can we do? But this was nevertheless held up as the great success of privatization.

I know that members opposite don't believe that; they're sure I'm overstating the case. I want to assure them that it is precisely the case that was argued. Moreover, I want to suggest that I suspect we're going to hear the same kind of case in the ensuing privatization debate.

Interjection.

MR. LOVICK: Oh, I think we have indeed convinced the people about BCRIC and about privatization, Mr. Minister. I'd suggest you might want to look at the latest polls on the subject.

I want to touch now, though, on the comments made by another speaker from the other side, who attempted to refute and to rebut the comments of my colleague, the second member for Nanaimo. I'm referring now to the second member for Okanagan South (Mr. Chalmers).

What the second member for Okanagan South made the basis of his case against what my colleague had presented was the fact that as of March 31, 1976 — fiscal '75-76 — there was a deficit of $405 million. This was the evidence, this was the paradigm case about New Democrat inefficiency. This was the example of what wastrels and profligate spenders we were. But I think it's important to recognize that we, the government of that time, left office on December 22, 1975, and most of the money that accounts for — and indeed beyond — that sum of $405 million was spent in the three and a half months after we left office. Curious. Indeed, if one looks, you find that the budget was overspent in that period by some $248.7 million. You also discover non-budgetary expenditures totalling $265.4 million — for a total of $514.1 million. which is quite significantly more than the $405 million deficit we are being charged with.

What's more, that criticism, that attack from the member for Okanagan South, who constantly told us, "I've been told that...," which leads me to believe that he has only been told and he hasn't read that.... What he said at the time about that sum of money also failed to pay attention to one other significant fact of extreme importance to people who would understand the nature of budgeting: our government also increased the special funds account by a sum of $201.5 million. I want to remind the House that that sum of money was real money. It was either hard currency or backed up by investments. It was not the airy-fairy imagined sum of money which we encounter in what is appropriately called the BS fund — the budget stabilization fund. That was real money compared to what we see in this budget, which is, as I suggest, airy-fairy in the extreme.

In talking earlier about this particular budget, after going through the fact that the government ostensibly was making some efforts to deal with particular problems — that it had what it considered to be a serious economic initiative to present, that it was trying to grapple with the problems of health and social service spending — it also, you will recall, made comments about how rosy the future was looking. I struggled, I must confess. in terms of trying to find a nice easy description of that budget, but that was not an easy thing to come up with. One of the reasons I struggled with that was what I detected, and what I still detect — indeed, my suspicions are confirmed the more closely I examine the document — are certain ominous tones in that budget. They cause me some concern. and I am sure they would cause others some concerns as well. I'd like to touch briefly on a number of those, if I might, which I think it's important that we all recognize and understand.

The first of those illustrations that I would give occurs on page 3 of the budget. Specifically we have a focus on British Columbia's wage structure. and we introduce the idea of whether British Columbia will be competitive. Moreover, on the next page, in what serves as a kind of gloss or marginalia for this document, we have a reference as follows: "Realistic wage settlements key to staving competitive." A couple of things strike me in that. the first is: why do we focus exclusively on wage settlements? If we want to talk about competition, if we want to talk about maintaining competitive markets, we have to talk about a great deal more than simply wage settlements.

I wonder then if what in fact is here is some kind of suggestion that a particular sector and part of the economy is being singled out for attention. I fear that that's the case, because I recall vividly that the second member for Richmond (Mr. Loenen), when he spoke in the throne speech debate, amplified on this very point about competition and competitive wage rates, and the example he gave us was Korea. I wonder if he was suggesting that British Columbia should somehow try to achieve wage parity with Korea or some such thing. I know that's overstating the case, and I deliberately do so, but I want to make a point about that. If we are talking exclusively about wage rates as our hook, as our approach to understanding competition, we are doomed to fail.

[4:00]

There are parts of the world sustained by military, political and other kinds of dictatorship who can change wage rates arbitrarily, capriciously from day to day. There are also

[ Page 3696 ]

significant parts of the world that quite simply can produce things more cheaply than we can or would be willing to. For us then to fall into the trap of suggesting that a part of our problem is our wage bill and that that's the angle we should be coming at in order to remain competitive, seems to me is misguided in the extreme. Let's talk about research and development, about technology, about an improved climate for industrial relations, and then we'll be closer to the mark. Ominous tones? I think so.

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

I also want to touch on what I think is more than an ominous tone, an offensive tone in the budget, Mr. Speaker, and I'm referring to that rather simplistic argument that we hear from small-c conservative governments around the world, namely about the burden of debt. We all know about debt and the problem thereof, but it becomes a fixation for small-c conservative governments. The marginal note in the budget here on page 4 is "Debt reduces flexibility." It goes on to elaborate, and I want to quote from page 5 of the budget document: "There can be no fresh start if we continue an addiction to spending beyond our means." Fine. Most of us, I think, will accept that, but then look at the next sentence. It says: "This government will not leave our young people a legacy of obligations caused by our own short-sighted selfishness." To put it as charitably as I can, I think that kind of statement is pious hypocrisy because it effectively says what we're going to do is protect the future generations of young people, probably at the expense of the present generations of young people.

If you recognize that there are almost a quarter of a million families in this province on social assistance, probably some 40 percent of whom are young people living in poverty, without advantages, it seems to me that it is not so clear a trade-off to say that what we're going to do is reduce spending now to protect some future generations, and we'll do so, rightly understood, by punishing present generations. Again, it seems to me that is simply pious hypocrisy; that is not fair. I find that offensive, Mr. Speaker, partly because of that sanctimonious kind of quality that oozes from it, the suggestion that we are looking out for the future, as opposed to some others who are unconcerned. We must indeed look out for the future, but for heaven's sake, we should not forget the present in the process, and it seem to me that's what this budget does, certainly in that regard.

I also want to refer to another ominous tone in the budget on page 8. We have the absolutely gratuitous comment for no apparent reason whatsoever talking about social programs and social assistance, and we suddenly have tacked on to the end of a paragraph this sentence, out of the blue: "We will also ensure that assistance goes only to those who need it." If somebody on the government side wants to point to the number of abusers of the programs, if you want to argue the case that yes, indeed, we have a problem with abuse of the system, then do so, but don't do so by this kind of back-door insinuating, frankly cowardly approach to things. If you want to argue that we have abuse, then say so, and take steps to deal with it. Don't sadly just throw in a line such as this that suggests we all know about the abuse. It begs the question, Mr. Speaker, and it does so in a manner that I can only describe as offensive.

Another ominous tone in the budget, it seems to me, is the whole reference to the medical profession in health care discussions or parts of the discussion in the budget. I'm intrigued by the fact that this is probably a first for budget speeches.... I note the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck) and I think he'll appreciate the reference. This is probably the first time in human history that we've had a budget speech — which by definition is dull, formal, low-key — that uses exclamation marks. We have a budget that shows a certain passion here, and the passion it shows is on page 9 when we're talking about the medical profession. The reference is as follows: "...the medical profession and hospital system — I'm putting ellipses in there; that's not a direct quotation; that's the subject.... Here's the predicate: "are consuming all available funding, and their demands are insatiable!"

My God, it sounds like the sky is falling. We should all rush to take arms. There's a problem here. You'll recall, Mr. Speaker, that some of us on this side of the House and some others in the medical profession have said: "Demonstrate to us if it is the case that spending is out of control. Demonstrate to us, moreover, that those demands are insatiable." Is it the case that health care is simply a black hole, that we just keep pouring money in and it all disappears or some such thing? If that's the case, table the documents and show us the study that demonstrates that. Because when we put pressure on that conclusion, the answer we have got is absolute silence from the other side.

One more brief reference to the ominous note in the budget, and that is another marginal notation. The marginal notation this time occurs on page 18 and it says simply: "User fees encourage responsible use." I think the problem with that observation is that it ignores the fact that user fees do not represent any kind of fair taxation. If we talk about user fees as a fair system of taxation, then what we assume is that all people from all walks of life in the economic realm get sick equally or some such thing. That's just not the case.

The whole concept behind Medicare is to protect people against circumstances beyond their control. If we suddenly begin to impose user fees, especially if we start to look upon them as a deterrent and say that if we don't use them then people will abuse the system, then it seems to me we are eroding one of the premises on which the system rests. Again, it seems to me that is wrong-headed, to put the matter charitably.

So much for the ominous overtones. There are others, but I think those are sufficient to make my case. I want to refer now to some very specific items in the budget, to three things specifically. I want to talk about a couple of constituency based matters: first, the perennial Island Highway; second, a bit about college financing; and third, I want to refer to privatization in the little time remaining to me.

First, the Island Highway. I noted about an hour or so ago that a member from the other side of the House — I believe it was the member for Vancouver South — was talking about how we should not speak in derisive terms about the fact that $6 million was set aside for the Island Highway because, after all, that was important preliminary work, etc. I think the predicament in why we on this side express a certain dissatisfaction — to put it mildly — about that $6 million figure for the Island Highway is because we've heard it all before.

Mr. Speaker, let me remind you what happened prior to the last election. My colleagues and I on Vancouver Island, candidates at the time for the New Democrats, put together an economic development paper, one part of which was a proposal to build an inland island highway. Within three

[ Page 3697 ]

months of that document's publication, your government decided that it would do roughly double the size of the project we had put forward. Moreover, in the campaign that ensued, we were told: "The Island Highway is ready to go. It's going to happen." In fact, I think I could dig out campaign literature which would embarrass quite a few people in terms of how that promise was made.

So when we say that $6 million is an insult, a pittance, that's because it's in that context. Six million dollars is probably about half a day's work on the Coquihalla. We're not talking about huge amounts of money here. We've heard it all before. Indeed, I brought along a copy of Hansard from approximately a year ago today. I made a statement at that time on the Island Highway, and everything I said on April 3. 1987, could be stated today. It's all still true. Moreover, I note, in looking over what I said about a year ago, that I was referring to promises made by that selfsame government in 1979. So we are a little cynical; we are a little suspicious about whether the Island Highway means anything other than a two-election promise, a kind of political reward as opposed to an urgent necessity that should be built on a needs rather than a political basis. We're cynical — I don't deny it. I certainly am when I think about the Island Highway, because frankly, $6 million is insulting to the people of Vancouver Island. There are a couple of ministers of the Crown sitting on the other side who are from the Island and who, I'm sure, share that concern. They ought to share that concern. The Island Highway is obviously one of the great disappointments of all time. Six million dollars hardly counts.

College financing. I have difficulty containing myself when I think about what this budget does to the financing of colleges in this province. On page 6 of the throne speech we are promised "a slight increase." If we look on page 34 of the estimates, we discover that the increase is to the sum of $287,111,400 from a sum of $284,574,400. That equals an increase of some $2.5 million. It also equals about 1 percent, and when you factor in inflation, it probably represents a decrease of about 3 percent. The predicament is that we are talking about a system of education that has proven its validity, its vitality, and is the great success story of B.C. education. And yet it is being singled out to be badly treated, and badly treated after only one year's slight reprieve. Out of a period of about 11 years, the college system had one year when it looked as if government was finally listening. Sadly, we're back to the same old games — starving that system.

What makes it even more frightening is that the starvation is going on at the same time the government is increasing student aid. We're increasing student aid to encourage more young people — and older people in some cases — to attend colleges, and yet we're cutting back the funding so we won't be able to offer the kinds of programs or the quality of programs that ought to be the right of those students. There's a kind of exquisitely cruel irony embedded in all of that, Mr. Speaker, and one that certainly is offensive.

[4:15]

I can't leave this topic without making just a brief reference to the fact that that budget increase of less than 1 percent — which, as I say, amounts in fact to a net decrease — represents only $3.9 million more than the colleges and institutes got in 1981-82. Despite increased demand, despite increased proof of their abilities, colleges are nevertheless starved in that regard. I must conclude this section of my remarks by simply saying that I think the fact that the colleges did less well than any other part of the education system probably has directly to do with the system of governance. As you know, college boards are entirely appointed by government. They are in fact government guardians, protectors of, government's reputation, of — government's name, perhaps more so than protectors of the education system. Certainly that is the conclusion drawn by all those who work in the college system. They feel, with some justification, it seems to me. that they have indeed been sold out by their so-called boards of governors, who ought to be protecting their interests.

I see I'm out of time. I will therefore reserve my comments on privatization until another occasion. Mr. Speaker.

MR. CRANDALL: In a sense, Mr. Speaker, the throne speech and budget debates are for many of us our annual speech. We've got more time, and the parameters are a bit more general than they are when we're speaking on specific issues, private members' speeches and those sorts of things. So I would like to make some comments this afternoon that are a bit beyond the budget speech parameters.

It was roughly a year ago that I made my maiden speech here, and I would like to state again that I am pleased to represent the great riding of Columbia River in this Legislature. Fm also pleased to be part of this government. I believe that we are setting a course for our province that will, guarantee our long-term future, a prosperous future, and one that our families and children will be proud of and able to inherit.

I believe that our government is providing a vision that is unique in this country and perhaps in much of the free world. The lack of vision is something that concerns me. Where there is no vision, the institution flounders. Where there is vision, people are perhaps somewhat angry sometimes, and somewhat frustrated at times. I believe that the people of British Columbia, while they may have had some concerns with some of our actions in the past year, are overwhelmingly supportive of the approach that we are taking and pleased with the vision that this government has. I just want to say again that I'm pleased to be part of this government.

Part of my thoughts and comments there have been influenced by some of the things that I hear in other provinces, and because my riding is a border constituency I am perhaps more influenced by what people in other provinces, especially Alberta, might sometimes say about British Columbia. I thought the members of the House might be interested to hear a brief comment from a newspaper in Alberta. On February 15, the News and Advertiser in the town of Ponoka, which is just north of Red Deer, wrote: "The leader of the B.C. government is, of course, Bill Vander Zalm. Oh that Alberta had such a government! Oh that we had such a leader, a leader and a government driven by convictions and fearless enough to follow through their convictions!"

Sometimes we can learn more about ourselves by listening to people outside our province than we can from listening to those within British Columbia. I believe that we have a province that is unique in this country, and I'm proud to be part of it.

At this time I'd like to congratulate and thank the Speaker, the Deputy Speaker. the previous Chairman of the Committee of the Whole, who is here in the chamber now; and I'd like to congratulate the member for Yale-Lillooet (Mr. Rabbitt), who is in the chair now, on his election to the position of Chairman of the Committee of the Whole. We've

[ Page 3698 ]

had a good year in the past, and I know we're going to have a good 1988.

Mr. Speaker, my riding of Columbia River includes, as most of you know, the communities of Kimberley, Invermere and Golden. The northern part of that riding continues to prosper because of a strong forestry industry, a strong mining industry and a strong tourism industry. We look forward to those industries continuing to be strong. In the southern part of my constituency, in the Kimberley area, we continue to have concerns because of the possible depletion of the ore body at the Sullivan mine. That's still a major concern, and we will continue to work hard in the Kimberley area either to find replacement ore bodies or to replace that mining industry with other industries.

I'm delighted that we've had a strong tourism year in Kimberley in 1987, and I look forward to another one in 1988. One of the items that will help us to have a strong tourism industry in Kimberley in 1988 is the Festival of the Arts. The B.C. Festival of the Arts will be held in Kimberley from May 25 to May 29, and I'm delighted that it will be held there. I'm also delighted to invite any members to attend that festival, which will not only be in the city of Kimberley, but will be in the riding of Columbia River where the sun almost always shines.

I want to tell you also that the city of Kimberley just hosted....

MR. SIHOTA: It rises in the west.

MR. CRANDALL: We give it to you every day. The city of Kimberley also just hosted and won the provincial "AA" Pee Wee hockey championship, and that too helped fill hotels and helped bring the tourism industry in Kimberley some additional bonuses.

Our government is the eleventh Social Credit government elected by the people of British Columbia. British Columbia has re-elected this party as many times as it has because of its confidence in the policies and programs of the Social Credit Party. The people of British Columbia especially appreciate the financial policies of the Social Credit Party. I want to say....

MR. SIHOTA: Coquihalla and SkyTrain.

MR. CRANDALL: The member opposite mentions two great projects. I'm very pleased to be able to stand here and support Coquihalla, and the member who is in the chair at the present time would similarly stand in his place and support the Coquihalla. It connects us with your great lower mainland and Vancouver Island in a better way than we've ever been connected before. It reminds me of the saying: "If you're going to go ahead and get things done, you have to pay less attention to the people that would detract. "

I want to say that I have confidence in this budget. One of the reasons I have confidence is because of the declining deficit. This deficit is careful with expenditures, and we all know it's much easier for a government to over spend than it is to under spend. We have all kinds of examples of government overspending. We have many other provinces in Canada. We have our federal budget itself, and we have our neighbours to the south which unfortunately have a federal deficit in the trillions.

I want to say that this British Columbia Social Credit government is the only government in Canada which is committed to balance the budget in its current term of office.

MR. SIHOTA: Just like Ronald Reagan.

MR. CRANDALL: Let me tell you that we are very much unlike Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan was re-elected in 1984, saying he would cut the budget. This budget in British Columbia is an indication that we are on track of keeping our commitment to balance the budget in our current term of office. The only province in Canada which has previously been administered by the party from the other side was recently thrown out and will be replaced very shortly on, I believe, April 26.... Is that the right date, Mr. Member for Victoria? He doesn't know.

This budget provides proof to the people of this province that we're on the right track. It provides proof that we had a fresh start last year. It provides proof to the people of this province that we're on the right track and that we had a fresh start last year, and that many other provinces in this country.... As I just read in a newspaper in Alberta: "Oh that Alberta had such a government! Oh that we had such a leader, a leader and a government driven by convictions and fearless enough to follow through their convictions!" Said by a weekly newspaper in a community in Alberta that recognizes the fine government in British Columbia — a province that was governed by Social Credit for most of 35 years continuously, from the thirties right through to the late sixties. I started out in that province during its Social Credit years and moved to B.C. in its Social Credit years. I've been delighted that 11 of our last 12 governments in British Columbia have been Social Credit governments.

This budget provides proof to this province that we're on the right track after a fresh start last year. In our throne speech we said,"We will achieve, we will get things done," and we are doing that. We're concerned about expenditures. We're committed to the essential human services such as health, education and social services. We're also concerned — and this budget indicates that we are — about the long-term financial health of our province. I've mentioned before that we're the only government in Canada committed to balancing the budget in our term.

British Columbia is in the midst of a period of economic recovery. We have recently seen economic growth and job creation beyond all expectations, far beyond the expectations that we've seen in NDP-administered Manitoba, where they have great things, like a job tax, which is probably one of the reasons why they've just been thrown out. The momentum that we've seen in B.C. over the last year will continue. This budget is a good sign that the business world has confidence in British Columbia.

[4:30]

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

In the world of education, which is one of the human services that I mentioned a few moments ago, we have increased funding for education. Within my riding we're concerned about all of the global issues of education. We're concerned about funding for our elementary and high schools. We're concerned about funding for our community colleges and our universities. However, in that rural riding we're also concerned about other things, such as distance education, and I'm glad to see that British Columbia is leading the way. I compliment our Minister of Advanced Education and Job Training (Hon. S. Hagen) for the initiatives he has taken to improve distance education to where we are now one of the leaders in the world in distance education.

[ Page 3699 ]

It's important to me that a person who isn't able to complete their education in my riding can get some help through distance education, through the Knowledge Network, through university and college credit programs that are administered via satellites.

I'm also pleased that in this budget we have increased the amount of student loan funds that will be available this year. The students from my riding who travel to university, whether it be UVic, UBC, Simon Fraser or some of the community colleges within the province, have increased costs because of travel, because they happen to live away from home, which people in larger centres don't have. So I appreciate this extra benefit in the student assistance programs. When I was a student I benefited. I had student loans. And I'm glad that the students from Columbia River will be able to....

Interjection.

MR. CRANDALL: Yes, I did pay them off, as a matter of fact — at $23 a month in 1968.

So I'm glad to see that the students from Columbia River will benefit from this additional help.

I'm also pleased that in social services we have provided, through this budget, for better care for those people who are not as fortunate as others. I'm pleased we were able to increase the GAIN support and also the housing allowances, which this year will be provided for in this budget with an additional $38 million. As I mentioned a few moments ago, our economy in British Columbia is strong. I'm pleased that because of that we have fewer people on social assistance than we've had in previous years. I want to mention that in one of the communities in my riding — the community of Golden — there was a time last year when, thanks to some JobTrac programs, we had not one employable person on social assistance. Because our economy will continue to prosper, we will have even fewer people on social assistance than we have today.

I also want to mention something that the first member for Vancouver South (Mr. R. Fraser) mentioned a while ago. We will have what I believe is an unprecedented amount of money spent this year on programs for the disabled. This government, with this budget, will spend in 1988 $541 million on programs for the disabled. Some of those programs will help to restore the disabled or place them for the first time in productive and contributing roles within our province.

I know that the disabled in this province want to be productive, they want to contribute, and this $541 million is money well spent. I also want to recognize that some of that money — probably a fully proportionate amount of that money — is spent in my riding. If I can do anything for the disabled people in my riding, I want to do it, and I know that some of the people who are today on disabled pensions are struggling daily, trying to become productive where they can contribute. They will contribute if we can assist them in some way to do so.

In 1988 our government will continue to spend one-third of its budget on health care. In whole dollars, we will spend an unprecedented $3.9 billion on health care — that's an 8.3 percent increase. I'm delighted that we're able to fund this high-quality health system that we have in B.C., and I'd like to mention that the Columbia River riding has some health care issues that need addressing.

Health care, of course, encompasses many different facets. It means going to the doctor; it means having public health nurses; it means having hospitals. It means acute-care hospitals, but it also means other institutions, such as longterm-care institutions. My riding is well served, for the most part, with long-term-care homes. As we can all imagine, it is very important that when we reach the time in our life when we need more care than can be provided for in our own personal homes. we be able to have resources within our own communities where seniors can be cared for.

In my riding we have a long-term-care home in the community of Kimberley, and we have another one in the community of Golden. The community of Invermere, however, does not have a long-term-care home. That community has raised, to this point in time, $500,000 towards putting a long-term-care home in the Invermere and Radium Hot Springs area. I want to say that I support that community and will do whatever I can to try to improve long-term-care facilities within that area, the central part of the constituency that I represent.

It's difficult when you live in a rural riding to have to be able to travel 70, 80 or more miles to visit a parent or relative in a long-term-care facility in another community. The people in Invermere. Fairmont Hot Springs, Canal Flats and Radium Hot Springs have been doing that for many years. They have to drive to Golden. Kimberley or Cranbrook. They have made a demonstrated effort in a tangible way, by raising their own local funds, to where they've indicated that they are very desirous of a long-term-care facility in that area, and I will certainly do what I can to support that.

We must also take steps to ensure that within the health care world we are prudent users of the health care system. This budget increases our MSP premiums. In terms of personal expenditures, our personal medical premium expenses are a very small part of our overall personal expenditures. There is no higher priority, however, for us as individuals than the health of our families, our neighbours, our relatives and ourselves. Yet I and, I'm sure, everybody in this chamber today, continually spend more money for the health of our automobiles than we do for our personal health. I just paid a bill of over $700 for three visits for my two cars to the automobile hospital. It was a reasonable price, and I was glad to pay it, but for a similar period of time the medical premium for my family was far less. The people of our province are reasonable. They know the world is real and they know that a premium increase is justified.

While we're talking about health issues, I also want to mention the increased liquor and cigarette tax. I want to mention them because I feel they are justified. I think it's important that we link as closely as we can the costs in our health care system with the revenue side, and all of us know that the use of liquor and cigarettes increases the costs to our health care system. So I'm confident that the people in my constituency and the people throughout British Columbia will recognize the justification for these increases in the liquor and cigarette taxes.

I was also interested and partly amused to hear the previous speaker talk about the doctors of the province. I just thought I might mention that one of the doctors in my constituency recently told me that he felt they were very well paid and he wasn't about to start taking any political actions to increase doctors' fees.

So I've talked about the human services that this budget provides for. I also want to speak for a moment about another

[ Page 3700 ]

ministry in government that I'm appreciative of seeing with a budget increase, the Ministry of Environment and Parks. My constituency is very dependent on the Ministry of Environment and Parks for many services. Their budget has been increased by 7.8 percent, and I'm glad to see that. The rural ridings, probably right across this province, depend to a large extent on the services offered by the Ministry of Environment and Parks. My constituency, because it's very tourist-oriented, has a large hunting industry and a large tourism facility industry, such as the golf courses, the hot springs, our lakes, mountains and rivers. Some of those facilities, the lakes and mountains and rivers, depend on a lot of services from the Ministry of Environment and Parks.

I want to mention again just briefly the Invermere area. In that area we have two of British Columbia's finest lakes, lakes which attract people from all across this country and from North America. I'm speaking of Columbia Lake and Lake Windermere. However, we need some additional facilities there. Columbia Lake could carry many more tourists than it does now, and part of the reason is that we need an additional facility to access the lake at the north end near Fairmont Hot Springs. And our highest priority within the riding probably is at Invermere, where Athalmer Beach Park continually has more use than we can accommodate. The parking lot needs to be improved; the parking at present spills out onto the major thoroughfares.

Mr. Speaker, I'm delighted to support this budget. As I said earlier, it's an indicator to the people of the province that their government is in good hands, the same good hands that were elected for 11 out of the previous 12 times.

I haven't filled my full 30 minutes. I'm not sure how much time I've taken, but I want you to know that the people in my riding don't send me here to make speeches. They send me here to represent them, to represent those fine rural communities there, to improve services there and to get things done there.

If I haven't used my full 30 minutes I'm glad, and the people in my riding would appreciate that we not only come here to make speeches; we come here to conserve our time, to be efficient in using our time just as in this budget we are being efficient in spending their tax dollars. Mr. Speaker, I support this budget.

[4:45]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Before we proceed, hon. members, the second member for Richmond asks leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. LOENEN: In the precincts today — until recently some of these people were in the members' gallery — we have about 22 students from Vanier College in Montreal. They are here as guests of Kwantlen College, one of the campuses in my riding of Richmond. I'd just like to ask the House to give them a warm welcome.

MR. BLENCOE: If the second member for Vancouver Little Mountain (Mr. Mowat) wishes to leave, I can assure him I won't miss him.

I have a number of things I want to say about the budget. Unfortunately for the government, very few of them, if any, are going to support the budget. Although I haven't been here as many years as some of my colleagues, this has to be one of the harshest, cruelest and meanest budgets we've seen in a long, long time in this Legislature. I note....

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: The member for Vancouver-Little Mountain must be the designated hitter on the member for Victoria. Is that it? Have you been designated?

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: I'm still smiling, Madam Member.

Interjections.

MR. BLENCOE: The sheep have woken up, as you follow blindly your zealous Premier down the narrow road to oblivion in the province of British Columbia. The Social Credit back-benchers have finally woken up.

I note with interest that the previous speaker had to refer to an Alberta newspaper to back up his support for the budget — the only citation he made in terms of a reference to print media about the budget. How desperate is this government when the only newspaper supporting it is from Alberta, and a weekly at that? I suspect a very weak level of support for this government.

I really wish this government and these members could find some support in the province of British Columbia. It would be nice to find a source of support in British Columbia. But do you know what, my hon. colleagues? There is no support in British Columbia for this budget.

Oh, I forget. The Minister of Finance said he did get some bouquets and flowers. But do you know where he got them from? The corporations, the financial institutions, all the people in the institutions that this government is benefiting at the expense of the ordinary British Columbian. That's where they got their support, because they cut corporate income tax at the expense of seniors, the elderly, the sick, the ordinary British Columbian. That's why this budget isn't getting any support in British Columbia. And that's why the people are speaking out daily against this cruel government and what it's doing to the average British Columbian — particularly, speaking for my riding, the seniors.

What kind of province are we building when this government is prepared to pay for its financial blunders on the backs of senior citizens? You know what the problem is, Mr. Speaker? The problem is that we've had 13 years of fiscal mismanagement by Social Credit in British Columbia that has built the deficit up to a historical level of over $19 billion — a $15 billion increase in 13 years of Social Credit administration. In 1975, after 104 years of all governments in the province of British Columbia, that global deficit stood at $4 billion. Under Social Credit in 13 years, you have increased it by $15 billion.

MR. SIHOTA: Aw, what's a billion!

MR. BLENCOE: The Minister of Finance is well known for some of his off-the-cuff remarks, saying: "Oh, what's a billion! What's a million!" Fifteen billion dollars in 13 years! And of course, this government is talking about balanced budgets and deficit reduction, as if they didn't create that deficit. The smoke and mirrors that we got from the Minister of Finance: "We're such good business people. We're such

[ Page 3701 ]

good managers of public taxpayers' money. Somehow we got this deficit. We don't know how it got there. So they say: "We're going to reduce the deficit. We're going to balance the budget. We're going to deal with the financial crisis in the province of British Columbia." But you know what the minister forgot to tell the people of British Columbia and this Legislature? It was Social Credit administrations that built up that deficit by their financial incompetence.

MR. SIHOTA: Now he's going to solve it with a BS fund.

MR. BLENCOE: And now he's going to solve it — thank you to my colleague for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew — by this glorious BS fund. Smoke and mirrors. and money that doesn't exist, money that the Minister of Finance already admits he spent and, of course, could be used during reelection time. We know what this government is all about, and in 13 years they have built up a financial record of...

MR. SIHOTA: Of incompetence.

MR. BLENCOE: ...total financial incompetence. Now they have prepared, because they have emptied the cookie jar.... They have gone on this huge megaproject syndrome that this Social Credit administration has had for the last 13 years, and now the people of British Columbia have to pay for Socred mismanagement. Who are they going to get to pay? Senior citizens.

Mr. Speaker, this budget has reduced the disposable income of those seniors living in long-term care facilities by close to 50 percent — a direct attack on the piggy banks, if you will, of senior citizens in the province of British Columbia. It's the seniors, the families and the children that are going to pay for the fiscal mismanagement of this administration of the last 13 years. "Highway robbery" is too nice; "daylight robbery" is too nice; "pickpocket" is too nice, when you consider that they are prepared to pay for their financial mismanagement for the last 13 years on the backs of senior citizens in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, can you imagine a 50 percent disposable income tax on senior citizens? It is a 50 percent increase in disposable income tax — that's what we can call it — on people living in long-term-care facilities. This government has alienated so many people in British Columbia that it has to look to where else it can go to try to make up for its financial mistakes, and to which organizations or groups of people who may kick up the least amount of criticism. So what do they do? They pick on senior citizens this time because seniors tend to be quiet, tend to want to live their lives normally, don't like to rock the boat, and often take these things quietly and reasonably. They hope that they can pay for their financial mismanagement, and the senior citizens of British Columbia will be quiet while they pick their pockets.

This government is in for a rude awakening. Grey power is on the move in British Columbia. They are not going to take it, as we learned when the Mulroney government tried to de-index pensions some years ago. We saw the wrath of senior citizens when their livelihood and their integrity and dignity in their retirement years were directly attacked by a mean and cruel government in Ottawa. Here in the province of British Columbia grey power is going to speak out. They won't take this any longer.

I know that senior citizens in my community are outraged by this attack on their income. Long-term-care fees are up from 75 percent to 85 percent of the income of senior citizens, a raise from $501 to $576 per month, leaving them just over $100 to pay for some of those little incidentals that make life worth living in retirement years.

This government came into power saying it was a fresh, new start: things were going to be different. Nothing has changed. As a matter of fact, things have got worse. When we see corporate income tax reduced and taxes and user fees Going up for those who can least afford it, we know we have the same kind of Social Credit administration we've always had in British Columbia. The little guy, the ordinary British Columbian is going to pay while the big corporations and the powerful escape — as usual. What kind of province are we creating? People in British Columbia are speaking out, and are going to be expressing themselves long and hard in the next few months as they try to deal with a government that clearly is not prepared to listen to those concerns about living in British Columbia under a Social Credit administration.

[5:00]

This government talks about fairness to British Columbians. It talks about dealing legitimately and fairly with all British Columbians. Yet we see that this budget takes approximately $700 out of the pockets of the average British Columbian family in tax and fee increases. What this means is that since this government came to power in British Columbia, more than $1,400 has been added to the tax burden of the average British Columbian family — $1,400 in a very short period of time. Yet we see that individuals pay 83 percent while corporations pay only 18 percent of all income tax in British Columbia. That gap has got wider and wider. In 1981, individuals paid 75 percent and corporations 25 percent. The trend is there under Social Credit administration: corporations pay less and individual British Columbians continue to pay more and more in income tax, user fees and other taxes. What is fair and just about that? When we see the Minister of Finance gloating over where he got support for his budget, we know where this government is at, It doesn't represent the average British Columbian in the province of British Columbia today.

What do we see in the medical premium hikes? Another direct attack on the families of the province of British Columbia. Yet this government says: "Oh, we're being fair. We're being equitable." We all know that the medical services premiums have been described by the media as brutal. Unfortunately, the member for Columbia River (Mr. Crandall) didn't cite the British Columbian newspapers that I will. They're calling them brutal. For families the rate increases from $42 per month to $58, an increase of $192 to a total of $696 per annum.

MR. MOWAT: For that you can get a brain transplant.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, to that member, speaking of brain transplants....

For individuals the rate goes up from $20 to $42, an increase of $108 to $348 per year. But this is a good news budget. Do you remember the Premier and the Minister of Finance prior to the budget, saying: "Oh, this is a good news budget coming ahead"? Boy, the people of British Columbia don't need this kind of news too often. They don't need it at all.

Let's talk a little bit about this budget stabilization fund and the great financial managers that the Social Credit administration believe they are. This fund basically is only a

[ Page 3702 ]

bookkeeping entry. It's got nothing to do with reality, absolutely nothing. Even the minister admitted that the money had already been spent when he was pressed for an answer. The fund was created by taking $450 million in unexpected revenue and crediting it to the fund. This maintains the figure for the 1987-88 deficit at $800 million rather than the $350 million that is stated in the budget.

One has to wonder what the deficit will be for 1988-89. The Minister of Finance says that next year's deficit will be $395 million, but the $395 million figure comes only after crediting $124 million to the budget stabilization fund. That would seem to indicate that the real deficit is planned at $271 million. Of course, this is great Social Credit financial management. Now you see it; now you don't. Smoke here; mirrors here. We've had it for 13 years. We all know, if we look at the budget in the last eight years, that the total deficit between 1980 and 1988 is $6.4 billion. In that same period the Socreds estimated that the deficit would be $3.4 billion, but as usual, through Social Credit mismanagement, what did the deficit come in at for those six years? Not $3.4 billion but a $6.4 billion deficit. And as I've said, the overall deficit today is $19.6 billion.

I go back to the BS fund — the budget stabilization fund. It seems that the deficit is planned at $271 million, yet the budget states that the minister plans to borrow only $191 million in the next fiscal year. That would seem again, Mr. Speaker — though we're not sure — to indicate a real deficit of only $67 million. What is going on here? Why don't you come clean with the people of British Columbia and own up to the debt you've created in 13 years and own up to this so-called rainy-day account? We all know what it's about. It's an illusion. Money you've spent and when election time comes, out of this illusory budget that's not there because you still continue your deficit, we'll have all these great election promises and goodies handed out at the expense of the taxpayers. When are you going to come clean with your fiscal mismanagement of the province?

Let's take a look at the memories of the Social Credit administration over the last few years. Boy oh boy! This great manager of money, and now we see this latest stabilization fund. I've outlined that we're not quite sure what the deficit is going to be and what it's all about, because the minister's admitted he's spent it already. The money's there for this fund, we think. But then on another day, it may not be there.

But what's happened? Let's look at it: Tumbler Ridge, northeast coal, half a billion dollars of taxpayers' money, and what has it got us? What about southeast coal? You ruined southeast coal.

Let's talk about the massive debt write-off in the B.C. Development Corporation. Half a billion dollars was written off last session. Just like that: another half-billion dollars put down the drain by this great manager of taxpayers' money, the Social Credit administration. But what's a half-billion dollars? Half a billion at Tumbler Ridge, half a billion by the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) in the B.C. Development Corporation, written off just like that.

What are you going to tell the people of the province of British Columbia? That the cookie jar is empty, that you've ruined the financial arrangements of this great province, and now you're going to make everybody else — except the rich and the powerful and the corporations — pay for your fiscal mismanagement? When are you going to tell that to the people?

Mr. Speaker, let's talk about B.C. Rail. The former Minister of Finance, Mr. Hugh Curtis, in one budget wrote off a $430 million debt to BCR. Great budgeting! Great financing! And when you analyze the loans on that debt, it didn't make any sense at all to write them off in one year. They weren't due and they were at good rates. It was financial stupidity that was done with the B.C. Rail debt. But that was just another $430 million.

Of course, we have the great Coquihalla coverup. Another half-billion dollars of Social Credit mismanagement. And now senior citizens and families and the sick and the elderly are going to pay for that highway and that black topping over ice and snow at any expense to finish that highway. Half a billion dollars overrun. Thanks for the memories, friends. Another example of Social Credit mismanagement.

We all remember.... It was quickly shoved off in interim supply some years ago. The Minister of Human Resources at the time, now the Minister of Economic Development, at the end of a session brought in millions of dollars of overrun in her ministry and glibly said: "Oh well, too bad." Mr. Speaker, did you see that plastered all over? No, you sure didn't.

MR. MOWAT: What's wrong with spending money on people?

MR. BLENCOE: Well then, you be fair and say that we did the same thing when we were in government. Don't have double standards, Mr. Member.

Mr. Speaker, the great tradition, the memories of Social Credit mismanagement in the province of British Columbia, continue as usual. Your mismanagement is alive and well.

MR. MOWAT: What's a hundred million?

MR. BLENCOE: "What's a hundred million?" the second member for Vancouver-Little Mountain says. We'll put that in the record. We'll mail that out. "What's a hundred million?" he says over there.

Mr. Speaker, the memories of this government and its fiscal mismanagement continue. Now we have SkyTrain, estimated to cost us $289 million. What's it going to cost? The latest report is $1 billion — a $700 million overrun. Another half-billion, Mr. Speaker, plus $200 million more for good luck.

There are so many blunders by this Social Credit administration. No wonder we have this budget before us, because now they're going to have to say: "Oh-oh, we've drained the cookie jar. We've mismanaged the finances of the province of British Columbia, and we're going to make everybody pay: the sick and elderly, the average worker." Mr. Speaker, the people are getting the message that this government — in 13 years and now with this budget — is dealing with their fiscal mismanagement, and everybody except those who can afford to pay is being made to pay for their mismanagement.

Let's talk a little bit more about the budget stabilization fund, because the minister says this is a great deal for the people of British Columbia. The minister stated that the government can use the fund for anything it wants — including promoting its own re-election; he already admitted that. Its main purpose may be to distract the public, as I've said, from the record of mismanagement in British Columbia.

[ Page 3703 ]

This government has given us eight successive operating deficits, with an accumulated cost to the average family of $1,500 more than they had to. At $875 million, the Coquihalla Highway is more than $500 million over budget so far — we all know that — and, at close to $1 billion, the SkyTrain came in more than $700 million over budget.

As the member for Columbia River had to go to Alberta to find some support for this budget, it's clear that this government refuses to listen and refuses to bring in fairness and equity in its budgeting. It is now prepared to make the average British Columbian — the elderly, the sick and the working British Columbians — pay for its fiscal mismanagement.

We are very much opposed to this budget. It's time that those who can afford to pay for this fiscal mismanagement, the people who have benefited by this government over the years, were made to pay. When you cut corporate income tax and sock it to the seniors and you raise their disposable income tax by 50 percent, there is something very sick in the province today.

MRS. GRAN: Don't say bad things about British Columbia.

MR. BLENCOE: The people are fine; it's the government that's the problem.

[5:15]

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, one has a strange feeling of deja vu when....

AN HON. MEMBER: Five years ago.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Not five years ago. I remember, I think, the first budget speech I had the pleasure of listening to in this House — and speaking to, as a matter of fact — was in 1976. There was another member from Victoria — I think he was the second member for Victoria at that time — Mr. Barber. I think this fellow must have borrowed his notes, because he said that the government would never last out that term. It just wouldn't happen. There wasn't any possible way, and it would just go down to defeat because of this terrible budget that we brought in in 1976. I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, that other than those 1,200 dark days and dark nights that preceded 1976, the people of British Columbia have seen fit to re-elect progressive Social Credit governments and are going to do it again and again in British Columbia.

I am very pleased to rise and support this budget. It's a really good budget. It has been well thought out, and I want to commend the Minister of Finance for the work he has done on this budget.

This time, this year, in this budget — the budget we're debating now, which the opposition says is so terribly bad — we've managed to cut the deficit in this province by over 50 percent. We've cut it in half this year. It's an $11.8 billion budget.

Interjection.

HON. MR. VEITCH: The hon. member over there, who has never run so much as a peanut farm in his life and has never had to meet a payroll, sits there and scoffs and looks up at the sky and looks for some sort of inspiration as if he is wandering down the figurative road to Damascus or something.

This $11.8 billion budget is hard to comprehend in a province that has less than three million population. If you transpose that and figure out how much that is in relation to each man. woman and child in this province, it shows the genius of the people in the province — regardless of what these negative, doubting people say — that can allow the type of administration, the type of enterprise, that can produce a budget that can allow a government to spend almost $12 billion. It's not because of the NDP and the 1,200 days and because of the carping that they've done all those years; it's in spite of that negativism. Mr. Speaker.

We have to look very closely, though, at the amount of money that society is willing to dedicate to government, the amount that society in totality is able to bring in, and the percentage that we're able to safely give to government and still have a viable society left over. Legislators and governments are nothing more than guardians of a particular entity for a particular given point of time. We're guardians of what happens not only now but in the future. You've got to look down the road. We have to be most careful, in being guardians and being government and being legislators, that we continually address the business of expectations. We can't continually increase expectations of people and tell them that we're going to give them this if we were government, or do that for them if we were government, because some day — God forbid! — the opposition could become government, and that would be about all it would take to completely ruin this province for decades and decades to come.

We talk a lot about democracy. One of the greatest democratic speeches that I've ever read is the famous Gettysburg Address. The President at that point in time, Mr. Lincoln, made a promise; in fact, he made three promises. He made the promises to the people of United States, who were engaged in a bloody civil war, where brother was fighting brother and families were divided. He made three promises. He promised them life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. You see, he didn't promise happiness at all, simply the pursuit of it. And that's something that we must protect, as guardians of the public purse and as guardians of government, as guardians of the future in British Columbia. We've always got to protect the right of that pursuit of happiness, and we've got to do it not only for this generation that we're in now but for those people who will follow after us; not only ourselves but our children and our children's children.

I want to tell you. Mr. Speaker. that compared to the federal government and other provincial governments in Canada, the performance in British Columbia is impressive indeed. But we have to continue, regardless of how impressive it is — the fact that we've reduced the budget by over 50 percent. We've got to continue to reduce that deficit, and we're doing just that.

In 1987 and 1988 — and you must comprehend these numbers — it appears we'll have about an $800 million deficit; in other words, we've spent $800 million more in a province of less than three million people than from all of the goods and services and accruals and everything else that we're able to bring into government. We spent $800 million more, and we had to borrow on the future for that. Next year we intend to cut that more than in half again, to $395 million. But we're still spending beyond our means in this province. We're spending because we must continue the goods, the

[ Page 3704 ]

services, that we provide to people. But we've got to find a way of completely and absolutely eliminating that deficit, if we care a whit about the people that follow after us.

Mr. Speaker, I've thought a lot about what the duty of a government is in a free society. The duty of a government, in my opinion, is to protect the rights and privileges of individuals. But if you're going to do that, then one must first define what those rights and privileges are. Certainly it's not the right of a government to continually mortgage the future of people who will follow after it. The privileges and rights of individuals sometimes get all muddied up and mixed up in our society, and we sometimes tend to put the two together. We say that we have a right to drive, where we really only have a privilege to drive. We don't have a right to offend someone else. It may be a privilege to do it, but we don't have a right to do it. So we have to always continually decide what rights and privileges are in a free society. The job of government in a free society is to define them constantly.

It's important to say what we do by way of providing privileges and help to people in British Columbia and how we provide social services to people in this province. It's important to go through that, because they are very clearly spelled out in the budget document that we're debating here today and will be debating for the next few days in this House. And again, along with the Minister of Finance, I want to emphasize the importance of our government's determination to eliminate the deficit and reduce the debt so that it does not burden our children, our children's children and those who follow after us.

At the same time, as the Minister of Finance pointed out, it's important to underline the basic financial strength that this province has. It's important to note that this province, with fewer than three million people in this new year that we're going into right now, this 1988-89 fiscal year, will contribute to public schools, and their operating costs will increase by $114 million to over $1.3 billion in the 1988-89 fiscal year. The province will also provide $118 million for school debt service costs, and in addition to that, $121 million for teacher pension plan contributions in that year.

Independent schools will receive $48 million this year, as a result of the enrolment growth and the commitments made to those schools last year. The Passport to Education program receives $8.5 million in education. The government is providing $15 million to upgrade and add more computers in the classroom in the first year of a multi-year program.

British Columbia universities, in this province of fewer than three million people, will receive operating grants of $332 million this year — an increase of 5 percent. A new university foundations act, unique in Canada, will attract private-sector-supported donations to British Columbia. The government is inviting the private sector and universities to participate and in order to encourage that in this province, is providing $10 million in matching funds. Operating contributions to the colleges and institutes will total $287 million this year — a tremendous amount of money, if you look at this in a population of fewer than two million people.

Funding for services to family and children has been increased by 8 percent to $114 million — a tremendous increase. A foster parent campaign will encourage British Columbians to get involved. Programs to strengthen the family will be funded through an allocation of $20 million to a new programs vote. Project Reconnect, which links street kids with education, family, medical and employment services, will be expanded. In cooperation with the federal government, British Columbia will provide almost 1,900 new units of social housing in 1988 and 1989. The Ministry of Social Services and Housing will spend $317 million on programs for the disabled and for children with special needs in a province of less than three million people.

The Ministry of Education will spend $195 million on equipment for special classrooms and on other measures, including personal attendants, who make it possible for severely disabled children to attend regular classes. The Ministry of Health will spend an additional $29 million for special health services for the disabled.

The province, as the Minister of Finance pointed out, is well served by its health care system. It's probably the best in Canada and certainly far ahead of anything they have in most places in the free world. Yet we have to be careful, because all of the spending, as we said before, can't go on and on and on without finding new ways to do things, without continually challenging the people of British Columbia, whether in the health care field, the education field or the social services field, to find new ways to do it better and to do it for less.

The system isn't there just to employ people. The system is there to give services to people. Somehow or other we tend to think that the educational system is there primarily to employ teachers or professors or administrators or something of that nature. That's not what it's there for at all. The system is there to deliver educational services to people. If we can find new ways of doing that and we can challenge people to do that at lower costs, then why in the world wouldn't we do that? Wouldn't that make sense? We're going to have to do that. We're going to have to do more and more of that if we want to maintain the wonderful system of social services we have in British Columbia, and indeed in Canada, or we'll burden our children with an excessive debt that they will never, ever be able to pull themselves out from under.

[5:30]

This year, the expenditures of the Ministry of Health alone will total over $3.9 billion, an increase of over 10 percent from last year. That's more than $1,300 for every man, woman and child in the province. That's nearly one third of our total budget.

We've got to accept the challenges. We've got to find new ways of doing things, and we've got to continually address them. That's why this budget is important; that's why the deficit balancing factions of this budget are important; that's why it's going to be more important this year and next year and in the years that follow; and that's why it's important to have a government in place that understands that government aid is not something where you just turn a tap on and the money pours out. In order to get money from government, someone has to send it to government, or government has to borrow it. Otherwise it doesn't work.

This year an additional $23 million will be spent for alcohol and drug education in British Columbia for prevention and treatment purposes, almost double the funds. Increased funding of 11 percent will produce a wider and more effective system of legal aid to provide legal services for people without financial means.

This is one that is very important to me. This year the construction of three major correctional facilities will take place, Mr. Speaker: one in your riding, one in the Burnaby riding and one in Surrey, which will replace Oakalla and the Lakeside women's facility in Burnaby. It's been a long time coming, and we can see very much light at the end of the tunnel. The replacement of Oakalla is now not only just a

[ Page 3705 ]

dream away, it's actually within sight; it will become a reality probably before the end of the term of this particular government.

This year the government will spend almost $600 million in highway construction, upgrading and maintenance in a province with less than three million people.

Business incentive programs are important. This year the government of British Columbia has looked at many, many ways to reduce the imposition on business. Without having this as a good place in which to invest and do business, there is no way we can continue to provide the services that people have come to expect, or indeed the services that government must get for the future if it is to protect the rights and privileges of all its citizens.

What makes all this possible? What makes it possible, Mr. Speaker, for a province of less than three million people to spend almost $12 billion in a year? Well, there are two ways to do that. Of course you can do it the way the NDP have been talking about. You can borrow and tax, and tax and borrow. A little while ago, the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) was telling us that this government was going to take an additional $700 per year out of the pockets of each and every British Columbian. Well, if we went down the road that they wanted to go down, it wouldn't be $700 a year you'd be taking out of their pockets. It would be the kind of tax rate that you experience in Sweden, where everything is so tied up that nothing is able to move, and where there's no incentive for individuals to get out and produce and to make the kind of money and take the risks and become involved in the ventures that create the economy that make it possible for us, in a province with less than three million population, to spend almost $12 billion in a year.

That doesn't come from government. Government is simply the spender of that money. It comes from individuals, individuals involved in business and small business, It becomes an investment. The only reason you have that kind of investment in a province like this is that people have confidence — confidence in the province and confidence in the government that administers this province. That's why year after year, except for those 1,200 dark days and dark nights when the NDP were in power, this province has progressively grown, and that's why progressively, year after year, time after time, Social Credit has been re-elected and returned, and that will happen in the future.

There's another way of doing it. That's the free enterprise Social Credit way, where we depend upon the people — the enterprise and genius of individuals — to get out and produce this money and send it to government. You can't continually take more from there so that they don't have some left and so that you kill their incentive.

A good administration understands that you don't burn the candle at both ends. It makes a lovely light, but then it's gone and there's nothing left. You must establish and continually look to the peaks and valleys that you have in an economy such as British Columbia, because we've been too overly dependent over the years upon natural resources in this province. That's changing. It's changing because of people like our Minister of Advanced Education and Job Training (Hon. S. Hagen), and the technological things he's becoming involved with. It's changing because of the efforts of the Ministry of Economic Development. It's changing because the confidence of the people around the world have in this government is changing, and we are moving away from being hewers of wood and drawers of water.

It's changing, but you still have to look to those peaks and valleys, and that's precisely what the Minister of Finance is doing with the budget stabilization fund. He's saying that if You want to have some sort of constant funding or a five-year program in the educational system. you can't have a five-year program unless you've got five years' worth of funding behind it to back it up. It makes common sense to have some funding in place for those bad times as well as for the good times. It just makes good, straightforward, practical business sense.

The socialists don't seem to understand that. They continually say that you've got to spend more and more and more, and for goodness' sake, don't give industry or business a tax break. Look at that: they're going to do something with it. They're going to spend it, or I don't know what they're going to do with it. Don't give it to them.

They don't realize that the business and industry in a province like British Columbia is the goose capable of laying the golden egg. I can tell you that during the time that the NDP were in power — those 1,200 days — they didn't completely kill that goose, but it was very close to being terminally ill. The only thing that salvaged this province was the good sense of the people to throw them out of office after an experience that lasted only 1,200 days.

A good administration always considers the peaks and valleys. It always considers a little money laid away for a day when things aren't quite so good, so we can continue to provide the goods and services.

We had a Premier here, the last Premier we had — Bill Bennett — who used to call the NDP negative, doubting people. I hate to say those kind of things, but I've heard....

Interjection.

HON. MR. VEITCH: No. I don't want to be negative. I've heard so much doom and gloom and despair during this budget debate that I honestly think Bill Bennett may have been right. They may just be negative, doubting people. They must be so ingrained in opposition thinking that they can't see any new ideas. They're so locked into the nineteenth-century Industrial Revolution that they don't realize that we're living in a new world now that requires new approaches and new ideas. They can't seem to get out and beyond that and take off those blinders. It's traditional opposition thinking, and I think that whenever an election is called the next time, they'll still be in opposition. There will be fewer of them, but they'll still be there. Because they are a traditional opposition; they don't think progressively.

The most important ingredient that any jurisdiction can exude is that of confidence. If you listen to some things being said about this budget across the other side, and if anybody paid a great deal of attention to what the opposition was saying — thankfully, most of the people don't — they would erode the confidence that we're trying so hard to build up in this province.

We are turning the corner. We are getting better. We had a 2.7 percent real growth in this province last year. We had 90,000 new jobs created in this province last year. That's confidence. Those things don't just happen because the government decides to go out and start something new. They happen because individuals have confidence enough to put their money on the line where it counts and to invest in British Columbia. That's the ingredient, and that's the very thing that

[ Page 3706 ]

they try to whittle away at over there. I don't quite understand it. Yes, the province must provide services, but things like this rainy-day fund — call it what you want; the budget stabilization fund — is there to ensure that we're able to maintain those services in good years and in bad.

I listened to the hon. second member for Victoria talk about trust. I'll tell you, the people of British Columbia have good memories. They still remember those 1,200 days. The NDP is so confused, Mr. Speaker, that it continually tries to confuse potential with reality. They don't seem to understand.... They talk about the assets that you have in a province and all the resources, all the coal and the gas in the fields and everything, but they don't seem to realize that you can have all the trees in the forest, all the minerals in the ground, all that gas and oil, all those things working for you; it's potentially valuable, but it's worthless until someone has the confidence to invest in it, to take it somewhere and do something with it. That's where they fall out of bed, right there. They seem to think that by having this, they can borrow on it, continually borrow and borrow, and somewhere or other borrow their way to freedom.

You know, Mr. Speaker, they talk about confidence. I saw the Leader of the Opposition on television the other night, and it was a very good program. He was addressing the chamber of commerce, I think, and he had the first and second members for Victoria (Mr. G. Hanson and Mr. Blencoe) there and the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota). Believe it or not, the hon. Leader of the Opposition was taking credit for Expo 86. Can you imagine that? I saw him doing it, and I sat back and went and rubbed my eyes with a wet cloth, and I turned it up just a little louder. Yes, it was Mikey — I'm sorry, it was the Leader of the Opposition. I went searching through some of the papers we have around here, and I dug up the text of a telegram addressing Expo 86. It was addressed to a Mr. Patrick Reid, who was then commissioner for world expositions. This was from the mayor of Vancouver at that time, one Michael Harcourt.

AN HON. MEMBER: Alderman.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Ald. Michael Harcourt.

"Dear Mr. Reid and fellow committee members of the Bureau of International Exhibitions:

"Please stop plans for Transpo 86 on the north side of False Creek and downtown Vancouver."

That came from the fellow that I saw the other night, with this remarkable transformation, taking credit for it.

"Most Vancouver citizens do not want Transpo 86 to proceed on this site. Instead, five out of ten aldermen, 26 out of 57 Members of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia" — the NDP over there; I think that's what they're called; negative, doubting people — "are against Transpo 86. We feel that housing, public amenities and transportation should receive greater priority. "

What he didn't seem to realize at the time was that by having Expo 86 you could have this wonderful world exposition that would bring people here and would set the pace for the future, and you could have housing, transportation and all of these wonderful things. You see, Expo 86 was the potential, hon. members, that allowed this to happen. That's where they seem to fall out of bed; that's where they really don't seem to understand.

[5:45]

We used to have a member in here, and we used to call him Dr. Strangelove and a lot of other things — Pat McGeer. He used to close off his speeches by asking the NDP to repent. He said at that point that what they should have done — the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) was the last one — was: "Go out and find yourself a new leader and you'll have a new outlook on life. You'll be better, and if you repent and change your ways, then maybe you'll be the kind of opposition that could become government someday.

Mr. Speaker, they've gone out and found themselves a new leader by acclamation, but they haven't changed their ways. They're so hidebound in this business, although it looks like he would have changed his ways had he looked back in 1978 and 1979. But they are the opposition, and they'll continue to be the opposition. That's why the NDP, as McGeer used to say, were defeated in 1933 and 1937. That's why they were defeated in 1941; that's why they were defeated in 1945; that's why they were defeated in 1949; that's why they were defeated in 1952 and 1953 — first time the Social Credit government came into power. That's why they were defeated again in 1956, 1960, 1963, 1966, 1969. Then in 1972 they gave them 1,200 days, and in 1975 they kicked them out again. They defeated them again in 1979, and they're going to defeat them again in the next election.

I support this budget and recommend it highly to all members of this House.

Mr. Harcourt moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Strachan tabled the 1986-87 annual report of the Ministry of Environment and Parks.

Hon. Mr. Strachan moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:47 p.m.