[ Page 3743 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Private Members' Statements

Care of the elderly. Ms. A. Hagen –– 3743

Hon. Mr. Dueck

1988 B.C. Winter Games. Mr. Weisgerber –– 3744

Mr. Barnes

St. Ann's Academy. Mr. Blencoe –– 3746

Hon. Mrs. Johnston

Humanities in a democratic society. Ms. Campbell –– 3748

Mr. Miller

Budget Debate

Mr. Williams –– 3750

Mr. De Jong –– 3752

The House met at 10:08 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. VANT: In the gallery opposite me is a young couple who brought the clear, blue skies with them from the far, west Chilcotin in the far western area of our great constituency of Cariboo. I'm very pleased to welcome to the House this morning Alex Bracewell and his fiancée, Connie Harris. They are from Tatlayoko Lake. I'm sure the House will give them a warm welcome.

MR. HUBERTS: Mr. Speaker, we've spoken about that great secondary school, Claremont, in the district of Saanich and the Islands. Yesterday my colleague mentioned the fact that they had some exchange students from Wales, and today we have them in the gallery. We have the grade 11 honours class, with their teacher, Colin Ruffles. Would the House please give them a welcome.

MR. R. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, it's been my great pleasure in the past to introduce my niece, Jennifer Lewis, but today I have the pleasure of introducing Mr. and Mrs. Peter Sirek. Jennifer and Peter are out visiting British Columbia from Toronto. This gung ho young couple, I know, are going to have a great life, because they work hard, they understand the value of work, and they make a big contribution. Would the House please welcome Peter and Jennifer Sirek to British Columbia.

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Statements

CARE OF THE ELDERLY

MS. A. HAGEN: My comments today are under the title of "Care of the Elderly," but I want to subtitle the statement as printed in our Orders of the Day, to focus the discussion on long-term planning for continuing care. I use the words "continuing care," rather than "long-term care," because I think that better defines the kind of focus we want to have.

The care and support of the elderly are important tasks for us to undertake well in our province — as families, as a society and as government. As the saying goes: "We will all get old, but none of us would be old." Ghettos for seniors and marginalization of this population in our society are not what we would choose for ourselves as we go along that continuum, and it certainly should not be part of the planning and programs that we have for the elderly in our society today.

It's in our interest to develop and support public policy that encourages and helps the older 25 percent of our population to be participants in a society and to live as they have always lived throughout their adult years — independent lives and lives of their own choosing over which they have very considerable control. But because ageing involves — as well as continuing participation in the community, including good health and activities and volunteerism and family involvement — loss, trauma, catastrophe, chronic disease, often less income and less flexibility than the lives of younger people, we share a responsibility to plan at this time and for this time. We need to be in a position to provide support for the elderly and their families.

Currently in this province I believe there is little or no evidence of any coherent plan of action for the present, and certainly very little evidence of long-term planning. In the pattern of government that we have seen over the last couple of years, there seems to be only one facet that causes focused attention, and that is the cost of services to the elderly. Those costs seem to be planned for in short-term and short-tenured ways.

Witness last year's budget, where fees for alternative therapies were introduced for physiotherapists, chiropractors and so on. When the minister was asked about the reason for these fees.... I'll quote the question: "A further question.... Is the government using these fees as a deterrent, or are they using them to raise money for the government, as was initially said in the budget?" The Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck) replied to that question: "Both." That's from Hansard of March 30, 1987. Witness this year's announcements, where these alternative therapies have suddenly been restored to a very prominent position at least in the health care project that's proposed for Victoria, even to the point where I understand the minister has suggested that the fees may be waived.

Another policy that we've all supported is a policy to phase out personal care and provide home support for people within their homes and apartments and communities. Match that policy with the severely eroded home-support budget for these very people who are adding to the numbers that must have service in the community.

Witness the announcement of a pilot project in Victoria. It does appear very strongly without prior consultation with the very key people whose current work will form the basis for some of that project. Match with that the failure to consult in the field about the new and punitive costs for long-term care. We now know two punitive costs for home support work that will be imposed on the elderly. Per diems in longterm care won't be just $19.20 a day; the minister has now confirmed they will rise to $32 a day. This is a turnaround within a week of his commitment that people would be treated as single people, when he said in the House this Tuesday: "As far as the provincial government is concerned, they"— meaning married couples — "will be treated as single under our program." His comments yesterday were that they will be looking at the resources of spouses and taxing those as well as the incomes of those in care homes as a part of their plan to increase charges.

[10:15]

When we look at these initiatives, we know that there is no long-term planning and that the bottom line is cost. We have in this province a very good system that has been built by two governments. It was built in part by the New Democratic administration from 1972 to 1975, and it has been built by previous Social Credit administrations.

There is on both sides of this House a consensus and a political will and a high priority to look at long-term planning for the elderly. Leadership in that planning involves tapping that potential.

Mr. Speaker, in the few minutes that I have, there is no way I can begin to address all of the things involved in longterm planning, but there are some I want to highlight. They are priorities that we must have clearly before us as part of the goals and objectives of planning for the elderly, and they must be the measure against which programs are constantly involved.

HON. MR. DUECK: I would like to respond to the member opposite in regard to planning for the elderly and

[ Page 3744 ]

health care. I agree that planning should be done. I agree with some of the remarks made; we may come from a different perspective, but we both agree that the seniors do need help, not in health only but in every phase of life.

I would also like to remind the members of this House that we are the only province that has an integrated, planned continuing care program, which was started in 1978. No other province in Canada has a program that is as well planned. B.C.'s health care system is one of the best in the world. There is no question about that. We can say it isn't, we can say there's mismanagement, but the fact is that it's the best health care system.

We are gradually repositioning ourselves in the health care system to account for the increase in population of the elderly. Planning is exactly what we're doing: planning for that eventual extra cost that will come about when these seniors multiply by many, many more than we have today. We project, for example, that by the year 2001 our population will probably increase by approximately 23 percent to 3,500,000, but the number of people 75 years and older will increase by some 70 percent. Today the number of people 65 years and older in the province equals 14 percent, but they use roughly 49 percent — or 47-point-something percent — of the total cost; in other words, $1.9 billion.

Now we can say that money doesn't matter, but everyone knows, every taxpayer knows, that money must come from somewhere. There is not a money tree in your backyard that you can pick dollars from. Therefore we are saying we must plan for the future, not just for seniors but for everyone in this province, to maintain the health care system we have in place today, which is the best in all of Canada. And it must be affordable by all people. This is why we're doing some of the things we're doing, just to put the member's mind at rest; there seems to be an awful lot of confusion, mostly from the members opposite rather than from the people on the outside. I hear about polls being taken. I hear about people complaining. Yes, I hear that, too, but they're not the masses. I also meet a lot of senior citizens. I suppose I meet more than any one of you, because I'm in their homes all the time. I'm visiting them. Sure, they have concerns, and I have concerns. I'd like to give them everything they want, but this is not possible. But by and large they are happy. I'm also telling you — and I've said this before — that seniors who receive OASGIS who reside in a long-term-care facility are now eligible for GAIN, and therefore they do not pay any premiums. At the same time, the GAIN currently is something like $49 and some cents, so add that to the income and the increase is approximately $20.26.

When you say there's no planning, I think that's exactly what we're doing. We're planning. For example, in the next two years we have 1,200 beds that will become available over and above what we have today. We have currently 17,000 long-term-care beds, and we have some 7,400 extended-care beds. Now you can't tell me that we are not looking after our seniors. My goodness, look at the record — and 1,200 more in the next two years. My budget for capital construction — and it's mostly in the senior-citizen homes — is $140 million for this year. Next year — we now are operating on a two-year window — it is supposed to be roughly $150 million. Don't tell me that we're not planning. Of course we're planning, and we should be planning, because seniors deserve it. They have worked in this community and they've worked throughout their life, and they've paid towards the good life that we who have come along since have.

And you talk about consultation. With this new project....

MR. SPEAKER: I regret to inform the minister that under the standing orders his time is up.

HON. MR. DUECK: I'm sorry. I was just getting started, but I agree with you basically.

MS. A. HAGEN: Certainly the minister and I agree that it's a very comprehensive subject. I regret that the minister has chosen to respond so much in terms of costs. Planning involves....

Interjection.

MS. A. HAGEN: And I as well, and we'll both acknowledge that we don't have time in this short time to do all of this. I'll acknowledge, in fact, that we don't have that time, but I would just like to conclude my remarks by commenting about the minister's reference to B.C.'s integrated plan.

I recently had the opportunity to attend a conference — called "Connections" — of about 500 policymakers and researchers in Saskatoon. I was not aware that our ministry was represented there, and I would like to know whether the ministry was in fact represented. It would have been an excellent conference for a planning perspective. I also visited Manitoba. Let me just read to you my report of my observations there and my study.

Manitoba's New Democratic government has consistently recognized the need to work with and plan for its elderly citizens. To ensure good planning, the government ensures that every government ministry pays attention to seniors' needs. It has a representative in every ministry dealing with seniors' issues; listens to seniors with the Council on Aging and other listening-posts which provide input to government; funds community-based programs like meals, peer counselling programs, transportation in cooperation and on a shared basis with those communities; provides good non-profit continuing care programs, where long-term care nurses have a maximum of 150 clients — we have 400 to 500 clients per nurse; supports well seniors through community health promotion activities in cooperation with the communities; builds non-profit seniors housing and care facilities and indexes SAFER annually to protect people's shelter expenses; does good research to assist the government in long-term planning. Manitoba has had a full-time gerontologist on staff since 1971. She has a very small staff: one other person, a support staff. The results of her work in cooperation with each ministry make Manitoba one of Canada's most progressive provinces in planning, researching and providing for its elderly citizens.

We have the basis of a good program; both governments have built it. I would urge you, Mr. Minister, to refer some of these comprehensive issues to the Select Standing Committee on Health, Education and Social Services so that we can work together to do some long-term, genuine, cooperative, consensus-building planning for the elderly in the province that will not only deal with costs but with equity, access and involvement of the seniors.

1988 B.C. WINTER GAMES

MR. WEISGERBER: The subject I want to talk about this morning is the 1988 B.C. Winter Games. The games were held in Dawson Creek last month, and I think it's

[ Page 3745 ]

important to discuss several things that happened there, because they were important not only to the people of South Peace River, but to people all over British Columbia.

First of all, I want to recognize the outstanding job that the people of Dawson Creek did in putting the games on. Secondly, I want to recognize the involvement of the minister and his staff and the job that they did. Finally, I want to encourage other communities all across British Columbia to, wherever possible, participate in these Winter Games. They are a great activity. They do a lot for a community — for community pride and morale. It was really a great experience in Dawson Creek, and for that reason I think it's important to share some of the experience with the House today.

At the opening ceremonies I was on the platform with quite a large group of dignitaries. We were entertained for about two hours by 500 local people with dancing, singing and visual displays — a very high-quality arty type of display, a very high-quality activity, and it was all local people. It was choreographed by local people. The songs were written by people in Dawson Creek and one fellow in Fort St. John. The music was all performed by local people. It was just a really heart-warming thing to see, and for me it was probably the proudest moment that I can remember, not only as a politician but as a citizen of any community that I've ever lived in. When you live in a small town and you see the kind of commitment that people are willing to make to show their town off, and to show that they're as good as everybody else and that you don't have to live in Vancouver to be part of an arts community or an athletic community.... For that reason these games are, to my mind, tremendously important.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

I want to recognize the contribution of some of the people in Dawson Creek. There were 3,000 people who volunteered to work on the Winter Games. There are only 12,000 people in Dawson Creek. That's one person in four — man, woman and child — who volunteered to work on the games. It is tremendous. If you could ever mobilize the province to an activity that had one in four people in the province or even in one of the major cities involved in it, it would be a monumental activity. And some of these people worked for months. It wasn't a question of volunteering and coming out for a couple of hours during the games; some of these people worked hours and hours every week for months. I know friends of mine, like one who worked on selling the souvenirs.... I honestly think he paid more attention to that for three months than he did to his own business, and it was tremendously successful.

[10:30]

The important thing to recognize is that if people are motivated to participate in something, they will really come out and give a lot more than we normally expect from people, and for that reason I would encourage any member here whose community is thinking about participating in the games to do so. I've got to say that I had a bit of hesitation when I understood that Dawson Creek had undertaken to host 2,500 athletes in a town the size of Dawson Creek. I really wondered whether we weren't getting into something that, in the end, we would come to regret. Absolutely the opposite was....

MR. CLARK: You'd be up the creek then.

MR. WEISGERBER: Yes, we would be up the creek.

It was in fact one of the highlights in Dawson Creek, and I'm sure that for many years people will look back with pride and a real sense of accomplishment. For all people in British Columbia, I think it is important to recognize that these games are now second only to the Olympics as far as participation is concerned.

Certainly the quality of the competition is not the same. I spent two evenings watching the boxing; it's novice boxing. The boxers could only have had ten bouts prior to coming to the game. It certainly wasn't Golden Gloves-quality boxing, but it was a great opportunity for young people to get out and participate, and for those who really cared, to win a medal or really put their all into it. For that reason, it was very worthwhile.

Because of the size of our community, we had to accommodate some of the activities outside of Dawson Creek. I want to recognize the efforts of the village of Ponce Coupe and the municipality of Chetwynd in pulling together and helping their sister community to host the games.

I also want to recognize the fine job that Roger Skillings did in putting on his first games. I'm sure that was an activity that he had some apprehension about going into, but one that I'm sure he'll feel very comfortable in the future with both the Summer and Winter Games.

I have to recognize the efforts of the president of the 1988 Winter Games, Al Westcott. He did an outstanding job. I want to thank the Minister of Tourism, Recreation and Culture (Hon. Mr. Reid) for coming and spending most of two days at the games. I want to also thank the Premier for coming. He was at the opening ceremonies, hosted a Premier's reception in the evening, attended a civic luncheon the next day, attended many of the venues and made it very clear that he was not there for political reasons, but was there to participate in the games.

MR. BARNES: The opposition as well would like to commend the city of Dawson Creek and the adjacent communities for staging the Winter Games last month. The concept of both the Summer and Winter Games clearly is one that all British Columbians can be proud of. There's no difficulty whatsoever in this member or others on this side of the House associating ourselves with the words just expressed by the member for South Peace River.

For a number of years I have been participating or at least attending many of the Summer Games. I haven't been to any of the Winter Games, however. Looking at the kinds of constructive criticism we might say, I hope that the member in closing will clarify for the House the extent to which comprehensive participation takes place.

We've got a wide variety of citizens in this province, and a cross-section of all ages, cultures and races to achieve some of the goals of the games: participating for the sake of participation, not just for excellence or to get a medal, but to ensure that all people — some from the socio-economic range where they may not get the training they need or be associated with the right circles — be stimulated and motivated to participate. I wonder if the member would comment on the program's ability to reach all of the people in the community.

I'm thinking particularly of senior citizens. Apparently this is the second year that there will be seniors' games, as such. I hope that there isn't going to be a trend to separate the seniors. We were just listening to some comments made by

[ Page 3746 ]

the member for New Westminster (Ms. A. Hagen) with respect to services and health care for seniors. Part of that health care is lifestyle as well; part of it is not being alienated or pushed aside, but being part of the community as a whole. This is the kind of thing that extends life and makes life worthwhile.

The member referred to youth being able to get out and participate and put their best effort forward, particularly when you are talking about boxing. But let's not forget that a healthy community is a community that reflects all lifestyles and the variety of ways that we all make it from day to day. I was thinking, for instance, that in West Vancouver it's so expensive there that only the wealthy can afford it, and many families that have children aren't there, and they are finding themselves in the position where they would like to have a better mix. To make that happen as far as the games are concerned, I think the budgeting will have to be right and there will have to be good programs to provide subsidies.

For instance, the games are underwritten provincially through the lotteries fund, and we all know that the government is getting more money than ever through the lotteries. It's an ongoing, increasing thing, and there is no reason why any of these games should be starved out. It shouldn't be a problem with respect to travel expenses and any other costs associated with the games. They are a growing concern. I believe that in Ferne in 1987 you had something like 1,700 people in there. It was pointed out that there were 2,500 in Dawson Creek, and in Nelson it's anticipated that next year there will be that many again or even more.

I would just like to again associate ourselves on this side of the House with the remarks by the member and to commend the community and city of Dawson Creek, the organizers and the participants. I think it's only fair to congratulate the sponsor as well — which in this case is the provincial government, which underwrites the games — because I think it's one of the few things over the years that we all can agree has been successful. It is ongoing; it's growing. It's a great benefit and perhaps one of the few exceptions where the Social Credit is returning something to the community that we can all feel is equitable, and we believe everyone's conscience is clear.

Let's just make sure, though, that we canvass the whole community and that we're not alienating any people or that there aren't pockets out there not able to participate because we just haven't reached out far enough. Otherwise, I think we're on the right track, and I congratulate the member for raising this matter.

MR. WEISGERBER: Again, much of what the member for Vancouver Centre said I would have to agree with totally. He questioned the participation. I did participate in medal presentations in several different venues. There were a number of not senior citizens but certainly middle-aged people, people my age, involved in bowling and curling. Of course, a lot of the games were for younger people, but one of the really outstanding parts of the games were the physically disabled activities.

A fellow by the name of Joe Delawsky in Dawson Creek was the coordinator, but I am sure it has been an ongoing program. Some of the basketball games and that type of thing were really a great activity and very much appreciated by the people in Dawson Creek, and I am sure it was an inspiration to many of the people there who find themselves in wheelchairs or are in some other way disabled.

As for seniors, I honestly don't know that there are any specific activities in the Winter Games for them. It may well be a great idea. I think there is always the danger, as you say, of alienating them or putting them separate, but certainly the games would be that much better if all segments of society were able to participate.

I mentioned boxing simply because I think that by making sure that they are among the most junior amateurs in that particular sport, it gives them an access to games that would normally be reserved for those with several years' experience and who had fought their way up, literally, through the Golden Gloves system or whatever. Holding the games in that particular venue gives people at a relatively junior stage in their hobby an opportunity to participate.

One of the things that I didn't get an opportunity to mention was the lasting benefits to any community from the games. There is a legacy fund, part of which is put up in advance by the lottery society. The rest of the legacy is added to by the sale of souvenirs within the community, and in Dawson Creek, as I mentioned, that was very successful. The games have really been a benefit to our ski hill. Along with another lottery grant, they enabled them to put in artificial snow-making equipment.

I also must recognize the efforts of the city of Dawson Creek. It really put its whole staff at the disposal of the games.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I know that the games in Nelson will be a tremendous success, and I look forward to the opportunity of being at those games.

ST. ANN'S ACADEMY

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, before I enter my statement, I would hope that the members have all read the latest document of truth on the Coquihalla from the New Democratic Party. I sent it to a number of my colleagues across the floor. It is the truth about the Coquihalla, the lies and the distortion by this government on the Coquihalla.

This morning I want to talk about the capital of the province of British Columbia. I want to stand up for this great city and against the policies of this government, as they continue to introduce policies that hurt this community beyond belief. We constantly see this government with bad policies, ill-conceived, like decentralization and privatization. We now see that the Songhees lands are going to be sold to foreign developers; the Princess Marguerite is going to private owners for gambling ships. Now in our precinct here we have the ultimate insult to this community: the decimation, the commercialization, of a hundred years of service to this community and this province by the Sisters of St. Ann. They're going to turn that academy into Fantasy Academy, with wedding chapels, a tourist trap that is a direct offence to this community.

This community has pride; it has dignity. That pride and that dignity are being ripped asunder by this government. I am standing today in this House to ask the government to reconsider its priorities for St. Ann's Academy and the legacy of the Sisters of St. Ann.

Mr. Speaker, it all revolves around the modus operandi of the Provincial Capital Commission. It all revolves around the minister's employee, the chairman, Mr. Ken Hill, now a deputy minister. It all revolves around the travesty in public process that that hundred-year-old national historic site...and the concept plan for that site which has never

[ Page 3747 ]

seen the light of day; which cost the taxpayers $50,000 and has never seen the light of day; the concept plan for this community, which, if it had been seen, would lead us to what we should do with St. Ann's Academy and the future of this great site. This has never seen the light of day, and this minister and the Provincial Capital Commission have refused to call a public meeting or have a public dialogue on this concept plan for that national historic site, for that institution that represents so much history of the Catholic diocese in this great community.

Now they want to turn it into Fantasy Academy. Is nothing sacred, Mr. Speaker? Is our legislative precinct to be turned into one big tourist trap? The hucksters down here, as the tourists come in on the Princess Marguerite.... And now we'll continue with the hucksterism in that great institution just down the street; now this concept.

[10:45]

Well, I say today that I am releasing this, and I will provide key sections to show this community what the Provincial Capital Commission really wanted to do with this site.

Let me read to you, Mr. Speaker, some of the parts of this important document:

"St. Ann's Academy occupies a pivotal position symbolically and physically. Though no longer used as a school and convent, the building, with its six and a quarter acre site, is an evocative and powerful element in the landscape of the legislative precinct.

" ...the building and site is a rare and valuable resource, an essentially intact, unrestored public facility of major importance.

"The restored academy would express in a significant way the role of the Sisters, not only directly, for example, through displays or interpretation, but also indirectly by respecting their choices...."

Every attempt should be made to ensure that the building, as a major legacy of the Sisters of St. Ann, is returned to full and productive use for present and future generations. Yet, Mr. Speaker, I believe this government, by shutting out public debate, by not releasing this report, is going to commit cultural sacrilege on that site.

"To conclude," — this report says — "St. Ann's Academy, because of its location in the legislative precinct, the significance of its architecture and landscape, its historical importance as a teaching centre and its expression of the" — atmosphere — "of the religious orders in the founding of the province, deserves the utmost care in...preservation and upgrading. It is a key element in the four structures which symbolize the core of any community..." — government, health, commerce, education. "Like these others, the academy, through the very scale and cohesion of its concept, as realized in the buildings and grounds, provides a strong statement about the attitudes of the early settlers of Victoria...."

And what do we have? We have a proposal call. While the public was being shut out, the one that's been accepted, that developer, was making the lobbying rounds — an insult, a slap in the face for the public of this community, not allowed to say what they would like to see with that site.

I have a document today that I have acquired — first again — that shows that in 1986 the Provincial Capital Commission clearly wanted to turn this site into the British Columbia heritage centre. That was their intention. But because this government refuses to recognize the symbolic significance of that site, to put money in on a cost-sharing basis to ensure that that legacy continues in education, teaching, heritage, the arts and culture, we're going to turn it into one big glorified tourist trap, a fantasy academy. This document clearly outlines that the PCC wanted a heritage centre for the province, a cultural centre here in Canada West; a national site that would bring dignity and integrity back to that site. And what do we have? A tourist trap. This report shows that the commission wanted to go that route, and this government has cut the commission and the people off at the kneecaps. It's an insult to this community.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: There's no question at all — I have no argument with my colleague from Victoria — that this is a valuable site. It's a very important part of Victoria's history, and the fact that it is certainly is one of the reasons that led us to call for proposals for preservation of the property. The proposal call was very clear, as the member well knows. The preservation aspect was uppermost in the minds of the members serving on the Provincial Capital Commission, and they now have a proposal that is acceptable to a good many people in this community, including the Sisters.

In a letter from the proponent of the most acceptable proposal, we have been advised that among others, the member who spoke prior to me was contacted in January/February of 1987 and made aware of the interest of this proponent in putting forward a proposal. The proponent kept the member for Victoria advised all along the way and asked for his comments, and he suggested, according to the proponent, that he had no problems with the plans. As well as the member for Victoria, the mayor of the city and all city aldermen received a copy of the proposal in February. The city planner, representatives of the Sisters of St. Ann, representatives of the Bishop of Victoria, representatives of the Victoria Chamber of Commerce, representatives of Tourism Victoria, representatives of the business and industrial development commission in this area — all were kept involved in order to obtain as much public input as possible.

I think it's important to refer to an article that appeared in the April 7 Times-Colonist and statements attributed to Sister Frieda Raab of the Sisters of St. Ann.

"The shops in the Academy Gardens plan do not violate the building, she said.

" I wouldn't like to see a food fair but I sure don't want it to be set up as an old convent."'

The Sister, a resident of Victoria, said she was happy the chapel will be restored, and that's certainly an important part of this proposal. Plans call for the chapel to be used as an ecumenical and wedding chapel.

"'I think if it could be a quiet place for people to pray it would be wonderful. I think it will become what people want it to be.'

"'The real value of St. Ann's Academy is not simply in the building,' she said.

"'I believe that what went on in that building can never be repeated. The living stones are all over the world. The exterior will still he there as a place to draw our memories but the living memories and living heritage of St. Ann's are the treasure. The value is in the people who have gone through that institution."'

This is Sister Frieda Raab of St. Ann's speaking, as reported in the Times-Colonist.

[ Page 3748 ]

Mr. Speaker, this government has no intention of demolishing or contributing to the demolition of that very important historical site — the building and the grounds. But we have to do something in order that it be preserved. The member for Victoria who spoke is very well aware of the fact that the provincial Capital Commission have public meetings. They started yesterday; they are from 2 p.m. to 8 p.m. today. Tomorrow from 2 p.m. to 8 p.m. they will be at the Crystal Gardens so that the general public will have an opportunity to view the proposals; all four proposals will be available. They will be asked for their comments, and they will have until April 15 to submit their comments. At that time, after the public input has been received, negotiations will then be undertaken with the proponents of what I believe could be a very acceptable and credible plan for that particular piece of property.

Mr. Speaker, I believe the government is acting very responsibly. I believe the Provincial Capital Commission is acting very responsibly and with participation to the best of their ability from as many groups and private citizens of this community as possible.

MR. BLENCOE: The minister tries desperately to protect and defend the public process. We have 18 hours of viewing the proposals — not a public meeting but a dog-and-pony show where people go in, give their views to somebody, and they don't know what's going to happen to those ideas. We should have had, right from the start — and this government has refused to do it — a public dialogue and a debate before the proposal call was made. This government has controlled the process because they know this community overwhelmingly would demand integrity and honesty and that the legacy of the history of that site be protected — not the way this government wants to go with it.

I can tell you that the Sisters of St. Ann — although the minister quotes — are disappointed, because their dream was shot down by this government when they refused to build a proper hospital, and they built it all the way out on the wrong site. That's what they did. That's where they lost their dream, and now they say: "Well, the government won't give any money. They won't recognize our 100 years of virtually free service to this province and this community." This government can give $2.5 million to the B.C. Lions and can't give a penny towards this national historic site — not a penny.

Mr. Speaker, the people of this community are deeply offended. They have never seen this concept plan. They have never seen the real intentions of the Provincial Capital Commission, as I've outlined today. They want it as a national heritage centre. This minister says we are now having a public process. That process was a token gesture. That developer made the rounds; he lobbied his friends on the Social Credit side, and we had a token gesture in terms of a public proposal. This community could not make a proposal based on the terms of reference; you needed a minimum of $8 million. Privatization of that historic national site and turning it into a tourist trap — what a sad end to a marvelous site.

We have the opportunity, if this government could give a fraction of what it did for Coquihalla or get back some of the money the Minister for Economic Development (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) spent on a party for the B.C. Enterprise Centre opening — $1 million — or the B.C. Lions. Is that history — that academy, that integrity and dignity — not worth something from this provincial government? This is the capital of the province of British Columbia, Mr. Speaker, and we deserve better. We have pride and dignity, and this government won't reflect that and won't recognize the capital of the province of British Columbia.

HUMANITIES IN A DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY

MS. CAMPBELL: I am speaking this morning on the importance of the humanities in a democratic society. I am tempted to take up from where the previous speaker left off, because I am in fact one of the living stones of St. Ann's Academy, having attended — in Sister Raab's words — that school as a boarder in grade 8. 1 will refrain from that temptation in order to not prolong the agony of the shallowness of the member for Victoria's arguments. Perhaps he'll find some of the comments I have to make this morning instructive.

I raise the issue of the importance of the humanities in a democratic society in the context of a broader questioning and a broader process taking place in society now. They are twofold. One is the Royal Commission on Education, which raises the issues of where we should be going in terms of providing educational opportunities not just for our young people, but for all the members of our society on an ongoing basis in the coming years; also in the ongoing process we have — not just in government, but in society in general — in determining the direction of our economic and social development as the twenty-first century looms into view as not simply something we talk about in the abstract but as a very imminent historical milestone.

[11:00]

I've spoken before in this House of the importance of technology as part of the economic foundation of our future in British Columbia and the importance of developing technological innovation and creativity as part of our economic future. But I think it is very important not to be so seduced by the potential of technology that we develop a tunnel vision about what is necessary to create a prosperous future for our province and for our country.

The humanities can be defined most broadly as the study of man. They include in their classical disciplines history, literature and philosophy, but I would suggest that the comments I am making today could also apply to the social sciences of anthropology, political science, sociology and psychology; in other words, all of the disciplines that study human beings and their nature, both as individuals and as collective groups.

The value of the humanities as part of our educational system and part of the training of our people is both substantive.... It is of value for us to learn about ourselves, to understand where we have come from, and in particular, in the course of that study, to develop the extremely important quality of reflection. But there is also great value in the study of the humanities simply as an intellectual discipline.

I speak as someone who not only did her undergraduate work and graduate work in the humanities but also had the opportunity to teach at the post-secondary level for seven years. I have always been of the view that students who study any of those disciplines that they are really interested in come out with a very important development, a very important skill. That skill is developed first of all through the necessity that the study of humanities creates of reading often very difficult, obscure texts, often texts written in an archaic language — a language of a different time. Anyone who wants to read even the original works of Marx, hon. member, will find he doesn't write in the argot of the 1980s.

[ Page 3749 ]

MR. CLARK: Have you read him?

MS. CAMPBELL: Yes, I have, hon. member.

To read with comprehension, to read challenging and difficult texts, to master difficult and subtle ideas and concepts, to develop more particularly the critical faculties necessary to evaluate and weigh the significance of the great authors in the humanities, to conduct independent research, to set goals, to find the answers independently through one's own efforts, and finally, to express the results of one's independent intellectual search in clear, comprehensible language — any student, whether at the high school or the postsecondary level, who undertakes that kind of discipline emerges from the enterprise with a set of intellectual skills that are extremely valuable — valuable to society and to himself or herself.

First of all, these skills are eminently translatable as economic value. We now have in our society a pattern of changing careers. It has been suggested that there is what you might call a three-six rule: the average person will have three careers and probably six different jobs within those three careers. Therefore, more than ever we need in our society people who know how to learn. The study of the humanities and the discipline that they create gives people in our society the ability to learn, the tools that they need to undertake new tasks that very often are required to be done independently and on their own.

We also have a growing need for people in our economy with people skills. The service sector is an increasingly growing element of our economy. It is in that sector that an understanding of human beings and how they interact with one another is extremely valuable. More and more we are looking at innovation, skill and sensitivity in the managerial sector — those people who are often described in large corporations as the managers of human resources, thereby reflecting the skills that they require.

A study done several years ago by AT&T, one of the largest corporations in the United States, made very clear that the most valuable candidates for management positions in their company, in their view, were arts graduates from the universities, those who had those people skills, the quality of reflection and the flexibility to master new areas and disciplines. They made infinitely superior managers to young people trained in technical disciplines.

There is also the social importance of the humanities as part of our educational framework and texture in society. This is important both in public and private policy-making. We need more than ever to wrestle with complex issues of individual and social rights, obligations and well-being, not simply in the area of public policy but in the area of private policy, large corporations, business enterprises, needing to have a sensitivity and understanding about the impact of their own activities on society at large — not simply an issue such as pollution, for example, but in the whole impact of the way that we organize work, on the ability of individuals to realize their full potential.

I say this particularly from the perspective of a woman. More than ever, as women become more significant members of the workforce, we need to be sensitive to the way work is organized; does it meet the needs of women in our society? The humanities give us some insight, some ability to deal with those kinds of issues.

Technical progress creates more, not fewer, challenges to society. I think particularly of medical ethics.

Mr. Speaker, when I have an opportunity to resume, I would like to talk finally about the political importance of the humanities.

MR. MILLER: I wonder if I might, before I begin, ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. MILLER: I would like to introduce, sitting in the gallery today, Mr. Bill Hartley, the former Minister of Public Works in this province and, I think, the minister who is more than any other single individual responsible for the restoration work that took place in this magnificent building. I would ask the House to make him welcome.

I'm going to resist the temptation to do a tirade, partly because I believe that the member who just spoke and I have a lot in common. I can't disagree with some of the things that she has said.

I've been around awhile, and I'm reminded of some of the anti-intellectual bias displayed from time to time by the Social Credit Party in power. For example, the former Premier — who that member worked for, I believe — referred to people who went to university as "eggheads" or "pointy headed intellectuals," so there was not a lot of respect accorded to those intellectuals. As a worker — and I don't mean to single myself out, but as a manual worker, I suppose — I've been previously engaged in a struggle not just to improve the lot of working people in terms of their wages or working conditions, but also to improve it in terms of the quality of their work, trying to afford working people an opportunity to expand their horizons beyond the limited scope of going to a factory or a plant every day and getting their paycheque on Friday. I think there is much more to life.

One of the people I highly respect — a fellow I used to work for — used to talk about the value of education being more than just being able to acquire a skill to allow yourself to be employed. It is much more than that. The ability to read and to understand opens horizons that should be open to everybody in our society, Mr. Speaker, and I'm afraid that I have to accuse that member of being somewhat effete, coming from where she comes from, because I can't understand how people can turn their talents and their energies — and people have talents and energies — to those kinds of pursuits when poverty is rampant in this province. I can't understand how a welfare mother, for example, living on subsistence that she gets from this government, could turn her attentions to those pursuits, could free herself from the chains of just the daily struggle for living, to pursue the kind of pursuits that I agree with the member on. I can't understand how young people, who have been condemned by the Minister of Finance to permanent 10 percent unemployment, would be free to turn their talents and energies to those pursuits.

If you want to advance society in the ways that that member talks about, you have to deal with some fundamental issues in society first. You have to free people so that they can pursue those endeavours. Really, that starts — and she has read Karl Marx, and maybe she understands it — with improving the basic lot of people, improving their economic conditions.

I was struck, watching the television coverage just a few days ago about the anniversary of Martin Luther King's death, and some critiques afterwards in terms of whether

[ Page 3750 ]

King had really achieved what he had set out to achieve in advancing the black people in the United States.... Overwhelmingly the response came back that, no, what they had not achieved was economic justice.

Until you can achieve economic justice, Madam Member, I'm afraid that simply talking about the finer things in life doesn't really help people. It doesn't help those who have to struggle in their daily existence. If the member would understand that, she might even be compelled to switch allegiance from a party that really has not paid much attention to the things that she is talking about.

So I think they are fine words. The member said, when she was running for the leadership of that party, that she had not much in common with working people, and I'm afraid — I don't wish to be derogatory — that she is exactly right. She doesn't.

MS. CAMPBELL: I would like to ask the hon. member to withdraw that comment, because I've never said that. I never said that at all, Mr. Member. No, I said that a politician who could not understand and relate to people who were not intellectuals — and I was talking about Pierre Elliott Trudeau — was a politician who would never succeed in translating his vision to other people. In fact, I was criticizing the very attitude that you wish to attribute to me, and I very much resent it.

I thank the hon. member for Prince Rupert for his comments. I think we are in agreement on much of this topic. His comments remind me very much of the comments I used to hear when I was in the Soviet Union, where one would make comments to party members and apologists about the lack of democracy in the Soviet Union, and their reply was always: "Ah, yes, but what about American blacks?" It's quite true that American blacks face serious disadvantages, but that does not make the oppression in the Soviet Union any less onerous.

I agree very strongly with the hon. member that the ability of all members of society to participate in the enhancement of their knowledge and understanding is very much limited by economic difficulties. That's something that I wouldn't deny; but it isn't the point of the remarks I am making this morning.

I wanted to talk in the last couple of minutes available to me about the political importance of the study of the humanities. I'm trying to put forward the proposition that in our enthusiasm for technical development we not forget the full range of skills required in our society to preserve our liberty and understand the linkages between issues which the hon. member has raised quite eloquently. Democracy requires knowledgeable citizens. Certainly the ability to learn the humanities and the ability to study human beings and human society should not be limited to an effete elite, as the member seems to suggest. It should be made available to all people. There is a growing awareness of this. Even in the public school curriculum the development of critical thinking techniques and the importance of understanding our history so that we can understand who we are today is more and more emphasized.

The political implications of losing those who are the repository of a society's culture and history are well known and have been well articulated through the ages. Edmund Burke talked about this in his Reflections on the Revolution in France, saying that a society that tears itself up by the roots, that doesn't have a sense of where it comes from and its continuity, is a society doomed to degenerate into despotism and tyranny. The Soviet Union, in conquering the Baltic republics, basically decapitated those societies by deporting their clergy, their intelligentsia and all of those members of their society who were able to keep the cultural traditions alive. It's very much easier to oppress people if you do that.

In the age of a knowledge explosion we need people who can devote all their time to learning and teaching, but it is knowledge that must be shared by all.

[11:15]

I would like to end my comments by quoting two famous thinkers, one the philosopher George Santayana, whose most famous quotation has become almost a cliche: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." And Alexander Pope said: "The proper study of mankind is man. "

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Today is Friday, so pursuant to standing orders, budget debate takes precedence. I call adjourned debate on the motion that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair. Adjourning was the hon. member for Yale Lillooet.

Budget Debate
(continued)

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Has the member for Yale-Lillooet completed his statement?

MR. RABBITT: Yes, I have.

MR. WILLIAMS: In the throne speech debate I talked a little about how this Premier and this government do business. I want to talk about that again. We've watched the unfolding episode with respect to the Expo lands and the lands of the Enterprise Corporation, and day by day we see how this Premier and this government indeed do business. They like to do the public's business in secret. They like to send their political fixers to private meetings with the heads of Crown corporations. They want privileged access to the books, access that nobody else has, which fortunately was denied in December by the CEO of the Enterprise Corporation. But the chief of staff of the entire administration of the province of British Columbia was there at the Premier's behest.

This Premier, this ingenuous, charming man from Richmond, told us earlier that he didn't even know how Mr. Toigo's proposal for the Enterprise lands got on the agenda of cabinet. But today we find out that his chief of staff arranged the meeting at his request. This is after there has been a bidding process that was clear, which Mr. Toigo did not involve himself in. We're talking in that case about lands worth $300 million. With the Enterprise Corporation we are talking about lands and assets worth, I would suggest, billions — over a billion dollars, clearly — great assets that have been undervalued, on whose values you have not come clean with the public.

The reason this unfolding episode is going on the way it is is that they're like bees around a honey-pot. They have never seen so many goodies all at once. It is gravy unprecedented in land-dealing in the modem history of British Columbia. No wonder they're all around. No wonder the Premier's friend is so keen. No wonder secret meetings are arranged, and no wonder the veteran minister from Little Mountain is

[ Page 3751 ]

offended. No wonder! There clearly has been consistent interference from the Premier's office in this area, and the minister from Little Mountain threatens that she is going to blow the whistle on the other interference that has occurred with respect to that corporation. We wait with bated breath. Day by day we learn more about what this man and this government are doing.

I want today to look at those assets of the corporation, and I want to look at some of the assets that the corporation has already sold in the Westwood Plateau area of Coquitlam — not big acreages at all, like the B.C. Place lands, the Songhees lands, the Whistler town centre, Tilbury Island — the best industrial land on the Fraser River — or the Roberts Bank Superport. All of those are assets of the Enterprise Corporation. No wonder they're interested. No wonder there is this privatization cover for what's going on.

In today's press we find that Mr. Toigo had a meeting with the Premier. We've never been advised of that before. The Premier pretended he really didn't know anything about these things.

There has been a battle going on here between members of the B.C. Enterprise board, the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), the Premier, Mr. Poole, Mr. Toigo and all of the other players trying to get the gravy. There has been a battle. It's now very clear why Mr. Poole is on that board. It was a tied board; they weren't going to buy the kind of pressure they were getting from the Premier. The tie has been broken; Mr. Poole is there. So the pressure is on — the wrong kind of pressure.

I wanted to deal with the specific example of a forgotten piece of land in Coquitlam that nobody has talked about — the Westwood lands. That's all of the lands back of the Coquitlam Centre shopping centre, that whole hillside that stretches virtually from the Coquitlam River to Port Moody on the inlet, and right up the mountain: incredibly valuable land transferred to the Enterprise Corporation, I might note, for $1. That was another scam. Forgive me; I should use another term, Mr. Speaker. That was another interesting deal: $1 for 1,600-plus acres of valuable urban land. They were going to use it to cover the hemorrhages and losses and mismanagement in that corporation. They transferred Songhees for a song, too, if you'll forgive the pun, to do the same thing — to shore up the books of the corporation. But you can't shore up the books if you don't get what the land is worth, and that's one of the things I want to talk about today.

Brian Calder, vice-president of the realty board in Vancouver...

MR. CLARK: Head of the NPA.

MR. WILLIAMS: ...and your farm team in Vancouver, has said it's madness to sell off these huge parcels of land by the thousands of acres; that it makes more sense to subdivide them and sell small pieces. Anybody in the real estate business knows that. He said it would probably increase the values the province got by 40 percent at least. I say he was conservative. He's like his politics; he's very conservative. The numbers are much higher than that, and the evidence from Coquitlam will show that. It's absolute madness to sell off these acreages. We're talking about incredibly valuable lands, and the general public doesn't realize how valuable they are.

Let's think of Whistler alone. The whole core now is well underway. It's the most successful resort project in North America by far — started by us, I might say. It is now at the point of takeoff, and you're ready to sell tens of acres around the town centre, worth tens of millions of dollars — all part of this package — to one buyer. That's economic madness. Selling Songhees to one buyer — economic madness. Selling B.C. Place to one buyer — economic madness. Selling Tilbury Island to one buyer — economic madness. Selling the Superport lands to one buyer — economic madness. But that's what you're up to in this back room, dealing, over there.

You know, the side question is: you really wonder if Mr. Toigo has a lot of money. You really do; I do. I don't think he's in that league at all. He just wants to get into that league, and this is the way he can do it.

Let's look at the Westwood Plateau. There are 50 acres at Whistler, 90 acres at Songhees, 280 acres at Tilbury and thousands of acres at the Superport. The Westwood Plateau is 1,600 acres, and pieces of it have been sold off in the last couple of years by the Enterprise Corporation. I want to go through three case histories in terms of flips of these lands. We're not talking about a public bidding process here. We're talking about lands sold to corporations, some of which are clearly friends of Social Credit, which did not go through a bidding process.

Case one: the Pleasantside lands. The Fuchsia Place parcel was bought on November 20, 1986, from BCEC for a price of $474,980. It was sold on an optimum-purchase basis one month later, on December 19, 1986, for $1,326,000. That's one of the flips. That's a 300 percent-plus flip in one month. They bought the acreage. The raw land cost $18,250 a lot; they sold it a month later at $51, 000 per lot. Nice deal.

But who lost? The public lost, Mr. Speaker, just as the public will lose if you sell that massive acreage at B.C. Place or all the assets of one company to one man, one woman or one company. It's no wonder the bees are buzzing around. I have the actual subdivision maps and plans, but I won't go into those.

Case two: Park Lane lands. That's south of the new road to be built: a major cross street, David Road, and east of Johnson Street, which is near the Coquitlam Centre. Total cost: $1,970,000, plus $153,000 to the municipality, for a total cost of $2,123,000. So it meant an average raw lot cost of $14,000, servicing costs of $12,000 and offsite costs of $4,000. Total cost per lost: $30,000. Average sale price per lot — again, Mr. Speaker — $50,000. That meant a profit per lot — you get the acreage; you cut it up quickly; you put it on the market — of $20,000. That meant then a rough profit of $3 million. That sale was again about the same time as the other sale. The actual date it was acquired was August 1987, and it was subsequently sold.

Then there's case three: Jena Developments — bought from the Enterprise Corporation on November 21, 1986, for $600,000. Forty-one lots were created. The raw land cost was $14,600 per lot, and the average lot price when sold in 1987 was $48,000 per lot.

Is it any wonder that some of your former supporters — small-scale developers with good experience and genuine entrepreneurship — are offended? Is it any wonder that they don't support you any longer, when this kind of game goes on? These are public assets. This is taking from the public purse what should not be taken. That's what the Enterprise Corporation deal is all about. That's what privatization is all about. It's simply a cover for this kind of activity that no British Columbian, when he understands it, would stand for.

[ Page 3752 ]

[11:30]

Is it any wonder that the veteran MLA — she wouldn't like that term — from Little Mountain is so offended? Is it any wonder that she's starting to talk about what happened in cabinet, because the Premier is not telling the truth about what happened in cabinet?

AN HON. MEMBER: Order!

MR. WILLIAMS: I'll withdraw that. The Premier has not presented the facts the way the Minister of Economic Development has presented them. I'm disposed to believe her story, in view of the new story the Premier came up with yesterday. It keeps changing from him, but the Minister of Economic Development has been fairly consistent.

So when you look at ads in the daily newspaper on the weekend and it says, "Maximum Value — Park Lane," there's more to it than meets the eye. Why, the houses up there now on those fancy lots with a view are selling for as much as $200,000. So two houses would pay for the acreage that they bought just a couple of years ago. The public pays through the nose, as usual, and somebody walks away with the boodle.

We haven't checked all the players in terms of these companies. I would note that in one case, the Pleasantside corporation, one of the directors was the Social Credit candidate for mayor in the municipality of Surrey last year, Mr. Paul Easton. That's intriguing. I think it's fortunate that the good citizens of Surrey had the good sense to defeat him and elect Mr. Bose, because obviously he was too busy on other projects to look after the interests of the citizens of Surrey the way they might deserve.

This confirms the worst fear of many British Columbians about privatization: the fear that it would be a cover for this kind of activity. Indeed it is. It is the biggest, rottenest land deal in the modem history of British Columbia, without question. To benefit friends of Social Credit? Yes, clearly — partly.

Let's look finally at the overall value of the Westwood lands alone. We have detailed information because they have a community plan in Coquitlam that details how many lots can be built there, how many townhouses, how many commercial sites, how many apartments and all the rest of it. It goes something like this.

In the remaining Westwood lands, there are 2,715 single-family dwelling lots with an average value of about $55,000. When you deduct the servicing and other costs tied to that, it probably means a net value per lot of $37,000. Multiply that and you get up to $101 million. Throw in 1,215 small-scale lots, net value $25,000 each, and it comes to $30 million-plus just for the small-scale lots. Throw in 700 townhouse sites — this is all in the official plan, and these are conservative current market values — with a net value of $7,500 each and it comes to $5,250,000. A conservative estimate for 400 apartment sites is $2 million. Throw in the commercial land and the cost of the school sites, another $20 million, and you come up with say $160 million, for the Westwood lands alone. Then remember all of the other pieces of land. As the Province said, the BCEC list has it pearls. Indeed it does, all over the province.

So what was this all about? Let's remember, this land was transferred for a dollar. Why was it transferred for a dollar? It was transferred for a dollar to hide the losses of a losing corporation that Socreds had mismanaged year in and year out since Bill Bennett came to power, and that continues to be mismanaged. They put it into a Crown corporation to avoid reporting in public accounts. We have a system in British Columbia that does not allow full scrutiny of the Crown corporations. That's why these lands were transferred and put into the Enterprise Corporation: so that there could be these meetings with Toigo; so that there could be these secret deals; so that there could be lack of bidding. It was to avoid the scrutiny of the Legislature and the elected people of British Columbia. That's what it was all about.

Now I think we know why Mr. Toigo was sniffing around the honey-pot the way he was. We have to try to figure out what his game plan was, because these people have not been straightforward or forthcoming in terms of their activities. But I think it's pretty easy, when you really think about it, to figure it out. There are immense values here that have been unreported; Mr. Toigo understands that, and he wanted them. He clearly wanted to do an end-run around the process that the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain had established, and the way to do that was to buy the shares, buy the corporation. Then he could get everything. He wouldn't have to go through the process Li Ka-shing went through, wouldn't have to go through the process that Poole and Daon went through; not at all. He would buy the corporation. Neat thinking, Mr. Toigo.

He knew that Mr. Li Ka-shing was ready to pay $300 million just for the Expo lands. Why, that only leaves $200 million for Mr. Toigo to find somewhere. But I've shown this House that the Westwood lands alone were worth $160 million. Why, that only leaves $40 million for Mr. Toigo to find in his own pocket. I suggest to you that the Whistler lands are worth at least $40 million. Why, that leaves no money at all for Mr. Toigo to find. And then what does he have? Why, he has Tilbury Island — free. He has Songhees lands, the equivalent of the Empress and the Parliament Buildings and the Laurel Point Inn — free. He has the Superport lands in Delta — free. Tilbury Island, the best industrial land on the river — free. Industrial estates at Duke Point in Nanaimo — free. Industrial estates in Kelowna, Williams Lake and across the province — free. Mr. Toigo would have a king's ransom — for free. That was the game plan.

Now we know why he was sniffing around the honey-pot. Now we know why the entree was provided through the Premier's office for his friend. This was just too tempting a deal.

We want this Premier, this minister and this government to come clean. We want independent appraisals by several parties of all the land assets of this corporation. We want only small parcels to be sold; we want the valuable parcels to be sold on a leasehold basis so that the public will have the benefit of the prime sites forever. That's what Bill Bennett was going to do. Even Bill Bennett had enough smarts to do that.

What we finally want is not too much: we want simple, honest government for a change.

MR. DE JONG: It gives me great pleasure to make a few comments this morning on the budget that's before us. I believe this budget very closely relates to the message contained in the throne speech, a speech which was all encompassing and all-embracing.

I'm pleased to state that I'm supporting the general intent of this budget. I'm supporting this budget as to its general

[ Page 3753 ]

content and what it is intended to do. However, just to keep it simple so that the members in the socialist corner may understand, I will probably be making some comparisons and analogies to common everyday practices.

We've heard an awful lot of negative comments from the socialist corner this past week, which is not unusual. I accept that, particularly when it applies to the issue. The problem is that we've heard an awful lot of unrelated garbage, not necessarily speaking to the issue — just verbal socialist garbage, like the previous speaker. It's unfortunate that we couldn't have the windows open this week because of the weather. I'm sure, had we been able to open them, it would have done a lot of good to the surrounding shrubs and lawns.

The reason I'm supporting the intent of this budget is exactly why a farmer — and I'm sure most business people — would support it. I will just make a few comparisons then. The farmer will plough his field and fertilize seed, which are the basic ingredients towards expectation of a crop. Some years climatic conditions are favourable during the growing as well as the harvest season, resulting in a good crop. Other years, the basic conditions may not be as favourable, and the crop is not the same as it would be in good years. In fact, in some cases the farmers have experienced that to cover the cost of preparation and seeding was exceeding that of the harvest. The big question for the farmer is then: how can we survive? The farmer has learned by experience that, in order to survive the lean years, you must save in the good years.

As a provincial government subject, first of all, to federal government policy and potential changes to policy, as well as to economic conditions, we are really not much different from the farmer. As a provincial government, unlike local government which is dependent basically on property taxation, we are almost totally dependent on revenues based on taxation other than property taxation. In fact, this government is also committed by agreement to share with the municipalities and the regional districts on the natural resource revenues. This is another reason why this government is dependent on the success of economic conditions from year to year.

I'm delighted that we are setting up the special reserve fund, for the simple reason that it makes so much sense in everyday life. What we see here is the result of determination by every minister and ministry to cut costs without affecting the level of service to the people of this province. As a government we have an obligation to all of the people — those that pay as well as those that draw from the province. We have an obligation to maintain conscientious standards of the financial resources available to us. I believe that this budget proves that.

The people of this province in all areas of business, industry, education and other government services have been challenged over the past six or seven years to cut the fat out of their budgets, to make the dollar stretch in health and education, to become more efficient in industry and to become more effective in marketing our products. The people of this province have responded in all areas affecting the economic standards of this province. The improvements in our economic standards — increased jobs and the desire of the people of this province to continue to achieve even greater goals — just cannot go unnoticed by this government. The people expect this government to do likewise.

[1:45]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

If we want to fulfil the wishes of the people of this province, we must set aside funds for times of economic downturn. Hopefully such times will not return. However, we must also be realistic in this respect. We know that economic conditions are just as difficult to predict a year or two ahead as is the weather for the farmer who has sowed his field.

I realize and appreciate that this approach to budgeting is not the approach that is acceptable to the hon. members of the opposition. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, I would be very worried if they did not offer some opposition to it. They have called the special reserve fund a BS fund. As it would probably be unparliamentary to explain the meaning of those initials used by the opposition members, my interpretation of those initials is that it is a Better Strategy fund. The creation of this Better Strategy fund makes sense. It is an answer to the desires and expectations of the people of this province.

I fully appreciate the difficulty hon. members on the opposition benches have with this new approach. We know that the members of the opposition are bound to limit their comments to what is contained within the policy book of the NDP. The socialists do not enjoy the political freedom that members on this side of the House do. If they were given the opportunity to govern this province, which I am sure the people will not allow, they would be obligated to govern within the policies of the New Democratic Party and not the needs of all segments of society. The people of this province have consistently rejected socialist policies and socialist government. The people spoke loud and clear in 1986. They wanted a government that would consult with all of the people of this province and act accordingly in a responsible way.

That's exactly what we have in this budget before us. It is a budget which reflects the ability to pay in a time of economic stability and prosperity. At the same time, it is a budget which reflects the social needs of those in need, recognizing the cost of living, but also recognizing individual incentive for those on social assistance, in terms of ability to earn but without affecting their assistance income. It is not a rich man's budget. It is not a smoke-and-mirrors budget, as some have said. It is a budget based on present economic prosperity, coupled with responsive sharing of the prosperity with those in need, be it physical or mental, or of those without jobs or family support.

It is a budget which reflects the needs and requirements of the future. The incentives in this budget are designed to enable the children of today to prepare themselves for the business world and its technology of tomorrow. The message contained in this budget is a message we have heard from the people of this province time and time again. The message is to cut government bureaucracy and government intervention in business and the marketplace.

This budget, which is based on the initiatives of the throne speech, is setting a clear course for all British Columbians. It is a course on which this province can move forward with confidence. The socialist policy, we all know, is to tax business and keep throwing more money at social programs without examining the needs, which I believe is very evident in the amendment brought before us the other day. They also have said that the government should create more jobs. We believe that in an expanded economy the government does not need to provide jobs; business will do that.

The budget recognizes the importance of the small businessman, because this government knows that this province was not built by governments of the past, but by the private entrepreneurs, the merchants, the farmers, the industrialists and the small businessmen. In fact, 80 percent of all new jobs created in Canada last year were created by small business

[ Page 3754 ]

people. It was also mentioned that it is the small business people that struggle through the hard times as well as the good times in order to attain a sustained economy within this province. To enhance the growth of small business, a tax cut of almost 20 percent to small business is a progressive step on the part of this government, but also a well-deserved token of appreciation to the small businessman.

In support of the high exploration costs associated with the mining industry, the mining resource tax will be reduced by some 35 percent as of July 1 of this year — another example of the government being conscious of the needs of the industry and at the same time recognizing the job opportunities for people of all ages.

In support of the agricultural community, I'm happy to see the extension of the B.C. feed grain market development program. I trust that within the budget allocation for agriculture there will be sufficient leeway and flexibility to assist the agricultural community to diversify and to provide assistance in exploring new market opportunities, particularly for those commodities that may be affected by the free trade agreement.

I would also like to see additional funding provided for the agricultural fairs and exhibitions. Quite often the smaller agricultural fairs cannot attract large crowds, because they cannot afford the type of entertainment which will attract large crowds. They need a boost — not only to survive, but more so to provide the public with a greater appreciation of B.C.-grown products and what is involved in achieving the best product for the consuming public.

I fully support all of the initiatives in this budget towards education at all levels in preparation of new business strategies and high tech equipment. I fully support the initiatives taken by this government to date to strengthen, diversify and decentralize economic activities in a more equitable fashion. I believe that the allocation of increased seed money will bring great dividends to all of the outlying regions in this province. The chambers of commerce and local councils are very enthusiastic about the program, and it would be a shame to let them down now, as the opposition has suggested on so many occasions.

This budget, Mr. Speaker, addresses current as well as future challenges. Like the Speech from the Throne, it is all encompassing and all-embracing. It is all-encompassing on the economic as well as the social issues. It's all-embracing in terms of helping those who need it, including the family. We know from history that the strength of society is the strength and togetherness of the families it is made up of. This government would be amiss in not recognizing the needs of the family. All efforts on behalf of any government in terms of provision of social programs would be money down the drain if we did not recognize the strength and value of the total family.

This government has the support of many non-profit organizations as well as their assurance to work with government to achieve the desired results. There is a famous saying: "You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink." In this case, the government is providing the water through the programs in this budget. The people of British Columbia have indicated their willingness to assist in leading. What more can we ask?

The initiatives this year in this budget are examples of a caring government, now and in the future, and I am happy to support these initiatives, because it is a start in creating a future for our children, of whom we all can be proud.

Mr. De Jong moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'll wish our colleagues opposite the best for their convention this weekend, and with that, I'll move adjournment.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:55 a.m.