[ Page 5943 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

University Endowment Land Park Act (Bill 16). Hon. Mr. Dirks

Introduction and first reading –– 5943

Private Members' Statements

B.C. ferries. Mr. Mowat –– 5943

Mr. Lovick

Oil spills. Mr. Cashore –– 5945

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm

Hon. Mr. Dirks

Seniors' issues. Mr. Loenen –– 5947

Ms. A. Hagen

Vancouver Island pipeline route. Mr. Rose –– 5949

Hon. Mr. Davis

Budget Debate

Mr. B.R. Smith –– 5951

Mr. Guno –– 5955

Mr. Mercier –– 5957

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 5959

Tabling Documents –– 5961

The House met at 10:06 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. REID: In the gallery today we have 24 members of the Advisory Committee on Cultural Heritage, and I have asked that they all be recognized. The advisory committee was selected following a nomination process which reached out into every corner of the province of British Columbia. The members are individuals who bring with them a wealth of experience and knowledge of the needs of the cultural community of British Columbia. As chairman of the Cabinet Committee on Cultural Heritage, I can assure you that we will be receiving their advice with great attention and respect.

British Columbia is changing, and we are all challenged to work toward a society which is both diverse and harmonious. We need to support the aspirations of newcomers to British Columbia to enter into the mainstream of our society while ensuring that their cultural heritage is retained. This is one of the greatest challenges we face and, under the able chairmanship of Mr. Kewal Khosla, this advisory committee will make a real contribution towards our mutual goal.

Mr. Speaker, with us today in your gallery are Baldwin Ackerman from Vancouver, Mark Ando from West Vancouver, Steve Babakaiff from Grand Forks, Jacques Baillaut from Vancouver, Betty Bautista from Prince Rupert, Antonio Bevacqua from Fort St. John, Celso Boscariol from Burnaby, Narinder Dhir from Burnaby, Ranjit Diwana from Matsqui, Ed Eduljee from North Vancouver, Mike Kennedy from Prince George, Riasat Khan from Vancouver, Kewal Khosla, the chairman, from Surrey, Ben Lee from Kelowna, Bang Luu from Vancouver, Isaac Moss from Vancouver, Buncy Pagely from Victoria, Sylvia Posch from Richmond, Rudy Spence from Burnaby, John Stashuk from Vancouver, Jan Van Bruchern from Vancouver, Kwok-ting Yue from Vancouver, Alan Yuen from Victoria, and Irene Olljurn from Vancouver. Accompanying them is Enrico Diano, the cultural adviser to my ministry, and also my deputy Mr. Mel Smith. Would the House make them especially welcome.

MR. G. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House would like to welcome the guests here with the Advisory Committee on Cultural Heritage. We know that in a multicultural society whatever we can do to promote mutual understanding and respect of each other's diverse traditions and cultural features will only make a healthier and happier British Columbia. So thank you and welcome today.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I would particularly like to single out — from my constituency of Burnaby — Mr. Narinder Dhir, Mr. Rudyard Spence and Celso Boscariol, who are on the Advisory Committee on Cultural Heritage. Their families and relatives are with them as well, and I would ask the House to bid them a very fond welcome.

MR. G. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today we have a very special guest. He's a Mohawk Indian from the Caughnawaga reserve, who won a gold medal at the Los Angeles Olympics. He's a real Canadian hero who has dedicated himself to working with young native people throughout Canada on drug and alcohol problems and motivating young people for sports achievement and so on. I'd like you to give a warm welcome to Alwyn Morris, who is here with us today.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: On behalf of the province, I'd like to join with the member opposite in welcoming Mr. Morris to the House. Obviously the province has been doing a great deal of work in the area of drug and alcohol with native people, and we would welcome any contribution that Mr. Morris would care to give us. We'd like to join in welcoming him to the House.

Introduction of Bills

UNIVERSITY ENDOWMENT LAND PARK ACT

Hon. Mr. Dirks presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled University Endowment Land Park Act.

HON. MR. DIRKS: The purpose of this act is to transfer a specified part of the university endowment lands to the Greater Vancouver Regional District for the creation of the world's largest urban park. This is a park for all the people of British Columbia. We recognize the unequalled environmental value afforded by these lands, both for this generation and for our children's children. This act will ensure that these lands are maintained for traditional park purposes in perpetuity.

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

Bill 16 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.

Private Members' Statements

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, by arrangement with my colleague the hon. House Leader for the opposition, we will change the order of members' statements today and lead off with the second member for Vancouver-Little Mountain.

B.C. FERRIES

MR. MOWAT: I'm very pleased to speak on a special subject that has become very dear to me, but particularly today, on what is another beautiful British Columbia day. I'm going to speak this morning about one of the finest transportation organizations in the world: our British Columbia Ferry Corporation.

[10:15]

B.C. ferries carry the second largest number of vehicles of any system in the world. Our system ranks

[ Page 5944 ]

in the top five in number of passengers carried. In terms of passenger miles traveled: well over three million miles per year. It is the largest system in the world. We have 38 ferries in the fleet, and they carried almost 18 million passengers over 26 different routes this last year. In total, over the corporation's 29-year history, close to 250 million passengers and 90 million vehicles have been transported through B.C. coastal waters by this amazing fleet.

The history of the corporation. It was founded in 1958 by the Social Credit government under the great W.A.C. Bennett. Under the government's bold leadership, two ships were built and began service on June 15, 1960. Then the growth took off at a feverish pace: the Gulf Islands Ferry Service and the old Black Ball Ferries, which had been serving the Nanaimo-Horseshoe Bay and the Sunshine Coast routes, were purchased in 1961. More ships were built, and in 1966 the corporation had 24 ships. In the early 1970s the famous stretching operation took place, and to date seven ships have been stretched.

Another amazing engineering feat was the lifting of the four ships now in service between the mainland and Vancouver Island. This involved adding an entire new deck for additional vehicle capacity. When combined with the stretching of these vessels, the automobile capacity increased from 106 cars to 376 on these ferries. The last major wave of construction took place in the late 1970s and the early 1980s when five new super-ferries were built. They are the largest double-ended ships in the world and can carry over 350 cars.

The last phase of expansion came in 1985 when the corporation bought out the coastal ferry operations of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. This involved the purchase of 13 ships and taking over 10 additional routes.

What I would really like to emphasize today is how we compare with other ferry systems in Canada. The major operator of ferries in Atlantic Canada is Marine Atlantic Inc., a federal Crown corporation. Marine Atlantic took over the operations of the CN Marine in 1985, and has been running the service ever since. Among others, they run a service between the mainland and the islands of Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland.

The size of Marine Atlantic is roughly comparable to B.C. Ferries. The total assets of Atlantic were $335 million at the end of '87, while those of B.C. Ferries amounted to $365 million. Operating expenses in 1987-88 fiscal year for Marine Atlantic were $212 million, and for B.C. Ferries were only $176 million. The fares are quite comparable as well: a 45-minute trip from the mainland to Prince Edward Island costs $9.25 for a car and driver, while the one hour, 25 minute trip from Swartz Bay to Tsawwassen costs $21.75 for car and driver.

I guess the question is asked by the members who are listening, why do I make these comparisons? Because the final comparison is the most interesting, and it's called "government subsidization."

While the B.C. Ferry Corporation gets along quite nicely with about a $60 million contribution from the B.C. government, Marine Atlantic needed $105 million for the fiscal year 1987-88 and $133 million for 1988-89. But I have to say that this subsidy in the last year of $133 million came from the federal government. So it's interesting to note that we received no funding for our B.C. ferries from the federal government, in spite of the continued attempts by this government to ask Ottawa for assistance.

Expansion in the 1980s is very exciting. The time is right for another round of expansion in the B.C. Ferry Corporation. Over the past five years, vehicle capacity utilization on the system has increased from 56 percent to 63 percent. Any of the hon. members who take the ferry home on weekends will see the large lineups that the passengers have to deal with.

As announced in the budget, the corporation will undertake a ten-year, $550 million capital maintenance and expansion plan, including the construction of four new ferries and improvements to ferry terminals. Two of the new ferries proposed will be the large superferries to service the Swartz Bay and Tsawwassen route. Each would have a capacity of 470 cars and will be 550 feet in length. By comparison, the largest ships in the current fleet carry 376 cars and measure 470 feet. The estimated cost of these two ferries, if built in local shipyards, is $125 million each. One does not have to even think of the number of jobs that will be created, because it will be many thousands of man-years.

The two other ferries are in a new class which will be designed to carry 125 cars each. This size would allow for growth in some of the corporation's other routes over the next decade. The estimated cost is $25 million each, and again, the creation of new jobs will result.

These four new ferries will have a capacity of 1,190 cars in total, adding to, the current fleet capacity of 4,964. Therefore this expansion represents a 24 percent increase in vehicle capacity, which is enough to take us into the next century.

There will be an expansion of the four major terminals at Swartz Bay, Nanaimo, Horseshoe Bay and Tsawwassen, and this will generally involve expansion of facilities to accommodate the growth over the next decade as well as construction of new buildings. The holding compound at Swartz Bay and Horseshoe Bay will be enlarged, while loading ramps and access to ships would be improved at Nanaimo and Tsawwassen. Also included is the expansion of the causeway and highway leading to the Tsawwassen terminal. The total estimated cost of these improvements to the terminal is approximately $60 million.

MR. LOVICK: I rise with some pleasure to respond to the second member for Vancouver-Little Mountain and his elucidation of the wonders of the B.C. ferry system.

I would be generous in my comments initially; however, I'm a little surprised to hear this, because it sounds to me like a restatement of a number of B.C. Ferry Corporation annual reports as well as of the kinds of things I'm sure are going to be given to the

[ Page 5945 ]

minister as briefing notes when we get to the estimates debate.

However, I listened carefully to see whether there was any other agenda here, and I detect that there is another agenda: namely, some reference to the federal government and the fact that we aren't getting the kind of treatment we perhaps ought to be — indeed should be — getting from the federal government. I'm happy to report that we on this side of the House have no disagreement with that.

I'm a little surprised, however, to discover that this particular government, though it has been in power for some time, though it has apparently been lobbying for some time and though it apparently is well connected with the federal government, has nevertheless been woefully unsuccessful in its efforts to get some relief from the cost of subsidy to the system.

I also want to offer a couple of observations about the operation of the system, giving notice, I suppose, to the minister and others of the kinds of questions we ought to be raising and answering in the course of estimates debate.

First, I am intrigued and appreciative — as I'm sure everybody is — to learn about the ten-year plan to expand the size of the ferry fleet and build more ferries. I'm wondering, however, if we are once again going to go through that rather anomalous process of building these things and then selling them off and leasing them back. I, for one, have some difficulty knowing that the Xerox Corp. is still an owner of vessels in this province; I believe that's still the case. Perhaps we can get some assurances that we are going to hold onto these things, that all those initial statements and background papers about further privatization of the B.C. Ferry Corporation are just rumour and have no substance in fact.

Further, I would like to say that I hope the government will accept the proposition that when we talk about the B.C. Ferry Corporation, the plans for expansion and the important place it has within the transportation infrastructure in this province, we will recognize also that the infrastructure will get the full support and encouragement of the people only insofar as they believe they have been listened to and consulted.

I would offer for members' attention the case we had just the other day of the Isabella Point saga, in which we apparently had conflicting reports from the minister in terms of whether the people were consulted and whether the decision had been made. I hope, Mr. Minister and others on the government side, that you will recognize that even if you want to spend all kinds of money improving the system, you would be wise and well advised to make sure that the people you are attempting to serve believe that you do indeed have their best interests in mind and that they are being listened to in their concerns.

On that note, I will happily yield and say I look forward to the second member for Vancouver-Little Mountain having other news about the B.C. Ferry Corporation to give us — perhaps some other announcements that we are not yet aware of.

MR. MOWAT: The expansions planned by the B.C. Ferry Corporation are just the latest stage in its great history. The corporation remains one of the jewels in British Columbia's crown. It encourages economic development and tourism. The corporation has grasped this role with enthusiasm over the last 29 years and will continue to do so for many years.

One element that allows the corporation to play this key role is the people who work for the B.C. Ferry Corporation. The kind, courteous staff on the ferries never fails to impress the passengers from both within British Columbia and abroad.

B.C. Ferries also gives special attention to those who need it the most and perhaps have more difficulty traveling on the seas than others, such as children, seniors and the disabled. For this special service, the government of the people of British Columbia say thank you to the staff of B.C. Ferries.

In conclusion, the B.C. Ferry Corporation is one of the true success stories in the history of British Columbia, one that was initiated by this Social Credit government and that continues to be fully supported in its operation by the current Social Credit government. We look to future good sailing on all our B.C. ferries.

OIL SPILLS

MR. CASHORE: I am going to be speaking on the subject of oil spills. It's obvious that this government is more concerned with public relations than it is with protecting the environment, because — pure and simple — their approach with regard to dealing with the Alaska oil spill has been only to learn from their PR mistakes during the previous spill. That has been the sum total of the main approach of their attention.

Let's take a look for a moment at the issue with regard to the moratorium that was announced the other day, the so-called moratorium. On March 29 I asked the Premier if he had made a firm decision to reimpose the moratorium on offshore drilling, in the matter of the Pacific accord where the government has some jurisdiction, and the minister said: "There has been a moratorium on offshore exploration since 1972, and it is still in place." He went on to say: "There is no possibility whatsoever of that moratorium even being lifted for at least five years." Unknown to the House, at that very moment copies of a news release entitled," Moratorium on Offshore Oil Drilling " were being distributed to press gallery mail slots, stating: "The province will continue the current moratorium on petroleum drilling off the B.C. coast for at least five years."

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

This raises some vexing questions. First of all, the minister fails to state that the moratorium is on offshore oil exploration, and mentions drilling only. I am glad the Premier is in the House, because his comments on CBC television the other night left the public with the impression that he is at odds with his minister, and I would ask the Premier, Mr. Speaker...

[ Page 5946 ]

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members.

MR. CASHORE: ... to take this opportunity to clarify whether or not the moratorium includes seismic activity, given the activity that has been going on in the strait under the Geological Survey of Canada. Does the Premier include that activity when he says that there is a moratorium in effect? Would he clarify his remarks and coordinate them with remarks of the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Strachan)?

[10:30]

Mr. Speaker, he does not acknowledge that by continuing the moratorium there is no assurance whatsoever that seismic activity will not continue. In fact, the minister must be aware that the Geological Survey of Canada did seismic work starting June 27, 1988, involving an air gun array covering 1,100 kilometres. While this work produced scientific data on our offshore topography, is it not true that the results were handed to Chevron to process and that the profiles were then given to the Institute of Sedimentary and Petroleum Geology, an arm of the Geological Survey of Canada, so that they can analyze the data for assessing the area's hydrocarbon potential?

Interjection.

MR. CASHORE: So you see, my friend, it means that the activity is going on, and the government knows it's going on, with a view to the hydrocarbon potential.

Is it not true, Mr. Minister, that by saying you are continuing the moratorium, you do so knowing that under the terms of the Pacific accord there is not now, nor ever has been, a ban on seismic exploration, and that, indeed, the government of Canada is directly involved in that activity?

Is it not true, if we look at the timetable that is presently in place and was in place prior to the sham announcement of the other day, that one year is required to negotiate the agreement and one year to draft the legislation and that Chevron needs three years of follow-up seismic surveys to get ready for the first drilling to begin in five years' time?

Is it not true, then, Mr. Premier, that your announcement of a moratorium, cleverly, using the term "five years," was merely stating the status quo? It was merely stating what already exists. It did not mention that in a 1981 order-in-council, this government claimed to have jurisdiction for the territory on which they now claim to have proclaimed a moratorium, but that that matter was set aside when it came to dealing with the Pacific accord, and in actual fact it has never been established that this government even has the authority under Canadian law to issue that moratorium that they are doing as a PR gesture, when they haven't actually done the work to establish that they have that authority in the first place.

It was a non-announcement, Mr. Premier, and you know it. Your plan is still in place to see Chevron start drilling in five years. You knew all along that even if the accord was signed tomorrow, they couldn't logistically start for five years.

Mr. Speaker, the minister should make this announcement: (1) that he ceases negotiations on the accord, and (2) that he is going to do everything that is possible to make sure the federal government will entrench that moratorium in legislation and that that legislation will be followed up in support by the provincial government.

Is it not true, Mr. Premier, that your so-called continuation is a sham and that it changes nothing? Is it not true that your government is carrying on with the negotiation process, whether you are holding formal meetings or not? What we are dealing with here is an empty promise, and it's as empty and hollow as your entire public relations campaign on the Alaska oil spill, and your disastrous record on the environment. If your record weren't so disastrous, you wouldn't have to call in an expert on other disasters to advise you, namely the firm that helped Union Carbide and the firm with regard to the Bhopal disaster and the firm that helped Tylenol.

Mr. Speaker, we really have to ask ourselves what this government is up to, anyway, when it is making an announcement about something that it has not even clarified that it has the authority to do? It is known that under....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sorry, hon. member, time is up.
            To respond, the Premier.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, we keep hearing the word "sham." We first heard it from the Leader of the Opposition, when I as Premier, and others, took the time on Easter Saturday to travel to Alaska to see firsthand the biggest oil disaster that has ever occurred in the world. Because we took the time; because I traveled there while the Leader of the Opposition sat in his living room watching television; because we took the interest; because we as a government were concerned; because we took that initiative to see firsthand what it was that had occurred and how it was being addressed by the oil company or by Alyeska; because we took that initiative, he labelled this a sham.

We've heard it again from the critic for environment. Again, he calls it a sham. No solutions, no answers, no alternatives, no suggestions, just a whole lot of the usual NDP socialist negativism, saying it's a sham. Because there's public support for what we're doing; because the people of British Columbia say this government is interested and concerned, they're now saying it's a public relations effort.

Mr. Speaker, I have no problems with public relations. I have no problems with the government doing whatever it must in order to convey to the people the dangers of these oil tankers. I have no difficulty in telling the people that we must through the efforts of a task force seek alternatives and seek ways of addressing oil spills and disasters on our coast. But what has the socialist NDP to say about it? They say

[ Page 5947 ]

that whatever it is we do in order to ensure that this might be addressed better in future is a sham. They have no solutions. They have no answers. They have no alternatives. It's the usual negative garbage that we tend to hear time and time again whenever positive initiatives are taken by this government.

HON. MR. DIRKS: Mr. Speaker, I'd just like to continue on for a moment. Really, if you look at the statement, this really shows Again, it's misleading. This member talks about oil spills, but what he talks about is seismic. He's confusing offshore drilling with pipelines and oil spills. I really don't understand. But this is the way they work, to try and confuse everybody, and wrap everything into a fierce tactic.

What I'd like to point out, Mr. Speaker, is that seismic can and is used throughout this world to study the earth's crust; and that is a very important thing, especially for us here in an earthquake zone. Would that hon. member deny our good people the knowledge that is available as to what that earth's crust is doing, especially in view of the fact that we are living on an earthquake zone?

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Speaker, the Premier had the opportunity in this House to stand up and clarify whether he included a ban on seismic activity; he did not say that. Seismic activity is being carried on by the Geological Survey of Canada. That activity has been handed over to Chevron, and Chevron has reviewed that data and passed that on to the Geological Survey of Canada. A portion of that is used for the plan for hydrocarbon research — that cannot be denied. The Premier did not take the opportunity....

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, hon. members. The House is very lively this morning. Please continue.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Speaker, the Premier did not take the opportunity to clarify that point. And just to show how desperate he is with regard to his PR things, he is resorting to distorting history with regard to the NDP's role in this whole thing. He has completely.... He should stand in this House and apologize to Tom Berger for the statements that he has made — which were quoted in the press — that are inaccurate. Mr. Berger said: "He" — the Premier — "said the U.S. Congress decided on tankers in 1972 and construction then started on the pipeline that terminated in Valdez, site of the Exxon disaster. I wasn't even appointed to the Mackenzie Valley commission until 1974." Mr. Premier, you have been distorting history in a most unfortunate way.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The NDP is against pipelines.

Interjections.

MR. CASHORE: It points up the fact, Mr. Speaker, that they're so desperate from a PR perspective that they would distort history and try to alter the facts....

Interjections.

MR. CASHORE: They cannot deny the fact that the five-year moratorium that they talk about is a sham; that it was in keeping with their present plan; and that the drilling would not have started for five years anyway. One year to continue to work out the details, one year to draft the legislation, three years of seismic activity.... Indeed, seismic activity went on in 1988, and the Geological Survey of Canada is planning further seismic activity in 1989. The fact is that this government is powerless to deal with that.

Their announcement is a non-announcement, and the Premier knows that. He knows the thing they have developed is expertise in conducting their affairs as a public relations gesture. But when it comes to protecting the environment, they are hopeless. They are only dealing with hollow words; they are not doing the things that are necessary to getting out there and advocating on behalf of the environment,

SENIORS' ISSUES

MR. LOENEN: I just want to remind the House that starting on Sunday it will be Volunteer Recognition Week in British Columbia. We want to extend our appreciation to the many volunteers that serve our communities.

Interjections.

MR. LOENEN: Are you against volunteerism?

I'd just like to remind members opposite that throughout this province we have 151 seniors' counsellors, who serve the needs of seniors. Early next month, in fact, there will be a special conference in Kamloops for senior citizen counsellors. These counsellors are all senior citizens and serve in a volunteer capacity. They provide information and advice to fellow seniors in communities throughout the province and make a very real and valuable contribution to the lives of our senior citizens.

We treasure our senior citizens. We provide, as a government, many services to seniors. We acknowledge the contribution they have made, and we want to enrich their lives. For that reason a task force will look into how we could better serve seniors. As a result of that, there will also be an advisory council to give this government advice on the needs of seniors and special opportunities for them.

This morning I would like in particular to talk for a minute about our long-term-care facilities. As you know, they consist primarily of two types: intermediate-care facilities and extended-care facilities. In my own community of Richmond, we have four intermediate-care facilities, and there is one extended-care facility at the Richmond General Hospital.

By and large, they provide an excellent service, and we are very pleased that we have those services available in our community. However, there's always room for improvement, as we know. I must say that

[ Page 5948 ]

since I was elected in '86, I have received some complaints. They pertain particularly to those people who need to be moved from intermediate-care facilities to extended care because their situation has deteriorated somewhat, and they are in need of higher levels of service.

As a result of that, people are often faced with having to move outside of our community, outside of their familiar surroundings and outside of the circle of friends they have built up. There is nothing more painful, uprooting, disconcerting and disorienting to senior people — particularly after having spent perhaps ten to 15 years in one facility where they have built up friendships and have come to know the staff and the people who provide them with the services — than then finding they have to be moved elsewhere.

[10:45]

It is particularly painful when, as a result of that kind of situation, couples have to be separated. I know many examples where that in fact is the case — where either one or the other of the partners must move to a different facility.

Steveston is an historic fishing village that many of us know about. It has a very strong sense of community. Many people have lived there all their lives. They've worked there; they've built up friendships; they have relatives; and they have familiar faces and surroundings. We do have the Lions intermediate care facility there.

In addition to that, they have the apartments for seniors immediately next door, where people who are still reasonably independent can make use of the food, facilities and services at the intermediate-care facility. But many of those people, when faced with having to be moved into an extended-care unit, must then go elsewhere, perhaps to the North Shore, White Rock, Surrey, wherever. As I said, there is nothing more disconcerting than being uprooted in that way. Obviously what is needed is to add the provision of extended-care beds to the existing facilities, so that we will in effect end up with multiple levels of care under one roof.

Mr. Speaker, we have within British Columbia a total of 17,428 funded intermediate-care beds and some 7,603 extended-care beds. Out of that total, there are some 1,418 beds within multiple-care facilities and a further 571 in the planning stages. Even after those in the planning stages have been completed, it means that only 11.4 percent out of the total extended-care beds and only 6.4 percent out of the total intermediate-care beds will be within multiple-care facilities. That is just not good enough. It means that out of the total — over 17,000 intermediate-care beds — just over 1,000 will in fact be in multiple-care facilities.

We have to turn that around and do something about it. Many of these, of course, are in rural B.C. We must increase the multiple-level care so that we can meet the needs of the people who make use of these services. Again speaking about our community of Richmond, I have both privately and publicly strongly supported that the 100 new extended-care beds promised to our community will be added to the existing intermediate-care facilities.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sorry, hon. member, but your time has expired.

Before we proceed, hon. members, the second member for Victoria has asked leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. BLENCOE: In the gallery right now are 11 members of the Capital Regional Mental Health Association, visiting the precincts today to learn about the ways of democracy and parliament. They are accompanied by Mrs. Roberts and Miss Cooksley. Would the House please make them all very welcome.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: In response to the previous statement, the member for New Westminster.

MS. A. HAGEN: First of all I'd like to join the second member for Richmond (Mr. Loenen) in acknowledging the many people who work in the volunteer sector and those who work with older people. In addition to the 151 seniors' counsellors in the province, I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to COSCO — the Council of Senior Citizens' Organizations — the B.C. Old Age Pensioners' Organization, the seniors' research and referral centre and the many community-based organizations that toil diligently on behalf of older people. Just to put this into perspective, I'd like to take a moment or so to talk about some of the questions that come to these people for which they regrettably don't always have the answers that older people need to receive.

They get questions about home support and the fact that there isn't enough home support for them to be able to keep themselves independent for any length of time and their families able to help them in their own homes and communities. They get questions about transportation: in the rural regions of the province, there is virtually no service to assist people with transportation. They get questions about where they can get information. We need to be reminded that in 1983 this government absolutely cut off the funding to 23 community-based organizations that provided that kind of service in a volunteer way to their communities, assisting the seniors' counsellors and augmenting the services of seniors' counsellors.

They particularly get questions about housing, to which the member alluded, housing which is inadequate not only at the far end of the spectrum for extended- and intermediate-care but also for people who need support for innovative kinds of housing that will enable them to maximize their independence. They get questions, too, about the economic situation they face: the 45 percent increase that many of them are paying in medical service premiums and the lack of rental subsidy assistance, which until the announcement of a few days ago hadn't been raised in years, so that there was a continuing decrease in the number of people getting assistance for their housing.

[ Page 5949 ]

They get questions about how they can pay user fees like Pharmacare, where the government is not even refunding some of the refundable because it's too small a cheque. They get questions about how they can coordinate the planning for themselves and their families. Those senior volunteers in our community do a valiant service. It's a service that extends the helping hand of the community and the resources of the community. Unfortunately, without the infrastructure, the planning, the help of government, many of them are only able to tell seniors that there is no help available.

I want to conclude by noting that the comments of the member regarding multi-level services is very well taken. Again, I have known of organizations that run extended-care and intermediate-care facilities which have come to this government over a number of years and asked for the opportunity to purchase land, the opportunity to plan for and to integrate those services. It is well to call for them, but to call for them without action and funding really doesn't deliver anything. I'm certainly aware that it is the despair of many organizations that have sought to do the innovative and productive kinds of planning and organizing for the long-term-care needs of seniors, including those who are separated from husband or wife because of the organization that is presently in place.

Words are not enough; action is what we need. If the member is prepared to say in his final comments that his government is taking action on his excellent suggestion to ensure that seniors' counsellors and many other volunteers have the resources to do their jobs well, then I think this particular part of our discussion will have been productive. Words, Mr. Member and members of this House, for the older generation are hollow without action. We need action to fulfill the kind of mandate that we must have for the care of our elderly in British Columbia.

MR. LOENEN: I thank the hon. member for her kind words. We're all together on seeing the needs of seniors and wishing to respond to them. As I said earlier, this government certainly is committed to meeting those needs. We are making some excellent moves to put in place the machinery to meet them. I am a member, for instance, of the policy advisory board of the Victoria Health Project, a very exciting program under which we try, through clinics, through support services, to meet the needs of people who need health care in their homes, their communities.

MS. A. HAGEN: An excellent program, but a small corner of the province.

MR. LOENEN: We look forward to expanding that wherever we can make use of it.

Getting back to intermediate-care facilities, extended-care facilities and the need to build multilevel facilities, yes, the Ministry of Health is responding to this. They are turning the corner. Many of the planned facilities are indeed geared to the multi-level type. I agree with the member that more can be done. I certainly hope that also in our community of Richmond we will be able to show the way and to see that whatever new extended-care beds come into the community, they will be added to the existing intermediate-care facilities.

Many problems stand in the way of converting, for example, the existing intermediate-care facilities. We need the cooperation of the regional districts; of the CMHC that holds the mortgages; of the various societies. There are legal problems as well. Licensing falls under different pieces of legislation. There are divisions within the Ministry of Health itself. Whole structures have been created around the provision of certain facilities rather than others. But I'm convinced that if the political will is there to meet the needs of the people in the community, we will be able to overcome those problems and place the needs of the seniors first and foremost. I'm committed to that, and I know our government is.

VANCOUVER ISLAND PIPELINE ROUTE

MR. ROSE: I think it's only appropriate that an expression of concern for the elderly came before my speech, especially when I and the Minister of Energy are going to be debating the next round. I welcome the Minister of Energy back to the House. I understand he has been ill. I've always enjoyed dialogue with the minister. We go back a long way. We used to ride the same planes together back and forth to Ottawa. I always found him to be open, candid, frank and honest. However, having said that.... I'm really pleased to see that he's here, because I was afraid the Attorney-General (Hon. S.D. Smith) was going to respond on the pipeline, and I prefer to have somebody with a knowledge of pipelines rather than pipedreams.

Let me get on with it. The issue here has been well canvassed by my colleague from the Kootenays. All the other ramifications having to do with financial feasibility, supply, price, all that stuff, are not my concern. Although I may touch on a number of those items, my concern has nothing to do with the issues I've just mentioned.

[11:00]

We know there's been a Utilities Commission preliminary report on this issue, although while the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Strachan) and the Minister of Energy may have seen this, I haven't. My concern is just with the route. My concern is with the lunacy of the possibility of shoving this pipeline up the watershed of the Coquitlam River. That's what I'm angry about.

Yesterday the Attorney-General tried to sell this pipeline route — as if it's already been decided — as an environmental issue. In other words, we'll trade that dirty, rotten oil that's coming up the Inside Passage to the pulp mills for nice, clean, sweet gas. Well, I thought that might have described his speech rather than the product.

MR. WILLIAMS: That was sour gas.

[ Page 5950 ]

MR. ROSE: No, it soured me, because it looks as if the issue has already been decided.

He talked about replacing oil, which is currently used in these mills, with natural gas. I think that's a reasonably laudable objective. This is what he said: "In order to do that, we have to build a pipeline, and we may have to make trade-offs. One of them has to be, Mr. Opposition House Leader" — he harrumphed.... "And you are the person who should think about this most clearly, because you were there for the other performances." I don't know what the other performances were, unless he's talking about an earlier speech of his. "...a line through the watershed area in order to make a viable project." He's saying the thing is so shaky — financially, in terms of its viability — we've got to take 1.5 million people in the lower mainland and risk their health in order to make this thing viable, when there's a clear alternative.

Indian Arm is also in my riding; it has nothing to do with any particular watershed. We're really concerned about that. Why can't it go...? If we have decided, as the minister suggests.... He said the decision has been made; that's what he told us.

AN HON. MEMBER: Order.

MR. ROSE: All right. If you want to get up and call order, you do it.

I think the decision has been made. We've heard from the Minister of Energy; we've heard from the Minister of Environment. There have been announcements. If the decision has been made, then why bother with the Utilities Commission? That — and I'll repeat the word — is a sham. It's a public relations sham if the decision has already been made; it's a waste of public money.

I repeat: whether the pipeline is a good idea or not is not the question here. There are some people who thinks it's premature; there are some people who don't think it's necessary. I am not arguing whether or not it's necessary. I think anything we can do to reduce the risk of oil spills in the Inside Passage is a laudable objective. But what are the trade-offs? That is the important thing.

I seldom quote COFI, but this is from a brief prepared by that radical NDP law firm Ladner Downs. Look at what they say: "Major gaps which remain open include the binding agreement, supply, contractual arrangements with industrials and the LDUs contractual arrangements on storage, issues of IQ factor and curtailment. The question is whether or not the project is fatally flawed because of a lack of certainty and proof of economic viability." We're really concerned about this, Mr. Speaker. We don't think it's suitable at the moment to proceed, and we're actually terrified.... Not just me. Here's another rabid NDPer called Gil Blair, the mayor of Richmond. He's the chairman of the GVRD. This is what he's got to say.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: I've got one more minute of gas, and I'll ask for extra time because of all the applause and interruptions.

"Construction of a natural gas pipeline through the Coquitlam watershed will cloud the drinking water used by 350,000 residents and encourage 'undesirable organisms,' a report commissioned by the Greater Vancouver Regional District warns." It goes on to say a little further in a Sun story: "Some people consider the cloudiness only an aesthetic concern. The report says turbidity is recognized, however, as a serious health concern because it can reduce the effectiveness of the disinfectant chlorine."

I've got all kinds of quotes here. "Watershed route would be insanity" says the Vancouver Sun. Is this another New Democratic Party rag?

HON. MR. DAVIS: I always enjoy the remarks of the affable member from Coquitlam-Moody. He indicates that maybe the Vancouver Island gas pipeline isn't all that bad. He's really saying, however, that trade-offs may be involved, and if one of the tradeoffs is the health and other considerations in the Coquitlam watershed, that trade-off is too expensive.

If the project proceeds — and I believe it will — it will only proceed subject to the conditions which I believe the Utilities Commission will attach to the licence, to the authorization to construct. One of the conditions will undoubtedly be that there is no threat whatsoever to the water quality in the Coquitlam watershed. Health is the paramount concern. There's also water management in the sense of turbidity and so on, perhaps having to use other reservoirs, but I believe it may be possible. The pipeline company and our ministry consultants tell us that by phasing the construction, by monitoring the construction operations and being extremely careful, it's possible to stay well below national health standards.

As far as I'm concerned, those are conditions which must obtain during the construction phase. Once the line is in place, it's really benign as far as the watershed is concerned — nothing like the logging roads that exist in the watershed or like the logging road extensions currently being authorized in the watershed. The pipeline is a ten-inch line. Most of the way it will run on the high side of an existing logging road, and it will improve the ditching of the logging road.

Regardless, if the line is to be built through the watershed, it can only be built with complete sensitivity with regard to both health and other water management considerations in the watershed. I believe this is possible. In a few days the Utilities Commission will be telling us, in a series of documents which will be made public, that the pipeline is possible given a series of conditions, and those conditions must all be met. One is gas supply; another is that the pulp mills must sign up; a third — and most obvious — is that the federal-provincial agreement must be available in all its glory; and finally, such concerns as the Coquitlam watershed must be fully addressed. Unless and until all those conditions are met, the certificate will not be issued and the pipeline

[ Page 5951 ]

is not financeable. I believe all those conditions will be met.

However, the member is addressing the Coquitlam watershed issue, and I merely want to repeat that this will be dealt with with the utmost sensitivity. In no way will health concerns be breached or the watershed management be at all compromised by having to run in water from the Seymour and Capilano reservoirs. This may mean postponing construction until an appropriate time in the fall. The construction may have to be interrupted intermittently in order to ensure that the turbidity and other criteria are doubly met. Nothing is for certain. We are adamant, however, that the construction of the line, if it proceeds through the watershed, will be done in such a way that it is a clean operation throughout and that in no way are the health or other concerns of the Greater Vancouver Regional District or the Greater Vancouver Water Board likely to be verified in any way. We will make sure it is a 100 percent clean project.

MR. ROSE: I thank the minister for his usual frank and knowledgeable kind of response. I would just like to know why he has changed.

On March 29, 1984 — and I quote from Hansard — the minister said: "I think that kind of investment is inappropriate. A more logical way of supplying communities on Vancouver Island with gas would be to bring it in liquefied form down from Prince Rupert...." Further on he says: "The rationalization is that because the federal government — foolishly or otherwise — has put a large sum of money into gas pipeline extensions in Quebec, it's now British Columbia's turn." Two wrongs won't make it right. Does $150 million of public money make it right?

Quoted in the Province is the same minister: "I know the only cost-benefit ratio that makes sense is to leave the dollars in people's pockets." That's what he said in 1984. What's changed? Has the price of oil changed? Marginally. Nothing else. What's changed? Has the political climate changed? Are you so desperate for votes on Vancouver Island that you are going to spend $300 million of public money on this thing that is really very tenuous at this moment?

I'm not concerned about that particularly. I'm not concerned about that part of it, because if it's needed, I would rather have oil and gas if that's the question. Of course I would, and I think anybody would because it's cleaner. But that's not the point.

What have we got to do yet? Finalization of the Canada-B.C. agreement on finance, environmental safeguards, Coquitlam watershed and contracts with pulp mills — none of these have gone. Gas supply contracted out. We haven't got anything. We haven't got supply, price or approval for environment. We've got nothing. It's a sham; it's a pipe-dream. Let's not proceed with this foolishness — even delaying it for six months. Let's delay it for six years.

Budget Debate

(continued)

MR. B.R. SMITH: It's a pleasure to speak in the budget debate. To start, I just want to pay my tribute to the three new members here and to welcome each of them. I hope they find this a place of comradeship, which it is over and above and beyond the partisan debate. It's been a very good place of comradeship since 1986, in that regard. I think the mood of this place and the personal relationships among the members on both sides has much improved.

I would also like to pay tribute to the two members who left most recently. The former member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) was a man who I admired a great deal and had very straightforward dealings with in and out of this chamber. He was an adornment to this place, and we will miss him.

The former first member for Point Grey (Ms. Campbell), who is now the Minister of State for Indian Affairs and Northern Development, had an incredibly brilliant but short career in this place and has gone on to greater things to represent her province in Ottawa. Both of those members are missed.

[11:15]

Speaking on the budget, it's with great pride that for the first time in ten years — and some of those years were pretty difficult financially — we have been able to bring in a budget that is balanced. I think it's generally a good news budget. It has enhanced social programs. It has provided for badly needed capital expenditures. It has taken a step at reduction of accumulated debt.

When you consider the task that lies before the government of Canada to stop deficits and to prevent deficits without even getting into attacking accumulated debt, we've got a good head start here.

I'm not going to get into esoteric arguments about budget stabilization funds, and whether that is a good thing. It seems to me that it is a good thing, in times of buoyant revenues, for the province to put money away in a rainy day fund. That is a prudent thing to do. It could be argued, of course, that some of that shouldn't be spent during a sunny day. I'm not going to make that argument here.

I listened with great interest to the comments — of the sustained developers, if I can call them that — that were made on the other side of the House about this budget. The lead-off hitter on the opposition side, the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Clark), who is very erudite, characterized this budget as being unfair. If he'd had his druthers, he would have taxed corporations savagely, destroyed the incentives of high wage-earners, returned user fees and — I dare say — nationalized back every service that had been privatized.

A number of speakers talked about the fairness in the budget. This budget has a general lift of almost 13 percent in major social services, and they talked about the unfairness of the budget and how it impacts on different groups in society. Many of them would tell us with floods of tears what they would

[ Page 5952 ]

have done for the disadvantaged in society had they been drawing a budget.

Lest we forget, it was a free enterprise administration that during the last two decades has provided the most major help for disadvantaged groups in society, probably, of any province in the country. It was a free enterprise government that brought in the SAFER program, the long-term-care program, that made huge steps forward in the field of special education and that has taken major steps to integrate into the community people who have disabilities, whether they are young people or whether they are seniors.

The suggestion you always get from the other side is that virtue is a monopoly over there. We on this side listen to that, I think, with good humour and some tolerance.

AN HON. MEMBER: A lot of tolerance.

MR. B.R. SMITH: A lot of tolerance. That's right.

But solid social programs have been maintained in this province even during the ravages of the restraint program. Now that that period is over and revenues are buoyant, it is fitting that social services have been enhanced.

Certain areas I want to address I am going to address under individual ministries, but during the throne debate I did say that I felt the public were thirsting for future directions and new directions. I do not believe that they wish to return to the left. They want to go forward in the directions of free enterprise. They want to maintain entrepreneurial energy, for sure. They want to maintain the benefits that are going to be enjoyed by free enterprise, not just in the lower mainland but throughout the whole province. That's why regional development has to be a terribly important thrust of this administration and any future free enterprise administration.

Also, I believe that the public wants to maintain the buoyant trade and foreign investment that we have, and believes that we can do that without losing control of our destiny and our economic future. It must and will be the challenge of this government to stimulate that kind of investment and to do so without interference, without stopping that flow and without being tempted to bring in measures that are going to deter that capital and drive it to Alberta and Ontario. That will be a really important challenge.

Also, the public believes that our resource industries in this province are still vital and must maintain their strength, and that their importance must never be discounted by those who like to use catchwords like "value-added," "computer technology," "clean industries" and all these things. All industries, if they are going to survive today in this age, are going to have to get extra value out of their products, are going to have to be way ahead in technology and are going to have to be clean. We've got to provide, as a government, an incentive climate to private capital to do the job of opening up the parts of this province which are largely undeveloped and are going to require infrastructure, roads, hydro and other opportunities.

To deal with some specifics in the budget, I must say that one revenue matter gave me a tiny little bit of concern. One revenue matter I thought deserved a little bit of comment. That's the increase in the tax on bulk tobacco. I want to say that the pipe-smokers of this province will not stand for the way that that tax has been brought in, that sneaky tax. We have been grouped together with the home-rollers, those who have been using tax loopholes to have home makings to avoid the overtaxed tailor-made cigarettes. We know what they've been doing. The fiscal ferrets discovered this inequity of nicotine and they decided to treat pipe-tobacco smokers the same as the home rollers. I tell you, the pipe-smokers of this province are not going to stand for it. To see this clean, safe product increase in some cases as much as 40 percent is a monstrous inequity, and I will, on behalf of the Premier and others, be speaking in the debate of that bill. I may even bring an amendment in.

To turn to a few specifics in the budget that I think should be addressed, one is housing. I think that the housing initiatives in this budget are good ones and that they do provide a framework which can give us some badly needed new housing units. The target is 4,000 new rental units. The opposition, of course, says this is not enough. They would use land banks and they would churn out social housing. I can remember how this was done during the early seventies and the speed with which some of this was done. I think that we need to have a better-thought-out approach. We do not want to create social housing enclaves, places of uniformity, places of bleakness, such as have been created in other countries to meet the needs of social housing. I said in the throne speech and I say again that while I support all these support systems that have been put in to assist people to afford rental housing, I do not think the overall approach is the approach that we should be following long term. The answer is not to increase the safety net system and support people in housing with all kinds of safety nets alone, but to give them incentives to buy and own their units. That is what we should be striving towards in the long run. That is where we should be going as a free enterprise administration.

If you go back to 1970-71, before the federal government decided to adopt the Benson approach and treat every tax dollar the same, for part of that period we had a perfectly good program in this country of capital cost depreciation for rental housing. Businessmen who would invest in rental housing would put up good quality rental housing and would get an accelerated high rate of depreciation which they could depreciate against other income. The result of that was that people were content to build good housing units, run them and not gouge their tenants in rent, to get their economic advantage out of the depreciation they got in the initial stages and then run these as good housing operations. We had a good supply of rental housing during most of that period. When those depreciations were taken away, we had all kinds of problems.

Do you remember the first problem we had was the rush to strata title everything that was rented,

[ Page 5953 ]

and the disruption that that had on tenants and how it put people suddenly out of their accommodation or in threat of being removed from the accommodation whenever these conversions took place? We have had problem after problem since those rapid depreciation incentives were removed from the Income Tax Act in the guise of uniformity and fairness. I think it's time that we considered going back to rapid accelerated depreciation to try and get quality housing built by the private sector with some assistance from government — certainly in identifying sources of land for sure. It's time to get more good quality housing built by the private sector again. I think that is the way to do it, without all these subsidies and support systems that we've got built into the housing system now.

I notice that we are doing a number of things which are certainly going to improve the plight of people who are on fixed low incomes: increasing the GAIN shelter allowance; increasing SAFER for rental assistance; and certainly in my constituency, the increase in the homeowner's grant for seniors of a further $70 up to $700 will be well received, as I am sure it will throughout the province. The increase in the homeowner grant by $50 to $430 for non seniors will also be well received.

Measures like that, and measures that reduce the property purchase tax as well — and make it easier to get second mortgages.... All those measures together are still not worth an approach which gives incentive to the private sector to build better and more rental accommodation. A second approach would be to have an incentive program to get renters to purchase their accommodation and own their accommodation with very easy long-range terms.

If we really believe that we are a free enterprise administration and party, and if we believe that's the direction to go, we shouldn't be trying to hook in generations of people as renters on a safety network of social support. We should be finding ways for them to own their accommodation. We can give them that kind of pride — give them that incentive — so that they don't have to worry whether or not SAFER goes up. They don't have to worry about the homeowner assistance that's built into the budget each year. They can have that kind of dignity and that kind of security of tenure that comes from ownership.

Another measure in this budget which probably hasn't had deserved attention — I think it is very definitely a step in the right direction — is the lowering of the age for people to qualify to defer their home taxes. That age qualification was lowered from 65 to 60 in this budget. That recognizes, I think, that there are a number of people on fixed incomes at a lower and earlier age — people who have taken early retirement.

I think in many cases this deferring of property tax is a very useful device; particularly useful for people who are having difficulty meeting those annual payments, people whose major asset is their home and who are going to pass that home on maybe to a son or daughter later. At a later time, when that home is sold, those taxes can then be paid. I recognize in saying that that in my riding particularly people are pretty fiercely independent and don't like to follow that device.

We've had a really low utilization on that deferral. I don't think there were 3,000 people in the province last year who were on that program. It is one, I think, that all members in their newsletters and in their materials should again and again remind their citizens of. It surely is not something that one has to apologize for in this day and age — that one has decided to go into a tax deferral program. If you own a home that is fully paid for, that would seem to be a worthwhile step to ameliorate the bite of high taxes.

I want to also speak briefly about justice reform because I think the budget made important statements that show that the government does have a commitment to bring in some major justice reform. Much of my work in my former portfolio in the latter years was designed to bring about reforms to the justice system. Each year we tried to bring in legislation dealing with law reform. We set up the commission on justice reform, which toured the province. It is absolutely essential, I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that we move to try and get this system more accessible to ordinary people: less mumbo-jumbo, less mystique; easier for people to get into court; easier for them to do routine things of a legal nature without retaining a lawyer; and easy for them to get into a court which is a people's court.

A new Small Claim Act is going to be brought in. I say hallelujah, Mr. Speaker, because that's the level where most people deal with the civil courts. They deal with it at that level or at family court level, for matters that have to do with maintenance or whatever. The small claims court is the court that the person goes to to collect a debt or to defend himself on some kind of claim. That court should have a much wider jurisdiction. People should be comfortable going into that court and feel that they can go in there without retaining legal counsel. They also should have the right to have counsel in there if they want, but costs should not be awarded. It's very important that the small claims procedure be extended and have much wider monetary jurisdiction. I gather that that is going to be done.

[11:30]

Access to legal services also depends on legal aid. There has been a lot of debate in this province, over the last five or six years, about legal aid. I'm glad to see that the amount of legal aid in the budget has been increased by about 20 percent this year. That's probably not enough, but it's a very good start.

I know it's fashionable in some circles for people to think: "Why should we put money into legal aid? All we're doing is paying for lawyers to defend people who are guilty." You hear that; you have that perception with the public quite often. Well, all you need to do is to go through personal experiences, as some people in this chamber have: to have a son or a daughter who has maybe left home or run away and got into some difficulty with the law. You don't know about it, or they won't turn to you, and there they are in front of a court, and they need some help. The

[ Page 5954 ]

legal aid system is there to provide them with that help. In many cases, that help may make the difference as to the future direction of their lives, if they get proper legal advice and proper assistance when they're in that kind of trouble.

Very many lawyers in this province do their share of legal aid, for very meagre remuneration compared with the remuneration you get for doing the same sort of thing in Britain and other countries. The lawyers of this province, through their pro bono program, have been pretty public-spirited in devoting time. Nobody gets rich on the legal aid tariff. But the demands on that tariff are enormous, as more and more cases under the Charter of Rights come before the courts. So I'm glad to see that the government has recognized that need and has heralded an increase in the budget of 20 percent.

I also notice that a strong commitment has been made to support the program for victims of crime, and that additional funds are being supplied to the Crown counsel offices in that regard. The victims' assistance program is two years old, Mr. Speaker. I think it was one of the most important steps that this government and this Legislature made to meet the needs of ordinary people who are thrown into the justice system. No need was greater.

If you can only imagine the fear felt by many people who have gone through the justice system the first time; if you can imagine what it's like for a woman who's a victim of a sexual assault that maybe took place in the middle of the night; the difficulty she has in dealing with policemen, often male; telling her story many times to police and then later to prosecutors; going to a courtroom in a hostile environment, being cross-examined at a preliminary inquiry, then being cross-examined again at trial; being asked to give the whole history of her life.... Under the old rules of evidence that was permissible. And nobody, throughout that whole system, ever spent very much time preparing this person for that system. In small communities — often one or two courtrooms — out in front of the courtroom, before the trial started, you'd have the victim, the accused and the accused's family, all sitting around looking at each other, in small, confined quarters. That woman has to sit there and has to put up with that kind of intimidation and fear, even before she gets into the courtroom.

For many years in this country we did nothing to make the plight of these victims of crime easy. We simply ignored them and treated them like sausages in a sausage machine. They were put forward as witnesses; maybe they were interviewed by busy Crown counsel; but very little time was spent with them. All of that thinking is now changed. In this province's justice system, starting with the policeman on the beat, and going from there to the community organizations, the volunteer organizations who work with victims of crime, and moving up from there to the Crown prosecutors, everybody now has a philosophy that we are going to try and spend some time, and prepare these people so they can have the courage to go in and tell that story under oath.

It used to be so easy not to go there at all. Why would anyone want to go through that? Why would anyone want to be cross-examined on their whole life? Why would somebody want to go to a courtroom and stand there and have the accused and his family leer at them outside? It's much easier to let it go, and when you let it go, it means that the person who committed that crime will do it again and again, because there will be no sanctions. There will be nothing to say that he is going to pay for this, because women and other victims are going to be prepared to let him get away with it because they don't want to go through that ordeal. So by having a victims' program and by setting up that support system, you are investing in law and order and a safe society. That is what we have done.

Also, it is only fitting that a compassionate and just society finally has a program for enforcing family maintenance that is fair and automatic, which someone can hook into, if they wish to, and not have to constantly go to lawyers and through courts and all that travail. They can do that automatically, and that is now being provided by this government in what I think is probably the best family maintenance enforcement program in the whole country.

I notice also that there is going to be compensation for costs paid to victims of crime by perpetrators of those crimes. I think that is important, but everyone knows that many of the people who commit these crimes don't have any money, and we are not going to be able to recover costs. But if they do, I think we should try. There was a landmark decision handed down last week in Saskatchewan in which a judge awarded punitive damages — in the neighbourhood of $50,000 — to a victim of a sexual assault in a civil action. That's a landmark decision. I think you are going to find that in more and more cases that route is going to be taken. That doesn't preclude criminal prosecution, but it is another route. If the perpetrator of this crime has any assets, that's an appropriate thing to happen. I can tell you that to the dozens of victims of assault who came to see me when I was Attorney-General, and who I dealt with in the courts in 15 years of criminal law, $50,000 is no kind of recompense for what they have gone through. But at least it is a start; it makes a statement.

I am very pleased with the reforms that are going to be introduced in justice reform and under that package. I know that some of them are sensitive and are going to require care and a lot of consultation — such as merging the courts — and that these can only be brought about by sensitivity and a lot of consultation with people in the system. I think they must take place. The time has come to do these things. They are going to be done, and they must be supported. You cannot have citizens today trying to understand which federally appointed court they should go to for which matter, or whether a local judge has the authority to deal with their matter, or whether his case should be adjourned until a Supreme Court judge happens to arrive. You cannot have that kind of distinction today. There has to be a bringing together and a simplifying of that. I com-

[ Page 5955 ]

mend the ministry for the steps it is taking in that direction. I will be supporting those.

I also am pleased to see a commitment made to finalizing the closing of Oakalla and removing Oakalla as a correctional facility, with the completion of Maple Ridge and Surrey and, finally, the women's prison that will be brought about. That was a long commitment, and I think it is to be supported and commended.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to speak briefly as an Island member about transportation. The budget contains a commitment for major ferry refurbishing and construction. I commend the minister and the government for that; I think that is an excellent thing to do. Load factors on those ferries continue to increase; it happens to be one of the finest services in the world. When you are a backbencher, you use the ferries a lot more. I have spent quite a bit of time traveling by ferry in the last seven or eight months, and I've found it very pleasurable because I have been able to spend time with some of the excellent people who are the crews and the masters of these ferries, both on the Horseshoe Bay run and the Tsawwassen-Swartz Bay run. I don't think there is a finer ferry service anywhere in the world. It moves more passengers and moves them more efficiently and with more human commitment. Quite often they don't get praise. They get minor complaints, and I can assure you they are mostly minor, because they do a fabulous job.

I want to say as an Island member that I am not content with the expenditure of only $30 million on the Island Highway this year. I am not one bit content with that, because there has to be more of a commitment to that highway. We have already made the commitment to accelerate the completion of it and to do it. There is no doubt that the government is committed to doing that, but we are going to have to move faster because the demands on it are such that we are going to have to get that work done. There is a great need to deal with that section of the highway from Campbell River to Qualicum. That is a particularly bad section: single lane most of the way, bumper to bumper in the summer with campers and recreational vehicles. I know there's no problem with the commitment; we're talking about when it's going to be delivered and the money to deliver it.

For that and the Nanaimo bypass, which we've been working on and planning for some time and on which a number of consultation meetings have been held, we're going to have to get some more money. I can recall that back in 1985-86 we had a task force on Vancouver Island put together by a group of businessmen and mayors. At that time, the present Finance minister was in charge of the task force, and he recognized the need to spend more money on Vancouver Island, that Vancouver Island was a place whose time had come, particularly on transportation and highways.

I will be bending his ear and that of the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Vant) to get accelerated spending on that highway. How's my time, Mr. Speaker?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It's expired.

MR. B.R. SMITH: I want to thank the hon. members for their indulgence and say that it's a pleasure to speak in the budget debate. I'll be making separate comments in the ministries' estimates.

MR. G. JANSSEN: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. G. JANSSEN: I'd like the House to help me welcome a member of my constituency, a former alderperson in my community in Port Alberni, member of the hospital board, community activist and Social Credit member, Anita Jack.

[11:45]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The budget debate continues with the member for Atlin.

MR. GUNO: I just got back from a fairly extensive tour of my riding. I left shortly after the budget speech came down, and it was rather a good way of recovering from that experience. It's nice to be back; it's truly a privilege to participate in this debate on the budget.

As I said, I just came back from a trip, and it was rather special in that I traveled with a very special individual, who was introduced by the member for Victoria this morning — Alwyn Morris, who won the gold medal along with Hugh Fisher in the 1984 Olympics. I took the opportunity of inviting Mr. Morris to the southern portion of my riding in Atlin to talk to the young people who have rare opportunities to meet someone like Mr. Morris.

I was struck by the reception by the young people of this young man. Today the first member for Victoria (Mr. G. Hanson) described him as a genuine Canadian hero. I think he's also an important role model for many of our young people, particularly for our native young people in my riding who come from small reserves. Mr. Morris's message to the young people was simply to dare to dream and to strive to fulfill their potential.

I also took the opportunity to introduce him to a number of non-Indian students in a school in Terrace and the senior high school in Stewart. Again he was universally well received. It was a real privilege for me to travel with this young man.

In my travels, I was struck — particularly in the area of youth in the north — by just how little we are doing to encourage them to fulfill their development. Certainly our educational system in the north is far from adequate in terms of providing that kind of challenge. When Mr. Morris was engaged in dialogue with a number of the young people, one problem that continually came up was the lack of resources for the development of athletics among our young people. Facilities are often inadequate or not even in existence, so there's a very big constraint on youth development. I was disappointed not to see in the budget any real hope for improvement in this area.

[ Page 5956 ]

Also in my travels, one of the big concerns raised by the many people I came into contact with was the huge oil spill in Alaska. As a riding in close proximity to the Alaska panhandle, this is a very real concern. Many of our people are engaged in the commercial fishing industry, and feel that this spill really poses a tremendous threat to their livelihood. I don't really feel that the easy assurances we're getting from our federal government that such an impact on our northern waters is going to be minimal.... I just don't accept that kind of assurance. We've heard it before, and we've seen just how little is known about the spread of these huge environmental disasters.

When our environment critic made a statement this morning, the Premier responded. The Premier can huff and puff and spout all kinds of rhetoric about their commitment to the environment, but I think the record of this government is clear: it's clearly an unmitigated environmental disaster. By almost every measure, they have failed to protect our environment.

I don't dislike this province; in fact, I love it. It's the government that is found wanting; it's the government that I dislike. Suddenly this government has discovered the environment; they are suddenly in love with the environment. I think the public of British Columbia are fed up with the kind of con games this government is playing. They're fed up with the foul air we're breathing, with the polluted waters within our territory, and with the kind of assault we're making on our wilderness areas. It's clearly negligence, and the budget certainly doesn't demonstrate that there is going to be a genuine commitment on the part of this government.

We see a very expensive PR campaign being mounted by this government to try yet again to con the people of British Columbia that they are committed. I don't think they can be believed, because this government have a slavish adherence to the laissez-faire philosophy, which is antithetical to the concept of sustainable development.

I'll give you an example: in the north we have only one conservation officer, who is established in the village of Atlin. That particular conservation officer is supposed to service the entire constituency of Atlin, an area that is bigger than many small western European countries. We have only one person to monitor and collect data about our wilderness and the animal life in that area, yet we continue the myopic view of single-use resource management — that is, mining our forest.

In my travels, another great concern brought to me by many people is the condition of the roads in the southern portion and other parts of the riding — in the Nass Valley, for instance. I've gotten up countless times in this House to try to urge this government to take a look at the road system in the Nass. I think the people of the Nass Valley have demonstrated incredible patience, but not only are the roads unsafe, they're unhealthy. In the summertime we have to suffer the incredible dust that permeates the whole area because of the poor conditions. Millions and millions of dollars have been taken out of that area, yet the citizens of Nass Valley have to put up with one of the worst road systems in British Columbia.

The next worse, of course, is Highway 37. I've had a chance to talk to the mayor of Stewart, who relayed to me her concern — and I think this is supported by many people in the northwest — that we're ignoring a very important potential by not upgrading and paving Highway 37. If this government is serious about regional development, it ought to recognize the urgent need to upgrade this vital roadway, which would open up much of the northwest and diversify the economy. Again, I'll be watching with great interest exactly how much money is allocated for the upgrading of the highway system through this area.

In terms of health, Mr. Speaker, I'm also anxious to see what is in store in the budget for people in the north, when the details are spelled out. There are tremendous problems in existence, so we need a tremendous boost in the budget in terms of the delivery of health care in the north.

In Stewart, for instance, they are putting up with a very antiquated hospital system. They've come up with a plan to house just about all the health care functions within the community under one roof, and have applied for funds from this government for the development of that concept. I will be watching with great interest to see whether or not this government is going to respond to these particular needs.

In terms of mental and public health, that is, again, incredibly insufficient. We in the north have had to put up with having one public nurse, but now I gather another is stationed in Stewart. It may sound adequate to people from the south, but they just fail to appreciate the tremendous distance between Stewart and Cassiar. It's actually an eight-hour drive in the best of conditions. So to have one public nurse covering the whole Stewart-Cassiar area is simply unrealistic. Now the government has seen fit to station one in Stewart so that we can free up the one in Cassiar, but the problem is that these public nurses are also fulfilling the function of mental health workers. They are doing a fairly good job under the circumstances. They are being given some kind of training. But I think it's really unfair to the people of the north to have to put up with that kind of slipshod response by this government and to have to ask people who are already overburdened in their own roles to take on another vital function and serve as mental health workers. When this matter comes up in estimates, I'm going to be leaning on the Health minister to at least give us some kind of response as to how they are going to deal with this matter.

The second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Clark), in his response to the budget, talked about the dual economy: the fact that much of the emphasis in terms of economic development is concentrated in the lower mainland and that the rest of British Columbia is suffering as a result of neglect. I think this kind of response to vital social and health needs demonstrates the myopic view of this government.

In every community I have visited with Mr. Morris, the existence of alcohol and substance abuse is just as urgent as it is in the south, and yet we have

[ Page 5957 ]

very little in the way of resources to deal with these problems. I think that this government is being negligent in not dealing with this in a more realistic way.

I want to talk very quickly on native affairs. I've heard much of the rhetoric about this government's newfound interest in developing a better consultative process with the native people, yet their budget does not reflect that kind of commitment. I don't think there is anything here that they can truly boast about, no matter how much they try. But they have a lot of money allocated for fighting land claims in the courts. If this is their way of demonstrating fair and equitable treatment of the native people, I think that's going to fall flat, as it should.

AN HON. MEMBER: Enrich the lawyers.

MR. GUNO: Enrich the lawyers, by all means. Just a cursory examination of the amount of money being spent by governments and by the native people in fighting this matter in court will show just how much of our resources are being spent in a kind of blind, racist intransigence.

[12:00]

I wasn't here yesterday when the leader posed a question to the Premier about the national tax issue. I understand that the Premier said a national tax was only a rumour. Yet at this moment the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) is in Ottawa consulting on such a scheme. Some rumour! We have to ask: do British Columbians have any confidence that the Minister of Finance will recognize the unfairness of a national sales tax? Given the unfairness of his recent budget, I would say that the answer is no.

The Premier of our province, when asked by our leader yesterday, wouldn't do what other provinces are doing — and Alberta and Nova Scotia have done — which is to say no to a national tax now. Just what are the details? What is at issue here? The new national tax, as I understand it, is a second stage of the Tories' tax grab. We've said continually that it's part of a Tory hidden agenda and that there are grounds to stop this tax increase.

On this side of the House we realize there's a vital need to reform the existing sales tax system, particularly in terms of the manufacturers' sales tax. For instance, one-third of goods and services are now hit with the 12 percent manufacturers' tax, and since it applies only to goods made in Canada it gives an unfair advantage to imported goods. We support the reform of federal sales taxes; we just don't want to see the reforms used as an excuse to increase the tax burden on average families, such as in this particular budget that the government is setting down.

In terms of regional unfairness — and again, I go back to the theme of the dual economy of this budget that we're debating — I really feel the government is losing a very real opportunity to address the need for a vibrant northern economy. I think their failure to address this will result in an unevenness of economic growth and give the lie to their claim that they are dealing with regional disparities. I certainly see the results of that kind of myopic view in my own region. In the Nass Valley we still see something like 75 percent unemployment on average throughout the whole year.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Why don't you become part of the solution?

MR. GUNO: We are part of the solution. You're the problem. Listen very carefully and take a look at our sustainable development initiatives. The solution is mainly for us to start addressing the waste and mismanagement of this government.

Anyway, I'm glad to be back in this fantasyland. There's only so much reality you can take going out to the constituency. But as a member who represents a very large part of the north, I will be watching with a great deal of interest as this budget unfolds.

MR. MERCIER: Is this a good budget? You bet it is. We've got people lined up to speak on this budget.

In the time available I'd like to touch on two or three minor matters that are of interest to me, and then I'll close by hammering the federal government for their indicated efforts to move into the sales tax area of taxation.

A minor point which the House might be interested in is the financial reports to the Legislature. The timing of debates and the legislative sittings relative to financial estimates and reports have been of interest to me. It's my opinion that the detailed estimates should be completed and adopted prior to the commencement of a fiscal year. I'd rather see us doing this in January and February, so that we put the budget to bed before the fiscal year starts. At the other end, I believe that the audited financial statements should be tabled before October 31, even if a special legislative session must be called for that purpose; alternatively, that there be a method to release the information to the public on completion of the audited financial statements.

This all relates to the timeliness of release of information. I've discussed the matter with the auditor-general, for example, and it's clear that in every other respect this government is ahead of most regions of Canada in the preparation of their financial statements; they meet and exceed all national standards with respect to content and clarity. If we can move ahead on the timeliness of reporting to what is generally accepted in other parts of our social structure — the corporations, tax filings and all these other things — we can lead the way in the matter of financial reporting to our taxpayers, and I think we can do it without much effort.

On the matter of securities legislation as it relates to the Ministry of Finance and this budget, I'd like to advise people, if they didn't know, that less than 15 percent of our population invests in the securities market. I would like to see us attend to the privatization of certain aspects dealing with securities.

Coupled with that, I would like to see us increase enforcement and penalties for any fraudulent actions by people involved in the securities industry. I would like to lay the responsibility — if we can move to

[ Page 5958 ]

privatize this effort — with the lawyers, accountants, engineers, company directors and promoters. I'd like to see us have the securities industry compensate the victims of fraud. What we have now finds its roots in the Securities and Exchange Commission legislation of the United States. I think it's true that we've been able to prosecute people but we haven't got a way to compensate people who have lost through fraudulent action in the securities market. We have got to improve the channels available for people who might lose on these fraudulent acts so that they can go through a civil action. There could be an indemnity fund set up within the industry.

If people think this is a new idea, it's not. In England the industry has been virtually self-regulated for centuries. In the case of the United States, they've developed a huge bureaucracy. But the bureaucracy hasn't really caught anybody. They're really great at closing the door of the barn after the horse has gone, à la the Ivan Boesky affair.

To have a more positive influence on the securities industry we have to encourage them to manage as much of it as they can themselves. When I first mentioned this, the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota), who must have very limited experience in the industry, didn't understand the difference between the enforcement aspect, which would come under the Attorney-General's office, and the processing of the investment documents, which currently comes under the Ministry of Finance. I would just leave with you that we don't process documents for credit unions, yet we provide a way to guarantee their members. We don't process the documents for travel agencies, yet we have an indemnity fund set up in case that money is lost to their customers. I don't think it would be difficult to transfer the preparation of prospectuses and other investment documents to the industry, and we could police it in an even tougher fashion than we have recently.

Another point I wanted to touch on briefly is our regional programs. I support the idea of regional development, but I want to go on record that I do not believe we can take from one region to the detriment of another. In our province I think it would be divisive. I think our emphasis should be on the attraction of new business.

I also want to record my personal resistance to grants to businesses. I think we must have a very special criterion for the circumstances that may require government assistance, but not a broadly based program. On that same subject, I don't believe that it is proper to play one area of the province against another, or one business against another. If we leave the business community alone, the natural economic forces will ultimately result in the most efficient development of our resources.

I believe that we can have a coordinating function and a voice for a region. I believe in our program for greater use of provincial agents; I think it's an excellent idea. But I don't want to add a layer of bureaucracy nor add any overhead to our operation. And I certainly don't think we should diminish the important role of the individual MLA.

I would like to take a minute now to pay a tribute to the former Premier, Bill Bennett, who I think laid the groundwork for the recovery of the financial condition of this province.

I would also like to say that it was very courageous of our Premier to lead us in a drive to have a balanced budget. One of the reasons I ran in 1986 was that I knew the Premier's personal view on the fiscal responsibility of government and shared it with him. I support him and congratulate him on this drive to this balanced budget.

Because I am a chartered accountant, some people ask me in the street: "What is this budget stabilization fund?" I've got a very simple answer, and I hope the members of the opposition are listening, because it's probably the simplest way they'll every hear it explained. The contingency fund is roughly between 5 percent and 10 percent of our annual expenditures. If anyone can tell me of any business operation or any non-profit society operation that doesn't believe it should have a reserve, then I can tell them they're financially irresponsible.

We have created this fund. It may move a little bit, but it should always be retained in the range of 5 to 10 percent of our annual expenditures. I think the members of the opposition, if they understand that, will be very supportive of the stabilization fund.

I have other questions about the budget. They say we're still in debt. When our government came into office, we were having trouble paying the grocery bill. Let me assure you that we now pay our grocery bill as it falls due, and on a current basis, we are debt-free. We do have debt, but the debt is just like a house mortgage. You're not expected to pay it off each year; you are expected to pay something towards it each year.

I think the public, if it really understood what they're doing here.... Yes, there's debt, but it's longterm debt. In our Crown corporations and our other operations, we have long-term debt related to fixed assets that we have built. But we are debt-free on our current operating account, and that's a real tribute to this government.

[12:15]

I have a few more things to say about our ministries. Imagine, the Health ministry increased its budget $400 million, to $4.3 billion, and it makes up one-third of the total expenditure of this government. Hospital programs total $2.1 billion. Physicians and other health practitioners receive $1.2 billion. I want it to be on the record that I support increases to nurses and doctors that would be sufficient for them to maintain their well-deserved stature and economic standing in our community. I want also to say that good financial management enables us to maintain and expand the finest and most affordable health system in the world.

With respect to education, there's $1 billion for Advanced Education and Job Training and $2.2 billion for Education. I always compliment our Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet), because he's regaining some lost ground and forging ahead, breaking new ground. He has the confidence of virtually

[ Page 5959 ]

every school board in this province. Everywhere I go I hear good things about the progress made by the Minister of Education. There was a time when restraint was necessary. We've come out of that, and we have a minister who's progressive. He knows what he's doing, and he's building a better and better education system.

Imagine, an 11.5 percent increase, to $1.6 billion, to Social Services and Housing. I think the emphasis on that is important. We're concentrating on reducing the negative effect of alcohol and drugs on our society and family structure. I think that is the only long-term goal that will satisfactorily address social problems.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

With respect to the environment, we're emphasizing a cooperative effort. You will see environmental budget allocations throughout different ministries in this budget. The main drive is that we have sensible development. There are less than 15 producing mines in this province. The mining community does a tremendous job and provides tremendous payrolls, and we have to accommodate its quest for mineral resources in every way we can, to help pay for the social programs we need so much.

There is an element of truth in criticisms regarding the environment, but I think the reality is that we're in a transition period to higher standards. We are leading the way in so many areas of environmental controls and improvements. The only criticism is that we may not be moving as fast as some people want; but we're certainly moving a lot faster than most other developed nations in the world.

In closing, I'd like to say that our budget is fine on its own. There are some external forces that could affect us negatively. We live subject to world markets for our raw resources. We can't guarantee that the price of copper next year will be what it is this year. When the critics say that the revenue side of our budget might not be fully provable, we can only say that we're confident about the future and about prices. We have a stabilization fund just in case copper prices or timber and lumber prices fall, and just in case some of our revenues don't stay at the levels they are at now. That's just good planning.

What we can't control is what the federal government is doing to this country. Prime Minister Mulroney recently said the federal government is financially irresponsible, mainly because the interest on its debt eats up over 30 percent of its income. Nobody can live when they owe that much to the finance company. The federal deficit is a serious problem, but I have a feeling — this is my own view — that the federal politicians are what's really dangerous to this country's welfare.

Federal politicians, when they sit in Ottawa, must get too far away from what's really happening. They really believe they're doing a good job. They revel in making promises with our money, but what's happening is they are killing us with their kindness, and we can't afford it.

I like to break this country down simplistically into taxpayers and tax users. All we are is the arbitrator: we take the money off the taxpayers, we give it to the tax users. For the people who are taxpayers, I think we can say they have just about had enough, because they are working eight months of the year for some tax collector.

I think the federal sales tax proposal is absolutely crazy; I think it is irresponsible. I say to the federal politicians that this is not England. England doesn't have a provincial structure underneath its federal structure. This is certainly not New Zealand. New Zealand is trying to bail itself out with every means possible, and they are taxing the butt off every one of their citizens. I'll guarantee you the government there is going to lose its next election, and all over the federal sales tax they have put in.

We cannot let — and I agree with the member for Atlin (Mr. Guno) — the federal government, under the guise of restructuring its manufacturing tax, which is a 12 percent rate that my company pays and other manufacturing companies pay, make the biggest tax grab that has happened in our lifetime, and I'll be 50 this year. It is a transition they are trying to pull, and we can't let it happen.

I hope that our Minister of Finance — and he can't tell you what he is talking about until he gets back — is putting a strong case for that in Ottawa right now. I would personally challenge the constitutionality of such a tax. I think it violates the intention of our historical tax regime, and I think it is inflationary. Nobody has thought of that: if you add that percentage on to every little bill from every little shop, it's inflationary in another way.

In closing, I think that the federal government has to look unto themselves. The budget our provincial government has presented is proof that B.C. has done its part.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I am extremely proud and happy to stand in my place and close the debate. All British Columbians in every corner of this beautiful province can be truly proud, justifiably proud, of the fiscal responsibility, the good fiscal management and the enviable fiscal position of their government.

We have managed the taxpayers' dollars in a manner that is consistent with responsible government. When our government assumed office, we had an operating deficit of $1.2 billion. Today we can proudly say that we have a balanced budget. Besides having a balanced budget, we still have $1 billion plus in a rainy-day account — our investment in the future. We're setting aside money for our greatest resource: the people we represent.

Mr. Speaker, by having a rainy-day account, we can assure our children and our children's children that they too will have a future in our province. And when a downturn comes, we'll not be required to lay off people or cut back programs. Instead, we can help generate more activity in the economy to keep people employed and keep our programs in place. Our financial house is in order.

[ Page 5960 ]

Governments across the country are going deeper and deeper into debt. In order to service that debt, they have to borrow money at high interest rates. That money would be better used to create new business or to expand existing business; that money could be better used to ensure that there is plenty of activity in the economy to provide for a better future, to provide job opportunities for our people, to keep down the interest rates for those seeking a mortgage, and to ensure that small business can continue to operate and not be pounced upon by the banks. It would serve all governments well if they took a lesson from our province, to eliminate their operating deficit — something that we've done, but we've gone a step further and we've also reduced our accumulated debt. Unlike the members opposite, we don't want to leave the bills for future generations to pay. Unlike the members opposite, we don't want to saddle our children or our children's children with a big mortgage, with a big ongoing debt.

The opposition takes great comfort in always telling the government that it has to spend more. I've listened to all of the members opposite speak, and in each and every program they want more money spent. They can find more ways of adding to the debt. Maybe it's time the opposition told British Columbians just exactly how much they would spend and where they would get the money.

In British Columbia we've added almost a billion dollars to the health care budget since we became government. It's a health care system that's the best in the country. How much more would the opposition have us spend? Would you say a billion dollars more? Or maybe $500 million more? We'll settle perhaps for $500 million; we haven't heard the figures' but we've certainly heard a great deal said that means more money.

Over the last three budgets, our government has increased education funding by over $700 million. How much more would the members of the opposition have us spend? The member for New Westminster (Ms. A. Hagen) said that we should be spending more to implement the recommendations of the Sullivan royal commission and spending more on education generally. How much more, members across the way, would you suggest? How much more would the socialist NDP spend — $400 million?

There's the member from Point Grey, who said there is no room for two educational systems in this province. She wants to get rid of the independent system of education, not only denying people a choice but also adding further to the already high cost of education. How much more would that be — $100 million?

We have an excellent student assistance program, but the member for Burnaby North (Mr. Jones) wants us to spend more on student assistance. How much more — $50 million more? We didn't get the figure, but we can assume perhaps $50 million.

The member for Point Grey said there should be an increase of 30 percent in university funding, and there is a cost well in excess of $100 million.

We're spending more than a billion dollars on transportation in this province this year, but we've heard from the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) that there ought to be more. How much more — $300 million more?

[12:30]

We're spending more money on social services than ever before, even though the number of people needing assistance has been declining. We've heard it said they want to spend more — a universal lunch program, higher welfare, more people dependent on welfare. How much more money does the NDP want to spend?

British Columbia has the second-lowest personal income tax rate in Canada. Would the opposition have British Columbians pay the highest rate in Canada? British Columbia has the second-lowest rate of corporate income tax in Canada. How much would they have us raise those rates — to be the highest in Canada? We have the second-lowest sales tax rate in Canada. Would they have the highest sales tax rate in Canada?

Would they pull another NDP-Manitoba approach and see us highest in taxes across the board? Would the opposition increase the sales tax to meet their spending promise? We could go down every budgetary item and find that the opposition wants to spend more and more. Spend, spend, spend! That's the opposition, the NDP socialists. These so-called new converts to the free market system still don't understand that if governments spend more money, they have to take more money out of the pockets of working British Columbians.

We won't mention much the Leader of the Opposition. I forget his name. I forget what he looks like. He's hardly ever here. In Kamloops about six months ago that Leader of the Opposition, whom we see occasionally, from time to time, said that the provincial treasury needs an extra $3 billion to bring provincial services up to snuff.

Mr. Speaker, we say no to the reckless spending of the opposition. We don't want working British Columbians to have their paycheques robbed. British Columbians don't want the NDP to dip deeper and deeper into their pockets. If the opposition had to finance their wild promises, instead of having a balanced budget and a billion dollars in a rainy-day account, this province — if the opposition had their way — would likely have a deficit of $2 billion, no rainy-day account and a sales tax more in the order of 10 percent. That's the reckless spending of the NDP socialist opposition. The opposition would give us higher business taxes, higher personal taxes and fewer jobs, and working British Columbians would not have as much money as they have today.

The only way the opposition can finance its free spending programs is by increased public debt and increased taxes. Every British Columbian would be the loser, and the economy would be destroyed. The opposition wants to take us down an economic path of higher debt, higher taxes and a lower standard of living. We on this side of the House say no, no, no! British Columbians don't want to go down that path.

[ Page 5961 ]

That's why they have supported a strong, prudent government for nearly 40 years, and they'll continue to do so.

They're wasteful; they're extravagant. Their spending habits are out of step. Once again, they're out of step with British Columbians. The NDP continues to find themselves the prisoners of the past. When British Columbians demand responsible management of their tax dollars, the NDP once again finds itself on the wrong side of history. British Columbians can't afford the NDP. It's a party that will be forever relegated to the opposition, and so they must be.

As has already been said a number of times, the increasing amount of government debt in this country is a threat to Canada's future. But in British Columbia we have tackled public enemy number one. The NDP finance critic was interviewed last week and asked whether he thought reducing the accumulated debt and the annual debt-servicing charges is a priority." He replied: "It's not a priority at this point." When it is generally agreed that the growing mountain of government debt is a threat to our future, the opposition still wants to pile on more and more debt.

An analysis of our budget by Pemberton Securities says:

"The citizens of British Columbia are now in the enviable position of seeing the fruits of past fiscal responsibility by the provincial government. At a time when the federal budget and virtually all other provincial budgets will increase taxes and/or reduce services, the B.C. budget is balanced and reduces government debt, and for some taxpayers there's even a slight tax cut. This is a good budget for all British Columbians. It will become increasingly recognized as such as we see the other provincial budgets and the federal budget."

All British Columbians have reason to be proud of the enviable position their province finds itself in in relation to governments elsewhere in this country. It is their hard work, their sacrifice and dedication to purpose that has made it all possible. This budget allows British Columbians to prepare themselves better than anyone else in Canada for the opportunities and challenges that await us in the decade ahead.

We have shown vision. We have shown foresight. We have shown courage and sensitivity. We, better than any government anywhere, are providing for those in our society who are less fortunate than ourselves. We live in a beautiful province, a province of which we should all be extremely proud.

I hope each day that those who listen and follow the debates here will not be affected by the negativeness that we continually hear from across the floor. We hope, Mr. Speaker, that British Columbians will be positive about our great province and about the tremendous challenges and opportunities available here. But if, like governments elsewhere in the country, we do not get control of the budget, as we've done here, the future for our children and our children's children will not be as it was for us and as they deserve. We owe it our children; we owe it to our children's children.

This government has been responsible, and this government has shown once again that we are a government for the future.

[12:45]

MR. SPEAKER: Pursuant to standing orders, I'll put the motion. The motion is that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the House to go into Committee of Supply.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS - 30

NAYS - 15

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, I failed to hear the name Harcourt read out.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. That is not a point of order.

HON. MR. PARKER: Yesterday I took on notice several questions from the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) and the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf), and I am satisfied that I now have the information to properly address the matter. I now table my written answers to questions I took on notice.

Hon. Mr. Ree tabled the annual report for the British Columbia Police Commission for the fiscal year 1987-88, pursuant to provisions of section 10 of the Police Act.

MR. ROSE: I was going to ask the Solicitor General when he expects the annual report of the B.C. Racing Commission. There hasn't been one for four years, to my knowledge. Can he tell us when that might come down?

MR. SPEAKER: The member can talk to him outside the House about that.

[ Page 5962 ]

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I would remind all members that we sit on Monday at the prescribed time. We will proceed to Committee of Supply and assorted bills. Having said that, I wish everyone a very pleasant weekend. I hope they enjoy themselves in the fine weather.

Hon. Mr. Richmond moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:49 p.m.