[ Page 5913 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Ministerial Statement

Safe transit of tanker Exxon Valdez. Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 5914

Mr. Harcourt

An Act to Phase Out Pulp Mill Pollution (Bill M202). Mr. Cashore

Introduction and first reading –– 5914

An Act to Ban the Use of Chlorofluorocarbons (CFC's)

and Other Ozone-Depleting Substances (Bill M203). Mr. Cashore

Introduction and first reading –– 5915

An Act to Ensure Environmentally Sensitive Spending By Government

(Bill M204). Mr. Harcourt

Introduction and first reading –– 5915

Oral Questions

National sales tax. Mr. Harcourt –– 5915

Doman Industries Ltd. Mr. Williams –– 5916

Mr. Kempf

Price-fixing by drug company. Mrs. Boone 5917

Highways maintenance. Mr. Lovick –– 5918

Tree Farm Licence Moratorium Act (Bill M205). Mr. Miller

Introduction and first reading –– 5918

Budget Debate

Mrs. Gran –– 5918

Hon. S.D. Smith –– 5920

Ms. Edwards –– 5923

Hon. Mr. Brummett –– 5926

Mr. Loenen _ 5930

Mr. Barlee –– 5933

Mr. Serwa –– 5936

Ms. Smallwood –– 5938

Ministerial Statement

Labelling of Irradiated foods. Hon. Mr. Dueck –– 5940

Mr. Perry

THURSDAY, APRIL 6, 1989

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

HON. MR. VEITCH: In the gallery today is a former vice-president of the British Columbia Social Credit Party, Mr. Ed Kisling. I'd like the House to bid him welcome.

HON. S.D. SMITH: In the gallery today are Chief Manny Jules and members of the council of the Kamloops Indian band: Richard Jules, Richard Seymour, Marie Baptiste, Fred Camille, Ted Gottfriedson and the executive assistant to Chief Jules, Ken Scopick. Would the House join with the first member for Kamloops (Hon. Mr. Richmond) and me in making welcome these members of the Kamloops band council.

MR. HARCOURT: I would like members of the Legislature to help me welcome a number of students involved in the BCIT tourism and hospitality course. Their instructor is here with them — John McBride. The students are Kandy Allen, Tracey Bonneau, Jackie Fenton, Charlene Geanson, Carmen Morgan, Lorie Ranville, Jason Trottier, Hilda William and Shannon McKay. They are all adult native students, who are going to become successful entrepreneurs in British Columbia. Please join us in a welcome.

HON. MR. REID: On behalf of the government side of the House, I'd like to pay a special welcome to John McBride and his new team of tourism marketers for British Columbia.

MR. MILLER: In the gallery today is a young woman from Prince Rupert. Her family are Haidas from the Queen Charlotte Islands. She's a political science student at UVic. I would ask the House to join with me in welcoming Michelle Adkins.

HON. S. D. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, in introducing members of the Kamloops band council, I forgot the councillor who is even more important than Chief Jules. That person is Chief Jules' father, who is also a member of the Kamloops band council, Clarence Jules. Would you join me in welcoming Clarence Jules.

MS. PULLINGER: Mr. Speaker, I have two introductions. I am very pleased to see in the gallery a group of 20 students from Malaspina College in Nanaimo, along with their instructor Ms. Janice Joseph. I would like the House to help me make them welcome today. I also would like to welcome in the gallery — a surprise to me — someone I have known for 41 of my 42 years and an old friend: Mish Vadasz. Would you help me make Mish welcome, please.

MRS. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, on the floor of the House today is the Member of Parliament for Fraser Valley West, Mr. Robert Wenman. He has served the House of Commons in Ottawa for the past 15 years. I would like the House to remember that this very hard-working Member of Parliament served this House as a Member of the Legislative Assembly for six years prior to that time, and I had the privilege of serving with him. I'd like to ask the House to welcome him today.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, just looking up at the gallery I noted the presence of an individual who is an outstanding citizen of the Western Communities. She is a committed environmentalist and a good friend: Eve Howden. Would all members please join me in welcoming Eve.

MRS. GRAN: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today is a group of property owners from the wonderful constituency of Esquimalt–Port Renfrew. They are Mr. Conrad Adams, Mr. Carl Benn, Mrs. Frances Camrniade, Mr. Larry Larrington, Mr. Don Smith, Mr. R. Belfit, Mr. Bert Gordon and Mr. Keith Cowan. Would the House please make them welcome.

MR. RABBITT: Mr. Speaker, in the galleries today we have the executive director and registrar of the Association of Professional Engineers of British Columbia. I would ask that the House welcome Harry Gray with a very warm welcome.

MR. BARLEE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to extend greetings to Manny Jules from our side of the House, but I have a personal interest in this. About five years ago Manny won a $5 hockey bet off me, and I'm looking for my revenge. I've never seen him since, and I would like him to return that immediately.

MR. SERWA: A number of hon. members in this House have noticed the improvement in my appearance and the appearance of the second member for Okanagan South (Mr. Chalmers) — it's the daffodil boutonnieres that we're proudly wearing.

Last Sunday we attended the annual daffodil tea held by the Kelowna branch of the Canadian Cancer Society. This beautiful floral emblem — this flower of spring — is chosen as the symbol of hope by the Canadian Cancer Society and the people of Canada. On behalf of my colleague and myself, I wish to express our thanks and appreciation for the commitment and enthusiasm of the over 850 volunteers in Okanagan South who will participate in the April fund-raising campaign. In British Columbia some 35,000 volunteers will dedicate themselves to raise $4.5 million for research, support and public education.

I would like to thank Celine Schaad of Kelowna, who made the boutonnieres for the second member and myself. It is my sincere hope that the hon. members of this House will consider wearing a similar floral emblem for the month of April to assist in erasing this devastating disease and in fact strive to erase the word "cancer" from our language. Would the House please join with me in encouraging the society and the army of volunteers in their aspirations.

[2:15]

[ Page 5914 ]

Ministerial Statement

SAFE TRANSIT OF TANKER EXXON VALDEZ

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise the House of correspondence received today by my office from the Prime Minister. The letter states:

Dear Premier:

I would like to thank you for sending me a copy of your letter to Mr. Lawrence G. Rawl, chairman of the Exxon Corporation, in regard to the oil tanker Exxon Valdez.

The government of Canada shares your concerns with respect to the safe transit of the vessel. It is certainly our intention to ensure safe transit of the Exxon Valdez. In this respect, I wish to confirm that the Honourable Benoit Bouchard, Minister of Transport, is responsible for the safety of shipping in Canadian waters under the aegis of the Canada Shipping Act. The Canadian Coast Guard has cooperated with the United States Coast Guard since the beginning of this massive oil spill. The government will continue to assist the United States' effort in any way we can. I will ensure that Mr. Bouchard keeps the government of British Columbia fully informed in a timely way on any discussions that take place concerning the possible transit.

As the Ministers of the Environment and Fisheries and Oceans have stated as recently as April 4, they and their colleagues, the Ministers of Transport and Energy, Mines and Resources have directed their deputy ministers to re-examine every aspect of our prevention system and response capability in Canada to ensure that government and industry have the best possible preventive safety measures and oil spill response capability in place.

I am sending copies of this correspondence to the Hon. Benoit Bouchard, the Hon. Lucien Bouchard and the Hon. Tom Siddon so they will be aware of your concerns.

Yours sincerely,
Brian Mulroney

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to advise the House of a telephone discussion my office had today with Exxon Corp. in New York. Dan Sanders of Exxon phoned on behalf of the chairman, Mr. Lawrence Rawl, who was testifying today before the House and Senate committees in Washington.

Mr. Sanders indicated the following: (1) Mr. Rawl received correspondence sent to him by my office earlier in the week regarding the movement of the Exxon Valdez down the coast; (2) no decision has been made at this point in time as to where the vessel will be sent for repairs; (3) Exxon will be investigating the vessel thoroughly and making a determination as to what to do; (4) part of that determination will be where to send the vessel for repairs; (5) Exxon will keep the province of British Columbia informed directly as to their decisions.

Mr. Speaker, this is not good enough. We have publicly called on Exxon to meet three conditions: (1) that an independent engineering team assess the ship prior to leaving Alaska; (2) that they ensure that an escort ship with proper containment ability accompanies the Exxon Valdez; (3) that Exxon provide bonding to cover cleanup costs of any spill in transit. We will accept nothing less.

I am also pleased to advise the House that the Minister of the Environment has advised me that Mr. Olav Halten of Vancouver has been selected by the west coast oil spill task force to conduct a seaworthiness survey of the Exxon Valdez.

MR. HARCOURT: Your letter on the Exxon Valdez in regard to safe transportation of tankers off the B.C. coast is welcome. I want to say this is a prime example of corporations regulating themselves instead of the public interest being taken care of first.

We have allowed single-hulled tankers instead of double-hulled tankers. There are a number of other precautions that could — and should — be taken; instead the company put its profit ahead of the environment. Your government's sudden interest in the environment and oil spills has more to do with public relations than protection of the environment.

This government's track record on the environment is such a disaster that they had to bring in the PR firm of Albert Tortorella — who advised Union Carbide on the Bhopal disaster and the Tylenol scare — to advise your government on damage control.

The Premier was prepared to visit Alaska but not the west coast of Vancouver Island. I wish he was as worried about the oil spill off the coast of Vancouver Island. We would have been a lot more impressed with your sincerity if you had listened three years ago to New Democrats, who have been asking for a moratorium on oil and gas exploration and drilling.

It took an international global disaster to finally get this government to move. It's going to take more than a couple of letters and a phone call, because this government's record is simply unbelievable.

Introduction of Bills

AN ACT TO PHASE OUT
PULP MILL POLLUTION

Mr. Cashore presented a bill intituled An Act to Phase Out Pulp Mill Pollution.

MR. CASHORE: This act amends section 8 of the Waste Management Act to require that effluent permits granted to pulp mills limit chlorinated organic discharges, which are not measured under the present permit system. These chlorinated discharges include dioxins and furans, as well as many other harmful substances that have contributed substantially to pollution of B.C. rivers and coastal waters.

As a result of contamination, crab, prawn and shrimp fisheries have been closed in Howe Sound, and the crab fishery has been closed in Prince Rupert. Contamination of shellfish, salmon and heron eggs in B.C. waters has also been documented and is undergoing further study. Chlorinated organics, including dioxins and furans, have also been found to contaminate pulp and paper products and to migrate into food, such as milk.

[ Page 5915 ]

A limit of 1.5 kilograms AOX is obtainable by 1992 if the pulp industry moves quickly to install the best available technology. This standard is expected to virtually eliminate dioxins and furans. A limit of 0.1 kilograms AOX by the year 2002 gives the pulp industry ten years to develop production methods that virtually eliminate all organochlorines.

The B.C. pulp industry has been producing record levels of pulp over the last several years and has had record profit levels. In 1987 the value of pulp sales rose 47 percent to over $2.8 billion, with a rate of return of over 22 percent.

I move that this bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Bill M202 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

AN ACT TO BAN THE USE OF
CHLOROFLUOROCARBONS (CFC'S) AND
OTHER OZONE-DEPLETING SUBSTANCES

Mr. Cashore presented a bill intituled An Act to Ban the Use of Chlorofluorocarbons (CFC's) and Other Ozone-Depleting Substances.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Speaker, this act bans the use of CFCs and other ozone-depleting substances over a five-year period. The basis for this ban is that the production of certain chemicals, including CFCs and halons, are known to harm the ozone layer. Currently about 20,000 tonnes of CFCs are produced in Canada annually, ending up in aerosol sprays, rigid-foam food packaging, flexible foam used in seat cushions and car dashboards, and refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment. The ozone layer is essential for protection of the earth from the sun's harmful ultraviolet rays, and is an essential part of a balanced and healthy ecosystem. It is generally agreed that such depletion and the subsequent rise in ultraviolet rays results in an increased likelihood of skin cancer, damage to crops and harm to forests.

Bill M203 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

AN ACT TO ENSURE ENVIRONMENTALLY
SENSITIVE SPENDING BY GOVERNMENT

Mr. Harcourt presented a bill intituled An Act to Ensure Environmentally Sensitive Spending by Government.

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Speaker, this bill deals with the fact that the B.C. government and Crown corporations spend millions of tax dollars every year on paper products. This act provides incentives for the B.C. pulp industry to move quickly to sharply reduce the levels of toxic chemicals in their products and, further, to gain a share of the recycled-paper-product market.

It does so by requiring the B.C. government to put its own house in order and to take a leadership role in encouraging the production of environmentally sensitive products, as follows: it requires that the government after 1992, or such earlier time as they may become available, purchase only products made by pulp mills that meet new, stiff standards for pulp pollution, as proposed in the act, to phase out pulp mill pollution.

Secondly, it requires that prior to 1992, government purchase recycled paper with a high post-consumer content, and that after 1992, recycled paper that meets the new, stiff pulp standards be purchased so far as it is available.

Thirdly, it establishes a public spending advisory group to review products that are commonly used by government, set environmentally sensitive standards and require that government purchase only products that meet such environmentally sensitive standards.

Bill M204 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

MR. ROGERS: just on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During the process of the introduction of these bills today, on a number of occasions they were referred to as acts and the motions were put, in one case, as if it were an act. I just want to have it clarified that what we have had tabled today are bills and not acts.

Oral Questions

NATIONAL SALES TAX

MR. HARCOURT: We're aware that the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) is on his way to Ottawa for a meeting tomorrow on the federal budget. We also know that New Democrats are opposed to a national sales tax. The Premier has not made his government's position clear. Will the Premier join us in opposing the national sales tax?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The Minister of Finance, as the Leader of the Opposition stated, is on his way to Ottawa and will be meeting with all of the ministers from across the country for the purpose of discussing whatever proposals might be put forth by the federal government in this regard. Obviously a statement will be made.

[2:30]

MR. HARCOURT: We'd like the statement to be made here in British Columbia by the Premier, who leads the government, because British Columbians know this is a tax on groceries, housing and other essential items. Will the Premier give a commitment here in the House that he is opposed and that his government is opposed to the national sales tax and that those are the instructions he has given his Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations? Yes or no?

[ Page 5916 ]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, if I were asked to respond to a question and an assumption based on rumour, then obviously it would be relatively simple. If the question were whether I would be opposed to a tax on groceries, I can assure you I'd have no difficulty in answering yes, I would be opposed to a tax on groceries.

I think the difficulty is that the Leader of the Opposition has constructed a question based on rumour. We are certainly awaiting all of the details from the federal government. As we are aware, there is a tax in place in now. The proposal is to replace the tax, and I suppose it's a question of how it's replaced or what is proposed. If in fact something of a progressive nature is proposed, we would not be opposed to some change. If, on the other hand, a change is proposed which is of a regressive nature, then we would be opposed to such measures. But I think it is rather premature and irresponsible to make assumptions without having all the information.

DOMAN INDUSTRIES LTD.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Forests: were you, Mr. Minister, involved in any way in determining the annual allowable cut for Doman Industries on the mid-coast?

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Speaker, we know the first member for Vancouver East has introduced some materials to the press gallery; we haven't seen any introduced to the House to do with the Doman issue. We also know that he is presently facing a situation with the principal of Doman, so I think it would be inappropriate to make any comments on Doman Industries until we are certain of the legalities of the issue. I'll take the question on notice.

MR. WILLIAMS: I'd like to assure the minister that I'd be very surprised if Doman Industries sued him.

It's a simple question that deserves an answer in this House, Mr. Speaker: was the minister involved in any way in determining the cut of Doman Industries on the mid-coast?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The minister took that question as notice.

MR. WILLIAMS: To the Minister of Forests: did you write the following letter?

"Further to Mr. Flitton's letter to you dated March 27, 1987, and your recent meeting with Wes Cheston, I am prepared to defer a decision relative to the cut control position of your mid-coast forest licence until September 30, 1987. I trust that by that date you will also be able to confirm in a concrete way compliance with the wood residue processing facility requirement of your Strathcona and mid-coast forest licences."

Did you write such a letter, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Speaker, perhaps we could find out to whom the letter was addressed.

MR. WILLIAMS: The letter was addressed to Doman Industries Ltd. in Duncan, to the attention of Mr. H. Doman.

HON. MR. PARKER: As I said earlier, anything to do with the Doman Industries matter — between the member for Vancouver East.... It will be taken as notice until we have further legal advice.

MR. ROSE: On a point of order, I think the House should know — and as you know, Mr. Speaker — that sub judice is a matter not of the courts but of the House, and for the minister to hide behind this kind of answer is inappropriate.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, the opposition House Leader and the first member for Vancouver East know full well that both of their questions are out of order. The minister has said that he will take the question as notice. As usual, the members opposite wish to hide behind the supposed sanctity of this House.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. As all members know, nobody is compelled to answer a question.

MR. WILLIAMS: Has the Minister of Forests reviewed the contract signed November 2, 1977, between Doman Industries and the Crown regarding the question of the establishment of a pulp mill by Doman Industries, wherein it states:

"The licensee covenants and agrees that the licensee will forthwith, with the execution of this licence, commence its program for the establishment of a pulp mill capable of producing at least 300 tonnes of pulp or paper per day and will undertake to construct such a pulp mill at a location approved by the licenser. Such mill shall commence its operations on or before December 31, 1981."

Has the minister read the contract?

HON. MR. PARKER: This matter deals with Doman Industries. I'll take the question as notice.

MR. SPEAKER: The first member for Vancouver East, with a new question.

MR. WILLIAMS: Is the present Minister of Forests aware that the previous Minister of Forests immediately before him said no to Mr. Doman for a five-year extension to that licence on which he had not performed?

HON. MR. PARKER: The matter deals with Doman Industries; I'll take the question as notice.

MR. WILLIAMS: To the minister, Mr. Speaker. Are you aware that other operations with licences in the mid-coast were penalized for modest infractions of the 90 percent rule, when Doman went unpenalized?

[ Page 5917 ]

HON. MR. PARKER: The question includes reference to Doman Industries. I'll take the question as notice.

MR. WILLIAMS: Is it true, Mr. Speaker, that the minister agreed to a change in the contract that allowed the Doman company out of the condition regarding a pulp mill — a condition that was there at the very beginning, and which all ministers had previously required? Is it true that that contract has now indeed been amended?

HON. MR. PARKER: The question was addressed to you, Mr. Speaker. I'll advise that the matter deals with Doman Industries, and I'll take the question as notice.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the staff of the ministry in their own memos said that performance by Doman Industries was pathetic. Could you advise me why you would give approval for some small mill — a reman plant rather than a pulp mill — when the pulp mill would have cost at least $300 million in today's dollars or $600 million if it was technically competent, rather than the $10 million....

HON. MR. RICHMOND: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would bring to all members' attention the fifth edition of Beauchesne, article 362. I quote from Beauchesne: "Reading telegrams, letters or extracts from newspapers as an opening to an oral question is an abuse of the rules of the House. It is not good parliamentary practice to communicate written allegations to the House and then to ask ministers either to confirm or deny them."

Further, Mr. Beauchesne says: "It is the member's duty to ascertain the truth of any statement before he brings it to the attention of parliament."

MR. SPEAKER: The member for Omineca on a point of order.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, I am not reading from a letter or a telegram or any other printed matter. I have a question for the Minister of Forests.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The government House Leader on a point of order.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I would ask the member then, Mr. Speaker, to tell us what he is reading from — or is he making it up?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I would ask the minister to withdraw that last comment.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I'll withdraw the comment, but it's quite plain that the member has something in his hand that he is referring to. So I've asked him....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think, Mr. Minister, if in this House we were to stop everybody from getting up who had something in his hand, we would get nothing done.

MR. KEMPF: Is the Minister of Forests aware that in late February 1987, perhaps ten days before the Premier demanded my resignation as minister, the law was laid down to Mr. Doman with respect to his non-compliance with the contract with the provincial government?

HON. MR. PARKER: As I have stated before, the issue of Doman Industries is currently part of a legal proceeding, and I will take all questions pertaining to Doman Industries as notice until I have legal advice to do otherwise.

MR. KEMPF: Perhaps the minister could take another question as notice. Was the minister aware, when he was the parliamentary secretary to the then Minister of Forests, when the then minister was on prime-time television...and that the staff of the B.C. Forest Service was fully aware that Mr. Doman was in non-compliance with his contract with the provincial government?

HON. MR. PARKER: I take it as notice, Mr. Speaker.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Minister of Forests to reconsider his non-comments of today. It is Mr. Doman who is before the courts, not Doman Industries. My questions, if I might clarify them, all involved Doman Industries. Would you then answer the questions?

HON. MR. PARKER: The issue on Doman Industries will be tried in the courts, not here. I will take all questions, all matters, all inquiries and all statements on Doman Industries as notice until further notice.

PRICE-FIXING BY DRUG COMPANY

MRS. BOONE: A question to the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services. A major Canadian drug company was recently fined $50,000 in Ontario Provincial Court for price-fixing. Can the minister tell the House whether this kind of activity is occurring in British Columbia?

HON. L. HANSON: I have no knowledge of that going on in British Columbia.

MRS. BOONE: A supplementary then. Has the minister contacted his federal counterpart to discuss this and to ensure the safety of British Columbians?

HON. L. HANSON: No, I haven't contacted my counterpart federally.

[2:45]

[ Page 5918 ]

HIGHWAYS MAINTENANCE

MR. LOVICK: A question to the Minister of Transportation and Highways. It has come to light that 64 percent of your constituents believe that highway safety has gotten worse since maintenance was privatized. In light of that, has the minister decided to bring highways maintenance back under direct ministry control?

HON. MR. VANT: That's the first time I've heard of that high a percentage. In actual fact, the bouquets far outnumber the beefs — not only in my own constituency but throughout the province — regarding the performance of the contractors. I'm very happy that the private companies are doing an excellent job in all 28 contract areas.

MR. ROSE: On a point of order, I would like to beg leave of the House to return to bills, because my colleague for Prince Rupert (Mr. Miller) missed his during the shuffle.

Leave granted.

TREE FARM LICENCE MORATORIUM ACT

Mr. Miller presented a bill intituled Tree Farm Licence Moratorium Act.

MR. MILLER: The bill recognizes the confusion which presently extends over many areas of forest management and forest tenure arrangements in British Columbia following the public information sessions. In order to fully understand the current state of our forests as well as the effect that past tenure arrangements have had on the economy and environment of the province, this bill halts the issuing of any further tree-farm licences after April 1, 1989, until a royal commission into the condition and management of the forests of British Columbia has been called, has held its hearings and has reported to the people.

Bill M205 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: In the precincts this afternoon we have a group of students from Kwantlen College in Surrey, and I would ask the House to please make them welcome.

Orders of the Day

Budget Debate

(continued)

MRS. GRAN: I appreciate this opportunity to speak in favour of our Finance minister's budget. As a member of the caucus budget committee I feel a sort of ownership as well as a great deal of pride. The Minister of Finance and the Premier are to be congratulated for their collective wisdom in widening the circle in establishing budget priorities and allocations. The cooperation of the ministers and their staff and the hard work and dedication of that committee have produced not only one of B.C.'s finest budgets but the first balanced budget in many years.

At a time when governments all over the world are strangling in debt, British Columbia is leading the way out, setting an example for all provinces in Canada. Yet the opposition criticizes the spending of more money on health care, education, highways and the environment. In all fairness to the opposition, this budget is a tough act to follow. There has been enough said by opposition members, as they rant and rave about this government, to lead me to believe that were they the government today, the budget would be double and so would the deficit. How could a party which has just recently discovered that to spend money you must make it even hope to do anything but empty the cookie jar?

Many British Columbians are suffering in the housing crisis. Rents exceed incomes, children are discriminated against and demand exceeds supply. This government has acted by spending almost $900 million on housing-related and mobile-home programs in the coming fiscal year. But let's look at some of the reasons why housing is where it's at.

During the one unforgettable term of the NDP, a good idea was introduced — the agricultural land reserve. But that good idea was completely mucked up by the NDP government. They instantly froze millions of acres of land, making millionaires out of those people fortunate enough to own land zoned for housing and industry and paupers out of landholders in rural areas. The value of land was inflated, forcing up house prices — a good idea botched up by an inept government.

In Langley district, 85 percent of the land is frozen, and in order to build homes for the thousands of middle- and low-income families moving out there, developers must spend years and countless sums of money to free up that land. I'm talking about land that is not farmland. I'm talking about the kind of land about which the former mayor of Langley used to say that if a sparrow came to visit he would have to bring his lunch.

Consultation with the municipalities, regional districts, housing industry and farming community would have made the ALR a good idea and not part of today's housing crisis.

Another NDP idea implemented during their short term was rent controls. This is probably one of the single biggest reasons why there is a rental short-

[ Page 5919 ]

age: the fear of rent controls. The memory of that socialist interference in the marketplace is etched forever in the memories of developers. Who are the losers? The very people the opposition say they care about — low-income-earners and single-parent families. It is hard for me to believe that all members in opposition, given the downside of rent controls, would actually even consider putting forward a policy like rent controls, telling those innocent and already burdened people: "Trust us, we're here to help you." Was it ignorance of the end result or just more hypocritical socialist thinking?

All governments must find innovative ways of housing families and seniors in an ever-changing world, remembering that pride of ownership always works best. This government and successive governments must work toward assisting people at all income levels to own their own homes, apartments and townhouses.

This morning the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe), during his hour of whining and sniveling, said that people should be allowed to lease land. He went that far, Mr. Speaker. The people of this province have a right to own property. The NDP are not in favour of private ownership but want complete state control — control of the very souls of our people.

Private ownership is fundamental to the well-being of all people. It produces pride and hope. Social Credit believes in private ownership, and for those people who have worked hard to own their homes, government must also address the current method of assessing homes for property taxation.

This week I met with a group of citizens from Esquimalt–Port Renfrew, retired and near retirement, who are concerned about rising property taxes. I agree with their contention that under the current system home ownership will be more and more difficult for those on fixed incomes, especially our seniors. These fine upstanding citizens believe that municipalities provide services to all residents equally, and that those services are for people, not properties. They have a point, and so I ask the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) to seriously consider a better way to assess properties for taxation purposes.

While on the subject, I would like to compliment the current mayor of Vancouver for his concern about property taxes — something his predecessor ignored.

This year's budget has environment as one of government's highest priorities. The opposition have ridiculed this, but let me ask what the Leader of the Opposition did as mayor of B.C.'s largest city? What kind of an example did he set? Is garbage recycled in Vancouver? Oh, no. I remember well the threat to Langley when the GVRD study produced four separate sites in Langley to dump greater Vancouver's garbage.

MR. PETERSON: He was the mayor then.

MRS. GRAN: He was the mayor, the one who cares so much about the environment today.

The member for Mackenzie (Mr. Long), when speaking to the throne speech, reminded this House about the pollution from Vancouver sewage that ends up in his beautiful riding. One of the single biggest pollution problems today in the lower mainland is pollution of the water surrounding Vancouver, the city that the Leader of the Opposition was the mayor of for six consecutive years and did nothing about it. So who's kidding whom here in this House? The opposition talks about the environment, and the Social Credit government has done something about it.

Let me mention quickly that many B.C. companies have also led the way in cleaning up the environment. Mohawk Oil — 100 percent B.C. owned and operated, some ten years ago at great expense — installed a used waste oil recycling plant. It has taken a long time, a great deal of money and a commitment to the environment of this province for that company to change the public's thinking. Used oil collected in B.C. is taken to Mohawk's plant in North Vancouver where it's tested and processed into a base oil equal to or better than virgin stock. Additive packages then bring this oil up to new vehicle warranty specifications. I want to congratulate Mohawk Oil and all of the other fine corporations for being good citizens, for providing jobs and caring about B.C.

The opposition doesn't care about business, and I can't remember when I last heard one of them say anything positive about the many fine companies in this province, companies that have made major contributions. Social Credit understands that companies like Mohawk Oil not only deliver jobs but are good corporate citizens, and we thank and appreciate them.

I want to end on a philosophical note, with some comments on leadership and on why I am involved in politics. It is my view that leadership is the art of creating the future, of building and communicating. Those values are what form policies and determine goals. They link people together in a common cause.

The Premier has a set of values he believes in very deeply. They are many of the same values that provide the foundation for the Social Credit Party. They are the reason I am here today.

I believe in private ownership, individual initiative, the family and, yes, God. Many people in this so-called sophisticated secular society would say that politicians must put aside religious and cultural beliefs. But loving one's country and one's faith is part of one's very being. To deny your spiritual instincts would be to cheat not only yourself but the very people who elected you.

Democracy allows for different views, and through cooperation and communication this entire Legislature can assist in building British Columbia, the most beautiful province in Canada. There is hope in my heart that, through the love that all people are capable of, our society will become more caring — that it will become a society where children are treasured and not abused; where the elderly are respected and not forgotten; where men and women have a better understanding of one another; where all races, cultures and religions live in peace; and where

[ Page 5920 ]

Socred and NDP members debate in a positive and constructive manner for the citizens we serve. If those are the goals of all of us, we will surely have made a valuable contribution.

[3:00]

HON. S.D. SMITH: It's my special privilege and pleasure to be able to take my place today in this debate on the budget — a balanced budget, which many of us in the province have looked forward to and worked towards for a long time.

This budget is one that is going to serve the interests of British Columbians extremely well — young people in particular — for a good period of time to come. It sets a direction that is affordable and sustainable, and that provides opportunity, so the people who are going to be providing the economic wealth in the future are going to be able to do so in a way that will see it directed to services, not to creating or at least paying off increasingly large amounts of deadweight debt.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

This budget does three things: it provides balance; it provides an actual reduction of the accumulated debt; and it sets aside money in a rainy day fund. It is, therefore, appropriate that the Leader of the Opposition, when he looked at that budget, said: "It's unbelievable." It is unbelievable today to most Canadians that there is a jurisdiction, an area in this country, that has been able to do the things that have been done in this province to get to the point where the budget is balanced.

We might ask ourselves how we as British Columbians got there. These things just don't happen, as the members of the opposition like to think. Just as there isn't a money tree, just as the money for services doesn't fall out of the sky, neither is it the case that when you get yourself into a position where you have to work hard to bring your House into order.... That doesn't just happen; that doesn't just fall out of the sky either.

How we got where we are today is something we should ask and something that should be known to the people of this province, because the opposition opposed us every single step of the way to get to where we are.

We got to where we are, it seems to me, by doing three things. First of all, when the recession hit this province in 1981-82, we had the courage and the conviction to look ourselves in the mirror and to discover where the problem really was. When we did that, we decided to put in place management systems that would see the cloth cut to fit the person. That triggered a number of things in our society. We brought expectations down to a point where we could realize them sensibly and in a way that we could fulfill for a good long time to come. That was a very difficult thing to do, because it is difficult in this age of instant communications to tell people they are going to have to work harder to take less. But that is what we did.

While we were doing that, the opposition sought, every single step of the way, to mislead the people of British Columbia by suggesting to them that they could have their cake and eat it too; that those expectations did not have to be revised in any way; that there was no need for any change; that we could continue to demand increasing amounts of services without making any changes to the way we did business. They were wrong, and the people quite correctly perceived them to be wrong and rejected them. The people rejected them in 1983 because they were so wrong.

Following 1983, having made that decision to cut the cloth to fit the person, we set about to reduce taxes. From 1984 straight through until 1986 we did a series of things that reduced taxes, unlike other jurisdictions which until now have not had the courage, frankly, to reduce services but have always wanted to do the misleading thing, which is to add more taxes. If you try to solve your debt problem with more taxes it inevitably is eaten up by inflation alone and you don't get to the root cause of your problem. Not only did we not add taxes, we reduced taxes, both on business and, in the 1986 budget, on ordinary people and all citizens, corporations and otherwise, through the sales tax.

The third thing we did was to improve the investment climate in British Columbia by letting people know that the scourge of socialism was not likely to visit itself on the people for a good long time to come; that the people wanted a responsible change and were prepared to do the things necessary to get it; and that we as a government were prepared to take the bull by the horns and deal with our ever-present labour-management problem in the province, and we did so through the introduction of Bill 19. What that has done has been quite phenomenal.

The most important thing Bill 19 has done for the people and the investment climate of this province is that it sent out a signal that government no longer is going to be the big brother in the labour relations business. Labour and management are going to have to solve their problems, whether they do it through the processes set up by government or not. They are going to have to solve their problems themselves; they are not going to be able to come and lean on government, and then when government steps in and solves it, to simultaneously blame government.

By doing that, we sent out a signal of our maturity to the investment community around the world. We were no longer going to get into this game of confrontation with labour-management relations. We were going to take regulation off business so that they could do the business of business and invest, and we were going to manage ourselves to keep our house in order so that the burden of government would not eat up the benefits of the inevitable economic recovery which has come.

That's how we have balanced the budget, and every British Columbian paid a price and took fairly a share of the load. Every British Columbian deserves credit for what has been done, save and except members of the opposition in this chamber, who, from time

[ Page 5921 ]

to time — and all the time throughout this period — attempted to thwart what was being done, who were dragged from the floor of this House physically when those decisions were being taken, and who have done everything possible to ensure that the program that has worked so well would not happen.

MR. MILLER: The Premier disagreed with it. He said so during the election.

HON. S.D. SMITH: My friend, the Premier did not disagree with it. When he was the president of the chamber of commerce he went around this province and talked about it and supported it — unlike you, Mr. Member, who stood in Prince Rupert and did your very best as a member of the local council to thwart it. When you put yourself up to the people, they rejected you as the mayor of that community.

In the course of doing that, we ensured that there was a fairness about the taxation system in this province, so that today we can stand in this House and say that we have the second-lowest incidence of tax on individuals of any jurisdiction in this country — not like the legacy they have in Manitoba, believe me. We have the second-lowest incidence of tax on ordinary people anywhere in the country.

When we look to where the revenue has come to balance this budget, we see $1.95 billion has come from corporations, even though the rate of income tax was lowered because this economy is so prosperous and buoyant that it has generated $1.95 billion in taxes both through income tax and royalties on resource rent. That's where the money is coming from, and that is fairness.

Have we been assured and assured the people that throughout this we're not just worried about being fiscal ferrets and making certain that we have a nice, neat bottom line? Is that the only thing we've done? The answer is no. We've ensured as well, during this period of time, that our programs are fully, fairly and equitably funded.

When you look at this budget and the health budget — a budget which consumes more than 16 individual ministries, and a budget which has been augmented by $1 million every single day of the year.... An increase of $1 million of the people's money has been directed to the health budget. That is a clear demonstration of this government's priority since day one in 1952 that health care of the people will be the number one priority of those who come here to serve on behalf of Social Credit in government.

Seniors. The budget discloses programs that will be handled by the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck) providing seniors with the opportunity to consult and to participate in a process that will result in greater security, happiness and opportunity to participate in our economy, our province and our culture.

There is a great well and resource of goodwill, talent and good health which should be tapped and wants to be tapped, and which can still make a major contribution to our society.

We have problems in our society, particularly in the abuse of substance, not the least of which is the abuse of alcohol. The TRY program being operated, advanced and spearheaded by the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services (Hon. L. Hanson) is doing an outstanding job of drawing together our community. It is providing a vehicle through which we can tackle that problem in some fundamental way and make the lifestyle changes we have to make in order to do the right thing in this society and grapple with that problem in the most fundamental ways of all.

One of the things about this budget that I find most appealing is the commitment made to education in this province. Coming out of the Sullivan commission and the work being done by the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet), we are advancing a tremendous amount of resources into the education field to buttress what we already have and to build on our strength for the future.

I found it particularly disappointing yesterday to sit in this House and listen to the member for Prince George North (Mrs. Boone) stand up and say that education in this province is something that we ought to be ashamed of. Not only was I disappointed; quite frankly, I was disgusted. Because if there is one thing the education system of this province does not need, it is for fatuous politicians to climb on the backs of people in a position of lesser strength than they are to make and advance their own political points.

[3:15]

That is not the way to carry on. Crawling on the backs of teachers and children in order to make your funny, silly little partisan points, Mr. Member for Prince Rupert, is disgraceful, discreditable and does no good for the education system in this province. You and your colleagues may be ashamed of the public school system in this province, Mr. Member for Prince Rupert, but my colleagues and I are not. We are proud of our public school system; we are proud of the teachers in this province; we are proud of the school trustees in this province, and we are proud of the way that our students in this province perform. In every single objective test in which they are measured — both nationally and internationally; be it in literacy, science, language or whatever else — they do very well. I want to tell that member for Prince Rupert that we ought to have the guts to stand up with pride in this House and acknowledge the work done by our education system and our teachers. The member for Burnaby North (Mr. Jones) should stand up and tell the member for Prince George North (Mrs. Boone) that she is wrong, wrong, wrong.

The money in the budget for universities is particularly welcome as well, Now the students in our area will have the opportunity, as they well have in other parts of the province, to be at home at Cariboo College and get their university degrees. It's a worthwhile move, one for which I think we ought to compliment the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Advanced Education (Hon. S. Hagen).

Mr. Speaker, it was particularly heartening as well for me to see the highways construction budget moved up again to the $1 billion mark, where it

[ Page 5922 ]

ought to be, so we can provide the kind of roads we need in Omineca, in Kamloops, in Cariboo and even in Kootenay, if the member for Kootenay (Ms. Edwards) would come forward with any proposals that would allow us to assist in that area.

I see as well in the parks budget a recognition of the fiftieth anniversary of Wells Gray Park and the acknowledgement that there will be funds there this year to pave the road to Helmcken Falls, which is going to be a tremendous economic catalyst for the area of Clearwater, which had a tremendously devastating problem when the mill was shut down. I'm proud that the people of Clearwater did not go running and bellyaching to the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Parker) to try and fix up the problem and open an uneconomic mill. They got together and did bootstrap economics, and the result is that they have changed the economy of that area. With the able assistance of the Minister of Parks (Hon. Mr. Huberts) they're doing that; they're going forward and they're creating jobs.

In forestry the budget disclosed a furthering of the small business program. That's something that I think is important, particularly to our area and throughout the interior.

In the mines section of the budget, the road incentive package.... I know the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) was very pleased to see it, because that's going to be of considerable assistance in developing the potential of the mining properties, especially in the northwest.

Mr. Speaker, where the budget discloses the sensitivity of this government to our future and to where our future must be is in the part dealing with the environment. Our commitment to sustainable development is not a novelty, as it is for the members opposite. Our government and our party have a commendable record when it comes to the environment, a record of which we ought to be proud and which we ought to talk about far more frequently than we do.

The member for Vancouver South sitting in the House today was part of a government that saved the Skagit Valley — that was a Social Credit government. Social Credit saved Moresby for a park. Social Credit saved the Valhalla — and I know the member for Kootenay is particularly proud of that — as well as the Height of the Rockies reserve. Social Credit saved and protected the Purcells. Social Credit established the protection necessary for Robson Bight. And Social Credit has made a commitment to create the largest urban park in the world, with salt water on one side and fresh water on the other, at UBC. Social Credit provided the Trophy Mountain reserve adjacent to Wells Gray Park. Social Credit provided the greenbelt area.

Social Credit has made every single major move in this province that has kept our environment as pristine and pure as it is. As proud as we are of that, we are at the same time providing incentive programs, so we have been able to grow and to develop our economy, and so we can provide the services that we want, enjoy, and want to continue to have.

That has been the legacy of Social Credit's sustainable development program. The fact that we have had to deal with trade-offs.... Mr. Speaker, there is another way of doing it, and we've seen examples of it. I want to give you but two, because I think one, although it is from the, past, may be indicative of what we're going to see sometime in the future, God forbid, because future and history sometimes merge and repeat themselves.

In 1974 in the Cowichan estuary, one of the great pristine places in British Columbia — a wonderful fishery, a great spawning and steelhead area — the czar of resources of the day, and I use the word "czar" technically and advisedly, the then Minister of Forests, the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams), issued a permit to a company called Doman Industries for the construction of a major industrial facility. Had that facility been built, it would have ruined the Cowichan estuary.

He issued that permit without any environmental impact studies being done of any magnitude at all, without any environmental planning, without any consideration for the environment. Why did he issue that permit? He issued that permit because he, the czar of resources, had destroyed the economic climate in this province almost personally and singlehandedly. He wanted at that time to show that his party was interested in creating wealth.

Odd we hear that little charade 15 years later, isn't it? He wanted to create wealth. He wanted to show that there was some actual private-sector investment going on. So in spite of the environment — frankly, indifferent to it — he issued a permit to construct a major wood-conversion facility in the Cowichan estuary. Had that been done, it would have destroyed one of the most pristine areas in this province.

I'm happy to say that the people took their hands off the hot stove of socialism in 1975 and got rid of that czar of resources and the rest of the baggage that went with him. They brought back to government people who had some sensitivity to the environment. They brought back to government people who cancelled the permit that had been given to Doman Industries. Social Credit thereby saved the Cowichan estuary. Let there be no mistake about that.

I raise that because there are trade-offs to be made but they are good trade-offs, as in the case of the Skagit as the member for Vancouver South did. There are bad and stupid and idiotic trade-offs to be made, as was the case in the Cowichan estuary with the then czar of resources in this province, the first member for Vancouver East.

We ought to think about that because that same group is today coming along telling us that they are really the friends of business; that they are in favour of sustainable development; that they want to create wealth; that they want to develop an investment climate — same old guff 15 years later. All of us with time tend to forget, and they are hoping for that. They're hoping we'll forget what it was like in British Columbia with the czar of resources running the show. Mr. Sensitivity himself, who is now the critic for regional development; the man who when he

[ Page 5923 ]

made his first speech about regional development said: "You know, those Socreds are really a bunch of unsophisticated rural rednecks."

I want to tell you that ashamed as I am of some flushing individual who would lower himself to make that kind of statement — because abuse and bullying comes in many forms in this life — on behalf of all those who come from small towns in this province, I'm proud of my rural background. I am not going to stand by and listen to someone who is both a has-been and a never-was-er try to put down the people of this province, a province where the wealth was created not by flippancy, not by selling your parliamentary seat for $80,000, but by the sweat of your brow. That's where the real people are from, not the flushing people.

There's another example of the kind of trade-offs which you have to make in sustainable development to create wealth and to protect your environment. There is one we are having to visit right now. It deals with the Vancouver Island gas pipeline. It's an important one. I commend all people to think about it in the context of what we see on the television every night, because the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Davis) and the Premier have been pushing hard — and I suggest and predict, successfully very soon — to be able to get that pipeline to Vancouver Island, not only to create wealth on this island and provide a secure Canadian source of supply of energy to the people here; this is also one of the great progressive environmental decisions ever taken in this province to get rid of dirty, rotten, stinking California sulphur-laden crude, and replace it with clean, sweet Peace River gas.

In order to do that, we have to build a pipeline, and we may have to make some trade-offs. One of them has to be, Mr. Opposition House Leader — and you are the person who should think about this most clearly, because you were there for the other performance — a line through the watershed area in order to make that a viable project. And we should, because the trade-off is this. There are pipelines all over this country, and gas lines don't cause materials to run down the hill into the water; they go up into the air. The trade-off is that we get rid of the barges that spilled oil all over the coastline up at Tofino. We get rid of those barges if we build that gas line, and that's a trade-off worth making.

The alternative is this. When the Alaska pipeline was proposed, when the Mackenzie Valley pipeline was proposed, the socialists opposed it, and their former leader, Mr. Berger, killed it. Mr. Barrett, when he was the Premier of this province, acted like he does always, like some kind of buffoon — Khrushchev reincarnated, except he keeps his shoes on. He doesn't bang his shoes on the table; he dances on the table as he did in the cabinet room in this province.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The opposition House Leader rises on a point of order.

MR. ROSE: I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if you are not offended by the hon. Attorney-General referring to a former Premier of this House as a buffoon. I'm sure he'd like to withdraw that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm sure he would.

HON. S.D. SMITH: If it caused offence to the House and the Chair, then of course I will withdraw it. He's described himself as a clown, and I think that's probably being too kind to himself.

[3:30]

The trade-off there was simply this: the Alaska and the Mackenzie pipeline were killed. The former Premier of this province said he was not going to allow right-of-away to come across the northeast sector. The result of that is that the United States of America were not prepared to trust this province to build an oil line. So they pipe the oil from Prudhoe Bay to Valdez, and they develop tanker traffic. Today, those who sit and pontificate in this House on that issue ought, before they make too many speeches about their holier-than thou attitudes on oil spill cleanups, look themselves square in the mirror, because it was their decision that created the tanker traffic in the first place.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, minister. Just before we proceed, in case any members of the House are wondering if we have a stranger in the House this afternoon, I hasten to tell you that we do have Mr. Jim Howe in the chamber. We've had some complaints from hon. members about the sound system. Mr. Howe is an expert in sound systems, so Mr. Speaker invited him in to see what kind of report he'd give us and what we might do about it.

MS. EDWARDS: I'm really delighted to know that the members who are in the House right now are interested in the Vancouver Island pipeline, because it's an issue I intend to address. The promises coming in the budget speech are what occasioned me to put together my remarks on the Vancouver Island pipeline and the progress it has made under the ministers of this government and with the public — if we are able to remember that the public is there.

The Vancouver Island pipeline has been promised to us in British Columbia. It's been promised by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. It's been promised by the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Strachan). It's been promised in the throne speech. All this is very recent history, because it's been promised many times before that too. It's been promised in the budget speech and it has been treated both times as an environmental issue. In other words, it hasn't been put with those energy or petroleum resources projects. It's been put as an environmental issue, and perhaps that's because the government recognizes the extreme and sincere concern of the people of British Columbia for the environment and the fact that this particular pipeline has some problems associated with it, related to the environment and our treatment of it.

The Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources managed — where the rest of the government had obviously failed — to wrangle the promise of

[ Page 5924 ]

some money out of the federal government during an election. He got a rather modest amount, but that is what we got, and so he is putting forward all his best efforts to push this project to completion. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources has admitted that this amount was given no doubt as an election ploy and that he is not sure that the project itself would be viable — but with the federal money, it suits him fine.

I thought we would go into a little story and see what the narrative is of this magnificent project. We have to go back to the day in 1988 — September 22, in fact; an auspicious day — When the announcement was made that there would be $300 million of public money committed to the pipeline. The pipeline is a laudable goal. If you can get the gas there in a feasible manner, it's a clean fuel and would probably create good rates for residential gas. If used in the pulp mills, the gas would reduce self-remission. So those goals are very laudable.

When the announcement was made, there was a booklet put out, which said what had to be done — and there were a lot of things. On the process for proceeding, it said that it has to proceed: The Vancouver Island pipeline will "proceed through a series of steps before the final agreement can be reached...."

"Pacific Coast Energy Corp. as the sponsor, must prepare a detailed application which it must then submit to the provincial government.... Following a review, in consultation with the government of Canada, the provincial government will prepare terms of reference for a public hearing on the pipeline before the B.C. Utilities Commission."

When the public hearing is concluded, the cabinet will receive the recommendations and make its own final decisions at that time at the federal level. The B.C. Utilities Commission hearings will be a major source of information for screening on Canada's environmental assessment and review process, which the thing will then go through, and this will lead to — we are getting there, Mr. Speaker, but we're not quite there yet — a federal decision on whether the project is environmentally acceptable.

Then the B.C. Utilities Commission will begin another process. It will begin hearings on the distribution and make recommendations on who the distributors should be. The provincial cabinet will at that point make its decision on these recommendations, and then the successful applicant will begin negotiations with municipalities on franchise agreements and with the PCEC concerning the natural gas supply While these steps are going on — we're not through this yet — the PCEC will be negotiating with natural gas producers and prospective customers. It will then later be required to arrange transportation agreements with other pipelines and with municipalities and landowners. It concludes with the statement: "Once all these procedural steps are followed, the details of the agreement between the government and the PCEC can be finalized."

It looked like a long process, Mr. Speaker. It seemed like it might take a little while, but on December 20 — skipping several steps or at least hustling through some of them: "The B.C. Utilities Commission issued an order for hearings on this pipeline to commence on January 24, 1989." That is two months after the announcement of the fact that both governments would participate.

The terms of reference for that commission hearing were that the commission would recommend if the application should be approved or refused — it looked like it was going to be a feasibility study. The commission was going to say whether this pipeline should go. It was also to recommend conditions that should accompany it if approval is recommended, but those two things were to be there, and they were two parts of the terms of reference that were put to the B.C. Utilities Commission when it announced on December 20 that the hearings would begin on January 24.

You might note, Mr. Speaker, that December 20 is five days before Christmas, and if you think in terms of how much time a company or an intervener will have to prepare for this hearing, you really must recognize that there is likely to be about three weeks' time in January for anyone to prepare.

Early in the new year, the prospective participants decided and realized that they couldn't marshal the information they needed. By January 9 the very company that is to build this pipeline — the one you might think would want it to hurry up — applied for an extension so that they would have time to prepare their information. The Utilities Commission was obviously under some considerable pressure not to accept applications for extension, because the commission said the deadline for the submission of the company's direct evidence had been extended — how much? — by a week, to January 16. Then, on January 11, the commission, in response to a huge number of submissions about where and the amount of time designated for hearings — I wrote a letter to the commission myself — set a pre-hearing conference for January 18 to consider the phasing of the hearing and locations and time requirements and other such things. Two days previously, it would have the information from the company that was to build the pipeline, but two days later it was to decide these things.

On January 18 it determined that there should be three phases for the hearings. These three phases included: (1) facilities and capital costs; (2) environment and socio-economic issues; and (3) markets, financial and gas supply. This is very extensive stuff, Mr. Speaker. If you're going to look into all the facilities and capital costs and all the environmental and socio-economic impacts and the markets and financial and gas supply, you would think there might be some considerable amount of interest, some considerable amount of information and a considerable number of interveners to work with this. Well, that was where we were starting. On January 18 there were to be additional hearing locations.

These hearings began on January 24, and on the very next day the Council of Forest Industries applied to postpone the hearing, claiming insufficient notice of the hearing for them to properly prepare. Their application to postpone was supported by the greater Vancouver water boards, who could well be

[ Page 5925 ]

affected when they began to realize where the pipeline route would go. The Utilities Commission agreed that there was insufficient financial information, but decided that they would still go ahead and consider phases 1 and 2 anyway. They proceeded to decide that they could, in this very short order, deal with the facilities and capital costs and the environmental and socioeconomic impacts. There was no need, they decided, for extra time on those issues. It was just an environmental project, and there were three weeks to prepare. You know, from the beginning of January until the hearing they had had three whole weeks to deal with socio-economic impacts and environment, so "Oh, phooey, let's do it; go, go."

On February 2 — and I'm sure Mr. Speaker knows that February 2 is Groundhog Day — there seemed to be a groundhog sticking his head right out of the ground. His name was Tom Siddon. Mr. Siddon was the senior federal cabinet minister for British Columbia, and he put the cat among the pigeons and said that there was really no guarantee of funds for the pipeline. He managed to repeat that the date for the final agreement on this pipeline was September 30, 1989. Of course, he was speaking early in February 1989; perhaps he was saying: "Don't rush along."

But on February 3, the very next day, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Davis), who demonstrated the extremely strong degree of unanimity and cooperation between the two governments, said in a ministerial statement which he released publicly: "There is no doubt that the natural gas pipeline to Vancouver Island will be built starting in midsummer 1989 and completed in the fall of 1990." In case you wanted to know what the Utilities Commission is going to tell us and what the federal government is going to do, this is it, said our minister, admitting of absolutely no doubt whatsoever that this would go ahead. He repeated that he expected recommendations from the commission by March 22 — which was less than two months after the hearings started — and he said about construction: "This is a tight schedule, but this project should be well into its mainline construction phase six to eight months from now." The minister claimed, "We're down to negotiating the final few issues of the detailed binding agreement," and seemed to refute everything the minister from the federal government had said. But that's what our minister said.

[3:45]

Four days later, and perhaps initiated or motivated by this seeming problem that had emerged and become public, a document was leaked from an interagency assessment group, which said that PCEC's assessments were insufficient and superficial. It said that additional studies were needed. I won't go into all of the areas where it said those studies needed to be done, but most of the issues it addressed were environmental; some of them were socio-economic. These were, of course, the two phases that the commission was looking into. The assessment group said that some of these studies had to be done in the autumn, and until they were done they were unable to assess the probable environmental impact of the pipeline.

This report also made an interesting observation: that it saw a general problem emerging out of the wording of part of the company's submission. The company had said that an environmental inspector must understand "the constraints of pipeline engineering and construction." It is very interesting that the company has decided that the environmental inspector, who is obviously doing an inspection for Environment, must recognize the terrible constraints on the poor souls who build pipelines. The statement indicated that this might be back-to-front thinking, and the team said in the report that any special status the pipeline might have was irrelevant to an environmental inspection officer, who must have the authority to stop work if environmental impacts were occurring. Obviously, what this report did was lay out whether in fact the environmentalists or the engineers were going to come off first.

Next step, February 10. The Environment minister of British Columbia, not to be outdone by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources comes out with a ministerial statement and says — and I wish I had the voice to do this — "Natural gas will be good for the Vancouver Island environment." What's good for General Bullmoose will be good for.... He didn't respond to what the problem was; he made one of those statements that say: "I'll decide."

A little more than a week later, on February 18, the hearings proceeded in Powell River, Nanaimo, and then returned to Vancouver. By February 22, the Greater Vancouver Water District submitted a report stating that construction of the line through the Coquitlam watershed will result in cloudiness in the water exceeding Canadian standards, and it will be too cloudy for chlorine disinfectant to handle it. We don't know yet what they did with that, but two days later we have another event: the Utilities Commission decides it doesn't have enough information. It manages to declare that the lack of information relates to markets and financial matters, and therefore it can't go ahead with phase 3 of the hearing.

Our two ministers — Environment and Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources — who are no doubt operating in the environmental mode of this government — order that the commission must submit an interim report dealing with phases 1 and 2 by March 14, and that was absolutely it. Presumably the report of the Greater Vancouver Water District just had to be rolled in. Everything else, the whole business from the interagency assessment group, had to be dealt with — and this was in less than three weeks.

On March 2, the Council of Forest Industries again objected to the lack of sufficient financial information at the hearings. The Utilities Commission ordered PCEC to supply complete financial information by March 6 — that's four days later. On March 6 the company complied by submitting its information; the Utilities Commission gave itself three days to consider it and then ordered that phase 3 hearings begin on March 9. One day later the company appeared before the commission and clarified some of its problems.

[ Page 5926 ]

It made very clear to everybody that the financing depends on having the gas price tied to the price of oil. It also required that all customers deal with Pacific Coast Energy Corp. and not directly with suppliers.

That went against the understanding of a number of the mayors of the communities through which this pipeline was to go. These people, I have been told, were led to believe they could choose their own distribution company and charge a franchise fee, which is the common practice. Under section 647 of the Municipal Act they are allowed to collect a franchising fee, and they had understood that they would be able to do so. PCEC said it couldn't do that. What happens now is that the company says they must not do that or they cannot afford the pipeline.

On March 14 the Council of Forest Industries outlined its particular concerns. These concerns deal with a number of things, including long-term gas supply, the amount of private sector equity, who is going to shoulder cost overruns, what happens when the local distribution company's costs are higher than what the company says, and what happens if the company can't build through the watershed. What will happen then?

There were a number of serious concerns brought forward at that time, and on the same date the Coquitlam council passed a motion opposing a pipeline through the watershed. Remember, this is after the environmental and socio-economic phases are completed. Nevertheless, that is what the Coquitlam council is doing. Is that motion of the council being considered at all?

On March 16, PCEC feels sure, it tells the commission, that it can sign long-term gas contracts if the gas prices are tied to oil. So it must have that assurance. We still do not know where that is coming from, but we know very well that the government can take care of the municipalities and the distribution situation, because it has legislation that can override the Municipal Act.

On March 20, four days later, the cannon comes off the bow with a great roar, and the Minister of Environment issues his amendments to the regulations on sulphur content in fuel. That was the legislation that was expected to encourage the members of the Council of Forest Industries — the pulp mills — to reduce their emissions. So that has now happened.

On March 22 the Greater Vancouver Regional District unanimously decides to advise the company that the potential impact of building a pipeline through their watershed is unacceptable, as are the company's proposals for monitoring water quality and taking mitigative measures. When she makes this announcement, the deputy chair of the GVRD, Mayor Marilyn Baker, comments that the board of the GVRD is more concerned about the lack of consultation with municipalities than with its lack of power. She says: "The regional board was caught by surprise on something of a major impact, something that would affect 1.3 million people."

We're getting a lot of things thrown into a process that pretty well hasn't been clear-cut from the beginning. There is no indication of where it's going, how it's to be considered, what's to be done, or whether or not we're going to get any response to the input of these people.

On the day after this, the Vancouver Sun, which frequently supports this Social Credit government in its liberal mode — one would think that when it's being environmental it might be liberal — seems to have seen through this. It says: "...reason and logic have never played much of a part in the long saga of Social Credit's obsession with the Vancouver Island pipeline." I think it's an appropriate statement. It's very interesting that they suggest that there is perhaps an obsession with a Vancouver Island pipeline.

Two days later, on March 25, the president of Pacific Coast Energy Corp. responds to the motion of the municipality of Coquitlam and the motion of the GVRD water district. He talks about environmental balance as he sees it and says, as quoted in the newspaper: "The environmental benefits of replacing oil as a major fuel source will balance any threat that construction of a natural gas pipeline poses to the Vancouver region's water supply." Obviously it's very clear to him that the objections of 1.3 million people won't matter. The president says he still expects a development permit by mid-April, with work to begin in June.

On March 29 the hearings ended. This is April 6, nine days before the middle of April, which is when the president of the PCEC expects a development permit to be issued. The B.C. Utilities Commission has not yet reported on phase 3.

As I say, it's very clear, when you put together what has happened.... You see the dates, and the bouncing back and forth, and the absolute lack of response of one of these inputs to another. What you've got is a farce. The Minister of Energy is rushing around like the White Rabbit, saying, "Hurry, hurry, hurry," and the Minister of Environment is standing making proclamations from the croquet lawn.

It's madness. It's a mockery of the democratic input that should have gone into the Utilities Commission hearing and of the process that was outlined at the time the announcement was made that this pipeline would go ahead with that kind of funding, with $300 million of public money, and it was to go through this process. And instead of going through this process, it has been rushed, pushed, debated and objected to, and there is no completion of people's objections. There's been no reception of their objections, and there's no completion allowed by coming back with an alternative or any kind of consensus. Because of this, if for no other reason, I would object to and vote against the budget presented by this government in the House.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I've been sitting here for almost half an hour, listening to the best evidence of why it would be a disaster if that party ever got elected to run this province. It really must be awful to have to live day by day to find in every statement, to draw from every press report and every comment by a minister, to work on the thesis that "I must find

[ Page 5927 ]

something negative; I must find something that I can translate into a negative comment." I'm glad I don't have to live like that.

The member says she is speaking against the budget, then spends the whole time looking for reasons to stop something. In any project, small or large, there are some glitches, hitches, problems or concerns that develop. I would hate to think that the only approach to life or to development in this province is that we look for ways to stop anything from happening. Surely, as these glitches develop, the member does not take a moment to say they are solved, when they come forward. Why would you not look for solutions?

[4:00]

I know that on this side of the House we have to keep reminding ourselves that the original objective was to drain the swamp, despite all the snipping and sniping by the alligators on that side. I can remember when the Royal Commission on Education was put in place by this government. It was not good enough; something was wrong with it. It couldn't possibly deliver its job in the short time; we had to give it years and years. I guess the objective was to delay it as long as possible. The royal commission did its job; it put in a very good report. What do we get from the opposition? Once we moved as a government, they said: "No leadership. No decision. No action." In less than six months, we moved to implement 78 of the 83 recommendations of the Sullivan report, and guess what we're getting? "Delay it. Put it off for up to two, three, four years." I get from the education critic that there's not enough money in the budget for implementing the changes, and in the next paragraph: "Why are you getting going on them? Why are you implementing the changes?" Talk about yo-yo tactics. I certainly don't understand what they want. "Give us an answer. What exactly is planned?" We say: "There is a consultation process to develop that plan." "Oh. Well, then you don't know what you're doing." If I say, "Okay, we're going to move on something," then the response comes back: "Why are you deciding this without consultation?" If I say I'm willing to listen to consultation, then they say: "Why don't you make some decisions? No leadership." I have some trouble with: "Why is the minister promoting these changes?"

However, I would like first of all to touch on something — because my colleague the minister of post-secondary education is not here — that the opposition has made, or tried to make, some hay with: the assistance program for students. Last year some $58.2 million was budgeted; this year the budget shows only $50.7 million. The opposition says: "Why are you taking this money away from students?" They've been told — but are not about to accept it — that of the money budgeted last year, only some $39 million was taken up. So what's in the budget this year is the $39.6 million that was anticipated last year, and it's been moved up to $50 million. What we have this year is a 28 percent increase in the budget in post-secondary for the student financial assistance program. That is 28 percent over what was utilized last year. Only the socialists call that a cutback, but I guess it suits their purpose to pick a bit of information and then to try to work into a propaganda campaign what is not supported in fact or in any practice in the province.

I'd like to deal with a few things. I know that my opposition critic did say near the end of her speech in the throne speech debate: "I hope to be a constructive critic." Then, just the other day, in a speech in the budget debate, she tried to get out a lot of public misinformation to sabotage the important changes we are making in education.

Since I've been minister I have done my level best to say to the public that we have a good education system in this province. When we compare what the students in our schools are learning — nationally, internationally, on any basis — we have a good education system. I've had to buck the opposition campaign, which I guess is exemplified by the member for Prince George North (Mrs. Boone), who said yesterday: "The education system in this province is something that we should be ashamed of, not proud of." It's right there in Hansard.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Are you supporting that? I think that member points out how well a negative propaganda campaign can work. He said: "You cut it back."

I have now resorted to the tactic of putting a publication on education facts that we put out — one on education funding in British Columbia — into a brown envelope, marking it "confidential" and leaving it lying in the hallway, in the hope they might read it. I have distributed to them the evidence, the facts and the numbers. They're all there, yet they talk about cutbacks.

Let's look at what the socialists see as a cutback. It takes a little while to read figures, but I think it's worth it. I would like, for once and all, to dispel this notion of cutbacks.

MR. BLENCOE: What was restraint all about?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I'll explain it to you, but I might have to draw you a picture.

In 1981 there were 492,000 students in the public school system. There were 28,438 full-time-equivalent educators, and the gross budget was $1.5 billion. In 1982 there were 485,500 pupils in the public school system and 29,000 teachers — in other words, there were fewer students, but almost 800 more teachers — and the gross budget was $1.7 billion, up over $200 million. In '83 the pupil enrolment went down; it reached its lowest point in 1985. Despite that, in 1985 the budget was $1.75 billion. Because of a change from the fiscal year to the school year, and because of the lowest enrolment increase, 1985 was the one year when the total budget went down slightly, to accommodate 25,000 less students. That was the period in which restraint in this province was affecting businesses and employment for other people. It was affecting everyone else, yet the education system said:

[ Page 5928 ]

"We want to be immune." For all intents and purposes, they were immune from it.

Let me quickly run through this cutback that the socialists are talking about. In 1981, $1.5 billion; 1982, $1.75 billion; 1983, $1.79 billion; 1984, $1.8 billion; 1985, $1.7 billion — that was the one year with a decrease. Now notice how quickly...1986, $1.8 billion; 1987, $1.98 billion; 1988-89, $2.163 billion; 198990, almost $2.5 billion for the education budget. So a lot of money went out there. I thought when you put more money out there it's partly to cover inflation. Inflation is driven.... I understand inflation has increased costs, and we have accommodated those increased costs.

Let me put it in terms of the budgeted cost per pupil. Remember, this is what the socialists call cutbacks. In 1981, $3,076; 1982, $3,614 — a big increase of 17.5 percent; 1983, $3,711 — up again; 1984, $3,758 — up again, not as much; 1985-86, down $20 per pupil because of the anomalies there, but still $3,738; 1986-87, up to $3,954; 1987-88, $4,199; 1988-89, $4,516, and we don't know what it's going to be in 1989-90. An increase each year — which is translated as a cutback.

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

There are so many ways to show that there were no cutbacks, that the funding increased every year. But I guess when you're bent on a negative propaganda campaign, you can take the facts.... Maybe they're reading this progression the wrong way. In most cases we go from 1981 down the page, not up the page to 1989. So I would highly recommend: read the annual report, read this, read that, read anything you like; and at some time please look at the facts and the figures.

What is a cutback then in socialist terms? What do the socialists see as a cutback? An increase in funding every year — and they talk about the cutbacks.

Average teacher salaries. In 1981, $25,000 — I'm just rounding it off; 1982, $28,000; 1983, $34,000; 1985, $36,000; 1986, $37,000; 1986-87, $38,000; 1987-88, $39,000; 1988-89, $41,000. An increase in the average teacher's salary of at least $1,000 per year each and every year during what you people label as cutbacks. I guess you're not interested in the facts; you're simply interested in the....

Interjection.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Public opinion facts?

Interjection.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Not from you they haven't. You wouldn't understand them.

Let's translate this into some summary form. From 1981 to 1988-89, school board gross total budgets increased by $671 million, or 41.8 percent. From 1983, when restraint really hit, to 1988-89, school board gross total budgets increased by 19.4 percent, or $370 million — yet they're referred to as cutbacks. From 1981 to 1988-89, the province has increased the shareable operating budget by $853.9 million, or 76 percent. Some cutback!

The province pays for close to 81 percent of the total school budget. They have said there is no tax concession, no concern for the taxpayers; a lot of argument has been made on that. They will not even acknowledge the significant benefit of the $50 in the homeowner grant this year. I guess the new chairman of the Vancouver School Board has acknowledged it. He said: "We were budgeting for a $63 average increase; with the changes that the government has made, that is brought down to a $2 increase." So at least somebody out there is looking at the numbers and is willing to acknowledge that more money is, in fact, a tax break to the taxpayers.

[4:15]

A great deal has been made about the cut in the non-residential taxes, and that is true. By design, the government lowered the non-residential taxes to industry — mainly on the equipment tax — in order to encourage economic development. If you look at the evidence in the last few years, you will see that did work, and we have a lot more economic development and a lot more money to work. But one thing that is never noted by the negative party over there is that the non-residential taxes decreased by 5.7 percent. At the same time, the grants from general revenue to school districts have increased by 63 percent. So in other words, that was much more than balanced and has looked after all of that.

Two members of the opposition — the member for New Westminster (Ms. A. Hagen), my negative critic, and the member for Prince George North (Mrs. Boone) — were attacking the money that was not spent for special education. Again, "the cutbacks in special education" is how I think they worded it. Mr. Speaker, let me tell you what the numbers say, not what the negative critics say.

The numbers say that in 1983 funding for special education was $104.7 million, and in 1984 it was $189.9 million. That's a fairly hefty increase, but part of that is because of a change in the structure. However, in 1985 it was $125 million; in 1985-86 it was $195 million; then to $210 million, then to $222 million, then to $257 million and then to $305 million. Those are the facts of what has been done for special education. The needs have increased, and the budget has certainly increased.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I can't quite hear what the member is sniping about, but she certainly sniped enough yesterday in her speech.

I think the member for Prince George said yesterday: "The public will not be fooled again." They were fooled in 1972, they have not been fooled since and they will not be fooled again.

I don't know whether that will counter the continuous effort that the opposition and some of their friends have put forth to say that there were cutbacks, and that our education system is a disgrace. It is not; I think we can be proud of it. Funding has

[ Page 5929 ]

increased for the education system every year. Yet I don't know whether the brown envelope approach will work when they read some of these things and pay attention.

I've gone out of my way to make the information available to any member of this House and to the public. But there is a natural distrust of politicians, and obviously the term "cutback" is tossed out there and is picked up by the media, and they all say "cutback." I've made this information available to the media as well, but once the catch-phrase of "cutback" takes hold, then it's cutback, cutback, cutback; everybody starts attacking cutbacks that really were a figment of somebody's imagination. Maybe at some point the facts will prevail over the negative propaganda campaign.

My critic said in the throne speech debate: "I hope to be a constructive critic." I wasn't here unfortunately to hear your speech in the budget debate, Madam Member, but I did read it. I really couldn't believe that you could not see anything positive in the implementation of the royal commission report. I think you did say at the beginning: "We commend them for their efforts, but their whole program is wrong." I believe that member did say — and I've got these quotes right from the speech the member made in this House — that there should be more money in the first year for the implementation of the royal commission report.

Elsewhere in her speech she says: "What's the hurry? Why don't we delay things for a few years?" She acknowledges that this is additional money, but she says it doesn't show up in the fiscal framework. I just have a little difficulty with that. Then she pins it down to $44 million, describes it as "a niggardly, miserly...$44 million," and says that there is not a dime for the school districts. I don't know what that member reads, but this money will all show up, directly or indirectly, in the school districts. Much of that money will go directly to the school districts for the implementation.

She says there is no money set aside for dual entry. It has been made plain time and again: it didn't show up in the fiscal framework because it wasn't intended to. It was supposed to be over and above the operating budget. I tried to explain that, but I guess you have some trouble with it.

There was "not a dime for retraining teachers." We have clearly stated that some of this money is for in-service retraining.

A big issue was made of the $20 million that was labelled as "redirected funds." There is money now that goes into these different programs that are in place right now. When you talk about new curriculum changes, there's money allotted for that under the fiscal framework. You don't have to duplicate that money. Some of that money will be for the curriculum changes necessary for the royal commission report. There is money in the budget for in-service for teachers. That money can be considered as redirected.

I can give you the main categories. Testing assessment funds — the testing and assessment process has to change, so that we don't have to do it there and do it again. Program implementation funds. Equipment support funds. Non-instructional-day funding. All of those things are for teacher in-service, for professional development, for changing the system, for implementing changes. The $20 million is there. If you add the $20 million, then it's $68 million that's in there. Taking that out you still have $44 million. And that member says it is a niggardly, miserly $44 million for implementing changes.

We have said that over the long term it will be $1.4 billion. I have repeatedly said that it's not going to be one-tenth each year. It would not make sense to put out a whole bunch of money that we can't do.... We are going to have to try and budget responsibly. What we have done is estimate the costs for each of the categories. I don't know exactly what they'll be. They are estimates. I don't know whether they will be new books recommended by the consultation process or other materials. I think it would be improper for me to say a consultation process, and then earmark exactly what is going to go where.

I can tell you that the $44 million didn't come out of a pipe-dream. It came out of adding up rough estimates for each and every one of the things that we think can and should be done this year. It's there. On February 17, when the budget information went out to the school boards from the ministry, when the fiscal framework and all that was calculated, that information was provided to them, as to what is going to be allotted for each — not in exact dollars, but certainly for all of the things there would be funding for that the member said is not there.

My critic says in her budget speech, about this government: "Accountability: none." I don't think there has every been an exercise where we have gone out to the people as openly and as candidly with what the items are, to what detail we can, to do that. But she says: "Accountability: none. Leadership: none." This is my constructive critic.

What are you trying to do — destroy this program for the sake of political expediency? Can you not get on and say some of these things are going to be good? The comments.... "Why is the minister pushing these changes?" Mr. Speaker, would you believe that these changes that the minister is pushing are the recommendations of the royal commission report? They are not the minister's personal bias. I have a lot of personal biases. Many of them agree. I happen to believe the focus on learning is very important and the most productive thing in the education system. I happen to coincide exactly with the royal commission report on that. There are many ways of doing it. The flexibility that will be out there — all of those things are going to.... I can support them.

But suddenly, when the royal commission report was released, your predecessor the critic said: "It's a sham. They'll never implement it." Now that we have moved to implement it, my new critic says: "Why are you doing these things? Why is the minister pushing for the things that the Sullivan report recommended?"

[ Page 5930 ]

MS. A. HAGEN: Selectively.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Not selectively, Madam Member, 78 of the 83 recommendations.... I went through the province and got a response to every one of those recommendations from the public, from the teachers, from the people out there. The policy advisory committee advised on these recommendations. The one that you jump on is the dual-entry, of which the policy advisory committee said: "Hold off for three years or for two years; don't do that."

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Sullivan did allude to it in the report, if you read it as carefully as I did. Sullivan said in the first recommendation: "Do not stick with chronological age, but consider developmental criteria." One of the suggestions was: "You might consider, instead of the one-year spread for entry into this school, breaking that down into dual-entry twice a year and a six-month spread."

It ties in very nicely with the continuous progress and learner-driven curriculum at the primary level. It ties in very well. It can be handled. There are primary committees working in a consultative way on how to do it. We have simply said: "It can be done. We recommend that it be done. We're putting in the money and the resources to do it."

Am I finished already?

MR. SPEAKER: Unfortunately, Mr. Minister, your time is up.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: My goodness. I'm not finished, but I guess I've run out of time. I'd certainly like to pick this up again in the future, but we are committed to discussion, consultation and implementation of the Sullivan report, despite the alligators.

MR. LOENEN: Starting Sunday next, we will recognize volunteers in British Columbia. I want to draw attention to that, because I know that the members of this House are appreciative of all that volunteers do in the many groups throughout the province in the various communities.

[4:30]

The place of service clubs and volunteers is very important. I know that the kind of compassion and care extended through volunteers is often what we as a government cannot provide through funded programs. That personal attention enriches the lives of all of us, and I'd like to salute the volunteers in my community and throughout this province.

I believe that we often do not fully recognize or appreciate the extent of the contributions made by volunteers. When I was first elected In 1983 to the Richmond municipal council, I was astounded to learn, even though I'd lived there for almost 30 years, that in the community at that time there were some 45 different social service agencies which provided services to our community, most of which depended very heavily on volunteers and which continue to do so.

We are politicians in this House, and there is no politician who gets elected without the faithful services and work of volunteers. But volunteers help not only politicians. There are some 80 different service clubs in British Columbia today, which raise special funding for hospitals, out-patient clinics and medical research of one kind or another. It is right and proper for us to acknowledge the wonderful contribution that volunteers make.

In my community of Richmond, we look forward to hosting the Canadian summer games for the disabled in August. I know that such games are impossible without the generous contribution of many volunteers. This coming week we want to draw special attention to them and recognize their efforts.

It is a delight for me to stand here, take my place with my colleagues and support the budget handed down exactly one week ago today. That budget surely must be the finest that has come down. It is a balanced budget. It reduces the deficit and, as such, is a fulfilment of promises made in 1986 when the current administration took office. We promised to deliver a balanced budget, and we have. We promised to make a start at reducing our accumulated deficit, and we have.

A week ago today in this House, those promises were fulfilled: in 1988, a $96 million debt reduction; in 1989, a $150 million debt reduction. We are starting to get out of the hole; we are on our way to recovery. This is the first balanced budget in ten years. It's a day to remember.

In addition to having a balanced budget, we have a rainy-day fund of $1 billion, and that ought to instill confidence in all of us. It is so essential for us to have something to rely on when the economy might turn, because unlike businesses, government experiences a double whammy during rough economic times. Not only do our revenues go down, but our expenditures increase due to increased funding for unemployment and social service schemes of one kind or another.

Therefore it is so important and so entirely responsible for this government to have that kind of rainy day fund. It's a credit not only to our Premier, our Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations and our cabinet, but to all British Columbians, because we're in this together. All sectors working together can produce this kind of sound financial management. We're the only government in Canada that has been able to do this, and we are indeed an example to many. In addition to the rainy day fund of $1 billion, we also have a privatization benefits fund of $302 million. We have been able to accomplish all of that without significant tax increases. That is indeed a credit to this province and to our government.

We don't like to talk often about the deficit, but we ought to recognize what it does and what a tremendous drain it is on our ability to provide the kind of services and programs that people would like to see.

We often talk about President Reagan and the U.S., and their enormous debt, but we often forget that in proportion our debt in Canada is far greater than the U.S. debt. I have some statistics here that compare

[ Page 5931 ]

what the various provinces incurred in the way of a deficit last year: Alberta, $348 per capita — that means that for every man, woman and child, the government spent $348 more than it took in; New Brunswick, $408; and Newfoundland, $496. Ontario — rich Ontario — escaped the economic woes long before we did. Their recovery was much stronger, yet their government had a deficit last year that amounted to $164 per capita.

All of that is nothing compared to the federal deficit. Last year the overspending federally was $1,115 per capita. That is something we ought to be aware of — the implications of that for our communities. What it means is that that leads to a situation where today the federal government spends 31 cents out of every dollar it collects simply to service the debt. It doesn't do anybody any good. It doesn't buy anybody anything. It's a debt load that we have to service; it's a dead weight. It takes away from the many opportunities and possibilities we could create, and the human needs we could meet, and potentials go unmet.

In fact, what it leads to is high interest rates, such as we see today. It hurts small businesses, first and foremost. They are the ones we have to look to for job creation. They are the ones that allow our economy to flourish, but they are held back because of the high interest rates. Those high interest rates are simply a result of the fact that the governments are in there chasing all these dollars to feed their own irresponsible attitudes.

It hurts the western provinces in particular and, as we know, it endangers the universality and other dimensions of our social programs.

It hurts home-ownership. I'm just delighted to see that this government has taken a firm stand in this budget to assist the people of this province to obtain home-ownership. We're saying that we are not going to allow the federally led onslaught on the ability of our citizens to obtain their own homes. In fact, we're going to implement a host of different measures which will protect them against that onslaught. For the record, it ought to be said time and again — and we ought to say it to our MPs — that their lack of financial planning, their lack of sound fiscal policy, has led to the kind of situations we experience today.

About six weeks ago, the finance critic was reported in the Vancouver Sun as saying: "Balancing a budget is an easy job. Anyone can do that." What utter nonsense! Government has a tremendous propensity to grow, and to grow endlessly. We see this all around us. Why else is it the case that we are the only government in all of Canada that is able to balance its books? Why is it that this is the first time in ten years that we are able to do this? To suggest that somehow it is easy is misleading, unreal and unbelievable.

Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege of meeting with my colleagues on the budget review committee of our caucus this November and December, and that was a unique experience. I learned how difficult it is to control the growth of government. Add to that the fact that all of us like to be liked, no one more so than politicians. It is very easy to give in to all the various demands that come our way; it takes a great deal of determination, leadership and vision to resist some of that to come to a position where you have a balanced budget. It takes a measure of leadership, commitment and perseverance that no other government in Canada has been able to muster. I want to congratulate our government, our Minister of Finance and our Premier for accomplishing what no other government was able to do.

Talk about how easy it is to balance a budget. Anyone can spend money. It doesn't take any special brains to spend money; in fact, it is very easy to spend other people's money. Again, I am happy to say that we have been able to resist that temptation. Also, I believe deeply that this particular budget is a vindication of past policies.

I want to quote from Hansard of March 20, 1987. The then opposition critic for finance described the '87 budget, the first budget of the current administration, as: "...a budget which totally fails to make jobs a priority, fails to offer hope to young people. This budget contains no short-term plan, and certainly no practical long-term strategy, for dealing with the job crisis. In fact, the proposals in the budget will likely make the problem worse."

Mr. Speaker, what have we seen? What is reality? What is fact, against these negative predictions? In 1987 we created 36,000 more jobs. In 1988 we created 52,000 more jobs. That is 88,000 more jobs in British Columbia, while the opposition critic predicted that our policy would lead in the opposite direction. None of that comes about automatically.

What it points to is that we do have good government in British Columbia today and that the balanced budget is a vindication of the policies of the past. We have been able to create all of these new jobs even though we have a net in-migration of some 46,000 people in 1988 alone. Therefore we still have 10.3 percent unemployment — a rate which is still too high.

It is for that reason that this budget puts a lot of emphasis on job training and retraining of elderly workers. It appoints a task force to look into that, because it recognizes that people are our finest resource and we have to enable our young people, as well as the elderly workers, to find meaningful jobs. We're working at that, and we're going to commit more funds to doing that.

Those predictions that we hear from across the way will not in any way cause us to deviate from a winning policy, a winning course of action, that is being applauded by the people of this province. I've listened to the criticism that we have heard from across the way. Again, the official finance critic of the NDP has told us this budget represents an assault on the ordinary people of our province. It's an assault on ordinary British Columbians. Why? Because over the years we've given a tax break to corporations of some $500 million, and we have given that tax break at the expense of laying it on individuals and raising the personal tax rate.

[4:45]

I want to say a few things about that. If this government and its policies represent an assault on ordi-

[ Page 5932 ]

nary British Columbians, why is it that people from all over Canada, all over the world in fact, are flocking to our province, and coming here at their own expense and voluntarily. Last year some 32,000 people came from other parts of Canada to live here and participate in the good life in British Columbia.

I'd also like to point out that personal income tax represents only 23 percent of our total revenue, and that the budget predicts that personal income tax will increase 7.5 percent next year whereas corporate tax will increase 17.5 percent. Again, the facts do not bear out the allegations.

Secondly, what about this laying more taxes on our businesses? I know that politically it makes a lot of sense to talk that way and it sounds great, but realistically we cannot treat our businesses, our corporations, our entrepreneurs, in isolation from what happens in other communities in other jurisdictions. Time and again we have seen that unless we welcome businesses to settle here and make it possible for them to compete internationally and across the line, it is simply going to backfire on us. We have to have a policy whereby we make it possible for our entrepreneurs to flourish, because through that we will all benefit, and, indeed, it is business activity that is the engine to prosperity. The suggestions that come from across the way are precisely incorrect in that it would simply kill the engine of our prosperity.

In 1983, when I first was elected as an alderman, we were dealing with the variable tax rate. At that point the province allowed the municipalities to look at that variable tax rate that pertained to the various categories for property tax purposes, and we found out that over the years the business tax on properties was something like two to three times what it was on the residential property owners. It's very easy to keep loading taxes on businesses, because, after all, they are not as numerous when it comes to election day. But we recognized as a community and as a council how detrimental that was and how counterproductive, and we set about changing that in order to make it possible for our businesses to flourish and have the opportunity to compete internationally.

I find it striking strange that these newborn free enterprisers suddenly talk — not only the critic, but a number of other members — about laying another $500 million on the backs of the people who make our economy work. I just wonder if the Leader of the Opposition was frank and open when he met with the leaders of our business community in the Pan Pacific Hotel some time ago and told them that this was indeed their policy, when he talked about how they had suddenly embraced the notion that yes, creation of wealth was important.

What really is this budget all about? I believe that it is first and foremost a gigantic, massive investment in our future. Education, environment and economics: all these different measures represent an investment in our future. After having put our economic house in order, we're in a position to pay attention to the quality-of-life issues and to make it possible for more people to participate in the development of our province in a more meaningful way. As a result, we have a great deal with which to instill confidence in our ability to meet the challenges that lie ahead. It is so good to see that we are now in a position to not only and just meet expenditures, but to in fact invest In the future of the people of this province in a massive way.

Let me just detail some of these. Economic development: we are going to continue to build an infrastructure which will make it possible for our people to exploit and meet the opportunities that are presented in the various communities. For instance, highways are a very important part of our infrastructure: a 50 percent increase; a budget of over $1 billion. In terms of my own community, it bodes well for projects such as the Dinsmore Bridge, the resurfacing of the Oak Street Bridge and the early completion of the east-west freeway. All of these are very important.

I was happy to see that the money we're spending on the improvement for small airports will double this year. That, too, is a tremendous boost, in terms of building up that infrastructure that will allow our communities to flourish. Increasingly we need that kind of communication and transportation that will make it possible for us to be world leaders.

Vancouver International Airport. It hurts me and I'm deeply disappointed in the fact that we still have not moved any closer to seeing greater local control of the administration and management of the Vancouver International Airport. Some two years ago, a committee was struck, and the federal government even gave it a budget. To my knowledge, we have come absolutely no closer. Even if we started today on the third runway, it would take five years to build it. We need that kind of expansion, and we need it badly.

I would like to call on our federal government and our federal MPs from the entire lower mainland region to make that committee work and to get local people on the management and administration of the Vancouver International Airport. There are times when people have to sit there for a half-hour, three-quarters of an hour and even up to an hour on the runway. That is unacceptable, and we ought to recognize that if we cannot meet the needs, then certainly Seattle, San Francisco, Calgary or Toronto will.

I would like to stimulate the development of the Vancouver International Airport and do a much better job than we have been doing. We see some federal inertia there that I find entirely unacceptable. We are investing in our future when we invest in infrastructure — the building of highways as well as the development of ferries and airports.

Education. Mr. Speaker, education is a very important element of the development of our community and our resources, namely our people. There are few items of greater importance.

Personally, we have two children at UBC and one at SFU. The youngest will graduate hopefully this year from Grade 12, and she too will be at a college next September. I finished high school at night at Richmond High. I enrolled as a mature student and graduated from UBC. I know the importance of education. I know what it can do for individuals, not

[ Page 5933 ]

only in terms of their economic earning power. That is important because study after study has indicated that the higher the education level, the greater the earning power and the greater the ability of people to obtain jobs. But in addition to all of those good economic benefits, I also know — and we all know — that education can enrich peoples' lives immensely.

We are investing in education. We are making a commitment to education that few other governments can match. We know that most of our business expansion is in knowledge-based industries; therefore the investment we make in education is an investment in our future which will pay dividends for years.

We have seen a 13 percent increase; we have seen $250 million designated for new school construction. We have seen the "Access for All" program by which Kamloops, Kelowna, Nanaimo and Prince George will all offer university level courses. We have seen what that means for our own community. Kwantlen College — already starting in September — will have some 800 additional spaces available for students. I'm so happy for those young people who are going to benefit from that, and I wish them well. I commend the Minister of Education and the Minister of Finance for the way in which we are investing in education.

The Sullivan report. Mr. Speaker, we are not wasting any time; we're moving on it. We're committed to it, and already this year we are committing some $40 million toward its implementation.

We've heard some comments from the BCTF to the effect that we ought not to rush, and I agree. I agree that for teachers who feel uncomfortable with the ungraded primary system, perhaps we could take our time. But there are many teachers within the system who are ready to go, and we ought to encourage them. In fact, two weeks ago today, the director of curriculum for our school district, Mr. Bruce Beairsto, was on our MLA program, and he spoke highly of the initiatives that the minister had undertaken and looks forward to an early implementation of the dual-entry, as well as the ungraded primary features. I want to encourage the ministry to do that because I know it meets the approval of my constituents.

We don't let these royal commission reports gather dust; we act, and we act on them quickly. The reason for that, Mr. Speaker, is the makeup of this government. When I look up and down the benches here, my colleagues are people who in their own lives have proud records of achievement, people who are committed to making things happen for their communities. That is a trademark of this government.

The environment, the third "e." Indeed, the environment is something we must commit greater energies to. We know from sad experience these past weeks that we have to do more in terms of enforcement, in terms of making the polluters pay. We need a greater preparedness. We need to get that task force with the neighbouring states working. For those reasons, I welcome the 90 percent increase in our budget.

Those 1,000 young people have to go out this summer into the various environmentally sensitive areas of our province. It will be a wonderful opportunity for them to gain firsthand experience, and all of us will be the richer because of it. We have to recover energy from waste materials, and we are indeed working on that. We are committed to that, and we will be out there assisting the various municipal waste management plans and programs. This government is committed to planting more seedlings than ever before, and that too is a great environmental initiative.

Mr. Speaker, I get all kinds of signs and signals that other people want to speak, which is really too bad, because....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: I deeply regret to inform the member that his time is up.

MR. LOENEN: I just want to say that this represents a tremendous investment in the future, and I'm proud of it.

MR. BARLEE: As an entrepreneur with a social conscience from this side of the House, I would like to present some concerns for my constituents in Boundary-Similkameen. Certain parts of the budget, after close perusal, seem to have some flaws, and certainly these omissions are going to have a negative impact upon many of my constituents.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

There are three areas I would like to comment on in today's address. The first is unemployment.

Unemployment in my part of British Columbia is high — extremely high. Perhaps members have heard of Come-by-Chance in Newfoundland. It's famous — or perhaps infamous — as having one of the highest unemployment rates in Canada: just over 20 percent. In my constituency of Boundary-Similkameen it's 17.6 percent; that is the second-highest rate in British Columbia and one of the highest rates in Canada. In February of this year a total of just more than $3 million was paid out in unemployment benefits from the Penticton office to more than 5,000 claimants.

[5:00]

Unemployment is a continuing and nagging problem in the South Okanagan, the Similkameen and the Boundary country — in fact, in nearly every corner of my constituency, with few exceptions. That figure of 17.6 percent, although it is extremely high — in fact, shamefully high — is probably closer to 30 percent. This 30 percent figure is arrived at when other factors are included: people on welfare, Indians, those who have withdrawn, those who have exhausted their benefits, and others such as small businessmen who don't qualify.

So there is very little evidence of an economic miracle in my constituency. Ask the people in Grand Forks, Greenwood, Keremeos, Penticton, Summerland. The much vaunted budget doesn't seem to provide much respite for my constituents and for many people in many other parts of the interior of British

[ Page 5934 ]

Columbia. There seems to be two British Columbias. In fact, last year at this time there was a 13.4 unemployment rate in my area, and this year it is 17.6 percent, an increase of over 4 percent in one year. That figure seems to be going the wrong way. The average wage-earner, certainly in Boundary-Similkameen, has been hard hit.

This unacceptably high unemployment rate — and many of them are not people of my own persuasion; they're people from all political stripes — could be reduced in my constituency because we have two natural advantages: tourism potential and the viability of the agricultural industry. Unfortunately, neither of these possible sources of revenue has been utilized to its fullest benefit.

Let's talk about tourism first. I believe I know the interior of British Columbia extremely well. In my capacity as a television host and as a writer of history I've wandered all through that magnificent country from the high country of Copper Mountain to old Phoenix, through the and desert lands of the south Okanagan and the south Similkameen, through the now-vanished ghost towns and mining camps of the Boundary country and into the Indian country of the Chopaka and the Inkaneep and along those historic old trails of the past: trails like the Fur Brigade Trail and the Dewdney Trail. It's an ever-fascinating region, one which I've traveled through with great delight for almost 50 of my 56 years.

Mr. Speaker, we do have some world-class draws in my constituency. I will name three of them.

One of them, in Penticton, is the last and probably the greatest original stern-wheeler on the North American continent. It's called the SS Sicamous. Fortunately, it is still in unusually fine condition. It lies at rest on the southern shores of Lake Okanagan, and it has unlimited potential. Visitors from other parts of the world simply can't believe the magnificence of this vessel. It has an undeniable mood and a kind of special feel. Yet we've never taken advantage of its potential drawing power. It has sat on the beach in Penticton for almost 40 long years. It was the majestic queen of the lake once. Under sure captains with names like Weeks and Estabrooks, it traveled the lake from Penticton to Kelowna and stopped at little-known places like Nahun, Caesar's Landing, Gellatly, Wilson Landing and Okanagan Landing. It carried ranchers, prospectors, orchardists, tourists and not a few of my relations under the checkered flag of the CPR.

To be quite fair, I believe the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Reid), who's kind of a nice guy, realizes that we have to take advantage of this, especially in a high-unemployment area like the southern Okanagan. And we do have to. The SS Sicamous is one of the grand stern-wheelers of the west, but few people outside the immediate area even know it exists. I would like to see the minister provide the funds to bring this historic vessel to its full potential.

The second of these three continent-class draws is the historic mining town — or city, to be exact — of Greenwood. Greenwood has a population of just over 900. Actually, it's the smallest city in Canada. It's quite unique. If you wander down old Copper Street in Greenwood you'll know what I mean. The Americans in the state of Washington have gone to work in an old mining town like this. It's named Winthrop. They've made it a first-class tourist draw. That old town is booming. I know, because I have business interests in the state of Washington, and I visit Winthrop about four times a year. When I'm there, in the tourist season, there are usually about 500 to 1,000 people in town. Their business has never been better. I go to Greenwood the next day, usually, and I compare it. Greenwood usually has about six to 15 tourists in the town. But there's no comparison: Greenwood is much superior. The main street of Greenwood is still relatively intact. Many of the buildings of the 1890s, when Greenwood was a booming mining town, still line Copper Street.

Outside of that old city — and it is a bona fide city — the huge slag-heaps remain, the old smelter stack still stands and many derelict camps and abandoned mines in the area still remain. It is one of the great lode-mining towns of the province — the other is Nelson — which still have great potential.

I should give credit where credit is due. I believe the minister is gradually realizing the potential of this historic old town. He has made some funds available. Some of the restoration work is well done, but more is required, especially when the unemployment rate is as high as it is. I visualize Greenwood as one of the great tourist attractions of the southern interior, and I would anticipate that the Minister of Tourism, who is sometimes relatively open to good ideas, will concentrate a little more on old Greenwood.

Finally, I should mention the last of the world-class draws in my historic constituency: the Kettle Valley Railway right-of-way. The Kettle Valley is unique and stands almost alone among the railways of the Pacific slope. It is a monument to the railroaders of the old west — and what a monument!

Possibly the hon. members have never walked along the right-of-way between Penticton and Carmi or east of Grand Forks up past old Cascade City and Fife, but it's quite a railway. In some places it's abandoned, and that's too bad. But I want to preserve it. I invite the minister, the member for Surrey–White Rock–Cloverdale, to come along with me some time to walk along that historic right-of-way. And you know something — he'd probably enjoy it.

Interjection.

MR. BARLEE: I did leave that out. The name of that particular creature you were referring to is Nataka, the Indian word meaning "monster of the lake." Of course, that is rather interesting; I probably have some time to allude to it. Most people know Ogopogo, and the Speaker is very familiar with it. Ogopogo is a so-called legendary sea serpent from the Okanagan. I know a good many people who have seen it. Many of them are not of my persuasion, but they swear it does exist. In fact, most of them are old-line Social Crediters who swear they have seen it. I won't digress too much on Ogopogo, because I

[ Page 5935 ]

might offend the hon. first member for Boundary Similkameen (Mr. Messmer).

Back to the Kettle Valley. In a five-mile span, there are two magnificent tunnels and eleven bridges and trestles. I remember walking along the line when I was a kid, looking backward on one of those hairpin bends and seeing the cars directly behind me. I can still remember the eerie sound of the steam whistle. This historic right-of-way should be preserved. This line should be dedicated to the old railroaders. They deserve it, and the line deserves it.

The engineer in charge of that line, who really built the line, was from Penticton. His name was Andrew McCulloch. He called the line "McCulloch's Wonder". He was a bit of a genius; he was extremely clever. He built it through some of the most difficult terrain in the interior of British Columbia. He was a little unique too. Some of the stops he named after his daughters — names like Ruth, Loma and Myra. Others he named after Shakespearean characters: Othello, Lear and Portia. Let's preserve it for future generations, because once it disappears, it will be gone forever. I wish the minister were here. I'd even name one of those places after him, although it might not be more than an abandoned whistle stop.

Those are a handful of the attractions in my constituency. I believe these attractions should be maximized to provide economic benefits to all people in the constituency.

Finally I would address an extremely important and most troublesome problem: the agricultural industry in both the Okanagan and other selected places in the province. I am not intimating that all farmers in the province are in economic difficulty; indeed they are not. But there are segments of the agricultural community that need help, and they need it quickly. Some of their problems are due to the impact of the free trade agreement, and some are due to other causes, such as overproduction, worldwide competition and so on.

These segments, primarily the vegetable growers, potato growers, strawberry producers, grape growers and tree-fruit growers, have their backs to the wall. These farmers need help, and they need it now. Most of them are not of my persuasion.

Perhaps I should set the record straight. The Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, the hon. first member for Delta (Hon. Mr. Savage), is knowledgeable about the agricultural community and the industry at large. I believe he is a decent man, but I question whether he has the full support of cabinet. I don't think he has. Certainly a perusal of the budget indicates initially that the budget for Agriculture and Fisheries has been increased by 14.8 percent. But a close examination indicates that this increase has actually been targeted — or much of it has been — for the B.C. grape and wine sector adjustment assistance program. Essentially these extra millions of dollars are simply a payment to the grape growers to enable them to rip up their vineyards and close up their businesses — hardly funds for the betterment of the agricultural community.

There are other trouble spots as well. Last year's $750,000 for the food industry development program has been cancelled this year. Evidently only a handful of employees have been added to this department, which has been — if you will pardon the pun — savaged in recent years. I know it's bad.

To be fair to the minister, I believe that he is concerned about the welfare of the agricultural industry, and I hope he is still committed to the agricultural land reserve. Talking about the ALR.... In the central Okanagan, about 700 acres of prime orchard land are now in danger of being removed from the ALR. I don't blame the orchardists, because despite their best efforts and their knowledge, they cannot — and I emphasize cannot — eke out more than a meagre living from farming.

There are over 5,000 farmers and fruit growers in the Okanagan. If these prime orchard lands are cut away from the ALR, it places the entire industry at risk: the packing-houses, the tree-fruit growers and the whole industry.

[5:15]

Parts of the agricultural industry require a transfusion; they are bleeding badly. The present budget is simply not good enough. Realistically, the budget for Agriculture and Fisheries should be in the neighbourhood of $125 million. It is not even close to that in this present budget.

At one time — not even a decade ago — under this government, the budget for Agriculture and Fisheries was 1.8 percent of the total provincial budget. It is now barely over .5 percent. It has been cut to the bone by successive Social Credit governments, and I believe it's time to reverse that disturbing trend. I believe that the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries probably concurs with that statement.

The farmers also require, among other things, right-to-farm legislation, farm safety legislation, a realistic exemption form farm-use items and a commitment to make the agricultural industry economically viable again, which in certain sectors it is not. The problems seem to go on and on in these segments of the agricultural industry.

I have a suggestion which the minister might consider, and it is called "greenbelt stewardship." For the first time, the public is realizing that the greenbelts — primarily the agricultural regions and parks of the province — are vitally important for their quality of life.

In California, for example, the vineyards of the Napa Valley have proven to be the second greatest tourist draw in that state, behind only world-famous Disneyland. I imagine many members on the opposite side have been to Disneyland. This dramatic shift in public opinion augurs well for the hard-pressed agricultural community, because if the industry can be linked with both the environment and with tourism, agriculture would be the beneficiary, as it would then command a much broader base of support.

I believe agriculture needs that support, and I don't think I'm alone in that concept. This public support is of paramount importance. If, for instance, an

[ Page 5936 ]

annual payment to farmers is eventually made by a provincial government in recognition of the farmer's preservation of the greenbelts, a payment which many people believe should be made, I believe it could be taken out of the Lottery Fund. It seems to have ample funds, and I think it could be put to better use.

Between both the environment and tourism, hundreds of millions of dollars are given from the provincial coffers each year, and it's high time that agriculture, which provides 20,000 jobs for farmers, 34,000 jobs for employees and another 21,000 jobs for employees in the processing end of agriculture, finally be recognized as an equal partner.

With gross cash receipts of just over $1 billion in 1987, and an estimated $1.1 billion in cash receipts for 1988, it is a major contributor to the provincial economy and should be recognized as that. Agriculture is a good investment from the public point of view. I am speaking about the agricultural community, which is, by and large, composed of individuals who are not of my political persuasion. Yet they have been left out on a limb.

It not only provides jobs to 75,000 British Columbians, and more than $1 billion in cash receipts per year, but also an independent food source. It preserves the land base and enhances the quality of life for every British Columbian. A wise government would realize that agriculture is still a major player in British Columbia, and it should be treated as such. I trust that the hon. minister will work towards that end.

MR. SERWA: It's a real pleasure to stand up and speak in support of perhaps one of the most outstanding budget speeches that I shall ever see in my lifetime.

I am under a substantial amount of pressure. The Whip has encouraged me to limit my response to 20 minutes, and I am afraid I'll follow the rapidity of delivery of my colleague from Boundary-Similkameen and carry on in that way. Certainly it's recognized as a responsibility to a colleague, a member of the opposition, the member for Surrey–Guildford Whalley (Ms. Smallwood), that she shall also have the 20 minutes allotted for her opportunity.

I would like to welcome to the Legislature the member for Alberni (Mr. G. Janssen), the second member for Nanaimo (Ms. Pullinger) and the second member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Perry). We welcome them to the Legislature and anticipate meaningful contributions from those new members.

It is an honour to rise and speak in support of this outstanding budget. The mandate and the responsibility of government is to address all the elements that form the policies of good government. Good government requires all issues, as they relate to one another, to be objectively looked at. I am able to speak with the assurance that the interrelationships of the social, economic and environmental elements are clearly understood.

Looking to the future, the challenge is clear. Development and diversification of our economy and job creation are a major goal. The direction of our Premier, our Minister of Finance, and indeed our government, the direction that they have taken to emphasize the economic initiatives, educational opportunities, and environmental concerns and responsibilities, will move us closer and closer to achieving our goals.

I too was a fortunate member of the caucus budget review committee. It was an outstanding opportunity to get an insight into the mechanics and the workings of government. I commend the Minister of Finance for the opportunity that was given us. The members of that committee came from a very diverse background. We touched many areas in our previous work, and we took a strong business approach to the expenditure side of the budget. Rather than taking the typical approach of looking to the taxpayer for more taxes, increased funding, to support the growth of government, we were aware of the mandate and commitment of our Premier to reduce the size of government.

Coming from the field of business, rather than increase the prices of the commodity we looked at how we could address the efficiencies of the product we are purveying. Our constituents — mine and yours, hon. members — are concerned not with the amount of government that we have; they are concerned with what government provides to those outside, to the constituents of British Columbia. Larger and larger government does not provide a great deal that goes external; it consumes more and more of the capital internally. So I am very pleased that we were able to get a good grip and induce a lot of efficiencies through parallel programs and some duplications, and hope that the opportunity is continuing in the future. It was a unique opportunity, and once again I speak in praise of the Minister of Finance and the Premier for giving us that opportunity.

Our commitment to the reduction of the deficit and the balanced budget is very real. We wanted to ensure that when we passed on the torch to the next generation, we passed on the opportunities, and certainly not a debt of overexpenditure by ourselves.

This is a very special budget. It's not special just because of more spending on social concerns and health programs; it's not special simply because of major increases for highways; it's not special because of the emphasis on reducing the housing squeeze; it's not special simply because of the emphasis on protecting the environment; it's not special because of new investment in education and advanced education; and it's not special simply because of sharing more money than ever before with communities across the province. It's special because it is a balanced budget, and it's special because it is unique in Canada and it's the first balanced budget in more than a decade in British Columbia. That's what makes it special.

What does that balanced budget mean to British Columbia? Expenditures will increase, but not a cent of new debt. We are paying off the principal, not just interest. We in British Columbia are blazing a trail for other provinces, indeed the government of Canada, to follow. The credit goes to the people of British

[ Page 5937 ]

Columbia for working earnestly and aggressively, and taking advantage of opportunities, local, domestic and worldwide — aggressively pursuing all of the opportunities. The credit goes too to the sound fiscal financial planning and management policies of our government, the government of British Columbia.

Over 52,000 new jobs were created in British Columbia in 1988. Over 30,000 new housing units were built. Retail sales, manufacturing, shipments and exports were up. Capital investment was up 18 percent. Labour relations, my friends, were excellent. A new climate of cooperation between management and labour occurred in the past year, thanks to the bill that the Minister of Labour (Hon. L. Hanson) worked so ardently and earnestly to bring forward. A new climate has ensured economic prosperity. The outlook for '89-90: we are expecting that 34,000 new jobs will be created in British Columbia.

I am particularly pleased with the emphasis throughout British Columbia on advanced education and public education. They are major investments in our future. The opportunity that was recently announced in the Okanagan will allow the young people of the Okanagan to be prepared, ready and poised to take advantage of the technological world of the future.

The Pacific Rim initiatives that are being encouraged by the various ministries of this government are helping all of us, especially our young people, learn more about our key trading partners. I'm pleased with the major commitment of over $5 million towards that initiative in this fiscal year.

The implementation of the key recommendations of the Sullivan report and the implementation of the "Access for All" strategy based on the provincial access committee report are to be commended.

This is a summary of a speech, and it is really quite interesting to make this rapid delivery.

The increase for health care is very important in my constituency of Okanagan South. I'm pleased to recognize that just yesterday there was an announcement that our hospital, Kelowna General Hospital, will be one of the new facilities to have a cardiac surgical ward in the near future, with the completion of the $25 million high-technology treatment and diagnostic centre.

You know, when I listen to the hon. members in the socialist corner of the House talk about big government — as if big, corpulent government is the answer to all problems, and throwing money at problems is a solution — I reflect on the fact that last year over $1,300 was spent on each person in British Columbia to pay the medical health bill. We have to identify approaches that will mitigate this. We'll have to spend more money on the preventive rather than the curative aspect, and we'll have to work on sound educational programs to resolve the dilemma that we find ourselves in.

Social Services has a major increase, an 11 percent increase that will help the very real challenges forced on many residents of British Columbia.

There's a great emphasis on housing: a commitment to increase the supply of affordable housing.

I'm pleased that this budget brings relief to renters, buyers and all existing homeowners. There are a variety of new programs to support that plan. The implementation of the British Columbia second mortgage program, with limits raised from $10,000 to $12,000, and the eligible home price raised from $85,000 to $100,000, will help home-buyers. I'm very pleased with the direction that the Minister of Finance has taken in order to mitigate the impact of the property purchase tax on home-buyers where mortgage financing exceeds 75 percent of the purchase price.

A great variety of economic initiatives augur well for the future of the province. There are small business opportunities in the forest industry. Clearly mining will have a major opportunity with the $5 million loan program for building roads to access mineral resources, which is certainly a significant opportunity for people in the northern portion of British Columbia, where this is a major problem. I'm pleased that the minister has addressed that.

[5:30]

I'd like to compare the positive nature of this particular budget with the time that the socialists were in power from 1972 to 1975. With a strong growth in transportation and highways, and the strong injection of capital into all sorts of fields of economic development, be they local or provincial — all of these opportunities.... Do you remember the bumper stickers that floated around in that period of 1972 to 1975? Does the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) remember the bumper stickers? I believe he does. "Would the last person to leave British Columbia please turn off the lights?" Now that's what the socialists in their corner achieved in their short tenure in government.

For the people of British Columbia, there is a major increase for the economy and the environment, which are recognized as integral. People want a strong economy, but not at the expense of the quality of life we enjoy here in this fine province. The message is clear, and our government is taking stronger steps to ensure that we act as stewards of our legacy and not as the end consumers.

Transportation and Highways has a major initiative which augurs well for economic opportunities for all of the residents in the interior of the province. It's a vision that W.A.C. Bennett had, and it's a vision that has led to one of the best transportation systems in the world: 43,000 kilometres of provincial highways, 375 air facilities and 27 major ferry routes are the heart of the transportation system of British Columbia. I am exceedingly pleased with the commitment of over $1 billion in the budget towards highways improvement. There's a 50 percent increase in rehabilitation. The highway capital construction fund has more than doubled.

MR. BLENCOE: How much for the Coquihalla?

MR. SERWA: The Coquihalla is an initiative which provides economic opportunities not just to Victoria,

[ Page 5938 ]

not just to the lower mainland, but equitably to all residents throughout the province.

The government's fiscal objectives were threefold: to eliminate the current deficit, to reduce accumulated debt and to stabilize revenue. In this third budget of this administration we increased spending and achieved the first two policy goals of our fiscal strategy. We not only continued to enhance social programs for British Columbia, we also focused on environmental protection and housing.

We balanced the budget for the first time in a decade and decreased the province's outstanding debt, which is $96 million less today than it was a year ago. In the first ten months of 1988-89, British Columbia taxpayers spent over $506 million to pay the Interest on the provincial government's debt.

AN HON. MEMBER: How much?

MR. SERWA: Five hundred and six million, and we're moving to reduce that. That's more money than the government received in revenue from the forest industry, and it's as much as the government spent in ten out of 21 ministries in the past ten months.

A saving of $69 million is a saving to the taxpayers of British Columbia that can be used to further enhance social programs in our province, which are second to none. That says a lot for the way the government is managing taxpayer dollars. It would be unjust if we were to spend more to service the provincial debt than on our important social programs.

I've listened to the hon. members of the opposition over the past few days in this budget debate. Their simplistic solution is to have bigger government and throw more money at it. I'm confident that if we quantified the dollars they've insisted we spend on all the projects and programs of the provincial government and if we escalated the scale and the volume of the staff of the provincial government, we would accrue such a deficit that we would never unburden the opportunities of the children that will follow us. Big government and throwing big dollars at problems is not a solution. The NDP explored that. All over the world, socialism is in decline: New Zealand, Russia, China, Third World countries. It simply doesn't work.

Free enterprise, public enterprise and good government ensure opportunity and productivity, with strong economies that can provide the infrastructure to produce situations of environmental, educational and economic opportunity — for all those countries. So I say that this government is to be commended on the direction and strength of its commitment.

MS. SMALLWOOD: When I had the opportunity and the privilege to respond to the throne speech in the House a week or so ago, I unfortunately ran out of time. I have many issues that I want to bring to the attention of the House which are urgently affecting my riding, so I thank the previous speaker for giving me the opportunity of addressing some of those concerns now.

In response to the government's budget speech, I want to point out that when any government is talking about spending.... For everyone's awareness, we're talking about spending taxpayers' dollars. We're talking at this time, and with this government's previous budgets, about an additional $1,000 direct cost per family because of tax increases and service charges. Surrey, as I pointed out earlier, is the fastest-growing municipality not only in the lower mainland but in British Columbia. We took 75 percent of the growth in the GVRD last year and a clear one-half of the province's growth. So when I point out that this government has cost each family in British Columbia $1,000 over the last two years, I want to point out that my municipality — the taxpayers of Surrey — has been paying for services they are not getting.

I spent a considerable amount of time sharing with the House the crisis situation we are facing in health care and in the very community that is at risk because health care needs have not been recognized. I see in Hansard that the Health minister pointed out at that time that emergency care at Surrey Memorial had been addressed. He told me to talk to my hospital administrator and check what the ministry had been able to do. Unfortunately, according to the administrator — and this was at the end of last week — this government has made available only $500,000 to deal with a deficit of $2 million. This hospital is going into this fiscal period carrying a deficit that is growing on a yearly basis, because they have not had the support to provide the resources necessary to deal with the growing population in our municipality.

I'd like to talk a little bit about the kids, the families, the schools and education services in Surrey. As I pointed out before, one-third of the population of Surrey is made up of children under the age of 19. That's not surprising, given that we are such a young community Let's take a look at who those kids are.

With a population of something like 200,000 in Surrey, we have 6,000 children on welfare. Compare that with Vancouver, which has recognized that they have hungry children in their schools and that they need additional support services. Vancouver, with a population of 443,000, has 7,400 kids on welfare. We have almost twice as many children on welfare by population as Vancouver does. I have to ask each and every ministry that is affected: do we have the support services equivalent to that population? Unfortunately, the answer is no.

Each of our services, whether it's a hospital with a massive deficit or a school system that faces increasing costs because the Ministry of Education does not recognize the cost borne by this tremendous growth.... The population in our schools increased by 2,000 just this year. As I indicated earlier, increased costs to the schools that are not recognized by the Ministry of Education include costs of bringing portables on site. The shortfall this year will be $700,000. Increased costs of maintenance will be $4 million. This increased maintenance is because of the increase in enrolment and the intensity of the use of those facilities. The increased cost of planning and

[ Page 5939 ]

commissioning of new schools is not borne by the provincial government, nor is the increased pressure of a dual-entry kindergarten that will be brought to bear in the new future.

While the Ministry of Education — like the Ministry of Health — is not recognizing these increasing costs, the government is tying the hands of our local boards and our local hospital from actually obtaining the money necessary to provide services. A GVRD study in 1984 showed that non-residential taxes — that's the business share for schools — declined by 22.3 percent. The provincial share for schools declined by 7.6 percent. Meanwhile the residential share increased by 34.6 percent. Surrey is paying its share of costs for these services through increased taxes to this government. How is Surrey rewarded by this government? Their cost-sharing from the province is cut back; the costs of growth have been shifted onto the local boards, and basically their calls for help are ignored. Surrey's cost per pupil is the lowest in B.C. Given the reality that our school boards face, that is phenomenal. B.C. has the lowest cost per pupil in Canada.

What we are looking for for Surrey is $12 million in operating and equipment costs that was not recognized by the Ministry of Education last year, $12 million that fell on the backs of residential taxpayers. If the province recognized the costs for growth in the field of education — the increased pressures brought to bear by this phenomenal growth — the taxpayers of Surrey would pay 20 percent less in taxes. That's incredible.

[5:45]

I want to talk a little bit about what is happening with our college. We have, through the Ministry of Social Services, had some very promising comments about increases to their budget, about recognizing who is on Income assistance and about employment programs. One of the best opportunities for people to break the poverty cycle is through community colleges.

First of all, I would like to recognize the work that our member for Surrey-Newton (Hon. Mrs. Johnston) has been involved in over the last couple of years in obtaining a permanent campus for Kwantlen College. Having said that, I think it is important for us to recognize that while we are getting Kwantlen College students out of leaking portables — anyone who has been to the college will recognize the absolutely abysmal state that campus is in — and while we now have the permanent campus on-line, that will not provide one additional seat for a pupil. What that means for a community like Surrey is that there are at present approximately 8,000 students leaving the community and going to other facilities: to BCIT, Douglas College and Langara College. Opportunities for continuing education are being denied them in their own community. The Kwantlen College catchment area at present is approximately a third of the total for the whole of the lower mainland. This is a very important college region. In 1986, it was a third; in 1988, it was 34 percent; and by 1993 it's expected to be 36 percent. So you can see that that catchment area is increasing. Without support for the planning of the additional expansion of the Surrey, Richmond and Langley campuses, we will be falling behind. So I'm looking forward to the time during estimates when we can look at whether or not that money is being provided for planning.

Currently students at community colleges are between the ages of 20 and 39. The average age at Kwantlen College is 29. So we are getting an increasing number of older students going into community college, looking to upgrade their skills or change their professions. This is of utmost importance when facing the technological age that we are facing now.

At Kwantlen College, of those students age 29, 53 percent are women. Community colleges are of crucial importance to women. Kwantlen College, like our schools and hospitals in Surrey, is grossly underfunded. In funding per capita, the provincial average is $107; for other colleges in the lower mainland, the average is $108; for Kwantlen College, it is $48. That is a shame! Where has this government been?

What I'm trying to point out to the House, Mr. Speaker, is that not only are our hospitals in crisis, but we're running huge deficits because of the increased pressure. Our schools are in crisis and the burden is being paid by families that are not only not getting their fair share of the education dollar through students attending our schools, but are also picking up an increasing amount of the cost. Our colleges are grossly underfunded, and this government needs to recognize those inadequacies.

I want to talk a bit more about poverty, about the ratio of poor children — indeed, hungry children — in Surrey. ... I want to talk about who it is that is counting on social services and welfare. I am hoping that the Minister of Social Services and Housing (Hon. Mr. Richmond) will pay attention to this, because while he began to recognize in the budget speech that there are structural problems with unemployment, structural problems with people who constantly have to rely on welfare....

Let me tell you about the parents of those 6,000 children on welfare, those children who are well below the poverty line. More than one-half — 56.7 percent — of all low-income Canadians are female. Seven in 10 of all elderly poor are women. Think about that. That tells me that there is a structural problem in our economy when that's all that women, the people who look after those children, have to look forward to. When our community college has less than half the dollars of the provincial average, less than half the opportunity of any other community college in British Columbia for access for those women — those breadwinners — to the workforce, I think there is something terribly wrong.

I ask again and again: where has this government been? Why is the government ignoring the health care crisis? Why is the government ignoring the crisis in our community college? Why does the government continue to take more and more money away from the families in Surrey, and not return any so that those families can raise their children with some dignity?

[ Page 5940 ]

This government offers initiative to renters. Let me talk a little bit about what that initiative does for my municipality, for my riding. The government offers a program of incentives to developers, of incentives to municipal government, to provide for rezoning and fast-tracking of high-density developments. When we are in a situation of having only one bed in our hospital for every 2,000 people, when we are in a situation where our schools cannot keep up with the growth, when our community college cannot answer the current demand, when people can't get out of Surrey because the roads are so jammed, when we cannot get around our municipality, how on earth is it going to help Surrey to fast-track more development? The logic escapes me. It is the most bizarre program I can even begin to conceive. Where were our representatives when the cabinet was discussing this program? Why were they not demanding the infrastructure necessary to service these people? Why have they not demanded in the past that our hospitals be able to provide care for the sick and injured?

The renter's program does not offer any relief. The only thing it will do is exacerbate the problem. There is no relief for existing renters. We are seeing an increased number of problems with our rental accommodations in Surrey. The vacancy rate in Surrey has plummeted. It's not only Vancouver and Victoria that are suffering low vacancy rates; the vacancy rate in Surrey has, in the last year, dropped to below 0.03 percent.

What we have seen traditionally in our municipality is people moving out of Vancouver for affordable housing. We can no longer take those people without support from government. We are seeing our affordable housing gobbled up. We are seeing rental accommodations turned over at increased costs for tenants. I currently have, in my municipality, a seniors' complex that has a $250 per month increase in their rent.

There is a rental accommodation near Guildford that provides housing for over 300 families — low-income housing for welfare recipients. Those people in that accommodation have been given their eviction notices. Why? Because the landlord says that he can make more money from renters coming out of Vancouver. He's renovating the complex, and he will no longer rent to welfare recipients. There is no relief for the existing renters, and there is no opportunity for those people to get any justice. There is no rentalsman.

This government, through its budget and its history of neglect, has compromised the livability of my municipality and will continue to do so. There is no relief in sight.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I look for other opportunities during the debate to follow to provide more information about the crisis situation our municipality faces. Hopefully during the estimates, the different ministers can provide some information to show that they at least have been paying attention.

MR. B.R. SMITH: I'm going to adjourn making remarks on the budget today, but it's a pleasure to follow the previous member. I think, judging from the remarks we've heard, it's getting near the hour of wine anyway. I will move adjournment of the debate until the next sitting after today.

Motion approved.

Ministerial Statement

LABELLING OF IRRADIATED FOODS

HON. MR. DUECK: This afternoon I've sent a letter to my colleague in Ottawa, the Hon. Perrin Beatty, expressing my serious concern about the regulations that have just been approved in regard to the irradiation of food products and the labeling of such. I would like to read the letter into the record.

Dear Mr. Beatty:

I am writing to express my deep concerns about regulations recently passed by the federal cabinet which will allow some irradiated foods to be sold in Canada without being labelled as such. Specifically, these new regulations, which come into effect April 14, 1989, will permit the sale of food without labeling where the irradiated ingredients form less than 10 percent of the product.

It is my firm belief that Canadians have the right to know whether or not the food they are buying has been irradiated, regardless of the percentage, so they can make up their own minds whether or not they wish to buy it. I need hardly mention that some people have very strong feelings about the whole irradiation process and its use in the food industry, and I believe it is completely unfair to allow a situation in which they might unwittingly find themselves consuming food which has been subjected to irradiation.

I would therefore strongly urge you and your cabinet colleagues to reconsider this recent decision and to introduce revised regulations which would require labeling of any product containing an identifiable percentage of irradiated food.

[6:00]

MR. PERRY: I wish to thank the minister again for giving me the courtesy of advance notice of his statement.

I welcome the minister's letter to the federal Minister of Health. As a physician I am not personally convinced that food irradiation does represent a hazard, but I know and respect the fact that many of the public are concerned, and I agree with the minister that they are entitled to fair and comprehensive labeling of all food products. I might add that in this province it would be nice to see labeling as well of food products treated with pesticides, sulphites and other contaminants.

I say to the minister that I appreciate and commend him for his efforts, although I would not be terribly optimistic that the Hon. Perrin Beatty will change his mind, knowing how stubbornly he has defended his toy submarine proposal in the face of

[ Page 5941 ]

the 80 percent of the Canadian public that disagrees with him on that one.

I would like to assure the minister in general of my support for any constructive — even if overdue — efforts to preserve the public health in this province.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I would just like to thank my counterpart opposite, the hon. House Leader of the opposition, for the arrangement to ignore the clock. Having said that, I would remind members that tomorrow we sit at the prescribed time, and it's private members' statements day. I move the House do now adjourn.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:02 p.m.