1989 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 34th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 5, 1989
Afternoon Sitting
[ Page 5875 ]
CONTENTS
Routine Proceedings
Oral Questions
Task force on oil spills. Mr. Harcourt –– 5875
Government workforce totals and costs. Mr. Gabelmann –– 5875
Federal pay deductions against B.C. government workers.
Mr. Gabelmann –– 5875
Inclusion of farm workers under WCB. Mr. Sihota –– 5876
Public transportation to Fraser River North Shore communities.
Mr. Jacobsen –– 5876
Health fees not noted in budget. Mr. Perry –– 5876
Forest Service personnel. Mr. Kempf –– 5877
Reopening of border tourism information centre. Ms. Pullinger –– 5877
Tabling Documents –– 5877
Budget Debate
Hon. Mr. Dueck –– 5878
Mr. Kempf –– 5880
Mr. Perry –– 5882
On the amendment
Ms. Pullinger –– 5886
Mr. Bruce –– 5889
Mrs. Boone –– 5893
Hon. Mr. Richmond –– 5895
The House met at 2:05 p.m.
Prayers.
MR. PELTON: Hon. members, in the members' gallery today we have a very well-known British Columbia broadcaster. As a matter of fact, I am given to understand that this gentleman was one of the first people involved in the CTV news, and I would like you to give a very warm welcome to Mr. Roy Jacques and his wife Lila.
HON. MR. VEITCH: There are about 140 Young Socreds registered in the great constituency of Burnaby-Willingdon, and today we have one in the gallery. His name is Mike Ridel and I would ask the House to bid him welcome.
HON. S.D. SMITH: In the members' gallery today is a longtime friend from Esquimalt, Ken Flanagan, and with him, Diane Wagner. Would the House please join me in making them welcome.
MR. RABBITT: With us today, we have a visitor from Edmonton, Alberta. Bryan Walton is the regional director for the western office of the Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors. Bryan was very helpful when the Task Force on Municipal Solid Waste was conducting its tour. I would like the House to give Bryan a very warm welcome.
MR. BARLEE: I am pleased to introduce Fred and Caroline Spooner from the lakeside city of Penticton. They have been a great help to me over the last nine months and prior to that as well. Also, their son, Garry Spooner, from Sooke, B.C. is in attendance. Would the House please give them a welcome.
HON. MR. REID: We are pleased to have visiting the precincts today Mr. Wayne Sterloff, the chief executive officer for B.C. Film. He has done a tremendous job in his first year in operation, and we welcome him.
Oral Questions
TASK FORCE ON OIL SPILLS
MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Speaker, on Monday the Minister of Environment could not assure the House that meetings of the joint oil spill task force held in B.C. would be open to the public. He said it was too complex, which is a surprising response, given that the official communication strategy, the public affairs bureau and the minister's own PR staff state categorically that because the "task force meeting is a working meeting involving government agencies, it would be inappropriate to involve the public." Has the minister now decided to reverse the official position of the public affairs bureau and his department and open the meetings to the public of British Columbia, like they are in Washington State?
HON. MR. STRACHAN: First of all, the Leader of the Opposition has incorrectly repeated what I said Monday. I didn't say it was too complex, I said it was complex, and there's a big difference, Mr. Member. I think when you have preambles to questions, you should try and get the preamble right. Read it; it's in the Hansard.
Secondly, with respect to the task force, all the results and reports of those meetings will be made public. I think it's in the public's interest to have that information made available, and as the meetings proceed and as the various items are discussed, such as emergency response, financial recovery, technology sharing and prevention alternatives, that information will be forthcoming to you, sir, and to members of the public who are interested.
MR. HARCOURT: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Obviously the public affairs bureau and the minister are more concerned with private meetings than public business, more concerned with public relations than public involvement. Can the minister explain by what rationale it is better to have Eli Sopow and Jake Banky as official observers, according to your agenda, than to open the business of the public to the people of British Columbia?
HON. MR. STRACHAN: I don't think there's a question there, but if there is, I'll take it on notice and bring back a response.
GOVERNMENT WORKFORCE
TOTALS AND COSTS
MR. GABELMANN: I have a question for the Minister of Government Management Services. This year's budget limits full-time-equivalent employment to 27,335 and includes approximately $1.35 billion for employee salaries and benefits. It also includes almost $426 million for professional services — this is in line item STOB No. 20. Approximately how many people are employed in this category, and/or how many full-time-equivalent positions does this represent?
HON. MR. MICHAEL: That certainly doesn't appear to be the type of question that would be asked during question period, that being one of an urgent nature. It could well have been handled in a written form or indeed dealt with in the estimates. But I thank the member for the question, and I will take it as notice.
FEDERAL PAY DEDUCTIONS AGAINST
B.C. GOVERNMENT WORKERS
MR. GABELMANN: I have a series of supplementaries which I will leave until I hear the answer to the first question.
I have a question to the Attorney-General. A letter dated July 20, 1988, was sent by Revenue Canada to the Deputy Attorney-General. This letter concerned the "status of provincial government workers for purposes of UIC, CPP and the Income Tax Act." The let-
[ Page 5876 ]
ter says: "You are therefore to ensure that the necessary steps have been taken so that the proper deductions for CPP, tax and UI have been implemented...by September 30, 1988." Have those instructions been implemented?
HON. S.D. SMITH: I'll have to take that question as notice and get the details, perhaps from the member — or from my deputy, for that matter, if he has the letter he's referring to — and get back to the House in due course.
INCLUSION OF FARMWORKERS UNDER WCB
MR. SIHOTA: A question to the Minister of Labour. Could the minister tell us when the government intends to direct the Workers' Compensation Board to provide health and safety protection for B.C. farmworkers?
HON. L. HANSON: That policy is under consideration, and when we have made that decision the House will be advised.
MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, this policy has been under consideration since 1952 when the Sloan commission recommended it be implemented. In 1982 the Social Credit government of the day said that coverage would be in place by April 1983. Some six years later no coverage is in place yet. Could the minister explain why this government has not...?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The government House Leader rises on a point of order.
HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, the member's question is clearly out of order, as it refers to future government policy. The minister has said that when that policy has been delineated, it will be given to this House.
MR. SIHOTA: I haven't asked my question, Mr. Speaker, for him to know whether it was future policy or not.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please; would the member take his seat. The minister is correct that the minister said he would take the question as notice and that it was future government policy, but if the member has a new question, a supplementary, he can put it, if he would put his question without the preamble.
MR. SIHOTA: The question which I was about to state to the minister is: could the minister explain why this government has not moved to provide occupational health safety coverage to B.C. farmworkers?
[2:15]
HON. L. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, that appears to be the same question. I have already told the member that when we have decided what the policy is, the future government policy, we will advise you.
MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, in 1982 the B.C. Medical Association recommended that coverage be provided; the same year the B.C. Branch of the Consumers' Association of Canada did; in 1983 the B.C. Human Rights Commission....
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The member has already stated that in his last preamble. Does the member have a third question?
MR. SIHOTA: No, I didn't; it was totally different facts in the last preamble, Mr. Speaker, but....
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Does the member have a question?
MR. SIHOTA: The question is as follows: in 1983 a Mr. Gerwal won a negligence suit against an employer after his chest had been ripped open by a machine that did not meet basic safety standards. How many more workers have to be injured before this government decides to take action?
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION TO
FRASER RIVER NORTH SHORE COMMUNITIES
MR. JACOBSEN: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Culture: as a consequence of the housing crisis in greater Vancouver, many people are moving out to the north shore of the Fraser, Pitt Meadows, Maple Ridge and the Mission area, and it is putting a great strain on public transportation in the area. Can the minister advise on likely government assistance to the residents of that community to deal with the problems?
HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, in response to the member's question, as you know we have been looking into the establishment of a commuter rail to somehow, in a very small way, alleviate some of the problems you have in the areas you mentioned.
There's no question at all that improved transit service is required. It is my hope that between the establishment of commuter rail in cooperation with the federal government and the CPR, and with the results of the transportation study that will undoubtedly see some improvements in the road system in your area, we will see an improvement in the way we move people and the provision of further buses for the area.
HEALTH FEES NOT NOTED IN BUDGET
MR. PERRY: I have a question for the Premier in the absence of the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations (Hon. Mr. Couvelier). Recently a number of increases in user fees have been announced including extended care, long-term care, ambulance fees and Pharmacare deductibles. On Monday the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck) was not able to explain why these increases were not in the budget. Can you answer the question, Mr. Premier?
[ Page 5877 ]
HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, there was an opportunity to ask the question yesterday of the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations. I'm sure there will be another opportunity to have that question posed to the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations, and I will defer until he is here to answer the question.
FOREST SERVICE PERSONNEL
MR. KEMPF: I have a question to the Minister of Forests, who — lo and behold — is here today. Given the Fletcher Challenge Canada experience with respect to tree farm No. 46 and the overcutting thereon resulting in the closure of a mill in Victoria at the end of this month, has the minister decided to add Forest Service personnel to ensure that management and working plans are adhered to by all licencees in the future?
HON. MR. PARKER: There are sufficient personnel.
MR. KEMPF: Well, Mr. Speaker, a supplementary. If there are sufficient personnel in the B.C. Forest Service, then how can we have had such an overcutting situation with management and working plan in place? Also, how can you assure other communities in the province of British Columbia that they won't have the same calamity?
HON. MR. PARKER: One of the years of high level of harvest happened during the term of my predecessor. Perhaps he could answer his own question to some extent. However, the seriousness of the cut balance has been increased due to the 5 percent takeback from all replaceable tenures in the province to build up the small business enterprise program, and also because there was a change of ownership. When Fletcher Challenge acquired BCFP, we took another 5 percent, and that 10 percent cut recovery served to emphasize the difference in the harvest rate. There is an independent audit being conducted at the moment, and we'll be happy to share the details with the member and other members of the House when available.
MR. KEMPF: With respect to the minister's predecessor, due to reasons very obvious to many, he was not there long enough to do anything about those things.
A final question, Mr. Speaker. Given that the minister was aware of Fletcher Challenge Canada's plans clearly three months prior to their going public, how many other such plans for shutdowns is the minister now aware of?
HON. MR. PARKER: I know of no other closures by Fletcher Challenge.
REOPENING OF BORDER TOURISM
INFORMATION CENTRE
MS. PULLINGER: My question is to the Minister of Tourism. Last year he closed the province's busiest tourism information centre at the Douglas border crossing saying it would be much better for the chamber of commerce in the area to take over that function. This year he's reopening it. My question is: will the minister now admit he made a mistake in closing the Douglas crossing centre in the first place and that this latest good-news announcement from his ministry is just one more example of the government's take-it-away-then-give-it-back, yo-yo style of economics?
HON. MR. REID: First, as an act of courtesy, welcome to the House. I'm sorry I wasn't here when you were brought in. I'm pleased they were able to give you a question, which I'm very happy to answer. Allowing you to cut your teeth this early in the game is great, but I see your leader is back today, and it's the first time I've seen him in the last couple of weeks.
I'm pleased to answer the question about the Douglas crossing closing. We closed it a year ago and brought in two other centres to replace it at the time. We thought that by having the chambers involved in the local area, they would have more effective application to the visitors across the border. We found, by virtue of a consultant who went around the area after one year's experience, that there was some flowthrough traffic being missed; they were not getting proper direction to some areas around the rest of the eight regions in the province. So it became very important, and we decided to do something very professional with a new centre that would be safe. The current one that we are reopening I want to admit to you today — since you want to be a critic, you can watch this very closely — that the facility we are reopening is not as safe as we would like it to be, and because it isn't, we are opening a new and bigger centre just down the road a bit. In order to service the public in the meantime, we're opening the old centre temporarily.
MR. SPEAKER: Before the Attorney-General starts, I would just like to comment that after question period today members may like to re-read their rules and standing order 47A.(b), which says: "...questions and answers shall be brief and precise, and stated without argument or opinion." Also standing order 47A.(d): "...debate shall not be permitted." And May's twentieth edition says that a question is not to promote a lengthy and detailed answer. If members would just read the standing orders and a bit of May, we could have many more members participate in question period.
Hon. S.D. Smith tabled the 1987-88 annual report of the Legal Services Society of British Columbia, pursuant to section 15 of the Legal Services Society Act.
[ Page 5878 ]
Hon. Mr. Davis tabled the annual report of B.C. Hydro for the calendar year 1988.
HON. MR. REID: May I have the floor for a moment, just to clarify my discussion in answer to that question? I wanted to make it abundantly clear....
Interjections.
HON. MR. REID: No, I don't want to mislead the House, Mr. Speaker. The question was....
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The minister cannot continue question period. Question period is over.
HON. MR. REID: I wanted to clarify a point.
MR. SPEAKER: You can make a ministerial statement.
HON. MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to make a ministerial statement. In response to the question, we will not as a ministry be reopening the Douglas crossing. It will be opened by the private sector, not by the government.
MS. PULLINGER: The minister seems to have a great deal of trouble explaining himself clearly. You close a crossing, and then you open it again. Now you're going to build another one; it's a yo-yo. We suggest that you submit yet another name for the doublespeak award of the year.
Orders of the Day
Budget Debate
(continued)
HON. MR. DUECK: To begin with, I would like to congratulate and welcome the new members who joined the House just recently: the second member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Perry), the second member for Nanaimo (Ms. Pullinger) and, of course, the member for Alberni (Mr. G. Janssen). Welcome to this House. I am sure we will have many hours of enjoyable debate, question period and answers from time to time.
It is with great pride that I speak in support of the 1989 budget. I, like the Finance minister and many members of this House, entered the provincial Legislature in 1986 with great enthusiasm and in the hope of accomplishing many things. The Finance minister and I were immediately appointed to cabinet, and the real weight of our responsibility became evident.
First I would like to say just a few things about my own constituency. The second member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. De Jong) and myself are fortunate enough to live in that particular area. The central Fraser Valley consists of roughly 75,000 people, and we live in a community where the air is clean and the water is pure. We have all the amenities of a large city, yet we live in the country. It is a farming community, but it is becoming more and more urban.
It is a prosperous community with strong family ties. They still believe in the work ethic. They are independent, and they don't want government interference. We have a mosaic of many ethnic backgrounds, many different cultures and many different religions — all in all, a very strong, stable, friendly community and a good place to raise kids.
It is the home of the famous Abbotsford Air Show. This year we will be hosting the aerospace trade show, which is an Airshow Canada event headed up by Patrick Reid, and it should be a national event.
Although it has not yet been announced, I'm sure that Central Fraser Valley will get the 1993 Summer Games. We have the famous Bradner Flower Show, which the Lieutenant-Governor is going to open this year. The agrifair facility is second only to the PNE and growing every year. We have the International Band Festival with tremendous public schools complemented by private schools and colleges. We have much talent in the arts and sports, winning many international awards in both areas.
[2:30]
As Social Credit MLAs, we on this side of the House have always taken pride in our predecessors' stick-to-itiveness: a commitment to presenting to the Legislature a balanced budget. That is the Social Credit legacy. When the economy turned for the worst in the mid-1980s, we were truly unhappy to run a deficit. This is not our way. The growing debt made me — and most British Columbians — very uneasy. During that period of time, the government worked very hard — and perhaps risked unpopularity — in making sure these deficits were kept to a bare minimum. At the same time the government continued to provide the safety-net for social services which are an integral part of our community. For those achievements I applaud the previous administration. It is that distaste for mortgaging our future that made me feel comfortable running as a Social Credit candidate.
Under the stewardship of the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations, we once again are in the black. We could not have achieved this so soon were it not for the unbending commitment to fiscal responsibility by administrations past and present. This commitment to fiscal responsibility has been a Social Credit hallmark from the early days of W.A.C. Bennett, unlike the NDP, who are now experimenting in alternative ideologies. They have a new revelation. They see things in a different light; new truths have come about. They now say you cannot continue to spend indefinitely more money than you take in. They now know there is no longer a money tree.
The NDP's flip-flop ideology is really interesting. It reminds me of a recent visit to a men's clothing store. A gentleman was speaking to a clerk and was trying on an assortment of ties. The man said: "I usually wear red ties because red is my favorite colour. But I just found out that the in thing is to wear blue ties, because blue makes me look younger and thinner." The clerk answered: "That is true, sir; it is a matter of taste. However, blue ties are in this year." The man responded: "That's what I'm afraid of. Per-
[ Page 5879 ]
haps I'll wear the blue tie and just buy a pair of rose-colored glasses." This is precisely how the opposition is behaving.
In the last few months I have been hearing familiar phrases coming from unfamiliar faces. I hear the phrase "sustainable development" and: "You have to create wealth before you can spend it." I think: "Hey, they are serious about wearing these blue ties." The Leader of the Opposition is desperately trying to be everything to all people. That doesn't work. The public isn't fooled by that; they can see through that. You might as well continue wearing your red tie.
I now want to turn to some of the specifics of the budget that affect my ministry. Mr. Speaker, I want to clearly say that I am very pleased with the budget allocated to the Ministry of Health. With an increase of more than a million dollars every day — that is the increase, and I want to emphasize that — it makes a total roughly of $12 million a day 365 days of the year,
I am confident that I can deliver the quality of care that British Columbians expect. The million dollars a day more works out to be about 10 percent more for the health care budget. With inflation running less than 5 percent, this budget allows me to put funds into areas that will greatly assist the lives of our seniors.
Home support service will receive a 14.5 percent increase over what we actually spent. I expect some of this money will go to pay home support workers a better income, which I think we all agree is certainly due. Long-term care will be enhanced.
Our hospitals will get increased funds that recognize population growth and, of course, demographic changes. It will not mean that hospitals will be allowed to start new programs or spend money at will, but it will allow a rationally planned expansion of our acute-care services. I think we've always said that a rationally planned approach is the way to go. That's what this government has done ever since it was elected.
This week I have announced the expansion of the mammography screening program — a new mobile unit I alluded to last year. Open-heart surgery at Royal Columbian was announced just today, with a unit in the future for Kelowna because they are into a $25 million expansion program of their facility. When that is complete, they can plan to incorporate this into their facility, and they will be the fifth open-heart-surgery facility in British Columbia.
We also opened another limited-care dialysis unit in Surrey so people from the Surrey area do not have to travel all the way to Vancouver. People with that ailment must go three times a week, and it's roughly four hours per treatment. This is a great help. I want in future to expand it even more in that area. These are just a few examples of what we can expect this year from my budget allocation.
I always enjoy following the reaction to the budget. As always, the criticisms have come from the usual sources and the bouquets have come from usual sources — all in all, fairly predictable reactions,
However, the usual criticisms in the health sector were not there this year.
In fact, I've only come across two criticisms of the budget speech thus far other than from the people in the House. The president of the nurses' union protested, and also the president of the British Columbia Medical Association. When you put those two criticisms into context — they are both negotiating wage and fee increases — I think I can feel good about the overall reaction to the budget allocation. When there are negotiations taking place, one must take that into consideration.
As Minister of Health, one area I see as a priority and one that affects my mandate directly is environmental health. The division between environment and health is really non-existent. It pleases me then to see nearly $200 million for environmental programs. Through my eyes, I see that also as health spending. Recycling, pollution control and toxic waste are all factors in determining the overall health status of our citizens.
In fact, $200 million for environmental programs, $253 million more for education and $165 million more for social services — when the number of people on GAIN, in fact, is dropping — are all signs of healthy public policy, All these programs — about $600 million worth — will improve the health status of British Columbians and are excellent examples of a real commitment to health promotion providing resources for quality living.
It's not just what's in my budget; there are many, many other things and many other ministries that, in fact, affect health, so we can say we're probably spending $5 billion on health in British Columbia. If you think that isn't enough, then tell me how much more you think is required to deliver a good health care service in this province.
Government thrust will be more and more on wellness, encouraging people to look after themselves. In other words, we're talking about lifestyle and keeping people out of the hospital, if at all possible. Each year Canadians spend hundreds of millions of dollars on drugs they don't need. Many adverse drug reactions lead to further medication, and the result has been a lot more over-prescribing by physicians.
Over-prescribing is so endemic that doctors often can't tell whether their patient is suffering from dementia or from the side effect of prescribed drugs. One Ontario hospital did 100 autopsies and found 36 died from adverse drug reaction. A doctor in Edmonton said: "Dr. Michael Watson of Edmonton pulls drug raids on his patients. He shows up, without notice, asking to see contents of their medicine cabinet. The pills that are not warranted are taken away. During such a campaign in the city enough Valium was found to put Edmonton to sleep for ten days." I am not saying that; I am quoting from a doctor.
Drug companies spend between $4,500 to $5,000 per patient to promote prescription drugs. Sixty percent of all doctor visits result in prescriptions. There is much we can do, and we can do it on our own. We don't need money. There are many things individuals
[ Page 5880 ]
can do themselves to prevent sicknesses: eat better; exercise more; quit smoking; drink less; have more friends and social acquaintances; look after our environment; and have a safer workplace, cleaner water and a better sewer system. It goes on and on; this is all part of health care.
Just how bad for our health is tobacco? I am quoting from Dr. Rachlis, who wrote a book recently on second opinions — and I want this House to know I am having dinner with him tonight: "Tobacco use is quite simply the single greatest cause of disease and disability in Canada: 30,000 to 50,000 people each year die from the use of that product."
MRS. BOONE: Make the Legislature smoke-free.
HON. MR. DUECK: We are. You are absolutely right.
Alan Barclay, former Deputy Minister of Health in Ontario, said:
"We scream around the fast track of life with carefree abandon until suddenly something goes wrong. Then we pull into the nearest pit stop and expect a quick fix will be able to patch us up so we can get back in the race, only to continue our lifestyle without regard to our health, in terms of wellness and risk of getting ill once more, and then blame the government once again for not having enough programs. Health is everybody's business, individually and collectively."
This is a good budget. We are the envy of every province in Canada. No wonder the Leader of the Opposition explained after the budget speech had been delivered.... He was out in the hall and said: "It's unbelievable." I can understand, with his recent conversion to free enterprise and with his discovery that you have to earn before you can spend, statements like that coming from him. But that was a few days ago. Who knows? He may have changed his mind by this time.
[2:45]
Actually, I feel sorry for the opposition; I really do. Their role in the British parliamentary system is to oppose, to criticize, to find fault. With a budget like this, it is a tough job. Needless to say, I — like all my colleagues on this side of the House and perhaps, secretly, other members opposite — support this budget enthusiastically.
MR. SPEAKER: The member for Omineca. [Applause.]
MR. KEMPF: I have friends on both sides of the House.
AN HON. MEMBER: You always have had; you always will have.
MR. KEMPF: Sometimes I wonder about that.
It's a great pleasure to add my comments to this debate and in the process add my own balanced approach to the discussion — not the "yes sir, no sir, three bags full, sir" approach required by the government members opposite, or the "if it came from government it's all wrong" attitude required of the official opposition because of our very unfortunate party system, I believe....
The budget speech made much of being balanced. I am not an accountant, but on behalf of those I represent, I really do hope that it is in fact a balanced budget. Not only that, I hope it would turn out better than the government anticipates, because if there's anything the majority of my constituents believe in, it's government being frugal with their dollars, spending within their means. I truly pray that the pea is, in fact, under the right shell.
One thing for sure: should this budget be balanced, there are individuals not present in this House to be thanked for it. One of those individuals is the former premier, Bill Bennett, who had the real guts to bite the bullet during one of the toughest recessions that British Columbia has seen since the Great Depression, who, against all odds and many hardships and much disdain, set in motion policies which we reap the benefit of today; and also the people of British Columbia, who suffered through those tough days and who provide all the means — the dollars of which we often speak so lightly in this House.
I want for a moment to talk about those means. They've been alluded to by my friends to my right. I never, ever thought I'd refer to them as being to the right, but sitting in my enviable position I'm able to view the world from a much different perspective. We've heard about rose-coloured glasses, but through clearer glasses; perhaps, Mr. Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Parker), able to see both the forest and the trees.
The means: little wonder that this Minister of Finance has been able to balance his budget. The people of British Columbia have provided the means. In the past two budgets that I've seen in this House, every conceivable tax in B.C., every conceivable user fee, has doubled, quadrupled — or worse. Some of the user fees have gone up as much as 200 percent. Fees of all sorts. I have a constituent who owns a small motel and trailer court. A year and a half ago, in marched a couple of bureaucrats to tell him that he would now have to pay $265 every six months for the use of the sewage disposal system in the ground on his property which he paid taxes on. Fees of all sorts have gone through the roof.
I too could balance my budget, whatever I spent, if I could dictate my income. A balanced budget on the backs of British Columbians.
Interjection.
MR. KEMPF: Listen and you might learn, Mr. Member for Mackenzie (Mr. Long). I listened to your speech yesterday, now you listen to mine today.
British Columbians are common-sense people. They wish to pay their fair share, their part, to look after the less fortunate in order to have an acceptable level of health care, education, social services — all those badly needed services that we've grown to accept in our province. But they do not take lightly being taxed to the bone in order that this Premier and
[ Page 5881 ]
this government might build a billion-dollar fund. I've heard it called several things: the rainy-day fund, the BS fund. Call it what you like. But we all know what it is, Mr. Speaker, as do you. We've seen it before. A billion dollars more than was required by this government, raised in taxes on the backs of British Columbians, primarily lower- and middleclass British Columbians, in the last two years. And the budget makes much of the fact that it will reduce the government purpose debt, still standing at $5 billion, by $250 million in this year, for a saving of $69 million, as I read it in the budget. If we have a billion dollar fund sitting there for we know not what, why don't we use it to pay down the debt yet another billion and save another four times $69 million on behalf of the taxpayers of British Columbia? An extra billion dollars raised on the backs of ordinary British Columbians, and at the same time others get off scot-free. If this billion dollars was needed — and I am sure it will be utilized for some good, political purpose — then why didn't they get it from the proper source? They've gone to the wrong well to get their water.
British Columbians pay through the nose, while integrated forest companies strip the province bare and run with the profits. Integrated sawmill-pulp mill operations loading costs on logging and sawmill operations, writing them off on stumpage, getting their pulp mill fibre for literally nothing, Mr. Minister of Forests.... I'll prove that in your estimates. Running sawlog and even veneer material through their wood rooms.... I'll prove that also. Why not? They're cheap. Underscaling, setting their own price of logs to the Vancouver log market, getting away with absolute murder, while the government turns a blind eye and British Columbians pay.
That is where the billion dollars is, if it is needed — and surely it is needed, with a five billion dollar debt still on the books. If it is needed, it should be taken from the proper source, not from the backs of British Columbians. Poisoning our waters, desecrating our forest lands, robbing our children of their heritage, blackmailing government and running with the profits.
The budget devotes one short paragraph to our primary resource, and it is virtually hidden under the heading of environment. It contradicts the throne speech. I'll read from both. The throne speech says: "We will expand our reforestation program significantly, and one billion seedlings will be planted in the next three years."
[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]
Then we go to the budget speech, and what does it say? "Over one billion seedlings will be planted over the next several years." Which is it? Over the next three years or the next several years? There is a great deal of difference. Which will it be? And who is going to pay? The big boys have been forgiven all their sins for NSR lands prior to October 1987, so who is going to pay for all these seedlings?
What of small business in the forest industry? No mention of small business in the budget at all, except in the appendices. I'd like to read from the appendices and make a comparison, which will show that small business, which harvests approximately 7 to 10 percent of the annual allowable cut in British Columbia — the minister will say 15, but that is wrong; and that figure was probably close to 6 percent last year — paid last year 24 percent of the stumpage revenue. Six percent of the harvest, 24 percent of the revenue; and this year they will pay 28 percent of the total revenue. That's fair, Mr. Speaker? Small business: devastated, taxed to death in the province of British Columbia.
Enough said with respect to forestry. It's a disaster, and we'll talk about it in the minister's estimates.
[3:00]
I want to talk a moment about highways. A great deal has been made of an over-$1 billion highways budget. That's nothing new. We had billion-dollar highways budgets three and four years ago. It's about time we spent money on our highways. I've got transprovincial highways that are worn out and have been worn out for quite some time. I've got projects that have been promised for years but never delivered upon. Many promises; I could go on and on with them, Mr. Speaker, but time is short. What's the Premier's answer to long-overdue highways projects? Why, it's regionalization. Transportation committees in the states of British Columbia. People discussing the same needs outlined years and years ago. Reinventing the wheel. And how many of those long promised projects will be put forward and are included in this year's budget? The committees are still meeting up there. None, I would suggest, Mr. Speaker. Those committees, that regionalization are a sham. We should be ashamed as British Columbians — and I was born and raised here — to have such a thing in this province. Committees spinning their wheels, probably the same wheels they're attempting to reinvent. Perhaps we'll obtain some of the answers to those questions during the minister's estimates. And this member, at least, will be asking questions in every one of the ministers' estimates.
Let's talk for a moment about education. I'd like to commend the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet) for his initiative. I look forward to the two new acts that will come before this House. I think some of the changes are bold, and I think many of them are long overdue. But I want to speak today about postsecondary education, and in particular about the long-sought, much-needed, much-deserved university for Prince George. We in the north central and northern regions of this province are not asking for, we are demanding a university — not an institution with degree-granting rights, but a university, a bricks-and-mortar university — in Prince George. That wasn't even mentioned by the Minister of Finance when he delivered the budget to this assembly. I see it's there, but he missed it out. But never does it say "university." Never anywhere in the throne speech, in the budget speech, does it say "a university
[ Page 5882 ]
will be built in Prince George." We in the north are demanding a university, a full-fledged bricks-and-mortar university.
For far too long now, Mr. Speaker, our young people have had to leave the north, at horrendous trauma and expense. And many do not go on to higher learning beyond the college stage. That's simply not good enough. It's not good enough, either, to think that you can buy us off by doing as government has done in Kelowna and Kamloops and Nanaimo. We demand a university, built in Prince George. Nothing else will suffice. If the government has a billion dollars which it doesn't know what to do with, or that is built as a war chest, then surely they can build a university in Prince George. They can live up to the promise that they have made to the people of the northern two-thirds of this province, to build a university in Prince George.
Governments have taken from the north long enough. We deserve a return for the loss of our resources, both natural and human, the devastation of our forest lands. You need only look around the communities that I serve to know about that, and the billions of tax dollars going south from those in the north, many of them my constituents.
Why a university in Prince George, you ask. For the forest industry alone, if nothing else, which in the north will soon be reduced to reforestation only. Inside of 25 years, all the harvesting will have been done.
There is $7.8 million for yet another forestry lab in the south, this time at the University of Victoria. Utter and complete madness, Mr. Minister of Forests. No wonder the Scandinavians have it all over us. They take our lodge pole pine and white spruce seed and grow a forest far superior to that which we grow, and that forest north of the longitude of the B.C.–Yukon border. I guess we've got a lot to learn. And where do we build yet another forestry lab in British Columbia? We build it on the southern tip of Vancouver Island. Where was our Forests minister, himself a northerner?
HON. S.D. SMITH: What does the first member for Victoria (Mr. G. Hanson) think of that?
MR. KEMPF: Listen, Mr. Member for Kamloops, and you may become Premier some day. Where was the federal minister of forests, himself a northerner, when this decision was made? Was the provincial Minister of Forests riding around in a Mac-Blo jet? Was the federal minister of forests asleep at the switch? Where were they when they were spending $7.8 million of the taxpayers' money building yet another forestry lab where it's not needed?
HON. MR. PARKER: What do you know?
MR. KEMPF: It's needed in the north, where 68 percent of the forest land in the province of British Columbia exists. And yourself a northerner! I wish your constituents could hear you, Mr. Minister. Perhaps they'll read Hansard.
HON. MR. PARKER: Oh, I talk to my constituents. Don't you?
MR. KEMPF: Yes, you bet I do. You're a one-timer. You're gone. You bet I listen to them. You're gone, Mr. Minister.
Where was the federal minister, Frank Oberle, when this decision was made?
Mr. Speaker, we must build a university in Prince George. We must have a forestry lab in that university in order that we too may begin proper reforestation, so that maybe, after a falldown period of 50, 60 or perhaps 70 years, we will again have a forest around our northern communities that can be harvested.
As a true northerner — I believe I'm a true northerner, and yes, I speak to my constituents and tell them the truth — I'll have a great deal more to say on these and many other issues in the weeks and perhaps months ahead in this session of this Legislature, as the government is held accountable for this "balanced budget" for initiatives that should have been, but are not, seen in this budget.
In particular, a promise was made and not kept. As northerners we're going to make sure, whether the Minister of Forests is with us or not, that a university will be built in Prince George. I look forward to debating these issues and many others in great detail in the estimates of the ministers in the weeks ahead.
MR. PERRY: You caught me still preparing the last of my remarks, but I welcome the chance to speak to the House. I should like to begin my remarks by thanking you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and Mr. Speaker in his absence and your staff and the staff of the House for welcoming me here so cordially.
I also thank members of the government side, particularly the Minister of Health, for their gracious welcome. Particularly, I thank my colleagues and members of this side of the House for showing me the ropes. I'd like to assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I shall attempt to stay off the ropes at least for my first few days in the House.
I intend to do my best to honour the ancient and dignified traditions of our parliamentary system. We all know that the House represents the aspirations of our people to a truly democratic society. Our present freedom of speech has evolved from the days when Mr. Speaker was required literally — I emphasize literally — to protect the ordinary members from imprisonment in the Tower of London or worse, merely for representing their constituents.
In the original House of Commons, members represented only a ruling elite — the few males allowed to vote. Now, of course, we represent all our constituents, including those who did not vote for us, and I intend to do so to the best of my ability.
In this province we've witnessed recently a dangerous trend away from that democratic evolution of parliamentary, responsible government — back towards the oligarchic tradition of the divine right of kings, and I need look no further than one of
[ Page 5883 ]
the leading members opposite to emphasize the point I'm making. I think the people of the province are well aware of this and want to see an end to this dangerous tradition of contempt for the law.
Let me use the time I have today to speak directly for my constituents in Vancouver–Point Grey and to their most immediate concerns, particularly those problems which have not been addressed either in the budget or in the Speech from the Throne. Let me turn first to the original inhabitants of my riding. Perhaps in due respect to history and geography, my constituency should be referred to as a "paddling" rather than a riding.
Capt. George Vancouver's diary of June 1792 records his meeting with what we now call the Musqueam Indians in Burrard Inlet near present-day Stanley Park: "Here we were met by about 50 Indians in their canoes who conducted themselves with the greatest decorum and civility, presenting us with several fish." I might add that Captain Vancouver was running very short of supplies at that time.
Archibald Menzies, the Scottish botanist who accompanied Captain Vancouver, wrote of a large deserted village of at least 400 to 500 inhabitants at Point Roberts — undoubtedly not deserted, but simply abandoned temporarily during the summer to a summer fishing camp.
[3:15]
Captain Vancouver, while he acknowledged his friendly reception by the natives in his diary, had the characteristic British arrogance to conclude: "We were the first people from a civilized country they had yet seen."
Simon Fraser's journal of 1808 describes the village of Musqueam at the mouth of the Fraser River's north arm: "The fort is 1,500 feet in length and 90 feet in breadth. The houses are in rows. One of the natives conducted us through all of the apartments and then desired us to go away, as otherwise the Indians would attack us." Evidently the native people had learned this time to be wary of European "discoverers."
The historical record is unambiguous. The archaeological record is equally convincing that native Indians were the original people, not only of the Fraser delta and its environs, but of this entire province.
In less than three weeks, we shall celebrate the designation of the Endowment Lands as a regional park. This is something for which I have worked in my own small way as a private citizen for 21 years with many letters to various governments on both sides of this present House. Many others have worked much harder for this, and a few have worked much longer than I.
The government's decision to preserve the Endowment Lands in their natural state has gratified most British Columbians, including me and my colleague the first member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Ms. Marzari). Regrettably it has also shown contempt for those Canadians who are the descendants of people who inhabited and utilized those lands for 10,000 years.
HON. J. JANSEN: Tell us about it.
MR. PERRY: I'm talking about the same people who welcomed Captain Vancouver in 1792.
Interjection.
MR. PERRY: I couldn't hear what you said, Mr. Member. The member knows that I worked on this issue, because I presented a brief verbally to him during his hearings in Vancouver — my brief that was never acknowledged, and a report that was never published.
Because, Mr. Speaker, the province consistently refuses to acknowledge the legitimacy of native land claims, the problem of aboriginal land claims has festered, not only for the Musqueam but throughout British Columbia. Now the Musquearn have taken what they believe is their only available avenue to secure their rights. The result is a legal process which will be costly not only to the Musqueam but to the taxpayers of British Columbia, and that is not fiscal responsibility.
Interjection.
MR. PERRY: If you had listened to my earlier remarks, you would have recognized that I began by acknowledging the importance of freedom of speech in the House of Commons and the subsidiary Houses such as this.
We on this side of the House have taken a different position, which is that the government must negotiate land claims with our native people on a fair and honest basis. This does not deny the role of the federal government. It is not to "give away the store." Any government must act, obviously, on behalf of all of the people. But it does recognize that native claims must be treated with the same respect as other legitimate claims to title. I am aware of no principle of justice which suggests that the native people, simply because they were here first, should not be entitled to fair compensation for loss of what was indisputably their land. Nor should they be deprived permanently of their ability to resume, albeit at a higher technological level, the sustainable development they practised for thousands of years before Europeans "discovered" British Columbia.
Our record as the dominant culture in our adopted province has not been good. I believe most British Columbians recognize that fair treatment of B.C.'s aboriginal people is long overdue; so I call on the Premier, if he can hear me, to view the Musqueam-Endowment Lands controversy not as problem, but as an opportunity to begin the historic process of reconciliation through justice.
The first step — only the first step, but a very important one — is to visit the Musqueam on their own ground without preconceptions and listen to what they have to say. I have done this recently, and it has been a revelation to me. I have seen things in the longhouse which I'm not at liberty to describe, but which have convinced me that the rich and vital cultural traditions of the Musqueam people are alive.
[ Page 5884 ]
Their claims to traditional use of the Endowment Lands are not idle. If the Premier could see and hear what I have seen and heard at Musqueam — and he can — perhaps he would begin that process of reconciliation which ultimately is inevitable, rather than forestall it further when he officially opens the park on April 23.
Let me turn, Mr. Speaker, to other issues of pressing concern to my constituents. The most urgent is the housing crisis. Nothing in the budget speech suggests that the government even recognizes that a crisis exists. When literally hundreds of elderly citizens are facing eviction in the next few months in one neighbourhood, that is a crisis by anyone's criteria. Let me tell the House about a few of the individuals affected. Many are single women in their eighties or nineties. One that I am aware of lost her husband early, thanks to his gassing as a Canadian soldier in World War I. Others may have lost children in World War II. Many tenants in Kerrisdale have lived in their present apartments for as long as 23 years. I've visited some of the apartment buildings on Balsam Street and on West 44th Avenue. The buildings are in good condition. The apartments are the kind of facility I would be happy to live in myself, and I dare say even the well-heeled members opposite might find they afforded comfortable accommodation. They are to be demolished so that luxury condominiums can replace them, and for what purpose? The reason — the driving force — is absolute greed. I said this during the recent by-election campaign, and I will say it again here in this House: it is immoral to destroy a good building and drive out the long-term residents who have done so much to build our country. It is as if they were rats who must be driven out so we can make room for the few people who are wealthy enough to afford the accommodation that will replace those perfectly comfortable and profitable apartment buildings. I am not an expert in real estate or urban planning; I am merely a physician whose job is to patch people up a bit when they are sick. But I know wrong when I see it, and it is wrong to evict long-term tenants in the pursuit of sheer greed. It may not be illegal, but it is wrong — and perhaps it should be illegal. Were the senior ministers — the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mrs. Johnston), the Minister of Finance and the Premier — aware of the situation, perhaps they too would be as concerned as I am about my constituents.
Perhaps we need to emulate that very conservative province of Ontario, which has a Rental Housing Protection Act that was passed in 1986 as a temporary measure — thanks to the Ontario NDP — and is now to be made permanent by a majority Liberal government. That act protects the rental housing stock from senseless demolition. It became necessary in the face of a housing crisis in Toronto.
I believe — and I fear it will be worse — that we are now entering a similar crisis in greater Vancouver. Emperor Nero fiddled while Rome burned, and we have seen the Minister of Finance and the Premier dancing a silly jig, despite the importuning of the Social Credit candidate in Vancouver–Point Grey. I hope they will listen, because if they don't, the people will speak in a voice that is unmistakably clear. It would be far better if they listen while they still have the time to do something about the situation. I hope the government will wake up to this fact. Even though it has no cabinet representative from Vancouver, it still has a responsibility to the whole province, including the city of Vancouver.
I have discussed only one aspect of the Vancouver housing crisis. I have no time today to detail equally urgent issues: rampant speculation in residential property, demolition of beautiful older homes, needless destruction of trees and other greenery, and crazy increases in property taxes which are unfair to residents of the city of Vancouver. These issues have nothing to do with racism. Our courageous new Lieutenant-Governor and even our former Member of Parliament for Vancouver Centre have recognized his and spoken out. The real issue is crass, speculative greed by ordinary people of all races from Canada and abroad, buyers and sellers.
The even more important political issue is the lack of any meaningful political response to the crisis. What alarms me most, as someone who has spent much of my life fighting racism and who comes from a family which has spent much of its life fighting racism, is that the small streak of racism which lurks deep in some of our people will be exacerbated by the current crisis, particularly because of the absolute lack of response from our governments, both municipal and provincial.
Let me turn to some of the environmental concerns that affect my riding. Suddenly the government seems to have discovered what the rest of us have known for years. We live on a finite planet which is not only our home but likely our only possible home in the known universe. To the extent that we continue to foul our own nest, as we sow, so shall we reap.
I am relieved to hear today from the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck) that he is sanguine about he quality of air in the central Fraser Valley. Maybe he knows something the atmospheric scientists don't know, or perhaps he is not worried about the global depletion of the ozone layer or about the gradual drift of air pollution up the Fraser Valley from greater Vancouver. I remember the old days of the Vancouver International Airport, when there was a warning from the atmospheric environment service that the greater Vancouver area, surrounded by mountains, would one day resemble Los Angeles in smog. That warning was there when I arrived in Canada in 1962. We paid no heed to it then, and we are still not paying attention to that warning. Coming from Vancouver to Victoria on a winter morning in the helicopter one can see all too clearly the air pollution drifting east over the Fraser Valley towards the hon. Minister of Health's riding.
Let me tell you about some of the other environmental issues that concern the residents of my riding. One is the barging of jet fuel up the Fraser River. That is a completely unnecessary initiative which is condemned by the Fraser River Coalition
[ Page 5885 ]
and feared by biologists such as Dr. Ken Hall, of the Westwater institute at the University of British Columbia, who know the most about the Fraser River estuary. It is feared by the biologists because that estuary is one of the most productive, if not the single most productive, biological assets in British Columbia. It has already been fouled for more than a hundred years, and now a completely unnecessary barging proposal by the major airlines proposes to risk a major environmental catastrophe in that estuary. It is a completely unnecessary project, something which should be scuttled before we waste any more public money on its environmental assessment.
[3:30]
Let me discuss another issue: the proposed expansion of the Vancouver International Airport. The Community Forum on Airport Development requests something that is only fair: that the federal, provincial and municipal governments should demonstrate to the public the convincing need for a third runway before we spend enormous sums of public money on a project of this type, and also demonstrate that the biological and environmental consequences are acceptable. As I said previously, we are talking about the richest biome in British Columbia, an area of international significance for waterfowl migration and for salmon and salmonid migration, where environmental impact must be clearly assessed. Environmental justice must not only be done but be seen to be done before major projects like this are decided upon.
Let me address some other environmental issues that concern my constituents: the progressive assault on the wilderness in this province, be it in the Stein, where the government continues to display absolute contempt for the concerns of the native Indians and for the recommendations of the Wilderness Advisory Committee, or in other areas like the south Chilcotins, the Carmanah Valley, the Peace River Valley, the Stikine and many other parts of the province where the government continues to feel that we can exploit nature without seriously protecting it.
Let me address some other issues. The absolute rape of our forests in British Columbia has continued under this government, perhaps at an accelerated pace which exceeds even that of previous Social Credit governments. In the hearings of the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Parker) the consensus — including the evening when I spoke to his commission and was cut off at the microphone — was painfully obvious that we need a royal commission to investigate the future of forestry in this province. It is painfully obvious not only in the public hearings but in the media and in virtually every other avenue of communication in the province: we need the royal commission and we need it fast, before we face the falldown to something like 60 percent of the present allowable annual cut, which most independent experts estimate as our sustainable annual cut. We cannot go on as we have been.
Mr. Speaker, let me turn to some issues of health. I have been pleased to hear some remarks of the Minister of Health today, although I am concerned that his criticism of the physicians of this province sounded somewhat unwarranted and indiscriminate. There is no question that there is over prescribing of drugs, particularly for elderly people, and that this represents an important problem for our health.
There is no question that smoking and tobacco abuse are the single largest public health problem in the province, one which has been woefully neglected by all previous governments. I know whereof I speak. During the election campaign I came out of my house and accosted pleasantly three young men, students at Lord Byng high school, who were smoking on my front lawn. I asked them whether they receive any instruction on the health effects of smoking in their school, and they told me they had had a 15-minute session in grade 6. They were now in grade 8. When I asked them what they knew about smoking, the boldest of the three told me that it destroyed the cerebellum — possibly confusion with alcohol, possibly a new scientific discovery of which I and my colleagues are not yet aware.
The state of health education in the province is pathetic, to put it frankly, and we need major improvements. We on this side — or when we gain the other side of the House — will cooperate with the Minister of Health in every possible way to assure this.
Let me speak of the impending crisis that presents itself in our health care system. The Minister of Health recognized in his comments to the House during the estimates debate last year, and I quote from Hansard, page 4984, that nurses in this province are "overworked, underpaid and not appreciated enough. I have to say all those things myself. They are doing one heck of a good job under the circumstances." Mr. Minister, this is a consensus again, not only of the Minister of Health but of the members on our side, of the doctors of British Columbia and the public: something must be done about the situation, because we simply do not have enough nurses in this province to effectively run our hospitals. When small premature babies are being sent to Seattle or Calgary — in the case of Seattle, at enormous additional expense to the taxpayers of British Columbia — the reason is not the lack of hospital beds or, in recent years — perhaps in the last year — not even the lack of funding; the problem has been a lack of nurses to supply the labour necessary to run those beds.
I recently visited the Children's Hospital of British Columbia and learned that the situation remains the same. When families from remote parts of the province schedule their annual holiday to come to Vancouver for two weeks with their children, and the operation is cancelled, the reason is not lack of physician time, not even, presently, lack of funding, but lack of nurses to attend to the children in the Children's Hospital during and after their operation. This is a serious problem; it bodes fair to become a crisis, and unless action is taken the situation can only get worse.
It's an important point for us to recognize — a revolutionary point, perhaps, for some of the members of this House, but important and true nonethe
[ Page 5886 ]
less — that no other sex than women would accept the present situation that the nurses in this province accept, and they will not continue to do so for long. Unquestionably men would not accept the lack of advancement, the relatively poor wages and the working conditions as patiently as the nurses of British Columbia have done, and I don't think they will continue to accept them very much longer. I encourage the government in the strongest possible terms to take measures which will avoid a nursing strike, and we will collaborate and cooperate in any possible way to achieve that.
Since I have a small amount of additional time, I will briefly address the educational issues in my constituency, which have been covered in depth and extremely well by the member for Burnaby North (Mr. Jones).
I want to give you some small examples of the way our university has been hamstrung by so-called fiscal restraint. In my department, the department of medicine, arguments have raged over the problem of sorting the mail, because there was no secretarial assistance. Secretaries paid by the Medical Research Council of Canada and other granting agencies were obliged to spend much of the time they should have been spending on medical research sorting mail. The funding problem is so severe that we face that kind of trivia.
At the end of their scholarship, exceptionally bright medical researchers who have received scholarships for a duration of five years from the British Columbia Health Care Research Foundation through lottery funds find that there are no university funds to support them. In contrast, the same practitioner would be able to go on the open market under fee-for-service medicine and earn an income from the same provincial treasury far in excess of the small income they expect in a salaried job as university teachers. But there have been no funds in the university, and in listening to the budget speech, I found it doubtful that the present measures will correct this situation.
Lectures I have given in the university have been in halls in older buildings, where it was impossible to darken the room to project slides because the curtains were no longer hanging. I said this during the election campaign, and the former director of academic planning challenged me on whether this could be true. When I telephoned him back, I assured him it is true. I have been in the rooms, I've faced the problem of not being able to darken the room to project the slides, and I know this is true.
Interjection.
MR. PERRY: The curtains are no longer hanging because they're torn to tatters and there is no funding to replace them.
The only possible solution to these problems is long-term funding — more than a single year's budget cycle — and a sustained improvement in funding for the universities and colleges, including improved funding for student aid to increase accessibility for students throughout the province and a rollback of the tuition fees that worsen the problem of accessibility.
I could go on for months covering the problems I know to exist in this province, but in view of the other business of the House, let me simply say that because of all the above problems, to which the budget offers no realistic answers, I move that the motion that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the House to go into Committee of Supply be amended by adding the following words: "but this House regrets that the hon. Minister of Finance has failed to rectify current tax unfairness, to protect renters from excessive increases and evictions, to provide adequate measures to protect the environment and generally to repair the social and economic damage caused by a decade of neglect."
MS. PULLINGER: Mr. Speaker, I would ask leave to make an introduction if I may.
Leave granted.
MS. PULLINGER: I would like to welcome in the members' gallery today a good friend, Clare Lawson, and her daughter Trista, formerly of Nanaimo and now of Saanich. Would the House please make them welcome.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, with your indulgence, before we proceed, the member for Mackenzie would also like to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
MR. LONG: In the galleries today we have 27 students and two teachers from Elphinstone Secondary School in Gibsons, a real nice little community in our riding. I would like this House to make them welcome.
On the amendment.
MS. PULLINGER: Mr. Speaker, I have now listened to all three of this government's budgets, and I'm pleased that this time I have the opportunity to respond. I'm even more pleased — and privileged — to second the amendment moved by my colleague the second member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Perry).
Before I begin my comments on the amendment, though, I hope I might be allowed to say a little bit and acknowledge those persons who have held this seat before me, who have represented my riding before me: people like Colin Cameron, Barbara Wallace, Dave Stupich and, of course, my colleague the first member for Nanaimo (Mr. Lovick). These people have made a significant contribution to this province. Their dedication to the principles of social justice, equality and economic democracy has benefited all of us.
I want to make special mention of my immediate predecessor, Dave Stupich. Mr. Stupich, as this House is well aware, served the people of Nanaimo and
[ Page 5887 ]
Ladysmith well for 23 years. It is a tribute to him, both the politician and the person, that he is so well respected and well liked by people of all political inclinations.
I'm privileged indeed to follow in the footsteps of these outstanding people. But privilege is also a burden, and I am burdened with the responsibility of following in the tradition of these people. I will do my best to do so; the people of my constituency deserve no less.
My riding consists of some 70,000 people. It stretches from just south of Nanoose in the north to just south of Ladysmith in the south; as well, it includes Gabriola and Protection Islands. We have a mature economy in the Nanaimo riding. It is not a one-industry town, a mill town, as it is so often typified, but rather a city with an increasingly diverse and broader-based economy. It is in fact an administration and service centre for the mid-Island area. Thus we have a large government sector, both provincial and federal.
[3:45]
Nanaimo is the home of the regional hospital, which is, I believe, the second-largest employer in the community. Nanaimo is also the home of Malaspina College and the Pacific Biological Station. As well as fishing and forest industries, my riding boasts a deep-sea port. And all of my riding is growing in importance as both a tourist area and a retirement area. Surprisingly, in spite of the increasingly diverse economy, my riding has proven to be very vulnerable to the economic shocks of the last five years. The people of Nanaimo have lived through some very difficult economic times. Our economy took a nose-dive a few years ago, and I cannot forget that.
I'm pleased to report that Nanaimo's economy, as elsewhere in the province, is beginning to turn around. It's beginning to move again, although, as I shall have occasion today to point out, we still have some distance to go.
What I want to do, in the time I have today, is to address some issues of particular concern to the people of the constituency of Nanaimo and to look briefly at the budget in relation to those concerns. One of this budget's featured items is highways. The minister stated, with some understandable pride: "Overall, highways construction capital funding in 1989-90 will be more than twice the 1988-89 level." I'm certainly pleased to hear that increase in capital construction for highways. But the minister also notes that only $30 million is allocated for the Island Highway project; that's $30 million for a highway estimated to cost $600 million by its completion date in 1996.
Clearly $30 million is not enough, and that's why my first question after taking my seat last Monday was to the Minister of Transportation and Highways. That's why I asked the minister, in view of the increased budget for highways, if he would take steps to speed up the project.
As those of us who live on the Island and drive that highway regularly know, we need that highway sooner, not later. I urge the minister to respond to that need by allocating more funds to the Island Highway project; by beginning construction immediately, both north and south of Ladysmith, where the present highway is dangerously inadequate; and by bringing the completion date forward from 1996 to 1994.
Another feature of this budget is health care. This government has committed itself in this budget to both preserving and improving our health care system. I certainly hope that is the case, as equal access to quality health care is something all British Columbians ought to be able to depend on. There is no question that health care is an expensive item; it's the biggest item in our budget. It consumes one-third of this province's annual budget and ought to be handled with care.
But we need to focus on things like preventive medicine, home care and alternative methods of care that are less expensive and more satisfactory. We need to use caution in health care — no question — but the fact remains that there are some serious problems not being addressed.
I will point out that the Nanaimo Regional General Hospital in my riding has what I believe is one of the longest waiting-lists for surgery in the province. There are nearly 2,000 people waiting for surgery at this hospital, and those who can't afford to go elsewhere will wait a full year. That's not good enough. I think the record will show that there has been neglect and lack of planning on the part of this government as far as our hospital is concerned.
Our hospital has been put in a catch-22 situation, and it has also put people who use it at risk. Like other hospitals in the province, our hospital is short of nurses — 37 was the last estimate I heard — one of the consequences of a serious lack of operating funds. As one of our local newspapers, the Nanaimo Times, pointed out recently, even if this budget provided an increase in operating funding, there would be no physical room for extra staff.
The badly needed $25 million construction project, if approved, will take up any extra space during the two-year construction period. It won't mean any additional beds, nor will phase II of the same project. Only in phase III are we looking at more beds, and that's obviously too far off.
While I welcome this budget's allocation of $155 million in capital funding, I am skeptical of the government's commitment to improve our health care system.
It appears that this government is more concerned with controlling usage by increasing premiums and implementing user fees than it is with planning and investing in those things that reduce the demand for high-cost services. One of those things is adequate social programs. Poverty and inadequate social programs not only contribute to high health costs but they negatively affect our future generations.
I admire those who continue to struggle and raise their children without an adequate income. I deplore the fact that they have to. The cold facts are: fact — unemployment in my riding is over 11 percent, and the budget predicts a drop of only one-half of I per-
[ Page 5888 ]
cent over the next year; fact — the minimum wage that more and more people are earning is 20 percent below the poverty line, and there is no increase mentioned in this budget; fact — with the present GAIN rate, an average family's income is 50 percent below the poverty line, and even with the meagre $26-dollar increase included in this budget, rates are still below what they were a decade ago.
The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that in my riding, as in so many others, we still have food banks, soup kitchens and increasing numbers of hungry schoolchildren. This government's callous decision to cut GAIN support payments for single-parent families last year sparked the formation of a child poverty action committee in Nanaimo recently.
The kind of poverty I see in my riding and elsewhere in B.C. is simply inexcusable in a province as rich as ours. I say with regret that this budget does not do much to alleviate that poverty. There are precious few signs that this government cares. Rather, it creates unemployment, it creates poverty and then it blames those it hurts.
I was intrigued and very pleased to see mentioned in the throne speech the promise of a minister of state responsible for women's issues. But, you know, there is nothing in this budget for women. What we see is a token ministerial responsibility with nothing to back it up, nothing to make it real. This government has stated that it is opposed to pay equity for women. It's clearly opposed to reproductive choice and a woman's right to fully funded, safe abortion services. This government has cut funding to shelters for battered women and to halfway houses, and much of the funding available now to women's programs is provided through short-term grants. The track record of this government on issues of concern to women is abysmal, and this budget makes it clear that there is no change in sight.
I see no mention of funding for child care. In spite of the fact that fewer than one child in ten who requires it has access to licensed care; in spite of the fact that some 60,000 children under 12 in British Columbia have no child care and are of necessity left alone; in spite of the fact that child care licensing and monitoring is woefully inadequate because of lack of staff and funding; in spite of these facts, there is only another increase in subsidy payments for infants. There is a need for accessible affordable child care spaces. Studies show that in 60 percent of families where both parents work, they do so to keep the family income above the poverty line. The children of these people, like those of single-parent families, need child care. It is neither a luxury nor a frill.
This budget, I am pleased to note, provides some relief for homeowners in my riding. The increase in the homeowner's grant and the property purchase tax relief will make home-owning easier for some. I applaud also the lowering of the tax deferment age to 60 from 65 years. This will allow more of our seniors to remain in their home.
AN HON. MEMBER: Great NDP program.
MS. PULLINGER: Great NDP program, yes.
But renters in my riding are in the untenable position of facing massive rent increases, up to 40 percent and 50 percent in some cases, and with vacancy rates near zero, they don't have the option to move. These people most often are unable to purchase a home. As part of restraint, this government abolished the office of the rentalsman and the rent review process. Now with the predictable reoccurrence of a rental housing shortage and the skyrocketing rents and evictions that accompany it, tenants have no real protection and few alternatives. The temporary renters tax shelter in this budget is only meaningful to those with enough income to claim the deduction; and the minister tells us that 80 percent of renters won't qualify. Studies show that giving interest subsidies to developers is not an effective means of increasing the supply of affordable housing. In the past six months I have visited or spoken to many people who live in apartments in my riding — renters. The vast majority of them are negatively and seriously affected by the rental housing shortage. There is nothing in this budget for most of these people.
The final issues I want to address in the short time I have are the important issues of forest management and the environment. British Columbians are aware that we can no longer tolerate the degradation of our environment. It's becoming more than an economic issue; it's becoming a survival issue. We must change our present destructive ways. We must invest now to promote the kind of growth and create the kinds of jobs that will both protect and enhance our environment.
The forest industry, Mr. Speaker, is of primary importance in our economy, but it has been seriously mismanaged by this government, as the recent Fletcher Challenge layoffs on this island have shown. This government has allowed over-cutting and waste in our forests, and our workers and families are suffering the consequences of job loss. Forest industry profits are rising, annual cuts are rising, but the number of jobs in the industry and the provincial revenue from the industry are falling. Reforestation and silviculture programs have been inadequate. We are not getting a fair return for our forest resources under this government, and its record of forest management is poor at best. Control of our forests is increasingly in the hands of a few foreign-owned forest companies, and this government's plans to privatize our forests through tree-farm licences will hand over more control to these corporations. At the same time, staffing has been cut to the Ministry of Forests. Funding has been cut to silviculture programs. Monitoring of corporate activity has been lax at best.
I am disappointed that this budget does so little to address the problems in our forest industry. Funding in real terms is projected to be lower than the rate of inflation. I'm disgusted that this government continues to refuse the legitimate demands of unions, of churches, of truck loggers and others — including and especially those of us on this side of the House — for a royal commission of inquiry into the forest industry in this province.
[ Page 5889 ]
The people in my riding are especially concerned about the environment. Like many areas of the province, my riding is heavily dependent upon industries that necessitate a clean environment, industries such as forestry, fishing and tourism. My riding includes several small and medium-sized islands. The uniqueness and fragility of these islands has been recognized by the formation of the Islands Trust under a New Democrat government. The people who live on these islands — and many who do not — are concerned that the unique environment and lifestyle of the islands be protected.
This government has neglected to adequately monitor major polluters such as pulp mills in this province. It was the federal government that finally took the action to close some of our shellfish areas. This government has not even enforced the inadequate existing standards, partly because of major staffing cuts in the ministry. Now we have a privatized environmental lab which just compounds the problem. Here again staffing has been cut, and this much-needed service has declined.
We had a major oil spill off the west coast of Vancouver Island. This government's response — a week later, I might add — was.... The Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Strachan) said: "We're ready to follow; we just need someone to advise us what to do." We on this side of the House are ready to lead, Mr. Speaker. We've tabled our sustainable development package of 22 bills.
[4:00]
Now the government says the environment is one of its most fundamental values. British Columbians and certainly many people in my riding are highly skeptical of this government's commitment to the environment. It's not surprising. However, one must give credit where credit is due.
I endorse this government's decision to increase funding for the environment. I just hope that this year they, in fact, spend it. I endorse the government's stated decision to better monitor existing environmental guidelines — inadequate as they are. I endorse any steps this government takes to protect our environment, but I question this government's commitment to the environment. I'm not surprised by the skepticism I hear in my riding about the government's desire and ability to adequately monitor and protect our environment.
There are a number of issues I would like to talk about here, were time permitting. For example, I'd like to talk about the need for a high school and a permanent elementary school facility in the north of my riding. I could talk about the lack of vision and planning that has created a situation where our young people are bused daily past two high schools to a third one that is already overcrowded.
I would also like to talk about Bill 19 and the anger trade unionists in my riding still feel at this oppressive and unfair legislation. I would like to talk about the unfair taxes — close to $1,400 of increases to taxes and fees — that families, working people and homeowners are forced to pay and close to $1,400 of increases to taxes and fees, not to mention the increased Pharmacare fee that the Minister of Finance neglected to mention in the budget speech.
I'd like to talk about the huge increases in homeowner and school taxes — while corporate taxes decline — and about inflated small business tax. This budget, Mr. Speaker, does nothing to address this unfairness.
I'm very pleased to participate in this budget debate and to second the amendment on this budget. It is a budget that needs amending, just as does the Social Credit approach to managing the affairs of this province.
The Social Credit's solution to our economic ills clearly is not working. So some few may profit — I will grant them that — the many are not profiting. Handing over our resources and our services to the private sector has not worked in the past; it won't work this time, nor will removing government regulations or reducing taxes to large corporations and the wealthy. Those misguided so-called solutions inevitably result in the widening of the gap between the wealthy and the less privileged, and that's what we're seeing at an alarming rate in the 1980s. I urge this government to reconsider its direction, listen to the people, stop selling off our assets and giving away control of our forests.
On March 15 the people of the constituency of Nanaimo, Ladysmith, Saltair, Cassidy, Cedar, South Wellington, Extension, Nanaimo, Gabriola Island and Lantzville sent a message to this government. I am the messenger, and I hope this government will heed that message. Clearly, Mr. Speaker, to judge from this budget, the government didn't listen to what happened on March 15.
MR. BRUCE: Mr. Speaker, it's a pleasure indeed to rise to speak to this amendment. First I would like to congratulate the second member for Nanaimo (Ms. Pullinger) and the second member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Perry) on their maiden speeches and welcome them again to this House.
I have some difficulty in respect to the amendment, and I'm sure that doesn't come as any surprise to anyone. I think the other thing that wouldn't come as any surprise to anybody would be the fact that if one were to look back in the records, I'm sure — I'm not 100 percent sure, but it's probably more than correct — you would find that year after year the watermelon patch has constantly presented an amendment, a motion of non-confidence, to the budget. If I was a betting man — and I'm not — I would probably bet that they have always done that. It amazes me. Here we have a budget that is absolutely extraordinary. It's incredible; it's tremendous. If I was in the watermelon patch — God help this province if I was — I think I would have presented a non-confidence motion that just would have said that I had no faith in this budget, because it isn't balanced enough; it has to be balanced more and more.
Not only is it balanced, but there are increases in expenditures in health, education, social services and highways. We have reduced the accumulated debt; we have balanced the budget. We have put aside
[ Page 5890 ]
some billion dollars for the rainy-day fund, and then on top of it all we've been able to provide increases in every one of those social services and ministries that are important to the people of the province. Really one would have to say that the proper amendment would just be that this budget isn't balanced enough.
Let's take a good look at this budget, because it is an excellent example of good stewardship and good fiscal management over the years. It's interesting to note that some members of the opposition are now claiming that they're free-enterprisers, that they continue to say so and they always have been. It's interesting that the Leader of the Opposition just the other day said that you have to create wealth, you have to produce more wealth to create more taxes. One hundred percent correct. But then what does the finance critic for the opposition have to say in an interview in B.C. Politics and Policy? Somebody on my right says that he would have reduced taxes. The very first thing he says he would do if he was the Finance minister — keeping in mind that the leader has just talked about the need to create more wealth — is raise the corporate tax rate by 20 percent. One guy says they would reduce taxes, the other guy says you've got to create wealth. Yet the finance critic for the opposition — who would perhaps like to someday be the Minister of Finance; if ever that was to happen, golly help us — says the first thing he would do is raise the corporate tax in this province by 20 percent. Is that fiscal management? I really wonder.
It's interesting when you talk about this amendment and the whole aspect that they have no confidence. Let's go back. I'd just like to recite to you from the budget criticism of the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Clark). He says: "In 1978 our gross domestic product was 10 percent higher than for Canada as a whole" — but — "In 1987 it was 2 percent lower." But where, my friends, will it be tomorrow? "In 1978 our level of business investment on a per capita basis was 10 percent higher than the Canadian average" — this all happening, of course, in British Columbia; but — a decade later...it was significantly lower." But where will it be tomorrow? "Housing investment in 1978 in British Columbia was 23 percent higher than the Canadian average. A decade later it was lower." But where will it be tomorrow? "Investment in social capital in 1978 was 16 percent higher than the Canadian average. A decade later it was lower." But I say to you, where will it be tomorrow?
I wonder: who was the government in 1978? The Social Credit Party of British Columbia, the party that knows how to manage the affairs of this province properly. Who was the government in 1979, '80, '81, '82, '83, '84, '85, '86? This party was the government. To say that here we are in 1978, to give us those kudos — thank you very much — for all those very important things we have done for British Columbia.... On behalf of this government, I will thank you for making that statement here.
Then to say in a clich�d fashion that ten years later it was lower.... Does one look at the fact that we happened to go through a recession?
Interjection.
MR. BRUCE: We created it, he says. It went around the world. Every single country was faced with it, but still, here we are in 1988 with a balanced budget.
If one were to take this little quote from the March edition of Western Report.... I would like to quote this article, because it is particularly important for you folks to understand this. I will read it slowly, because it is really important. It says: "At general election time, most voters, including many unionists, will only vote for someone they trust in government who will" — now mark my words — "be able to cope with a recession." It goes on to say: "Many voters will never vote NDP, regardless of the party's apparent change of heart." What does that say? Very clearly, it says that we knew how to take the steps that were necessary when things got difficult.
The leadership of this government and the leadership of the governments of 1983, 1984 and 1985, which were re-elected in 1983 and in 1986, and had been re-elected in 1979.... If you go right back to 1978.... Do you know who was re-elected in 1979? The same government that they talk about and that they think was inept. They're telling the voters of this province who voted for this government that they were wrong.
In 1983 the population of this province again returned this government to power, and then again in 1986. Who knows best? In my view, the voters, the electors, the citizens of the province are the ones who know best.
The second member for Vancouver East mentioned in B.C. Politics and Policy: "...I think it's simple to balance the budget in British Columbia. Absolutely one of the easiest things I could imagine doing." By golly, sure it's simple when you've got revenues coming in today and when you've got dollars there to spend on the social services that we would like to have. Sure it's easy.
What about those difficult times? What about when we had 20,000 and 30,000 people marching on the buildings here and demonstrating against this government? Would this group over here have held strong? Would it have stood there square and said: "We realize it's tough. We realize it's unpopular. We realize it's not politically expedient, but we are going to carry on with the direction that's important for the 'long-term viability' of this province"? Would this group have done this? Absolutely not. Boy oh boy! I'll tell you, it's easy to balance the budget in British Columbia when you've had a group, a party, a government, that's provided the leadership that has been important in making the decisions necessary for having a strong and viable economy in the province. Certainly it's easy.
[4:15]
He also complained about the non-residential property tax — that some years back it was reduced, at a cost of approximately $250 million. Wasn't that the same group that said the government should take some $300 million or so — or $500 million; it really
[ Page 5891 ]
doesn't matter — and throw it at refurbishing sawmills and plants to try and keep them open when they weren't productive, when they weren't sound on the world market? I don't understand the inconsistencies. On one hand they object to a reduction in the corporate tax and then on the other hand they're going to shovel it off the back of a truck. I really wonder.
I'll tell you, because of those corporate tax reductions.... I can speak firsthand about my community, Chemainus, where we were able to entice MacMillan Bloedel back to build a new mill which is now one of the world leaders in technology and production. Guess what? Union people constructed that new mill in a time that was really important to our economy in the province and in the community. Guess what? Union people operate that mill. Union people do the work there and make it as productive as it possibly can be; they make it competitive and will make it competitive in any world market condition. Union people did it, so don't stand up and complain that this $250 million, this non-residential property tax.... What it has done for the province is give it the old kickstart and keep the economy turning at a time when it was necessary. It really troubles me that a motion of non-confidence, when a budget as good as this one, that has something for everyone.... In fact, laughable as it is, the opposition has even made mention that this could be an election budget. It's not an election budget; it's a budget of good government. There is something in this budget for everyone, and it troubles me that they would stand and offer a motion of non-confidence, saying to the people of this province, who believe in the job we're doing, that they don't have any faith. I don't understand, but I guess as I grow older I'll learn.
The second member for Vancouver East mentions that: "A rational government would pursue a strategy to manage growth pressures in Vancouver and encourage growth in other regions in British Columbia that need jobs." That sounds very good. Somebody else mentioned some time ago that no new jobs must be allowed to be created in greater Vancouver if they can be located in Prince George, Terrace or some other area of B.C., and that a decentralization of existing jobs must occur in greater Vancouver. Are the two statements one and the same but only changed because we now are talking about being free enterprisers or we now have a different view of how the world really is? I don't know, but there seems to be some inconsistency in the approach they're taking in trying, from the opposition side, to handle the affairs of British Columbia.
It always amazes me that the opposition would present a motion like this, a motion of no confidence in respect to what I consider a very good budget for the people of the province. Let's just take again the thought that the opposition, as they realize that being in the hinterland.... They win the odd by-election; they even won four by-elections. But they've only won one out of 12 general elections. Certainly they realize some of their ways have to be changed, so now they've started speaking more and more about being free enterprisers, private enterprisers and the like.
Right off the bat, you really wonder how deep that goes or whether it's simply superficial when they say: "Any government which can continue with tax break schemes for corporations and the wealthy and come up with a new program in this budget that provides interest rate subsidies for developers while food bank lineups wind around our streets is a callous government." Shame on you. It's not a callous government. I know what the socialists would do: get a pile more money and drive the truck around and try to shovel it off the back.
The proposals presented in this budget would provide jobs for some of the people currently without work. Granted, there are some, and yes, we must work harder and more diligently in trying to encourage this economy and provide jobs for these people where we can. That's what that initiative will do, and in the end it will also provide homes. What's wrong with that? One, there's going to be jobs; two, there's going to be homes. Is that responsible? Of course it's responsible. For them to say other than that has got to be irresponsible. It amazes me.
Often I hear the socialists here, the NDP, mention how wonderful things are in Sweden. I have seen a goodly part of the world, but I never got to Sweden. Perhaps one day I'll have the opportunity. Maybe they won't let me in, but certainly one day I'll try to get there.
Let's have a look at Sweden. I'd really like you to listen to this. The Union Bank of Switzerland conducted a survey of 53 major cities around the world. A variety of economic indicators were combined into a number of indexes that measure each city's standard of living relative to Zurich. What we're going to analyze here is Stockholm and the city of Vancouver, and I think this is interesting. In terms of purchasing power, Vancouver has 10.5 percent gross more purchasing power than Zurich. Vancouver ranks second after Los Angeles among the cities surveyed. But Stockholm ranks twenty-first. It has 73 percent less purchasing power than Vancouver in gross terms. Is that good?
Wait; don't go away yet. I've got more good news. Don't leave me.
Let's take a look at the wage and salary levels. This is Stockholm, Sweden, and Vancouver. Sweden is a socialist country. Zurich's gross and net salary levels, using an index of 100, are the highest of all the cities surveyed. Vancouver, our great city in the province of British Columbia, ranked fourth at 88.1 percent gross and 83.2 percent net. But Stockholm, that wonderful, beautiful city in socialist Sweden, was well down the list with salary levels of only 71.8 percent gross and 59.3 percent net of Zurich's level.
Let's look at price levels — because all of these things do flow together — to see where a good place to live is. In Stockholm prices are considerably higher than the Zurich benchmark index of 100. Sweden's actual prices, excluding rent, are 34 percent higher than Vancouver's and fourth highest overall. Is that not incredible? Wonderful things.
[ Page 5892 ]
But wait a minute. Let's not leave this one item that warms my heart — food. After all, grocery stores and the like, are dear to my heart. Listen to what happens here. For a basket of 39 foodstuffs measured in U.S. dollars, Stockholm residents pay $480. But in Vancouver, in that wonderful city here in this great province of British Columbia, they only pay $300 for that same basket. Stockholm, $480; Vancouver, $300.
AN HON. MEMBER: That's free enterprise for you.
MR. BRUCE: Free enterprise, eh. There's your socialist government. Hey, does that sound like a good deal for the working man, the average person, the ordinary Canadian: less purchasing power, lower salaries, higher prices, higher foodstuffs all in socialist Stockholm?
I've got one more. Do you want one more? Goods and services. This is really interesting. You want to listen to this one, too, because it's all in there and you'd like to go back to the good riding of Alberni and tell the people the good news. By golly, my friends, there is good news in this province. I want you to listen to this.
For a basket of 110 goods and various services, Stockholm residents — socialist Stockholm — pay 34 percent more than the wonderful citizens of the city of Vancouver. Goods and services, my friends, that would cost $1,650 in Stockholm only cost $1,160 in Vancouver. That's socialism, my friends.
It's interesting that they would rise and offer, after ten years of hard work and labour and planning by this government — and finally a very good balanced budget, the only balanced budget in this country that offers deficit reduction — a resolution that even ignores the $388 million increase in health. A million dollars a day in our health services increased, and they ignore it. They're voting against that. Are they against that?
Capital expansion in our schools and our hospital facilities — are they against that? New ferries and new terminals for the ferry service in the province of British Columbia — are they against that? Expenditures almost doubled in our highways — do they not want highways? Are they against that as well? Is that what this amendment says? What are they for?
As I mentioned, they should have just simply said they were against this budget because it wasn't balanced enough. That's what they should have said.
We look around here and there's all this different talk about things they would do. The socialists have their own job development strategy. It was sent to me in a brown envelope. I'd like to read to you a little example of a socialist job development program based on sustainable development. Let me just explain to you this little example. There are two workmen with shovels, one of whom is observed stopping every 20 feet to dig a hole along the street. As soon as the hole is dug, his companion fills it. Of course, the process is then repeated. Sustainable development, I suspect.
"Comrades," shouts the observer, "what are you doing? You dig a hole, then the other fellow fills it up. You accomplish nothing. We're wasting money, paying you."
"You don't understand," one of the workers named Mike replies, "usually we work with a third fellow, McHale, but he's home sick today. I dig the hole, McHale sticks in the tree, and Colin here puts the dirt back in the hole. Just because McHale is sick doesn't mean that Colin and I have to stop working."
No, ladies and gentlemen, sustainable development: the record does speak for itself. When you come back to what this province went through in 1983 and 1984 — politically unpopular, very tough to deal with, terrible, troubled times for many people — it was leadership of the highest order. To suggest other than that would be to not pay attention to the facts of the day.
[4:30]
As I mentioned, there is not one other jurisdiction in this country — not one other province, not the federal government nor territories — that has been able to balance its budget. There are many today that stand in envy, wishing they had had the intestinal fortitude to do what needed to be done in 1983 and 1984 so they could enjoy the fruits of that labour, the fruits of that difficult time, today.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is easy to balance the budget, but it is easy because there were strong, difficult, not very popular tasks that were undertaken and done in years prior. When you talk about this budget and there being no fiscal plan and no management, by golly, you don't read the record. In my view, history will judge some years from now that the leadership of this government, and the leadership of this party in years prior, will stand far ahead of those in other governments for taking the steps that were necessary, unpalatable as they may have been, as unpopular politically as they may have been. But who was re-elected again after those steps were taken? You come back to that comment: the people of the province of British Columbia don't want handouts; they want good, constructive, meaningful employment; they want the opportunity to enjoy the services that we have come to enjoy throughout this province; and they want a nice and wonderful place like British Columbia to live in, as no other place in this country and world can be.
Mr. Speaker, I've heard people mention with respect to the Island Highway that it is only $30 million. Last year they complained that it was only $6 million. Well, next year it will be $90 million, and the year after that it will be $120 million. I would be prepared to bet that there will be members in this House that will rise in question period to ask the Minister of Highways about some delay that is occurring as a result of new construction taking place while the Island Highway is being improved. I bet that will come, because we are going to find disruption on Vancouver Island as a result of this construction over the next period of time.
This is good government and good initiatives. The Island Highway construction will be good for the
[ Page 5893 ]
economy of Vancouver Island: some $600 million over the next eight years, jobs for the contractors, jobs for the union workers. That, in fact, is what this budget is all about. To support a motion of non-confidence is to support a motion against the workingman.
Who is it, Mr. Speaker, that will build the highways? Who will build the new schools? Who will build the new hospitals? Who will build the new ferries and the ferry terminals? It will be the workingmen, the men that this government stands for, the men that this government will always protect, because we know what built this province: the people of the province of British Columbia.
MRS. BOONE: Mr. Speaker, it is certainly nice to know who represents the men in this province. I am here to tell you that on this side of the House we represent both the men and the women, not just the workingmen. The previous speaker was nothing other than entertainment.
This budget is a desperate attempt — and you saw the desperate attempt by the previous speaker — to make people understand and to believe this government, finally. This is a desperate attempt to reverse the fortunes of this government here that is sliding down into the ocean and will soon be out there among the oil slicks.
If you look at most previous budgets — and you have to look at the previous budgets of the Social Credit government to understand this budget — the history of the cuts and the abuses that this government has laid upon the people of this province is incredible. They have gone on, not just for two years, but way back, and the previous member actually has the temerity to stand there and boast about what the budgets of 1983 did to this province. The people of this province suffered tremendously in that era, and he has the temerity to stand there and boast about it. I can't believe this is happening.
This budget has a history of cuts and abuses to the public. This is very similar to a regretful parent who has been abusing their child, and suddenly says: "Sorry, I really didn't mean that. Here's 10 cents; go and buy yourself a lollipop. Forget what I've done to you in the past. Forget this." But I'm here to tell you that the people of this province will not forget what happened in these two years, and they won't forget what happened in the past years as well. They will remember. They will not be fooled again by a smiling face and by the abuse that has taken place, with the idea that we don't have to give any substance to this. "I'm going to run on style and no substance." The people won't be fooled again, as they were in the past, when in '83 the government reduced the sales tax to 4 percent and said, "We will never rise above 4 percent again, " and then immediately increased it to 7 percent, and then reduced it to 6 percent. They have the temerity again to say: "There was no increase in the sales tax." This government has bopped around with the sales tax for so long that the people don't really understand what's going on.
The education in this province is something that we ought to be ashamed of, not proud of. When I became a school trustee....
Interjection.
MRS. BOONE: You have me here today as a result of the school budgets, thank you very much. There were school budgets that came about in '82 that trashed the system. You cut the areas so badly that people out there were incredibly upset with this government. In 1983 they came around again, and this government said: "We are forgiving you again. Don't believe us. We believe in education; we're going to throw some money at you." And they threw a little bit of money at them just prior to the '83 election, and then a month after the '83 election, what did they do? They took it back again. Ping-pong ball. That's good education; that's good government.
There has been a trend in the education system to push more and more on local taxpayers, therefore reducing the amount that has come from general revenues. Now this government, after neglecting to increase the homeowner's grant for year after year, are finally increasing the homeowner's grant for a very small amount — long overdue — and giving back to the taxpayers what they have taken away in another area. Is that good government?
Mr. Speaker, you see your highways. I know that something is up when I see the Highways budget increasing, because this is hysterical. Social Credit governments in all areas have always, previous to an election year, paved their way to the polling booths in this province. But it doesn't always work. The tiny stretch of Hart Highway has been ignored by the ministry year after year, and that section of highway was paved no less than three times just prior to the 1986 election.
AN HON. MEMBER: How many times?
MRS. BOONE: Three times, trying to buy the area of Prince George North. I am here to tell you that the people of Prince George North saw through that and will not buy that anymore. They will not stand for this.
We have a Health budget here that has seen some minor increases throughout. This Health budget has been used in past years to build edifices to Socreds. We've seen wings of hospitals built, we've seen new hospitals built, and then no budgets provided to operated them. If you look in Prince George, the rehab unit was built in 1983, opened two weeks in 1983, and closed right after the election because of no budget. It remained closed until last year, when they finally got enough money to open that thing. If you go throughout this province, you will find wings of hospitals and rooms and beds that have never been opened, because they've never been provided with enough funds. Yet this government still insists on building new areas and not providing the funds to operate them with.
Mr. Speaker, this minister talks about prevention and health promotion, but he never once in his
[ Page 5894 ]
speech mentioned one of the major areas of health and major causes of health problems, and that is poverty. Poverty is the major cause of health....
Interjection.
MRS. BOONE: You did say "poverty." Then I assume you are going to be talking to the Minister of Social Services and Housing (Hon. Mr. Richmond) and asking him to increase the welfare rate so people will have a chance to have good healthy lives in this area.
There is no plan. There is no action from the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck). For two years the Minister of Health has stood there and talked about the drug abuse of our seniors. I suggested last year some positive steps that he could take to alleviate that abuse, yet no action has been taken — none whatsoever. We hear it all the time. We talk about drug....
Interjections.
MRS. BOONE: Mr. Speaker, if I get into the Ministry of Environment here, I think this is one of the biggest laughs around. The Ministry of Environment was cut — absolutely decimated — over the past years to the extent that nobody had any power to do anything. The ministry people have been left powerless to do anything they feel is really substantial.
I have to laugh because the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Strachan) was talking about the trappers' association and saying what a wonderful group of people they were. The truth is that the trappers' association is really fed up with this government. They're fed up to the extent that they are talking about burning down their traplines because they have not had any input, and they have had things imposed upon them. They are not happy with this government at all. We have seen increases of staff at the ministry. The trappers' association has advocated increasing the Ministry of Environment staff and the Ministry of Forests staff because they want better policing out there, but we haven't seen that happen in the past.
The budget talks about — and I find this hilarious — tougher monitoring of waste and enforcement of existing laws. Is it necessary to put in the budget that you're going to enforce existing laws? Surely it should be understood that any government enforces it's laws. This is saying that you haven't in the past enforced any of the existing laws.
We see major increases in this budget, but the money — or the majority of it — is in areas that are easily withdrawn; it's outside the ministry and out to other areas. The minister boasted about the $65,000 fine for a polluter. That's all very well and good, except that very mill would on that day make a profit of $120,000. So what kind of a penalty is $65,000? It's not very much of a penalty at all. It's hardly worth their while to live up to the standards, when they can actually still make money and abuse the standards that are established.
[4:45]
Now you expect the people to believe you have seen the light, and you've become a born-again environmentalist. That is a joke to anybody out there in this province. It won't wash, Mr. Speaker. The people of this province can see our water, they can smell our air, and they know that you're not believing this. I can certainly smell the air in my area, let me tell you.
Post-secondary education. Let me tell you a little bit about post-secondary education. You've been reducing funds to the extent that our students are now paying some of the highest fees in Canada. Is this commitment to our youth? Is imposing the highest fees in Canada a commitment to our youth? You're now saying that we're going to have access to education. Well, that's wonderful! What about access to education for the people in Nelson, where you closed down the David Thompson University Centre? You closed down a university there.
Interjection.
MRS. BOONE: They closed it down. It was a unique institution there. A large portion of their courses dealt with the fine arts. Perhaps that's why this government saw fit to close it down; fine arts are certainly not something this government has shown any respect for.
After watching them drag their feet for years on access to education for people outside the lower mainland, we are now to applaud their actions that are long overdue. People of the north have been forcing the government....
Interjections.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. ministers, could we extend some courtesy to the speaker, please.
MRS. BOONE: The people of Prince George have....
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I'm sorry to interrupt, but the member sitting next to you is passing remarks and he is not sitting in his own seat. If he wishes to comment, gratuitously or otherwise, it will have to be from his own seat.
MRS. BOONE: The people of the north have forced this government into acknowledging the need for post-secondary education. The minister has been pushed and shoved by the people; he has not come there willingly to acknowledge this need, nor has he willingly provided any of the access to education. Unfortunately, it's too late for action in 1989, and I think that is deliberate. There is no commitment. The minister has refused to use — as we aptly say — the "U" word. The "U" word has not been mentioned at all. I can tell the minister that we will be watching closely to see who is appointed to the implementation committee. We want to make sure that that is not just a "yes, yes" committee for the government and that it will do what the people of Prince George and the north want. We will not accept anything less than
[ Page 5895 ]
a university in Prince George. The minister ought to understand that by now.
The past two budgets have been hard on the working person. I find it interesting that the speaker who has left the chamber after ranting and raving at us for a half hour had the temerity to say he was standing and speaking for the workingman. Maybe he feels the workingman has not been hit. I say that the working person in this province has been hit by user fees and taxes. You have picked the pockets of the average British Columbian to the tune of $1,400. That's not a small amount for somebody who is working out there. MSP premiums have been increased almost 50 percent. I thought Pharmacare deductible wasn't being increased this time. I should have known you wouldn't let that pass. User fees on dispensing; fees for Pharmacare; user fees on physiotherapy, chiropractic, chiropody.
Sewage disposal, which the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) mentioned.... Those are the things that have been increased tremendously. Perhaps the members for Vancouver are not concerned about that, but I can tell you my constituents certainly are. It costs more to live in this province than ever before. It costs more to be born in this province, to get married in this province and to die in this province. It costs more to do everything in this province than it did before this government came into being.
The small business tax has gone up. Immediately upon coming in, this government, saying they represented business people, increased the small business tax 2 percent. Then last year they reduced it 1 percent. That still leaves it 1 percent higher than when they originally came into office.
What about the property purchase tax? Now the government is saying: "Oh, aren't we wonderful! We're giving some relief on the property purchase tax." Why did you introduce this tax, when we suggested an amendment that would give some kind of a break to people under $100,000? Where were you when that amendment came around? You weren't here voting in favour of that, I can tell you. What about the gas tax?
I would like to read something to you from last year's budget about the BS fund:
"Due to the boom-or-bust nature of the British Columbia economy, government revenues have been difficult to predict. Long-range financial planning, while desirable, was an unrealizable ambition. Certainty is needed for any planning exercise — whether in the private or public sector.
"The new budget stabilization fund will assist in addressing this problem. In years when revenues peak sharply, transfers will be made to the fund. In years of revenue shortfall, transfers will be made from the fund."
The budgets for the past two years have shown that our revenues are on the increase. The government boasts about how well this economy is doing and how wonderful this is. This is not a rainy day. Yet we have taken $500 million from this fund — from a rainy-day fund — and transferred it into this other fund. Where is this money going to be later on?
The side note here says that the budget stabilization fund is to act as a fiscal shock absorber. I would suggest that this fund is not going to act as a fiscal shock absorber but as a public opinion shock absorber. This budget does nothing to address the injustices of past budgets. You have picked the pockets of British Columbians to the tune of $500 million. You have given corporate breaks to the tune of $500 million. This budget is being balanced — if you can call it balanced — on the backs of the working people of this province.
It's interesting to note that while this budget increases the budgets of just about every ministry — except for Government Management Services, I might add — they are reducing the staff. Where is this money going? Are they going into contracting-out? Is the government using the usual Socred policy of favouring their friends? Is this where the money is going to go? I don't know where it's going to be going.
One thing I do know for certain is that in social services, health and many different areas, there is more and more contracting-out going on. That contracting-out is taking place without any standards. I have asked the Minister of Health to bring up some standards of services throughout the province, to bring some standards for their education and to make sure that people are being paid properly. There are no standards right now. We can have a wonderful service in Prince George. We can have a wonderful service in Vancouver. We may have no service whatsoever in Fort Nelson, because this is not a government standard service. That is what is happening throughout this province. It is happening over and over again because the services being offered are not being offered as government services, but as government services that are being contracted out to areas without any standards being applied.
Mr. Speaker, while this budget is trying to give the impression of a changed government, the people who have been hurt by this government and by the budgets of past governments will not forget, and they won't forgive.
HON. MR. RICHMOND: I'm pleased to rise and speak against the amendment and in favour of this budget. I too would like to welcome everyone back. This is the first chance I've had to speak since the House reconvened. I welcome the new members in the House who are here for the first time. We intend to make your life as easy as possible from this side of the House. No matter how short your stay may be here, we fully intend to cooperate with you. It's nice to hear the enthusiasm of the new members as they make their maiden speeches.
I'm always amazed at how great the critics are on the other side. Of course, they've had a lot of experience at being critics. When I listen to the speeches coming from that side, I fear they are doomed to be critics for a long time to come. The people of British Columbia recognize that it's very easy to be a critic and much more difficult to make things happen.
[ Page 5896 ]
I'm also amazed at the metamorphosis that happens to the socialists — whether it's provincial or federal — when they start to feel a little flushed with success, or when they start to sniff in the wind that they may someday be government. All of a sudden a change occurs over there that's hard to explain. We saw it a couple of years ago at the federal level when the polls started to show them that they may gain some ground in Ottawa, and we're seeing it on the other side that is flushed with the success of a couple of by-elections.
The metamorphosis starts to happen. It happens about mid-term in every election. You can see it over there. The tweed and corduroy jackets get left at home, and the three-piece suits come out. We're starting to see the three-piece suits. I can see one of the members is out of step with the rest of his party; he's still got the tweed jacket on. It's time, according to your leader, to put away the tweedy jackets. I'm not ashamed to wear my corduroy jacket, because I don't change my philosophy from one election to the next, as they do on the other side of the House.
The philosophy starts to change and out come the suits. The critics now start to say: "Hey, we're going to be pretty good guys if we're elected." They go to the business community, as their leader and a couple of other members did, and say: "We now understand — we really do, honestly — that you have to earn money before you can spend it." Some of us have realized that for a long time, and some of them are just now starting to realize that.
But do they really realize that you have to earn money before you can spend it? Somehow I doubt that as I listen to the speeches from the other side and the amount of spending that I hear underlying their statements. In fact, I challenge the socialists opposite to put dollars beside their suggestions, to put dollars beside the bills they wish to table in this House. I would like the people of British Columbia to know the price tag that goes along with some of their suggestions, if they can put a price tag on them.
I would like them to table their budget. I would also like them to bear in mind comments made by their own leader last year in my riding. The leader who sits right there said in Kamloops that this Social Credit government was underspending by $3 billion a year — his own words. I would like the people of British Columbia to bear that in mind when they start contemplating what might happen if — heaven forbid! — that party should ever form the government of this province: $3 billion extra per year. Just figure what that would be had that party been in power for the last eight or ten years. Can you imagine where the deficit of this province would be?
Yet they have the nerve to stand up and criticize this budget, a budget that is the envy of every jurisdiction in this country if not in the Western World. There are very few jurisdictions that could put out a budget like this and balance it. Even though they might dearly want to, they can't do it. But look how far away we would be from it if they had been in power for the last eight or ten years. We would be so far in debt in this province that your grandchildren, Madam Member, and your great-grandchildren would be paying off the debts from the socialist spending.
[5:00]
The other day, Mr. Speaker, when I was talking about the GAIN budget in this province, which is in the area of $900 million, the member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley (Ms. Smallwood) said she doesn't believe that we should try to reduce the GAIN budget — her own words. She was appalled when she found that I had said to the Minister of Finance that I would like to see the GAIN budget reduced by putting people back in the workforce. She was appalled — as was the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) — that I would say to the Minister of Finance: "Because of the programs we've introduced to put people back in the workforce, I think we can save the taxpayers some money by reducing the GAIN budget." They thought it was terrible that we were going to reduce the GAIN budget.
MR. BLENCOE: Overrun — a $46 million overrun.
HON. MR. RICHMOND: And all they can do is sit over there and holler: "Overrun!" The only thing that's overrunning is that member's mouth.
We have put more programs in place to assist people back into the workforce than ever before in the history of this province and more money than any other province in the country. We have put $26 million into programs to assist single mothers and family members back into the workforce, to assist them with child care, with transportation, with retraining, with everything possible — yes, with English as a second language, with becoming job-ready, to help them get back into the workforce and get them off the GAIN rolls. And those members think that that is terrible.
I do want to add to that, as I said the other day, that when we did discover we couldn't put as many people back into the workforce as we had planned on, the money was still there to look after British Columbians.
MR. BLENCOE: A $46 million overrun.
HON. MR. RICHMOND: They call it an overrun, but we call it serving the needs of British Columbians. I doubt if those members truly have discovered that you must earn money before you can spend it.
The member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mr. Bruce)....
MR. BLENCOE: Tell us about the Coquihalla.
HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, through you to the little second member for Victoria, I will address the Coquihalla later in my remarks. If he will just be patient, I will address that in a few moments.
I doubt very much if these people truly realize that you've got to have money before you can spend it. For the eight years I've been in this House all they've ever talked about is spending. They've talked ad nauseam in this House of the things they wouldn't
[ Page 5897 ]
have done had they been government, and even having not done those great projects they'd still be billions of dollars in debt. Their own leader said we were underspending by $3 billion a year, so let's take his word for it; I wouldn't argue with the Leader of the Opposition. I take that to mean that if he was in charge of the finances of this province he'd be spending $3 billion a year more than we are, and I have to take his word for that. I can imagine where the deficit of this province would be if the Leader of the Opposition was sitting over here.
It follows that if the deficit were in the billions of dollars, where would the taxes be? Where would the revenue come from? I ask these people who have just discovered that you have to earn money before you can spend it.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: You'd have to increase the sales tax.
HON. MR. RICHMOND: Oh! They would have to increase the sales tax. What else? They would have to increase other things, wouldn't they?
Interjection.
HON. MR. RICHMOND: Oh! Medical services premiums. What else would they have to increase? They'd have to put in user fees. Income tax: they would have the income tax rate as high as it is in some European countries.
HON. MR. REE: The corporate income tax.
HON. MR. RICHMOND: They've picked on the corporations already. We know what they would do to the corporations if they were government, because they told us yesterday. We sat and listened to what they would do to the corporations. So put on your three-piece suit, Mr. Member, and go and visit the business community and tell them you're on their side.
MR. G. JANSSEN: Three-piece suits are out of style.
HON. MR. RICHMOND: Take your one-piece suit, then, if you want, Mr. Member, and go and tell the business community how great a friend of theirs you are. Go and talk to them.
Imagine! You don't have to be a mathematician to figure out where the deficit would be had they been in power for ten years. I can tell you where the deficit and taxes would be: $3 billion extra a year on the people of this province.
As the member for Cowichan-Malahat said, this is a budget for the taxpayers of British Columbia. This is a budget for the people who pay the bills. Maybe they forget where the money comes from to pay for all these wonderful programs that I'll get into in a minute. Every taxpayer across the country right now wishes that he or she lived in British Columbia. We've got the second-lowest income tax rate in the country and a balanced budget; it's the finest place in the country to live. Everybody now either lives in British Columbia or wishes they did, after seeing this budget. Ask the people in some of the other provinces what they think of a budget like this and how far away their governments are from bringing in a budget like this.
Indeed, this is a budget for the taxpayers. Because, as has been said numerous times in this House — and very correctly — of decisions that were taken a few years ago, we are now in a position to bring in a budget such as this.
Spending is up in all social services. I hear the member for Prince George North (Mrs. Boone) say that we're not putting enough funding into all kinds of things. She was talking about the homeowner grant. Who brought in the homeowner grant? The Social Credit government. It's the finest plan of any in the country. Who just increased the homeowner grant? This government.
I heard the member over there saying about health: "What's a million?" Did she mean: "What's a million a day?" Isn't that what the spending is up in health, Mr. Minister? It's up a million dollars a day in the health budget alone, and they don't think that's enough.
HON. MR. DUECK: That's just the increase.
HON. MR. RICHMOND: As the minister says: a million dollars a day. How many governments would be able to do that and still bring in a balanced budget? Very few.
Spending is up in education. I heard the member talk at length about how we're not doing a good job in education. I don't hear that from the people out in the province when I talk to them; I don't see that in the results of tests given to British Columbia students. They seem to come out at or near the top in all the tests. In fact, the first member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Ms. Marzari) couldn't even handle the good news when it came out, if you recall, that the students in B.C. were doing so well. She said: "I don't know how to handle this. It's good news." That figures; they don't know how to handle it.
In social services, the spending and the services to the people are up. We have reorganized the ministry, which is working extremely well. We have restructured the rates — not a rate increase, but we have skewed the restructuring to the side of the handicapped people.
I want to clear that up. The increase that went to the handicapped people was not a normal annual increase. Let's call it a bonus for the handicapped people, who got $37 a month more because we restructured the rates. Nobody was a loser. The increase went all the way from $3 to $37 a month, simply because we restructured our rates and made them more effective and more efficient.
The services to seniors in this province have never been better; the seniors in this province are well served. I'm pleased to say that since the Minister of Health has taken on responsibility for services to seniors, they have got even better.
[ Page 5898 ]
I put on a seminar in my constituency the other day. I want this on the record, because it was very successful. I intend to speak with the Minister Responsible for Seniors (Hon. Mr. Dueck), and maybe we can use this as a blueprint for seminars around the province. We put on a seminar, Mr. Minister, for seniors, to show them as best we could how to get the best out of the last years of their lives. We brought in experts in the field from around the province and put on a one-day seminar for them. It was enthusiastically received. We had a turn-away crowd. The hall we had it in could hold 450, and we had it full. We turned away about 100 people. I want you to know that the feeling in the community was absolutely incredible, Mr. Minister. It was so great that they want us to have another one. I'll give you the details on it if you wish to have one in your constituency and find out how it was done. I'll offer it to every member of this House, because it was a great thing and the seniors really enjoyed it. Seniors realize that they live in the finest part of the Canada with the finest services to seniors anywhere in the country, without any doubt.
I would like to cover many topics. I hear the opposition constantly bringing up the word "environment" as if they own that word and no one else should be allowed to talk about it, or as if they discovered it. Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, that when they were in government for those 1,200 days, I didn't see a ministry of environment created. They talk about it now, but when they had their chance to do something about it, they didn't create a ministry of environment. How soon they forget that when they were in power they had a chance to do these things. Now they wish they had. They say: "Why didn't we bring in a ministry of environment?" But they didn't, because the environment then wasn't important to their agenda. They've been used to being critics for so long that they don't know how to run the store. They can be critics, but they don't know how to run the province. When they do get into the driver's seat, forget it. They're too used to sitting over there, and I think that they're going to sit over there for a long time.
MR. CRANDALL: They're comfortable there.
HON. MR. RICHMOND: Yes, they look comfortable over there, don't you think? In fact they look more comfortable in tweedy jackets and corduroy than they do in three-piece suits, so we want to keep them over there.
I want to talk for a few minutes about housing, as it comes under my ministry, and I want to expand a little bit on some of the housing action plans that were mentioned in the throne speech and in the budget. I want to just say quickly that the basic program breaks down into three parts: the rental assistance program, the rental supply program and the home-ownership program.
Some facts should be put on the record, as far as the rental assistance program goes. There already exist in British Columbia 51,000 social housing units.
Since 1986 the province, through the B.C. Housing Management Commission in cooperation with the federal government, has provided 5,516 new units, and over 1,800 units will be approved for development this year. The main target group is families, closely followed by seniors, the disabled and the hard-to-house singles.
I am pleased to say that because of the budget we have brought down and because of the fiscal management of this government, we were able to increase the GAIN shelter allowance effective July 1, 1989. We will be announcing that GAIN shelter increase in July.
The SAFER budget, because of this document, will be increased from $6.7 million to $14.7 million. This is the shelter aid for elderly renters. The estimated increase in the number of seniors eligible is 5,700, for a new total of 13,700. One of the key things we did, while increasing this SAFER budget, was expand the scope of it and make it available to seniors from age 60 on, where it used to be 65. Now any senior from 60 years on is eligible for the SAFER grant.
We have also introduced the renter's tax reduction, which will be of benefit to anyone at the low end of the income scale. They will be able to gain a reduction in their income tax. I am pleased that my colleague the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services (Hon. L. Hanson) will be enhancing legislation for the residential tenancy branch and providing new tenancy protection for long-term residents in hotels and lodging-houses.
[5:15]
The rental supply program is the one we focused most of our new programs on. That is to increase the supply of rental housing. With the numbers of people moving to this great province.... Approximately 4,000 people a month are moving into B.C., which is quite different if you remember back to '73 or so, when people weren't moving into B.C. Do you recall that? Do you recall the bumper stickers? I like to quote bumper stickers, because they're in terms that they can understand, and I remember the bumper sticker very clearly: "Will the last person leaving B.C. please turn out the lights?" Do you remember that one from 1973 or '74? 1 remember that one very distinctly.
So what we have in British Columbia is a problem of success. We are attracting 4,000 people a month to this province from across Canada and from elsewhere in the world, and of course, the first thing to be used up is the supply of rental accommodation. Our main focus is to increase the rental supply. We have several programs. Time doesn't permit me to go into detail on every one, but we have a program for Crown land rental or lease, and that involves municipalities and the federal government. We are pursuing a program of business immigration to apply to affordable rental housing, and that again involves the federal government. We are introducing rental housing interest assistance so that developers can build affordable rental housing and get a break on the interest rate. We have come up with a start-up grant for non-profit seniors' housing projects, to help ethnic and church groups to
[ Page 5899 ]
get off the ground and get their initial drawings and plans in place to develop seniors' housing. We have also come up with an innovative grant, an incentive program for municipalities involving the rezoning of land for affordable rental housing.
One other thing I want to mention, from which we are looking for great ideas and big things, is the newly structured board of directors at the B.C. Housing Management Commission, under the chairmanship of Peter Thomas and the crew that he has assembled around him. I am sure that in the next 60 to 90 days we will see innovative ideas in housing that have never been dreamed of in this or any other jurisdiction. I have had two or three meetings with them already, and the enthusiasm, energy and expertise in that group is almost overwhelming.
We have also looked at the home ownership programs. I have already mentioned the homeowner grant program, which is going up considerably in '89. We have expanded the land tax deferment program to capture anyone from 60 years on, rather than 65; we expanded the scope of that as well. We have enhanced the second mortgage program: the loan value has increased from $10,000 to $12,000, and the house value from $85,000 to $100,000. We have also brought in an amendment to the property purchase tax to provide relief not just to first-time buyers but to all buyers whose mortgage happens to be over 75 percent, up to a value of $150,000.
In summary, I think we have addressed the housing problem in this province very well. The programs we have introduced are innovative. We will also be making a Crown corporation of the B.C. Housing Management Commission, to make them more flexible in taking advantage of some of the financing schemes that we know the board will come up with.
In closing, I want to put to rest a few of the statements I hear from the other side that this is not open or accessible government. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker and members of this House, there has never been a government in this province more open or accessible than this one, and I am proud to be a part of it. I can tell you that I personally have taken the Cabinet Committee on Social Policy to every corner of this province, I don't think that's ever been done before; it was certainly never done between '72 and '75. These committees of ministers, representing every social service ministry in this government — Health, Education, my ministry, Consumer Services, Attorney-General, Solicitor-General, Advanced Education — have been to every corner of this province, in almost every member's riding, listening to the needs an wants of the people. Beyond that, they've been not just listening; they've been doing something about them.
The Cabinet Committee on Regional Development has done the same thing. They have been in every corner of this province.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: Not quite.
HON. MR. RICHMOND: Almost. They were in my riding; they've been in almost every corner of the province. I'm not on that committee, so I am not privileged to know every place they've been; it doesn't come immediately to mind. But they were in my constituency and were warmly received by the mayor and council, the regional district and everyone coming to present their cases to Regional Development.
What I'm getting at is: I want to put to rest the myth that this government has not been open or accessible. Look at the other committees and commissions that have traveled this province in the last two and a half years. You could start with education and a Royal Commission on Education, the justice commission, committees chaired by members that I see in this House — my good friend from Cowichan-Malahat had a committee on forestry. There have been committees and commissions on environment, forestry, education and almost every ministry you can name, traveling this province, hearing from the people, taking government to the people. When members stand up on that side of the House and say that this government is not open or accessible, I am afraid that they are not keeping up with the facts of what is really happening. We are listening to the people of this province.
I said to the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) that I would touch on the Coquihalla Highway. I would like him to drive that highway and go into downtown Kamloops — where I happen to be from — and ask the people what they think of the Coquihalla Highway. Just threaten to close it, or tell them the honest truth that if you had been government, it never would have been built. Ask the people of Kelowna what they think about the extension going into Peachland. Travel to Kelowna, Mr. Member, and ask them what they think about the extension to the Coquihalla, which will be open in a couple of years or less. Ask them if they would cancel it if they were government. You wouldn't have built it, but would you have the jam to cancel it? I doubt it very much.
We've stood up here many times and delineated the projects in this province that would never have been built had they been government. But what's even more important, without listing off that litany of projects again — and it's been done many times; the Coquihalla is only one — is that I would like to point out to the taxpayers of British Columbia that not only would they not have had those great projects but they would have been billions and billions of dollars further into debt.
Don't just take my word for it; ask the Leader of the Opposition, who said we were underspending by $3 billion a year. Just do the mathematics, and you will see why British Columbians like this document. People across the country — even Peter C. Newman.... I was reading the current issue of Maclean's; Peter Newman thinks it's wonderful. He was off base on some of his comments at the opening of his article — I think he's trying to take Fotheringharr's place on the last page, so he was a little off base — but he had to grudgingly admit that it is a fine budget and the envy of every other province in this country.
[ Page 5900 ]
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
Mr. Speaker, I'm very proud to take my place in this House and speak against the amendment and for the best budget ever brought down in this country.
MR. SPEAKER: The member for Cowichan-Malahat has asked the Chair for permission to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
MR. BRUCE: In the precinct today are people who make my job a lot easier — and I know there are those people who make your jobs as MLAs much easier in your own constituencies. Here in the House are: my constituency assistant, Pat Davidson; my constituency secretary, Joanna Rotherham; a good friend, Nick Garland; and my wife. Would you please make them feel welcome.
MR. SPEAKER: The question is on the amendment. I'll read the motion: "'...that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the House to go into Committee of Supply' be amended by adding the following words: for this House regrets that the hon. Minister of Finance has failed to rectify current tax unfairness, to prevent renters from excessive increases and evictions, to provide adequate measures to protect the environment, and generally to repair the social and economic damage caused by a decade of neglect."
Amendment negatived on the following division:
YEAS - 20
Barnes | Marzari | Rose |
Harcourt | Gabelmann | Boone |
D'Arcy | Clark | Blencoe |
Edwards | Barlee | Lovick |
Williams | Sihota | Pullinger |
Miller | A. Hagen | Perry |
Jones | G.Janssen |
NAYS - 34
Brummet | Savage | Strachan |
Vant | Michael | Dueck |
Parker | Weisgerber | L. Hanson |
Huberts | Dirks | Mercier |
R. Fraser | Messmer | Rogers |
Veitch | Reid | Richmond |
Vander Zalm | S.D. Smith | Couvelier |
Ree | Davis | J. Jansen |
Johnston | Pelton | B.R. Smith |
Bruce | Serwa | Rabbitt |
Long | Jacobsen | Crandall |
Davidson |
Hon. Mr. Richmond moved adjournment of the debate.
Motion approved.
Hon. Mr. Richmond moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 5:33 p.m.