[ Page 5843 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Saanichton marina Indian land claim case. Mr. G. Hanson –– 5845

Relocation of Saltspring ferry terminal. Mr. Lovick –– 5845

Effectiveness of Oscars in oil spills. Mr. Long –– 5846

Gas pipeline to Vancouver Island. Mr. Rose –– 5846

Capping of assessments in Vancouver. Mr. Blencoe –– 5847

Sale of Expo lands. Hon. Mr. Michael –– 5847

Ministerial Statement

Mammography expansion program. Hon. Mr. Dueck –– 5848

Mr. Perry

Budget Debate

Mr. Sihota –– 5848

Hon. Mr. Savage –– 5851

Mr. Cashore –– 5854

Mr. Chalmers –– 5858

Mr. Williams –– 5860

Hon. Mr. Michael –– 5863

Ms. A. Hagen –– 5866

Mr. Mowat –– 5869

Mr. Gabelmann –– 5871

The House met at 2:08 p.m.

MR. PELTON: Mr. Speaker, hon. members, we are indeed honoured today in having with us in the members' gallery Dr. Wilbert K. Chagula. Dr. Chagula is the Ambassador of Tanzania and permanent representative to the United Nations. Accompanying the doctor today is Mrs. Zeri Aziz and her daughter, Miss Shabnam Aziz. I would ask everyone to make them welcome, please.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, for three days this week, from the 3rd to the 5th inclusive, we are hosting nine Washington State legislative interns and their program coordinator. This is the second part of an exchange program, as we paid a visit to their state capital in Olympia just three weeks ago.

While the B.C. interns have visited Olympia in previous years, this is the first time that Washington State interns have come here. During their time in Victoria they will meet with several elected and appointed government officials to provide them with an overview of British Columbia's political system. I'd like to introduce them to the House: Robert Sturgeon, Bruce Miller, Stuart Tennis, Randy Sadler, Todd Comer, Carol Nielsen, Sarah Bradley, Sharon Heck, Gail Stone, and their coordinator Jeanne Smith. I would ask this Legislature to make them most welcome.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased on behalf of the opposition to join the government in welcoming our American cousins up in the gallery. There are probably no two people so much alike in the world, sharing as we do the same language, the same commitment to democracy and a similar set of values — and, incidentally, sometimes regretfully, the same TV programs.

We are alike in many ways, but we Canadians cherish our differences and want to remain different, distinctive and, above all, independent. We believe that we have built what we consider to be a more compassionate society, with our medicare and universal social programs. We think we are less violent, less flamboyant and perhaps even less confident. We are sometimes inclined, unfortunately, to waiver between self-doubt and self-righteousness. Nevertheless, neither society is perfect, and if given the choice of neighbours with whom to share this continent, most Canadians would choose U.S.A. ten to one. May your visit to B.C. be both productive and enjoyable.

HON. MR. VEITCH: On Friday I had the very distinct honour of being inducted as an honorary Young — underscored — Socred. Two of my young colleagues are here in the audience today. From the University of Victoria, formerly from Abbotsford, I would like the House to welcome Mr. James Kwantes and Mr. Shawn Bonstra. Would the House give them a really good welcome.

MR. G. HANSON: We on this side of the House would like to welcome our friends from Tanzania. As one of the members for Victoria, I would like to extend an invitation to come and enjoy the friendly games in 1994 here in the city of Victoria for our Commonwealth friends.

MR. KEMPF: We in Omineca are very proud of our mining industry. Somewhere in the gallery this afternoon are two of my constituents from Fraser Lake, Colin and Joan Seeley. Colin is the new mine manager for Endako Mines at Fraser Lake and is attending the managers' spring session here in Victoria. I would ask the House to make both Mr. and Mrs. Seeley very welcome.

Also in the precincts are Peter and Jerri Martin. Peter is the manager of Equity Silver Mines at Houston. I would ask the House to make them welcome also.

HON. MR. VANT: It's not too often that I get to introduce constituents from the great Cariboo constituency, but I am very pleased to introduce two Indo-Canadians to the House this afternoon: a very distinguished citizen of the city of Williams Lake, Alderman Gurbux Saini; and accompanying him, Jit Saini. I know the House will want to give them a warm welcome.

HON. MR. HUBERTS: In the House today we have three individuals from the city of Campbell River who are with the Campbell River Museum and Archives. They have given us a great presentation on their museum and its potential. I would ask the House to welcome Morgan Ostler, Bill Harrison and Jay Stewart. Let me also say — to show you the calibre of the people from Campbell River — that they remembered that today is my birthday and brought me a cake.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Speaker, today I would like to introduce a constituent of the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Miller). Her name is Mrs. Frances Smith, and she is from Prince Rupert but was born in the beautiful native Indian community of Lax-Kw-Alaams.

I would also like to introduce my wife Sharon who is in the gallery today.

[2:15]

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today, visiting from the great country known as Skeena, are some folks from Kitimat down here doing good things for the people who elected them to council: His Worship Richard Wozney, mayor of Kitimat, Alderman Joanne Monaghan, Alderman John LeSage, Alderman Michael Corbeil and city administrator David Morris. Would the House make them welcome, please.

MR. BLENCOE: On behalf of our side of the House, I'd also like to welcome our friends from Kitimat. Last year I had the privilege of attending the north central municipal association meeting in Kitimat

[ Page 5844 ]

mat, and it was a great event. I understand some are still recovering from that meeting. Would the House and my side join in welcoming Kitimat council members.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: Mr. Speaker, I have the sincere honour to introduce to the House members of the native Indian heritage centre advisory committee. This committee, comprised primarily of native leaders, is here today. They have been meeting for the past two days — and for the last few weeks and months — putting together a proposal for a centre or centres.

In your gallery, Mr. Speaker, are: Ms. Gloria Cranmer from Alert Bay, Dr. George Louie from Victoria, Ms. Sophie Pierre from Cranbrook, Chief Tom Green from Queen Charlotte Islands, Chief Alfred Joseph from Hazelton, Chief Joe Michell from Prince George, Chief Manny Jules from Kamloops, Dr. Thelma Sharp Cook from Vancouver and Mr. Mac Norris from Vancouver. Unable to attend today are Ms. Mary Thomas from Enderby and Mr. Percy Paull from North Vancouver. Accompanying them are two staff members: Ms. Leoni Rivers and Mr. Eric Denhoff. This very able committee is chaired by the first member for Okanagan South (Mr. Serwa).

MR. G. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I would like, as a member of the opposition side, to indicate our welcome to these native leaders. We'd also like to express to them that we await the legislation coming before this House, so that we can at long last expedite language centres and heritage cultural centres for native people. We look forward to that legislation coming as quickly as possible.

MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the first member for Langley (Mrs. Gran) and myself, I'd like to introduce to the House two very good friends of ours. First of all, Dr. Neil Snider, the president of Trinity Western University, and his good wife Mrs. Snider. Would the House please join us in making them very welcome.

MR. LOVICK: On behalf of my colleague the member for Atlin (Mr. Guno), who is unfortunately not able to be here today, I would like to make a brief introduction. Attending the new managers' conference are two people from Stewart, Mr. Denis Gregoire and his wife Donna. I would ask the House to please join me in making them welcome.

MR. PELTON: Hon. members, in the gallery today are 120 young British Columbians from grade 11 at West Vancouver Secondary School. These young people are here today accompanied by a group of their teachers. I would ask you to make them very welcome.

MR. MILLER: I join with the Minister Responsible for Native Affairs (Hon. Mr. Weisgerber) in welcoming Mr. Tom Green from Skidegate, a long-time leader in the Haida community.

MR. BRUCE: There have been some problems in the community of Lake Cowichan, but I can also assure this House that there are going to be so many great things happening there, and it's a result of some of the fine people who live there. One such person, a good constituent and a friend of mine, Mrs. Volkers, is here with friends. I'd like the House to please make them welcome.

MR. SIHOTA: A couple of matters. First of all, I would like the House to join me in welcoming in the gallery today my wife Jessie, my sister-in-law Debbie and my daughter Karina, who is two and a half years old — and I can't believe she hasn't said a word in the last 15 minutes up there. Would all members give them a warm welcome.

A second matter. It's not every day that a member of the opposition has the opportunity to rise in the House and shower a member opposite with praise. But then again, it's not every day that a minister, particularly a high-ranking one, receives an international award of distinction in a prestigious journal. In fact, this award was given in January 1989, and I'm not too sure why we haven't seen a press release emanate from that minister's office. Perhaps it's because the minister is known for his humility or his brevity, or for his modesty and verbal virtuosity.

In any event, there is an international award that should come to the attention of the House. The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) has been bestowed this particular award from this prestigious journal. While the minister basks in the warmth of my tribute, let me advise the House that the journal in question is the Quarterly Review of Doublespeak, which is issued each year in the United States. This award is no small achievement even for our Minister of Finance, because a nomination for the prestigious Orwell Award is only provided "to public figures who have perpetrated language that is grossly deceptive, evasive, euphemistic, confusing or self-contradictory."

For the record and for posterity, because I am sure the minister, since he was replying to a question from me and the member for Vancouver East on Expo lands.... If I may be allowed, let me just provide the quote that won the minister this distinction. The quote was, of course, on the applicability of the property purchase tax to Expo lands. The minister said: "The negotiations went through many combinations and permutations, so that I am happy to advise the member that, to the best of my knowledge, tax will be paid. I will be happy to confirm that upon passage of a little bit more time. Let me study the comments."

As the journal notes: "That wasn't too bad, but Mr. Couvelier was only warming up." When he was asked what the sale price was on the tax, he responded:

"Therein lies my hesitation, Mr. Speaker. In any event, to the best of my memory there were no particular arrangements provided in that respect.

"I think the hon. member, by virtue of his previous life, of all the individuals in this House, would be most aware of the fact that those lands had a very heavy cost associated with them in order to reclaim

[ Page 5845 ]

them so that they were usable. This hon. member who asked the question, by virtue of his peculiar knowledge; would appreciate the enormity of that necessary reclamation. Therefore the issue of the pricing of the terms of the necessity had to recognize those unusual aspects of the sale."

I will end there, Mr. Speaker, but I should add as follows....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I know the hon. member wants to pay tribute to the minister, but I wish he would close.

MR. SIHOTA: I'm only quoting the minister, Mr. Speaker.

In any event, some time ago the Premier and the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Reid) circulated these certificates of appreciation, and I've autographed one and will give it to the Page so he can present it to the minister. Also, protocol has asked me to make this award to the minister, but, in the true spirit of doublespeak, they've asked that it be returned after this ceremony.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Well, I'm delighted, honoured and deeply humbled by this. It strikes me that the hon. member might have been slightly out of order with that presentation.

MR. SPEAKER: More than slightly.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Therefore it seems to me only fair that we should have a chance to respond. Despite our differences in this House — we sometimes get a little bit harsh and biting — I think it's appropriate that we have some levity and humour, and I, like some others, attempt to provide that from time to time. It's nice to be recognized.

Oral Questions

SAANICHTON MARINA
INDIAN LAND CLAIM CASE

MR. G. HANSON: I have a question to the Minister Responsible for Native Affairs. There are currently about 100 civil cases in the courts involving native people and native rights, and approximately the same number on hunting and fishing cases. Native people are being asked to spend more and more money to defend their rights or to advance them. The annual cost of litigation is estimated at $4 million — $20 million over the next five years.

Has the provincial government, after losing the Saanichton Bay marina case at both the B.C. Supreme Court and the B.C. Court of Appeal, decided to appeal this case to the Supreme Court of Canada?

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: I'm sure the hon. member is aware that that would be a decision made by the Attorney-General (Hon. S.D. Smith). After reviewing the case, I'm sure he'll make the appropriate decision.

MR. G. HANSON: A supplementary question. The B.C. Court of Appeal, in upholding the Douglas Treaty, firmly stated that: "The province cannot act to contravene the treaty rights of Indians nor can it authorize others to do so." If this case involved an issue of such importance that the province felt an appeal to the B.C. Court of Appeal was appropriate, can the province assure the Tsawout band that they will be fully compensated for the thousands of dollars they have spent to defend their claim?

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: No, I'm sorry, I can't confirm that.

MR. G. HANSON: As I mentioned earlier in other comments in this House, courts at various levels are sending signals to the government. When is the province going to stop harassing native bands through the legal system and begin to negotiate land claims?

RELOCATION OF SALTSPRING
FERRY TERMINAL

MR. LOVICK: My question is to the Minister of Transportation and Highways. It concerns the relocation of the ferry terminal on Saltspring Island to Isabella Point. On Saturday the minister said the decision had pretty well been made. Two days later the same minister gave assurances to his colleague the Minister of State for Vancouver Island (Hon. Mr. Huberts) that the decision has not been made. Which of those two statements is the true one?

HON. MR. VANT: I'm going to get right to the point — to Isabella Point. First of all, the B.C. Ferry Corporation, in its wisdom, does get into long-term planning. Currently, Fulford Harbour is very limited in its capacity both on the marine side and on the land side. I want to emphasize that the proposed ferry terminal at Isabella Point is just that — proposed. As far as the B.C. Ferry Corporation is concerned, at this time it is the most likely alternative. That is exactly why I made the statement that I did.

For sure, the Ferry Corporation has engaged in a consultative process. Indeed, early in February both the board chairman and the general manager of the B.C. Ferry Corporation held meetings on Saltspring Island. There were a number of people at those meetings concerning Isabella Point, including, of course, Nick Gilbert, chairman of the Islands Trust. Quite frankly, I'm shocked that he's making statements that he has not been fully informed. He and many other people were informed at that time. At the time of that meeting there seemed to be a consensus of widespread support for the proposed Isabella Point project.

I can assure the member that there will be ongoing consultation under the Minister of State for Vancouver Island-Coast and North Coast, Mayor Gillian Trumper and the regional transportation committee, and further meetings and consulting about this transportation initiative. The final decision has not been made; it is just proposed at this time.

[2:30]

[ Page 5846 ]

MR. LOVICK: I'm wondering what the minister's definition of consulting is. Is it not the case, Mr. Minister, that when you met with the Islands Trust representatives, they went back to prepare a brief for presentation to your transportation subcommittee offering their input, and your announcement made the decision in advance of receiving the brief? Is that not true?

HON. MR. VANT: The hon. member opposite doesn't seem to fully embrace our sincerity in having a consultative process. At this time I just want to inform you that quite some time ago my ministry was approached very properly by the B.C. Ferry Corporation. Whichever site is picked on Saltspring Island, it's going to be a very sensitive one. We have to look at both the social and environmental impacts, and at this time we have only studied aerial photographs and maps regarding any proposed ferry terminal site. I'm emphasizing to the member that it's at a very preliminary stage and there's lots of time for ongoing, proper consultation.

MR. LOVICK: That's not very comforting, sadly, because how then can the minister — I'll repeat my question; I think it's in order — say that the decision has, as I quote him, "pretty well been made"? He is now saying something quite different. Which of those statements does he want to stand by?

HON. MR. VANT. At this time no final decision has been made. The most likely probability that's been identified is Isabella Point — that's it.

MR. LOVICK: A question, if I might, for the Minister of State for Vancouver Island. You have stated, Mr. Minister, that the announcement about Isabella Point was a surprise.

Yet, Mr. Minister, it was you who established the transportation subcommittee whose mandate is to examine transportation issues for that area and to talk about long-term planning for that area. The question is: why were you surprised, Mr. Minister? Were you, in fact, not consulted?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: Everything is going according to plan as far as the minister of state and the task force is concerned.

EFFECTIVENESS OF OSCARS
IN OIL SPILLS

MR. LONG: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of the Environment. On the evening news recently, one television report suggested that machines called Oscars are available for purchase at a modest price which would substantially improve our ability to cope with oil spills such as the recent ones on our coast and in Alaska. Could the minister comment on the viability and effectiveness of these machines and advise the House whether or not the government has plans to purchase them at this point?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: This has been a hot topic. As a matter of fact, the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) in speaking to the throne speech suggested that if the government cared about the environment, they could get out and prevent oil spills — should they occur — with such equipment.

Well, of course, such equipment does not prevent oil spills, but it can aid in some ways in cleaning them up. Oscars and other mechanized pieces of equipment for dealing with oil spills have been investigated by our ministry. There are probably about half a dozen proposals in front of us now; all of them are being looked at. All of that information is being shared with the Canadian Coast Guard as well. I think the thing to remember, particularly in the case of the bunker oil that arrived on our shores from the Grays Harbor spill, is the fact that the oil was largely subsurface and could only be tracked by infrared tracking devices used in some cases by the Coast Guard. It is difficult to track, particularly when it is eight or nine days old, as it was in this case. Unless you can track it from the surface, then you cannot deploy machines such as Oscars.

GAS PIPELINE TO VANCOUVER ISLAND

MR. ROSE: I congratulate the minister for his reply to the previous question and admire the way he came up, as if he had no previous knowledge of the question.

I wonder if he could respond to this one. Last December the Minister of Environment and the Minister of Energy (Hon. Mr. Davis) directed the public utilities commission to examine whether or not the pipeline to Vancouver Island should go ahead. Since then, both ministers have released statements promising the pipeline will go ahead. Indeed it was found also in the Speech from the Throne and the budget speech. If there's no doubt about whether that pipeline is going ahead, why is the government allowing the B.C. Utilities Commission to waste its time indulging in a long and costly charade of hearings to consider whether or not it should proceed when the decision has already been made?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Number one, with respect to the Utilities Commission's hearings, I will take that part of the question on notice for my colleague the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, as he has the responsibility for that. But I can tell you peripherally, with respect to that specific part of your question about BCUC, that there's far more to their hearings than simply whether or not it's going to go ahead and at what date. They have a variety of issues to discuss and decide: pricing, routing, environmental concerns — many issues. So the work they're doing now is of benefit to us.

Secondly, you should be aware that the Minister of Environment under current BCUC legislation does sign off all energy certificates, and that has been the case since 1981, when we introduced the Utilities Commission legislation.

[ Page 5847 ]

Thirdly, it's my opinion — and I've stated this strongly for some time now — that from the point of view of the Ministry of Environment, this project should go ahead. A gas pipeline and having the Vancouver Island industry use natural gas is environmentally sound and is indeed welcomed. Currently, on Vancouver Island, industry uses bunker C oil, which as we all know is subject to spill and which does contain sulphur and does in fact cause acid rain in this area. Conversion to natural gas, clean-burning North Peace natural gas, will be a tremendous boon to the Vancouver Island environment. On the basis of that, I strongly recommended the project proceed.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, in view of that response, I suggest that the minister is jealous of the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier). He's trying to challenge him for the next award.

The question was not asked whether the pipeline was of benefit to Vancouver Island. Nobody quarrels with that one, least of all the current Minister of Energy, who was adamantly opposed to it three years ago. Don't forget that.

What I want to ask now, since it affects my riding.... A number of groups, including the GVRD, are very concerned, not about whether or not Vancouver Island gets a gas pipeline, but about the proposed route through the Coquitlam watershed. Since a lot of groups and individuals — certainly in my riding — oppose this when there is an alternative route up Indian Arm, I want to know whether the minister has decided to require the company to find a route that does not threaten the pristine clean water for Vancouver and lower mainland consumers.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Those studies are going ahead by GVRD officials, and I will await their report to see what they have assessed in terms of environmental impact. I think it would be presumptuous and quite premature for me to offer a comment at this point.

CAPPING OF ASSESSMENTS IN VANCOUVER

MR. BLENCOE: I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Yesterday we had more disturbing evidence of erratic Social Credit economic policies when the minister announced the concept of a yo-yo property tax scheme for the city of Vancouver. Taxes up in one neighbourhood, down in another neighbourhood: a proposal that belongs more in the twilight zone than in reality. In light of the concern of those who have pronounced this plan ridiculous, has the minister decided to abandon her erratic idea and have meaningful discussions with Vancouver city council on real alternatives?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I imagine that some of us in this House have ideas and attempt to solve problems and that others just sit back and complain about other people's ideas. Those of us on this side of the House realize it's a problem in pockets of areas of Vancouver, North Vancouver and West Vancouver. We are attempting to come up with a way of resolving it.

I'm waiting to hear from the city of Vancouver to see if they have any other options that they would like us to review.

SALE OF EXPO LANDS

HON. MR. MICHAEL: I would like to respond to a question taken as notice yesterday from the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams), who asked: "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 intervening years — i.e., up to 1995 — without getting any more funds from Concord Pacific?"

Very briefly, the answer to the question is yes, with the comment that we could receive additional funds as a result of the participation agreement that BCEC has with Concord Pacific. I should point out that the person who asked the question certainly should have been aware, as a result of press releases made many months ago outlining the answer to the question.... It is well known and was circulated several months ago that the next payment due from Concord is on May 11, 1995, in the amount of $10 million. There are further payments in ensuing years, up to 1999, of $10 million per year; $20 million in the year 2000; $40 million in 2001; $60 million in 2002; and a final payment of $100, 000 in the year 2003, for a total of $270 million over the nine-year period.

I might add that these funds are guaranteed by an irrevocable letter of credit from a chartered bank in the Dominion of Canada. Certainly the chartered bank is well known, and as long as we can keep the previous member for Vancouver Centre, Gary Lauk, from returning to the Legislative Assembly, I'm sure the bank will be able to deliver on that irrevocable letter of credit, if need be.

MR. MILLER: I rise under standing order 49 to ask for unanimous consent to make a motion to refer the urgent matter of the sustainability of our coastal log harvest to the Select Standing Committee on Forests and Lands.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member knows that is not in order. If he would like, I could refer him to a famous book in this House, Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia. It says:

"Decisions of this House relating to standing order 49 have made it clear that a member is not entitled to rise and ask leave to move a motion without notice unless the House is engaged in the business of motions on notice, as designated under standing order 25. Nor may a member seek to invoke standing order 49 when rising on a motion under standing order 35. The House Leader has considerably more latitude as the member responsible for arranging the business of the House."

MR. ROSE: Although the rule doesn't say that, obviously some of the jurisprudence does, and precedents. I respect those, as I respect all precedents reported by the Clerk-Assistant. Perhaps on behalf of the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Miller), under

[ Page 5848 ]

standing order 49 I could ask for unanimous consent to make a motion to refer the urgent matter of sustainability of our coastal log harvest to the Select Standing Committee on Forests and Lands.

MR. SPEAKER: The standing order, for the opposition House Leader, is that the government House Leader is the one who has the right to do the business of the House. I would refer the opposition House Leader and the member to the citation in Parliamentary Practice; it's confirmed and enlarged upon in the journals of this House, 1982, at page 64. As well, in there is a recent decision by a former Speaker of the House.

[2:45]

Ministerial Statement

MAMMOGRAPHY PROGRAM EXPANSION

HON. MR. DUECK: I joined with the Canadian Cancer Society to announce the expansion of the screening mammography program. This was a very significant announcement and has been virtually ignored by the media, except for a few radio stations and the Province newspaper.

I bring it up today because I think this is too important to the women and families of British Columbia to ignore, and I am sure the members of the opposition will agree. The Canadian Cancer Society will be providing a mobile mammography screening van, and the Ministry of Health will provide the operating costs to travel the province and provide breast screening services to women in rural and remote communities.

I also announce that because of the success of the screening clinic in Vancouver, the Ministry of Health plans to expand the screening mammography program in this new fiscal year by adding three more fixed sites in addition to the mobile van.

The screening mammography pilot project in Vancouver has been an outstanding success in terms of its acceptance by the women of British Columbia. The program has been widely acclaimed both publicly and professionally. But perhaps the most important point by far is that because of this clinic, 17 women have been confirmed as having previously unsuspected and undiagnosed cancer, and that's what it is all about — early detection. This is one project where we want to encourage as much access as possible, where increased use improves cost-effectiveness and where people are provided with an invaluable service — a service which could have saved their lives.

MR. PERRY. Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. minister for the courtesy of passing us a copy of his statement in advance. On behalf of the opposition, I'd like to respond briefly. I welcome this as a very encouraging announcement, although I'm not familiar with the details beyond the statement.

I find it very encouraging that the government is beginning to look ahead in the planning of health care. This is something that the health professionals in British Columbia have worked for for a long time. I can only commend the government. At the same time, I'd like to encourage the minister to consider the provision of similar screening and preventive services. just to start things off in this session on a good footing, I'd like to suggest five examples very briefly.

One of them — the most important, perhaps — would be cholesterol screening to prevent the epidemic of heart disease in this province. Another would be the upgrading of our genetic services which recently were in trouble financially and fortunately were rescued. I hope we'll see them flourish. Third would be changing the structure of MSP fees, so that a fee can be paid to the physicians in this province for preventive services rather than only for curative services.

A fourth would be a meaningful anti-smoking and anti-drinking education program in the schools, not funded only by temporary grants but through ongoing, compulsory health education, including sex education. A fifth would be the meaningful provision of services and facilities such as contraceptives, diaphragms and intra-uterine devices for reproductive choice in the province, so that we don't have to rely so much on abortion as a method of last resort for reproductive choice in the province.

Orders of the Day

Budget Debate

(continued)

MR. SIHOTA: It gives me pleasure to engage in the debate with respect to the budget and to put aside some of the frivolity that we were engaging in this morning when we were discussing the budget.

I want to take a few minutes now to make some comments with respect to the nature of the budget and the fact that the government has suggested that this is a balanced budget. Certainly I must say that as a goal a government ought to be aiming to balance their budgets and of course come up with surpluses whenever possible. Of course, that is something we take pride in and something that was done by our administration between 1972 and 1975.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

The issue is not so much whether one balances his budget but how a budget is balanced. I should say before I get into that issue that I know that our finance critic, the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Clark), has commented at length with respect to whether there is a balancing of this budget. I will leave those arguments to him. Like I say, the issue is not whether or not you balance a budget but how you balance it. This is a budget, in my submission, that has been balanced from the backs of ordinary working British Columbians.

To be more direct, it's a budget that institutionalizes and entrenches tax unfairness. I'm going to be spending a fair bit of time in the 10 or 15 minutes allocated to me on the budget to talk about the concept of tax unfairness. It's a budget that entrenches

[ Page 5849 ]

and institutionalizes tax unfairness. It's a budget that says to the average working British Columbian that a larger chunk of his income has to be taken out in terms of taxes while the rich — and I will give some examples of this — and large profitable corporations will continue to get a break.

I think that the goal of government, when it wishes to balance a budget or when it finds itself in a surplus situation, ought to be to move towards addressing tax inequities, about giving the average working person in this province a break when it comes to taxation rates and trying to secure the income from other sources. That's easier said than done. I think it's incumbent upon those in opposition not only to be critical of what government has done in this instance but also to offer alternatives to what it could have done. I intend to do both.

Over the past four years successive Social Credit budgets have reduced corporate tax rates — and I am really talking about large corporate interests — by some $500 million. In order to make up that loss of revenue from the large corporate sector, individual tax increases have resulted in $500 million being taken out of the wallets of individual working families in British Columbia. Since this Minister of Finance took office, tax rates for large corporations — I am not talking about small businesses; I'm talking about large corporations — have decreased by 2 percent.

At the same time, individuals and families in British Columbia are now paying $1,400 more in taxes than they were two years ago. When I say this budget has been balanced on the backs of working families of British Columbia, it's with that last statistic in mind that I speak. Individuals are now paying $1,400 per year more in taxation than they were two years ago when the Minister of Finance took office.

In fact, not only have individuals been asked to make up for the loss of revenue from large corporations, but small businesses have been as well. It's a matter of record that small business taxation rates have increased under this government while taxation rates for large corporations have decreased. In fact, the government's record is so bad that in 1987 the provincial government, through the Minister of Finance, chose to provide tax breaks to banks and mining companies to the tune of $18 million per year. Think about that. While we are on the one hand asking working families in this province to pay more in taxation, while we are imposing new levels of taxation, particularly with respect to property taxes on seniors, we are turning around and saying to banks in this province that they must pay less in taxes.

When we talk about tax unfairness, those are the kinds of things we talk about. We say that if this government wished to balance this budget, which is a commendable objective on the part of government, then it ought to make sure that those large profitable corporations like the banks and some of the mining companies begin to pay their fair share of taxes. It's not fair or correct to ask individuals to pay a disproportionate amount of taxation, to the point now that 83 percent of all revenue that the government gains comes from individuals.

Eighteen million dollars. There have been years in this province when a bank teller working for the Royal Bank has paid more in taxes than the bank, and a gas jockey working for Shell Oil has paid more in taxes than that oil company. What we say on this side of the House is that those loopholes, those mechanisms, that exist for large corporate interests to avoid taxation ought to be plugged.

If a government is to take pride in balancing a budget, it ought not to take pride in balancing that budget on the backs of working families. It ought to take pride in balancing that budget on the backs of banks and oil companies that are not paying their fair share of taxes. When this government chose in 1987 to reduce taxation rates to banks and mining companies to the tune of $18 million per year, that same year it increased personal taxes for British Columbians to the tune of $195 million and, indeed, instituted additional tax increases on goods and services in this province.

In 1988 this government compounded that problem with respect to what we are now seeing as a problem with school taxes. Because of the quirks in legislation introduced by this and previous Social Credit governments, families who own property in British Columbia are now paying too much, or a disproportionate share of, school taxes. If the government had made the amendments that we on this side of the House suggested to make the commercial property owners pay their fair share of taxes for school purposes, then some of these problems could be averted.

It is not right that in a community like Sooke, individual residents ought to be required to pay the burden of increases in school costs when the shopping centre in Sooke, Evergreen Plaza, is not required to pay any of those additional school costs. You can't continue to transfer the tax load onto residential property owners in communities like Sooke, the Western Communities, Esquimalt or anywhere else in this province without inviting a tax revolt. It is basically and effectively unfair to ask them to pay their share and not to make the same request of commercial property owners.

Let's talk about what we believe the alternatives are. There is an alternative. The alternative is tax fairness. To balance this budget, the government could have raised corporate tax rates. Right now, if we were to restore them to where they were prior to the election of this government, that would require large — I'm not talking about small business — corporations to pay 16 percent in taxes. Just restore that 2 percent that you reduced. And individuals in this province still pay about 33 to 37 percent on the average in income tax. That would not be an unfair move with respect to the large corporate sector, and at least it would provide the beleaguered individual taxpayer with some break.

Interjection.

[ Page 5850 ]

MR. SIHOTA: I'm glad to see the Premier is here. The Premier is making notes of this. He should write this down.

The large corporations, Mr. Premier....

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: How large?

MR. SIHOTA: The banks and the mining companies, which you, Mr. Premier, should know were in 1987 given tax breaks totalling $18 million, should now be required to pay their fair share of taxes. If you were to restore it only to where you were two years ago, you would ask them to pay a 16 percent rate.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mining companies pay more taxes.

MR. SIHOTA: Mining companies are making profits. They should pay their fair share of taxes on those profits.

There is no excuse — Mr. Speaker, through you to the Premier, who is now listening and wishes to heckle — and no justification for this government to allow banks to avoid paying their fair share of taxes.

On top of that, it is high time that this government said to those thousand British Columbians — 934, 1 believe, to be exact — who last year earned incomes In excess of $100, 000 and paid no taxes, that they have to pay their share of taxes. If you want revenue, that's where it should come from: those 900-odd British Columbians — close to 1,000 — who paid no taxes.

[3:00]

If the Premier wishes an alternative in addition to what I've said, then let me say this to him: this government should restore the surtax on the wealthy that it eliminated two years ago, the surtax that required them, because of their high incomes, to pay more in taxes.

Those are five constructive suggestions to the Premier on how the government can move towards tax fairness. The Premier, of course, who chooses to heckle now, can well read the comments in Hansard and see what we're saying.

The point here is: let's introduce tax fairness. If you want to balance a budget, Mr. Speaker, don't balance it on the backs of ordinary working British Columbians. Let's start to reverse what this government has done over the past few years in terms of the $1,400 more that you're asking British Columbians to pay in taxes.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The taxpayers have supported Social Credit.

MR. SIHOTA: The Premier says: "The taxpayers have supported Social Credit." I want to tell the Premier that if he still feels that way, let's call an election. Let's see where taxpayers stand today. I'd be very happy, Mr. Premier, to hit the campaign trail along with you to get an accurate reading of your popularity today. In fact, if the Premier wanted to show true moxie, he would of course call an election right now on this budget, which he says is the best budget British Columbia has received in years. Let's show true moxie.

Now, Mr. Speaker, because my time is just about up, I want to talk very quickly about some specific matters. The first is the allocation made this year by the provincial government with respect to justice. The Premier, who is now leaving, will recollect that back in December 1986, after his election, he was visited by members of the Legal Services Society. In fact, I recollect very clearly the details that came out to all of us who are lawyers about how good people felt about that meeting.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: More money for lawyers.

MR. SIHOTA: Since that time this government has not increased expenditures for legal aid. The Premier says it's money for lawyers. It's money for people who require assistance in enforcing maintenance orders, in resolving custodial disputes, and in handling matters in front of the Workers' Compensation Board. This government has cut and whittled the legal aid program in this province to the point....

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Not true.

MR. SIHOTA: I would invite the Premier to read — I don't have them here with me — the press releases issued yesterday by the Legal Services Society and the day before by the British Columbia bar which are critical of this government's ineptitude when it comes to funding legal aid in this province. We have not seen an increase in any significant terms for legal aid in the past few years. Let me put it this way: in 1984 this Social Credit government conducted a task force which indicated exactly how much funding was required for legal aid. Those task force recommendations were never implemented.

The Jjustice Reform Committee, which the Premier speaks so fondly of, went around the province ably headed by Mr. Hughes and recommended that the government implement its 1984 recommendations with respect to funding legal aid and restore legal aid to where it stood prior to the cutbacks. Presentations were made to the government. The government has not acted on its 1984 task force or the task force that came down from Mr. Hughes through the Justice Reform Committee.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Not true.

MR. SIHOTA: I would defy the Premier to show the opposite.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Okay, I will.

MR. SIHOTA: The Premier can now be released to go back to his office and deal with all the other matters of state.

The opportunity for government in terms of justice and providing people with the type of representation they require in dealing with disputes with

[ Page 5851 ]

the rentalsman, UIC, social assistance.... Power and legal assistance through some of the very difficult situations people find themselves in ought not to be something available only to those who can afford counsel. It's something that ought to be provided through a funded legal aid program.

I see that the Premier is gone, but he would be interested in knowing that in 1984 the task force concluded that lawyers in this province were providing about $20 million in free criminal services alone to make sure that the needs of those clients of modest means were being met. The bar is making its contribution, and certainly the government ought to be providing some assistance to legal aid, a tariff which has not increased significantly over time.

I also have some great concerns about what this budget contains with respect to the environment and the way in which this government.... I guess some have called it a born-again environmentalist government; that's assuming they were environmentalists in the first place. I am cognizant of the time, and I must say that we will be watching with great interest what this government does with respect to environment regulation.

I can say again, as I've said before in this House, that the place for the government to start is with the laying of charges in an environmental spill that occurred in my riding on January 24. Regulators have said it was in violation of the regulations at Millstream Creek; to date we still haven't seen the government take action. It's one thing to suggest in your public relations propaganda that you are going to get tough on polluters; it's another to take action. Certainly I will be watching with interest to see what the Minister of Environment does on that.

Finally I want to conclude with one other comment with respect to the decision of this government to invest considerable sums on the Vancouver Stock Exchange. I don't think that is an appropriate way for the government to deal with taxpayers' funds. The VSE is a speculators' exchange. I will grant that the activities of the exchange have improved over the past few years, but it is still not an appropriate place, to my mind, for government to engage in investments. I must say that I concur with the comments of the first member for Vancouver-Little Mountain (Mrs. McCarthy) in this regard, and I trust that we will see the government reverse its investment policy as a consequence of the second look it should be taking on this matter.

That concludes my comments with respect to the budget.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: It's indeed a pleasure for me to rise in this House today and speak to you in support of the '89-90 budget presented by my colleague the hon. Minister of Finance.

I am certainly proud to be part of a government that has been so responsible and purposeful in presenting not only a balanced budget but one that is balanced with sensitivity. I strongly believe that the budget presented to us by the Finance minister presents a very firm foundation for a great future for British Columbians. There are new burdens that future generations will have to pay for. We have shown that we can accommodate the cost of a caring society without creating new financial burdens for future British Columbians.

I am proud to stand here as one of the two MLAs for Delta, as well as the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, not only to comment on this budget but to clearly illustrate the vital contribution that agriculture, fisheries and the food industries are making to the provincial economy that is led by this government. I am also proud to represent the fine people of Delta and, in addition, all the dedicated and hardworking food producers and processors of this great province. The food production system is growing each year; it now represents close to $9 billion of the total provincial economy. The food production system also employs in the total agrifood industry, as well as in its related activities through sales to store shelves, restaurants, etc., close to 200,000 jobs.

With the advent of free trade and the agreement, I believe we are entering a new window of opportunity for the British Columbia food industry. We have many challenges, and I believe we can use them to our advantage. As an example, the grape and wine sector is now repositioning itself as an agricultural commodity within the North American economy with the help of this government and also the federal government. We are sensitive to the livelihoods of those involved and are helping these particular citizens.

As you well know, the free trade agreement allows for the grandfathering of the estate winery system, whereby we are limited at 30,000 gallons, but does not prevent the opportunity for specializing in some of the premium wines and premium grapes that we produce in the Okanagan and for expanding in that sector. I hope the grape-growing industry does take those opportunities and come through to fruition and see that they will have a healthy industry with which to survive. I strongly believe that the wine industry is second to none — some of the quality wines that we produce from these estate wineries. Also, the commercial wineries will be involved, probably bringing in some U.S. grapes but blending very nicely with some of the grapes we grow here.

This budget provides some leadership for the vision of tomorrow. I think that is extremely obvious. We are very sensitive to the development of all regions throughout this province. This budget has provided for a major impetus to the agrifood regional development subsidiary agreement — ARDSA in its shortened form — which will allow us to demonstrate our ongoing commitment to the hundreds of communities throughout this province.

The number of projects undertaken in that ARDSA $40 million agreement with the federal government for agriculture has been very fruitful for agricultural communities. It has provided the opportunity for many drainage and irrigation projects that have benefited our agricultural community as well as the rural areas, and the impact it has had on the urban drainage and the urban irrigation. I think those are

[ Page 5852 ]

very important projects that have been undertaken by ARDSA; they have proven very useful and helpful to basically the farming community but also to some other parts of the communities involved.

We introduced the three e's: the environment, the economy and education. They are three major priorities for the coming decade. Not only did the project I mentioned before in ARDSA provide a major enhancement to economic development on a regional basis throughout this province, but many other government programs, such as the new employee equity program, the regional seed capital program and others in the energy, forestry and mineral sectors, are also providing for economic development opportunities throughout this great province.

Food products from British Columbia are finding their way to many Pacific Rim countries. This activity will be enhanced through the new British Columbia trade development corporation which will help small and medium-sized businesses enter foreign markets for the first time. I don't believe there is any limit to the opportunities that present themselves — not only in the Pacific Rim but with trading partners around the world. I think the agrifood sector has the opportunity, and from the point of view of the fisheries side I can tell you that British Columbia product is well recognized as one of the high-quality products in our trading world.

There are many food production units in our particular constituency of Delta that I'm sure will be of benefit to all and that are part of the benefit to all of this province as we produce product that is shipped throughout the province. These programs show that we are not blindly buying our way into economic growth, but rather managing our way into economic growth in a very creative way.

Environmental quality has always been a major priority in the agrifood sector and its business. Our position is that environmental protection is the responsibility of every farmer, as well as every small businessman or, for that matter, any large corporation. Our aquaculture sector regards the quality of the environment in a case where foreshore and water...to be of critical importance, and that is why waste management impact studies have been initiated: to make sure that fish and shellfish grow in a clean environment, and to make sure that water quality for other users is maintained.

[3:15]

I'd like to say that a number of concerns have been expressed over the aquaculture sector and its quick growth in the province, but I'd like to reassure this House that we are monitoring it very closely and have brought in some regulations relative to the use of drugs, etc., in fish food. It has to be dispensed by veterinarians, which, I believe, is a move towards responsibility of what we're trying to do.

The seafood that we presently consume.... There were some concerns well recognized, and my hon. colleague the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Strachan) did take action immediately about some of the dioxins that we are concerned about in seafoods, and we well recognize how important that is. It does say that this government is taking a lead. I commend the Minister Responsible for Environment, and the Premier and my colleagues, for responding very quickly to environmental concerns, because they are a priority for this government.

Also, as far as the use of chemicals goes, not only in agriculture — I mentioned a little about drug use in aquaculture — but the chemicals in controlling pests.... Our farmers have taken a responsible and active role by implementing environmental control programs for the sole purpose of providing consumers with high-quality and nutritious foods grown with care. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the industry is undergoing numerous tests on integrated pest management, which relates to biological control. I don't think there is anyone in this assembly who would argue the case for as much chemical-free product, or organic food, as we can possibly obtain. I noticed with interest in the paper recently a lot of concern about chemicals in a number of different products. I read in that same paper about natural poisons, if you like, or dioxins, the toxic contents that plant and animal life does have. Sometimes the figures go as high as 99.9 percent, as opposed to what would be applied to any given food item. Consequently we are given warnings quite frequently about how poisonous some particular plants are because of the toxins prevalent in the natural state.

I have to say that we are being very responsible in recognizing the concern about chemical use, and we are constantly monitoring it, hoping that with the new capabilities in testing, where we can now measure very easily parts per trillion, whereas before we were measuring them in millions, and that as science and technology advance, we will see a more and more sensitive reading of what parts are contained in all the items we eat. It will take a fair amount of testing, as you can well imagine, Mr. Speaker, to give the results of the commodities that we are consuming.

Certainly we'd like to also recognize that there is major increased spending in environmental programs and a commitment of approximately $200 million in this budget. I really believe it does show a sensitivity towards preserving our environment.

The third "e," education, relates to our youth and the importance we give to a strong and vigorous educational system. I think it goes without saying that our future is our children and their children. I believe it's very important that we are the custodians of their future and that we are to be held responsible that they in fact do have a future. When we talk about the opportunities for our students, our children, we talk about the Royal Commission on Education. Commissioner Sullivan brought in a report that I was very proud to say covered many of the concerns for our future generations in education. I'm very proud also to say that this government has implemented virtually all of those recommendations. I'm also proud to say that I'm pleased to be part of a government that examines its work and policies, and accepts and implements recommendations such as those brought in by Commissioner Sullivan.

[ Page 5853 ]

I'd like to go back. The level of education is important to students. As you know, Mr. Speaker, our students did extremely well in examinations in world testing. I think we can be very proud not only of our students but of our education system and our professional teachers who provide a service for the future of our children. Also extremely important is the fact that post-secondary education is just about as important as the primary, getting our children started out. The post-secondary or the advanced education side of our commitment to education.... It's extremely important that as we see technology and science advance, we provide the opportunities for those who will require upgrading of knowledge and skills, so as not to have a social impact that is negative to the people who work for all of us in this province. I believe it's also very important to say that the government has made strong commitments to postsecondary access for all programs, and I commend the Minister of Advanced Education (Hon. S. Hagen) and this government for that commitment. It will open new opportunities for our young people and help them meet the challenges of tomorrow's issues.

In Delta we have a very strong education system that is made even stronger, and we are looking forward to a brighter and better future for all our children.

I'd like to touch a little bit more on our constituency — I refer to my hon. colleague, the second member for Delta (Mr. Davidson). I'm certainly proud, along with him, to be representing that constituency, and I can tell you that it is a major economic force in this province, with a wide base not only in the agrifood business but in many sectors of the emerging manufacturing and commercial industries. We take such industrial operations as the Roberts Bank, a terminus of the B.C. ferry system, the Tilbury industrial park — all major contributors to the economy of Delta and of this province.

I mentioned the agrifood business. It is separated by three communities in Delta, and they all get along very nicely, integrated one to the other and with respect by one to the other. That is so important in developing guidelines for future community plans or development areas that may well see growth without intrusion, hopefully, into the agricultural communities.

I've had the opportunity to talk with a number of my constituents, and a number of them have told me how pleased they are with the budget that's been presented and the throne speech. They know the government is doing an exceptionally good job of providing an excellent array of programs for British Columbians.

Health care, of course, is always a concern to people, and it's through sound fiscal planning that we are able not only to sustain funding for health care but to enhance a system that now produces over $1 million per day in benefits to British Columbians. If you figure that out, it's what we have added to the budget; it exceeds over $1 million per day in costs. Health care spending is a major portion of the provincial budget, and it is also one of the major priorities of British Columbians. That is why we are committed to preserving and improving a health care system which is already among the best in North America. Delta's health care facilities will continue to work to keep our world-class status. Not only are we improving health care to seniors, but the important three-year alcohol and drug TRY program will improve family life by reducing substance abuse, particularly among our young people. Delta's programs are in place, and services are available for those seeking help or advice.

Affordable housing has been discussed to some extent, and it is an important issue in the Delta constituency. It is also a priority within our constituency, as, I'm sure, it has been well mentioned throughout this province. Our vibrant economy has resulted in many new British Columbians wanting to own their own homes and live in our constituency and surrounding areas. The provincial budget has provided an opportunity to help people achieve these goals, with the homeowner grants that will be increased, plus the housing-related and mobile home programs that are being introduced. There are also deferred taxes and interest programs that are being introduced, and a property purchase tax relief program that has been announced. All are programs to put more British Columbia families into affordable housing.

Residents of Delta have contributed a great deal to the vitality and vibrancy of the provincial economy in the past, and let me assure you that Deltans look forward with anticipation and excitement to the future.

I grew up in Delta and many of my family members still live in that community. It is my home, and as one of its MLAs I am watching it grow and mature into what I believe to be a very fine community. I'm proud to tell you that I am a new grandfather, believe it or not.

MR. ROSE: First time?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: First time. I want to ensure that my new granddaughter has the opportunity to live and grow up in the area that has among the best educational systems anywhere and is provided with top-quality health care, has comfortable, warm and affordable homes to live in, and clean, wholesome food produced in well-tended soil, and clean, fresh water. This budget and the programs that go with it are balanced and sensible. They will provide all British Columbians with the opportunity to live and work in an area of the world that is second to none.

I believe British Columbians are very fortunate. I just hope we can continue this good fortune. I believe the commitment of this government to the people of British Columbia has been solidly laid out, not only by the throne speech but by the leadership of our Premier and the commitment and vision of the government of B.C. I take great pride in supporting the budget speech.

[ Page 5854 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: just before we proceed, the second member for Vancouver South rises on a point of order.

MR. ROGERS: During the course of the throne speech debate and the budget speech debate, a number of members have confused the role of the person occupying your chair and the chair at the table. From the point of view of decorum in the House, perhaps you could advise the House Leaders to have the appropriate address made to you, in your position as Speaker when you're in the Speaker's chair and as Chairman when you're Chairman of the Committee of the Whole.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you very much, hon. member. I was most reluctant to mention that myself, but I appreciate your bringing it forward for me.

Before we proceed, hon. members, the hon. Minister of International Business and Immigration would beg leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. J. JANSEN: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to introduce to the House Mr. Sam Sitland, manager of international air and traffic control systems for Hughes Aircraft Co. of Los Angeles, California. The Premier and I recently had the opportunity to meet with Hughes Aircraft in California, and it is a pleasure now to welcome Mr. Sitland to British Columbia. Would the House please join me in welcoming him.

MR. CASHORE: I appreciate the comments made by the second member for Vancouver South with regard to how we should address the Chair. I'm sure he's aware that we all get nervous and say things, thinking we're saying "Mr. Speaker" when we should be saying "Mr. Chairman, " and vice versa. I appreciate that reminder.

Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Speaker, present in the gallery today is Mr. Glen McIntyre. While I'm making this introduction, I hope the Minister of International Business will listen, because we had a conversation at breakfast this morning about this chap. Mr. McIntyre is with OSR Systems. That is the company that is in the process of developing the Oscar technology referred to in the question from the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Long). I know from having had breakfast with the Minister of International Business that he is most interested in hearing from Mr. McIntyre. Would the House join me in welcoming him.

[3:30]

I appreciate this opportunity to rise in the House and speak on the budget. Given the speeches I've heard in the House to date, one could hardly under stand how the two sides of the House are talking about the same document. We hear government members speaking in glowing terms about this budget, and then we hear opposition members speaking about the budget as though it really is not a very good budget at all. How are we to find the truth? To find the truth, I think we cannot rely on either members of the government or of the opposition. We can only rely on members of the public of British Columbia — the citizens of this province — and those people are making it very clear that they do not trust this government to fulfil the kinds of commitments they are making.

I share the sentiments stated by the previous speaker. I appreciated many of his comments, when he was talking about the kind of world we wish to leave to our grandchildren and when he referred to education and to environmental considerations. All of us share those sentiments, but when we look at them in the context of this budget, it comes down to the question of who has the political will to fulfil the needs, the hopes, the dreams and the expectations of the people of British Columbia in this day and this generation. Who is going to be able to provide the kind of leadership that is going to enable our children and our children's children to inherit a world that is truly sustainable, a world in which they can have sustainable living, and a world in which economic development is not development that harms our environment but is indeed development that all of us can feel good about development that creates opportunity, is in harmony with nature and is able to take into consideration the global perspective with regard to what sustainability is all about.

I want to acknowledge that it does indicate in the budget that there are some improvements with regard to environmental spending. It states within the budget — although the factuality remains to be seen — that there is $200 million for environmental programs. Let us make it very clear that this money is for an array of ministries, not solely the Ministry of Environment. It refers to such things as waste-to-energy technology to help with the production of hydro power. It talks about that technology as being environmentally friendly. I think the members of this House know that the jury is out on that issue. It is not proven that that is environmentally friendly. It is still a deep concern with regard to the kinds of emissions that would be going into the atmosphere from that type of a process.

I think it is well known that the road to hell is filled with good intentions, and using one good intention to justify another is not necessarily environmentally friendly.

When we look at this budget, we have to look at the government track record. That is the only appropriate way to look at it. When we look at it from that perspective, this government has failed to provide environmental protection in this province. This government is the problem with regard to the environment; it is not the solution. This government stands condemned on its environmental record. On that record alone it stands condemned and deserves to be defeated on that record alone. Environmentally this government has "shot itself in the foot," and as a result of that has become an environmental lame duck.

[ Page 5855 ]

It has shot itself in the foot in many ways: one, by destroying the morale of the very good staff within the Ministry of Environment; another is in destroying the Environmental Lab, selling off its assets for a mere $800,000. I have been through that lab and I have seen the instruments and the facilities there. It is tragic that we have lost that jewel of a resource.

MR. PETERSON: Is the lab working? Is it operating now?

MR. CASHORE: I refer the member to Mr. Doug Sandberg, who will come forward with some very interesting revelations with regard to the lack of proper monitoring of instrumentation on stacks throughout this province. They should be monitored appropriately by this province.

Interjection.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Speaker, the noise that we are hearing from this corner is an indication of the severe embarrassment that this government is experiencing over the fact that it sold that lab. I will submit at this point that if the environmental concern that we are hearing from the public on this day had been a concern that we had been hearing two years ago, this government would not have dared to sell off that lab. They would have known that it was politically an unfriendly thing for them to do. They would not have dared.

All we need to do is get the appropriate select standing committee meeting and have Mr. Doug Sandberg, who left the government in disgust, come and meet with that committee and let him give evidence. He has a great deal of embarrassing information to put forward with regard to this government.

Interjection.

MR. CASHORE: One of the reasons that there is a lack of political will in this government such as the hon. member is pointing out is that we have a government which resorts to hollow words. When we are hearing about the dioxin discharges and the lack of enforcement, the words we hear from the minister are: "I am an enforcer." That's a joke. This government is not an enforcer. When this minister decides to prove that what he is saying is factual, he talks about a $65,000 fine in a Prince George mill. That minister shouldn't be bragging about that. That's a disgrace. He should be hanging his head in shame.

First of all, this government allowed the situation to get to the point where pulp mills were polluting. They should have had enforcement taking place at a much more elementary level so that it didn't get to that point. This indulgent parent of a government wasn't treating the industry like an undisciplined child. Instead the lessons should have been taught at an early stage. What this government is guilty of is inappropriate upbringing with regard to the industries in this province.

They have sent out a message to those industries to do what they like because this government is not going to do anything about it anyway. Now they are talking about rattling their sabres. Now they are talking about buying time. What they want to do is buy enough time so that they won't have to do anything prior to the next election. What they want to do is make it look as though by bringing in some new legislation, by throwing some money at it, that they are doing something. All the minister can come up with as an example is that fine in Prince George. Given the profits that are being made in the pulp industry at this time, that fine is quite insignificant. The minister also goes on to brag about a $300 fine at another mill.

In order to make his point that he's an enforcer, the minister refers to the Rankin report. As you know, the Rankin report by Professors Rankin and Brown of the University of Victoria studied two regions, Vancouver Island and the north, and came up with evidence — which the minister has acknowledged in the House — that persistent polluters in those two regions are not dealt with. Time and time again they are allowed to get away with violations of their waste management permits.

The minister, to try to convince the House that he's taking that seriously, points out that that study took place until May 1987, prior to his becoming the minister. He doesn't say he's going to bring in a freedom of information act so that the information they're using can be made public. Oh no, the Minister of Environment doesn't trust the public of British Columbia with the information they have a right to. Such legislation exists federally; such legislation exists in eight other provinces; but in British Columbia the Minister of Environment and the government are too embarrassed to allow the information to come out so that the organizations trying to protect the environment on behalf of the people, such as Greenpeace, the West Coast Environmental Law Association and many others, would have access to that information.

What does the minister say? So that we will believe he's sincere, he says: "Why, I invited Professor Rankin to come and sit in this House on the day of the throne speech debate" — as though we're supposed to see in that a change of heart. Somehow we're going to find that suddenly our environment is going to be protected. I don't think Professor Rankin — or anybody else, for that matter — looks to the government as being a government that should do anything less than show by its actions that it means what it says, not by inviting somebody into the House but by showing concrete results. For instance, can the minister point out that the record of enforcement in those two regions that were studied — Vancouver Island and the north — has increased considerably? I don't think he can. But if he can, I think that would be a very worthwhile thing. What he tends to do, when he's asked that question, is to answer with some other response about enforcement in the lower mainland.

I think there's no question that this government is a lame duck when it comes to the environment. For instance, the only response to the oil spill has been a

[ Page 5856 ]

public relations response. The first meeting of the task force that has received so much publicity didn't take place until March 20. 1 have a copy of the draft plans that were put forward, and it's very interesting when we look at that. Yesterday the minister couldn't assure the House that meetings of the joint oil spill task force held in B.C. would be open to the public. The minister responded that it was too complex. That's a surprising response, given the official communication strategy of the public affairs bureau and the minister's own PR staff, which states categorically that because the task force meeting is a working meeting involving government agencies, it would be inappropriate to involve the public.

Isn't that interesting — government's own public relations agency saying it would be inappropriate to involve the public. The question is: has the minister decided to reverse the official position of the public affairs bureau and his department and open the meetings to the public, as they are in Washington State? My colleague has just pointed out to me that we're not really dealing with a lame duck; we're dealing with a lame ostrich. I've pointed out before that this government says it supports the Brundtland Commission. The Brundtland Commission is founded on public participation. If there's no public participation, there's no sustainable development, and the government is hypocritical in saying it believes in sustainable development. We can go through the list of many activities in which this government has not functioned in a sustainable way.

I would like to refer now to something that relates to the two very devastating oil spills that we have experienced recently. Yesterday the first member for Vancouver-Little Mountain (Mrs. McCarthy) made a point that I don't think many people heard, because there was a lot of conversation going on in the House. It was an appropriate point, which I discussed this morning with the Minister of International Business and Immigration (Hon. J. Jansen). I have discussed it with members of our caucus, and I know that they affirm this point.

The point is that British Columbia, given our tremendous environmental resource, is in a position to develop environmentally friendly technologies that are second to none in the world. By manufacturing these technologies here in British Columbia, we are in a position to bring about a win-win.

Therefore I want to speak about some of those technologies at this time. Yesterday the first member for Vancouver-Little Mountain spoke about the submersible technology, and I don't think I need to add to her comments. Certainly it interests me, given the present situation, that as far as I know that technology has not been put to work up in Prince William Sound. I also wonder if it might have been used during the recent oil spill off Grays Harbor.

The second point I would like to refer to — and which was referred to by the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Long) in question period — is the Oscar technology. This is a Victoria company, OSR Systems. It's not — as the minister has referred to it publicly - a skimmer. That's not what it is. This technology is a vessel that has the ability to go out to sea. It will not only pick up oil on the surface, but it will pick up oil to a depth of two to three feet.

[3:45]

Just imagine for a moment a tanker such as the Exxon Valdez steaming along. It hits an iceberg or the ground when trying to avoid an iceberg. Up on the deck is this 40-foot vessel perched beside a crane. The crane lowers the vessel into the sea, and then that vessel puts out its apparatus to surround the spill at source. It then proceeds to pump the oil into a device in such a manner that the oil is separated from the water, and the oil is placed back into safe storage.

If that type of technology were available, it's very likely that it could have prevented both the Grays Harbor fiasco and the fiasco that we are experiencing in Prince William Sound.

Interjection.

MR. CASHORE: The Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Parker) stands there and self-righteously says "private enterprise," as though somehow he owns private enterprise. I want the members of this House to realize, as the people of British Columbia realize, that it's the New Democrats who are standing up for private enterprise in this province. It's the New Democrats who are intervening on behalf of the technology of this province that should be deployed.

MR. CHALMERS: Born again....

MR. CASHORE: "Born again." That is nonsense. I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, if these people are going to start using the terminology of being born again, they had better be very careful.

With regard to the Oscar technology, one of the things that happened — and this is how governments can do things.... The federal environment ministry tested this technology and made the same mistake that the minister had made and looked upon it as a skimmer. They evaluated it on that basis. But it's not a skimmer; it is something that pumps the water out of the area affected. It removes the oil from the water, and it is a technology that needs to be looked at very carefully.

Interjection.

MR. CASHORE: The Oscar comes in different sizes, and I am glad to know the member is interested in this. I hope that you will join your Minister of International Business and Immigration in helping this company get this technology into the place where it can be used. It comes in different sizes from 40 feet to 120 feet. Some of them could be deployed so that they could be on tankers themselves. Some of them could be deployed at various places around the coast such as Port Renfrew, for instance, and Vancouver harbour.

This is a proven technology because it has been used on oil spills in Vancouver harbour — and with great success. It is a tragedy that those in positions of responsibility have not had the foresight to make this

[ Page 5857 ]

technology available so it could be deployed at a time like this. This is an environmentally friendly technology, and if this was a proactive government and if they really meant what they say, they would be on top of this very quickly.

Just one final thing about the Oscar, and that is that it has the capacity to lift 30 tonnes of fluid a minute. Therefore if 10 percent of that was oil, it would be removing three tonnes of oil per minute. I don't think I hear anybody heckling at this point, Mr. Speaker.

A third kind of technology here in British Columbia is the Candel technology known as the Sea Rover III. The Sea Rover III is produced by a company here in Saanich, and the people from Candel have been trying to get the attention of this government. They've been trying to get the attention of the federal government. This technology is a radio-tracking device; when an oil spill occurs and they don't have the Oscar present to clean it up at source — if because of government incompetence it gets away — then they can deploy this technology, this Sea Rover III, this radio-tracking device, and place it in the water so that it will follow the ocean currents. It has a device that will attach itself to the submerged portion of the oil. Had that been deployed in Grays Harbor on March 22, it could have warned us well in advance that this oil spill was coming onto our shores.

I just want to make it very clear that I have found the time to meet with people from these two companies I have referred to. Members of the opposition have found the time to do that, and members of the opposition would be delighted if the government, instead of being so defensive all the time, would take measures to make use of this splendid technology that's developing here in British Columbia and, instead of just talking about private enterprise, would show that they really have some sense of wanting to promote private enterprise.

With regard to the Candel technology, I would like to ask the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Strachan) if he has seen fit, on behalf of protecting the shoreline of British Columbia, to send his representative up there, not to fly over the site but to deploy the Candel technology, the Sea Rover, at the mouth of Prince William Sound so that it picks up the oil when it starts to come out of there so we'll know if it's going to be hitting British Columbia beaches.

HON. MR. PARKER: Foreign waters.

MR. CASHORE: That should be a non-partisan thing, Mr. Speaker. It's a suggestion I give to the minister in good faith.

There is also another technology which was reported extensively in last weekend's edition of the Vancouver Province. I will not go into it in detail, but it's Offshore Systems of North Vancouver, and they are putting forward electronic navigation aids which could have sent an audible warning to the crew of the Exxon Valdez that danger was approaching. That, again, is a British Columbia technology.

There are four kinds of technology. They are environmentally friendly, and they are the kinds of things we should be looking at very seriously.

With regard to the oil spill on British Columbia beaches, I want to say that PEP at the present time comes under the Solicitor-General. That is a mistake, Mr. Speaker. We have to do something about having systems that are more direct. PEP should come under the Ministry of Environment, and that should be brought about very soon.

I've talked to a number of people in this province who participated in the cleanup, and in many cases they're having a difficult time being reimbursed for their expenses. Compared to some of the government spending we see, I don't think it would be too much to expect that those fine volunteers who went out there on behalf of the people of British Columbia — and did a better job than the government — should be reimbursed for the hours they put in.

The minister, during the throne speech debate, at the conclusion of his speech said these words. How he could get such a double whammy into one sentence is beyond imagination. This is what he said: "The site is clean now...." The Minister of Environment; do you believe it? Then he said — this is in Hansard on page 5611: "...I think the media hysteria was the most outstanding feature of that spill...." With friends like this! My goodness, Mr. Speaker. I had the Page send some photographs over to the minister's desk — he's not here to receive them — which were taken at Cape Scott just one month ago, between March 10 and 11. They were taken by people who had gone out there. During that period they picked up 835 pounds of oil and 38 dead birds, and this was in an area declared clean by the Coast Guard. They pointed out that fresh oil was coming in at Nissen Bight, Sauna Bay, Ogden Point and Cape Scott. At the conclusion of his speech — I will repeat — the Minister of Environment said: "The site is clean now." Anybody watching television news on Sunday night would have seen new evidence that there is oil on those beaches. It is most unfortunate that the political will did not exist to have foreseen this situation and have enabled the people of British Columbia to be represented appropriately.

To sum up, Mr. Speaker, let's remember that there are two procedures that must be in place when it comes to dealing with this type of disaster: prevention and crisis intervention. This government could only get that committee to meet two weekends ago; that's far too late. That does not take seriously either prevention or crisis intervention, and it does not bode well for the people of British Columbia whom this government wants to believe them because of the mighty words contained in their budget. It's not the words that are going to do the job; it's the action. The people of British Columbia are waiting to see some tacit sign that this government has the political will.

Again, I will repeat my call for the Minister of Environment to be promoted. He should be in the inner cabinet, but he isn't, and that shows how this government really feels about the environment. The environment is not represented at the highest level of

[ Page 5858 ]

decision-making in this province. That, Mr. Speaker, is sheer hypocrisy when you look at it in the light of the Brundtland report, which this government says it believes in — a report which upholds public participation as one of its founding principles.

MR. CHALMERS: It's indeed a pleasure for me to rise in my place today and participate in the budget debate. Since this is the first opportunity I've had to speak in the assembly since the beginning of this session, I'd like to offer my sincere congratulations to the three most recent members of this body. In welcoming them, I'd like to say that I, along with my colleagues on this side of the Legislature, will do all that I can to see that their stay is most enjoyable and as brief as possible.

The budget is what we're here to talk about today. It's our Finance minister's third budget and, many have said, his best; that is understandable. As he said when he stood in his place to deliver his speech, each of the two previous budgets, as well as this most recent one, was indeed just a building block, one upon the other. By setting the stage with the first and second budgets, he has been able to deliver the '89 budget, which will set the stage for the economy of the 1990s in British Columbia.

I would like to congratulate the Minister of Finance on this fine document. He has been receiving many accolades from throughout the province and, for that matter, throughout this country. He has set an example that many should follow, and perhaps now will.

As a member of the government's budget review committee, I'd like to express my appreciation to the minister for including me in that process. We reviewed the expenditure side of the budget. He was most patient with us, and obviously took many of the recommendations to heart, because many of them are evident in the document.

There is much to talk about in this budget, Mr. Speaker, and much that's worthy of comment, but I intend to keep my comments very brief and leave some for my colleagues who are much more eloquent and articulate than I.

The budget has stressed three major issues: the three Es, as some have described them — education, environment and the economy. I would like to touch on these areas as well as a few others, and speak to them as they relate to my riding of Okanagan South.

[4:00]

Okanagan South is a unique riding. I know that every member present and past who has ever sat in this Legislature has considered their riding to be unique. In my case, I know it to be true. There are many reasons for that, Mr. Speaker, some apart from the fact that without a doubt it's the finest place in the world to live. We are unique in that we are considered to be a rural riding because we are located upcountry, or in the interior. We have, however, one major municipality, with approximately 70 percent of our total population residing there. We have a very diverse economy, and that makes Okanagan South the envy of many other interior and northern constituencies.

We have many strengths, and at the same time we face a number of challenges. Most of these challenges stem from the fact that we are located in the interior and at quite a distance from a lot of facilities, such as universities. This problem has been addressed recently by the Minister of Advanced Education (Hon. S. Hagen). He did that through the "Access to Education" report, the recommendations that were brought forward to him and, of course, the action that followed. In our case, the action that followed was the announcement of degree-granting status for Okanagan College. I thank the minister for that great announcement, and I can tell you that the people of Okanagan South thank him for that announcement.

That initiative was made possible by the Minister of Finance, through his providing the necessary funding required to offer those degree-granting programs, over and above the existing programs and courses offered through Okanagan College. This is going to have a tremendous impact on the riding of Okanagan South. Not only will it allow for young people to obtain a university education while continuing to live at home — up to this point this is a luxury afforded only to those who live in the lower mainland and on the southern tip of Vancouver Island — but it will also help us to attract new industry with long-term, higher paying jobs. This will mean that our bright young citizens will not only be able to obtain an education in the Okanagan, but they will be able to remain, to live, and to work in the Okanagan.

Much has been said here in recent days about the environment. Everybody is talking about the environment, not just in British Columbia but I guess throughout the world. It's sort of the flavour of the month. This is welcome news. This government is not only talking about protecting or improving the environment but doing something about it. We have backed up our words with the resources for the minister to do his job properly.

Again, Okanagan South is an environmentally sensitive area. We have a great deal to protect, and all of us welcome with enthusiasm — and to a certain extent, I would admit, with some surprise — the generous increase in the budget of the Minister of Environment. The minister is most responsive to the concerns of the people of Okanagan South and always has been, but he now has the tools to get on with a very important job. The Minister of Finance is to be congratulated again for answering the calls of many for increased funding for environmental programs.

Housing is something that we read about a great deal. Perhaps the greatest need for affordable housing is in the lower mainland; at least that is the perception, and I think the perception is created partly because the major media outlets have focused attention on the more populated areas of this province. We in the interior, though, have similar needs, and although our private sector has done the superb job of providing accommodation, we will continue to have a need for government programs to ensure that we have an ample supply of affordable housing. This

[ Page 5859 ]

budget has many exciting and innovative programs to meet those needs, and I look forward to the details as they unfold.

Health care. We in British Columbia enjoy one of the best health care systems, if not the best, in North America. We in Okanagan South are no different than the rest of British Columbia, with a couple of exceptions. We happen to enjoy a greater than average growth rate and have a larger than average number of seniors living in our area. This, of course, goes back to my earlier comment that we have indeed the best place in the world to live. But these factors have put a considerable strain on our local hospital, so the increase of some $388 million to the Ministry of Health's budget is again welcome news to the residents of my riding. We have always received excellent cooperation from the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck), and I hope that with the little extra funding he has he will be able to assist the board of trustees of our hospital with their expansion plans. We have need in the area of intermediate care beds, we would like to see a cardiac surgery facility, and many others, but I'll only name the two. I look forward in the future to working with the minister and my colleague and running-mate in Okanagan South to see that Okanagan South continues to be well taken care of in matters relating to health.

Mr. Speaker, nothing in this world exists today that couldn't be improved upon. I guess that's the case even with this budget. I must say that as a member representing a riding where fruit growing is so important, I would have felt a little better if the agriculture industry had been given a more prominent mention in the budget, and perhaps more funding.

I know that the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries (Hon. Mr. Savage) is well aware of the state of the fruit industry today. I know that he has always responded positively to the requests for assistance when asked. I know also that he and his senior staff are constantly working with the industry to help them through these difficult times. You can rest assured, Mr. Speaker, that I will continue to press this government for help as it is required, because it's required by an industry with a long and proud history in our valley, an industry that must survive and must thrive.

The British Columbia economy has performed exceedingly well over the past few years. Once again Okanagan South has enjoyed its share of that growth. I mentioned earlier that we have a diverse economy. We feel fortunate about that fact, but that has come about through careful planning and development of a long-term strategy. This has been developing and evolving over the years. To do so it has required the skill and tenacity of many community leaders who have guided our cities and municipalities in years past. That work continues today, and the policies and initiatives of the provincial government are most important to those of us who live in the interior of this great province.

Over the years, successive Social Credit governments have always put into place policies relating to the times. They have improved upon them whenever necessary to ensure that all regions of the province receive their fair share of economic development. The news of an expanded budget to assist with seed capital loans, and the increasing of the loan limits to $100,000, again is welcome news in Okanagan South, as I'm sure it will be in other areas of the province.

MR. WILLIAMS: Good idea.

MR. CHALMERS: An excellent idea; I'm glad you agree.

The creation of the British Columbia Trade Development Corporation is also most welcome. The Minister of International Business and Immigration (Hon. J. Jansen) is doing a superb job in his new role, Mr. Speaker. I have the pleasure of observing the minister from my position as parliamentary secretary, and quite apart from enjoying and valuing his friendship, I respect and admire the effort he is putting forward on the part of this government and on behalf of the people of British Columbia. I think we should be proud of the results he is obtaining in the short time that he has been a minister.

The Trade Development Corporation is an exciting and innovative vehicle that will be created to assist British Columbia businesses to increase exports of goods and services. Much more will be said about the corporation and its mandate during the debate of the bill. This bill was recently placed before the House by the minister and will enable the creation of the corporation. I look forward to the discussion that will take place at that time.

I will continue to urge the minister to ensure that the special needs of small businesses, especially small businesses located in the interior and northern regions of this province, are recognized and addressed in the development of the programs by the new corporation and by his ministry.

We have a growing manufacturing sector in our riding of Okanagan South, Mr. Speaker, as well as an impressive number of people providing a wide array of consulting and professional services that they are eager to employ in the international market. We have many companies exporting products as diverse as children's clothing to component parts for photocopiers. We have assembling plants that assemble products ranging from high-tech navigational equipment to heavy-duty trucks — not to mention, of course, our superb wines and fruit products.

Yes, we in Okanagan South are pleased indeed that this budget will allow for the funding necessary for the new Minister of International Business and Immigration to develop these programs. These programs will assist the business community to reach its full potential in the new economy of the 1990s. This budget will also assist them to take full advantage of the opportunities that will now exist as a result of freer trade with the United States and expanding markets in the Pacific Rim countries.

The transportation policy and adequate transportation infrastructure are very important to the economic well-being of this province. No one is more acutely aware than those of us who live in the interior.

[ Page 5860 ]

I am pleased indeed that the Minister of Finance has recognized that fact and has provided the much needed increase in the transportation and highways budget for the 1989-90 fiscal year.

We in the Okanagan are delighted that phase 3 of the Coquihalla Highway will be completed by 1990. That's the same highway, incidentally, that the Leader of the Opposition said he would close down if he was Premier — a fact that must not be forgotten by the members of the Legislature or by the people of this province. That's a clear indication of the socialists' lack of understanding of the needs of the people of the Interior and of the role that transportation links play in the development and retention of a strong economy. So much for a sustainable economy.

The residents of Okanagan South who I have talked to look forward to the enhanced highways budget. We hope to see an early completion of the widening of Highway 97 through the Okanagan Valley. We look forward to the continuing upgrading of the West Side Road.

MR. WILLIAMS: You mean the Penticton-Kamloops bypass.

MR. CHALMERS: There we go again.

We look forward to the early commencement of the construction of the much-needed underpass at the intersection of Highway 97 and Glenrosa. We look forward to the upgrading of repaving of parts of Highway 33. For the many people who live in Okanagan South and the thousands of people who visit to ski, we look forward with anticipation to the day that the last 12 miles of Big White Road will be paved.

We look forward to the early resolution of the outstanding commitment that exists between the provincial government and the city of Kelowna resulting from the amalgamation of the city and the proud community of Rutland. That arrangement, incidentally, was forced upon the residents of our area by the socialist government of Dave Barrett and of the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) during that period from 1972 to 1975. That was the period of 1200 days and nights of darkness in the history of this province.

In closing I would like to applaud our Premier and our Minister of Finance and their colleagues in cabinet for a fine budget, a fair budget and a balanced budget.

MR. WILLIAMS: Last week I discussed the relationship between Herb Doman, Doman Industries and Social Credit. I detailed what I saw as a pattern of privilege, and I made documents available. They showed that Doman received privileges that other forest companies had not received. I intend to cover some further examples today.

I said last week that Mr. Doman was an active member of the Social Credit Party, and that he was at the leadership convention at Whistler and has been actively involved throughout the years. At the same time, Mr. Doman deals in forest licences on the public lands of British Columbia. The people he rubbed shoulders with at Whistler are the same people who set the rules regarding those forest licences — rather, they are the same people who ignore the rules all too often when it comes to Mr. Doman.

When I spoke about this last week, the Premier and the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Parker) were in the House; they said nothing. They've said nothing in the intervening week. I say that Doman has been the recipient of special treatment. I think it's interesting that the minister says nothing regarding those questions of a different treatment for Doman compared to all the other operators on the central coast. I say that that silence is damning. I say it's time that this administration provide all of the Doman files for independent review.

[4:15]

Last week I showed that Doman's cutting rights should have been dramatically cut back, because the books had been doctored with respect to his annual cut over the five years. That cut under the rules traditionally is to be at 90 percent. Had it related to the actual cutting that Mr. Doman had undertaken, 65 percent of his cutting rights on the central coast would have reverted back to the Crown. That, of course, did not occur, and nothing reverted back to the Crown at all.

Similarly I have provided examples of felled and bucked trees staying in the bush for three years on the Doman lands. Today I'd like to cover the Doman performance in the silvicultural, reforestation and environmental areas as well.

On silviculture, I'd like to refer to a memo of November 13, 1984, from George Burns to Gerry Kennah, the silvicultural officer in the area. Mr. Burns says: "I have coordinated the planting program in this district since my arrival here in 1981. The performance of Doman Industries...has been nothing short of pathetic." Nothing short of pathetic — that is the performance of the Doman company in the central coast.

Then Mr. Burns chronicles it:

"In the spring of '82, Doman Industries had 548,000 seedlings ordered and due to be planted in the Milton and Kimsquit drainages." Yet they used only 70,000 seedlings. Then he states: "In the fall of '82, Doman Industries planted 60,000 seedlings in the Kimsquit...." Burns says of that planting: "Doman has committed an atrocious trespass in their logging operations in the Kimsquit, and I would speculate that the willingness to plant had a lot to do with the trespass, as it's the trespass area that was replanted."

An atrocious trespass — and that's the area that got the replanting treatment.

Again referring to Mr. Burns's memo of November 13, 1984: "In the spring of '83, Doman Industries had 349,000 seedlings ordered and due to arrive for planting in both the Kimsquit and Milton drainages. Yet there was room for only 51,000 seedlings...." That was the pattern with Mr. Doman: ordering excessive seedlings — or reasonable amounts of seedlings, rather — to be planted and then not being ready to handle the planting at all.

Further, Mr. Burns says: "Logging has recommenced in'84 in both Milton River and Kimsquit, and

[ Page 5861 ]

neither operation has any seedlings available for '85 or '86. Many of these sites...will quickly develop a brush problem and therefore require immediate reforestation" — reforestation that would not be available.

Then Mr. Burns says: "I believe we cannot afford to stand idly by and watch this Kimsquit become another silvicultural slum like the Dean." That's their experience in this region. They and the people of British Columbia end up with silvicultural slums: that is, land not properly forested, land that could have been properly forested and was not, because of incompetence, mismanagement and, indeed, influence.

Let's remember what Mr. Doman got on a promise of a pulp mill. He received cutting rights in a pristine, untouched valley in the central coast. He received really a magnificent empire, and he never built the pulp mill. But Mr. Burns carries on — he is the coordinator for replanting for the Vancouver forest district at that stage: "In addition to their poor performance with regard to the planting, Doman is also several years in arrears on their surveys."

Finally he says: "Perhaps pressure can be brought to bear to influence Doman Industries to hire a competent consultant to conduct these important surveys under section 88." What does he say? "Let's hire a competent consultant because Doman won't do it. Don't count on Doman to do what he is supposed to do; we know better than that." Then he says: "Let's pay for it under section 88." He's saying that the government itself will have to pay to carry out the surveys.

Another example is in terms of environment and wildlife and the impact on Doman lands. This is a May 5, 1987, memo from Mr. M.L. Beets — maybe the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Strachan) is interested — who is the head of habitat protection and a biologist with the provincial government. He said in that letter to Rai Thomas, district manager for the central coast that he was objecting to an increase in the annual cut in the Kimsquit in '87. They were going to approve increasing the cut from 140,000 cubic metres a year to 200,000 cubic metres a year.

As Mr. Beets says, that was not in keeping with the Kimsquit plan that he'd been involved with. The people in wildlife had already thought that 140,000 cubic metres was excessive. He states: "We feel even more justified now.... We strongly suspect that Doman is not addressing upper-elevation wood." What he's saying there is that there is high-grading. They're taking the lower wood out and not the upper wood and, as a result, a valley they thought originally would be available for logging for 20 years, they state now seems doubtful because of that high grading. Mr. Beets carries on: "Approval of cut increases...in the case of the Kimsquit...is most reprehensible." Bureaucrats' words.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Good stuff.

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes indeed, good stuff, Mr. Minister. If you were doing your job, you'd be monitoring this material and this information and seeing to it that the kind of devastation that has occurred on the Doman lands never occurs again. But you are not doing that.

Mr. Beets says as follows: "In addition to its fisheries capabilities, the Kimsquit has amongst the highest grizzly bear values of any mid-coast watershed and is one of only two coastal watersheds known to support moose." It is a unique habitat. I'm not going to document the Fisheries files and others that I have today, but clearly the Kimsquit, one of the important watersheds of the coast, was allowed to be mismanaged on some considerable scale by this Minister of Environment, the Minister of Forests and this government.

Mr. Beets carries on: "...it was our understanding that the Kimsquit was to be a model of good forest management practices." It turned out to be anything but. "Our difficulty in understanding how this increase can be justified is based in part on Doman's performance to date in the Kimsquit. Doman is a source of ongoing problems, not only with respect to habitat protection but also in terms of their ability to plan and manage their overall harvesting operations." Mr. Beets then says: "For example, during our most recent visit to their operations, the following problems were encountered: (1) inadequate preparation of preharvest silvicultural preparation; (2) large trespass involving highly sensitive riparian habitat" — streambanks, trespasses in the streambanks, impacting wildlife and the fisheries; "(3) blatant disregard for protection of secondary watercourses." He talks about the girdling of trees within important riparian leaf strips: that is, binding cables around trees and they die.

Finally, Mr. Beets, the head of habitat protection for the region, says: "Considering the fact that these problems were evident when the cut was 140,000 cubic metres a year, how can we expect improved performance with 200,000 cubic metres a year being cut?" How indeed? Mr. Doman violates the rules. He wrecks important chunks of the environment and landscape of British Columbia, and he gets a bonus under Social Credit environmental policy. I suggest that he gets a bonus because he is a Social Crediter through and through. He attends all those conventions and rubs shoulders with cabinet ministers and has access.

On surveys there's the same problem in terms of surveying their own work. That's the way you handle the forests now in British Columbia: you let the fox look after the henhouse. Mr. Burns says again in a memo of January 25, 1985, regarding the survey work by Doman:

"There is no survival summary report which should compare numbers of planted seedlings per hectare from the planting report to the number of planted seedlings now present. A review of the FS659 regeneration survey summary cards...submitted has found the following shortcomings: no ecological classification information given; no cost data provided; no target stocking standard specified; no calculation of species composition; no localized minimum stocking standard specified; no breakdown as to whether the site is SR, NSR or NC; no recommendation

[ Page 5862 ]

for future treatment in terms of spacing and brushing, etc." Further, "a review of the FS657 regeneration survey standards has proved it to be equally incomplete as with the other standards in FS659."

After listing even further examples, he concludes, talking to Doman: "The surveys you have conducted this year are not completed to an acceptable standard."

Do you want another example of environmental degradation? November 4, 1986 — Mr. D.E. Whidden, district silvicultural officer in the mid-coast district, to Ed Neclokus and Ian Hamann of the ministry. In this case, Doman wanted to change an approved logging plan which already had Fish and Wildlife input and approval. The new methods that Doman wanted to use would have been more destructive of the site — so destructive in some parts of the site that trees or forests would not grow again. The new proposal would have required more road, which would have meant unproductive growing sites in the future. In fact, some seven kilometres would have been built as a result of changing the method of logging.

Mr. Whidden then looks at the worst-case scenario as a result of this proposal, with Mr. Doman getting his way as usual, and states: "This would result in a loss of future economic activity for the next rotation in the staggering amount of $6,940,423...." The officer tries to put a price on the environmental damage as a result of not logging according to plan, and he does so in the memo. What it means is a few dollars for Mr. Doman and staggering losses for the environment and the public in the long run. That's Social Credit policy; that's business as usual in Social Credit terms.

Mr. Whidden then quotes what is supposed to be the stated policy of the ministry — all-approved stated policy of the ministry. It's as follows:

"All logging operations and related road construction over which the ministry has jurisdiction will be planned and carried out in such a manner and using such equipment as to ensure that site disturbance leading to permanent loss of productive area or to site degradation is to be kept to a minimum."

That's what the silvicultural officer was arguing about. That's what the wildlife officer was arguing about.

Mr. Whidden concludes: 'We have nothing to gain and everything to lose in this situation. I respectfully request your support...." Did he win? Of course not. Did the public win? Of course not. Did the environment win? Of course not. They were up against Herb Doman, a man with influence in Victoria.

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

Let's remember that this very site we're talking about right now was in an area called the Washwash area. It was a site that almost became an ecological reserve, it was so magnificent. Imagine that. It almost became an ecological reserve, but Mr. Doman wanted it included in his cutting rights, so it was included in those cutting rights. Now much of it is permanently damaged in terms of growing timber. It's a high price, indeed, that Mr. Doman extracts from his Social Credit friends.

[4:30]

More? Yes, there's more and more: a memo, dated October 27, 1986, from Mr. D.E. Whidden, district silviculturalist, to Ken Dunsworth, RA, Timber, regarding Doman cutting permit 401 in the Washwash area again. He chronicles Doman's poor performance, or non-performance, in yet another case. On page 3 of the memo he says: "In respect of this type of performance, I would like to recommend we not issue this cutting permit. However, given the political ramifications of such a move, we would likely stir up quite a hornets' nest." The political ramifications of such a move. And he says: "...the bottom line is that we would be forced to let Doman log, and the areas would not be planted in 1988 to suitable species and stock types." What he's saying is that he has been this route before, and there's political interference when he tries to do his job. That's what he saying in that memo. He refers again, in another section of the memo, to "political ramifications of proceeding."

These are civil servants trained to do a decent job, to prevent environmental abuse and to get the companies to follow the rules. In Doman's case the rules are either softer or they don't exist at all, and the trained professionals are simply not allowed to do their job. Mr. Whidden concludes in that memo: "This type of performance regarding planning is simply not acceptable. Should we proceed with this application in its present form, we are condoning this type of performance, and the people of British Columbia are not being adequately served." Amen, Mr. Speaker.

It's clear now, from the files, that there's undue political influence when it comes to Mr. Doman and his company. It really represents a cheap investment in Social Credit, and it pays a handsome dividend for Doman Industries. In my view it violates a public trust to manage the public lands properly for all and to give equal treatment to all in the managing of those lands.

Let's summarize. (1) Mr. Doman promised to build a pulp mill in exchange for timber rights in the mid-coast; the mill was never built. (2) Mr. Doman was to maintain a 90 percent cut over a five-year period, and the amount was closer to 25 percent. (3) Mr. Doman should have been penalized in terms of his cut and had it reduced, but that never happened. Yet it happened to others with only modest violations. (4) The silviculturalists refer to some of the Doman lands as "silvicultural slums." (5) The wildlife officers claim Mr. Doman gets excessive privileges while ignoring their concerns about fisheries and wildlife habitat. (6) Mr. Doman carries out surveys that are incomplete and not to an acceptable standard. (7) Mr. Doman carries out atrocious trespasses, according to the biologists. (8) Millions in future forests are lost, according to the silviculturalists, because of Mr. Doman's logging methods and their impact on the environment.

That's a quick summary. What more can one say? We've listened to the hollow promises about the environment on the government side of the House, hollow indeed when you see the truth in government

[ Page 5863 ]

files, in terms of how you handle these questions when your friends are involved.

I think the record speaks for itself, Mr. Speaker. The files speak volumes about influence, about Social Credit and about environmental abuse. I repeat, as I said last week: these matters should be reviewed independently, so we see all of the files on how Mr. Doman has been handled and compare that with how others are handled.

Last week I said that W.A.C. Bennett used to say: "Special treatment for none; equal treatment for all, my friends" — or words to that effect. Special privilege is the pattern of the day under this administration, and special privilege has certainly been shown today in terms of this operator on the coast of British Columbia.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The opposition House Leader requests leave for an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Government Management Services, I won't take long with this. I know we're all interested in what he's going to say today.

The mayor of the district of Coquitlam, Lou Sekora, is in the gallery, and I would like the House to welcome him.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, may I first congratulate you on your election as Deputy Chairman and pass on my congratulations to the first member for Dewdney (Mr. Pelton) on his recent election as Deputy Speaker of the House. I'd also like to take this occasion to pass on my compliments and congratulations to the Lieutenant-Governor, David Lam, on his recent appointment. I'm sure Mr. Lam will represent all of the citizens of the province well in that very important office at Government House.

Mr. Speaker, it never fails to amaze me, in listening to the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams), when he talks about the issues of the day and about the things that are happening in the province of British Columbia, things that have happened in the past and things that will happen in the future.... Suffice to say, never let the facts stand in the way of a good story.

It's interesting, Mr. Speaker. Listening to that member opposite and looking at the record of some of the things that have happened in past years, I must say that the question of pensions certainly comes to mind. One reflects back to 1976 and the article appearing in the Times or the Colonist on February 17, 1976, headlined: "Government Halts Cass-Beggs Pension." It's interesting, in looking at the numbers, that when one talks about pension settlements for civil servants and looks at what Mr. Cass-Beggs received in the way of a pension back in those years.... With less than three years' service to the provincial government he was awarded a pension of $10,000 a year for life. To put that in current-day terms, the base rate of the IWA forest industry on January 1, 1976, was $6.14 an hour. That very member, who was at the time the minister in charge of B.C. Hydro, piloted an order-in-council through the cabinet of the government of the day awarding Cass-Beggs $10,000 a year for life, to be passed on to his spouse in the case of his death. That figure in today's terms is 81.4 percent of an IWA member's annual base rate of pay.

I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker and members of this assembly, that there never has been since, nor will there ever be in the future, a pension as extravagant as the one granted by that very member while he was the minister in charge of B.C. Hydro back in the years from 1973 to 1975. I find it interesting, listening to his comments about and criticism of the current government as to the way we handle our affairs and the way he handled them back in those glorious years from 1973 to 1975.

Mr. Speaker, I now wish to talk about some of the positive things contained in the budget, in my view. I want to commend the Minister of Finance. I want to say to the Minister of Finance that I have waited some six years for this proud moment. Elected in 1983, I have waited nearly six years for the moment to rise in this assembly and talk about a balanced budget. I reflect on the years 1983 to 1985, when the government of the day was severely criticized by members opposite for the actions taken to bring government spending under control and to tailor the programs and services of government to meet the income and revenue of the day.

I want to particularly commend the Minister of Finance on the moves that were made regarding the homeowner grant. Increasing the grant by $50 and $70 for seniors, Mr. Speaker, certainly means a lot to the members of my constituency. I can say that there are a tremendous number of people, particularly among the seniors in my constituency, extremely pleased with that move by the Minister of Finance.

I can say as well that there are and always will be areas in a budget which a member is not particularly pleased with. I can assure the Minister of Finance that there are those couple of areas which I would like to have seen mentioned in the budget. Even though they weren't mentioned this year, I will continue to lobby, and I am very confident that the Minister of Finance will see fit to have a close analysis of my concerns and my lobbying efforts in the coming year.

Certainly that includes the removal of education tax on bare farmland. Farmers are not lobbying or asking the Minister of Finance that their property taxes be removed on their place of residence, but they do think it unjust, if they are owners of 100, 500 or 1,000 acres of bare land, that they should be required to pay education tax on that property. Bare land does not send children to school. I will carry on in my efforts, as I have for some years, in attempting to convince the Minister of Finance to give that particular area consideration in next year's budget.

I also commend the minister, Mr. Speaker, on the property purchase tax changes. They are certainly very welcomed and are going over very well in my constituency. There are a lot of favourable comments.

As well, there were tremendous moves made in the additional funding for education. Education

[ Page 5864 ]

funding is up some 12.8 percent. That was well received, as was the Sullivan report. I know that the various elements of the Sullivan report will be looked at very seriously by the Minister of Education, and that this increase will indeed start the process in motion for the implementation of several of those recommendations.

I am also happy — and it is dear to the hearts of many people in my constituency — about the additional revenue put toward independent schools. While the independent schools do not represent a large proportion of the students in my constituency, I can tell you that they represent a significant portion. The people of my constituency are mainly rural, a lot agricultural in nature, a lot of independent-thinking people who like to have the clear choice of where they can send their children for their education.

I'm very pleased with the increase in student financial assistance. It is interesting to see the tremendous improvements in that program in the last two or three years. I believe three years ago we were spending some $10.5 million, and the recent budget announces expenditures of near five times that amount, increased to $50.7 million.

The grants to post-secondary schools. I notice a tremendous increase of some 30 percent in the last two or three years. The previous grants to post-secondary were $663 million, and they now have been increased to $863 million.

Regarding health, I'm extremely pleased with the broadening of the coverage for premium assistance to low-income people. The program will now cover some 540,000 people in the province of British Columbia. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, how many people in the province are aware that the expanded premium assistance program will include people as high as in the $17,000 net income bracket. I think if there is one thing this government must do, it is to make sure that the message of all of the good items, the positive items in this budget, are advertised and carried out so that the people of the province are aware of the benefits that are contained in this great budget.

I'm very pleased with the announcement of the seniors' program. I know that the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck) will be travelling, along with the task force, extensively through the province of British Columbia, and I know that he will be visiting communities such as Revelstoke, Salmon Arm, Armstrong, Enderby and Chase, where we have a tremendously high proportion of seniors. I can tell the minister right now that he will have good input and good participation in his efforts to seek out things that can be done for seniors.

[4:45]

Privatization is mentioned in the budget. I see that the Minister of Finance is predicting that the privatization fund will grow from $302 million to $322 million. I can assure the Minister of Finance, as the chairman of the privatization committee, that we are going to do everything in our power to far exceed that number. We think we can deliver to the privatization fund many more dollars than the $20 million the Minister of Finance is predicting. We will see what happens at the end of the current fiscal year; I expect that number to be much higher than what the minister is budgeting.

We're also extremely happy with the way the minister has set out in the budget document the savings regarding the privatization of maintenance and bridge facilities of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways — clearly set out and clearly shown that the saving at the end of the contract period will equal some $106 million. The members opposite perhaps were not aware of all of the areas of saving to the provincial government as a result of privatization. But if you look at the print in the document, they will find that additional school taxes are going to be paid by the private sector. Motor vehicle licence fees, social services tax, corporate income tax, lease payments, savings and payroll forms, additional revenue in the way of gravel extraction — all those additional areas of income will be brought into the provincial, municipal and school board coffers in one form or other.

It's hard to convince the members opposite sometimes, but as has been said many times in the past, you can always tell a socialist, but you can't tell him much.

Regarding the environment, I can tell you that the increase of 90 percent in that budget will be very welcomed by my constituency. We are looking for expenditures, particularly in the area of the Armstrong city sewage project and the cleaning up of certain areas around Shuswap Lake. I will assure the Minister of Environment and my constituents that I will be lobbying very hard to get a fair proportion of the tremendous increase given to that ministry.

Also, it was welcome to see the continuation of the tremendous program as announced in Whistler at the municipal convention last fall: the Go B.C. program. I think it's going to be a great program. It's spelled out as to what dollars we can expect over the next three years. I know the minister in charge of that program will be looking very seriously at the request that we currently have in as a very high priority for the Hudson Avenue project in Salmon Arm.

I also know that with the additional funds the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Vant) will be receiving, there will be no problem in getting an early approval for the much needed Squilax Bridge project in the constituency of Shuswap-Revelstoke. It's important, if the Minister of Transportation and Highways is listening, that that project not only commence in 1989 but indeed be completed by the early fall of 1990, before the historic four-year cycle salmon run on the Adams River. We also expect to see major improvements made for passing lanes and additional four-laning on the Trans-Canada Highway and tremendous improvements to the secondary road system throughout the constituency.

I find it extremely interesting looking at page 76 of the budget book and looking at the comparisons of the taxes in the province of British Columbia with those in the great province of Manitoba, the province that used to be described by members opposite as the

[ Page 5865 ]

symbol of socialism in western Canada. We listen to the members opposite talk about the tremendous things that they expect and would do if they were in power. It's interesting, just once in a while, to do some comparisons about what in fact happens in NDP-held territory and compare with what's going on in the great province of British Columbia.

Looking at provincial personal income tax, in British Columbia the figure is 7.4 percent. In Manitoba, the percentage rate is 8.7, much higher than in B.C. If you look at the small business rate, again higher than in B.C. If you look at gasoline, cents per litre, again Manitoba is higher. Diesel fuel is significantly more highly taxed. If you look at retail sales, the general rate paid in British Columbia is 6 percent versus Manitoba's 7. Look at the liquor tax: 20 percent higher in the province of Manitoba as compared with B.C. They have a tax on meals; our Minister of Finance removed the tax on meals. There's only one area in the entire report that I can find where B.C. is higher than Manitoba, and that's accommodation.

Other areas. Tobacco tax. All the way down the list, it's interesting to see the comparison of the ex-socialist regime in Manitoba and what we are doing in British Columbia. As a result of the great efforts of many years in power in that province, Manitoba now has the lowest credit rating of any province in western Canada. Indeed, it was and still is an economy driven on borrowed money.

Manitoba Hydro, through efforts of the NDP government in that province, has been run into the ground with such high debts that economists, actuaries and accountants value Manitoba Hydro's net worth as zero, it is so heavily in debt.

I find it interesting to listen to the criticism of the members opposite about what we're doing in this province regarding education spending. I look at what this Minister of Finance has done on a percentage basis with the increase in funding for education. When he drafted his first budget in the early part of 1987, this government was spending 19 percent of its budget on education in this province. He immediately increased it to 21 percent, and today the figure is 24 percent.

It's interesting to listen to the members opposite, Mr. Speaker. Do you know what the figure is in Manitoba? It's 17.1 percent; we're sitting at 24 percent. That's 38 percent more than what is being funded in the province of Manitoba.

It's no wonder that government was not only thrown out of office, but it finished in last place in the last provincial election. Their debt cost in the province of Manitoba is three times worse than what it is in the province of British Columbia, and they have one-third of the population of British Columbia.

If you read the last budget put out by the New Democratic government in Manitoba, they boast about their province having the lowest average wage in Canada. They boast about it. Their property tax on similar property is 75 percent to 90 percent higher for working people in that province as compared to British Columbia, and their homeowner grants are less.

When I sit here and listen to members opposite criticizing this minister for the great work he is doing for the working people in this province, and I look at what that government has done in Manitoba in delivering goods and services and the high taxes that they have had to put up with in that province....

It's no wonder that they fell from the first place in public opinion polls federally and finished last. It's no wonder they were ousted in Manitoba, never to return. I predict they will never be returned in Manitoba, because the people are seeing through the falsehoods that were promised on the campaign trail during their election.

It's no wonder that in the province of Alberta, even though the Conservative government in Alberta dropped some 7 percentage points, rather than running second in the last provincial election on a percentage-of-vote basis, they finished third. Indeed, they came last in Alberta if you look at the percentage vote.

I think back over the years before I entered politics and since, and I think of all the things that the members opposite have been against that this government has delivered on. I think of the Island gas line; they were against it. I think of the Columbia River Treaty; they fought us. I think of the Whistler resort refinancing that we did in 1982 and all the yelling and screaming. There is $300 million worth of construction going to take place in the Whistler community. They were against SkyTrain; they were against Expo 86, and this province is still getting the dividends from Expo 86. They were against government restraint in 1982, 1983 and 1984; we are now getting the dividends of those years. And they were against the Coquihalla Highway, and we will continue to remind the people in the interior that they were against it and still are against it.

You were against northeast coal, yet many of the members opposite were at a breakfast this morning with the mining industry. There were many representatives there of the coal industry. The coal people will tell you, if you want to listen, that shipments have never been higher in the province than they have been over the last ten months. They said that the international marketplace could not handle the extra production, and we've proved them wrong again.

They were against the sale of Pacific Coach Lines in the south end of Vancouver Island; it's working great and expanding. They were against the sale of the Beautiful British Columbia magazine; it's expanding and doing very well under the private sector. They were against the Langford sign shop. They were against the Alcan-Kitimat project creating thousands of jobs, which are unionized and paying first-class wages.

Do you know what, Mr. Speaker? They were against this government many years ago when we brought in the homeowner grant, until they did a quick flip-flop and reversed themselves on that, as they have reversed themselves recently on such things as the Meech Lake accord. They were against the opening up of the north, and they were against the dam projects in the province, while a Manitoba

[ Page 5866 ]

government was developing the most expensive dam project, called Limestone, ever undertaken in the Dominion of Canada.

I have some questions I'd like to leave with the NDP What are you going to do differently? What are you advocating to do differently in British Columbia compared to what you did in Manitoba? Tell the citizens of the province what you're going to do differently from the failures back in that great province of Manitoba.

Tell us what you will deprivatize. Tell us if you are going to return highway and bridge maintenance to the public sector. Stand up on the floor of the Legislative Assembly and tell the citizens of the province, because we want to know the answers to those questions. We want to know if union membership will be compulsory for contract and subcontract employees of government.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: No, tell us about it. We want to hear about it. Will you reduce funding to private schools? A lot of my constituents would like the answer to that question. What will be nationalized? What is the latest position of the members opposite on B.C. Tel? What resource tax would you be increasing and by how much? There are many questions that the members opposite will be required and expected to answer between now and the next provincial election.

I want to finish off by complimenting once again the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier). It's my view that we can enter into the coming year with a great deal of confidence. Not only do we have a balanced budget, not only do we have Crown corporations in better shape than they have ever been in British Columbia, we also have tremendous indicators as far as retail sales are concerned, showing growth in excess of 8 percentage points, new car sales showing growth in excess of 10 percentage points, manufacturing shipments growing at some 6 percent, cargo out of the port of Vancouver increasing by nearly 9 percent, exports up 8.6 percent over the last 12 months, coal production — thanks to northeast and southeast coal — up in excess of 14 percent over the last 12 months, natural gas production up 11.5 percent, farm cash receipts going in the right direction, building permits in the province up over 43 percent in the last 12 months. The list goes on and on.

[5:00]

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

I want to say that along with that we must pay tribute to those involved in industrial relations in the management-labour field. There has been an 86.5 percent drop in lost time — work stoppages — from 1988 over 1986. It's evident from the work done by this government in analyzing and reviewing the work of NDP provincial governments in Manitoba and Saskatchewan that we indeed are witnessing a decline in socialism not only in the Dominion of Canada but throughout the world. The indicators are there.

I must close by telling one story, which has to do with a trip I recently took to Denmark. I had an opportunity to talk to a young lady working behind a hotel reception desk. I know the high prices in Denmark, in Copenhagen. I asked the young lady what she was making a year. Her comment was: "Well, sir, the wages are not all that bad on the surface. I actually make $2,000 a month. But there is something you should know." The Minister of Finance should listen to this, Mr. Speaker. "In taxes I pay 64 percent of my wages to the government." It's no wonder that we have people coming to British Columbia, and indeed to Canada, to get away from those socialist regimes and high tax areas.

In closing, I must once again say what a great job the Minister of Finance is doing. I'm sure that if the federal government would follow the example of the Minister of Finance and the Treasury Board in British Columbia, we could soon cure the ills of the Dominion of Canada. I sincerely congratulate our minister.

MS. A. HAGEN: Without further ado, I would like turn our attention to British Columbia, which we in this Legislature are concerned about and which I think the minister who has just spoken should be concerned about as well. That is the issue before us in this budget debate.

I would like to assure the minister in my comments that one of the things I will be seeking to do is to state some of the principles and goals that we have as a government-in-waiting in this province. I am again going to take this opportunity to make most of my comments in respect to our education system. There are many items that I would like to have an opportunity to discuss in this budget debate today, but because of the importance of the education reforms that are occurring and the financial implications of those reforms, I think that's where my comments should be concentrated.

There are two particular emphases I want to place on my remarks this afternoon. One has to do with accountability; I note that the Minister of Finance, in his comments during the budget speech, placed great emphasis on accountability. The second is around the perspective of the government's role in enabling things to happen in the education system. I spoke to that in the throne speech debate, and today I want to come back to that theme, along with the theme of accountability.

In that respect, the government of the day is the senior partner in the direction and guidance of our education system. It's fundamental that it work in cooperation and consultation with school boards and local school districts. Therefore I want to look first of all at the new initiatives of this government, which have been in the making for the past number of months. We encompass those in comments about the implementation of the report of the Royal Commission on Education.

For this discussion, I want to concentrate on the funding of those implementation initiatives. They are quite broad-ranging. They have been outlined by the minister in his policy directions for education. They

[ Page 5867 ]

deal with primary school, dual entry and a reorganizing of the first four years of schooling into a non-graded primary system; curriculum development all through the system, but with a lot of emphasis on what's happening in grades 11 and 12; the need to fund an adequate ESL program for the many new citizens in our system; funding for native programs; and opportunities to train the many new teachers that we will need, both replacing teachers who are retiring or leaving the system and retraining those who will need new methods because of the reforms and transformation taking place.

The government announced early on in the lead up to the budget that it was committing $1.4 billion to the implementation of the royal commission report. That's a lot of money; it's equivalent to the current annual operating budget of the Ministry of Education. The government has stated over and over again that this is new money, that it is not taken from the operating budget, that it is in addition to the money that will be available to the school districts for their operation.

The Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet) has also noted that this money will not necessarily be spread evenly over the ten years of the implementation plan, but that it will be unequally distributed. I think there has been a reasonable presumption that more of the money would be available early in the implementation program rather than later, when many of the initiatives will be well started.

The public has an expectation that the government will be accountable for this $1.4 billion in special funds. They have some cynicism and skepticism, because in the past the provincial government has in fact not been accountable with special funds. It has used those funds in an arbitrary way, and in many instances, most recently with the fund for excellence, it has not fully expended them.

What would accountability mean? It would certainly mean that we would know where those dollars were going. We would certainly expect that a good number of them would be going into school districts where the work has to be done, where there need to be pilot projects, retraining of teachers, curriculum implementation activities, and space and equipment arrangements. We would expect it to be available for new programs, because if you are going to transform a system, some things will certainly not just be changed but in fact very new. We would expect that there would be a clear accountability process. We would know what was budgeted. We would know that the budgeting was fair and equitable in its distribution to school districts, and we would, as I said earlier, expect it to be front-end-loaded — there would be more money earlier on.

What do we have in this budget with respect to the implementation funding of the royal commission? What do we have of this $1.4 billion? We have — it's almost a sum to gasp at — $44 million specifically noted, plus $20 million of something called "redirected" money. That's a little bit of Social Credit doublespeak, which I suspect means that money has been taken out of some part of operating and put towards the implementation of royal commission activities — not new money, as promised, but regular operating funds.

What's in $44 million? What's in barely 3 percent of $1.4 billion? Not a dime for school districts where the activities are going to take place. Not a dime that we can find formally committed for new space for dual-entry kindergartens. Not a dime for retraining teachers. Not a dime for implementation of pilot projects at those district levels. There is some reference in the regular operating budget to royal commission 'implementation funds, and we know that's to provide teachers for the system.

So we have, in this first flush of looking at this wonderful promise of dollars to make change happen in the system, a niggardly, dastardly amount of $44 million, and none of it going to school districts.

Accountability: none. Leadership: none. A sense of confirmation of the optimism and enthusiasm that the public has accorded to the ministry's initiatives: diminishing fast with this effort.

I spoke in the throne speech debate about the fact that one-third of the children in the school system are being affected by the first reform that the Minister of Education is pushing on behalf of the government — dual-entry kindergarten and the reorganization and a new curriculum for an ungraded primary.

How can school districts do their job when there is such a lack of leadership on the part of the Minister of Education and such an absolute lack of the thing that the Minister of Finance has called for on the part of the system — accountability? With that kind of leadership on financial accountability, there is little to encourage people to anticipate that this government will support them in their efforts.

I want to turn now to operating funding, because that's the nuts and bolts of how school boards run their districts. Again, the Minister of Education has announced on behalf of his government that there will be an increase this year. Regrettably, he has not announced that we will be looking at a reform in the education funding and taxation system, a reform that was very strongly urged by Mr. Sullivan and his commission. I will come back to that in the latter part of my remarks.

Let's look at what we have in the budget that is presented for the operation of school districts at this particular time, a budget that has been increased — by the minister's own comments and the Minister of Finance's comments — by 10 percent. That looks like a reasonable sum, until we begin to look more carefully. The first place the taxpayers look is at what effect this will have on their residential taxes.

What we're finding as a result of the government's underfunding of our school system is that while the government is proposing to increase its share by 10 percent, local taxpayers are looking at increases of anywhere from 18 percent to 50 percent. Why is it that we are seeing this unfair shift onto residential taxpayers?

Let me count just some of the ways, Mr. Speaker. First of all, this government has reduced non-residential taxes by $160 million. In 1984 they were $160 mil-

[ Page 5868 ]

lion higher than they are in 1988-89. At the same time the government, by virtue of its underfunding, has increased residential taxes by $308 million, the difference between what residential taxpayers paid in 1984 and what they paid in 1988-89.

Let me just note that in that regard the situation is even worse in Vancouver, where the non-residential share of net school costs has declined by 22.3 percent, the provincial share by 7.6 percent, and the residential share has increased by 34.6 percent.

The government has announced in this budget that it will be raising the homeowner grant for the first time in ten years. That will indeed provide some welcome relief to taxpayers — not a great deal at $50 for the under-65 homeowner and $70 for the over-65 homeowner, but some relief. However, one of the interesting things about the sleight of hand that this government engages in is that it claims all of that homeowner grant goes to pay the cost of education. If you look at the education budget, you will see that it includes all the money that this government sends off to municipalities for homeowner grants.

[5:15]

It took Mr. Sullivan to quantify what we were losing in education funding out of those grants prior to this increase of $300 million in homeowners' grants — about $30 million that doesn't go to education at all, although it's included in the education figures. I would presume that of the additional $40 million or $45 million that's going to be available this year, $10 million or $15 million of that won't go to education at all. There goes some of that 10 percent increase. It's not going directly to schools. It's not going directly to services to children.

When we look, in fact, at the base that is paid to school districts, we find that that base is inadequate. Again, let me just count a few of the ways in which that base fails to recognize the real costs of educating children in our system. For example, the government caps the dollars that it makes available for the education of special needs children; and school districts, who are required by the mandate of this government to provide for all children in their schools, pick up those additional costs. And who pays for that? The local residential taxpayers — unfair funding of the base by the provincial government; additional cost to the local taxpayer. For English as a second language in the lower mainland, the government says it's a federal responsibility, and to a large extent absolves itself of taking any kind of action to provide adequate programs for children.

Counselling is a shared cost for secondary schools, but it is not a shared cost for elementary schools. The support and preventive services, which should be available to help special-needs and other children in the system, are only funded by virtue of the work of local taxpayers in supporting their system. It should and must be a shared cost.

Finally, the government is always behind in recognizing the major cost of delivering programs, namely the salaries of teachers and support staff. It hides behind some inappropriate comments about collective bargaining, which, I felt, on the part of the Minister of Finance, were very inconsistent with the remarks of Mr. Sullivan that the outcomes of collective bargaining should not be part of the funding issues that the government addresses; and it disguises the fact that salaries are based on school district budgets a year old. The fact that 80 to 90 percent of school district budgets are in salaries is a fundamental reason why we are looking at this kind of underfunding of the base and the significant tax burden that local taxpayers have to endure. Mr. Hingston, president of the B.C. School Trustees' Association, has warned that the education system is heading for trouble if the Education ministry — and the government — doesn't recognize that it is not funding the basics of education.

Let us come then to the matter of reform of the education finance and funding system. The government has delayed that reform for a year. I think that is truly regrettable. Given the commitment — or lack of commitment — to dollars, that I spoke about earlier, for the implementation of the royal commission, given the tremendous amount of work that is already going on in school districts around change with new curriculum, and given the energy and the impetus for a true transformation of our system, the delay in education funding and tax reform is, I submit, an untimely one.

It is interesting that in one area alone, the area of independent schools, the government has gone ahead with financial reform and increased the level of funding as recommended by the royal commission. It is interesting, too, that in the policy directions and mandate statement — particularly in the mandate statement — the government makes a specific commitment in words to funding independent schools, but no commitment to funding public schools. I am puzzled by that difference in approach, because the public school system covers 93 percent of the children in this province.

What would we see in the kind of reform initiatives that this government should take in changing and improving the education taxation and funding system in this province? The first thing we should see is a thoroughly open process. It is a matter of record that the government indicated it would first of all deal with that reform in the hands of just the Minister of Education and the Minister of Finance. It did not suggest that it would have a broader consultative process. I believe that the government has been challenged in that particular perspective. I believe that it may, indeed, now be prepared to have the review of education taxation and funding a more open process. Certainly we would want to ensure that that process is open, and that when we review the fiscal framework, the broad discussion encompass the Education Policy Advisory Committee and others who are interested and concerned. We would want that reform to have as a fundamental principle that we recognize that government should fund the real cost of delivering approved services. We would want the government to look beyond assessed values as a criterion for establishing shareable levels for districts and look at some methods for establishing real ability to pay.

[ Page 5869 ]

And we would want the government to consider, because of the slippage in the homeowner grant, some sliding scale that reflects assessed values.

The reform issues that are before us are unfortunately delayed. We are going to be facing a tough year in taxation for our residential taxpayers and for school boards scrambling to do the task which this government has mandated them to do. We have a government which is not clearly accountable and does not provide the kind of leadership that we need for the change and transformation that is going to take place. We have indicated our preparedness, and the public has indicated their preparedness, to work with this government, but only if it is prepared to be accountable and offer leadership.

That's the challenge this year. It's a challenge that so far the government has received not very good grades on. I look for better before the end of the session.

MR. MOWAT: I'd like to begin my remarks today by noting that we are very pleased to have the new Lieutenant-Governor of our province as a citizen of the city of Vancouver. We know that he will be, and he has already demonstrated the ability to be, another one of our outstanding Lieutenant-Governors in the province British Columbia.

I would like to welcome the new members to the assembly, particularly the new member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Mr. Perry). Mr. Speaker, you know how much we on this side of the House will miss the former member for Point Grey, who recently resigned. Although she has left this assembly, she has certainly not given up on the people of British Columbia, and she continues to fight in Ottawa for the people of Vancouver. We know that much will be heard from her in Ottawa regarding British Columbia concerns.

I'm very pleased to speak on the budget today. I congratulate the Minister of Finance on bringing in a balanced budget, with money in the budget stabilization fund and money in our privatization fund. This did not come about easily, and I think we must go back and look at what happened.

I think there were many significant things that brought us to the only balanced provincial or state budget in North America. I think a lot of the credit goes to the Members of the Legislative Assembly on the government side during the 1983-86 years. I know that many of us were in all-night sessions. The government took a very strong look at where we were going with debt and tried to alert the other provinces and the federal government to the ever-increasing debt that was becoming a burden on the taxpayers by way of the interest they were paying each year. But only British Columbia recognized the need to do something about it, and we bit the bullet. I think this showed good leadership and good government, but it took a very determined government to reach that spot. The government had to maintain the 33 bills it brought in to get action.

We must also thank the citizens. The citizens of this province were very involved in the daily actions of what that difficult time meant to all of them in their daily lives, and they should be thanked for that.

I wish to thank the Minister of Finance for involving a number of us backbenchers in the special budget review committee. This was a very educational and enlightening experience for many of us. We had many insights into ministry programs that we never hear about.

I want to speak a little about the city of Vancouver and the growth we're experiencing in that city. Each year we're bringing in over 30,000 new people, and this growth brings with it special problems that this budget addresses in some very significant ways. Overall in this assembly we need to spend more time on budgeting and budget procedures in the years to come, so that our children will not inherit a deficit. Growth of the magnitude of 30,000 people per year in the city of Vancouver brings special challenges, especially for social services, health care facilities, educational facilities, social assistance, traffic, the environment, housing, fair methods of taxation, law enforcement and financial regulations. All these things make it very difficult for the city of Vancouver.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I want to thank the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck) for treating our constituency of Vancouver-Little Mountain to over $178 million in this budget for health care resources. I thank the staff of the many health care facilities located in Little Mountain — doctors, nurses, support workers, administrators — for their outstanding contribution to the health care of the citizens of British Columbia and Vancouver. I note in particular the amalgamation of University Hospital and Shaughnessy Hospital into one hospital facility now known as the University Hospital site, with the Shaughnessy Hospital site. This has been a great amalgamation, and it is something many of us felt could never be achieved.

Vancouver-Little Mountain is taking its share of regional growth. Commercially we are witnessing the addition of Pacific Plaza at the corner of 12th and Cambie opposite city hall. Another major shopping and office facility known as Crossroads is being constructed at 10th and Cambie. We have several new structures along our major arteries, not to mention the continued growth on Fairview slopes on the south side of False Creek.

[5:30]

I wish to tell you about one superb human asset that we have in Vancouver-Little Mountain. I want to pay tribute to my colleague the Hon. Grace McCarthy, who is my seatmate and the first member for Vancouver-Little Mountain. I know we will embarrass not her but the other side with her accomplishments. I understand that when she spoke yesterday it was her first budget address as a backbencher. I think her remarks were incisive, had visionary concern and were devoted entirely to the citizens of our great province. I'm going to list a few of her accomplishments, and I won't do them all, because I know the next member wants to speak before we get through here at

[ Page 5870 ]

6 o'clock. But there has been many a project that my colleague has been involved in. I look at the Vancouver Trade and Convention Centre, her support and opening of SkyTrain, and how Expo 86 was conceived over a cup of tea in England with Patrick Reid, who was to become the commissioner-general, and a former very dedicated public servant and deputy minister, Lawrie Wallace.

We have seen the growth of the tourism industry that we live with today as our number one industry. I remember when the members of the opposition were not for tourism and wanted to halt all the camper trucks coming into this province.

I think the member introduced the first child abuse law.

MR. BLENCOE: You must have written that.

MR. MOWAT: I better stop because I can see the members, particularly from Victoria, are getting embarrassed by all these things. But I'm not going to stop.

I want to talk about her vision for Pacific Place on the Expo site — a $2 billion investment over the next decade and thousands of jobs. It was a vision of international scale for Vancouver. We on this side of the House are very proud of these accomplishments, and so are the members from Vancouver-Little Mountain. Even the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Clark) got a bit upset last spring when he saw the vision of the project that was happening on the Expo lands. He was not against the project; he was just against the success of the project.

I want to add my voice to my seatmate's call yesterday for a challenge for this House to consider this year. We should all support a plan to have a scheduled commitment to a total debt elimination by the year 2000. Debt legacies are nothing to be proud of. The economic leadership of four full decades of Social Credit government helped to create an environment of wealth — a creation in the next decade that will allow us to pay off this debt. We should formally in this session commit ourselves to the job of eliminating the debt.

I would like to speak about two topics very important to the city of Vancouver. One is the jobs that the tourism industry produces for us in the lower mainland. The Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Reid) spoke today about it being the number one employer in our province. This budget tells us that foreign visitors to this province were up to 4.9 million. This is up from 4.1 million in 1985, just before Expo, and it shows that growth is continuing to happen. Growth doesn't happen by accident or overnight; it takes a lot of dedication from all those involved in the tourism industry.

The increase in funding for our ferries and highways is all part of what is bringing tourists into British Columbia. It's noted, though, even if it was not mentioned too loudly, that this budget provides for an increase in the budget of the Ministry of Tourism and Provincial Secretary of over 15 percent from last year.

The other important topic I wish to address today is housing. I think the provincial housing action plan is a great response to the needs that exist out there. We hear a lot about social housing, and that this government doesn't do enough, but all the Leader of the Opposition did to help the housing crisis was to tear down a heritage house.

We are pleased to be supporting a call this year for an additional 4,000 housing units, and to seek and negotiate for more money from the federal government — to agree to the cost-sharing programs and proposals we put to them.

I would not, and I should not, overlook the fact that this government already has supported more than 51 social housing units in existence in this province today. During this administration alone, we have started and we have now in place 5,516 new units. We are targeting groups for housing: those with families, seniors, disabled and hard-to-house singles.

I am very pleased to be on the task force put together by the Premier, chaired by Mr. Peter Thomas of Century 21, to deliver 4,000 new rental units within 18 months.

I am happy to talk about the homeowner grant that was referred to by the last speaker and how it has been increased by $50 and for seniors by $70. Vancouver-Little Mountain has a large number of renters. The change to the SAFER program and the increase in the rental ceilings is noted and applauded. Over 13,700 seniors will now be eligible for this program — almost doubling the previous figure. The renter's tax reduction program could benefit over 80,000 new families, with as much as $500 in this fiscal year to assist renters in this province. I also think a number of constituents in Vancouver-Little Mountain will look forward to the promised legislation to provide the residential tenancy branch with the ability to arbitrate monetary disputes between landlords and tenants in the tight housing market.

I would like to speak about the number of people who will benefit by our new housing programs. In social housing there will be over 4,000; in the SAFER program, 13,700; under the GAIN shelter allowance, there will be an additional 5,700 from the present 7,500; in the renter's tax reduction program, over 80,000; and in the homeowner grant program, from 105,000 up to 640,000. In the land tax referral program, where we had only 2,800, it gives an opportunity for many of the residents of Vancouver-Little Mountain to take advantage of deferring their taxes. The number of people who benefit is really unlimited for seniors, for those on fixed income who are sitting on a large piece of very valuable real estate. The residential tenancy program will assist over 10,000 persons.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to deviate a moment to talk about value-added wood products. We note that in the Mission area a new company called Norvik Timber will be developing a unique sawmill, which will cost $32.6 million, for a remanufacturing facility. This mill will take what is sometimes referred to as weed timber — red alder — and process it. It will create

[ Page 5871 ]

310 new jobs in a highly skilled industry, jobs that will be filled by the broadest possible labour force. The success of this large labour force will come from many areas, and we're pleased to note that the developers and engineers will be working to utilize skills of disabled people for up to 80 new jobs in this value-added plant.

I want very briefly, because I know time is short, to talk about the great moneys for education. We were told we were doing nothing in education, and now we hear from the B.C. Teachers' Federation that we're exceeding the royal commission's expectations and wishes and that we should be slowing down. The money we're putting into advanced education, with the opening up of so many more areas of opportunity and more places in our colleges and universities, is to be appreciated.

I think we have to look at the problem of assessments for taxpayers' property in the city of Vancouver, and I'm requesting that the government strike a task force on assessments and that we do this in conjunction with amendments to the Vancouver Charter. I've been privileged to bring in, in the past two years, a private member's bill to amend the Vancouver city charter.

I want to commend this government for bringing in a balanced budget. I thank the Minister of Finance for allowing the nine members of the back bench to have input into the budget. I am very pleased and proud to support this budget.

MR. GABELMANN: First of all, I want to thank the second member for Vancouver-Little Mountain for his kindness in curtailing his remarks because of the limited time this afternoon. One of the difficulties we have on this side of the House is that we've elected too many members, and we don't have enough time in either the throne speech debate or the budget debate to get us all in. But I'm quite happy to limit my time to the 15 minutes or so that are remaining, and next year I'll be happy to limit my time to seven or eight minutes to accommodate all the extra members we'll have by that time.

I also want to thank the second member for Vancouver-Little Mountain for cutting short his list of laudatory comments about the first member for Vancouver-Little Mountain (Mrs. McCarthy). It was beginning to sound like a eulogy and a funeral speech, and I'm sure that's not yet the case. I'm sure this is just a hiatus in a political career, not the end.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: That, Mr. Speaker, will be the day.

I want, in a few minutes, to talk about some issues that concern all British Columbians located on the lower coast and in the northern parts of Vancouver Island. But before I do, I'll simply say that my concerns about the budget presented to us last Thursday relate primarily to what I think is a growing acceptance by too many people in British Columbia — certainly by the government — of institutionalized poverty and institutionalized unemployment levels that are far too high.

We have not, in the 44 years since the end of World War II, despite what we see as great progress in our societies, changed at all; in some instances we have fallen behind in our attempts to ensure that the lowest quintile of our population, the lowest 20 percent of the people in our economy, gets a greater share of the wealth that our economy produces. That bottom quintile is earning less now than it was in the late 1940s, as a share of the wealth produced in our society, and that is disgraceful. The fact that budgets introduced here in this House, in Ottawa, in other legislatures in Canada and in the Congress of the United States do nothing whatsoever to change the gross maldistribution of wealth in our society is disgraceful. The fact that we can continue to accept, and in fact applaud, budgets that reinforce this institutionalized poverty, this limited share of the wealth of our society for so many of our citizens, is disgraceful.

Similarly with unemployment levels, we are sitting officially in the 10 percent range — unofficially, no doubt, in the 12, 13 or 14 percent range — in this province, and somehow we seem to say that's all right. Some communities greater Vancouver and certainly Campbell River are doing very well when it comes to employment levels. There are other communities in many parts of the province — I think of Kamloops and other interior communities — that are not doing very well at all. Yet we have backbencher after backbencher and cabinet minister after cabinet minister standing up and lauding this budget, which makes no real mention of the institutionalized unemployment and the institutionalized poverty that exists in this province, and I think that is disgraceful.

[5:45]

I want, later in the session during the appropriate estimates, to talk further about the pages in the budget speech that talk about the full-time-equivalent staffing levels that the government is now achieving. One page, as I remember, talks about how the limits are some 27,000 people or full-time equivalents working for the B.C. public service. Yet when you look at what the other line in the budget supplemental papers.... Looking at STOB 20, for example, you see that the increases in the expenditure for personal service contracts are such that we probably have many thousands of additional employees working for the government who are not counted as employees and who exceed the FTE limits that the government talks about; people who are not represented by the three respective unions in the government service, people who are not involved in the regular programs of government, people who nonetheless show up in the government phone book, people who....

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: What are you proposing?

MR. GABELMANN: Do what we've done for a century, Mr. Premier. Do what W.A.C. Bennett did. Acknowledge that they work for the government and have them work for the government.

[ Page 5872 ]

We're looking at $400 million plus of personal service contracts in this year's budget. How many employees does that represent who are not counted as employees, who are not represented by the three unions, who are not treated the way other employees are? I do not intend to say much more about that at this point, but I certainly intend to talk about it later during this session.

Thirty million dollars for the Island Highway, I have to say, is not enough in 1989-90. There are sections of that road that can have contracts let immediately, and they should be let in this fiscal year. That highway must be completed by 1994, in time for the Commonwealth Games. I just want to say that we are not talking about excessive amounts of money in that period of time, given the capital expenditure proportion in the Highways budget. It is essential that we get on before many more people are killed coming out of driveways every hundred feet on a major thoroughfare that has bumper-to-bumper traffic.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: I'm not talking about fast tracking. I'm talking about getting on with the job.

I want now to talk about an issue that I'm going to try not to be critical of the government about, because it has been emerging and it relates to responsibilities that I think are jointly held by a number of ministers, all of whom are in the Environment and Land Use Committee. I would assume the lead ministers in this issue are the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Strachan), the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries (Hon. Mr. Savage) and the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Parker).

We have developing on the islands of Johnstone Strait, on the coast of Vancouver Island and to a certain extent on the mainland coast, a crisis in planning and a crisis in land and water management that is of unprecedented proportions in this province. It is not well known by the public, because it's happening in areas that are not visited much by the public and are out of sight to the media of the province, given their location.

A small example of the kind of thing I want to talk about was represented in Saturday's Times-Colonist. The headline is: "Foreshore Closed After Clam Diggers Leave Shambles." There's a photograph of the remnants of commercial clam-harvesting activities at Espinosa Inlet, which is on the west coast not too far from Zeballos. The debris, the devastation, the pollution of every kind, from fecal matter right through to every other possible kind of garbage and human remains that can possibly be imagined, littering our clam beaches — our recreational beaches — is inexcusable in this province.

This one happens to have been drawn to the attention of the media in this particular case. But commercial clam-harvesting taking place all over northern Vancouver Island, all over many of the islands in southern Johnstone Strait, the north end of Georgia strait, is comparable. It's a tragedy in terms of the resource because the resource is being depleted — sackful after sackful of undersized clams as beaches are stripped.

The resource that has been traditionally used by people who live in the areas is now no longer available to those people. The resource is threatened with extinction on beach after beach because of the massive harvesting of illegal undersized clams and shellfish. The devastation to the environment in terms of tourism, and simply in terms of aesthetics, is beyond description. It's impossible to comprehend unless you visit these beaches following this commercial clam-harvesting activity. Both the federal and provincial governments have responsibilities for policing and ensuring that this kind of havoc is not wreaked. Insufficient staffing levels exist in both the federal and provincial services to monitor, enforce and ensure that this kind of devastation does not take place.

On occasion there have been racial overtones associated with this issue. I want to make it clear that I am not in any way blaming or ascribing blame to any particular group of people, or those who are making their living by commercial clam-harvesting. While it may not appear to be an issue to any but maybe a few thousand British Columbians who happen to see what's happening, in my view this is a major issue for the government to respond to.

Associated with the question of clam-harvesting on these beaches of these islands is the whole question of how we develop our marine resources. People who live in cities or in municipalities should imagine the ability of businesses or individuals to locate factories, stores, housing or highrises anywhere they want. They could just go and buy a piece of property and erect their highrise or their factory anywhere they want it, without regard to zoning or planning. The ability to do that, simply by asking somebody in another city on an island some hours away if they can do it.... This other government in this other city says to a few people: "Do you have any objections to this particular thing happening?" If there aren't too many objections, it goes ahead.

That's what is happening on the coast of this province; that's what is happening with many people on the islands called the Evergreen Islands. The islands I am talking about in particular are Quadra, Maurrelle, Read, Sonora, Cortes, and both the west and east coasts of Vancouver Island. Claims are being made for the use of bays, inlets and waterways by a variety of people who are doing good things — I want this to be understood. They are establishing finfish farms, long-line leases for oyster culture, and a variety of other aquaculture activities, but are doing so in the face of no planning, no determination of the appropriate use of each of those areas. Areas that have traditionally been safe for commercial fishermen are suddenly no longer available as safe harbours in a storm. Areas that have been traditional boating havens in the summer for people who are traveling our beautiful waterways in recreational boating activities.... They find that their favourite anchorage is no longer available.

People involved in other commercial activity find they can no longer make headway through particular

[ Page 5873 ]

waterways because of the massive encroachment of commercial activity. Hoskyn Channel, between Read and Quadra Islands, is the best example of this terrible misuse of these beautiful, pristine islands and beautiful waterways — combined with the way in which we manage our forests in these same areas. We have adopted the tree-farm licence system in many of these islands, which essentially says that according to the plans and procedures that have to be gone through, you can go in and essentially clearcut an island every 70 years if you have the TFL. In fact, for at least the first 15 or 20 years after the clearcut, you eliminate any possibility of a recreational use for that particular island, many of them very small indeed.

Worse than that, by having TFL control over those islands and the once-in-70-years clearcut, as opposed to selective logging every year on those islands by people who live there, you eliminate the possibility of employing people who live on those islands. While I'm not arguing for selective logging or the abandonment of clearcut, or the abandonment of TFLs as a concept in general, I think the provincial forest policy that assumes all forest land is the same is misguided and not in the best long-term interests of our province. An island in Johnstone Strait should not be managed the same way as the forest in the Nimpkish Valley. We should look at saying that we will not clearcut on those islands. We should have a different management plan, a different style of logging, a different style of harvesting in those communities, so that people who live on Read Island, Maurelle Island, Sonora Island, Cortes Island or Quadra Island can be continuously employed in those forests.

What happens now is that people fly in from another community every 70 years and clearcut the island. That's no way to practise forestry in these — not remote any longer — pristine areas that have good forest values. We shouldn't deny the forest values and we should take advantage of those forest values. We should also have values for people's lives, for people to live there. We should also have values for us from a recreational tourist point of view, so that people can do their boating activities and their other activities in those waters.

This is a subject I could go on about at great length, and I will at another opportunity. Given the time, I would move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Just before we adjourn, pursuant to standing order 2, I would advise the House that we shall be sitting tomorrow at the prescribed time. With that, I move we adjourn.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:59 p.m.