[ Page 5827 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Ministerial Statement

Accuracy of budget documents. Hon. Mr. Couvelier –– 5827

Mr. Rose

Budget Debate

Mr. Jones –– 5827

Mr. Long –– 5831

Mr. Miller –– 5832

Hon. Mr. Reid –– 5836

Mr. Sihota –– 5841

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. JONES: I understand that today is the anniversary of a historic occasion that might bear some important information on the sanity of politicians. Today is the ninety-sixth anniversary of the opening of the Ontario Legislature, which was built on the site of an insane asylum.

Ministerial Statement

ACCURACY OF BUDGET DOCUMENT'S

HON. MR. COUVELIER: During the tabling of the budget documents and the speech last Thursday, I was asked by the hon. House Leader of the opposition whether the documents were accurate. I unfortunately might have been guilty of misleading the House when I said that to the best of my knowledge they were. It was suggested to me when I admitted that I possibly was less than perfect to the opposition House Leader that I should do a mea culpa. I am uncertain how long a mea culpa would be appropriate under the circumstances. I am quite prepared to speak at some length on this subject.

I understand that it is normal that I would retable the interim financial statements of revenue and expenditure for the ten months ended January 31, 1989. It does appear that there were a few spelling errors. I think an apostrophe was in the wrong place and some accounts were mistitled. I can appreciate that these matters are of grave import, and therefore it is only appropriate that I stand before you naked and apologize for these oversights.

It comes as a shock to us to learn that we are somewhat less than perfect. Although I can concede that others might say they have known that for some time, it was a recent experience for me to.... In any event, I would like to inform the House and the hon. House Leader for the opposition that the errors of statement were innocent and without malice or motive. I do apologize to the House and ask forgiveness.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, I don't know how long a mea culpa should last in the case of this minister. I don't want him to grovel unduly for his error, and I won't be calling for his resignation. But I do feel, in accepting his apology, that there is an important principle here. Therefore, while we can accept it as rather a small matter today.... I've looked over and I've thanked the minister for the two copies of his document entitled "Interim Financial Statements." I don't see that there is much difference between one and the other, and I agree with the minister that it is a minor matter.

The principle is important that when a minister of the Crown tables a document in this House.... We knew that it wasn't the accurate document, and the minister didn't; it's an important principle.

So I am pleased that he has made the apology to the House. I think it's right and proper, and we accept it.

Orders of the Day

Budget Debate

(continued)

MR. JONES: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take my place in the debate on the budget, which is the government's latest attempt to improve its flagging popularity in the polls. There is much to talk about in this budget. There is much hypocrisy and puffery; there is much smoke and mirrors, and there is much that is not believable in the budget.

I want to focus on two small but very important areas of the budget. One is the area of the student financial assistance program. That program is clearly a measure of the government's commitment to assist students in the province who are in need.

The other small but important area that I would like to focus on is women's programs, which is again a statement of the government's commitment to work to improve the quality of life of one half of our population. I think the government's response in these two areas clearly indicates its lack of vision, foresight and planning.

We see in the overall provincial budget an increase of something like 13 percent, and in the Ministry of Advanced Education and Job Training, which encompasses the two areas I want to speak on, an overall increase of 14 percent. While we see an increase of 13 percent and 14 percent, in terms of student financial assistance we see a decrease in that budget of some $7.5 million. That part of the budget is down 13 percent.

At a time when the Minister of Advanced Education (Hon. S. Hagen) is telling us that he plans to create 3,000 new spaces in Advanced Education in the province next year, we see a decrease of 13 percent in the program that is going to provide financial assistance for many of those students. This is clearly not the first time that we have seen tremendous decreases in this part of the budget. In the megaproject years of previous Social Credit administrations, we saw this program virtually eliminated. We saw a budget go from $33 million down to $2.5 million, a decrease of 92 percent.

The result of that was poverty for many of the young people who wanted to take advantage of educational opportunities. We saw debt loads in excess of $20,000. We saw many students — students in my riding at Simon Fraser University — living in tents in the woods, living in cars, and eating from the food bank. In 1986 we saw B.C. contribute on the average $82 to the average full-time-equivalent student, whereas the Canadian average was some $517. We were tenth out of ten in that year, obviously, and that issue became an election issue.

On every campus the Premier visited during that year, he was confronted by students who raised their concerns about the lack of financial assistance and the

[ Page 5828 ]

low standing in terms of access and participation in British Columbia relative to other parts of Canada. After that election, when the Premier appointed the new Minister of Advanced Education, he assigned that minister two major responsibilities: one was to improve the student financial assistance program, and the other was to improve access and participation for post-secondary opportunities around this province.

The minister took on that responsibility. He set up a good committee that was well-represented. There were students on that committee; there were even students from the Canadian Federation of Students represented there. As a result of that committee's work, the government improved what had been. They implemented a partial grant program that very clearly limited the amount of debt that the young people of this province will face after graduation. That program was very well received in this province and in this House. My colleague, the now first member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Ms. Marzari), was, in her usual eloquent fashion, most laudatory in terms of that program and its improvement over what had existed. What had existed was, of course, certainly not difficult to improve upon. We recall the remarks of the first member for Vancouver South (Mr. R. Fraser) who, when he was minister, suggested in his famous Marie Antoinette statement that students should "put off their education if they can't afford it."

[10:15]

However, I think the Minister of Advanced Education and the Minister of Finance got a little carried away with this modest improvement, and they went around the province suggesting that we had the finest program in the country. We have heard those remarks for the last year and a half. Although we might forgive these ministers for a little over-trumpeting of this program, I really wonder in what context Social Credit might consider this the best in Canada. Perhaps that kind of thinking considers it best if it is the lowest assistance in terms of student fees, low student wages, high student unemployment — in terms of the tremendously high cost of living that students in this province face.

In terms of dollars expended per full-time-equivalent student, we did move from last place. In 1987-88, the first year of the program, which is the year for which we have national figures, we see that despite almost doubling the contribution, this province certainly didn't move to first place, as the minister indicated; not even to second place or third place. In fact, we moved up to eighth place out of 10 provinces in this country, still behind the have-not provinces of Newfoundland, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.

How much of an improvement was this relative to the other provinces? The contribution in that year to student financial assistance was not even half of the Canadian average. It was not even one-quarter of the average contribution that students received in Saskatchewan, Quebec and Alberta. If we look at how this situation affects B.C. students, particularly when we take into account the fees that are charged in this province and compare them to some other provinces in this country — for example, comparing the B.C. situation to Alberta's — we found the average student aid in Alberta in that year to be some $1,500, whereas fees were something like $1,000. So what we see in terms of financial assistance is that that province is contributing to the average full-time-equivalent student some one and a half times their fees. In Quebec the situation is even more dramatic: whereas the student financial assistance in that province is some $1, 500, student fees are roughly about $500, so what the students are receiving in financial aid is something like 300 percent of those fees.

What about British Columbia? What do students in this province face in terms of their financial assistance relative to their fees? In that year, we saw a contribution of financial assistance to something like $400, whereas fees were more like $1,500. So what we see in British Columbia is students receiving aid of not 150 percent of their fees, not 300 percent of their fees, but something like a quarter of their fees. The average full-time-equivalent student received financial assistance of something like 26 percent of those fees.

This is far from the finest program in Canada. It's eighth. I challenge the minister or any member of this government to justify, by any criterion, how they would see this program as being in any way the finest in Canada.

The government might respond by saying: "Well, that was the first year of the program, and since that time the funding for that program has been increased substantially. We more than doubled the budgetary item for that last year to $58 million." But what was in the budget last year is very much like what we see in the budget this year. They are figures that are estimates; they are not expenditures.

So I ask the minister and the government: how much of that $58 million was expended last year? Was it $58 million? Was it $48 million? Was it $38 million? I suggest that the budget was underspent by as much as $20 million, so that $58 million figure for last year is unbelievable, just like most of the figures in this year's budget. The government cannot be believed in terms of the figures that we see in the budget.

Last year, at a time when university enrolments were up more than 5 percent and colleges were up much more than that, we saw the estimation of the budgetary expense for student financial assistance underspent by more than a third, which is very much like what we saw in the previous year's budget.

One important component of student financial assistance is in the area of employment incentives. In 1987-88 the government budgeted $12 million for employment incentives. Did the government spend $12 million for employment incentives? No. It spent something like $4 million. Again, it missed by two thirds; it missed by $8 million in estimating the amount required for students in this province for employment incentives. I wonder what kind of minister and government can so drastically over budget and under expend this part of the budget — the student

[ Page 5829 ]

financial assistance part — when we know that so many students in this province are in serious economic difficulty, and when we know that other provinces in Canada are assisting their students to a much greater degree.

Again, I challenge the minister or any member of this government to suggest that we are first, second, third or even in the first half of provinces in this country — that we are anything more than third from last in terms of what we contribute to students in financial aid. At a time when the revenue of the province is up, when the provincial coffers are overflowing and when we have a surplus, we under spend the student financial aid part of the budget by millions of dollars.

The minister refused, and continues to refuse, to apply current remission criteria to students who graduated between 1984 and 1987, the period when the grant program was eliminated by a previous Social Credit government. This would be a one-time expense of some $3 million, when we have as much as $20 million left over in the previous year's budget in this account.

The minister refused — and continues to refuse — to increase equalization payments for students from low-income families, which would assist those families in the greatest need and would cost something like $1 million. The minister refused — and continues to refuse — to fully address the problem of student loans being considered income in determining day care subsidies. All three of those recommendations were made by the minister's own standing committee on student aid. That minister refuses to address those serious problems in terms of student aid in this province.

Clearly B.C. students still rank among the highest in terms of after-graduation debt load. B.C. students are still worse off in terms of financial aid relative to most other provinces in Canada. B.C. students, particularly from lower socio-economic groups, are still underrepresented in the post-secondary education population.

I spoke at a rally of students at UBC a few weeks ago who were protesting the dramatic increase in fees at that institution. At the back of the group there was a sign. That sign had a very important message for this government; it said very simply: "Prosperity should be a product of a post-secondary education system and not a requirement." That message summarized my concern in this area, and I think it has a very important message for British Columbia to treat these students....

Interjection.

MR. JONES: Spend what is in your budget, Mr. Premier. Spend that $58 million that you budgeted last year. Don't shortchange the students of this province by $20 million.

The budget figures that we had last year were not believable, and those that we have this year are not believable. You overestimate expenditure and you under spend in important, needed areas like student financial assistance. We've seen this time and again. We saw it in the Excellence in Education Fund. You budgeted $600 million for that program and spent less than half of that. We saw it in the JobTrac program. What happened to JobTrac? It's promises.

What happened to the beer prices, Mr. Premier? We were going to lower beer prices, I thought. What happened to television in the Legislature, Mr. Speaker? We were going to have that by the fall of '87. What happened to the elimination of dual-member ridings, Mr. Premier? You're not believable. Your budget is not believable; your government is not believable.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: You want to double it; you want TV; you want....

MR. JONES: Just live up to your promises. Just establish some credibility, and then maybe you will improve in popularity.

Let me give you an example of the kind of hypocrisy we see. I received two press releases recently from the Minister of Advanced Education and Job Training (Hon. S. Hagen). The first is a joint press release with the federal government. It's contributing $3 million to enhance the services of alcohol and drug programs —a very worthy program. The press release says very clearly right after the $3 million that it's over a two-year period. I guess that when we have a joint press release and the federal government is involved, we don't have misleading advertising. When we say $3 million, right after that we say over what period that money will be expended.

I have another press release from the Minister of Advanced Education and Job Training, but it is not a joint press release. This has to do with grants for equipment renewal for post-secondary institutions. It mentions $26.5 million, but it specifies no time period. It doesn't say it's for one year; it doesn't say it's for two years; it doesn't say it's for three years. So I guess we have to assume that it's within a one-year period. However, when I talk to people in the postsecondary institutions in this province, they say: "No, this is over a two-year period." It's not adequate to improve the outdated equipment that we have in this province.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Do you want to double that?

MR. JONES: What I want is some honesty. When it says $26.5 million, and the press reads that as a one year period — we want straight talk,

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Straight talk, not double-talk.

MR. JONES: Exactly. Perhaps you could take a message out of the page of the federal government, because when they say it's $3 million and it's over two years, they put two years in the press release. They don't hide the two years; they have some truth in advertising. In fact, if we were in the business

[ Page 5830 ]

community, this government would be continually sued for false advertising.

I don't see how, when you eliminate important information like how long that funding will be there, that assists the credibility of this government at all.

The minister and the government were not believable in their student financial assistance program being the finest in Canada; they were not believable in the $58 million budget figure last year; and they are not believable in terms of the press releases that we see from this government. It's been S and M — smoke and mirrors — from day one. This minister is smoke and mirrors, and this government is smoke and mirrors.

MRS. GRAN: What would you do?

[10:30]

MR. JONES: The other area that I know the first member for Langley will be interested in, which is more smoke and mirrors, is the part in the throne speech that talks about the creation of a minister of state responsible for women's issues.

In the budget, do we see a separate category for a minister of state responsible for women's issues? No. Somewhere in between the printing of the throne speech and the printing of the budget, we saw some parking-lot policy: "Aha, we're going to create something for women in this province. We've read the polls; we know women's issues are important. Let's talk about, anyway, creating a separate minister of state responsible for women's issues." Did that appear in the budget? No. Women's programs are found in vote 6 of the Ministry of Advanced Education and Job Training. As per usual, it's found there; it's not found in any separate ministry. Has there been any increase in that part of the budget? No. If you're going to have a minister of state responsible for women's issues, I assume you might have a deputy minister or at least an assistant deputy minister, so that would require a budgetary item. Was that funding there? No. So what we see in the throne speech is smoke and mirrors.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Do you want to double the budget?

MR. JONES: I just want the government to put its money where its mouth is. If it talks about creating a minister of state responsible for women's issues, then there is a budgetary item that follows from that. Otherwise, what we see is more parking-lot planning. There is no vision of this government; there is no planning in this government. There is no real commitment to improving equal opportunities for women in terms of careers or their income. All we see is smoke and mirrors. So, Mr. Premier, we will see another shell ministry, perhaps, like the Ministry of Environment. It will be a ministry in name only.

I think it would be a good thing if that part of the minister's responsibilities was removed from him, because that Minister of Advanced Education and Job Training has failed miserably in addressing the serious problems that women in this province face at this time in terms of equal opportunity for their advancement and careers and for pay equity in this province.

The minister has failed to address these issues, in particular, in his own bailiwick of advanced education. What does the minister do in his appointments to boards of the universities and colleges in this province? As I see it, the minister uses two criteria, in the main: (1) that prospective appointments be Social Credit supporters, and (2) that they be male. While we see in the institutions in this province that the majority of students are women, who sits on the boards? Who makes the decisions about education policy in this province? In the colleges and institutes, 70 percent of those decision-makers are male. At BCIT, 80 percent of those decision-makers are male. In the Justice Institute, 90 percent of those decision makers are male. It's even worse at the universities. At Simon Fraser, one of seven government appointees on that board is a woman. At UBC, only one of eight government appointees is a woman. At UVic, only two of eight appointees are women. On the board of trustees of the Discovery Foundation only two of 27 are women — and one of those is the first member for Vancouver-Little Mountain (Mrs. McCarthy), and I don't know whether she will be sitting on that board anymore. In his own ministry, the senior bureaucracy is male. In the administration of the institutions of post-secondary education in this province, we see the situation predominantly male. At Simon Fraser University, of the top 300 salary-earners only about a dozen are women, and those dozen women are at the bottom of that 300. There is not equal opportunity for women in this province.

Where is the leadership from this government and this minister who want to establish a minister of state responsible for women's programs? The federal government has shown some leadership in terms of the federal contractors' program, but there has been no leadership from this minister or this government.

What has the minister responsible for women's programs done about the fact that 80 percent of the faculty at our universities is male, while more than 50 percent of the students are female? What has the minister done about women students who comprise only about 20 percent of the engineering and applied science programs at our universities? What has the minister done about the fact that women students comprise only about 5 percent of mathematics and physical sciences at the universities? What has the minister done about the under-representation of women students in graduate programs in this country? And what has the minister done to deal with the inadequate number of day care spaces at our universities and colleges?

The answer is that this minister has done nothing to ensure that women participate fully in the increasing technological society that is evolving. We are far behind other provinces in this country. We have a system that's run by males and accepts women equally as students but denies them opportunity to become scholars, to join faculty, to join the professoriate and to make decisions. In the process, this

[ Page 5831 ]

government is denying the skills, the talents and the abilities of half of our population.

We've seen failure on the part of this minister to deliver on women's programs. We've seen failure on the part of the minister to spend appropriately in terms of student financial assistance. We see the failure of this ministry, the failure of this government and the failure of this budget.

MR. LONG: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to the budget. It's my opinion that it's the best budget ever to be tabled in this House. Some of the thanks must go to a number of people.

First, I would like to thank the Premier, the Minister of Finance and especially the budget committee who took the time when this House was not sitting to come in on their own time and give their valuable input, with the minister, into the budget.

The socialists say that this is not a good budget. It's their opinion that it's not a good budget because the government balanced the budget. Can you imagine saying: "This isn't a good budget; it's balanced. What can we do here?" Socialists are used to a deficit.

Mr. Speaker, not only have they balanced the budget; they've reduced the debt. The government has reduced the debt — another terrible infraction of the socialist ideas. And then, of course, we're being criticized for adding 12.8 percent to all of the new programs and old programs. What a shame! It's terrible!

The people of British Columbia don't think this is so bad; only the socialists here in this corner of the House think this is bad. I don't think there is one thing this government could do to satisfy the socialists of this province — not one thing! They're just negative, negative, negative. In fact, with the statements made by the Leader of the Opposition, we now have a new socialist capitalist party.

AN HON. MEMBER: Which leader?

MR. LONG: Well, it could be a number of three.

But it's good to see that you've learned, and I commend you on that. You've learned about investment; you've learned about capital, and now you've learned about balancing budgets and reducing deficits. I think that's what makes our province strong. It makes Canada strong.

I'd like to quote the words of a great statesman, Winston Churchill, when he made a statement: "If at 19 years you do not have socialist leanings, you have no heart. But if you still have socialist leanings at 28 to 35, you have no brains." A quote, my friends.

Mr. Speaker, I can only go by this government and what has happened in the past. In my riding, as in many other ridings in the socialist camp, they have seen nothing but good, positive things happen over the last two and a half years. Health care is up. In my riding I've got two new extended care hospitals. In my riding I have a new hospital for the people up there. I have highway things.

MR. JONES: What about the golf course?

MR. LONG: And we have a golf course. I'm glad he brought that up. We have a new golf course. Mr. Speaker, the reason that new golf course was helped by this government was that it displaced an old golf course that is going to be used for economic development. The cooperation of your ex-member who used to be in this House, who is mayor of Powell River at this time and cooperating with MacMillan Bloedel to put in an industrial park so the people up there can have more jobs, not fewer.... That may answer your question.

The member for Burnaby North (Mr. Jones) mentioned drugs and alcohol, and how the funding is not there. This government has done more for drug and alcohol abuse in this province than any government in history. The treatment centres.... All you have to do is walk out and ask them. Go to the referral services, the private sector, the people who have been helped, and you'll find that they're helping those people. By the way, that's part of that 12.8 percent you keep knocking.

MR. G. JANSSEN: When are you going to tell us about the mermaid?

MR. LONG: That's another thing. We did not put any money into the mermaid, sir. But I'll tell you, the mermaid is a good project. The mermaid project is going to bring a lot of people to our area. It was dreamed up and brought in by private people. If you want to get involved in the mermaid, you're more than welcome to come and dive and look at the new mermaid on the bottom. You're welcome to come to our area; we'd welcome you.

So many things have happened in my riding. The positive things that have happened throughout the province over the last two and a half years.... We could get into the new funding for education. We now have four new ferries on the drawing-board: two superferries that will service Vancouver Island, so there will be less wait for the people; and two intermediate ferries that will service the Sunshine Coast and other areas, so people can get to and fro.

MR. JONES: Is that water polluted?

MR. LONG: Some waters are being polluted from the lower mainland, and we have to get at the cleanup of the environment on the lower mainland. It's good to see that the provincial government will be taking part in that as well, helping the municipalities of the lower mainland to clean up that pollution. It's something your leader did not do when he was mayor, but it is happening today, and that's important. Then again, we can come behind you and clean up your mess, so don't worry about that.

MR. G. JANSSEN: Did you get a new ferry in Powell River?

MR. LONG: I hope to have a new ferry in Powell River to serve the people; we deserve it up there. We are one of the landlocked areas of the province. Anybody who is served by a ferry will understand that

[ Page 5832 ]

the ferries are a very integral part I'd like to draw to your attention, Mr. Speaker, that the ferries, other than about a $50 million subsidy for the whole fleet. It's a Crown corporation run almost entirely on its own fares and its own initiative. I commend them for their leadership in Crown corporations. In a budget of $13.5 billion, with an increase of 12.8 percent for new programs, I think this is a good example of how this government has taken the people's money, spent it wisely, looked after it and never squandered it.

MR. LOENEN: Tell us about the highway along the Sunshine Coast, Harold.

MR. LONG: The member asks about the highway. There is steady progress on the highway. We hope to have the Gibsons bypass in progress in the coming year.

[10:45]

One of the big items coming into our area — and some people on the lower mainland have a little opposition — is the natural gas pipeline that will serve all the people on the Sunshine Coast, and Texada Island, Squamish and on up through the Island.

MR. MERCIER: Who's opposed to it?

MR. LONG: It's totally opposed by the socialists, and I have no idea why. They were the ones who opposed the Cheekye-Dunsmuir line that now supplies electrical power to Vancouver Island. Now they're against the gas pipeline. I don't know what they've got against the working people and all these pulp mills up and down the coast that should have cheaper fuel. The members who come from those ridings and represent those mills — and, by the way, I think there are three or four of them on Vancouver Island — should be ashamed of themselves for denying and going against a project that can give fuel to some of these people at half the price they're paying now, and clean up the environment. I don't understand you.

MR. G. JANSSEN: Have the pulp mills signed up? Have you got a contract?

MR. LONG: I'm not writing up the contract with the pulp mill, Mr. Member, but that will be part of it.

MR. G. JANSSEN: How cheap are you giving it to them? How much subsidy is going Into that?

MR. LONG: Very little subsidy.

Mr. Speaker, I think one of the main things as well — I touched on it before — is the fact that health care in this province has never been better. It is growing; it is being funded properly. I for one congratulate the minister on what he's doing in our riding, all the way up and down the coast.

I think this is one of the best budgets that has ever come into this House. I don't think the socialists know what they're talking about when they knock it. They made statements recently that this was an election budget, and they try to knock an election budget. I can't understand where they're coming from. If this is an election budget, it must be the best budget possible. Mr. Speaker, I rest my case on that. If they can speak against what they call an election budget and we just call a normal budget, then the socialists have a very big problem on their hands.

MR. MILLER: Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat disappointed. The member for Mackenzie advised me as early as this morning that he had a real strong speech to give. I was sitting here waiting for it, and it failed to materialize. I don't want to criticize the member for Mackenzie unduly, but I want to refer him to an article in the Vancouver Sun of March 31.

MR. LOENEN: They're socialists.

MR. MILLER: The second member for Richmond (Mr. Loenen) refers to the Vancouver Sun as a socialist paper. Well, Mr. Member for Richmond, I don't know if the first member for Richmond (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) shares that opinion. Perhaps you could get together and discuss it.

Nonetheless, I want to draw to the attention of the member for Mackenzie — and indeed, all members of the House — the article by Jes Odam in the March 31 Sun.

The member from Mackenzie tells me he is a businessman, so he should understand numbers a little better than he has purported in his speech. Mr. Odam, in analyzing the budget, has this to say:

"And for business a bottom line which says there will be no deficit for the first time in a decade, with government spending exactly balancing its income. That is a load of BS.

"Thursday he kept referring to it as 'this balanced budget.' But if you strip aside the fancy financial footwork, a different picture emerges.

"Instead of a balanced budget for the coming year, there would be a deficit of $375 million."

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the member for Mackenzie was erring somewhat in talking about a balanced budget. However, I intend to deal with the question of the revenue side of the province's finances in a moment.

I wanted to take some time to deal with forestry issues as they relate to this budget, because I believe that the forest industry of British Columbia is the most important industry in British Columbia. If the health of the forest industry suffers, the health of this provincial economy suffers as well.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the budget speech contained only nine meagre lines about forestry this year. I had some difficulty figuring out the first line on page 18 of the budget document: "Forestry continues to be important for the environment and economy of the province...." I had some difficulty figuring out how the current practices that have been developed under this administration have been particularly good for the environment. I don't disagree that it is important for the economy.

[ Page 5833 ]

The budget goes on to talk about the plan to plant one billion seedlings over the next "several years" and the increase in expenditures as a result of that plan. It fails to mention, however, that it is contingent on the renewal of the forest resource development agreement. We are currently coming to the end of the initial FRDA agreement of some $300 million equally cost-shared between the province and the federal government.

As I have gone around as the Forests critic and reviewed my mail on this subject, it seems to me that it probably is the single most important federal cost-sharing program that British Columbia will be considering over the next decade. I don't want to overstate the case. I do believe, however, it is the single most important in terms of the economic well-being of British Columbia.

Certainly the registered professional foresters, in their memo of February of this year, recognized the importance of that. I have discussed this with individual members of the association, as well as many other British Columbians. I want to quote from their Forest Memo of February, 1989:

"The quest for FRDA II has united virtually every forest-oriented group in the province. The list of associations, worker groups, government agencies, university and private researchers, community groups and other interested parties working towards this goal is impressive."

"The ABCPF speaks for many when we say that the renewal of FRDA is critical, and may be the most important forest agreement ever entered into by the B.C. and Canadian governments. Timber supplies in some regions may need to be reduced in the near future due to the transition to second-growth forests."

That second sentence speaks volumes, and I'll deal with that issue further on in my remarks today.

There has been an amazing turnaround on the part of this government when it comes to the importance of renewing that FRDA agreement. In last year's throne speech the government used some fairly strong language in terms of B.C.'s position in Canada and the ignoring, if you like, of British Columbia's needs by successive federal governments. I want to quote briefly from last year's speech to contrast it with the remarks this year:

"...my government will continue to fight for a fair share of federal resources and aid.... Look at the record. British Columbia's financial contribution to Canada far outstrips what the federal government returns to our region. British Columbia has been an active and vocal supporter of the federal government's free trade initiative. British Columbia supported and played a key role in the finalization of the Meech Lake accord. British Columbia cooperated fully to assist Ottawa in resolving the softwood lumber dispute. Yet despite our continuing contributions and cooperation, our share of federal resources and spending remains disproportionately low.

"My government has been patient, but we have seen too many inequities and the allocation of too many grants, subsidies and federal resources to central and eastern Canada.... For too long British Columbia has been out of sight and out of mind...."

Another line from the document: "My government will negotiate with the federal government to restructure the economic and regional development agreement." That was rather strong language used last year to express the frustration of British Columbians in terms of federal programs. But now that we're approaching the close of this important forest renewal agreement, what do we have in response to the very strong suggestions that there will be no money for FRDA II? The federal government has embarked on a tightening of the purse-strings; the money that we need for forest renewal is not likely to be there.

There have been numerous articles speculating on whether or not the federal government will be forthcoming. We have the federal minister of forests, a B.C. member, a British Columbia MP who understands — and should understand — the importance of the renewal of this agreement, in an article in the Vancouver Sun on March 23 by Peter O'Neil of the Sun Ottawa bureau: "Oberle said he's contemplating a one-year extension on the six agreements, which expire March 31." He quotes a representative of the federal ministry of forests: "We (the forestry department) are not immune (from Wilson's) expenditure review process." Again quoting the federal minister of forests: "'I don't want to speculate on whether we should contribute more or less,' he said. But he said the new agreements will be different, and said provinces such as B.C. should be spending more on reforestation. Oberle said Victoria's treasury was injected with 'hundreds of millions of dollars' when the federal government transferred the softwood lumber export tax to the provinces."

There we have it: a very clear indication from the federal minister of forests that we're unlikely to see the kind of FRDA 11 agreement that we really need.

We have other evidence from the province of Alberta in a story by Ben Parfitt in the Sun, Wednesday, March 22: "Canada's fourth largest timber-harvesting province has had no formal indication from Ottawa that more federal funds will be allocated to renew forests, says Fred McDougall, Alberta Deputy Minister of Forestry, Lands and Wildlife." Again quoting from the article: "...the silence from the federal government is becoming a cause for concern. 'We have been advised there is a concern about obtaining the funding,' McDougall said Tuesday."

In the same article, Nelson Riis, a fine member from Kamloops, a B.C. member who speaks up for the needs of this province, said "he has heard from 'well-placed forestry officials' in Ottawa that among the options being considered is to channel FRDA funds through the offices of the western diversification fund" — hardly the kind of support or the kind of indications we're looking for from the federal government. Quite frankly, the silence from the government side of the House on this issue is rather deafening. I would have expected to have the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Parker) and other MLAs on the government side standing up and emphasizing the importance of renewing this document. Instead the silence is deafening.

[ Page 5834 ]

I want to quote just a few more articles to illustrate my point.

MR. MERCIER: The original, now.

MR. MILLER: I didn't come here to read newspapers all day, and I won't. I'll quote some statistics that perhaps you'll like, Mr. Member for Burnaby-Edmonds, about the deficiencies in this budget in terms of spending allocations.

Again from an article on March 21 in the Vancouver Sun:

"The current B.C.-Ottawa FRDA, which expires April 1, 1990, devotes $200 million over five years" — they've got that wrong; it should be $300 million — "to planting seedlings on not satisfactorily restocked lands. Another $86 million is slated for intensive forest management, including brushing, spacing and thinning of stands. The remaining money is devoted to implementing and evaluating various FRDA projects.

"To date, FRDA projects have created 4,500 man-years of employment in B.C."

It goes on to talk about the fact, which I mentioned earlier in my remarks, that the statements in this year's throne speech neglected to mention that the commitment from the provincial government is really based on the fact that we need a FRDA agreement. But they didn't talk about it.

[11:00]

Then we have the Minister of Forests for British Columbia. He's never here, says the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf). Here we have the Minister of Forests, who obviously has to stop sometime and talk to the press in this province. I'll quote from an article in the Prince Rupert Daily News, an excellent journal in my home community, which does attempt to deal with those very important issues in our province, the forest issues.

I could start off quoting the minister, who said in this article that the Nisga'a Tribal Council should be thankful for tree-farm licences, because they've got a road to their village. I can tell you that that failed to impress the Nisga'a Tribal Council, which has seen the devastation of its ancestral homelands in the Nass Valley created by a badly mismanaged tree-farm licence. That's not why I wanted to quote this article; I digress.

The article is a story concerning the minister's response to the TFL question, and it also contains some information on a meeting I had with the newly elected MP for Prince George-Bulkley Valley, who is now, I am pleased to say, the federal forests critic for the New Democratic Party. He is an excellent young man, very active. He will be an excellent MP for the Prince George region and an excellent forests critic on behalf of British Columbians. We met in my office on a Sunday morning and ran over areas of mutual concern. At the top of the list is the renewal of the FRDA agreement. Mr. Gardiner and I agreed that that was a top priority for British Columbia and for the B.C. caucus of the New Democratic Party — those MPs who represent British Columbia in Ottawa.

We had some concerns that the government's TFL policy might in fact have jeopardized the renewal of that agreement. We felt the government, in wanting to turn over some 70 percent of the annual volume to private companies, to heavily concentrated major corporations, might be sending a signal to the federal government that they could interpret by saying: "Why should we contribute tax dollars to a renewed FRDA if British Columbia is in the process of turning over their forest lands to private corporations? Why should we invest tax dollars if that's the program of the B.C. government?" So we issued that kind of cautionary note.

Interestingly enough, I think, the Minister of Forests may have learned something from the eight public information sessions that he held throughout the province. Before he started them, according to this article in the Daily News — I don't have the date, but I can get it for Hansard later — the minister blamed the media for not telling the public what he called "the true facts" about what his ministry is doing. That's a pretty intense sign of paranoia. Maybe the second member for Richmond (Mr. Loenen) would also classify the Daily News as a socialist paper. Any paper that happens to disagree with what this government does ends up in the category of socialists — slightly paranoiac.

However, I have digressed considerably; I did want to get to the comments of the Minister of Forests with respect to the renewal of this very important and vital reforestation agreement. He said:

"'While both his cabinet colleagues and federal forests minister Frank Oberle agree a second FRDA is needed, Ottawa is not so sure it wants to hand over its half of the $700 million. There seems to be some reluctance on the part of Ottawa to come up with a second FRDA. We send a great deal of taxes to Ottawa that are used in other parts of the country', said Parker. 'We'll have our work cut out for us."'

Here we have this lame statement from the Minister of Forests: "Well, we're not really sure if Ottawa wants to do it." I want to contrast that again with the language that was used in the throne speech last year, which really did reveal the shortcomings of the contributions that the federal government makes to British Columbia. More particularly, I want to emphasize the need for this agreement to be renewed. It's a top priority on this side of the House. I would hope it would be a top priority on the government side of the House.

We may have done rather well in terms of revenue in this province in the last few years, but I think we are reaching a plateau in the forest industry that is going to be very difficult to face. The budget is really silent when it comes to dealing with that question. In fact, the budget seems to take for granted that we have this forest industry out there that will consistently return to the province this huge amount of resource revenue, these resource rents, and that life will go on and we will continue to have a healthy forest industry.

We have reached or are reaching limits to growth in the forest industry, based on volume. I'll repeat the message in the professional foresters' document: "Timber supplies in some regions may need to be reduced in the near future." We are reaching — and, in

[ Page 5835 ]

fact, may have reached — the limits to growth based on volume. It seems to me there's been a decided lack of farsightedness in terms of the forest industry and what is needed.

Clearly one of the solutions in terms of the forest industry - and there are lots of issues and areas that have to be dealt with, but just in terms of the creation of wealth — is the adding of value onto the end. If we have reached the limit in terms of volume, then there is a saying to paraphrase that: we need a value rather than a volume strategy in terms of dealing with the forest industry. There is no signal at all in this budget that we are moving in the right direction in terms of adding that value.

For many years we have enjoyed considerable revenue based on reaping the harvest that basically didn't cost us anything. The trees are a natural contribution to our economy. We invested — and I'm talking about the old-growth forests of this province — no money in terms of growing those forests. Those forests were here. We've taken advantage of it. I would question whether or not we've done a wise job of taking advantage of that natural resource, that God-given resource. We've applied the theory of maximum sustainable yield, which is an economic theory that does not always account for those human variables that deal with steady employment, community stability and renewing that resource. Using just the economic theory, the maximum sustainable yield theory, really doesn't take into account those human factors which government is really responsible for.

I don't want to get too sidetracked on that. It's a quagmire, if you like, when we start talking about economic theory. Suffice it to say, I think we see enough signs today. TFL 46, the cutback in the annual allowable cut, is a clear indication that we have reached those limits to volume-based growth.

It is somewhat illusory for the government to be self-satisfied. I don't mind the Minister of Finance reaching around with his long arm and patting himself on the back and saying: "The state of the finances of this province are in good shape." We would do the same if we were in government. There's no question about it. It is somewhat illusory to feel comfortable in accepting that as a permanent state of affairs. I recall, as a long-time employee in the forest industry, reading a company bulletin in 1980, a forecast the company was providing for the years to come. The particular person, whose name I can't recall, was quoted as saying: "The future looks great. We have this much, we're going to plan to invest in expansion. The revenues are up, and everything looks really good in the forest industry for continued employment." In 1981 we really hit rock bottom. There were massive shutdowns in this province. There was massive unemployment widespread throughout the province. So economic forecasting in the forest industry is not always the clearest. It doesn't always tell you what's to come. For the government to send the message that everything is great because we're getting significant revenues is somewhat illusory.

In fact, forest revenue — if you look at the Public Accounts digest for 1987-88, page 10 — increased by 302 percent. I think there is something wrong when you get that kind of increase. You can take satisfaction in it, and certainly some of that revenue should have been coming to this province many years previously, but there are problems in terms of that increase.

I said earlier that what goes up sometimes comes down, and I guess the Premier's standing in the public opinion polls is a good example of something that was quite high and came down quite low. The economy of the forest sector in this province is capable of the same kind of swing.

The revenue policies are a problem. Clearly the revenue increases took place as a result of the intervention by the United States, the imposition of the countervail and the subsequent translation of the countervail into stumpage. There are severe problems with that. It's inflexible. It gives me and, I am sure, many British Columbians great concern to know that our revenue policies are now decided in the United States. We will eventually rue the day that happened.

I want to quote Mr. Ian Donald. I hold no particular brief for Mr. Donald or Fletcher Challenge Canada, but he is a leading industry executive in this province, and I think they should be heeded at times. Mr. Donald, in the Province on February 8 of this year, pointed out that the tax — meaning the MOU, the memorandum of understanding, the 15 percent export tax that was translated into stumpage — is now effectively not 15 percent but more than 25 percent, due to the rise in value of the Canadian dollar.

"In B.C. the export tax has been replaced by increased stumpage charges and other government-imposed forestry costs which have raised the industry's, and specifically the sawmill sector's, direct costs by some $600 million a year.... Since one non-market intervention begets another, we have subsequently seen government suasion to increase chip prices. The large integrated companies can reasonably hope to withstand the pressure, but if these high, nonmarket-related stumpages continue, then some small saw millers will close and jobs will be lost.

"For a government that espouses the values of small business and free enterprise, this should be an uncomfortable state of affairs...."

I think the warning has been issued.

[11:15]

I see I only have a few minutes left; it's very unfortunate. I am trying to give a speech with some numbers and some reasoning and perhaps have some of the government members listen. I want to talk very briefly about research and development. Clearly, with the kinds of volume shortfalls that we're going to be facing and the need to add value to the other end, if you like, we have to undertake a great shift.

I want to quote from a recent report by Deloitte Haskins and Sells. The title of the report is "A Value Strategy for B.C. Solid Wood Products." It's an extensive report. It has an addendum to it. I recommend that all members of the House take the time to read it to get some kind of insight into the state of our forest industry and what needs to be done. I want to deal specifically with the value, the capital, that we have in terms of our resource. I'm quoting from page 66,

[ Page 5836 ]

item 12: "British Columbia has one of the best-quality softwood fibre resources remaining in the world for development of specialty product" — and that is critical in terms of the further recommendations of the report. They are saying that we have an immense amount of capital wealth tied up in that old-growth forest, and instead of mining it, of chipping it, we should be looking seriously at value-added. To do that requires some investment in research and development. Surely the members opposite understand that.

Here's what the report says on page 115 about the kind of investment that the forest industry is making in value-added in British Columbia today. Under the heading "Industry Use of Technology": "Research and development by industry is underfunded. Only .024 percent of gross revenues of the forest industry is applied to research and development." It goes on to say: "An overall strategy is lacking to support industry development." The indicated priority needs were previously shown. It goes on to say: "The industry has insufficient knowledge of end-user product requirements or how its exports are used. This has limited the development of product and manufacturing process research and technology." The report speaks volumes about our failure to deal in a meaningful way with added value to the wood resources of this province.

I have much more to say, but I'll take another opportunity.

HON. MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, first of all, this is a tourism tie. I want all the members on the socialist side who want to know where to get a nice green tie.... It displays "green is money, " and if you people don't understand money, it means "budget means money."

I heard one of your members earlier this morning talking about something being unbelievable. Well, if there was something unbelievable that happened in this House in the last 30 days, it had to be the speech from the Leader of the Opposition, when he spoke in response to the throne speech for 20 minutes and it wasn't believable at all. Talk about unbelievable! Anyway, they're accustomed to "buy now, pay later"; that's their policy.

This government, with the recent balanced-budget proposal by our Minister of Finance, to whom I give incredible credence for excellent effort for the balanced-budget proposal — and also to the leadership of the Premier of this province and to the dedicated members of this government for the determination, in three short years, to go from a billion-dollar deficit to a balanced budget.... That didn't happen by chance; it happened because of leaders dedicated to the economy of the province dealing with concerns of our constituents. There are some things I'd like to convey which made the current financial position of the province the success it is.

One of them is the raised level of employment in British Columbia. In 1988 employment was raised by 52,000 new jobs over 1987. That's significant when you know that 32,000 new people came into British Columbia from across Canada. So we employed the total number of people who found British Columbia to be the best place to live in Canada. We found jobs for them, and we found jobs for an additional 20,000 people.

That's what you call a successful government: one that knows how to manage money and doesn't let hundreds of millions of dollars fall off the back of a truck, without even knowing where it's going. That's what happened to this government in 1972-75, and I hope the electorate out there never lets that happen to us again. Never again do we want to see hundreds of millions of dollars fall off the back of a truck. Then they'll have to be accountable for it. But that's the kind of policies the socialists have. It doesn't matter, because they'll find somebody else's money to do the job some other way.

This government does not do that. I can tell you that the things that happened in this province in 1988 to make it possible for these budget numbers were the kinds of things that happened in my ministry to do with tourism. I'm happy to say that the Minister of Finance and the Treasury Board have agreed to give us an additional 12 percent increase in our budget in 1989 to cover marketing of the world-class community called British Columbia. People have found out that where you have good government and good leadership, you have a good place to visit. As a result of that good leadership, you find out the economy is strong and there's a pride in the people of British Columbia to make things happen in the communities of British Columbia. The outlying districts had a totally successful year in 1988 in tourism, which allowed my staff to approach Treasury Board for additional funds in 1989 to continue that momentum in tourism and visits to British Columbia.

The Ministry of Tourism generated in excess of $3.2 million in the hospitality industry in 1988. The largest employer in British Columbia today is the tourism industry, and as a result of that growth, the Treasury Board has seen fit — and we compliment them for having the foresight to do that — to increase our marketing budget to do an even better job, to continue with further years of balanced budgets as a result of income from around the world to British Columbia.

The kinds of things that made that all happen are investment and expenditures in the hotel industry. Let me tell you about the hotel industry in 1988. Hotel industry expenditures in British Columbia increased by 16.4 percent.

HON. MR. VEITCH: How much?

HON. MR. REID: By 16.4 percent. That reflects an increase of $84 million.

MR. JONES: You raised the price of beer.

HON. MR. REID: No, this is hotel rooms; make a note of that. They don't buy beer in the rooms. They buy beer downstairs, if they're so inclined. I don't go into those beer places, so I don't know. Maybe you know better than I.

[ Page 5837 ]

The rental income came to almost $600 million in 1988 — $2 million short of $600 million. The results of early statistics for 1989.... With the kind of things this good government is doing, the kind of attention we're getting around the world, the kind of world-class response we're getting, 1989 will be even better than 1988. You can quote me, Mr. Member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Miller).

MR. MILLER: You're getting lots of attention, especially with that tie.

HON. MR. REID: This is a green tie — it's the colour of money.

The other things that helped make this all possible....

Interjection.

HON. MR. REID: Partners in Tourism is as strong as ever. We can say it's the most successful government-initiated, government-supported....

Interjection.

HON. MR. REID: Pay attention. You're brand-new here.

Partners in Tourism is the best program ever to be introduced anywhere in the world, and it works very effectively. In 1989 it will be as strong as it was in the previous year. What it did was to generate more interest in the private sector in promoting their own products directly through their own regions.

Interjection.

HON. MR. REID: No, it's very strong. As much as the province needs to be involved, we will be involved. We have found that there is a very interesting phenomenon in the tourism industry and in the regions out there. When they found out that we were prepared to match them dollar for dollar in their marketing money, they became very innovative. We got a very high-quality product as a result of the matching money. As a result of that, we continued that program in '88, and '89 will be even stronger.

The other thing that's happened to the economy of the province is the result of housing starts. In 1988 housing starts were up 415 over 1987. The number is significant: there were 26,876 housing starts in 1988, and indications already are that 1989 will be even stronger. The reason is the province's new housing policy. The thing that's important about the budget and housing policy is the fact that the homeowner's grant has been increased by $50 to $430 per homeowner for 1989. More significant is that the seniors and the disabled, and others entitled to supplementary grants, will receive an increase of $70 to $700 for 1989. That's leadership; that's good government; that's called balancing the budget and doing the right thing with your dollar.

The other thing that we're doing with a balanced budget, including the new initiatives, is that nonprofit societies will be building more rental housing for eligible seniors. The start-up grants are going to be up to $20,000 per facility.

The 1 percent property purchase tax is being reduced. We were asked by the members on the other side of the House all last year when we were going to do something about the 1 percent property tax. Were we going to be innovative? Well, we paid attention again, and it's believable, because we did it. You asked us to, and we believed that it should be considered, and we did. That's what you call leadership.

MR. JONES: How's it working? How's the polling going?

HON. MR. REID: It's going to work great. Pay attention.

The second mortgage program for the first-time home-buyer is also being improved. Do you remember, Mr. Member for Burnaby North, that you asked about the second mortgage program, and whether we would do something for first-time home-buyers? We paid attention, and the Finance minister, after consultation with people in the community out there, came in with a new second mortgage program for first-time homeowners. Such great, great news.

Let's get into some other good items here. I've got to talk about all of them.

Ferries. I see my colleague the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Vant) is in the audience, and it's a credit that he is here, because I'd like to compliment him for an absolutely incredible year with the ferry system in the province of British Columbia. Over 18 million passengers and over 7 million vehicles rode the system last year, an increase of 9 percent over the previous year. The important thing about that is that it's a tourism component, and I want to tell you how excited the tourism industry is. As a result of those numbers, the Ministry of Highways and this government have agreed to go into a highly accelerated program into new and better ships to serve that tourist component that wants to get from Vancouver Island over to the mainland and back.

Interjection.

HON. MR. REID: We filled them all up, and we've bought some in the meantime. We are going to build some new ones in B.C. this year. We are going to create more employment in your community, Mr. Member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota).

Interjection.

HON. MR. REID: No, we are not getting into the ice-breaker business. We are in the ferry passenger ridership....

Interjections.

HON. MR. REID: Can I have the floor, Mr. Speaker? I am having difficulty getting through my speech with the harassment.

[ Page 5838 ]

Interjections.

HON. MR. REID: I have some really good things; I can hardly find them here.

The increase in the ridership on the ferries and the announcement for new ships to service the constituencies on both sides of the water — the mainland and Vancouver Island — are a sign of this government's recognition of the strength in the economy built around the tourism industry and upon the economics of both the mainland and Vancouver Island.

[11:30]

The other thing where we had a significant increase in 1988 over 1987 was international visitors using Vancouver International Airport, which increased by 17 percent — another significant indication of the rest of the world finding out about the best place in the world to visit, the neatest place in the world to visit and the most friendly place in the world to visit, plus the best financed and best managed place in the world to visit. It's all right here in British Columbia. The people around the world are finding out about this great province and why it's important to have a balanced budget when dealing with the economy of today and tomorrow. A bottom line that says "pay today" is the main thing in this government.

MR. MILLER: Unlike the used car business.

HON. MR. REID: Do you know anything about the used car business? Do you know anything about anything?

MR. MILLER: I've bought a few lemons in my time, but not off you.

HON. MR. REID: You look like the kind of guy who would buy a lemon. You would probably buy an orange or an apple. Where is the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Savage) ? Would you buy them without washing them? Would you buy them from Chile? Be careful of those Chilean lemons.

Interjection.

HON. MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I'm being interrupted. I'm having trouble keeping my concentration here.

The other significant thing that helped us with the economy of the province of British Columbia and the balanced budget in 1988-89 was the revenue generated in 1988 in some of the other tourism components. There was a significant increase in visits from overseas, a 20 percent increment, and most of them visited the lower mainland and went right up into Maple Ridge and the Fraser Valley. What an incredible place for these people to visit and find out about! Some of them even got as far as North Burnaby. And some of them wanted to go Vancouver Island, but they weren't sure that they should go into the Port Alberni area and those places; they went right by into Tofino and Long Beach, because it seemed some turmoil had been developing in and around Port Alberni for half a year, because they had no representation and didn't have a positive attitude in their community. There were some prayers being made that the positive attitude would emanate from that community and generate some tourist visitation. But we're going to work on seeing if we can help a brand-new member get some insight as to the possibilities of tourism in an area such as Port Alberni and Tofino.

Interjections.

HON. MR. REID: The new member for Alberni (Mr. G. Janssen) says he's never seen me once in Port Alberni, and he had something to do with the chamber up there. I have a record of every invitation I've ever received. I don't have an invitation from you as a member of the chamber; but I may get one now, as you're an MLA. I'd be happy to come and visit you anytime, to talk about progress and the economy and a balanced budget in Port Alberni.

Mr. Speaker, the economy of the province and the balanced budget is a strong component. But one thing that concerns me from day to day is when sometimes you come across an issue which does not seem to make sense in today's economy: the employment factor, people looking for jobs. I'd like to comment from an article in this morning's Times-Colonist. It has to do with employment in the Victoria area. I wish the first member for Victoria (Mr. G. Hanson) were here, because he's always pleading with us as a government to do something about employment in the Victoria area.

This morning I noticed in the paper that there is a shortage of daffodil pickers. It's threatening this year's Cancer Society fund-raising drive. This is a very serious point, because if you are talking about employment, these are indications that there is something wrong with our system. Ian Vantreight, general manager of G.A. Vantreight and Sons, needs 150 more pickers to fill orders for 500 million blooms destined for the Cancer Society's prairie and eastern sales outlets. They have to arrive there in time; they have thousands and thousands of volunteers lined up to sell them. But so far only 150 people have turned up at the Saanich and Central Saanich fields to pick the 120 hectares of flowers, and he needs 150 pickers urgently. He pays $5 an hour, plus a 10 percent bonus to anyone who stays and picks through the season, which could last for up to two weeks.

If we have a problem with unemployment in Victoria, if it is higher than Vancouver — and it happens to be at the moment — and there are some people who need work in this area helping a farmer get products out to the Cancer Society.... I would encourage the two members from Victoria proper, who are always encouraging us to get on with employment....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: And from Saanich.

HON. MR. REID: They are out there now, in fact. The two members from the Saanich Peninsula are out there now trying to get some workers.

[ Page 5839 ]

I would hope the two members from Victoria would give it serious thought, because there is a major problem. You've got all that unemployment here. I am sure there is something the members could do to encourage them; to get out and help solve an agricultural problem, an economic problem, a nonprofit-society problem, and get the blooms of gorgeous Vancouver Island spread across Canada. What better way to sell the product of tourism, the product of British Columbia, and your own community, Mr. Member? Would you kindly look into that for me, please?

I understand that the Leader of the Opposition is probably out there picking today. I see that he is missing, so he might have taken up the challenge. I hope that's where he is, because they sure need his help. He can't do anything else, but he can sure pick flowers.

The other thing that is happening related to the budget, Mr. Speaker.... There are three major components of this year's budget which are very significant. The most important one is the increase this year in health care: $381 million. What is significant about that is.... I know you people can't count, so I'll tell you what it means. It's more than a million dollars a day more into the health care system; it's very significant. You have been pleading for us to consider more financing for health. We have been paying attention, so in 1989 we are putting $381 million more into the health care system.

Another one that you should know, which is very important.... And there are some ex-teachers here in the House that I know of, who will probably have to do something else when they get knocked out in the next election. They will have to find something else to do. There will probably be some room for them in the education system because we are putting in an additional....

There he is. Come on, Mr. Member. Were you out picking daffodils, Mr. Member? Were you out helping your community by picking daffodils? Because they sure need you out in the Saanich Peninsula. They could sure use you there; we don't need you here.

The education system. There has been a challenge by the members on the other side and others in the province saying that this government hasn't cared about the education system. We've continued to put more and more money into the education system. We even accommodate some former teachers and allow them to sit in this House and harass us with their long words and their harassment about the system.

Interjection.

HON. MR. REID: And some of them are on our side of the House who will not give us credit for good government, leadership, a balanced budget and, at the same time, putting into the system an additional $291,300,000 this year.

Interjection.

HON. MR- REID: Yes, that's a budget number. Write it down, Mr. Member. This is the education number. In case you haven't made note of it, it's $3,192,500,000 — up from $2,901,200,000, which means an increase of $291,300,000. It will be in the Hansard Blues. Mr. Member, I'm talking. You asked a question, so I am trying to respond. I'm trying to be proactive here.

Social services — another demand by that side of the House. Those socialists who demand we do these things for the social programs of the province.... We answered your pleas. Go out and tell the good news now. Tell the people who have been pleading to get us to do this. Tell them we're doing it. Social services are up by $145,300,000 this year — another positive reaction to demands about balancing the budget and doing neat things while doing it. This government can do neat things and balance the budget.

Interjection.

HON. MR. REID: The other thing, Mr. Member from Victoria, that I'd like to relate is that this time last year I took so much harassment from that member — he finally found his seat — when I was the minister responsible for the museums in the province. He charged me with being unconscionable and all those other words he used about the museums.

If he has a pencil and paper, I'd like to convey to him that the museum generated more visits in 1988 than it did in any year in its history. Secondly, it generated $1,700,000 into the coffers to pay for the million dollars they are going to put in from the budget this year to improve some of the capital costs around the museum. We've answered that plea, Mr. Member. We got St. Ann's into a tourist attraction; we got the museum paying its way — all the kinds of things that you've been asking for. Now they're on your doorstep and in your lap. I hope you'll take notice and maybe cross the House and become not a socialist anymore but a positive believer.

MR. BLENCOE: The numbers are down.

HON. MR. REID: The numbers are down?

Let me talk about one final thing before I run out of words. We want to talk about the disabled — don't leave; I'm just getting wound up.

MR. GABELMANN: I'll have lunch with you.

HON. MR. REID: Okay.

The disabled and senior communities are ones which we all try as often as we can to deal with the concerns they have and see if we can add more money into our budgets to solve some of the concerns and issues.

MR. BLENCOE: Dangling modifier.

HON. MR. REID: I don't know about a dangling modifier, but I know what I'm talking about.

In the 1989 budget, we're putting in an additional $97 million for issues such as seniors. I know there are a couple of members in the House at the moment who should take note of this. The former teacher

[ Page 5840 ]

should take note of this, and some of the senior members who are very close to that, age bracket — these are very good numbers, Mr. Member. You should maybe make note of these.

We are increasing continuing care wages and benefits to the tune of $15.9 million. We're continuing care funding enhancements — we're putting in $28.4 million. Extended care nursing hours — we're putting in $5.7 million. In the other continuing care hospital items, we're putting in $14.7 million.

Custom transit, the one that's been always touted in here: "This government doesn't care; it's ruthless...." Not only a balanced budget, but we're putting into custom transit for the disabled, seniors and handicapped another $1.5 million for additional handicapped facility buses.

Shelter Aid for Elderly Renters — we're putting in $8 million. Seniors' supplement, GAIN - we're putting in an additional $3.8 million. Are we paying attention? When you have a balanced budget and you do all those neat things, and when you have such a dedicated leader who listens to concerns from everywhere around the province.... The Minister of Regional Development (Hon. Mr. Veitch) took this government and its representatives out, and we've listened in every community around the province. We've talked to them directly. We spent full days in all the communities. We listened to their economic concerns, their employment concerns and their concerns about seniors, the disabled and the handicapped. We listened to the concerns of the business community, and we listened to the concerns of some of the socialists who had the time to come to some of these meetings, who wanted to hear about positive things, who wanted to be converted. There were a few of them. You're losing members by the day. The day is coming when you're going to have to look around. The last of them are in the House at the moment. There are very few left, so the day of reckoning is coming.

The disabled and handyDART system. We expanded the handyDART system in British Columbia to the tune of $1.3 million. Talk about a government that responds, a government that's a good government, a government that's concerned. We're not raising taxes this year.

MR. G. JANSSEN: You raised taxes.

HON. MR. REID: It's user-pay in our government. If you want to use the ferry system, you should pay to use it.

MR. ROSE: What about schools?

HON. MR. REID: What happens is that the average taxpayer is paying. This year we're going to hear from the taxpayers about user-pay in school districts. I think what will happen is that we'll have a taxpayers' revolt around the corner about the costs and the increments in the school system. I told you the numbers earlier. I'll go back to them. We're going up some $200 million this year in the education system. I should find my numbers because it's an incredible number. But it shows you we're listening.

[11:45]

A $291,300,000 increase on a balanced budget, but we've been asked to pay. Not only that, but we are also supplementing the homeowner's grant so the homeowners can pick up some of that additional increment they're going to have to pay as a result of the education system.

Interjection.

HON. MR. REID: Yes, in some communities, Mr. Member. Read your notes and you'll find that in most communities of the province that's more than the increase they're going to have in the education costs in their district, so they'll have some left over from that to pay some of the other taxes that are being generated in the community.

MR. G. JANSSEN: When's the last time you raised it?

HON. MR. REID: When the need arises, this government responds. When the need arises, we're there. When the need arises, we come to the front and we balance the budget. We provide increments of.... Do you know what $291 million is? Do you know that we also increased teachers' pensions by over $20 million? Do you know that the teachers' pension complement from this budget is four times my whole budget. The teachers' pension is $134 million. I think a few retired teachers in this government, sitting in this House, should have a conscience about that. They don't pay a penny towards that; the taxpayers put it all up, and we put it all in a big pot for them — $134 million. It goes up in increments of $20 million a year. That's an interesting number.

Mr. Speaker, in wrapping up I want to just say that it was certainly my pleasure to be able to convey to the other members, on the other side of the House, and to my colleagues, who supported me in making my comments in relation to probably the finest budget in the world today, the best budget in North America in balanced form....

Interjection.

HON. MR. REID: I don't say the largest; I say the best budget in the universe. I quote the member for Alberni (Mr. G. Janssen): he said it's the best budget in the universe. You're right, sir. I'll use that quote coming from the member for Alberni.

Mr. Speaker, it's been my delight to speak to the members today about how enthusiastic I am about the balanced budget, the economy being strong, the increase in tourism, the kinds of things that are happening, and the pride to the community out there.

I haven't even touched on the question of the environment, which this government has taken front and centre — something about which we have a high concern. I appreciate our Premier taking time out of his busy schedule to go up to Alaska to make certain that he saw firsthand a problem developing that we

[ Page 5841 ]

want to make certain somebody else looks after: those who created it, not British Columbia.

Interjection.

HON. MR. REID: We got into the west coast when we found out what responsibility we had. We were there. We'll be there every time. We'll be there front and centre. We're there with the money; we're there with the issues; we're there with the concerns; we're there with the resolve; we're there with action; we're there with good government; we're there with leadership.

Balanced budget — mark it down.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, it's certainly a pleasure to follow the Minister of Tourism — and culture, and who still spells culture with a "k." There was a lot of content in that speech. It was interesting listening to the Minister of Tourism — and culture, as we call him. He was talking about daffodil....

Sorry, does the minister have something to say?

HON. MR. REID: The member has been here for a long time now. Since July 16 1 have not been the Minister of Culture, Mr. Speaker. Would he please check his notes. I'm the Minister of Tourism and Provincial Secretary.

MR. SIHOTA: I didn't know, Mr. Speaker, that the minister had been fired as the Minister of Culture because he couldn't spell it, and I'm glad that this government, which has now put the "U" into education, has learned to put the "C" back into culture.

I was commenting on that speech and the job creation initiatives that the minister was talking about, about daffodil pickers. I take it that that is the Socred approach to job creation. But there is something better than that: they should use the content of that speech, because I am sure that it will grow flowers, Mr. Minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: A tribute, eh?

MR. SIHOTA: A tribute to the member from Prince Rupert, who gave me that line.

AN HON. MEMBER: He would have done a better job.

MR. SIHOTA: He would have done a better job, that's right.

Mr. Speaker, I was going to make a serious speech here, but following the Minister of Tourism.... It's fascinating to hear him say that the Social Credit government will always balance budgets and will never allow deficits to happen. The minister obviously ignores the fact that over the past 10 years this very government has allowed one deficit after another to occur. It has allowed this province to build up the type of debt we've seen symbolized in projects such as the Coquihalla, which I'm sure the minister would prefer to forget. It went $500 million over budget.

I guess the minister wants to leave, now that he is starting to hear all the real news. He has exited quick.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you against the Coquihalla?

MR. SIHOTA: We are against the waste of money, Mr. Member. We are against the waste of $500 million over budget. I'll tell you, we wouldn't do that. And you did. We would never disguise the fact in the fashion you did, to hide it from the public. We told you in 1985, Mr. Member, that you were going to be over budget, and indeed you were over budget. You didn't listen then, and now you try to hide from public knowledge that it was indeed $500 million over budget. We are not against the Coquihalla as a highway. We are just against those kinds of spending policies that would allow budget overruns of $500 million.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

When we are talking about overruns, I see that the member for Kamloops is here, the Minister for Social Services and Housing (Hon. Mr. Richmond), who the other day had to acknowledge a $46 million overrun in his budget. That's Socred forecasting for you, $46 million over budget. In fact, the Minister of Finance came before this House and asked for $159 million in urgent spending so that the government could get on with its programs, and yet couldn't explain items such as $800,000 worth of expenditures on legal bills that the government has run up taking natives of this province to court, when it could have spent that money negotiating and settling those land claims. This government has a lot to account for.

Let me say that it is indeed going to be a pleasure for us, now that the minister has left with his pompons, to talk in serious terms about what is contained in this budget,

HON. MR. VEITCH: He had daffodils, not pompons.

MR. SIHOTA: I won't make any further comments about daffodils.

Just to look at some of my notes on what the previous member had to say.... It is close to lunch, and I'll save some of my other comments till later on.

The Premier's trip to Alaska: that is crass opportunism on the part of the Premier. I want to tell you something: if the Premier wants to go somewhere, I would like to extend an invitation, through you, Mr. Speaker, to the Premier to come to my riding, where we just had a release of oil into Millstream Creek. The Premier didn't see fit to go there. That was a major problem in my riding,

This government, which talks in excessive terms about its commitment to the environment and about regulation in terms of the environment and enforcement with respect to violations of environmental regulations, has not yet laid charges with respect to that spill that occurred in January. Not one charge, despite your own environmental officials acknowledging that

[ Page 5842 ]

it was in violation of regulations. Shame on this government, which would like to talk in public relations terms about its commitment to the environment but which takes no action when habitat is threatened and the lives of people in my riding are interrupted by an oil spill. If the Premier wants to go anywhere, he should go up to China Beach, Botanical Beach and Port Renfrew, in my riding, and take a look at the damage that persists today in our parks from that last oil spill.

This is a government that talks about moxie. I'll tell you what true moxie is; true moxie is saying to the state of Washington that they have to pay those fishermen in Alberni who have lost their income, that they have to compensate those tourist operators in Alberni and in my riding for the losses sustained from that oil spill. That's what true moxie is. Where is this government in terms of standing up for the economic interests of those people's lives, their finances and their good standing in the community, which are affected by that oil spill?

I want to make further comments with respect to the budget, but I notice it's close to the noon hour. Perhaps it would be best to continue after question period. I now move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Richmond moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:56 a.m.