[ Page 5797 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Health fees not noted in budget. Mr. Perry –– 5798

Island Highway completion date. Ms. Pullinger –– 5798

Task force on oil spills. Mr. Harcourt –– 5798

Sale of Expo land. Mr. Williams –– 5798

Capping of assessments in Vancouver. Mr. Mowat –– 5800

Presenting Reports –– 5800

Tabling Documents –– 5802

Budget Debate

Mr. Peterson –– 5802

Mr. Lovick –– 5806

Mrs. McCarthy –– 5810

Mr. D'Arcy –– 5813

Mr. De Jong –– 5817

Ms. Marzari –– 5818

Hon. Mr. Strachan –– 5821

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

Prayers.

DEPUTY CLERK:

April 3, 1989

Mr. Ian M. Horne, QC,
Clerk of the Legislative Assembly

Dear Sir:

Re: By-election, Nanaimo Electoral District, March 15, 1989

I am pleased to enclose herewith a copy of a letter from Mr. Harry M. Goldberg, chief electoral officer, certifying the election of Ms. Janis M. Pullinger as member to represent the Nanaimo electoral district in the Legislative Assembly.

Yours sincerely,
Melvin H. Smith, QC,

April 3, 1989

Mr. Ian M. Horne, QC,
Clerk of the Legislative Assembly

Dear Sir:

Re: By-election, Vancouver-Point Grey Electoral District, March 15, 1989

1 am pleased to enclose herewith a copy of a letter from Mr. Harry M. Goldberg, chief electoral officer, certifying the election of Mr. Thomas L. Perry as the member to represent the Vancouver-Point Grey electoral district in the Legislative Assembly.

Yours sincerely,
Melvin H. Smith, QC

April 3, 1989

Mr. Melvin M. Smith, QC,

Dear Sir:

Re: By-elections, March 15, 1989 Nanaimo and Vancouver-Point Grey Electoral Districts

The October 13, 1988 resignation of David D. Stupich, the first member for the Nanaimo electoral district, and the October 27, 1988 resignation of Kim Campbell, the first member for the Vancouver-Point Grey electoral district, created vacancies in the membership of the Legislative Assembly.

Writs of election were issued on February 15, 1989 requiring that by-elections be held to fill the vacancies. Accordingly, March 15, 1989 was designated as election day. The completed writs of election have been returned to me, and I certify the election of Jan Pullinger and Tom Perry as the second members to represent respectively the Nanaimo and Vancouver-Point Grey electoral districts in the Legislative Assembly.

Yours very truly,
Harry M. Goldberg,
Chief Electoral Officer

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Provincial Secretary, I move that the letters of the Deputy Provincial Secretary and the certificates of the chief electoral officer of the result of the election of members be entered upon the Journals of the House.

Motion approved.

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present to you Tom Perry, the second member for the electoral district of Vancouver-Point Grey, who has taken the oath and signed the parliamentary roll and now claims his right to take his seat.

MR. SPEAKER: Let the hon. member take his seat.

MR. HARCOURT: I have the honour to present to you Jan Pullinger, second member for the electoral district of Nanaimo, who has taken the oath and signed the parliamentary roll and now claims her right to take her seat.

MR. SPEAKER: Let the hon. member take her seat.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: In the members’ gallery today is Mr. John Lyotier, a friend and alderman from the community of Houston. I would like the House to make him welcome, please.

HON. MR. DUECK: I would like the House to welcome four members from my constituency: Mr. Gordon Gardner, Mr. Peter Funk, Mr. Enns and Mr. Lyall Wicks. They are somewhere in the precincts this afternoon.

MR. PELTON: On behalf of our Speaker I would like to introduce three gentlemen in the gallery and ask you to make them welcome today: Mr. Michael Horsey, president and chief executive officer of B.C. Pavilion Corporation; Don Shwery, a scout for the Los Angeles Dodgers who lives in West Vancouver; and Mr. Raymond Kao, a noted photographer who lives in Vancouver. Would you welcome them here, please.

MRS. GRAN: Seated in the House today are the four interns assigned to the Social Credit caucus.

[ Page 5798 ]

They are Maria D'Archangelo, Freda Jung, Barry Penner and Elaine Woodrow. Would the House please make them welcome.

[2:15]

MR. De JONG: It gives me great pleasure to introduce to the House today Mr. Peter Vellenga. Peter is here on a one-year assignment with the Christian Reformed Church in Abbotsford as a seminarian and will complete his studies following this one year. I'm pleased to have him with us today, and I ask the House to give him a pleasant welcome.

MS. PULLINGER: It gives me great pleasure to introduce some family and friends who are here today: my mother, Di Pullinger, and Ted and Marcelle Jones, Jacquie Coates, Susan Vanderberg — who is a friend and also the first member for Nanaimo's (Mr. Lovick's) constituency assistant — Maggie Warren and Allan and Marguerite MacDonald. I would like the House to welcome them.

MR. PERRY: I wish to announce the presence in the gallery of my wife, Beth, my parents, Dr. Thomas Perry and Mrs. Claire Perry, and Dr. Elinor Powell, who is the international councillor for Canada to International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War. May the House please welcome them.

MS. PULLINGER: I neglected one very important introduction, Susan Vanlerberg's son, David Vanlerberg. Will the House please welcome David.

MR. SIHOTA: In the precincts today are a number of students from Esquimalt Secondary School, which I've always described as the best in the universe. Today there are 20 grade 8 and grade 9 students....

MR. BRUCE: Name names.

MR. SIHOTA: If the member for Cowichan-Malahat doesn't mind, I will name names. Joining them is their teacher, Mr. Jim Wallace. Would all members please join me in giving them a warm welcome.

Oral Questions

HEALTH FEES NOT NOTED IN BUDGET

MR. PERRY: A question for the Minister of Health. Can the minister please inform this House why the recently announced increase in the Pharmacare deductible fees, the daily fees for patients in extendedcare facilities and the ambulance user fees were not included in last week's provincial budget?

HON. MR. DUECK: I cannot answer why they were not included in the budget speech. That is something that should be asked of the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier).

MR. PERRY: A supplemental question. Can the minister assure this House that there will be no more hidden increases in medical user fees that are not included in the budget?

HON. MR. DUECK: I think that's an insult. We have no hidden fees; they are always upfront.

ISLAND HIGHWAY COMPLETION DATE

MS. PULLINGER: My question is for the Minister of Transportation and Highways. In the provincial budget just tabled it was announced that "highways construction capital funding in 1989-90 will be more than twice the 1988-89 level." The Vancouver Island Highway project's scheduled completion date is 1996. It's too far away, as those of us who live on the Island and drive that highway know. The question to the minister is: can he assure this House that he will take steps to accelerate completion to 1994?

HON. MR. VANT: Certainly the Island Highway is a priority. When you mention the finishing date, we certainly have in mind the Commonwealth Games. Although the capital funding for this current fiscal year appears to be modest, I can assure you that with the beginning of the project.... The amount of funding will accelerate shortly thereafter because of the magnitude of the project.

TASK FORCE ON OIL SPILLS

MR. HARCOURT: I have a question for the Minister of Environment about the Canada-U.S. committee on oil spills. We understand that the committee meetings will be open to the public in Washington State but closed to the public in British Columbia. Can the minister give a commitment and agree today that when the committee meets in British Columbia those meetings will be open to the people of British Columbia?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, it is a complex question. I do appreciate the member's sincerity. I will take that question on notice and return with an appropriate answer as soon as possible.

MR. HARCOURT: A new question. Mr. Speaker, will the minister also consider that there be freedom of information; that the information available to the citizens of Washington State will also be made available to the citizens of British Columbia so they can participate as fully in those meetings?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: To the question of whether I will consider it, the answer is yes.

SALE OF EXPO LANDS

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, to the hon. Minister of Government Services regarding the Expo lands: would you confirm that since the down payment last year of $50 million on these lands, no further payments are needed, or due, until 1995, and that any amount of the land could be sold during those inter-

[ Page 5799 ]

vening years — i.e., up to 1995 — without getting any more funds from Concord Pacific?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the question. It is of a technical nature; I will check with my staff on the details and report back to the House.

MR. WILLIAMS: How technical can you get? When is the money due for public lands in British Columbia?

To the Premier, Mr. Speaker: it seems clear that the deal was not a good one and that your initial suspicions were indeed correct. There was a pattern of leaks from the former Minister of Economic Development, a process that she set in place which essentially meant a locked-in conclusion of the sale to Concord Pacific and Li Ka-shing. Would you agree that the process was unsatisfactory?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, in assessing the sale of the Expo lands we must also consider the appreciation that I am sure will be expressed by all British Columbians when $2 billion worth of work comes into effect in the construction of a very fine development on those lands. For those who were familiar with what the land looked like before Expo and for those who have some imagination for what in fact will take place following the commencement of construction.... And we have already seen some fine plans for the land. Further work is progressing with Concord, and negotiations are taking place with the city. I think that a good time to assess all of that will be when those jobs are available; and there will be 28,000 man-years, all told.

MR. WILLIAMS: To the Premier. The same member for Little Mountain said that the price the Crown obtained for those lands would meet the debt that we had on the Expo site: $60 million original purchase; $60 million in infrastructure; and $245 million on the Expo lands in the form of buildings and services. We know that in today's value, the number we're talking about is not $365 million but something like $135 million — in today's dollars. Would you agree, Mr. Premier, that the member for Little Mountain made a wildly extravagant claim when she announced the deal with Li Ka-shing?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I want to emphasize again to the member that the value for the sale of the Expo lands, I think, should best be assessed in the development that takes place on the lands. And it will be something that we can all be very proud of.

MR. WILLIAMS: Would the Premier agree that maybe the minister was just fibbing a little?

There is a $230 million difference, Mr. Premier, and that does not include the cost of toxic land cleanup.

Mr. Premier, were you or your staff advised and provided with the contract with Concord Pacific prior to that meeting at the Expo site where the joint announcement was made by yourself and the minister?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: As cabinet we did review the contract and were given details of the contents.

MR. WILLIAMS: So the cabinet was in fact given the details. Was the cabinet fully aware of where the liability would lie with respect to the toxic land and toxic land cleanups? I note that on May 12 in the Vancouver Sun you said that you personally were unfamiliar with many of the details of the sale worked out by Mrs. McCarthy. Was that not in fact the case? Were you aware of all the details?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I don't suppose it's fair to say that every detail was known to each and every individual. These were documents and negotiations for which we charge the Enterprise Corporation to negotiate the necessary arrangements. They had proper counsel in that respect. While I can't say that every detail would be known to every individual without being a lawyer and having all the books there, certainly we were informed as to the contents of the documentation.

MR. WILLIAMS: Further to the Premier. On May 12, after that announcement in 1988, BCEC vice-president Rod Cameron said: "There is an understanding in the province's sales agreement that the Environment ministry will pick up a part of the costs in terms of toxic land cleanup." Was that the Premier's understanding at that time?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: My understanding was that we were selling a product which was predictable in the sense that we assumed certain responsibilities with respect to the land. I think it's fair to anyone bidding on such land that you tell them either the extent of pollution or problems with respect to soil quality. If you're unable to give that, you must make a commitment to provide the lands in a particular state in order for all people to have an equal opportunity to bid, and that was the process.

MR. WILLIAMS: The Premier is then confirming that the senior civil servant in a major Crown corporation was misleading the public with his statement of May 12 that these were going to be shared costs?

To the Minister of Environment. In June '88 the minister said there would be a joint action plan — I emphasize "joint action plan" — involving both the developer and the Crown to make the property safe. Why did you suggest this was a joint responsibility at that stage?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I didn't suggest that. I think your question, Mr. Member, was that it would be a joint action plan.

[2:30]

[ Page 5800 ]

MR. WILLIAMS: Then the Minister of Environment is saying that a joint plan means we're the suckers, we pay the bills, and they're just along for the ride. Is that the deal that was made with Li Ka-shing: that we're paying all the bills, we'll call it a joint action plan, but they will pay absolutely nothing?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, I wouldn't characterize it in that language. There was a joint action plan, but the government of British Columbia took responsibility for any cleanup of contaminated soil. That's public knowledge. There is no secret there.

MR. WILLIAMS: To the Minister of Environment. Is there a due date for resolving this, after which there will be penalties for the Crown even beyond the cost of toxic cleanup, which may be in the tens — nay, maybe hundreds — of millions of dollars?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I don't know what type of due date you are talking about. My responsibility as Minister of Environment is that of a regulator, to ensure that certain standards are met. You'll have to ask another minister about a due date either real or imagined. I would suspect that it is imagined.

MR. WILLIAMS: To the Premier. In January when you finally started looking at the fine print of this contract and reflected on the liabilities to the Crown and to the people of British Columbia, you wanted the contract opened up. You reconsidered afterwards. My question to you, Mr. Premier, is this. You promised that that contract would be made public within days. We still have not seen that contract. Will it be tabled with the House?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The contract will be made available to the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: When?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Soon.

MR. WILLIAMS: I think it's time to come clean with the public on these lands and to deposit the contract forthwith. Maybe then, Mr. Premier, we will find out exactly what that member from Little Mountain indeed did with public moneys.

CAPPING OF ASSESSMENTS IN VANCOUVER

MR. MOWAT: My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. I am in receipt of a letter from the mayor of the city of Vancouver regarding amendments to the Vancouver Charter due to the assessment bylaws and the capping of the assessment. I wonder if the minister could bring the House up to date on where it stands.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Yes, we have received a request from the mayor of the city of Vancouver to bring forward legislation which would allow them to, in effect, cap the assessments and taxation for this year. The request, after consideration by my office, was acknowledged in a conversation that I recently had with the mayor, and it was suggested that we did not feel it would be appropriate to recommend that type of action to my colleagues. Instead, we did bring forward a suggestion that, inasmuch as the problem appeared to be in pockets of the city, I would consider taking to my colleagues in cabinet....

Interjections.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I did suggest to the mayor that I was prepared to take forward to my colleagues a recommendation that we make provision for taxation on a district-by-district basis, for this year only, to address those specific problems. I understand the problems are prevalent in the city of Vancouver, North Vancouver and West Vancouver as well. So whatever we do for the city of Vancouver must be made available to the other communities that may have similar concerns. I am waiting to hear back from the mayor of Vancouver.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I rise on a point of order. Standing order 47A(e) advises us that points of order that were to be raised in question period should be deferred until after question period, so I'm doing that now.

During question period the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) attributed to an hon. member of this House the behaviour of "fibbing a bit," which I find offensive, and I would ask you, sir, if you could have the member withdraw that remark.

MR. WILLIAMS: I'm certainly willing to withdraw if it offends the hon. members.

Presenting Reports

MR. BRUCE: I have the honour to present the report of the Select Standing Committee on Forests and Lands respecting the matter of timber harvesting contracts in British Columbia, and I move it be read and received.

Motion approved.

MR. BRUCE: I ask leave to move that the rules be suspended to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the report.

Leave granted.

MR. BRUCE: I move that the report be adopted.

It gives me great pleasure to present this report to the House. This standing committee toured the province. We had representations made by 61 different individuals throughout the province, 196 written submissions and 19 meetings — eight of them hearings.

It's my pleasure to report that this committee has come through with a unanimous recommendation, and it's interesting to note that the committee worked in fair harmony. If one looks at the makeup of the committee, I think that's a real feat in itself.

[ Page 5801 ]

At this point in time, I'd also like to make mention of the fact that the late Rich Campbell was the consultant on this report and again has assisted the province in forestry matters. Certainly his assistance has been very valuable indeed.

Not to overstate the concerns, but also not to understate them, this committee believes that the negotiating power of most licensees far outweighs that of the contractors. As a result of the discussions we had throughout the province, we have come through with the recommendation that although there should not be a standard form of contract prescribed by government, there should be a written contract between all contractors and licensees. As the matter stands at the moment, some of them have written contracts and some have only oral arrangements, and we believe all of them should be written.

Also of great concern is the fact that in the negotiating of the contracts, particularly in the second phase of them, it is deemed by the committee and certainly by many of those of the contracting world that the playing field is somewhat unlevel. We have decided as a committee to recommend that an arbitration process should be included in the written contract.

We did not prescribe the form of arbitration but left it to the two parties to decide what type of arbitration they should implement themselves. However, failing their ability to come to an understanding of the arbitration process, it's the committee's recommendation that the Commercial Arbitration Act should then take place.

Also regarding implementation, although we looked at several variables of how it could be implemented, it's important from our standpoint that it be done quickly and fairly across the board. To effect this, the recommendation is that the Forest Act should be amended to include these changes, which would then allow for it to happen right across the board.

It's also important to note that in the recommendations of the committee, we apply this not only to simply the major contractor and the licensee but to the significant subcontractors of contractors. What is good for the goose must be good for the gander as well,

As I mentioned, the report is unanimous by the committee. I'd like to congratulate the committee for a very civil and worthwhile exercise. I think the submissions that we had around the province were excellent. We had a number of private meetings, and I believe we were able to get the full story and the full expression by the people of British Columbia relative to these matters.

MR. KEMPF: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to stand and speak in favour of this report. I believe it's a historic document in this House, and I'm sorry to see that the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Parker) is not in his place today, because....

AN HON. MEMBER: He's out working.

MR. KEMPF: I hope he's doing a lot more work on behalf of the small logger in this province than he has done in the last two years, Mr. Member.

Mr. Speaker, this report was drafted and accepted unanimously by an all-party committee of this House, finally giving recognition of the plight of the ordinary British Columbian — in my estimation enslaved in their own resource industry for a number of years, a resource industry which for far too long has been in the stranglehold of primarily giant, integrated, multinational, off shore and out-of-province corporations.

Let me say that had there been fairness, had there been opportunity, had there been access to the resource by entrepreneurs, by real British Columbians in the forest industry, there would have been no need for this report. There would have been no need for the work of the committee or for the heavy hand of government to once more descend in the form of yet more legislation and regulation. But there is no fairness. There is no opportunity. There is no access to our own resource. There is no free enterprise in the forest industry of British Columbia today. Therefore some measure of fairness must be forced upon those in control. To a small but very positive degree the report does that, and I commend all members of the committee for that. It's not the entire answer, but it's certainly a step in the right direction.

What remains to be seen now is whether or not the government will accept the committee's report and the recommendations therein and allow this House to pass them into law. Had we done that very thing with recommendations in consecutive royal commission reports, our forest industry wouldn't be in the mess it is today. It also remains to be seen whether or not, given the concise, positive, rational nature of this report and its recommendations, the Premier is now prepared to give a select standing committee of this Legislature some real clout, some real responsibility, and to empower the next Standing Committee on Forests and Lands — soon to be named, hopefully — to do a full investigation into all aspects of the forest industry in British Columbia today, with full power of subpoena.

[2:45]

That's the question: why not enlighten a number of politicians on both sides of this House as to what is really going on in our primary resource in order that they may make a positive, fair recommendation — or number of recommendations — as to what, after those investigations, they feel should be done.

Again I commend the committee for its work, and particularly its chairman, the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mr. Bruce). It wasn't an easy job. Although at times he used somewhat jackboot tactics toward the member for Omineca, 1 nevertheless think he did an admirable job and I commend him for it.

MR. MILLER: I'll try not to take too much time and to make too impassioned a speech. I want to make a number of points.

First of all, it was the first time in, I understand, something like 20 years — at least since the early

[ Page 5802 ]

seventies — that the Forests and Lands standing committee had traveled around the province. I can certainly confirm — other members probably will too — that there was a great deal of response throughout British Columbia, and we held our hearings right across this province. People were very glad to see a committee of MLAs out examining an issue. That's surely a message for the government in terms of maintaining a committee structure that actually means something, that is given useful work to do.

I disagree with the member for Omineca in terms of a full inquiry undertaken by a standing committee of the House. Clearly that should be the purview of a royal commission, something that's badly needed in this province.

Unfortunately the former member for Vancouver-Point Grey, who was a member of the committee, is not here today to see the fruits of her labour, but she did participate quite well in the committee. I think a vote of thanks is owed her for that.

It was pointed out that the report is unanimous. I think that's important in terms of committee work: given the variety of political opinions on the committee, that they arrived at a unanimous report. I note that some members on the committee are now in cabinet, which would lead me to conclude that there should be no delay at all in terms of some kind of swift action to implement the recommendations.

Finally, just confirming what has already been touched on, this is really not a recommendation that brings the heavy hand of the state down between parties. As the granter of the initial licence, whatever that licence might be — tree farm licence, forest licence, etc. — we're simply saying that we have conferred that right on a single party and that that party in turn has to have, in terms of its relationships with its contractors, a standard form contract, and parties have to have the right to arbitrate disputes. It provides some fairness, Mr. Speaker. I look forward to speedy implementation on the part of the government of this report.

MR. BRUCE: I too would like to urge the government to accept these recommendations and to move as swiftly as possible to see implementation. I think it's necessary for the credibility of both the committee and the government as a whole to follow through with what has been put to the government by this particular committee.

I'd like to thank the Clerk of Committees and his staff for an excellent and very proficient job. We saw much of the province without any delay because of the very fine work of our Clerk and his committee. With that, Mr. Speaker, I conclude the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Michael tabled the twentieth annual report of the business done in pursuance of the Pension (College) Act for the year ending August 31, 1988.

Hon. Mr. Ree tabled the seventeenth annual report of the Criminal Injury Compensation Act of British Columbia to December 31, 1988; the annual report of the Justice Institute of British Columbia for the year 1987-88; and the forty-eighth annual report of the Motor Carrier Commission covering the licence year ending February 29, 1988.

Hon. L. Hanson tabled the sixty-seventh annual report and financial statements of the liquor distribution branch for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1988.

Orders of the Day

Budget Debate
(continued)

MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak with a great degree of pride not only in this government but in all British Columbians, because I think Thursday, March 30, 1989, was a turning point in British Columbia's history. It was brought about partly by this government; it was also brought about by previous Social Credit governments. Most importantly, it was brought about by British Columbians who in the past, during the restraint years, had the ability — knew what it was and took the action — to bite the bullet when it was required. It was short-term pain for what has resulted in long-term gain. This has been proven out by the excellent, balanced budget produced by our Minister of Finance last Thursday.

I would like to congratulate the Minister of Finance. I would like to congratulate our Premier for providing leadership. And I would also like to congratulate our committee of Social Credit backbenchers, who worked very hard going through all the budget proposals and coming forth with that great document presented by the Minister of Finance last Thursday.

Mr. Speaker, there were some statements made by the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Clark), who I know.... It's the first chance he's had to reply to a great budget. As one of my good colleagues said, to tear that budget apart they really had to grasp at straws — and he wanted to buy them some straws, but I guess the Clerks wouldn't let that happen. However, when I listened to the member's speech and reread in the Blues some of the things he said, I have to ask the question: what document was he talking about? What was he speaking about? Did he read the budget? I can't believe he did. He must have been taking lessons from the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams).

Let me get down to some brass tacks. He said: "It is clear that it is not a balanced budget." He likes that word "clear." He really likes to play on that one. But let's look at the facts. The facts are: it is actually the province's first balanced budget in a decade. It is really simple arithmetic; he should probably be able to understand it. When you take the general fund revenues, which are estimated at $13.487 billion, and the general fund expenditures, which are estimated at $13.487 billion, and they are exactly the same, obviously it's a balanced budget. It's simple arithmetic. My ten-year-old son understands that, and he is no mathematician.

[ Page 5803 ]

I will refer to an article In the April 3 edition of Maclean's. Even our good friend Peter C. Newman says: "Couvelier has actually done better than balance his accounts; by year's end he expects to have stashed away a $1 billion surplus in something called the budget stabilization fund." Even Mr. Newman agrees that it's a balanced budget. I may not agree with the rest of his article, but I certainly agree with that.

I would like to repudiate a few more statements made by the second member.

MR. BRUCE: They're listening to you too.

MR. PETERSON: They are listening. I must be touching a raw nerve there somewhere.

He says it's a government that practices "yo-yo economics." Our government has taken a province that was running yearly deficits and changed it into a situation whereby we are now managing to eliminate the yearly deficit and beginning to pay off the debt. If you want to talk in terms of yo-yos, I can stoop to that level. At least our yo-yos bounce back from a deficit to a balanced budget, whereas the NDP's yo-yos would just sink further and further into debt.

In the area of environmental protection the second member for Vancouver East says the Social Credit government's record has been bad. He says the $200 million amounts to "smoke and mirrors." What the NDP overlooks is the fact that we all have a role to play in environmental conservation and protection.

AN HON. MEMBER: A non-partisan role.

MR. PETERSON: Correct. For that reason, budgets for environmental programs in various ministries have increased. This is in accordance with our mandate for the integrated resource management plan that we have talked about.

Our government has increased the budget for the Ministry of Environment by some 90 percent. How can you argue with that? The figures are there. Typical smoke-and-mirror arguments coming from that side of the House.

I would also like to talk a little about the arithmetic of the second member for Vancouver East. Again, I'm positive he read the wrong budget document, because it's there in black and white. I can find it quite easily and I'm no accountant. He talked about the Ministry of Health and the failure of this budget to address the increases required in that ministry. He said the increases don't even meet inflation. Let's look at some facts again, not the smoke and mirrors and all the razzle-dazzle you people like to talk about.

For the fiscal year 1989-90 the total spending of the Ministry of Health has increased by some 9.9 percent. During 1989 inflation in British Columbia is forecast to reach 4.2 percent. What you do is subtract 4.2 from 9.9. That's the real amount; that is the increase to the budget for Health that our Minister of Finance has provided. The 4.2 percent came from the department of economic research at the Toronto Dominion Bank in February 1989, so it's relatively new. Its simple arithmetic. Again, I don't know what budget documents he was referring to.

I would like to bring up one other point he talked about. I almost think he is quoting the Minister of Regional Development (Hon. Mr. Veitch). Listen to this. This is a statement made by the second member for Vancouver East: "All regions must share in British Columbia's prosperity. This is not only ethical but essential to smooth economic development." Well, of course. Who would argue with a statement like that? Why can't he come up with his own statement? I wish he would quit taking statements from the Premier and the Minister of Regional Development. Come up with something original. Our government agrees that all regions in this province must share in our prosperity.

[3:00]

Let me show you a few of the initiatives. The Ministry of Regional Development received some $3.9 million in new funding for the expansion of community-based initiatives. Additional funding was also provided for the regional seed capital programs.

I don't want to spend all my time being negative against the second member for Vancouver East, but I have a word of advice for the hon. member: read the budget before you try to criticize it, because it is obvious that you didn't. Okay?

MRS. GRAN: He's a nice guy, though.

MR. PETERSON: Yes, he is really a nice guy, but a little young; he'll mature in time. After he spends some 20 years in opposition like the previous member, he'll be better at it.

I'd like to talk about some of the good things that I saw on the global basis, in terms of British Columbia and the budget. I'd like to talk a little bit about my colleague the first member for Langley's (Mrs. Gran's) and my constituency.

On the global basis, the Ministry of Health is very important. That budget was increased by some $388 million for a total budget of $4.3 billion. That is well identified, and I think that number hits home. That's an increase of more than a million dollars a day for that ministry.

There are some good ideas in there that should be highlighted. I think the hospital innovative incentive program is an important new-initiative which provides $4 million in seed funding to encourage hospitals to make investments that will reduce operating costs. Any way that we can reduce operating costs and provide the same level of health care that we do in this province should be identified and proceeded with right away. I totally agree with that concept.

The three-year $137 million alcohol and drug program is designed to reduce health and other social costs created by substance abuse through prevention, education, treatment and research. I totally support that initiative. Many times I have wondered — particularly when some of our youth get tangled up in drug problems — about the waste of the greatest resource we have in this province, which is our human resource. So I give full marks to this ministry and to

[ Page 5804 ]

the Minister of Finance for providing those funds. I think the ministry's initiatives will definitely be the envy of all governments across Canada.

I talked about the remarks of the second member for Vancouver East regarding the environment, and I'd just like to talk about the environment in a positive tone. I think our government demonstrated in the proactive budget that it is giving the environment top priority with new measures designed to preserve the quality of air, water and land. Environment programs received nearly $200 million — a 90 percent increase. This includes $28 million in lottery funds for a series of innovative projects that will benefit the environment, create, jobs and aid research.

With the new enforcement measures, upgraded enforcement is being undertaken with an 85 percent increase to $10.1 million in the enforcement and recreation safety program of the Ministry of the Environment. The polluters will pay, and so they should.

Mr. Speaker, our government has a high regard for the quality of our environment, and it has demonstrated that by the many initiatives designed to protect our much-valued environment. The quality of life for British Columbians must always be protected, and I totally endorse that concept.

MR. WILLIAMS: You are better when you are mean.

MR. PETERSON: No, I mean it. I am serious about it, and all members of this government are serious about it. We don't just pay lip-service to it; we provide action and substance behind that action, Mr. Member.

MR. WILLIAMS: Have you visited a pulp mill lately? Woodfibre?

MR. PETERSON: Yes I have — the one in Kamloops where we have all those beautiful fish coming up the same stream that uses the water. Have you been up there to visit that one? It is the latest state of the art and an example for all the world to follow.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PETERSON: You see, talk is cheap, Mr. Member.

I'd like to talk a bit about transportation. Funding for the Ministry of Transportation and Highways increased by some 50 percent to more than $1 billion. Overall, 50 percent more money to a total of approximately $154 million has been provided for highway rehabilitation, and funding will more than double for highway construction.

To finance the many multi-year projects planned, the Highways capital construction budget has been increased by 145 percent to $411.8 million. Some of the multi-year projects, which are each estimated to be in excess of $50 million, are: the Cassiar connector in Vancouver; the Fraser River crossing; the upgrading of the Burnaby freeway; the Trans-Canada Highway located in the Vancouver-Langley area. All this has a great benefit to our constituencies in Langley, because a great many use this access into Vancouver and are feeling the frustrations of an overworked transportation system which has to be addressed. I look forward to this.

I notice that the first member for Vancouver East particularly really enjoyed taking shots at this government for providing.... How did he word it? Something to the effect that all you do is put together these task forces, but you're not doing anything. When he was making statements like that, I couldn't help remembering that, when I was sitting on the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts with him last year, he was pounding the desk — and I asked him if he'd had his normal breakfast of raw meat and eggs, and he said: "Yes" — and saying: "We need more studying done. You guys spend money without any studies. We need some economic analyses done." I agreed with him, and you'll remember that, Mr. Member. We're doing that, and what's he doing this time? He's standing up and saying: "Too much studying, not enough action." I wish you'd make up your mind, Mr. Member, because it's getting so that we never know where you're coming from. When you're sort of a will-o'-the-wisp, people start to think of you as being a joke, and I wouldn't want that to happen to you, because I think you may have a few brains.

MR. BRUCE: Whatever special interest group is big.

MR. PETERSON: That's right, whichever special interest group is big.

Anyway, Mr. Member, that's just a little bit of advice from a young buck to an old pro like you — through you, Mr. Speaker, of course. Just having a little bit of fun. We've all worked hard, but we have to have some fun, too, in our business, don't we? It would be a dull life if we didn't.

I'd like to talk a little bit about Langley.

MR. WILLIAMS: Good idea.

MR. PETERSON: Why, was it getting a little too hot when I was talking about you? Can't handle the heat down there.

I talk about Langley with the greatest of pride, first of all, in the member I work with, the first member for Langley. I think we're a heck of a team. We work hard for our constituents. Sometimes we're referred to as beauty and the beast, and then the first member says: "I wish you'd stop calling me a beast, Dan." I really do enjoy working with her; I think she does a great job for Langley, and I'm pleased to be part of a team that does such a great job for Langley.

Interjection.

MR. PETERSON: I'm hearing noises from that squawk-box over there. That noisy guy, whatever his name is. How about some gross statistics from Langley? Let's put some dull stuff on. I'll give him facts, because he doesn't know how to deal with facts.

[ Page 5805 ]

Industrial building permits totalled some $3 million at the end of February 1989, and that's a massive increase over the same period last year when they totalled some $400,000. Housing starts in Langley increased over 86 percent from the year 1986 to 1988. All that growth — I could give you a lot more, but I won't bother you with a lot of the stats — causes difficulties with our transportation and with our education system.

During the throne speech debate the first member for Langley alluded to two things that need to be done right away. We can't wait. She talked about the reconstruction of 200 Street from Highway 10 to Highway 1, and we must have that. I'm sure that if we look very hard at the new figures announced by the Minister of Finance, we'll find those dollars in there. The first member and I are expecting an announcement very shortly from, number one, the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Vant) of the total commitment for the completion of the widening at 200 Street, and, number two, from the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet) of the total commitment for the Walnut Grove senior secondary school.

Maybe I'll just talk to you about that school. It's in planning documents right now. It'll have a capacity of some 1,000 secondary students. It'll be built in the core of a new community, Walnut Grove, which is one of the fastest-growing areas in Langley. The project, we hope and believe, is one of the many high priority projects in the 1989-90 ministry capital budget. Students are to be drawn eventually from five elementary schools in the area, and Walnut Grove will relieve some overcrowding in Langley Secondary and Mountain Secondary and will allow for the conversion of Fort Langley Junior Secondary to a fine arts school for elementary and junior secondary students.

Both the first member for Langley and I really want to see this get going as quickly as possible and are looking forward to some announcement — maybe even this month. I just wanted to add my vote to the vote of the first member. We must have those funds just as soon as possible.

I'd like to talk a bit about agriculture in Langley. With all that growth in population and the new businesses moving in, it still is a fact — and I talked about this in my maiden speech — that agriculture is the number one economic driver in Langley. I don't think that we as a government should ever forget that. I'll give you some statistics. Gross farm sales in Langley were $89.8 million in 1986, which is 8.5 percent of B.C.'s gross farm sales. Farm expenditures in Langley were $82.9 million. Farming is a $90 million industry in Langley. The total farm value in Langley township is $409.4 million. The value of land and buildings is $356.3 million. The value of machinery and equipment is $31 million.

I think we should point out that 78 percent of the land in the Langley township is in the agricultural land reserve. With the other 22 percent, there is room for urban population to probably double. This government should never forget the roots of British Columbia, which I believe is the agricultural industry. I'll have more to say about that later, perhaps in private members' statements.

I'd like to talk about two other things regarding advanced education. Kwantlen College has a campus in our constituency and owns some 20 acres. They have prepared a five-year plan in which they have requested planning money from the Ministry of Advanced Education and Job Training for the construction of the campus on the property they own in Langley. I would like to say that I totally support that undertaking and their request for funds from the ministry. The need for post-secondary education in the Langley area cannot be neglected.

[3:15]

I'm also aware that Simon Fraser University is looking for a new campus in the Fraser Valley. Trends indicate that the population in the valley will increase by some 139,000 by 1994. The Ministry of Advanced Education and Job Training has asked Simon Fraser University to work with Fraser Valley and Kwantlen Colleges to address issues which will arise from this rapid growth.

We must and will overcome geographic barriers to post-secondary education. I would like to make a suggestion to both Bill Saywell and to the Minister of Advanced Education (Hon. S. Hagen): locate your campus in Langley. Its services would be utilized by the students throughout the Fraser Valley; it would be the centre of the growth; and it's a beautiful place to locate a new university campus. We have a private university, Trinity Western, up and running, and it is very successful. I'm sure everybody in Langley would welcome with open arms a new satellite campus from Simon Fraser University.

I want to talk a bit about horse-racing. The Horse Racing Industry Task Force was appointed — by the former Attorney-General on February 2, 1988. Since then they have completed their deliberations and have come up with some recommendations. I know government is studying them very closely now.

The input received by the task force confirmed a widespread — almost universal — concern about the future of horse-racing in the province, particularly the thoroughbred races. The consensus among those who work in the industry is that it is an industry heading for disaster if nothing happens. The final analysis is that we must construct a facility so the sport can be enjoyed by all who are interested. Much more, this enjoyment will without a doubt result in a substantial economic benefit to the community and the entire B.C. thoroughbred racing industry. The horse-racing industry has enjoyed a long tradition in this province, and it is a source of livelihood to a significant sector of the population and a source of enjoyment to many more.

I would like to say, on behalf of the many, many breeders and people who are active in horse racing in our constituency of Langley that that industry has the potential to be a major economic driver in this province, and if we as government don't take affirmative action, the industry in total is going to die. I urge the Solicitor-General (Hon. Mr. Ree) and the cabinet to

[ Page 5806 ]

act as quickly as possible. We must have a first-class facility located somewhere in the lower mainland; I don't care where. Let's get it done, and let's get it done as soon as possible so that we can have a great thoroughbred and standardbred racing industry in this province.

MR. WILLIAMS: At Hastings Park?

MR. PETERSON: I said I don't care where it goes, as long as all the amenities that are required are there.

Interjection.

MR. PETERSON: He's getting noisy over there, so maybe it's time to have fun again with the first member for Vancouver East. It's easy to shut him up when you attack him. He likes to sort of nibble when your back is turned, but let's take him on head-on.

I want to talk about your leader for a while, if you don't mind. How much time have I got, Mr. Speaker? One minute? I'm afraid I'm going to have save this for another day. I really want to talk about that closet yuppie socialist.

MR. LOVICK: If I were to entertain some slight bit of self-indulgence, I think I would call my remarks the "Lead me not into temptation speech," because when I listen to the member opposite I must confess to a powerful temptation to rebut and repudiate all of those silly comments that we heard. Happily, I am going to rise above that particular temptation, as I often rise above other temptations that come from that side of the House. Instead, I'm going to do a much more orthodox kind of thing in my remarks.

My focus today is going to be on three particular areas that I want to talk about: privatization, highways and transportation. I know this is somewhat contrary to the customary approach in the budget debate. The customary approach is to talk in chapter and verse details about the impact on one's own constituency. I'm in the wonderfully fortunate position of not having to do that, even though I would like to, because I was joined today in the chamber by the new member for Nanaimo (Ms. Pullinger). For her first speech to the chamber I will leave to her the task of reporting on the constituency. I'm pleased to have that opportunity.

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

Before turning to those three specific areas, let me offer a couple of general comments about this budget, and I do that with, I think, some justification. After all, I'm the first person after our designated speaker to respond to the budget. I ought then to have a brief opportunity to say something in general terms about that budget to remind this chamber of some facts that might have been forgotten in the outpourings of the previous speaker.

The great claim to fame of this government, of this Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier), is that we have a balanced budget. Indeed, that line has been repeated so many times in the course of the budget remarks that I began to think the minister was perhaps some kind of gymnast earlier in his career and had worked on the beam or some such thing. Never have we heard so many references to balance. However, never have those references been so totally misplaced. The fact is that the budget isn't balanced, by any normal correct accounting reckoning of that budget.

I'm sure we would all agree that the budget can only be said to balance if we add this wild card called the budget stabilization fund, otherwise known as the BS fund. The problem then is that the debate about whether or not the budget is balanced has become rather contrived, rather formulaic, perhaps indeed irrelevant. If it is irrelevant, if we can no longer talk of a balanced budget in terms we can all agree on, the obvious question is: why is that so? And the answer to that obvious question is: because of some financial jiggery-pokery and some financial hocus-pocus performed by this selfsame government in its last budget, namely the BS fund. That's the reason we're in this predicament. That's why we can have two otherwise honest and well-meaning members on opposite sides of the chamber, one saying the budget is balanced, the other denying it with equal passion — simply because we don't any longer know what the rules are. The BS fund has changed all of that; it's put us into that predicament.

Let me just remind members of what the BS fund is. Oh, here we go. I see.

MR. B.R. SMITH: I rise on a point of order. Much as I enjoy the member, I do feel that he really is inebriated with the grandiloquence of his own verbosity and that he should return a little more closely to the subject at hand.

I wonder if the Chair would consider whether the language "jiggery-pokery" is entirely parliamentary. Maybe in doing so the Chair could consider "jiggery" and "pokery" separately as well as collectively.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair appreciates the member's remarks and would ask the first member for Nanaimo to proceed.

MR. LOVICK: How fascinating, Mr. Speaker. I have a sense of déjà vu as I hear the member from Oak Bay. This was exactly the kind of thing he did the first time I ever spoke in debate, and he got beaten down at that point. I am surprised to see him leap up again with such alacrity and enthusiasm. However, frivolous and dilatory points of order notwithstanding, we shall carry on.

The BS fund, as I have suggested, is fancy financial footwork. Let me remind members of that case the best way I know, and that is to quote my departed — from this chamber — colleague, Dave Stupich, who is now, of course, as we know, the Member of Parliament for Nanaimo-Cowichan. Just about a year ago, on Friday, March 25, 1988, Mr. Stupich explained to us in succinct and very clear terms what the BS

[ Page 5807 ]

fund was. Responding to the statement that there was some $450 million in that fund, Mr. Stupich said:

"...it really is a BS fund. It could just as easily have been $4.5 billion as $450 million. Just add another zero, and it would have increased the deficit accordingly. It means nothing because there isn't one nickel to back up that fund. The government doesn't have the money. It's $6 billion in debt right now, and to say that we owe $450 million to a new fund means nothing, except that it will be politically useful."

Let me go on for just one more paragraph to make a further point about that.

"The government is proposing to add to that fund next year; they say by $124 million. It doesn't matter what the figure is; they can make it anything they want to produce the deficit that the minister is now saying we are going to have next year. It can be any figure at all, and it doesn't mean a thing...."

That's the crucial point: it doesn't mean a thing. The notion, then, of balancing your budget by drawing on the BS fund is certainly sleight of hand. Thus it is that the Vancouver Sun's treatment of the story.... The headline writer picked it up very clearly by saying: "Government BS Fund Used to Hide Another Deficit." Now if that is not true and if members opposite are offended by that, I would suggest it would make prima facie a wonderful legal case. They can say, "You're lying, " but the truth is that what the Sun says is absolutely correct. It cannot be disproven. Thus the budget stabilization fund, understood for what it is.

A few other very general observations about this budget. I fear that once again I've become enamoured of pointing out foolishness from the other side and therefore perhaps want to carry on at greater length than I have time for, and must then restrain myself. But a few other brief observations about this budget in general terms, if I might.

[3:30]

I wonder, first, about the next budget. I wonder whether we might be going to see a variation on an old theme. We all know what traditional Socredism is, Mr. Speaker. You remember the system very well. What you did in those days, of course, was to underestimate revenues and to overestimate expenditures, and that way you were able to get a surplus. I think what might be happening this time is something novel and unique. I think what we might see is an overestimation of revenue and an overestimation of expenditures. That, of course, will produce something like a balanced budget. I think this may be the new reality for this government and this Minister of Finance. The reason I say we may see an overestimation of expenditures is that we are now talking about throwing huge amounts of money at new programs, but we have not taken the necessary preliminary steps to ensure that we can even spend that money.

Case in point: environment. The staff levels in the Ministry of Environment, as my colleague the learned second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Clark) pointed out the other day, are down 25 percent from 1983. Yet those people are going to be asked to spend mega dollars on new programs. How can you do it? I don't think you can.

A second general observation. Much has been made already — and quite justifiably — about this government's latter-day conversion to things like post-secondary education and the importance of the environment. Indeed, that conversion has been so sudden it makes Canada's switch to metric look like child's play. A cautionary note, though. I remember well, because I was sitting in the House when it happened, when my leader was speaking in response to the Speech from the Throne about the environmental package we were going to be presented with by way of private members' bills. We talked about charging polluters for the damage they do. The response we heard directly from opposite — from the Minister of Regional Development (Hon. Mr. Veitch) — was: "If you do that you'll drive industry away." That was said in this chamber. However, less than a week later the Minister of Finance had the temerity to tell us the government's policy is to crack down on polluters and make them pay. Contradiction, conversion — you bet. Those things are here.

I would just add, too, that sloganeering — "Think Globally, Act Locally," which was a bumper strip 20 years ago, as I recall — is not a solution to the problem.

The third point I would make in general terms about this budget is the reference to the nature of B.C.'s economy on page 12. 1 am not going to quote it now, because I am running out of time, but the basic contention there is that we are a resource-based economy and therefore vulnerable to trends and developments beyond our control; therefore we must plan accordingly. That was offered, let me remind you, Mr. Speaker, as if this were some kind of new lore, some kind of new wisdom, some kind of new truth about B.C.'s economy. It's 25 years since I attended university for my first years. At that time that statement about B.C.'s economy was a truism. Anybody who knows anything about B.C. and about economics knows that. Twenty-five years later we have a Social Credit Minister of Finance announcing this as if — violà! — we have discovered the new Holy Grail. Rather shocking, I suggest.

Let me turn now to the three areas I want to touch on: privatization, highways and transportation.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask for information regarding my time?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: You have approximately 16 minutes to go. Please proceed.

MR. LOVICK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That, I am sure, will do me nicely.

I must say that under the heading "Privatization" I rather expected some trumpeting, crowing and bragging from this government. In case we have all forgotten, that was the flagship of Social Credit initiatives for the past year and a half. Indeed, it was the new approach to solving all the problems of the eighties and beyond.

Curiously enough, the subject is barely mentioned in this budget. Rather, out of a 26-page document of more than a thousand lines, we have half a page and

[ Page 5808 ]

20 lines devoted to privatization. Out of about one and a half hours of reading time, we have about 30 seconds devoted to that subject. One has to wonder why. Why should that be? Instead of substantive comment, what we get is a marginal notation — it was even in blue ink, lest we missed it — that says: "Economy benefits from privatization." No explanation, no justification; just that flat, elliptic statement.

How, then, do they support the claim? They do so in two ways in that 30-second hit. The first thing they do is say: "We sold off some assets." That's really something to brag about — that it's an economic success because you sell off assets. I am not sure that's much to brag about. What's more important is whether you got the right price for the assets.

The second thing they do say is that we are going to have all kinds of business opportunities as a result. But what do they choose to quote when it comes to enunciating these business opportunities? Of all the things that have been on the block, what do they choose? They choose the rather unique one formerly called B.C. Steamships and now called B.C. Stena.

I would remind the members opposite that B.C. Steamships is a joint venture; it is not an outright privatization. That is one of the reasons why all of us in this chamber were prepared to say this might be a good idea. Secondly, B.C. Steamships, while it was a public corporation, undertook the expansion and increased its vessel fleet by 100 percent, and therefore it became a suitable, workable, viable economic entity for the private sector to purchase. And this is the example we are given in terms of: "Boy, privatization sure works!" Needless to say, it stretches credibility somewhat.

Moreover, Mr. Speaker, it now seems — given new evidence — that B.C. Stena appears to have cut back its service, compared to the promises of last July. In July of last year, we were informed that from May to September there would be three round-trips. What we now find is that this has been cut back to zero trips for the period of May 1 to May 12, one roundtrip for the period of May 13 to June 9 and two round-trips for the period beginning June 10. This is the new expanded fleet? This is all this great stuff that's going to work? This is the example of privatization's economic benefit to the people of the province? You bet, Mr. Speaker. Some benefit! It's the kind of benefit we can do without.

Interjection.

MR. LOVICK: I hear somebody chirping in the corner, Mr. Speaker. Sadly, however, I'm running out of time, so I don't even have time to listen, let alone respond. But don't worry, I will do so later.

There is no reference whatsoever in this speech to one of the biggest of all the privatizations: namely the B.C. Enterprise Corporation. And the obvious question is: why not? I think the answer is that, far from providing us opportunities, we're going to discover that that particular project is something for which later generations will be as likely to curse us as thank us.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, there is no reference to the hidden costs of privatization, and there are lots. For about a year I have had 12 detailed, written questions on notice asking about the costs of privatization and asking for information about what we actually paid to advertise, what we actually paid to commission agents, and such like. What did it cost us in terms of people losing their jobs and having to move from the province to search for other employment? All of those questions have not received one smidgen of an answer in response, I am sad to relate.

Moreover, the Minister of Energy (Hon. Mr. Davis) in the debate of a late-night sitting last year — I believe it was June 27 — took as notice, under some persistent questioning from this side of the chamber, a whole bunch of questions. And he promised us.... I shouldn't say "promised," Mr. Speaker, I suspect that's the wrong word. But rather, he gave us assurances that we would get answers to our questions in terms of costs.

Six months later, my colleague the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Clark) wrote to the minister and reminded him of the promises he had made, and still we are without answers. Moreover, the new minister has also thus far refrained from giving us any answers. We now have a new minister. We have a new committee, a cabinet caucus committee. I wonder how much that's costing us in terms of members' time. I wonder what that committee is producing. So far they've been as mute as mollusks; we haven't heard a word. We don't know if they are doing anything.

Interjection.

MR. LOVICK: They have clammed up, as my witty colleague says.

Mr. Speaker, we have a privatization group in position which is composed of some very highpowered civil servants — some competent, capable and highly paid people who still meet once a week. But I don't think they have produced a single report, and I don't think they have done anything. I don't think we can in fact point to that group and say: "Show us what you're working on." I don't think they can do so.

Is the focus now moving away from privatization? Are we talking about government reorganization? Are we in fact not getting anything for our labours? Those are the kinds of questions about privatization we still want to pose, Mr. Speaker, and I think we deserve answers.

Turning briefly to the matter of highways privatization, I notice that there is an appendix to the budget: Budget H, pages 71 to 76. The purpose of this appendix is "...We provide estimates of the cost savings to government resulting from this initiative." I think I can take some pride in ownership for this section of the budget, Mr. Speaker.

MR. MOWAT: Oh no.

MR. LOVICK: Yes, I know that sounds a little self congratulatory, but it's quite true — to the second

[ Page 5809 ]

member for Little Mountain. The reason is because I was given the Treasury Board document that showed the overrun of $20 million in highways maintenance, and this is the answer we got. This is the same answer we got in what was called a "technical briefing." It was an unsatisfactory answer then; it is still an unsatisfactory answer.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

The main conclusion the government gives us to the allegation of a $20 million overrun is wonderful. The gall of these folks! What they say is: "Well, it wasn't really $20 million; it was only $10 million." That's the main answer we got. Note, by the way, that the first answer was to deny it outright. Indeed, that's the Minister of Transportation and Highway's (Hon. Mr. Vant's) predilection and propensity in terms of everything: to deny it outright and one week later, of course, recast the story. Certainly that's what has happened here.

What we got was an effort to explain the $10 million overrun after the fact. Curiously enough, the predicted overrun is now called "a restatement." That's the new language: a euphemism for "overruns" is "restatement." How I love it!

Various claims were offered about why this was not in fact an overrun and why it was entirely understandable. The arguments, unfortunately, don't hold up. What we got first of all was a denial that there was an overrun in terms of the highways stabilization program. We were told that that cost had been transferred to capital maintenance, and that's not the case.

As it happens, stabilization programs have not been transferred from capital maintenance as was claimed by the ministry. Indeed, that particular program formed part of the package on which contractors were asked to bid. Moreover, in terms of the other parts of the denial — so-called in appendix H — what we have is a cost breakdown that is not even close to $10 million. Rather, it's closer to $14 million; in other words, 40 percent more than what we were told in this budget. I could share this with more time. The estimate, in short, is not very helpful, nor is it even close to the mark.

In the few minutes remaining to me, I want to touch briefly on two other areas: highways and transportation in general. Most people, of course, are pleased to see the increased amount of money going into highways. I would remind them of a couple of points, though. Firstly, last year there was a 14 percent decrease in that budget. Secondly, the pride in talking about the acceleration of the Okanagan connector has to be balanced against the fact that what we have in the Okanagan connector is a considerably scaled-down version of the original. It's not as big or as expensive as was the original.

[3:45]

We also had the reference to the Island Highway. I'm happy that my colleague the second member for Nanaimo asked that in question period today. The words are not reassuring. We are told the Vancouver Island Highway is not forgotten, but the amount of money we're spending in this coming fiscal year is only $30 million. If in fact it's a $600 million project, as the minister earlier suggested, and if it's supposed to be completed by 1996, then we are really going to have to scamper in the next five years. If there's only $30 million this year, I'm rather worried about the completion of the rest of the project.

I note also that in terms of the ministry's claim about doubling the funds for capital construction, they are going to be supervising all those projects with 35 percent fewer people than were available in 1982, not to mention what we've lost in terms of human capital and not to mention what we've lost in terms of morale within the ministry.

The other major announcement regarding highways is that we're going to be having a 50 percent increase for "highway rehabilitation." Do you know what, Mr. Speaker? We used to call it maintenance. Because of the record of this government in letting the highways fall into the sad state of disrepair they are now in, we have to call it rehabilitation. In fact, some of the roads are so close to dying, I suspect they ought to call it resuscitation. In any event, so much for all the vaunted claims about highways.

I want to touch also on the.... Pardon me, Mr. Speaker, I'm zipping through rather quickly because I want to get to some other things.

The consultative approach in terms of transportation, the creation of all the transportation subcommittees that are going to meet throughout the province and are going to do all these great things — all of that on paper sounds absolutely wonderful. The predicament is that we had our test case, ironically enough, this morning. We've had a ten-year $550 million ferry expansion program announced, and guess what? Instead of all the clients jumping up and saying, "Isn't this wonderful!" we have instead the people of Saltspring Island and the president of the Islands Trust saying: "Once more we've been led down the garden path." The fact is that there was not the kind of consultation that has been promised time and time again.

Indeed, some 18 months ago, I attended a meeting on Saltspring Island — interestingly enough, which neither of the members for Saanich could attend, despite the long notice — at which the meeting resolved to try and get answers to whether the ferry terminal would be changed. Instead we find out this morning, and nobody in fact was given that advance warning. Needless to say, the Islands Trust is scandalized and is convinced that it has indeed been led down the garden path again. They feel that this is a rather shoddy and shameful process of constantly saying: "We want to talk with you; we want to hear your concerns," but when it comes to decision-making: "We don't have time for you." That's what happened in terms of highways.

A couple of other points regarding the transportation study. When the Minister of Highways — you recall, after the transportation study was first announced — was pressed about whether there was any money attached he said, "Yes, indeed, all kinds of money; we're going to be doing all these things," and everybody of course quickly came to the conclusion

[ Page 5810 ]

that there wasn't any plan. I wonder why there was no strategic dimension to that report at all. Rather the minister had simply multiplied the normal highways budget for the next ten years for seven years and come up with a figure of $700 million.

MRS. GRAN: How do you know that?

MR. LOVICK: That point was made by 50 different people and was never refuted effectively by the ministry. It was also corroborated by ministry officials.

But isn't it interesting that with that evidence in hand, with the claims made by the Minister of Highways, there is no reference to a long-term spending program for highways in this province. We got six-year plans for two or three other ministries but not for highways. The question then obviously is: what was the Minister of Highways talking about when he made that reference to a ten-year plan with money in the bank?

I wonder who indeed is minding the store these days. I would hope that other opportunities will present themselves to me, and certainly I shall raise other questions at that time.

MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, as I rise to address some remarks to the budget presented before this House last Thursday, I wish to pay a tribute to the new members of this House: the member who has joined us from the riding of Alberni and those introduced today — the second member for Nanaimo (Ms. Pullinger) and the second member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Mr. Perry). All these members have arrived to do the public's business in this Legislature at an exciting time in British Columbia's history. I congratulate you on the honour that you have to serve in this unique position in this House, the parliament of British Columbia.

I will be addressing my remarks to the thirty-fifth budget brought down by a Social Credit administration in this province — 35 years of progress and positive administration. While this budget primarily deals with the next fiscal year — the one that we begin today, as a matter of fact — I intend to look also at greater challenges beyond today.

Last week when the Finance minister presented this budget to our Legislature, it was heralded across this nation as one that would be the envy of all jurisdictions in Canada. The national press services were absolutely correct, and I would go even further, Mr. Speaker: it should be the example for our federal administration, which consistently leads our nation into more and more sustainable debt.

In talking about the budget and its impact on British Columbia, I am honoured, along with my colleague the hard-working second member for Vancouver-Little Mountain (Mr. Mowat), to address the concerns and the impact it will have on our constituency in Vancouver.

This great province stands on the threshold of its fifth great decade of opportunity since the first Social Credit government took office in 1952 — almost four completed decades and standing on the threshold of the fifth remarkable decade. It is no surprise to those of us on this side of the House that we have a balanced budget. It is no surprise to those of us who have the privilege of representing the legacy of strength and early vision left us by the leadership of W.A.C. Bennett, because we represent a party that understands — and has understood for four decades in this province — the importance of wealth creation and sustainable growth for the people of British Columbia. Our Minister of Finance has laboured long and hard these past few months to bring a balanced provincial budget to this assembly, and for that we owe him a debt of gratitude. It is not easy in this society to balance the taxpayers' ability to pay and the taxpayers' desire for services in a world that approaches rapidly the twenty-first century.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the citizens of Vancouver-Little Mountain, whom we represent, I want to say that I am grateful for this balanced budget. I also thank the minister for the care and attention he and his staff in his ministry have given to meeting the needs of those in our society who rely on government for good health care, education for their children and grandchildren, and an opportunity to re-educate themselves to keep pace with the changing world.

The Minister of Finance has given attention in this budget to seniors, to the environment and to those in our society who need some assistance with housing — especially first-time homebuyers. I am delighted to hear about that progress.

The official opposition's response last Friday to this budget was an unsuccessful attempt once again to change their image from the negative Nelly approach perhaps to something more positive for the future. The opposition wants us to believe that they would maybe allow some development, but only if it is sustainable. But they distort the past while ignoring the future. When this Minister of Finance and this Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Parker) talk about one billion seedlings being added to our forests, don't you think that provides evidence of a commitment to sustainable development? And when this Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Strachan) talks about tougher measures against polluters and big industry, don't you think that is evidence that we in Social Credit understand the importance of our environment?

Mr. Speaker, let us not forget the emphasis this government put on tourism and new-technology industries, because we knew long ago that these were pollution-free and good for our environment.

We have a Social Credit administration that has laid the foundation for British Columbia's next decade, leading up to the year 2000. In the 1950s Social Credit began to lay the infrastructure for highways and bridges that would open up the province for development. They began to establish the health care system that was to make us the envy of the world. In the 1960s Social Credit turned their attention to hydroelectric generation: clean, environmentally acceptable power for the future. We continued to build on our educational system, with the addition of Simon Fraser University and a new campus for the University of Victoria, and we added to the homeowner

[ Page 5811 ]

grant, which was introduced in 1957 to assist with school costs.

The 1970s were a rarified-opportunity decade. We lost 38 months of it, but midway through the decade we faced the job of recovery from the chaos caused by the socialists. We started to get our finances back in order. We began a Science Council, a research park network, and encouragement of new high-technology industry. We gave tourism emphasis and encouraged a film industry, which has provided many jobs to our province, and does even today.

In the 1980s we invited the world to discover British Columbia through Expo 86. We started a new transportation route to the interior: the Coquihalla. I'm proud of the Coquihalla. We opened one of North America's newest rapid transit systems, technology that has been looked at from all over the world, and at the same time we coped with the world recession like no other government in this nation.

Mr. Speaker, wealth creation doesn't come overnight. This budget builds upon the success and examples of past Ministers of Finance and Social Credit administrations. It is only possible because we on this side of the House have been responsible British Columbians. We now have the basis for the next stage in British Columbia's history, the next decade, which is movement into a fully diversified economy, with a continued change in product mix of what we offer to the world — a new commercialization along with a new phase of industrialization. We move towards the year 2000 and a future that draws more upon our technological skills, our educational resources, our trading capabilities and our excellent location in the new world economy. This move into the new economy, balanced with our supernatural resources, will provide strong growth and wealth for our future generations.

[4:00]

We have the balanced budget, and I commend the Minister of Finance for preparing for a rainy day. That budget stabilization fund will now have in it, I understand, about $1 billion. We'll never have to count on a rainy day fund — and I hope we don't have to — if we better prepare ourselves now for a fully diversified economy, if we build for prosperity, if we use our advantages, our geographic locations, for the production of goods and services based on higher skills from a more competitive workforce. I'm talking about economic expansion through training, retraining and education for tomorrow.

As Social Credit knows, there's no point in creating that wealth which the Leader of the Opposition now believes in if you just have to spend it on interest, on having spent the wealth when you didn't have it in the past. The citizens of this province need to know that we have a plan to get our house in order so that their tax dollars will not be squandered in the future on unnecessary provincial debt.

In the Ministry of Economic Development that I had the pleasure of working with during the first two years of this administration, we identified four growth industries to focus on a business plan for '88-89 and beyond: electronics, aerospace, subsea technology and value-added wood products. We had ministerial advisory committees hard at work in all of those areas, and I believe they continue today. We knew where we were going. When the Leader of the Opposition stood up during his official reply to the throne speech earlier in this legislative session and tried to list some value-added wood products that we should be concentrating on in British Columbia, we were way ahead of him. We are already doing it. He should ask his research staff for a briefing from both the Ministry of Forests and the Ministry of Regional Development so that in future he won't appear so poorly informed.

About a week ago I had the pleasure of addressing a Rotary Club luncheon in the constituency of Burnaby-Edmonds. It was the day after we heard of the loss of Barry Sullivan. At the end of my address a gentleman, someone who knew him well, got up to say: "When people say to me that this government has no conscience, no commitment to young people, I remind them that this is the administration that appointed a man like Barry Sullivan to head its Royal Commission on Education." That, of course, is a tribute to both the late Barry Sullivan and this Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet).

A new economic vision for the decade ahead is achievable by using this budget and past budgets as the building-blocks. But that diversified economy for tomorrow is dependent upon an even greater commitment to the Sullivan royal commission when it speaks to the new focus for our young people, the new focus between learning and British Columbia's economic prospects. The Sullivan commission warns us that the shift to an economy based more on information and knowledge than on natural resources has .serious implications for the provincial future and for the role that schools...will play in our lives." On page 12 of that same report, there is a most important paragraph dealing with the need to urge higher levels of education for our citizens, and it says in part: "...the likelihood of intensified economic competition from other regions around the world argues strongly for providing higher levels of education for the young...help them learn new skills as employment circumstances demand, and become generally more entrepreneurial in their attitudes towards work and in establishing themselves in a career."

Barry Sullivan leaves us all a challenge. The final page of the summary report of findings says this — and I'm sure many of you have read it: "The truly difficult task is the one that the commission bequeaths to school governance officials at provincial and local levels" — and others. "For it is they who must work together cooperatively to develop the structures, processes and avenues of communication that will allow for the discussion and resolution of competing democratic ideals and values."

This budget is to be commended for its new financial support to meet this challenge in the decade ahead. I personally applaud its continued support for the Pacific Rim initiatives program of the Minister of Education and the access for all post-secondary initiatives of the Minister of Advanced Education and Job

[ Page 5812 ]

Training (Hon. S. Hagen). Politicians, all of us in this Legislature, sometimes dwell too much on the ever-present ballot box horizons. There's so much here and now that commands our attention but we must change because planning for the next century requires an even greater commitment than governments traditionally have had to marshal.

Today we must focus more on the job that Barry Sullivan left us all to do. We must see that the challenge of this decade will be to equip our young people for an ever-changing world as we approach the magic year 2000. This budget and the accompanying appendix F that deals with education into the twenty-first century lays the foundation. There is more yet to be done.

Our Finance minister said in his opening remarks that our young people must learn more about our important trading partners. We need to ensure this and more.

I want to fully support our Finance minister's efforts to encourage Ottawa to fight inflation some other way than on the backs of the homeowners of western Canada. Certainly an immediate challenge not really addressed fully at all in this budget is the prospect of ever-rising interest rates on home mortgages.

As a provincial government, let us not act too late to protect, if possible, our own British Columbia homeowners from Ottawa's and eastern Canada's fight against inflation. I don't have an answer today for the Finance minister, but I challenge us all to work on one this session.

Another challenge of this decade is to get us out of this unfair assessed value for property taxation. We are paying over $35 million a year to run an Assessment Authority that equates a homeowner's equity in the family home to one's ability to pay. In the decade just ending and in the one we are just about to enter, that's just not to be described as fairness. I'd like to see the Minister of Finance give a few extra dollars to our Minister of Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Culture (Hon. Mrs. Johnston) to examine the situation and see if we can't do better. I think you will find she will welcome the challenge.

Nothing brings to mind the fragility of our environment as the recent oil spills: one in January on the west coast of Vancouver Island and the most recent Alaska spill which has caught world attention by its dramatic size and its tragic effect on the area. I believe that our province can and should find the answer for such accidents. Here we are 11 days after the fact, yet no one has been able to find an answer for the cleanup. We have people from all over the world wringing their hands and saying that we can't clean up an oil spill that happened a good 10 days ago.

This province has the most effective subsea engineering experience in the world, and where it counts in technological circles, we're recognized as being the very best. I'd like to see our government put meaningful investment into research and development for the cleanup of such spills and call on the subsea engineering experts: Phil Nuytten of Can-Dive, James MacFarlan of International Submarine Engineering, and all others. We must challenge them — including our universities and the expertise of other interested parties — to find a solution that would be B.C.'s contribution to the cleanup of oil spills the world over. Challenge them to find the answers, and I believe we would find the answers. But R and D money should be made available now for that job. Let's use the expertise we have and make sure that kind of tragedy doesn't happen again. We can do it in this province, and we should be funding it in this province.

I want to comment on maximizing British Columbia's opportunities under the Canada-U.S. trade agreement. This budget addresses the subject in supporting financially the announcement from the Minister of International Business and Immigration (Hon. J. Jansen) regarding the new B.C. Trade Development Corporation. That corporation will assist us in reaching out to all our trading partners, as will the expansion of our trade offices in Ottawa and San Francisco. We probably need the help more in Ottawa than in San Francisco however.

These offices and others are to assist firms exploring free trade opportunities south of the border. Appendix B in this budget talks about the economic outlook for British Columbia and the prediction that the free trade agreement will help stimulate capital investment in 1989. It further looks at the risks of the forecasts made in this budget, touching on the cloud that exists because of huge trade and fiscal imbalances internationally that would directly affect this province. This means that British Columbia industry and business needs to firmly put its foot in the international door in 1989, and our government must be at the ready to help open those doors and keep them open. This new export development corporation can help, but we must be ready to give it a very strong mandate.

The Minister of Finance did not have the advantage of seeing the recommendations of the report of the Prime Minister's free trade advisory council when he was drafting his budget. It was made public right after the budget was tabled in this House. That council, headed by Quebec industrialist A. Jean de Grandpré, reported last week and has urged new initiatives to help train Canadians to compete with our greatest trading partner to the south. I think we in British Columbia want to move very quickly to obtain this report and understand its recommendations, and we will need to move quickly to urge Ottawa to implement some of those recommendations as quickly as possible. But in this House and in this government we could move quickly to work on our own programs for training workers that would dovetail with what Ottawa will be contemplating. There is money in this budget, I believe, for that job: to take some initiatives this year that would once again put British Columbia in the lead for Canada, as we are in so many other things.

This government understands the importance of partnerships with industry. We need a new partnership in this area not only to help industry recognize and seize upon new opportunities for trade but then

[ Page 5813 ]

to help them train their workforce to meet the challenge. It is imperative to have an exceptionally well trained work force in the international competitive marketplace.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask the government to look with caution in entering as a government into common stocks of industrial businesses. What stocks would not be a conflict of interest? What would be considered good long-term risks? If we are going to go into short-term, government would maybe become speculators in the short-term market. What about the conflict between interest rate management for government bonds? It's less than 18 months since October 19, 1988, a date when some of the most sophisticated money managers in the world took a financial bath of major proportions. I emphasize to government: be cautious. Maybe a second look?

Social Credit's earlier vision of supporting the new industries of tomorrow that fit so well with four decades of good government, emphasizing sustainable development even before the phrase was coined, leads me to believe that there is a will in this Legislature to eliminate the debt of our province. We could show Ottawa how to do it.

MR. R. FRASER: We always have.

MRS. McCARTHY. We always have before, and we can do it again.

Even the Leader of the Opposition now believes we have to create wealth in order to spend it. Surely he knows that if you spend it on interest rates — on debt — it's not benefiting our people.

With good planning, a diversified economic base, a people educated and trained for the new economy, for international trade and competition, I believe a legitimate goal would be to eliminate the debt by the year 2000 or before — a legitimate goal that this House and this government could work towards. Through a scheduled commitment of debt repayment, we could have a clean slate to begin the next century.

Mr. Speaker, those are but a few of the many challenges that lie before us on the eve of this fifth decade of Social Credit leadership for British Columbia - this last decade of the twentieth century that belongs to Canada and to British Columbia. This budget is balanced, regardless of what the opposition says. This is a balanced budget.

[4:15]

That balanced budget was not easily achieved. It was done by the commitment of all British Columbians; the commitment of this government; the commitment of the Finance minister. In this House we owe a great debt of gratitude to our Minister of Finance. The interest on this debt will not be paid in taxpayers' dollars but in the pride that we will all share in knowing that we have moved in a major way to meet the challenges of the twenty-first century.

MR. D'ARCY. Mr. Speaker, I hope there aren't too many pauses in this speech. I am a long way from my notes without my glasses.

Interjection.

MR. D'ARCY. That's right. No, I'll perhaps save the other side of the House from some of the details if I have to skip a few things.

At the outset, I want to congratulate just a few people, changes since last we met here: His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor on his appointment, the three new members of the Legislature who have been elected, and also those people who have been elevated to cabinet since we last met in the House. I wish all of them well.

There is no question, as has been discussed here, that expenditures in this budget are up significantly — unrealistically, some would say. However, I suppose at this point I would want to give the government some benefit of the doubt in having recognized that their attitude toward a number of aspects of life in British Columbia over the last few years has left a lot to be desired. High on that list would be the environment, health and education. If there is some indication outside this chamber that electorally the public is in a mood to give the Social Credit Party a thrashing at the polls, I am glad to see that the government — on behalf of all British Columbians who, after all, are paying the bills for everything — has decided that it is going to recognize some of these areas which it has savaged over the last few years.

I have heard some members of the House talk about neglect over the last few years. I think the general public in British Columbia would have been comparatively thankful if the government had neglected them instead of constantly taking things away. The public would have enjoyed some benign neglect instead of what many feel has been a malevolent desire to lower the standard of education, both schooling and post-secondary, to lower the standard of health care in this province, to lower the standard of environmental controls, to lower the standard of monitoring of the use of publicly owned resources, in particular forest resources and to a lesser extent mineral and water resources.

We really are, in this province, evolving in many important ways. The previous speaker, the first member for Little Mountain, was speaking on how important it was to recognize the tourism industry as an environmentally non-polluting industry. I think this is an important point relative to our long-standing heavy industries, because just as a significant number of the tourists who come to British Columbia are not even Canadians and not British Columbians moving around the province — they are from other countries — so a significantly higher proportion of raw materials for our industry is beginning to come from foreign countries.

In this regard, I want to talk about the smelting and refining industry, which is the heart of the economy in my constituency. Initially, we had a smelting and refining industry in the Trail area going back to the 1890s because of proximity to ore within the region. Gradually over the decades, the ore supplies became further and further afield. That complex, which is today and has been for a number of

[ Page 5814 ]

years dependent on large supplies of low-cost hydroelectric power — not on the proximity of ore — is now very quickly, with the exhausting of the ore supplies in Kimberley.... The Sullivan mine is not exhausted yet, but it will be in about ten years unless significant new finds are made. That is a long period of time for a mine, I might say. It has been mined since the 1900s, much longer than most mines and particularly underground mines. When that happens, some 90 percent of the ore supply for that smelting, refining and manufacturing operation in Trail will come not just from outside the province but from outside the country. There have been grandiloquent speeches made across this country about how Canadians should not be hewers of wood and drawers of water. The fact is, we have come to an evolution where our long-standing industries no longer can rely on Canadian sources for their supplies of raw material.

To me one of the most disappointing aspects of the budget was the disincentive to the maintenance of a manufacturing base in base metals in British Columbia, which is the inordinately high sales tax on electricity — it's euphemistically called a "water licence rental" by the government, but it's a sales tax on electricity — about 20 percent on every consumer in the province and a much higher percentage if it is an industry.

A major disincentive could — I don't predict the future, but it could — lead to a loss of a major manufacturing expansion which would benefit not only my constituency in the southeastern part of the province but all of British Columbia and Canada as well.

The American ore supply being developed this moment by Cominco in Alaska, the Red Dog supply, will be producing substantially more — not just somewhat more — zinc ore than the operations in Trail can absorb. That ore will be mined and will be shipped elsewhere, probably not even anywhere else in Canada; it will be shipped elsewhere internationally.

If the government of British Columbia is not prepared to create a taxation climate where the only incentive for using raw ore in British Columbia is low-cost hydroelectric power, if the government continues to tax that power to the point where it is not low-cost, we will lose a major part of that industry.

Already in Trail, the midpoint having been passed in the lead-silver modernization and technological change in operation, we are seeing another decline in the numbers employed in the Cominco operations there. Even if there is a major zinc expansion — which I sincerely hope there is — there will still be a decline; it just won't be as severe. Yet the government of the day — relatively speaking, rolling in money — cannot see its way clear to ensure that that ore supply and operation continue in a viable way, providing employment and wealth for the province in valueadded and multiplier effects of employment opportunities over a long period of time.

The government has a mentality, Mr. Speaker, which still sees British Columbia as an exploiter of raw materials. We are rapidly evolving past that point, if we have not done so already

The other major industry in my constituency, again one that has hardly been recognized by the government, is the forest industry. The part of the province that I'm from is the only part of the southern interior to have a substantial surplus of pulp fibre and increasing shortages of sawlogs, probably in keeping with the rest of the province. It is tremendously important that it be utilized within the region because, with the kind of prices being enjoyed today by the industry, unused pulp fibre, if not used locally, is inevitably going to be shipped away.

For some reason that has escaped me over the past 20 years, there has been no operation to utilize pulp fibre south of the 49th parallel in eastern Washington and northern Idaho. The result is that if you add that to the surplus in the West Kootenay, there is an enormous excess of available, uncommitted pulp fibre, either being underutilized or being shipped to mills elsewhere in Canada or the United States. In fact, there is an increasingly large cross-border transfer of pulp and fibre, not usually in the form of round wood; usually in the form of chips.

Mr. Speaker, it is tremendously important, I believe, for both the short- and the long-term interests of the province, and certainly of my region, that a manufacturing operation, a mill, environmentally up to speed in terms of the familiar pollutants from pulp mills as well as the unfamiliar ones recognized recently, such as dioxins, without these problems — and technology is moving right along these days — be constructed within the region to utilize this underutilized, sustainable — in fact, overly sustainable — pulp fibre supply which exists not only on the Canadian side of the border but on the American as well. If that does not happen, especially with today's market prices, somebody somewhere will find a use for those chips, and it probably won't be in the interior of British Columbia; it may not even be in British Columbia at all.

Mr. Speaker, I don't predict a recession. I do suggest, though, that with the Federal Reserve in the States and the Bank of Canada continuing to put brakes on the economy by interest rate increases, it is probable, perhaps even certain, that there is going to be a slowdown in growth on both sides of the border. I don't say stopping or going backwards, but there's going to be a slowdown in growth, and that means a slowdown in commodity prices as well. If the government of the day simply wants to boast about being — in their terms — in a good way as far as revenue and expenditure go, when they're at the top of a cycle, they should be looking out for tomorrow, when we're no longer at the top of a cycle. They should be making darned sure that the industries of B.C. are not only paying their fair share in terms of natural resource rent, but are also providing long-term employment and long-term economic benefits for British Columbia. If those aspects are not secured now, it will be much more difficult to secure them when we get into a downturn.

[4:30]

[ Page 5815 ]

Mr. Speaker, an aspect of the budget which disturbed me.... I'm not a nay sayer as far as the future goes, but apart from the crushing effect of the water tax on future tax revenue for British Columbia from other sources.... But a disturbing aspect is that so many of the promises made in the budget speech, as well as in the throne speech a few weeks ago, seemed to be dependent upon federal participation. Some observers suggest that all of the talk of deficit-cutting by Ottawa and the hints of not entering into new agreements or backing away from existing provincial agreements may be there simply to soften us all up for tax increases. Or there could be a combination of both.

Either way, I have a concern about the number of aspects of the budget which seem to be dependent on federal participation. Until Mr. Wilson brings down his budget federally, we won't really know what's going to happen in those regards, which is all the more reason for the government of British Columbia to be prepared to stand on its own two feet and develop British Columbia in a sustainable way for all British Columbians. I don't mean, as I've said, just in a sustainable way when we're at the peak of a cycle, but in a sustainable way in the valleys as well.

Mr. Speaker, one of the major shortages of funding in my constituency and one of the major problems — it relates to some degree to the use of the forest resource — has been the lack of funding assistance for water systems. I know the budget spoke of increased assistance to municipalities for water and sewer. In passing, I'm going to note that it was the same Social Credit government across the way in the late seventies who reduced the level of funding available to municipalities for water and sewer.

The real crying need in my area for assistance in those areas — particularly with fresh water — is not for the municipal governments; it's for the rural areas. There is a particular urban bias in the budget which simply does not recognize the problems that exist in the rural areas. Mr. Speaker, when I use the term "rural," I mean it in a dictionary sense. "Rural" in the province of B.C., to many people, has come to mean anything outside the lower mainland or greater Victoria. I'm not talking about the small towns and municipalities; I'm talking about the really rural areas — the improvement districts and irrigation districts.

They have a major problem with water supply — quantity and quality in many cases. I would like to see the government address these areas with equal emphasis. I'm not suggesting taking anything away from assistance to municipalities, but rather giving the rural areas equal opportunity. I have long felt that the rules surrounding municipal status — cost-sharing, policing costs and so on — were far too hard and fast, depending upon whether an area was in a municipality, a regional district or whatever its status was under the Municipal Act. The fact is that all British Columbians pay taxes, and the tax rates are fairly constant. So they should have available the same services and opportunities from government.

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the increased capital expenditures on highways. I want to make a note to the House that I see in the budget the word "rehabilitation" of highways. People who drive the highways of B.C. — particularly in late winter, especially in the interior and the north — find that the surface of the roads by and large are in absolutely atrocious condition. The highways of the province — the existing infrastructure — have been neglected over the past few years. Not only have capital expenditures — the Coquihalla notwithstanding — been a decreasing portion of the provincial budget, but as the highway network has matured and grown, there is an increasing demand for simply maintaining the status quo. Most of the public would think of that in terms of maintenance; they would think of resurfacing and maintaining a highway which has perhaps been there for a number of years as simply a maintenance expenditure. The government, though, considers that a capital cost, so I think it's a mistake for any member of this House, let alone the general public, to look at the doubling of what the government proposes to spend on highways for capital as all going to new highways, modernized highways, larger bridges or new bridges. A significant proportion of it will have to be spent on what most people would consider to be mere maintenance, because the surfaces of the highways, particularly in the interior and the north, are in absolutely abominable condition. Strictly speaking, that is from years and years of neglect. Weather, time and heavy truck loads have taken their toll on the highways of this province.

The West Kootenay itself, of course, needs major expenditures on new and modernized roads. For 15 years now I, the people of Trail and various civic councils have been fighting for an improvement in Highway 22, which was built in 1922, essentially, and the southern end of which is still at those standards — the part that winds through the smelter complex. Property was acquired more than ten years ago, and preliminary work has been done, yet we're still waiting for the completion of that project. It's tremendously important to the area for safety and for the proper delivery of supplies of ore to that plant that this highway be finished, and quickly.

That is only the biggest eyesore, the major eyesore. We have a number of major needs in the constituency, and it's a small constituency geographically. I shudder to think what the needs are around the province in those constituencies that are much larger than mine. We need significant work on the Pass Creek road. We need improvements to the Seven Mile-Nelway road. We need a connecting highway between Highway 3 and the Champion Lakes.

The province proposes to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on new ferries. Yet last year they closed down the ferry, which did carry substantially more people and more vehicles than any other interior ferry. Indeed, there are only three routes on the coast — the Albion ferry and the two southern Georgia crossings — that carried more people and more vehicles, yet the government shut that ferry down.

[ Page 5816 ]

Now they propose to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on new ferries.

In increasing number, the people of my riding, along with those in many other parts of the province, are elderly; that's a demographic fact. We have a shortage of housing for senior citizens. I'm not talking about care homes; there's a shortage there too. What about the senior citizens who are unable to maintain their own house anymore and wish to move in to a self-contained, self-sustained apartment building? We have a major shortage of that kind of social housing. I'd like to point out that it's usually self-financing over the long term. The housing that is vacated becomes available for younger people, so it's actually additional to the housing stock. With all the sudden realization of the sins of its past, I hope the government makes room for substantially greater expenditures on housing for senior citizens.

On Friday afternoon after this House adjourned there was on the news — I was surprised it did not come up here in the Legislature — a story about the very first hydroelectric project to be mooted in .British Columbia since the construction of the Revelstoke Dam was commenced some ten or more years ago. A private company submitted a proposal to B.C. Hydro to build a dam on the Columbia River. I'm not making this up; this happened on Friday afternoon at 4 o'clock. Another dam on the Columbia River — purely for export, not for domestic use. My goodness, are there a lot of unanswered questions around this one!

Why is it that a private company feels that they can invest in an entirely new dam in British Columbia on a river that is controlled by expenditures of public money — which the Columbia is — purely for export, when the sales of export power now are subsidized by the electrical users in British Columbia? Export power, the price in both volume, unit price and quantity goes up and down depending on the supplies in British Columbia and the market price outside of the province. But export power has almost invariably been sold at below the cost to which individuals, businesses and industries can buy it in British Columbia. It is as though a farmer were selling his produce at one price in the B.C. market and a much lower outside the B.C. market.

The provincial user of electricity has long subsidized electrical users outside the province. Hydro had a problem getting electricity to California. They'd have loved to have gotten a lot more — electricity not being something you can put in a boat and ship out of the country. You have to be able to transmit it. Now we have a private company that says that we can submit a proposal to B.C. Hydro, and B.C. Hydro is going to have a look at this in-house, and then perhaps down the road there may be a public hearing process. We may under the Energy Act have a hearing on this. I hope we do. We may have a hearing before the comptroller of water rights.

I would hope that all British Columbians, and the government in particular, and its energy arm B.C. Hydro have very sharp pencils when they look at this proposal. If power exports are to be locked up and not available for those of us in British Columbia — or, indeed, even for Canadian use in general — we run a grave risk of having one of our major rivers supplying power to industry across the line without our being able to recover that energy if we need it.

We've come a long way from Hydro constantly denying they ever intentionally built power projects for export to the point where B.C. Hydro appears with the political blessing of the government, if not having been ordered by the government, to be going out of their way to develop entirely new projects solely for the purposes of export.

I want to hope that the provincial government, in increasing its funding to education in this province, instead of just taking the attitude that we're going to increase expenditures by 5 percent, 10 percent or 15 percent, is going to have a plan in what they do. As people across the way used to say when they were destroying all of these programs in British Columbia: "You can't just throw money at a problem." Well, I agree.

When you decide you want to have a win-friends and-influence-people budget, which is what the Socred government has done this year, you can't suddenly correct all of the sins of the past few years by throwing money at the problem.

[4:45]

I think it's wonderful there are some nebulous plans for post-secondary degree-granting status in various parts of the interior north. I think that's great, but I certainly hope good planning has gone into it in terms of meeting the post-secondary education needs of all British Columbians, meeting the needs of employers. As a taxpayer, I want the very most from our education dollar.

People of my area have post-secondary education needs as well. We are a little bit disturbed throughout the interior, especially in my area, with having such a low participation rate when we have such bright people who certainly have contributed long and hard in their tax dollars to the quality of life in British Columbia.

Instead of just throwing money at the problem, I would hope that school boards and educators, both at the school level and at the post-secondary level, will be given the tools to do the job in terms of a management and technical ability and not just be handed money and told to go ahead and spend it however way you can. It's tremendously important for British Columbians to become competitive in terms of our training programs for all British Columbians.

Just before I sit down I want to re-emphasize to the government the tremendous importance of encouraging our value-added industries and recognizing that we can no longer live on our raw materials in this province. We aren't really living on them now. We have to encourage the importation of raw materials to British Columbia, and that means lowering the disincentive taxes, like the water tax, on our manufacturing industries in this province before we lose them entirely.

[ Page 5817 ]

MR. De JONG: I rise today with a sense of pride and satisfaction in support of this year's budget. I believe that through good government, dedication and consultation, we've been able to achieve a great amount in the last three years. In fact, our achievement has been that from a $1.2 billion deficit operation in '86-87, we have come to a balanced budget for '89-90. It's not only a balanced budget; we also anticipate paying down on the accumulated debt of previous years.

This balanced budget is not a result, as the members of the opposition have said, of neglect or cutbacks in education, health and social services; in fact, to the contrary. Neither was it a result of increased taxation; just the opposite. Didn't we reduce, in the first year of our mandate, '87-88, our sales tax by 1 percent, thereby pumping over a quarter of a billion dollars into economic activities of this province?

This achievement is not just as a result of failing to meet crisis situations. In fact, this government is known for its spontaneous response to many crisis situations. just to name a few: the grape-growers in the Okanagan had immediate response to the problem when the free trade agreement came about; and again, I am happy to note, they are considered for further assistance in this budget. Did this government cancel the interest rebate program for agriculture prior to its commitment that they would continue this until five-year mortgages were available below 12 percent? No, this government carried on with those programs. This government's timely and valued response to patients suffering from the AIDS virus, coupled with appropriate measures in an attempt to protect society at large, is another very positive step. This government's immediate response to the technical advances which are now in the area of health care, advanced education and job training, as well as introducing computer programming and training at the elementary level.... This government didn't fail; it acted.

The question may be asked why the British Columbia government is able to achieve what no other province has been able to do. First of all, this government has, under the capable leadership of its Premier, established a clear goal and a firm direction to achieve that goal. The goal was to balance the budget and reduce the accumulated deficit and to enhance those programs essential to the well-being of all British Columbians.

This government, unlike the members of the opposition, has recognized that there is, in fact, a limit on the ability to pay for the average British Columbian. This government has recognized the fact that in order to provide, improve or expand on programs which enhance the lifestyles of those less fortunate of those who are caught by the storms of life, be they financial, physical or mental, there must be an economy not only to implement these programs but to sustain such programs in less prosperous times. The key, Mr. Speaker, is to maintain the many good programs within this budget, and I'm confident that with a good, continued administration we can do that. This government knows that to pass on additional debts accumulated in times of economic growth is just not an acceptable practice. Doing that and continuing to add to our accumulated debt during good economic times is irresponsible on the part of any government.

This government was elected by the people of this province. They not only speak about fiscal responsibility but act, and the people expected nothing else. I'm truly pleased that by this government accepting the challenge of preparing a climate for economic expansion, we have been able to meet the expectation of the people who voted for a fresh start back in 1986.

This government offered the people of this province a style of government where we would consult with the people in establishing policy direction and future plans for economic growth as well as enhancing social programs. We've consulted with every segment of society. This government has indeed proven that a consultative approach with people from all walks of life is the only way to govern a province so diverse in terms of people and their needs, as well as to come to grips with the economic needs of all regions of this great province.

It is not just by chance that there has been little or no job action in the bargaining process over the last two years. Again, it is a result of the consultative process which preceded the passage of Bill 19, the consultative process with labour and management.

What really happened to the doom and gloom expressed by the opposition during those debates? Would this government have been able to place a balanced budget on the table today for debate had this government backed away from Bill 19, as the opposition wanted us to do? I can see why the opposition were so opposed to Bill 19. They just do not believe in labour-management relations. They wanted to have labour chaos continue in this province. That's what socialism seems to thrive on.

What about the privatization initiatives? Another bold and courageous undertaking by this government, an undertaking resulting in success because it was done in consultation with those involved. I am sure my colleagues on this side of the House remember the hue and cry from the opposition. Again the members of the opposition seriously underestimated the desires and determination of British Columbians to succeed in taking a more active part in making this province a place of economic strength and prosperity. If it had not been for the enthusiasm, courage and determination that the people of British Columbia were assured of in October 1986 by our Premier, there would not have been a balanced budget as we have today. This government has proven the expectations of the people of this province.

Perhaps the members of the opposition want to tell us which province, other than Prince Edward Island, has a per capita debt lower than this province. In contrast to that, which other province has been able to respond to the social needs of its people as this government has and is anticipating providing for in this budget? How does this province stack up against all other provinces in terms of personal pro-

[ Page 5818 ]

vincial income tax? Perhaps they may wish to tell us these things. They should be known, and I am sure that if they don't tell us, some member on this side will inform the opposition of those.

Is there any other province providing more security and better care for our seniors and those who need a helping hand?

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

This government has nothing to be ashamed of, nor do we have to take second place to any other province in this great country in terms of fiscal management. The many incentives in this budget are not just a matter of having to throw money at a problem, as the member who just spoke said we did. These are well-thought-out, well-planned programs based on needs — not on the needs of yesterday but on those of today and the days following. It is for that reason that they are supportable by the general public. The initial feedback from business and medium- and lowincome people in our riding is very supportive. People know full well that even in Victoria, beautiful as the city may be, money just does not grow on trees. The people of this province are proud to know that there is a government that cares for all — business, labour, low-, high- and medium-income categories — which this budget thoroughly reflects.

People also realize and appreciate that government has a responsibility to provide what the individual Is incapable of providing for himself. At the same time, through the many grants and incentives provided for by the various ministries, this government does not minimize the important part churches and other non-profit organizations play in the work of mercy which is so badly needed by many people.

The Leader of the Opposition's first response to this exciting budget was that it was a move of desperation by the government. I would like to respond by saying that the desperation of which the Leader of the Opposition was speaking is certainly not on this side of the House, nor is it with the people of this province. Could it perhaps be true that the desperation is present in the socialist corner?

In conclusion, I support this budget because it is well-planned; it is sustainable; it provides for the present as well as the future. Most importantly, it is in line with what this government said it would do, which is the reason it was elected: that is, be fiscally responsible and provide a service on behalf of all British Columbians at the lowest cost to those who benefit as well as those who pay.

MS. MARZARI: If one believes that a society can be measured by how well it treats its poor, its aged, its children and its vulnerable, then reading your budget is not a salutary experience. If one applied a Point Grey measuring-stick to your budget, one would discover it does not meet the needs of the traditional Social Credit stronghold called Point Grey.

[5:00]

Point Grey is not a typical British Columbia community. It probably has a higher per capita income and more managers, professionals and business people per square foot than any other constituency in the province. But your big business budget comes to Point Grey not with a mighty roar but with a tiny burp, and not with a bang but with a whimper. Your efforts to meet the needs of my constituency are out of touch. Where they should be substantive, they are insulting. Where they should be "a lot right now," they are "too little too late." Point Grey sent you that message just a few days ago. He now holds a seat in this chamber and is a most welcome partner in the representation of a constituency facing massive changes socially and economically.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: It might not be long.

MS. MARZARI: Are you suggesting that it might not be long that I hold the Point Grey seat? You have big plans, then, for the next election. I can hardly wait till August.

AN HON. MEMBER: June.

MS. MARZARI: Or June.

Housing prices and assessments have skyrocketed in Kerrisdale, a fact which became the major issue during the by-election. Tenants — many of them seniors — are being evicted from the low-rise apartment area of Kerrisdale. Those buildings are to be replaced by luxury condominiums. Beautiful older homes have been demolished and larger homes have replaced them, often at the expense of the urban landscape, which people have come to regard as heritage. The community is in turmoil.

The budget response to homeowners — offering relief from the property purchase tax for housing units of a value of less than $150,000 — is, frankly, irrelevant to a community where the average price per empty lot is close to $275,000. There's no demolition control authority for the city and no speculators' tax, which we are recommending. The budget response to tenants is to offer the chance that in the long run they will get one of the 1,000 units of new social housing in the construction allocation for 1989. There's no rental officer, as asked for by city hall; no rent control, as popularized by a Conservative government in Ontario.

To reduce the inflationary pressures on urban land, you offer a contest for municipalities to come up with land ready for housing, which you want to sell to the private market and cross your fingers that because the developer won't pay the property purchase tax he will offer cheap rents.

Point Grey has a large land bank. We call it the Jericho Hill School property. It's provincially owned. Will the Jericho lands be part of this cross-your-fingers policy? Will that magnificent acreage overlooking English Bay be put on the market to "balance" your budget next year? Are you going to build seniors' housing there? Will it be like Gretchen Steeves Manor, which we built in 1975, or something that we can be proud of like Gretchen Steeves Manor? I doubt it. I think you are in the business of putting these public lands into the private market.

[ Page 5819 ]

The overall inflationary trend in land values in the urban area is not going to decrease because of this minuscule effort. Other legislative changes that could be made and that have budgetary implications are not on the books. Your budget presents no forward motion for the people I have talked to and worked with for the last 20 years; just a lot of treading water.

Nowhere is the sheer cynicism of this budget more apparent than in the SAFER increase for seniors. Anyone who has advocated for a SAFER senior will know that this government actually reduces SAFER whenever there is an increase in old age security. How preposterous, to leave a senior $7 a month less income after an old age security increase of $12! Not only have you not balanced that senior's monthly budget by playing games with SAFER, you have left him poorer. Please index SAFER. Don't whimsically increase it just because it's an election year.

Those same seniors need rent relief right now. One constituent phoned my office in Vancouver this morning to say she had just received an 80 percent increase in rent. Is she supposed to be grateful that she's not being kicked out so that the building can be demolished? Is she supposed to be grateful that she's just to pay an 80 percent increase in rent?

The reduction to age 60 for property tax deferral is a sound idea, but you know as well as I do that not many seniors actually apply for it. They claim they want to pay their way, and that has to be respected. It's hard to convince seniors that the market has gone mad and that tax deferral, although it sounds illogical, is perhaps a logical way to counteract the effects. We'll see what the take-up is on that among the 60-to-65-year-olds. I dare say it might be a big take-up; you could be surprised on this one. Municipalities might be coming to you next year and asking for catch-up grants because of the number of people between the ages of 60 and 65 who have decided they will defer their incomes. I can look around the chamber and see that there might be some here right now.

Parents and teachers. Parents of young children are very much a part of the demographic base in Point Grey; in fact, there's a growing number of parents of young children. They see the budget as something which doesn't serve their interests. They can see through this campaign to put the "U" back into education. It doesn't fool them. They know, because those television ads were filmed at Lord Byng School, and the parents watched in amazement....

MR. BLENCOE: The TV ads? Who paid for that?

MS. MARZARI: The TV ads in which the minister himself stands at a chalkboard putting the "U" back into education — at our expense. Our money paid for those ads.

The parents in Point Grey know that additional money is money stripped from their schools over the past six years. They know that the tricky responses and the supposedly politically palatable ideas, such as funds for excellence, never really came back to the schools in any way that promised the solid infrastructure our school system needs. They want to know about the changes coming forward in this budget. They want to know what's happening at both ends of the educational spectrum.

I have spoken to all 13 schools in my constituency, plus some adjacent to my constituency. They are very concerned about the K-to-3 mushing. Although the professionals and the parents feel this is an excellent idea, they are very concerned about how it is going to be implemented and what the expectations will be. They're very concerned, too, about what they call the privatization of grades 10 through 12. They feel that almost encouraging children to leave school in grade 10 is not going to serve the student's needs, nor is it going to give B.C. much of a good name in the rest of the country. To deal with your statistics on dropouts by saying that school can be terminated at the end of grade 10 is not going to help those students later on. There is no catch-up. There is no bridge for them from grade 10 into the community college system or the university system without privatized schooling.

These parents want to know why Vancouver pays such a disproportionate amount of the bill for education in this province. They are frankly disgusted with the $50 increase in the homeowner grant — not enough for a bribe; too much for a gift. It's their money, and it's not being spent on their school system. They are very angry.

Parents of preschoolers. Point Grey has a great number of two-parent working families and a large number of single-parent families. Of the 20,000 day care spaces in British Columbia, one-tenth of them are probably on the west side of Vancouver, yet the waiting-lists are still miles long. UBC alone, even with its new facility and its many day care centres, will not be meeting the need expressed by the community. Your budget doesn't mention day care at all — not one reference to child care. The federal throne speech today abandoned the issue with a wave of the Governor-General's glove, just at I o'clock this afternoon. Day care is not going to be an issue for the federal government either.

I feel such a sense of lost potential here. In the last year British Columbia had such a wonderful chance to make a difference to thousands of parents and children. So little do you care for this day care issue that even in your estimates books, even in your detailed budget, you continue to mush day care and handicapped support services together. Still there is no clear indication of the actual expenditure you intend to put towards child care. The only conclusion I can draw from this - and the many hundreds of parents in Point Grey who seek child care — is to take day care away from Social Services and Housing altogether and put it in with Education, where perhaps it can be treated seriously.

Students. Point Grey has a community of over 20,000 students who spoke loudly in the by-election despite the section 80 cutoff. Canada student loans have now been capped at $20,000 for a four-year BA degree. Never before have grants been more imperative to get students through university without coming out with a massive debt load. Similarly, there has to be a rollback for UBC students, who this year are

[ Page 5820 ]

facing an 11 percent increase in their tuition. The budget, although it made a great to-do about providing more money for university education, is in fact, when we cook down the numbers, offering only 9 percent to the operating budgets of the universities. The province is ready to put massive capital investment into the universities, matching with corporate donations, but this province is not investing in the operating grants that universities need to survive, on which faculties make their career decisions and on which students will base their decisions about where to go to graduate school.

I think that if we look at the University of B.C., we see a situation similar to that in many other universities across this country. They have had to adopt the rhetoric of the business community, calling themselves "centres for excellence," "engines of recovery" or "entrepreneurial enterprises" so that they can attract private capital. In the process the university and what it has come to mean for our community, the original idea of a community of scholars, gets lost. In this exercise the liberal arts become lost in a morass of building science, engineering and professional facilities that can attract corporate dollars.

The university has a lot of concerns in Point Grey, and they have to be addressed. They cannot be addressed properly just with capital donations and with a 9 percent increase when we should be looking at an increase in the order of 30 percent over the next few years to provide some guarantee to the university that it can be budgeted for properly.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: A 30 percent increase?

MS. MARZARI: You might not be aware, Mr. Premier, but the university system in this province is financed much the way that the day care system is financed. In other words, universities have to wait almost halfway through the year to find out what their operating grant might be, and then their cash flow is very limited indeed.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: How much more for day care? Also 30 percent?

MS. MARZARI: Since you're asking, Mr. Premier, the real costs of day care, if you wanted to build new spaces, would probably come to about $10,000 a space. That is perhaps being more than conservative. It could well be less if one put day care into every school in the province or if one insisted that any new schools built would have a day care centre in them. At $10,000 a space, with the possibility, that did exist last year, of going to the federal government and demanding a solid share of the so-called spaces they were ready to divvy into, we could have been going to the federal government for capital dollars for these new spaces that could have ranged somewhere between 50 and 75 percent of the total cost. We didn't do that. In this chamber we never even addressed the need for day care spaces. The minister was adamant about not wanting women to work, for some reason. It was some nineteenth-century notion. We never actually got onto a decent discussion of new spaces. I think we've blown it on that one. We could have been capturing possibly 75-cent dollars on that one.

[5:15]

So Point Grey remains rather disillusioned, I would say, Mr. Speaker. It faces a number of issues: the housing crisis; the fixed-income seniors facing rental evictions. It has an educational need. These schools are in upper-middle-class neighbourhoods. They are still operating with textbooks that are ten years old. My child was lucky, his principal informed me, to get a new atlas after ten years. This was some kind of ultimate achievement.

Interjection.

MS. MARZARI: Why don't I buy that atlas? Well, there is another issue that parents in Point Grey have raised, and that is this whole business of privatizing education in the first place, this business of raising private schools to 50 percent.... There are private schools in Point Grey, St. George's being one of them. St. George's needs a 50 percent operating grant as much as I need a new hat.

This business of taking away from the public system is just outrageous. It undermines and devalues the work of the professionals and administrators whom we have had in our system for years. It takes away the public system's capacity to beef itself up and get itself into a mode that the community can be proud of and can accept. It puts everybody in a pinch. It gives the private schools a sense that they are going to get more down the line; it gives the public schools a sense that they are being undervalued and undercut. It is not a good policy on the part of this government to go that route. Parents are going to tell you that, when the election comes along later this year.

The independent schools should have been red circled at some point instead of having profligate spending going in their direction, so that expectations weren't raised. This province can't afford two separate school systems.

The airport expansion is another major issue for our community. The barging of jet fuel up the Fraser River, the possibility of that happening.... These are just a few of the areas in which serious public consultation is needed, for which we have to go back to the community. Nowhere in your budget do I see any provision for this.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

The role of our community in the overall regional district is something that we have to look at very carefully. What are the impacts on all our communities and municipalities in the regional district as we become a world city, as the demands on our land use, the demands for economic expansion, the development of new industry and so-called cost-saving by this jet-fuel barging...? As these things come into play, your budget has to start to reflect the need for public consultation.

[ Page 5821 ]

My final comment about this budget is that never before in the history of this Legislative Assembly has there been a greater need to actively take a number of the issues that are provincewide — and my constituency is just a microcosm of the province — to committees. We have a perfectly wonderful historic machinery called parliamentary democracy in this province, which I think is being abused in a system which is not going to committee with many of these issues. You could be saving yourselves a lot of trouble — this is free political advice — by using the committee system to tap the brains of your own backbenchers, to tap the talents of many people on the opposition side. By taking the housing crisis, the taxation issue — the property tax, the school tax, the homeowner grant — to committee, by doing surveys, by doing reviews, by taking the day care issue to a joint committee of the House, you would be doing yourselves a service. But as I said in my response to the throne speech, perhaps I shouldn't be helping you out; perhaps we should just be voting you out.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Needless to say, I'm delighted to take my place in the Legislative Assembly this afternoon, to offer my contribution to the motion that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the House to go into Committee of Supply, which, of course, is the standard motion when dealing with the budget debate.

There are a few things I'd like to talk about: firstly, the Prince George impression of the budget speech, as introduced by the Minister of Finance last Thursday; secondly, some extensive comments, as you can appreciate, from the point of view of the Minister of Environment; and thirdly, since it is contained in my estimates, some comments speaking as Minister of State for Cariboo, and some comments with respect to decentralization and the success that program has had in the Cariboo region.

At the outset, to comment on the Prince George perspective, needless to say, the response was pretty cheery from all of those who critically reviewed the budget speech of last Thursday. Of particular gratification to me was the acknowledgment by the real estate industry — at least, the Prince George real estate industry and the Prince George real estate association — of the remarkable number of good initiatives in there for housing: number one, the provincial homeowner's grant increase, and secondly, the initiative with respect to property purchase tax. That was very well received, and I think appropriately so.

Obviously, in Prince George and the interior — as a matter of fact, anywhere outside the Fraser Valley or anywhere in the northern part of Vancouver Island - we certainly aren't facing the housing stress that is being faced in the lower mainland area. Nevertheless, initiatives such as were introduced in the budget speech last Thursday with respect to housing are received most gratefully by the constituency that I represent. They were very good initiatives and were most welcome, to say the least.

Other news that is cheery and received a good review was the fact that we have a budget that provides continued and increased services in all portfolios: Social Services, Health, Education, Advanced Education, Environment, of course, and many others. We have a budget that increases its spending in all those areas, which is much needed by the citizens of our province. But not only that, in doing so it balances the budget and does it without any major — if any — tax increases.

It really is a remarkable job that the Minister of Finance has done, because there is probably no other jurisdiction in North America where government representatives can say they are approaching a balanced situation, are not increasing their deficit, are doing it without increased taxes on the taxpayer and are doing it while improving services. That is remarkable.

I took the opportunity today to have a look at what was said about the budget in the speech given by the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Clark) on Friday. At the outset we have to acknowledge that he's no Dave Stupich in terms of ability to comprehend the budget or talk about what his government would have done. There is a major deficit there, of course.

One thing about the former member for Nanaimo was that he did have an incredible sense of history, since he'd served for some time in this House and was familiar with the budgets of W.A.C. Bennett, of David Barrett, of Bill Bennett and, of course, of the current administration. He had a very good background from which to speak, and always did. That's sadly lacking in the critique that we heard on Friday.

In terms of environment, I'd like to respond to a couple of comments made by the second member for Vancouver East. The first one he made with respect to this ministry was that there was no commitment to the environment. I'd like to point out to the member that this government, the Social Credit government, has had a strong commitment to the environment for many years.

Members probably aren't aware that the first Environment and Land Use Committee of cabinet was introduced in 1971 by the government of W.A.C. Bennett. The members probably are not aware that the first Ministry of Environment was introduced in 1976 by a Social Credit government.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'll let the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mr. Bruce) fill in on that deficit period. Actually, during the Dave Barrett administration there was very little done with respect to environment, at least not in terms of legislation or anything else.

In 1978, there was a major reorganization of the Ministry of Environment, giving it exclusive jurisdiction over fish and wildlife and waste management. Again, that was a Social Credit initiative.

I guess one of the most telling comments, though, comes in a review of the legislative period of 1987, when standing in this House I introduced amendments to the Waste Management Act. The toughest

[ Page 5822 ]

Waste Management Act amendments in Canada were brought in, and I called for a division, and those tough regulations were opposed by the NDP. In calling for a division, I asked them to stand and support the toughest legislation in Canada with respect to waste management, and we found them voting against us. That tells the story, I can assure you.

MR. JONES: How much did you collect in fines?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Actually, more than you did. We've been pretty good. But we'll get to that.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Just about. On one conviction, $65,000. It actually pays for the ministerial part of the salary.

In terms of waste management and enforcement, there's no question that the most telling document was probably a publication by Prof. Murray Rankin of the University of Victoria. He did a major review of the enforcement record of the ministry, covering a period up to May 1987. As you know, that review was not too cheery. It did indicate that although we had good legislation, our ability to take violators to court — people who were well beyond their permits — and get convictions was not very good at all.

MR. JONES: What a revelation!

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Have you apologized to Western Pulp yet? I saw the letter. I think....

AN HON. MEMBER: I've been waiting for your apology.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: What on earth for?

[5:30]

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I think you'd better respond to that letter, Mr. Member.

In any event, Prof. Murray Rankin did point out that there was a bad prosecution record, and there's no denying that. As a matter of fact, he did a good service for the ministry in terms of presenting that information to us. That covered the period up to May 1987. When that was finally released, which was just last spring, I asked for a further review, which left me with evidence up to July 1988. That review indicated that waste management enforcement had increased considerably and our record was improving.

As the staff became better trained, we were able to achieve one of our first major convictions, which was in Prince George, my riding, and that was for a deliberate emission. We were able to achieve a conviction of $65,000 on three counts, and I compliment Ron Driedger of the Prince George waste management branch for his work and the work of his staff in achieving that conviction, and also Peter Ewert from the Attorney-General's office, who was the prosecutor on that case. They both did a very good job and I think we sent industry a magnificent signal.

From that information from Dr. Rankin, we were also able to provide to my colleagues on the treasury benches the necessity for tougher enforcement, more staff and more resources. I think that's evident if you look at the waste management line item in the budget. You will see that it has increased from $21 million to $37 million. That is clearly what is required, and what the public of British Columbia expects with respect to waste management enforcement in the province. It's a $16 million increase, and that is significant.

MR. G. JANSSEN: Who is paying for the health study in Alberni?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I don't know. You will have to ask the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck) about that.

MR. G. JANSSEN: The American government, because you turned them down.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I think that when the new member learns more about the processes of government, he will understand what we pay for and what we don't pay for.

In any event, I don't think one can argue with the fact that we have a magnificent increase in the waste management budget, as I said earlier, from $21 million to $37 million. It's thanks to Murray Rankin and the work he did for us that we were able to provide that information. For that I thank Dr. Rankin. I have thanked him publicly in the past, and I will thank him again. He has turned out to be a very good friend. As a matter of fact, he was my guest during the throne speech, and I was pleased to have him with us on the floor.

I have had the good opportunity to attend a conference that he chaired about a month ago at the University of Victoria. His is an excellent study in terms of the Ministry of Environment and has proved beneficial.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: As a matter of fact, I just might. One thing about Social Credit, Mr. Member, is that we listen to constructive criticism. We don't try to bury it. We are not like Dave Barrett, who had to fire John Bremer on television one night because he couldn't take some criticism. We'll accept criticism; we'll accept honest input into what we are doing, and we will continue to live by that. That's honest government.

I had the good fortune on Saturday to be the guest of the British Columbia Guide-Outfitters' Association. They have annual events, and this year it was in Fort St. John. Mr. Speaker, you probably attended a few of those yourself. They really are a fine group of people. It's a remarkable industry, the guide-outfitting industry in British Columbia. It's growing every year. It's including more than just guided hunting and angling, but in fact other wilderness tours and components, camera hunting and that type of thing.

[ Page 5823 ]

They really are an expanding industry, and one of which I'm very proud.

They, of course, were delighted to note in the enforcement and recreational safety item in my budget an increase of $5 million to well over $10 million. Most of this is for the conservation officer service. I'm delighted to see that. I guess if there's one major concern I've had from all members throughout the province since I've been in this portfolio — which is two years now — it has been the concern with the conservation officer service. In 1983, like many other government programs, it suffered from restraint cutbacks. Some of the staff was cut. To the credit of the government of that day, where most of the programs were being cut back 25 percent, the CO service was cut back only 10 percent. Nevertheless, it was a major deficit to that program and did cause some morale problems in the field.

Seeing this doubling of the enforcement and recreational safety budget is encouraging, to say the least, because the conservation officer service, as you would know, Mr. Speaker, is a group of dedicated civil servants who really spend a lot of time learning how to do what they do well. There's two years of training in a diploma program and another two solid years of working with a seasoned conservation officer before they have the capacity and talent to go it alone. They dedicate a good part of their life to the service of British Columbia, and they are remarkable people. They operate in sometimes very dangerous situations dealing with dangerous animals and, of course, quite often the very dangerous two-legged animal, who in most cases is armed and in many cases has been drinking. Really, they are in the front line of some very dangerous situations. I give them all the credit for the job they do under some very serious difficulties. It is far more difficult, I would suggest, than for a policeman, because they are dealing in a hostile environment, outdoors, with all types of elements, and they are dealing with people who are normally armed on all occasions and quite often have been drinking.

The conservation officer service is a remarkable group of people. To see their budget increase and to be able to take that increase and have it go through is indeed rewarding. I was pleased, when speaking to the guide-outfitters in Fort St. John, to have that acknowledged, because they too acknowledge the remarkable work that's done by the conservation officer service in British Columbia. It's truly a great group of people. I wanted to have that on the record, and acknowledge how pleased I am to see that increase in the CO service.

Actually, line by line, as you go through the estimates of the Ministry of Environment, you see that we've certainly increased. We're up $2 million in water management; another $1.2 million in wildlife management; $7 million in administration and support services, all of which is needed; and there's the item I referred to earlier, the $16 million increase in waste management. It all contributes to a very healthy increase, from $87 million to $117 million, in the ministry's operations. And, of course, there's more on top of that.

At this point I applaud the Minister of Finance for his foresight in recognizing how important this ministry is. [Applause.] Yes, give him a hand, folks.

We also have new funding of $28 million from the Lottery Fund, which is being used to address storage and disposal of toxic waste, implementation of centres of excellence in environmental research and engineering, construction of a new trout hatchery, and local waste management priorities. A portion of it will go to support the environmental youth services program.

In terms of the storage and disposal of toxic wastes, it is interesting to note that we had known for some time that there was storage of PCBs throughout the province. It was a commonly used oil additive in the 1970s. As a matter of fact, it was required by insurance underwriters that all people dealing with electrical equipment, where there was a potential of electrical fire' have oil that was treated with PCBs. In the late seventies it was found that PCBs were suspected to be carcinogenic, so the element itself was taken out of that type of use and no longer allowed in North America. Nevertheless, because it is an element that adds life to oil, it is still around in many forms, a lot of it in transformers. There are still a lot of PCBs up on the top of the poles, and there are many in industry.

Following the very tragic Quebec fire of last July, we were interested to find out how many people who were storing PCBs came to us and said: "We have a problem here in terms of storage, and we want you to address it." We do have some capacity in the province, of course, with the B.C. Hydro system, which has the staff, the training and the premises — secure premises — to look after the storage of PCB transformers and capacitors and the oil itself. But we also noticed that many people were coming to us who were just storing small amounts of PCBs, mostly light ballasts. Those would be commonly found in schools and hospitals. Of course, school boards, hospital boards and smaller industry were quite concerned about what they could do. With the help of B.C. Hydro, we have been able to accommodate to some degree the proper storage of PCBs. But with the $28 million special funding that I have this year, I'll be in the position of spending some more money on capital expenditures, which will enable better and more secure storage of PCBs until such time as we can site a special waste destruction facility and totally remove them from the waste stream and from our concern. So that, needless to say, is welcomed.

It was interesting that the finance critic also the other day referred to the JobTrac program and the fact that it had been short-lived. Actually, JobTrac was in place in '87. It was $2 million; it did extremely good work, and of course it was announced in the throne speech that we would be bringing a similar program back with the Ministry of Environment. We are entitling it an environmental youth services program. The work that was done by JobTrac in years past was just superb. At that time I was also the min-

[ Page 5824 ]

ister responsible for parks, and we had some very good wildlife enhancement programs in place. We had some good park work done in terms of trail construction, trail-building, and it occurred to us that this was a program that could be annually successful on an annual basis. We already had a very good blueprint for management of such an environmental youth services program from the JobTrac experience, and we are pleased to see that go ahead this year, because it will be of benefit not only to the environment and to the people of British Columbia, but of course to the young people who are employed in that program. The spinoff will be remarkable, both in terms of projects completed and the environmental education which occurs to those who are undertaking the various projects throughout the province. I am encouraged to see that, and I can assure you that that's a program that will be most successful and will be encouraged in the years to come in the province of British Columbia.

I'd like to close finally, and since the budget does include the ministry of state as a line item, I'd like to talk about the work that we have done in the last two years in the Cariboo. I have had the good fortune to be selected by the Premier in the fall of 1987 to be the Minister of State for Cariboo. That position has stayed with me, and we've had some remarkably good luck; it's been a grand region to work with.

At the outset, it occurred to me, in terms of a board of directors and a committee that I should put in place, that it would be appropriate to involve the other locally elected officials, so on my board, early in 1988, I selected the mayors of the seven communities in the Cariboo region and also the two chairmen of the regional district to sit on the Cariboo development region board. That has been a most successful form of management, because it draws very talented people together, who clearly represent the political and economic interests of the communities they come from. We've been most successful.

[5:45]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

One of the first projects we joined was the work of the Interior University Society. I was fortunate to have, within my ministry-of-state budget in 1988, funding to carry on with a study done by a world scholar on rural education, Dr. Urban Dahlbff from Sweden. He did some remarkable work for us, funded by the Minister of State for Cariboo, and presented an extremely good operational outline to the university society. That has been refined to some degree by the Minister of Advanced Education and Job Training (Hon. S. Hagen), and there's a further short-term task force that is going to look at the implementation of a Prince George or northern university, which will be coming together soon. That would be a good report, and I would suspect that we'll see a strong message from government within a couple of months with respect to a university in our area.

I commend my colleague from Comox for the excellent work he has done both in the Okanagan, which of course has already been announced, and the work that's going to be carried out in the interior.

While I'm speaking of the Interior University Society, I'd be remiss if I didn't commend again, for the record today, the work done by the first president of the Interior University Society, Murray Sadler. He really did a remarkable job in pulling the whole thing together and gathering support from Prince Rupert, all the way up to Fort Nelson and down into the southern Cariboo to the 100 Mile House area. He's to be commended for a remarkable job in bringing everyone together. He has a....

MR. WILLIAMS: What about the other member for Prince George? The other member for Prince George did a great job.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Come now. She didn't even talk to us — nothing to do with the ministry of state.

Just to point out the work done by Murray Sadler, Murray began selling memberships in the university society, as I said, from Prince Rupert to 100 Mile House to Fort Nelson, all the way up, and at last count has sold 15,000 memberships for $5 each. A lot of people can say, "I'll be happy to sign a petition and I'll be happy to support you," but when we have that sort of success — 15,000 memberships at $5 apiece, people not only signing their endorsement for the concept of a northern university but in fact putting their money where their signature is — it does indeed speak for the overall enthusiasm for the project itself.

In any event, that was the first initiative we took as a ministry of state for....

MR. JONES: What's in place for September?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Oh, you'll hear.

MR. JONES: Nothing is in place for September.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Just stay tuned. I realize that we've been characterized by the members opposite as a bunch of rural, unsophisticated rednecks — I think that's the term used to refer to those of us in Prince George — but I think we have the expertise, the people, the resources and the horsepower to be most successful.

MR. JONES: You have no plans.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I think you'd better come to Prince George, Mr. Member, and be that critical. It's easy to take the shots here. You've got to get out of the protection of this room and put your money and your actions where your mouth is.

MR. JONES: People from Prince George want something for September, and you've given them a study.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That's what the university society wanted. If you were really doing your job

[ Page 5825 ]

you would know that. That's been said publicly by the university society, by the president. They indicated that there were some failings in the Dahloff report, and they wanted a further implementation study done, so we answered that.

That's what Social Credit does: it talks to the people. It says: "Do you think there is a better way of doing this?" They gave us that answer, and so we did that. Had you talked to your colleague from Prince George North (Mrs. Boone) or taken the time just to read a Prince George newspaper, you would know that that study is in place at the request of the university society. Have you got that?

MR. JONES: More studies.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That was the request of the society. We like to listen. I guess we're on record as listening to people. If you consider that a flaw, that's your problem. I certainly don't.

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I am inciting some debate and some furor and a little bit of heat, so maybe it's time. I can see everyone is anxious to do other things. I understand there is another event this evening.

I do want to close by commenting on decentralization — the Cariboo development region — and the success we have had. We've been remarkably active in the field of health. In the transportation study, we have had a very good response for what we have done. I am pleased to say that I have been a part of it since its inception. It's a real good concept. It brings to government and to the cabinet table geographic representation as well as population representation. It parallels what I like about the American senate system, where you have pure geography represented as opposed to just numbers of population. You have regional representation at the cabinet table and at the government level. That's so important when you are trying to govern a province as big and diverse as British Columbia. The lower mainland has high-density population areas, and the Cariboo has some very scattered and low-population areas. Without that type of equal representation, without ministers of state, without the mechanisms in place, we wouldn't have that.

My red light is on. With that said, I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Strachan moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:52 p.m.