[ Page 5901 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Budget Debate

Mr. Rabbitt –– 5901

Mr. Blencoe –– 5904

Mr. Crandall –– 5907

Mr. G. Janssen –– 5909

Mrs. Gran –– 5911

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Budget Debate

(continued)

MR. RABBITT: Good morning, Mr. Speaker, colleagues and members of the opposition.

My response this morning to the budget is one which offers my perspective: a Yale-Lillooet perspective and a free enterprise perspective. The difference between the government side of the House and the opposition side is sometimes one of philosophy, but it always seems to be one of perspective: the government perceived as builders, the opposition perceived as perennial critics.

As the governing party, we must be very careful and caring in making decisions, because those decisions we make today will affect us for many tomorrows. My colleague from Burnaby-Edmonds said, in moving the throne speech: "Our influence as MLAs is very short-term, but the implications of what we do are very long-term." That, colleagues, sums up our responsibility. We also must compare our track record to the opposition's track record.

I would like, for example, to take one sector of my riding and talk about our track record and the opposition's track record. That's the mining industry. Back in the dark days of 1972 to 1975, we could have called that government "the alchemists" because they turned high-grade ore into low-grade ore, and they turned low-grade ore into waste. In 1974 they proclaimed the infamous Mineral Royalties Act.

What was the purpose? It was designed — so they told us — to rectify inequities that existed, through their perception. What actually happened? By implementing their philosophy of taxing the mining resource industry out of business and of not agreeing with the digging out and shipping out which represented jobs, jobs and more jobs, they ended up almost decimating the mining industry.

I have a series of stats here. Some of the stats I hold the world economy responsible for, but some of the stats I hold the opposition — the NDP socialist government of the day — responsible for. Capital investment fell in the mining industry in 1972 by 45 percent. They cut it in two. That represented jobs, jobs and more jobs, and they eliminated them. This is the party that claims to be the representative of the working man. Don't believe it — not for one minute.

MR. BLENCOE: Men and women.

MR. RABBITT: I'll get to you.

There was a book written called The 1,200 Days; it could have been called "The 1,200 Dark Days." One of the quotes in that book says: "The trouble ... is that the NDP hasn't got anyone in there that knows a damned thing about mining." Let me tell you they didn't then and they still don't today. They don't have anybody down the benches who understands mining, heavy construction, sawmilling — and I could go on and on.

What did our government do? Let me tell you what they did last year. Newmont mine, on the verge of closing — this government addressed that. They worked in cooperation with the company, the trade union movement there, and B.C. Hydro, and they kept that mine alive.

Then we stepped up and assisted a new company called Similco into developing a further seven years in that particular mine. The jobs have gone from 330 to 380. Have you heard the opposition credit the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier), the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Davis) or anybody else in the cabinet for putting together this initiative? No.

We look at the NDP history in the mining industry, and the result was a lot of ore becoming waste rock. We looked at the result of what this government has done, and they turned what would have been waste rock into ore, and hundreds of jobs will go on for the next decade.

Hon. members, despite the attempt of the NDP to pinstripe socialism, it's difficult to believe that members of the New Democratic Party would openly renounce nationalizing producing firms. As late as 1971 the first member from the east bloc has been opposed to government takeovers. He argued: "Why should we expropriate and have to pay huge prices for those forest management licences and land grants that the companies got for nothing?" Does that sound familiar? What happened? Yet within a space of 11 short months he produced a track record which I'd like to spend a moment on. They acquired four forest company operations: the Ocean Falls mills; Columbia Cellulose operations in Prince Rupert and Castlegar; Plateau Mills in Vanderhoof; and they eventually purchased the Nelson-based Kootenay Forest Products. Given their track record when they were in power in those dark days of 1972-75, can we now believe that they've seen the light and are going to embrace the notion of wealth creation and the principle of free enterprise? The Leader of the Opposition may have put on his liberal coat, but underneath he's still got on his red underwear.

[10:15]

What this shows me is that the NDP as a political party is philosophically bankrupt. They must sway to the political right in order to pick up any new ideas. The New Democratic Party is like a man slowly sinking into a pool of quicksand and putting out his hand to grasp for help. Do you know what that hand is, colleagues? It's the hand of free enterprise that they're grasping for. Their party, their ideologies, are both obsolete and impractical. But there is a light at the end of the tunnel, because British Columbians will not be deceived. They were once; they learned their lesson. But the bite of socialism is much worse than the bark.

I'd like to compliment the Minister of Finance. I think he's done an outstanding job in putting the

[ Page 5902 ]

budget together for the last three years. I'd also like to thank the minister for giving me the opportunity to sit on a caucus budget review committee. Although it may have been a controversial decision, it was a good decision which has resulted in a good process. I now believe that every member who sat on that committee has a better understanding of the budget and the budget process than the financial critic of the opposition has.

I would like to ask during this budget debate where the finance critic from the opposition is.

MR. SERWA: Where is the leader?

MR. RABBITT: That is a good question. Where is the leader? He's going to have to start wearing a name-tag so we'll know who he is when he comes into the House, because he is never here.

When we look at the highlights of this year's budget, it's a great track record. The economy is going to be up 3 percent; 34,000 more jobs in 1989; unemployment rate is down; revenue equals expenditure; budget stabilization is over a billion dollars; privatization benefit funds are set aside at $320 million; the debt is declining and interest payment debt is declining.

On the positive side, it is continuing a provincial housing action plan — $120 million. Almost $200 million pledged by this government will go forward in environmental programs this year.

We look at the Royal Commission on Education and the implementation that the minister is bringing in. The Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet) is budgeting over $250 million — a quarter of a billion dollars — this year. Advanced Education and Job Training — over $120 million. Ministry of Health — $388 million, which is over a million dollars a day. That's not the total budget; that's just added to the budget to keep British Columbians healthy. Social Services — $165 million. Transportation and Highways —   over a billion dollars. That budget will be more than doubled for construction capital and up considerably for rehabilitation.

One point that has skittered by and not too many have mentioned is the $286 million that is being transferred to municipalities through the revenue sharing fund.

Those are just the highlights, Mr. Minister, and I have to commend you because it is a good budget. It is looking after the needs of British Columbians.

There's also been some criticism of the minister's proposal to invest financing through the VSE. Now what does the NDP propose? Do you want us to go to Toronto? Do you want us to go New York? Do you want us to go to Tokyo or other foreign areas? Presently there are $10 billion in Canadian pension funds held here at fixed rates. If they so wish, under the proposal that the minister is bringing forward they will be able to invest in blue chip stocks in British Columbia. That's investment in British Columbia that will create more jobs. That's jobs, member — jobs in this province.

I can tell the opposition that before this happens the minister will bring in legislation, they will be able to debate it, and they will be able to determine whether it's good or bad. I'll tell you right now that it's a good decision, because the improved income from those pension funds will go back into the pension funds to give the retired people in this province a higher return and a higher pension.

On April 4 my colleague the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Hon. Mr. Michael) made reference to some comparisons on page 76 regarding taxes in the province of British Columbia as compared to those in the province of Manitoba. I think it pointed out very clearly, Mr. Speaker, that after 25 years of socialism in that province they have given Manitoba one of the highest rates of taxation in Canada. That's socialism for you.

Let's look at the credibility of the NDP. Since the House has sat I have had delivered to my doorstep a report from "your Member of the Legislative Assembly." I'm glad that I don't live here permanently, because I wouldn't want this member representing me. On the front page, under the government crest, it says: "Dear friends: We've been involved in many issues in recent months, but two in particular concern us because they are of such vital importance to our quality of life here in Victoria: affordable housing and our environment."

Yet I was rather disappointed when I spoke on the environment here a few short days ago to find that the first member for Victoria (Mr. G. Hanson) said that he didn't have a chance to have any input into my so-called one-man report. I'd like to tell this House that we invited everybody in the greater Victoria area. We held meetings, public hearings here for two days. I am sad to say that neither member from Victoria responded. In the first member's statement, he mentioned that I was misleading the House. I would like to have it on record. just read what has happened, because now I can tell you who was misleading.

MR. MOWAT: Did they attend the meetings?

MR. RABBITT: We had two members from their party throughout the tour of the province that did attempt to attend our meetings. One was the critic, and he did make a presentation, and he was of some assistance. The other was the member for Kootenay (Ms. Edwards), who was unavailable because she was in the hospital, so she sent an assistant. But the rest of the party was nonexistent. Yet they'll tell you that they care. They care all right. They care about votes.

When we talk about environment, I was reading in "The 1,200 Dark Days" what the NDP did. I would like to just quickly quote:

"Once in office, though the NDP and Williams did relatively little to alleviate the problem, despite growing public concern with the agitation for corrective measures, the only pulp mill in the province specifically directed by the Socred-appointed Pollution Control Board to reduce its pollution levels, the Rayonier operation in Port Alice on northern Vancouver Island, was permitted upon appeal to the cabinet

[ Page 5903 ]

to reduce the cutback order and given extra time to comply. Indeed, the government, through acquisition of the sulphite mill at Prince Rupert, became directly responsible for one of the worst polluters in British Columbia, a mill that poured over 80 million gallons of effluent daily into adjacent waters. Approached with an economic solution to the problem, the government ignored it."

A sad commentary on the people who now say they care.

I'm only halfway through my material and I see I'm almost out of time, so I'm not going to be able to show the differences between the NDP philosophy and what the leader is now putting on for a liberal jacket. We hear the members in the opposition frantically calling for an election. They're saying this is an election budget. We heard the member the other day challenging that they wanted to have a run at it now. I would be perfectly happy to go to the polls right today, because I'll tell you, I went up against them last time: they were working for six months, I was working for 60 days, and I kicked socialist butt in Yale-Lillooet. And when the next writ is dropped, I'll kick socialist butt in Yale-Lillooet one more time.

I'm prepared to put my record on the line, and I'm prepared to put the record of this government on the line. It's been a very responsible government. Each year they've had to analyze the needs of British Columbia and meet them. The Minister of Finance through three consecutive budgets, has done that, and I'm sure he'll do one or two more before we do go the polls. But I'm prepared to go today.

I'd like to mention, for the people around here, some of the things we've put into my riding. Maybe some of the socialist members, if they want to start working for their constituencies, can start getting some of these things for their ridings.

A short month ago we announced that $400,000 was invested by the Minister of Parks (Hon. Mr. Huberts) at the Juniper Beach campsite in my riding on the Thompson River. A new provincial park is established which will be there for generations to come. The district of Logan Lake just received full payment of $40,000 to expand their fire hall. The Ashcroft and District Curling Club received over $40,000 to expand their facility. Merritt Civic Centre, which was built last year, has just received approval for over $135,000 for landscaping in the finishing of that project.

[10:30]

Ashcroft Rod and Gun Club: over $20,000 for their rifle range. Ashcroft received another $30,000 to buy the old post office there that's been converted to a museum. When you visit Ashcroft, you must visit it. It's a beautiful museum. Ashcroft also received over $166,000 in an Expo legacy fund, and they've completed a lovely waterfront park which you can stay in when you go to visit the museum. You can bring your little camper and stay over.

Cache Creek recreation facility, $30,000; Fraser Canyon Hospital, half a million for their radiology upgrading; Rainbow community arts society in Hope, over $160,000 for their new cultural centre; Lillooet District Hospital, well over $2 million for the expansion of their hospital. They also received another $40,000 to develop Hangman's Tree park, the place where Judge Begbie reportedly hung those culprits who didn't abide by the letter of the law. There is history in that riding. Yale-Lillooet is loaded with it.

MR. G. JANSSEN: Did you get a golf course?

MR. RABBITT: The member opposite must like golf. Yes, Logan Lake did get some lottery funds for their golf course. If you want to come up, we've got some of the finest golf courses in British Columbia.

Logan Lake also received $100,000 from the Expo legacy fund to develop a youth centre project. Lytton had a $5,000 lottery grant for the refurbishing of the CN caboose which is now used for a tourist information centre. Also in Lytton, $95,000 for a brand-new community swimming pool. Back over in the Nicola Valley, over a quarter of a million dollars for the upgrading of their hospital. In Merritt, the Expo legacy project which has just been completed there — $400,000 for one of the finest facilities of any comparison for any community of that size in the interior.

Princeton also received almost $400,000 for a revitalization project which has taken a 130-year-old community and rebuilt it into a vibrant, positive little community that is looking forward and not looking back.

We have also developed a senior citizens' drop-in centre with the aid of another lottery grant for over $53,000. The swim club was granted a $400,000 Expo legacy grant for an indoor swimming pool which is under planning. Merritt Lions Club: over $15,000 for their development of N'Kuala Park. We have major construction of a new compound in the forest department on the drawing board for next year. At the present time in Lillooet the Ministry of Forests is building brand new facilities under a lease program.

I look down the list and I have another four pages here of grants that we have obtained in Yale-Lillooet. Some are small and some are large. It doesn't matter what corner of the riding you go to, you will find that the ministers within this cabinet have addressed each and every requirement that was there.

One of the things that I am very proud of is that in Hope we have over $3 million going into construction of a new school right now. We also have, soon to be announced, two 50-bed extended-care facilities, one in Hope and one in Merritt. We are going to be able to look after our residents from the start right through the full term of their life.

I can go on talking about the money that we have had put into our airports: Lytton $20,000; Lillooet, $60,000; Merritt, $50,000.

Interjection.

MR. RABBITT: Education, transportation, health services; this government has responded. I can see that the time is almost nigh. But I'll tell you one thing, when this member of the opposition talks about the Coquihalla and downgrades our major projects Did you see him turn around when his colleagues were talking about the Island Highway? It all depends on whose ox is being gored. When it was the

[ Page 5904 ]

Coquihalla, it was a bad megaproject. When it's the Island Highway, they want us to get on stream and move it up.

I'll tell you this budget was put together with a lot of thought. It addresses all the needs of British Columbians. I can tell you, I will take this budget forward. I wouldn't be afraid to fight an election on it. I wouldn't be afraid to fight an election on my track record. I will challenge any of the members in this House.

Mr. Speaker, with that I would like to close and thank you for the opportunity today.

MR. BLENCOE: The past speaker talked about whose ox was being gored. This government for the last ten years has gored the average British Columbian. For a decade they have taken it out on the people of this province in terms of their crazy, erratic policies, and now it's all coming home to roost. Deathbed repentance by this government, on the road to Damascus.

Now they are going to tell the people they've seen the light. This member refers to "the light." This government is still in the dark, but the people in the province have seen the light. They've seen through this government. I tell you, at the next election they'll give you your just deserts. They'll thank you for the memories of ten years of neglect and for the half a billion dollar overrun on the Coquihalla — memories such as that. They'll thank you for the memories of BCRIC, trying to change the name, overruns. They'll thank you for the memory of B.C. northeast coal, where the Japanese got the coal and we got the hole in the wrong place.

They'll thank you for the excessive taxes on our senior citizens, at the same time giving massive breaks to the corporations. Thanks for the memory of $500 million on the backs of ordinary British Columbians while you give tax breaks to corporations.

They'll thank you for the memory of millions of overruns. The Minister of Social Services and Housing (Hon. Mr. Richmond) comes in here and delicately tables another $46 million overrun. Thank you for the memories of fiscal irresponsibility by this government.

Thank you for the memory of treating forestry as a sunset industry. Now that you believe you've rediscovered forestry, people don't believe you. Deathbed repentance, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you for the memory of trashing the education system for the last ten years. Now they say they're going to put "U" back in the education system.

Thanks for the memories of the Expo land giveaway. Now we're finding the real figures and seeing the irresponsible financial management of that important asset to the people of British Columbia. Another memory that the people of the province will remember.

They'll remember that this is the same administration that had the audacity to fire the child abuse team workers in British Columbia. They'll thank you for that memory once and for all, Mr. Speaker.

They'll thank you for raising the debt in the province to over $22 billion. Incredible debts that you put on our children. In the last ten years this government has had an incredible history of neglect, and now they're trying to tell the people of British Columbia: we've changed. Well, the people have seen the light, and they know they don't want this Social Credit administration anymore; they've had it once and for all.

I want to talk this morning about housing. This government at long last appears to think it's discovered that housing is a problem in this province. It appears they did a poll and people were saying that this government has sat on the sidelines too long and neglected housing as an issue. Between 1987 and 1988, direct provincial financing for housing dropped from $56 million to $22 million, and now they tell us they're serious about housing. We've had a history of cutbacks: the rentalsman, the rent review, the renter's tax credit, cutbacks in allocations in social housing. We've had a history of Crown land only for expensive, high-income-earners, of not supporting the coop sector and of saying that the private sector will build all the housing required in British Columbia. At the last minute they bring forth a housing action program. When you take a look at the details and analyze this program, it is more activity than achievement. Let's take a look.

Only $12 million for new housing programs in the province; that's all. In a time of crisis, $12 million. This government does not understand the nature of the housing crisis; it simply doesn't understand what's going on. It simply does not understand that 400,000 tenant households in the province want security in their homes. They want to see a return of the rentalsman and a rent review process. They want to have protection from unnecessary evictions, demolition and unjustified rent increases.

What is there in this budget for tenants? They have introduced a renter's tax reduction; not a tax credit, a reduction. But when we analyze and talk to Ministry of Finance and Treasury Board officials, we discover what the renter's tax reduction will really do. Under your formula, 80 percent of the 400,000 tenant households in the province will not get one penny from your renter's tax reduction –– 80 percent, because you ensured that that will happen in your formula. Eighty percent of tenants won't benefit by this program. Four hundred thousand tenant families in British Columbia were told that in this budget there was massive support coming for them; the majority will not get a penny. And then the rent reduction will be phased out. You're not serious about it. You introduce a program that only affects a minimum of tenants, and then phase even that out. That's supposedly the program you've introduced for tenants, Mr. Speaker.

[10:45]

Let's look at the support for the non-profit sector, the non-market sector for housing. There has been an attempt in this budget to give the impression that

[ Page 5905 ]

they're upping the allocation of units for the nonprofit sector; 1,800 units were announced in the budget. This number was announced months ago. In that announcement there was a cutback in the actual direct spending of social housing — a cutback in a housing crisis! And this government had the audacity to announce those 1,800 units over again in the budget. Seventeen thousand is a conservative estimate of people waiting on lists to get into affordable housing. This government announces a cutback in direct spending for the allocation of non-profit-sector housing to be constructed in British Columbia.

This government's answer is to hope and pray that 4,000 units will be built by the private sector. That's lots of praying, Mr. Speaker, that the private sector will come in and try and save the day for you. We heard that answer in '83 and '84, when they cut out the rentalsman, the rent review and virtually all the housing programs. "The private sector will respond" — and they haven't responded. Now, once again, they're going to tired-out, worn-out ideas to try and save the day, to buy back what they think will be the next election for them. Well, the people of British Columbia will realize it, and it won't work.

Where will most of the money go in the new programs? I'll tell you where it will go. It will go to the rent subsidy interest program that you've announced. It will be a deep pocket for the taxpayers of British Columbia. It's programs that we have seen in the past, which have been tossed aside when it's realized they don't work. You're going to subsidize the private sector, with no regulations and no rent review, and the taxpayer will pay for those programs, because all the evidence in the past has been that when you give tax breaks to the private sector, they build condominiums, or they flip them over into condominiums, and that supply of housing does not remain in the affordable sector.

It's just another giveaway to the real estate development industry rather than putting money into direct spending, where we should have put it years ago. We're continuing with worn-out ideas in terms of subsidizing. The evidence is there; this government knows it. They know how the MURB program, which this government has reintroduced, did not work. The highlight of the MURB program in this country in 1979...the evidence is in. It's the same program this government introduced. The evidence shows that those with the highest income benefit in tax dollars and that those in need don't get the money they require. That's the issue. The issue in terms of social housing is whether we help ordinary British Columbians with our tax dollars or give excessive tax write-offs and subsidies to the real estate development industry and not gear our programs to those who require them.

Without the rentalsman and rent review to ensure that when you give those tax subsidies and tax breaks to the private sector....  All you do is ensure you get rent increases. There is no mechanism of regulation to ensure that your tax dollars are protected in terms of subsidizing the private sector. Then you get rent increases. Without rent review, it becomes a deep pocket for the taxpayer. Tenants in British Columbia require rent review and the rentalsman. You have not learned from the past.

I will be introducing a rentalsman bill and a rent review bill, because we believe they are necessary in the province of British Columbia today.

This government refuses to introduce laws and regulations that protect tenants from unnecessary evictions and rent increases, and it refuses to introduce a decent and fair process of rent review. All the programs that you've introduced and the millions of dollars you say you are going to spend on housing will go to rent increases, rather than ensuring there's a good stock of affordable housing in British Columbia.

The Crown land policy. You're continuing to sell Crown land rather than lease it. What we should be doing in the province is leasing our Crown land, not selling it. We should be ensuring that the non-market sector can participate in Crown land and can build on Crown land. The current policy introduced in the budget does not ensure that at all. Mr. Peter Thomas knows the advantage of the non-market sector in terms of getting value for dollars. Peter Thomas knows that if you do MURB-style programs

He knows that unless you have a decent process of rent review, it's a deep pocket for the taxpayer, and after the program, those housing units you built under those tax break programs flip over to condominiums. All the evidence is there. What we need is a decent and fair Crown land policy: the setting aside of at least 25 percent to 30 percent of Crown land to ensure that the non-market sector can participate.

It's time to use our Crown land for all British Columbians — not just those who can afford high-income housing — because at the moment, that's all you are going to be building on Crown land. It's time that all British Columbians benefit from our assets. At the moment you sell to the highest bidder at inflated market prices, and you are not ensuring that all British Columbians That land belongs to all British Columbians, and we need policies that ensure all British Columbians benefit from those assets.

Under home ownership, this government again refuses to introduce a speculation tax. They refuse to deal with what's happening in the marketplace. The Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mrs. Johnston) the other day introduced a weird concept of a number of tax tier systems at the local level for the city of Vancouver. That was the answer. What we need is a real attempt to deal with those who are flipping, speculating and are not using our residential homes to live in. That's how we deal with the problems in the province of British Columbia. We need leadership to deal with that problem.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

The property purchase tax. Why didn't you just eliminate it for first-time buyers? You've given the formula which is going to benefit by about $12 million. You're not ensuring that the young British

[ Page 5906 ]

Columbian will be exempt from that property purchase tax. Why not just exempt them directly?

There is nothing in the budget for the rental conversion loan program. One of things we have suggested is the rental conversion loan program. It's quite a unique system whereby you give low-interest loans to the private sector who have old commercial industrial buildings to convert them to rental accommodation. We should be seeing that program pushed hard, particularly in the urban areas where there are a number of older buildings — commercial and industrial — that can be converted to rental. We'd like to see that program expanded and developed to where it should be.

Mr. Speaker, your housing program is clearly an attempt to show activity rather than achievement: only $12 million for new housing programs, no rental review and no rentalsman. The renter's tax reduction will only benefit a maximum of 20 percent of all tenants in the province. Taxpayers will pay for your housing subsidy programs for the private sector because there's no rent review, and you guarantee rent increases. There's no protection from evictions, excessive rent increases or demolitions, as some of my colleagues have already expressed in this House. There is no protection from your continuing to sell off Crown land for expensive condominiums, and no ensuring that all British Columbians participate in those land assets. There is no real help for the first-time home-buyer; no real help for the most needy — a $12.50 increase. Without rent review, you are guaranteeing a rent increase. Not a penny for the coop sector. It's my understanding that you had a chance to participate with the federal government to subsidize 50 percent of all co-op units in B.C. This government turned that idea down and refused to participate financially.

Frankly, Mr. Speaker, in terms of housing issues this government is not in touch with reality. It's a PR game; the substance isn't there. Taxpayers require efficient use of their dollars. We've learned in the past that if you subsidize through the MURB style of program, unless you have protection, unless you have a mechanism to ensure that your dollars are protected from rent increases

MR. MERCIER: MURBs were a hundred years ago.

MR. BLENCOE: Well, you've gone back a hundred years, because that's exactly what you've introduced in your housing program.

We've suggested all sorts of programs that you could be doing for housing. The main one is that we need a decent, fair form of rent review and rentalsman in British Columbia. It's got to come. You can have all the glitz, glamour and advertising that you're pushing on your housing to convince the people of B.C., but those 400,000 tenant households know there isn't much here for them in this housing proposal.

The social housing allocation, in terms of direct spending, is a 16 percent cut over last year in direct construction — 16 percent in the middle of a crisis — and yet this government says they have discovered the housing problem. We should be at least doubling the allocation for direct spending on housing, doubling the number of units we build for the nonmarket sector and using our Crown land in an innovative way to build the housing that British Columbians want. The issue of housing is affordability, and this government is sitting on the sidelines refusing to participate in resolving that issue.

HON. MR. VEITCH: How much would you spend? Give us a number.

MR. BLENCOE: We would spend at least the amount of money that you're giving to the real estate developers to ensure that the non-market sector builds housing that will stay affordable and won't be flipped to condominiums. We would ensure that the 400,000 tenant families in British Columbia have decent protection and know that next year they're not going to be evicted from their homes by gigantic and excessive rent increases. That would be reviewed.

The housing program is a dismal failure; it hasn't gone over because the analysis is not there. Your own treasury board staff indicate that in the major program for renters, 80 percent of the tenants in British Columbia will not benefit. What you've done through the rest of the $12 million for new programs is to ensure that the private sector gets the breaks and that minimum money is spent on the non-market sector.

[11:00]

HON. MR. VEITCH: You don't want the private sector to be involved in this; is that what you're saying?

MR. BLENCOE: We want the private sector to be involved, Mr. Member, but you'd better make sure there are mechanisms to protect the public's dollar. At the moment there are no mechanisms to do that.

They discovered housing at the last minute, They did a poll and quickly said, oh, we've got a housing problem, let's throw a package together. When the Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Richmond) had his information meeting the other day, he could not provide the details. This thing was put together so fast that no one knew exactly how it's going to work. Housing is a priority, a right, and it requires the most advanced programs to deal with it. This budget won't deal with it. Eighty percent of British Columbia tenants won't benefit by your programs, and you've actually cut the allocation of social housing. Go back to the drawing board and introduce a decent and reasonable housing program that all British Columbians will benefit from.

MS. PULLINGER: I'd like to ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MS. PULLINGER: I see in the members' gallery one of my constituents and a CLC representative

[ Page 5907 ]

from this area, David Winter. Would the House join me in making him welcome, please.

MR. CRANDALL: I rise to support this budget in the beginning of the 1989-90 fiscal year. I want to say that I'm very proud to be a member of this government which has produced such an excellent budget.

The previous speaker, the second member for Victoria, entitled his speech: "Thanks for the memories." In the riding I come from, we have no fond memories of the 1,200 dark days in 1972-75. If we had had an NDP government with that previous speaker as part of the government, let me tell you just a few of the things we wouldn't have had. We wouldn't have had — and I'm proud to mention — a Coquihalla Highway, which serves the interior of this province so well. We talk about the towns of Merritt and Kamloops which are so close to the Coquihalla. Let me tell everybody in this province that those of us who live in the cities and towns beyond Kamloops and Merritt are equally appreciative of the Coquihalla. But we wouldn't have had one if we had had an NDP government,

We also wouldn't have had an Expo. We wouldn't have had that glorious exhibition that British Columbia is so proud of and that Canada is so proud of and that North America is so proud of. Our neighbours to the south of us in the United States are extremely proud of their neighbour to the north that put on that world-class exposition. We wouldn't have had an Expo with an NDP government. The members didn't believe in Expo. Their leader didn't believe in Expo. We wouldn't have had one.

We also wouldn't have had the Expo legacy grants which have benefited so many small communities in this province. The town I come from, Golden, has a nice spanking new $3 million arena today, thanks to the Expo legacy grant. Those small communities benefited tremendously from the Expo legacy grants. We wouldn't have had in the riding of Kootenay an auditorium in the city of Cranbrook, which will provide a very necessary facility for that city.

We wouldn't have had a SkyTrain, which serves our residents in the lower mainland. I might add that we probably wouldn't have had a mining industry. "Thanks for the memories, " he says. I say: no thanks to the memories. We wouldn't have had any good memories if we had had an NDP government.

We probably also wouldn't have had any foreign investment to speak of, compared to what we've had in the last two and a half years since we've been in office. We also wouldn't have had a housing crisis. Do you know why? Because the many people who are moving to this province probably wouldn't have moved here if we had had an NDP government.

What would we have had? We would have had a massive debt, because the NDP government, if we would have had one, would have spent, spent, spent. We would have had a deficit similar to many other provinces in this country. So I say: no thanks to the memories.

I can't help but think back to those 1,200 dark days without thinking of the nice little community I come from, Golden. I want to tell you what they did in 1972 to 1975. That little community in the mountains near the Rockies wanted to leave this province. They formed a movement there called Alberta Bound. They were ready to leave British Columbia. No thanks for the memories that we would have had with an NDP government.

This budget is a budget of achievement. It first of all highlights an achieving year in 1988. We had 52,000 more jobs, many of which went to people from Ontario, from Saskatchewan, from Alberta who came to British Columbia — 52,000 more jobs in 1988. That is an achievement. The Minister of Finance also forecasts an additional 34,000 jobs for this next fiscal year, another achievement. As I go through this budget, time and time again I may mention that this is a budget of achievement. It's because more than many British Columbians would have expected, it is just that.

The 1988-89 deficit was less than was estimated by $20 million. That in itself is indicative of the overall management of this government.

A small line which has about a dozen and a half words is, I think, the most significant line of this whole budget. It says: "In 1989-90 the budget is balanced, as we promised two and one-half years ago." That, I believe, is an achievement.

I think it's instructive to notice that British Columbia was not the only province to announce a budget on March 30. We were joined on that day by budgets in the provinces of Saskatchewan and New Brunswick. Both those provinces, however, announced deficit budgets. Saskatchewan's deficit was $226 million, and New Brunswick's, with an even smaller population, was $264 million. It's an important point to note that British Columbia is unique among governments in Canada in having a balanced budget. It is likely, I expect, that no other single government in Canada will balance its budget this year. We are in a unique province. We have a unique government that can manage its money well in respect of the taxpayers of this province.

So Saskatchewan and New Brunswick introduced deficit budgets on that day. Probably no other province will balance its budget this year. The people of every other province should be asking why. Surely when the economy is healthy, budgets should be balanced. If we cannot balance budgets when times are good, then how can we expect to balance our budget during an economic downturn?

British Columbia's Social Credit governments have always — as you especially remember, Mr. Speaker — been concerned with government expenditures being kept in line with income. The economic downturn in the early eighties, however, meant that in order to maintain social programs such as health, education and social services needs it was necessary to incur some debt. But because of careful government management through those years, our per capita provincial debt is much lower than most.

Our provincial debt at present — if we net out the budget stabilization fund — comes to $3.5 billion, or roughly $1,200 per capita. Did you all hear that num-

[ Page 5908 ]

ber? It compares — if I use the provinces of Saskatchewan and New Brunswick again, since I have already — to a per capita debt there of not $1,200 but $2,800 and $4,050 respectively. If you think that's bad, listen to the federal debt per capita. Federally we are in debt something like $300 billion, which works out to over $11,000 for each Canadian man, woman and child. So $1,200 in British Columbia, $2,800 in Saskatchewan, $4,000 in New Brunswick, $11,000 in the country. Thankfully me have had good Social Credit governments in British Columbia that have managed their people's money well.

Clearly our debt load in B.C. is in a very favourable position. Our balanced budget in 1989 means that our province will continue to be in good financial health.

It isn't only significant to recognize the debt that we have. We should also recognize the dollars that we have to spend each year to service that debt. Out of the ten provinces in Canada, we have only one that is lower than British Columbia. British Columbia has a debt-servicing cost of $203 per capita. Only Alberta is lower at $192, and Prince Edward Island is equal to B.C. at $203.

However, listen to these numbers: Saskatchewan, $324; Manitoba, where we had an NDP government for many years, $480 — more than double British Columbia; booming Ontario, $433; Quebec, $431; New Brunswick, $424; Nova Scotia, $448; Newfoundland, $617. Clearly we've had many years of good money management in this province.

In terms of looking at the individual expenditures, I am delighted to see that the Ministry of Education will have an additional $253 million for this next fiscal year, which will help to continue the necessary work of educating our children. Over 253 million additional dollars are being spent in the Ministry of Education for grades K to 12.

The Ministry of Advanced Education and Job Training will also increase by another $121 million. Education is clearly a top priority of this government. We heard earlier that the Minister of Advanced Education (Hon. S. Hagen) has announced university degree programs at Kelowna, Kamloops and Nanaimo. Some may believe that these additional centres will only serve their cities. Nothing could be further from the truth. Those of us who live in the small towns in the interior will benefit greatly from having degree programs at cities nearer to our communities.

[11:15]

It is difficult for a student to leave the communities in my riding, travel so far to the coast and then incur the expenses of living that far away from home. It will be to the students' advantage in my constituency to have these programs in Kelowna and Kamloops and, to some extent as well, in Prince George and Nanaimo. These programs will help all the interior, not just their communities.

I think it's significant to note that since this government was elected, annual education expenditures are up over $700 million. That is an achievement. I am one of the relatively new members of this House, and I know that when I came here two and a half years ago I would not have expected to be able to stand here today and recognize that we have added $700 million over those two and a half years to our education expenditures.

In the Ministry of Health we will also increase by $388 million, to a total of $4.3 billion. As others may have said, that's over a million dollars per day in increased spending. I am glad to say that some of that will be in my riding. I heard the good member for Yale-Lillooet (Mr. Rabbitt) talking about the many good things that are happening in his riding. I am glad to say that some of this health expenditure will be spent in the Columbia River riding.

Shortly we will begin construction on a new hospital at Invermere, replacing an old hospital that is now outdated. Similar to education, where we are spending an additional $700 million since we were elected, health expenditures are up more than $1 billion since this government was elected. That is an achievement.

We also recognize that we have many people in our province who need some assistance, and through our Social Services ministry we will continue to provide that assistance. The Social Services ministry will be receiving an increase in funding of $165 million, more than 11 percent. It is significant to note that that expenditure, even though it's going up, will be handling a decreased caseload.

We might believe that numbers tell the whole story. It won't be written in this budget, but many people have good stories to tell because of the programs of this government that have allowed them to go off of income assistance. However, even with the declined caseload, our expenditures will rise and we will continue to pay significant attention to those who need income assistance for whatever reason.

Since we were elected, the expenditures of this government are up $700 million in education, up over $1 billion in health and over $200 million for social services. That is an achievement.

I think it's also interesting to notice that while many of our expenditures are up, our taxation is not up.

MRS. BOONE: What? Come on!

MR. CRANDALL: We have no major taxation increases this year.

We have some increases that are significant to our homeowner's grant. The basic homeowner's grant for 1989 goes from $380 to $430, an increase of $50. For seniors, the handicapped and others entitled to the supplementary grant, the homeowner's grant will go from $630 to $700 in 1989. That is an achievement.

Along with the homeowner's grant going up, there is also a renters' tax reduction program which is going to help many of the people that rent in our province. A family of four with an income of $20,000 and rent of $700 per month will be eligible for a tax reduction of $500. As far as I know, that is the first time in British Columbia, and that, too, is an achievement. Another Social Credit first.

MRS. BOONE: What about the rentalsman?

[ Page 5909 ]

MR. CRANDALL: I hear from the opposition that....

Interjections.

MR. CRANDALL: I continually hear cries from the opposition for rent controls and protectionism. The previous speaker was crying for protectionism. That's the kind of thinking that wants to discount the real world, and that we had with the introduction of the rentalsman during those dark days of 1972 to 1975.

I want to say what happened to rental accommodation as a result of the rentalsman. The number of units of housing available on the rental market went down because of the rentalsman program. Thankfully, the previous Social Credit government did away with the rentalsman, and now in many communities we see increased rental units being put on the market.

My community is one where rental building died as a result of the rentalsman program. Since it was eliminated by the previous good Social Credit government, we have apartments again being built in Columbia River. It's good to be part of an achieving government which follows a good number of Social Credit achieving governments that preceded us.

MR. CASHORE: A government that achieves homelessness.

MR. CRANDALL: A government that was continually re-elected, I might remind that member from the opposition.

I mentioned that we have no major tax increases in this budget. I think it's significant to remind this House and this province that this government, since it was elected in October 1986, has not only not raised the sales tax but has indeed reduced the sales tax. When we were elected, the sales tax was 7 percent; as we all know, it is now 6 percent. It was not raised in this budget, and it's important to recognize that it is lower than every province in Canada except Alberta.

The province of Saskatchewan has a sales tax of 7 percent. Manitoba has a sales tax of 7 percent; booming Ontario has a sales tax of 8 percent. Quebec has 9 percent, New Brunswick has 11 percent, Nova Scotia has 10 percent, Prince Edward Island has 10 percent and Newfoundland has 12 percent. British Columbia is at 6 percent, and this budget does not raise that.

I'm pleased to rise in support of this budget. I'm pleased to support it because of the advances that it makes in our social programs. I'm pleased to support it because it does not inflict any major tax increases on our people, because I know that it's the kind of budget that British Columbia needs at this time, and because it will help British Columbia continue to grow so that the generations who grow up now and follow us in the future will be able to look forward to living in a province of prosperity — not only prosperity for today, but prosperity for the future.

MR. G. JANSSEN: Mr. Speaker, when the recession was on, it was everybody else's fault. The reason that the economy went down in British Columbia was because of the foreigners; it was the Americans, the Europeans and the Third World nations that caused the economy to go down. They blamed everybody else.

Now the economy is better, and what are they saying? "We did it." Yes, Mr. Speaker, we're responsible. In some cases I've heard members say that the entire world economy is going up because of good government — good Social Credit government. That's what they say.

Well, the prospects are good for the western world. They are very good; we're on an upswing. But I'm surprised at some of the comments of the members opposite when they talk about this budget. They're almost childish; they drag up the NDP government of 16 or 17 years ago. Some of them even drag up the Regina Manifesto; some of them even go all the way back to the Russians in 1917. It's amazing! What happened to 1989 and 1990? Don't they have any good news for the future? Do they have to keep dragging up the past? We even have them attacking foreign cities. Just yesterday, a member launched an attack on the fine citizens of Sweden, particularly those of Stockholm. A democratically elected government, and they drag those people down. They said there was something wrong with the way the people in Stockholm live. I'm glad they didn't bring up Amsterdam; the Premier might have been upset.

I'd like to quote from a news release on the budget by the Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations: "The economy grew 4 percent during the past year, which is well above the forecast of 2.7 percent." They misjudged. Either that or they had poor advisers — or they were way off base, which is more likely. They spent less than they expected.

HON. MR. VEITCH: How's the jewelry business?

MR. G. JANSSEN: The jewelry business is fine. The price of gold is up, sir.

"Government spending during the past fiscal year was less than expected." Why? Another prediction gone bad. Didn't you expect it to increase, or was it just a calculated misjudgment so you could come in with more money?

You established the budget stabilization fund as a "fiscal shock absorber, " it says here. On one hand the government prides itself on reviving the economy of this province and lifting it out of the depths of recession; on the other hand they say we need a shock absorber for the bad times. They're admitting with this budget that the times aren't that good, because they took $500 million out of the budget stabilization fund and threw it into the budget so it would be balanced this year. Perhaps the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations should go to the Midas people and check out what shock absorbers are used for. Perhaps he'd learn about the golden handshake of Midas. Obviously the Premier found out about the golden handshake when he gave it to David Poole.

[11:30]

A billion dollars will remain in the budget stabilization fund "should an economic downturn occur"  —

[ Page 5910 ]

they're predicting it will happen. This government, by keeping over a billion dollars in the budget stabilization fund, is competing with the bankers of B.C. They're starting their own bank. What are they going to do?

Interjection.

MR. G. JANSSEN: No, I don't keep any money in the bank. I invest my money in the future, and that's what this government should be doing — investing money in the future of British Columbia, rather than taxing people and competing with consumers who want to go out and spend their money in the businesses of this province and country, so they can generate income to hire more employees, and so we continue the growth pattern instead of competing with businessmen for the consumer's dollars.

What happens? They are going to play with the pension funds. They didn't learn from BCRIC a few years ago, where they squandered money — $9 shares down to peanuts; nickels and dimes it's worth. Now they are going to take pension funds from working people in British Columbia, and they are going to play on the stock market. Did they learn their lesson from BCRIC? Obviously not.

They are going to increase handicapped assistance by $37 a month. For years there was no increase — none. That $37 is like a slap in the face to handicapped people. I have handicapped constituents who are trying to live on $585 a month, and they are going to be given $37 for the first time in years. I want a bigger increase for them. I want to read from the budget news release: "Single handicapped people...." It's right here in black and white. You got it wrong.

They are going to redirect $20 million in the existing program, which is funding to start and implement the recommendations of a royal commission. Where is the $20 million coming from? It's coming from another program if it's being redirected. What other program is going to be cut? It doesn't explain that here. There are a lot of things that aren't explained in this budget. I find that amazing. They are going to redirect money, then they try to make out it's new money. It's from the same budget. Smoke and mirrors. Yo-yo economics.

An additional $18 million will be provided for Pharmacare. Isn't that amazing? Yet two days later, what do we get? We get the ceiling for deductibles raised from $300 to $325, so in fact the $18 million isn't really there. It's coming off the backs of the working people of this province.

They're going to create 700 acute-, intermediate and extended-care beds for the health care system. Alberni needs a hundred beds yesterday. That means there are an additional 600 beds somewhere in the province. We don't need 700; we need 7,000 in this province. And where have they been in the last years? They've been nowhere. They've created no new beds. Patients are in hospitals in this province, waiting to get into intermediate- and extended-care beds, but they're taking up acute-care beds, creating lineups in the hospitals. Mr. Speaker, my wife is a nurse. She's been a nurse for 26 years, and she is fed up with being a nurse, because she can't deliver the type of health care that she was trained to deliver, because this government hasn't delivered on the health care of this province.

There's $7.4 million for monitoring special waste and toxic chemicals, and for enforcing existing legislation, legislation that wasn't enforced in the past — and you only have to come to Alberni to see that fact. They're going to increase the fines for polluters. Well, where were the fines? Howe Sound, Prince Rupert, identified not by this government but by the federal government as being polluters. And what did this government do about it? What did the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Strachan) do? Nothing.

In Alberni we have been crying for over ten years for a health care study in that community. The federal government said: "No, you don't need a health care study." The provincial government said: "No, we can't give you a health care study." We're getting a health care study in Alberni, and who's providing it? The American government is paying for that study, because this government doesn't care about the health of its constituents in Alberni. We asked repeatedly for a health care study, but this government and previous Social Credit governments turned us down flat, and the Americans had to come up. A foreign government cares more about the health of people in Alberni than this government does.

Since 1981, it says, a billion seedlings have been planted — more than in the previous 50 years. A billion seedlings; 125 million seedlings a year. How many trees did you cut down: 125 million, 150 million? We only have to look at the overcuts that are happening in this province. Have you been planting enough in the last 50 years? And how many of those seedlings are growing? Sometimes 95 percent grow; sometimes only 75 percent grow; and I have seen estimates where only 50 percent of the seedlings put in the ground are growing. So the figure of a billion doesn't mean a lot. It's just rhetoric, smoke and mirrors, like the rest of this budget.

Thirty million dollars of work on the new Vancouver Island Highway We know that that project is going to cost $600 million, from the government's estimates alone. At $30 million a year it doesn't take a genius or an Einstein to figure out that it is going to take 20 years to finish. By that time cars will be obsolete, and then what are they going to do with the highway? Turn it into a parking lot for all the cars people aren't driving? It's incredible.

Economic development. This is a winner: "Economic development is going to have an international flavour." It goes on to say: "...free trade agreement is the key to British Columbia's business competitiveness in the international marketplace." Let's just have a look at free trade. Here are figures released in October 1987 by Statistics Canada: net growth in jobs, 849,000; jobs by Canadian-owned companies, 872,300; jobs by foreign-owned companies, minus 23,300. Are we going to invite foreign companies into British

[ Page 5911 ]

Columbia so they can reduce the jobs? Is that what we are after? Foreign companies and free trade are going to reduce employment in British Columbia, Mr. Speaker. Unemployment is running in the lower mainland at 9.5 percent, in northern British Columbia at 9.9, in the Okanagan at 10.7, on Vancouver Island at 11.4 and in the central Kootenay at 14.7. That's double-digit unemployment in a province where this government says that it is doing a good job, that it is reducing unemployment, that this is a great economy, a great budget, and that they are creating jobs. We rival Newfoundland for unemployment figures.

Statistics Canada shows the annual percentage growth of all employed by age: in 1976 the annual percentage was 3 percent; in 1987, 3 percent. Where's the growth? Women 25 and older: 1976, 6 percent growth rate; 1987, only 4 percent. I wonder where the growth is. The percentage growth of self-employed, of free-enterprisers like myself, all ages: 1976, 10 percent growth rate; 1987, only 2 percent — an 8 percent drop.

In the women's category, 25 and older: 1976, 25 percent growth rate in employment; 1987, only an 8 percent growth rate. Where are the jobs? Where is the economic growth? What's happening in this province?

The mining industry, which is supposedly booming because of Social Credit government policies and initiatives, is going to get a $5 million loan to build roads to access mineral resources. These free-enterprisers who have stimulated the economy... The mining industry is booming. Can't they pay for this themselves? Do we have to guarantee their loans, or are things not as good as they seem? They're not as good as they seem; this is a smoke-and-mirrors budget.

Four million dollars for the full implementation of the family maintenance enforcement program. The minister happened to be in Alberni a few months ago, and he said that the program was ready to go. It was up and running. I went to that meeting. He spoke to the chamber.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Did you attend the meeting?

MR. G. JANSSEN: It was wonderful, yes. I am a former president of the chamber of commerce.

What happened? The women's resource centre, who also attended, phoned up the courthouse and asked if they could bring over some files. They were told that they didn't have the staff, and they didn't have the paperwork. So I am glad to see that the $4 million is in this budget so it can finally get on track — after the fact.

There are no major tax increases in this budget, but there are no tax cuts either. After raising taxes in British Columbia — $500 million on the backs of middle-income working people in the last two years.... Corporate capital taxes were phased out in 1985, a revenue impact of $100 million; the non-residential property tax was reduced, at a cost of $250 million a year. Alberni, with a shrinking population and workforce, desperately needs corporate taxation put back. Yet this government has put a 15 percent cap on industrial taxation. MacMillan Bloedel, with $300 million in profits in this province, hasn't paid income tax for years. This year they say they're going to pay a little bit. Why don't they pay more? Why is that tax load being put on the backs of people in my constituency, while M&B goes scot-free?

Income tax for large corporations was cut 2 percentage points. Tax breaks for banks and mining companies totalled $18 million in 1987. Yet on the other side, there was $150 million in increased Medical Services Plan premiums; $40 million in new licence and user fee increases; $45 million in increased fuel taxes; and $100 million in new taxes on liquor and tobacco, including beer. I can tell you that in Alberni, after slugging it out in the mills and the bush, the boys like to go down and have a cold one. But that advantage was taken away. Promises were made that the tax on beer was going to go down. What did we have instead? It went it up. Has it been reduced since? No. And you wonder why the people of Port Alberni don't vote Social Credit.

[11:45]

While they have been increasing taxes and user fees, while they have been robbing the paycheques, the back pockets and the wallets of British Columbians, they have been competing for the consumer dollar with the free enterprise businessman, who would like to get a little piece of that spent in his business so he can buy more product, renovate his building and hire more staff; and with the manufacturer, who could produce more goods. They don't get a chance at that dollar. Why not? Because the government takes it before they have a chance at it. The government robs it out of their pockets. Competing with free enterprise is what this government is doing, not supporting it. It's competing with the free enterprise marketplace in this province.

I want tax cuts so that consumers can purchase more goods and services, so that business can grow in this province. When is that going to happen? You still have an opportunity to amend the budget. You have an opportunity to reduce taxes. You have an opportunity to give some of that money back to the consumers so that businessmen in this province can enjoy some growth. You have an opportunity to do that, and I'm presenting you with that opportunity. In the next day or two you have the opportunity to present a motion to reduce taxes so that business can flourish in this province.

MRS. GRAN: Not wishing to follow the former speaker, I would like to move that we adjourn the debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Richmond moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:48 a.m.