[ Page 9063 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Tabling Documents –– 9063

Ministerial Statement

Earth Day. Hon. Mr. Reynolds –– 9063

Mr. Cashore

Proclamation

Earth Day. Hon. Mr. Dirks –– 9064

Private Members' Statements

Tourism and the E&N Railway. Mr. Lovick –– 9064

Mr. Huberts

Services for diabetics. Mrs. McCarthy –– 9066

Mr. Perry

Budget Debate

Mr. Clark –– 9067

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, each year in Victoria about this time a marvelous event takes place called the International Jazz Festival. It was kicked off last night in great style, and everyone had a great time. I would urge everyone who is going to be in this city over the next three or four days to take in some of the jazz at the many venues.

Visiting us in the gallery today is one of the participants in the jazz festival, the great entertainer Igor Glenn, from Igor's Cowboy Jazz Band. He is here with his wife Barbara and their friends Ian and Vicky MacPherson, all from Phoenix, Arizona. I would like the House to make them most welcome.

Hon. Mr. Jacobsen tabled the following documents: the Industrial Relations Council annual report for 1989; the liquor distribution branch financial statements for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1989; the liquor distribution branch sixty-eighth annual report; the Workers' Compensation Board of British Columbia 1989 annual report; the Workers' Compensation Board statistics for 1989; and the Ministry of Labour and Consumer Services annual report for 1989.

Ministerial Statement

EARTH DAY

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I rise today to speak about British Columbia's participation in Earth Day, one of the most important environmental events of this decade. In April 1970, 20 million North Americans joined in the first Earth Day celebration. In the 20 years since then, Earth Day has grown to the point where this April 22 we expect participation by over 120 countries and half a billion people around the globe.

In British Columbia public enthusiasm for Earth Day has been sharpened by the outstanding success of Globe '90, and by plans for Globe '92, also to be held in Vancouver. Communities across the province have organized Earth Day activities to increase public involvement in recycling, anti-litter initiatives, and fish and wildlife protection and enhancement.

Here is just a sampling of what is happening around the province. In Victoria there will be a fossil-fuel-free parade, which will feature electric and generator cars and wind- and human-powered vehicles. In Vancouver an eco-festival will be planned in conjunction with the April 21 Walk for Peace and Planetary Survival. In Prince George over 10,000 trees will be planted at the first annual tree festival.

In this province Earth Day has a special significance. We have a great abundance and diversity of fish and wildlife — more than most areas of the continent. Our resource-based economy depends upon a sustainable environment for continued economic well-being. In essence, the people of this province are predisposed to participating in an event which focuses on global action through local environmental protection initiatives.

In British Columbia we have a healthy head start on solving current environmental problems and meeting the challenge of ensuring environmental and economic sustainability in the nineties and beyond. The government is committed to reducing solid waste streams by 50 percent by the year 2000, through recycling, waste reduction and recovery of energy from wastes. We are committed to government use of recycled paper and re-refined oil wherever possible and to encouraging major corporations to do likewise.

We have endorsed the national packaging protocol of the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment for reducing packaging by 50 percent by the year 2000, with an interim 1992 target of a 20 percent reduction in 1988 packaging levels. We have called for a sustainable reduction of discharges of chlorinated organics from pulp and paper production, as well as other significant measures to preserve the health of our environment by reducing industrial pollution.

It is in this climate of commitment to change that Earth Day will take place this year. I urge all members of this House to join with their constituents in this important celebration, to express our commitment to environmental sustainability in British Columbia. I suggest we in this House act in the spirit of the motion tabled last week by my colleague the member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Ree). That motion calls on all British Columbians to make at least one environmentally friendly change in their lives in recognition of Earth Day 1990.

MR. CASHORE: I'd like to thank the minister for providing me with a copy of his statement, and I would like to thank the government for proclaiming Earth Day. I think this is a very important move, and certainly one that we support.

When it comes to the proclamation of Earth Day, what we have to realize is that this is a day of reflection when we have to look very carefully at what we have done, how it has worked, what we have not done, and how we're going to change. I think some of those sentiments are certainly contained in the minister's statement.

However, we think of where the political will really is as we approach these issues. For instance, the federal government put at least $3 million into Globe '90. I believe that, although the provincial government was late getting involved in Globe '90, it put some money in too. I'm not exactly sure how much, but I think it was less than half a million dollars.

Contrast that to Earth Day. There's been no announcement of funding being made available to the environmental movement, which has provided British Columbia with so much excellent leadership, research and dedication. Surely, if we're going to be

[ Page 9064 ]

putting money into efforts that look towards a techno fix when we're dealing with environmental issues, we also have to recognize the grass-roots movements — the people of organizations such as the Wilderness Committee, Sierra Club, Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and many others that are also a very significant part of the solution to the problem. So when we're talking of getting on board with Earth Day, we have to really take a look at the essence of what the meaning of Earth Day is and find ways to truly participate in that.

We all recognize that all of us in British Columbia have a long way to go in terms of doing what is right for the environment and protecting the environment. But putting out papers like this at the taxpayers' expense to try to promote the Minister of Environment and justify what is being done — attempts to use the taxpayers' own money to convince them that the government is doing a good job — is not really an appropriate way to put financial resources into protecting the environment. Protecting the environment by public relations isn't going to work anymore in this province. It's going to require something of far greater substance than that.

We say that this is a time for the government to become involved In some sober reflection with regard to its own activities regarding the environment, so that there can truly be some effective changes.

HON. MR. DIRKS: Mr. Speaker, I rise to read into the record a proclamation.

"Elizabeth II, by the grace of God, of the United Kingdom, Canada and her other realms and territories, Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith, to all whom these presents shall come, greeting.

"Whereas the maintenance of land, air, water and healthy ecosystems are essential to quality of life; and whereas the environment is a global concern, demanding a commitment from all residents of our planet, regardless of international and other boundaries; and whereas British Columbians share an exceptional environmental heritage and a responsibility to maintain it for the enjoyment of future generations; and whereas the province of British Columbia is committed to a process of sustainable development through which all sectors of society may participate in environmental stewardship; and whereas Earth Day provides a focus for awareness, understanding and communication of worldwide environmental concerns; and whereas Earth Day activities provide opportunities for individuals and communities to demonstrate their concern for their environment through constructive action; and whereas our Lieutenant-Governor, by and with the advice and consent of the executive council, has been pleased to direct by order-in-council in that behalf that a proclamation be issued designating Sunday, April 22, 1990, as Earth Day in the province of British Columbia; now know ye that we do, by these presents, proclaim and declare that Sunday, April 22, 1990, shall be known as Earth Day in the province of British Columbia."

MR. SPEAKER: Perhaps in the future we could table these documents.

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Statements

TOURISM AND THE E&N RAILWAY

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour today to deliver a statement on behalf of my colleague the opposition critic for tourism. She unfortunately is unable to be with us today. She has a prior commitment that I think all of us in this chamber will recognize the validity of. She's speaking to a graduation ceremony for a job re-entry program concerning immigrant women. This commitment was made some six months ago. I think we ought to remember that women MLAs do indeed represent — and dare I say, are an inspiration for — women in the community in terms of what can be achieved. Therefore, for my colleague the second member for Nanaimo (Ms. Pullinger) to be there is excusable and important, and none of us have difficulty with that.

[10:15]

My pleasure is to offer this statement, and I have some connection with the statement. We're talking about the Esquimalt and Nanaimo Railway, tourism and the unfulfilled potential. I address this issue with some alacrity simply because I am the transportation critic for the opposition caucus. The statement, if I had to title it, Mr. Speaker, would be headed "Tourism and the E&N Railway: It's Time for the Government to Get on Board."

I want to talk about missed opportunities; I want to talk about unrealized potential. How interesting that we should be talking about the missed opportunities and unrealized potential of the E&N Railway in 1990, because it was about 105 years ago that the E&N was established, and all the talk at the time was about the potential. It was about bringing B.C. into Confederation in a meaningful way; this railroad would complete the settlement, and all of us would be happy and prosperous thereafter.

At that time, tourism as a concept was virtually unheard of, of course. Today tourism is a $3.5 billion industry. It is indeed the second-largest industry in the province. Moreover, it is projected that by the year 2000, tourism will triple in size to become the largest industry in the province. How ironic and how sad to note, as my colleague the second member for Nanaimo did yesterday, that it wasn't even mentioned in the budget. We're talking, then, about unrealized potential.

Tourism is an industry that is diverse and is by its very nature fragmented — that is, scattered. Surely if there were an industry in which a role for government is obvious, it is tourism. Tourism is a promoter of regional development. It's an industry that fosters local community development. It is a means to achieve economic diversification. Surely there is a role for government to assist, to coordinate, to direct and, above all else perhaps, to create a framework that will ensure the various pieces and parts of the industry are indeed complementary rather than competitive and thereby counterproductive. It's an enor-

[ Page 9065 ]

mous potential largely unfulfilled, and the E&N is a classic case in point.

The E&N has a marvelous potential. Anybody who pauses to reflect even for a moment would agree with that. What makes it even more exciting and makes the potential even more recognizable is that what we can do with the E&N will cost us so very little money, just because the people of this province, as we know, have already paid — and paid handsomely — for that particular railroad.

I won't go into great detail about the history of the E&N; we all know it too well. It's a story of greed; it's a story of payoff; it's a story of friends in high places. Remember just one illustration of that: in 1905, when the assets of the Esquimalt and Nanaimo Railway were transferred to the CPR, the main beneficiary was a guy called Robert Dunsmuir, who was a member of the executive council of the province of British Columbia — a member of the cabinet. One is tempted to say, Mr. Speaker, that some things in B.C. never change; however, I will resist that temptation.

It's time this railway was used in the interests of the people who paid for it. To use the E&N as it should be used will require some political will. We do not want just the status quo. We know that the status quo was unacceptable; indeed, everybody who has looked at the E&N knows that the deck is, as it were, stacked against the profitable and successful operation of that railway.

Surely the time has come to look at a vision that is forward-looking; to talk about expanding and improving the service in the way that my colleagues and I from Vancouver Island illustrated some months ago in a press conference; but also to look at the future and to talk about things like a steam train, ski trains and train trips that connect with other modes like the MV Lady Rose going up the Alberni Canal and the Inside Passage tour. There are so many things we can do that we aren't. Transportation and tourism, as we know, are partners; there's no way one can function without the other.

Trains are not an old technology. They are not a passé or obsolete technology. Rather, they are a technology of the future — if the government has the wisdom and the vision to seize the opportunity. I hope the government of British Columbia, instead of being content with merely talking about the status quo and saying let us maintain the E&N, will decide that it has become time to get on board. Let's make the E&N the wonderful tourist attraction that it can be.

MR. HUBERTS: Mr. Speaker, it's certainly a great opportunity for me to respond to the private member's statement.

This government is committed to tourism development. As the House knows, we're committed to major upgrading and improvement of our transportation structure to help bring this about. That was made clear in yesterday's budget. If B.C. is to gain maximum benefits in tourism, we have to be able to move visitors quickly and efficiently.

Our approach to transportation is obviously vastly different from that of the federal government. It was this government — the government of British Columbia — that acted to save and keep the E&N open when Ottawa wanted to shut it down, as it was doing with all the other rail services. I recall that when I was Minister of State for Vancouver Island, we sent two strong letters to the Minister of Transport in Ottawa, to make sure the E&N would be kept open. That was followed up by our Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith), and that is why, today, the E&N is still running.

The federal attitude towards rail service was best summed up by Transport minister Doug Lewis, here in Victoria, just Wednesday. Lewis said the cuts to Via have made its passenger system more efficient. That is certainly arguable. Even worse, he went on to say that the cuts have now become a non-issue. Do you know what else he said? Lewis, the man in charge of Canada's national transportation system, said: "People love to wave at trains, not travel on them." That's a pretty sad statement for a leader in Canada.

The fact is that Ottawa had no interest in enhancing the E&N service to make it a visitor attraction or to increase traffic between the lower and the upper Island. The future of the E&N lies with the Supreme Court of Canada, and that may take some time. If we hadn't taken legal action, that line would be closed today. A properly run train service is a tourist attraction and makes economic sense.

A private sector company will soon be operating the former Via Rail passenger service between Vancouver and Banff, and you can bet they'll increase rider ship and tourist benefits. As a matter of fact, several hundred delegates to the Pacific Asia Travel Association conference, which opens in Vancouver on Sunday, will arrive aboard the Rocky Mountaineer. These delegates from around the Pacific Rim will pass the word about that service, and my bet is that under the private sector the service will flourish and prosper.

There has been much discussion about the E&N Railway. Should it be part of B.C. Rail? Should it be privatized? Should it be a joint venture? One thing is for sure: if the E&N was in the private sector, the service would be a lot better and much more people and service-oriented.

If the court decision reaffirms that the federal government must continue to operate the E&N, it seems to me that pressure should be brought on Ottawa to make the E&N service a truly meaningful passenger service. They could do an awful lot in the way of making this run a special event that would produce revenue and enhance tourism opportunities. I for one hope they finally see the light.

MR. LOVICK: I hadn't planned on kicking the government around at all, but when I listen to the comments from the member opposite, which are clearly a prepared statement, I must respond.

How members on that side of the House have the temerity to talk about what Ottawa is doing to them, and why they aren't getting a better deal, after you

[ Page 9066 ]

kicked them around the way you do, amazes me. Do you really believe that the treatment you accord those people is going to mean they will suddenly be more generous toward you?

To suggest for a moment that it was your initiative that saved the E&N is ludicrous in the extreme. Your initiative came after my colleagues and I, the New Democrat members of the Legislature on this side of the House, issued a press conference and forced your hand; and after, moreover, some 30,000 petitions from citizens of Vancouver Island, initiated by New Democrats in Ottawa, were sent in. You folks were the last-minute arrivals on the train; let's not forget that.

Moreover, how interesting that the former minister — who still lives with fond memories of another life he had — will talk with pride about the transportation infrastructure in this province. The studies that were completed by this government's initiatives pointed out that the transportation infrastructure in this province is falling apart. It's a disaster. Let's acknowledge that little fact. We all want to save the E&N, but we sure don't want to fall into the trap of saving the status quo. That would be the worst mistake. The time has come to look forward to some possibilities for new directions for that railroad.

Sadly and ironically, in the whole five-minute prepared statement by the member opposite, we didn't hear of a single initiative taken by that government to do something to make that service better. As I said in the beginning, the tourism potential of the E&N Railway is wonderful. It's time for this government to get on board.

MR. SPEAKER: The House should be advised that prior to the first private member's statement there was an agreement between the House Leaders that a change would be made in our standing orders to allow a member to make a statement on behalf of another member who is unable to be here. Just to clarify that, it would normally have required the Chair to ask for unanimous consent.

SERVICES FOR DIABETICS

MRS. McCARTHY: In introducing this subject today, I am pleased to introduce Mrs. Diane Brown, who is in our gallery. She is the Island regional director of the B.C. division of the Canadian Diabetes Association.

I've always appreciated that, although there are strong philosophical differences in this House which often divide us, we are a unique group of 69 members who have been elected by the full electorate of British Columbia. We have a common bond of public service and commitment to our community. This week was an excellent example, when 25 members from both the government side and the opposition benches united to bring a greater awareness to people of the incidence of diabetes in British Columbia. I want to thank those members of the Legislature who have taken part in the "Give It Your Best Shot, MLAs" campaign.

I just want to tell the House, for Hansard to record, that what they are undertaking is a daily routine, as if they were diabetic: testing their blood sugar and going on a special diabetic diet. We should thank our legislative dining room for producing a diabetic menu selection. Norris Pettersson, our legislative dining room manager, has done a wonderful job in that.

[10:30]

Members are also asked to inject a teddy bear — thankfully not themselves — with insulin twice daily, as if they were suffering from diabetes.

We all know why we're doing this: we're being pseudo-diabetics for four days to bring to the attention of as many people as possible what diabetes is, how to care for it and how it can be controlled. Awareness of diabetes is very important if we're going to have the research and moneys that will one day find a real cure.

Those of us who are involved in this program can now realize what the life of a diabetic is filled with: self-discipline; allowing extra time each and every day for the injections; costs on an annual basis which are not covered by Pharmacare; and above all, the emotional trauma, a cost in family and business that is very great.

We who are just trying the regimen for four days will get together to exchange our experiences next Tuesday at lunch. With the exception of a couple of MLAs who are diabetic, we'll then all be able to walk away and go about our daily routine. We'll be able to have absolutely no intervention in our time or our itinerary for injections, blood tests, a special diet, etc.

Mr. Speaker, 5 percent of the population has, or will develop, diabetes. That's one in 20. There are two types. Type 1 diabetics are insulin dependent, usually diagnosed during childhood or adolescence; 10 to 15 percent of the diabetic population have type 1. Type 2 diabetics are non-insulin dependent; type 2 usually strikes people over 40. The complications of diabetes include blindness and eye damage, kidney damage and failure, heart attacks, strokes, and limb damage or loss, because diabetes affects the body's circulation and nerves. Diabetics rely heavily on self-care in conjunction with a team of health professionals, including the physician and dietitian.

Insulin and oral medication are a control for diabetes, not a cure. There is no cure. Diabetes management involves following a meal plan, medication, blood glucose monitoring, exercise, education, and learning to cope physically and emotionally. Regular self-blood-glucose-monitoring and good control of blood sugar are believed to delay the onset of diabetic complications.

Mr. Speaker, insulin was discovered by Charles Best and Frederick Banting in 1921 in Toronto. It was first used in 1922. In 1923, a dedicated British Columbian — a friend of mine, Ray Sheward — attended Dr. Best's clinic in Toronto. He was five years old at the time. He tells me he is the only man in the world who has taken the original treatment and is still living today. I'd like to share with the House a little of Ray Sheward's life.

[ Page 9067 ]

For over 20 years he was on the Mount St. Joseph Hospital board. He's been a member of the International Lions Club for 34 years and has raised untold numbers of dollars for handicapped children, senior citizens, housing and many other good causes.

There are a lot of Ray Shewards out there in British Columbia today. Some of them are very young, as Ray was when he started the insulin treatment, and as is a young lady in our gallery today, who will be introduced by the second member for Vancouver–Point Grey when he follows my remarks.

We have an obligation to those young people and to those not so young who are suffering from diabetes. The cost for each diabetic patient, over and above what Pharmacare and our medical plan already provides, is an average $1,000 annually. I am pleased that my discussions with the Minister of Health (Hon. J Jansen) have resulted in a commitment from the minister to look into alleviating the costs of the diabetic and to look at research for diabetes in our province.

Regular monitoring keeps the risk of complication down, and it is in our self-interest in this province to put out the money that is now being spent on an individual basis, so that we can be sure that the other, more high-cost dollars will not be borne by the people of British Columbia.

MR. PERRY: I thank the first member for Vancouver–Little Mountain for offering the opportunity to share this statement.

We have with us in the gallery Elizabeth Pungente and her mother Debbie from Sooke, B.C. Elizabeth is 11 years old and has been paired with me for the last few days to advise me personally on the modern management of diabetes. I had a few special lessons from her this morning. Whereas I and many other MLAs have been trying to follow a diabetic diet and monitor our blood sugar for two days so far, Elizabeth has been doing this, of necessity, for four years. Breakfasting with her this morning, I could only admire her vivacious energy and her determination to ensure that diabetes does not prevent her from living a full and fulfilling life.

It wasn't always so for diabetics, Mr. Speaker. At breakfast I told Elizabeth a little bit about another extraordinary and historic diabetic I've met — Mrs. Muriel Hamilton of Vancouver. She was in the terminal stages of juvenile diabetes in the winter of 1923-1924, when Dr. R. E. Coleman and the nurses of Vancouver General Hospital saved her life. Mrs. Hamilton was saved by insulin carried by a small airplane over the Rockies from Edmonton, where it had been purified by Dr. Collip, one of the original team at the University of Toronto that ultimately shared the Nobel prize.

Muriel Hamilton was one of the first four diabetics treated with insulin in British Columbia. She and her parents were way ahead of their time. She learned to self-manage her diabetes in the 1920s, long before this became the accepted medical dogma in the 1970s. She has lived a long and a fruitful life, spending only a rare day in hospital in consequence. I believe she went approximately 50 to 60 years without a single day in hospital, until very recently.

There is a lesson to be learned from these two people, and from the Canadian Diabetes Association's experiment in consciousness-raising for members of this Legislature. We can relearn from them the old lesson that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. This week I hope we have all gained fresh understanding that living with diabetes is not easy. We have all, I hope, understood more clearly the lifelong financial burdens visited by diabetes on patients.

I know from experience as a physician that there are many diabetics in this province who, by virtue of their education, financial circumstances, geographic origin or even racial origin as native people, are unable to practise optimal self-management of this condition.

I hope this will lead to a renewed commitment to develop programs to ensure that British Columbia becomes a world model for the integrated management of diabetes in all our affected citizens.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. members. The Chair would like to take the opportunity to thank the next two members who would normally have made members' statements at this time, and explain that we have booked satellite time for the televising of the reply to the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations' (Hon. Mr. Couvelier's) statement. Only a certain amount of time was booked and it is, incidentally, expensive to the chamber. So if both of those members will accept the apologies of the Chair and the thanks of the Chair, you will be first on next week's agenda for private members' statements.

Budget Debate 
(continued)

MR. CLARK: When is a deficit not a deficit, Mr. Speaker? When is a balanced budget completely unbalanced? During the course of my address this morning, I'll try to answer those questions. I will deal with those questions because the government of British Columbia is trying to mislead the public about the true state of the province's finances. I welcome this as an opportunity to shed some light on the deceptive bookkeeping of the party opposite and to offer some fresh alternatives for this province.

Budgets are crucial in our parliamentary democracy because they represent the government's economic blueprint, its chance to influence the basic economic and social direction of the province. But for budgets to be effective, they must be honest. The credibility of the government's budget is crucial not only for government planning but also for prudent decision-making in the private sector. That's why the deception in yesterday's effort is so serious and why the alternatives I will offer are so necessary as British Columbians prepare to sweep the Social Credit Party from the government of this province.

[ Page 9068 ]

During the last year I have met with many British Columbians. They want an effective housing program; they want a fair tax system; they want equity for women; they want a quality education system and a quality health care system; above all, they want a budget that is honest and a government that is honest. As I have noted, this budget is a dishonest budget. The government tells us this is a balanced budget; yet, as I said yesterday, the budget figures show a deficit. The government is planning to spend $684 million more than it will be taking in during the coming fiscal year. That, by any definition, is a deficit of $684 million.

The government tells us it is reducing debt; yet the budget shows an increase in total direct and guaranteed debt from $16.3 billion to $16.9 billion — hardly reducing debt in British Columbia. The government tells us it is committed to the environment; yet the most recent information available shows that it allows every pulp mill in British Columbia to operate in contravention of its waste permits. The government tells us it is committed to affordable housing; yet the government introduces no new housing programs in this budget. Vancouver has just recently surpassed Toronto as the least affordable city in Canada. The least affordable city in Canada is now Vancouver.

The government tells us that it is committed to helping women. It will not even provide the minimal core funding necessary to keep women's centres open in British Columbia. The government tells us it is committed to pay equity; yet there is no provision in the budget for pay equity. The government tells us it is committed to education; yet it continues to provide among the lowest per capita spending on education in Canada. The government says it's committed to reforestation; yet the budget shows a planned decrease from $240 million in this fiscal year to $170 million in future years.

Mr. Speaker, this is a dishonest budget from a tired government. British Columbians are looking for honesty in government. They are looking for a government they can trust to bring tax fairness. They are looking for a government they can trust to achieve equity for women. They are looking for a government they can trust to reflect the social and economic priorities for the 1990s. That is why they have lost confidence in this government — a tired government that tells us the books are balanced when there's a deficit; a government that tells us it's committed to the environment, to women, to affordable housing, to quality education and to health care. In reality it is committed to nothing less than helping its friends and insiders at the expense of the public interest.

New Democrats are committed to tax fairness. As I said yesterday, we will, in our first budget, reduce the tax burden for all middle- and lower-income British Columbians. New Democrats are committed to the environment. We will enforce environmental laws and implement innovative programs, such as green taxes to tax pollution — instead of people, as this government does. We will introduce pay equity for women, and we will provide affordable housing, quality education and health care, while at the same time achieving a balanced budget over the economic cycle. As I said yesterday, above all, we will restore honesty to government.

[10:45]

Let us look at this government's record on fairness. Since the mid-1980s, Social Credit governments have introduced an unprecedented level of unfairness into British Columbia's tax system. Firstly, there was an annual $500 million tax break for corporations: the corporation capital tax was phased out, non-residential school property taxes were frozen, water taxes were frozen, the corporation income tax was cut, and tax breaks were given to banks and mining companies.

Secondly, there was a dramatic $500 million increase in taxes, charges and user fees paid by individual British Columbians in the 1987 and 1988 budgets. There has been a direct shift in the tax burden: taxes have been cut on corporations and on the wealthy, and raised on everybody else.

This assault on British Columbians continued in last year's budget, with a further $38 million increase in Medical Services Plan premiums and a 3 percent hidden tax on hydro rates. And again in this budget, contrary to the minister's contention, there are tax increases. There are user-fee increases and tax increases on a host of measures.

As a result of these increases, the burden of financing government services has fallen increasingly on lower- and middle-income British Columbians while the contribution of corporations has declined. In 1984-85 businesses contributed almost 18 percent of non-resource revenues in the form of corporate income taxes. In this budget corporations contribute only 9 percent. In just five years the share of revenue contributed by big business in British Columbia has been cut in half by this government.

Homeowners have been singled out by this government for particularly unfair treatment. Between 1982 and 1990 the contribution of residential property taxpayers to the cost of public schools soared from $177 million to $444 million — an average annual increase on property taxpayers of 14 percent under this government. During the same period these taxes were raised on homeowners, the contribution of industrial and commercial property taxpayers actually declined from $662 million to $535 million. The result has been a windfall gain of $250 million to corporations at the expense of homeowners.

This budget does nothing to restore that fairness. After dramatically raising taxes for middle- and lower-income British Columbians, the government then boasts that it's imposing no more tax increases, and that somehow is a good-news budget in British Columbia under this government — no more tax increases. Even that is deceptive and misleading, because there are tax increases contained in this budget.

Now the government promises to increase the homeowner's grant. It says in all its budget documents that they're going to give $250 to homeowners. But where is the $250 saving, Mr. Speaker? Virtually

[ Page 9069 ]

no households in British Columbia will receive anywhere near those savings. Except, perhaps, for a few mansion owners in Shaughnessy, no one in British Columbia will receive $250 in tax savings. In fact, 300,000 households, property owners in British Columbia, will receive no property tax relief and no school tax relief as a result of this budget.

Where is the honesty? Where is their commitment to tax fairness? It isn't there. If this government had any commitment to tax fairness, it would have provided a broadly based tax relief for middle- and low-income British Columbians. Those are the people that are feeling the burden of taxes under this administration. Again, that is our commitment: tax relief for middle- and lower-income British Columbians in our first budget, which I hope will be very shortly.

The Mulroney government's goods and services tax represents an unprecedented tax assault on the pocketbooks of British Columbians. It's a twin assault: the Mulroney Tories in Ottawa and this Social Credit government here in British Columbia. When it comes into effect next year, it will lead to a dramatic 7 percent increase in the cost of everything we buy from housing, energy and clothing to haircuts, restaurant meals and entertainment. Even funerals will be taxed by this government in Ottawa. Its implementation will dramatically increase the unfairness of British Columbia's overall tax system by shifting more of the tax burden, again, away from corporations and wealthy individuals and onto middle- and low-income families.

Where has this Social Credit government stood on the GST? During the last session of the Legislature, the Socreds refused to stand up and oppose the federal government despite our repeated calls for such action. On April 10, 1989, when pressed by the Leader of the Opposition to state his opposition to joining the federal GST, the Minister of Finance stated only that: "We do not yet have enough information to deal with that question." Last June 8, when I raised the same issue, the minister replied: "We have verified that they have the legal authority, and there's absolutely nothing the provinces might do about it." That's leadership, Mr. Speaker.

Last September the minister went as far as to propose cooperation with the Mulroney government in a 10 percent joint federal-provincial GST. That's leadership against the GST. Now, belatedly, the Social Credit government professes opposition to the GST. After reading the polls, now they're opposed, it appears. But where were the Socreds when it counted? Where were they when there was an opportunity to oppose the GST? Do you know where they were, Mr. Speaker? Their officials were meeting with federal government officials to work out the details of GST implementation.

The Social Credit government did not aggressively oppose the GST when it counted, because they don't have any commitment to tax fairness. The GST is consistent with the Social Credit tax policy of shifting the tax burden from corporations and those most able to pay and onto the backs of middle- and lower-income families. It is also consistent with the Socred policy, which they've just announced in this budget, of property tax relief going up. The richer you are, the more expensive your house, the bigger the tax break. It's Robin Hood upside down with this government.

That, more than anything else, is why British Columbians want a change of government, because they're sick and tired of a government which has no commitment to fairness, a government which supports its friends and insiders at the expense of public interest, They want a government that is committed to tax fairness. It's time for tax relief for middle- and lower-income British Columbians. It's time to introduce fairness to the tax system in British Columbia. I make this commitment again: a New Democratic government will restore fairness to our tax system and provide tax relief for middle- and lower-income British Columbians.

A second thing to mention about fairness is fairness between regions. All regions of British Columbia must share in our prosperity. What is the Social Credit record on regional fairness? The extent of regional disparities in British Columbia has never been greater. In 1989, the unemployment rate in the Okanagan and the Kootenays was double that of Vancouver. Four out of five new jobs are located in the lower mainland, leaving the rest of British Columbia behind. Yet this budget does not even acknowledge the fact that there is a problem with regional unemployment. While Vancouver suffers congestion and overdevelopment, the rest of British Columbia faces mine closures and layoffs.

A government with vision would realize the benefits of more balanced growth. A government with vision would invest resources into diversifying the economies of our non-metropolitan regions away from their excessive reliance on a narrow export base. A government with vision would realize that balanced growth would take the pressure off our overheated lower mainland region, while laying the foundations for sustained growth in other regions of British Columbia.

Instead of an imaginative strategy to achieve balanced growth, we have seen a patchwork of ad hoc programs that have failed to deliver. Widely proclaimed by the Premier, the restructuring of provincial economic development represented little more than a mechanism of channelling public money to friends and insiders. Not surprisingly, this approach was finally scrapped in the last cabinet shuffle, and the budget contains no new regional strategy.

The recent closure of the Sullivan mine symbolizes the incompetence of this Socred government in achieving regional fairness. In 1986 — four years ago — the province and the federal government provided $124 million in assistance to Cominco for modernization. On January 18, 1990, Cominco announced the closure of the Sullivan Mine as of January 31 — less than two weeks' notice. The government was not even informed, even though Mr. Hallbauer, chief executive officer of Cominco, sits on the Premier's own Economic Advisory Council. What sort of gov-

[ Page 9070 ]

ernment would provide assistance to a company and not even monitor the results to ensure the protection of jobs? What sort of government would allow a major corporation to hold a whole town to ransom? The lack of foresight and creative management does not bode well for the future of our non-metropolitan regions.

In the forest industry, layoffs by Fletcher Challenge on southern Vancouver Island clearly illustrate the threat to forest workers resulting from over-cutting and inadequate investment in silviculture. In the Peace River, the northeast coal project is clinging to the brink of bankruptcy as arbitrators decide the fate of 2,400 workers in the very near future. Again, where is this government?

The parties involved in the northeast coal project tell me that the government has not even monitored the developments or prepared any strategy to protect the jobs and livelihoods of the families depending on the coal mines or the taxpayers who have invested over $1.5 billion in this project. It is unprepared to deal with regional problems in British Columbia. It is unprepared to deal with regional unfairness.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Agriculture underpins about 20 percent of the economic activity of British Columbians; yet our industry is suffering. Our tree-fruit growers in the Okanagan are particularly hard hit. Yet this budget has singled out agriculture for an 11 percent funding cut, the only area of government that received a cut this year.

This is a government with no vision, no commitment to our regions and no commitment to balanced regional growth. The people want a government which shows leadership in protecting jobs in B.C.'s regions. They're sick and tired of a government which exploits regional equity to support its friends and insiders. It's time we had a government committed to regional fairness, a government which ensures balanced growth in British Columbia, a government which would protect all regions of the province.

I guarantee British Columbians that a New Democratic government will ensure fairness between our regions, and will support regional development strategies which will ensure prosperity and diversity throughout British Columbia.

A third dimension of fairness is fairness among and between individuals: fairness between men and women; fairness in providing economic opportunity for all British Columbians; fairness toward aboriginal people.

Women are not treated fairly in British Columbia. Throughout the term of its office this government has tried to curtail a woman's most fundamental right: the right to make her own decisions about her body. Despite the fact that a woman's right to safe, legal abortion has been upheld by three court decisions, the Premier has recently again encouraged hospital boards to restrict this medical procedure via referendums. And the government still provides no financial assistance to abortion clinics.

Women are treated unfairly in British Columbia's labour market. In the last three years the average pay for women has dropped to 64 percent of what men earn. In the last three years under this Social Credit administration, women have fallen further behind in terms of their pay relative to men.

Participation in the labour force is not a luxury for women; it is a necessity. Three out of four Canadian women of child-bearing age are now in the labour force. Sixty-one percent of all families would fall below the poverty line if it were not for women's employment income. Women are confined to low-income, relatively unskilled job ghettos; 50 percent of women work in clerical and service jobs compared with 16 percent of men. Even if women are successful in breaking out of these ghettos into managerial and professional jobs, their incomes remain 30 to 40 percent below those of men.

[11:00]

Many other jurisdictions in Europe and in North America have effective pay-equity legislation in place for both the public and the private sector. In Ontario, for example, 1.7 million women in both the public and private sectors are now covered by pay-equity legislation. In British Columbia we have no such legislation, and this budget contains no real commitment to pay equity beyond vague promises, with no budget commitment. Instead we have a women's minister who does not even understand, let alone support, pay equity — a minister who has stated, "Girls need to have the same attitude as boys," and that women themselves were to blame for choosing low-paying clerical jobs instead of getting a higher education. That's the attitude of this minister of women.

If this government had any commitment to women, it would immediately restore funding to the women's centres in British Columbia that are closing. Yet in a budget which contains total new spending of $1.9 billion, there is no commitment to provide the $500,000 necessary to keep B.C.'s 33 women's centres open. I make this commitment today, Mr. Speaker: a New Democratic Party government will restore and expand funding to B.C.'s women's centres, because we on this side of the House are committed to women.

Wide differences between rich and poor also engender social conflict, undermining our human potential and reducing the quality of life for everyone. The persistence of grinding poverty in the midst of general affluence is ethically unacceptable in a civilized society.

During my response to last year's provincial budget I pointed out this government's dismal record on individual fairness. I noted the findings of the National Council of Welfare that "family poverty grew faster in British Columbia than anywhere else in Canada in the 1980s." I pointed out that one out of every six people in this province lives below the poverty line, and stated that any governing party which introduces budgets that have no funding of any sort for food programs for hungry children is a party that does not deserve to govern a day longer.

[ Page 9071 ]

Well, Mr. Speaker, this government is still in place, unfortunately, and the lot of the poor has not improved. Poverty is still widespread, lines at food banks are still there, and B.C. kids are still going to bed hungry.

Rent increases, which are a direct result of this government's refusal to provide any protection for tenants, have made the situation even worse. In British Columbia single mothers in poverty now spend as much as 70 to 90 percent of their income on rent. At the same time, those released from institutions for the mentally ill are often forced to sleep on the streets because of inadequate backup in the community. All too often they don't make it. In this capital city of Victoria alone, 20 homeless people have been found dead on the streets in the last two years. That's a statistic that we don't normally associate with Canada, let alone British Columbia.

Most of the victims of this appalling poverty are women and children. In 1986, over two-thirds of British Columbia's single-parent families headed by women lived in poverty. One out of every five children in this province lives below the poverty line; that's 16,000 children. Canada has the second-highest rate of child poverty in the industrial world, and the poverty rate in British Columbia is higher than the national average.

What does child poverty mean? We have two recent studies in the last month by the federal government that show that the death rates for poor children are 56 percent higher than those of higher income families.

Poverty is literally robbing our children's future. A Harvard medical study, in the last year, has shown a direct link between poor nutrition and the ability to learn. Poor children are twice as likely to drop out of school as other children. The result is a vicious cycle of poverty and dependence.

This government has no commitment to removing these inequities. Last year, for example, the Ministry of Social Services and Housing underspent its allocation by $25 million; the ministry responsible for dealing with poverty underspent its allocation by $25 million. This government has no commitment to fairness and no commitment to assisting those in greatest need. The government has a commitment to one thing: to help their friends and insiders. That is why British Columbians again have lost confidence in this government; that's why they want a change in government; that's why they support this side of the house in greater numbers than ever before. They know that we have a commitment to fairness; they know we will introduce programs to help women; they know we will ensure real pay equity, and that we will help those in need. This government simply ignores the grim reality of many of our citizens. It pretends it doesn't exist, or it blames the victims.

This government has been unfair, as well, to aboriginal people. Many of our first citizens live in intolerable conditions and are systematically discriminated against. The consequences of this treatment are well documented: high rates of unemployment on most Indian reserves — 50 percent to 80 percent — widespread poverty and inadequate housing. Mortality rates among native infants are twice as high as non-native infants in British Columbia. These problems cannot be corrected by a paternalistic government in Victoria. Aboriginal people require access to land and to resources in order to create the economic opportunities essential to their continued survival.

Yet this budget completely ignores the question of aboriginal land claims. It continues the Social Credit government's steadfast refusal to discuss the land claims question with native people. In fact, this government has spent more than $100 million in taxpayers' money on expensive and time-consuming litigation in the courts. When questioned on land claims, the Premier stated that he doesn't believe there are any.

Everybody loses from this government's intransigence. Native people are forced to rely on government assistance and substandard services, while they press their claims in court. Non-natives find their economic opportunities threatened, as court decisions tie up economic activities over large areas.

New Democrats are committed to the resolution of land claims in British Columbia. We believe that justice for British Columbia's native people is a win-win proposition. It will stimulate sustainable economic development in aboriginal communities, breaking the cycle of poverty and dependence. It will inject millions of new federal dollars into communities and businesses throughout British Columbia. It will end investment uncertainty and facilitate badly needed employment in both native and non-native communities.

British Columbians want a government whose budgeting reflects the social and economic priorities for the 1990s. They want a budget that protects the environment, because they know that the beauty of this province and the well-being of its residents depend on a healthy environment. They know that a sound economy depends upon a sound environment. They know that without new policies and new actions, we are all at risk. This was the message carried so cogently and eloquently by Mme. Gro Harlem Brundtland in Our Common Future. It is a message which tells us....

Interjection.

MR. CLARK: just wait, and we'll get to the better policies that we'll propose, Mr. Member. The message of Gro Harlem Brundtland tells us of choice — a choice between innovative and thoughtful solutions to achieve sustainable development, and the other choice, which is inaction that threatens our very quality of life and our economic well-being.

This government in this budget has clearly and unequivocally chosen inaction. It ignores the calls by British Columbians for leadership and commitment to solving our environmental problems. It ignores the imaginative and thoughtful solutions so convincingly articulated by Mme. Brundtland in Our Common Future; it ignores common sense.

[ Page 9072 ]

Through successive budgets this government has gutted the Ministry of Environment. In last year's budget, the government had the audacity to include spending on the Vancouver Island pipeline and burning wood and coal as environmental programs. Only a Social Credit government would describe building a pipeline and burning coal as the touchstones of an environmental action plan. Sadly this budget again reflects no commitment to the environment.

The government proposes a new sustainable development fund, yet the fund is largely a repackaging of existing programs and spending. Existing reforestation spending of $212 million has been transferred to the fund as if it were new. A vehicle emission inspection program is promised again, for the third time. A hazardous waste management strategy is announced again as a new initiative. Funding for existing agencies, such as the Forest Resources Commission and the Round Table on Environment and Economy, is alleged to be new.

What is new, Mr. Speaker? A $3 per tire disposal levy which the government says will prevent a crisis similar to the fire in Ontario. A $3 tax on tires, that's what's new. Only a Social Credit government would think that imposing a $3 tire tax would solve our disposal problem of tires in British Columbia. Only Social Credit would think that removing the sales tax exemption and taxing disposable diapers would have any impact on waste management. How many fewer disposable diapers are going to be purchased next year in British Columbia because this government is now taxing them? None.

The government's environmental initiatives are repackaging of programs. There's no action, no commitment and no imagination. The result is a continuing neglect and a continuing decay.

Pulp and paper pollution in this province remains an international disgrace. Last year I cited independent studies by the University of Victoria and by the federal government which show that existing pollution standards for major industries are routinely unenforced. What progress has been made since last year? A report last month by the West Coast Environmental Law Association's research foundation states that every pulp mill in British Columbia is in violation of its provincial air and water pollution permits with respect to one or more pollutants. Every single pulp mill is breaking the pollution permits that were granted. Of those 21 pulp mills, 17 are classified as having serious environmental problems. That is the progress since last year — 17 pulp mills with serious environmental problems.

On December 1, 1988, portions of Howe Sound and Morse Basin in Prince Rupert were closed to shell-fishing due to high dioxin levels. On June 15, 1989, the shellfish closures were extended to include crab, shrimp and prawns in nearly all of Howe Sound; shellfish in Porpoise Harbour and the coast island area surrounding Prince Rupert. On November 1, 1989, the new Minister of Environment decided to act. Relying on his considerable expertise as a scientist and his environmental expertise, he boldly pronounced: "There are no more dioxins going into the water and if you want to go to Howe Sound to eat crab with me, I'll take you any time." Just three weeks after the minister's invitation, the federal government announced closures of seven additional areas in British Columbia due to dioxin levels in the shellfish.

It is time that we have a financial commitment to cleaning up our pulp mills and providing a model for the world on how to achieve sustainable development. Lack of commitment to sustainable development in our forest industry has jeopardized employment and created a divisive and needless conflict between logging and wilderness preservation.

A recent study by Simon Fraser University shows a backlog of not satisfactorily restocked forest land of 553,000 hectares. That amount of NSR land exceeds the total area proposed by environmentalists for preservation by a ratio of two to one. If this government could only ensure that reforestation and silviculture were given as high a priority as cutting down trees, we could preserve wilderness areas and maintain an adequate supply of timber to protect existing employment in the forest industry. This is the type of commitment a New Democratic government will have to solve this unnecessary and divisive conflict— a commitment which leaves everyone better off. A win-win commitment, Mr. Speaker.

A lack of commitment to sustainable development in agriculture is also jeopardizing our food supply. We witness this government's approval of the development of agricultural land to increase the profits of developers — promoting, again, in agricultural land the narrow self-interest at the expense of British Columbians.

In January of this year the Greater Vancouver Regional District issued a report on environmental problems in Burrard Inlet. The report documented excessive levels of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons — PAHs — which are known to cause cancer. It also documented high levels of PCBs, copper, zinc, lead and raw sewage. The report by the GVRD was a plea for action after years of Social Credit neglect of the Burrard Inlet. Where is the provincial leadership and commitment to solving this problem?

[11:15]

Victoria is one of the few cities in North America still dumping raw sewage into the ocean. Vancouver is cited as having one of the most serious air pollution problems in North America. Most people associate the kind of pollution problems we see in parts of the Burrard Inlet as California-only problems. We have among the worst air pollution problems in parts of the Burrard Inlet in North America.

British Columbia has one of the worst records on recycling of waste. We recycle 2 percent of our waste, compared to 10 percent in the United States, 16 percent in Germany and 51 percent In Japan. Where is the leadership on recycling? Where is the vision? Where is the commitment to environmental health? When British Columbians are looking for action on waste pollution, the government responds by inviting them to eat toxic shellfish. When British Columbians

[ Page 9073 ]

are looking for action on recycling of waste, the government's action is to reward its friends.

When British Columbians are looking for creative solutions to wilderness and forestry conflicts, the government takes action which leaves everyone worse off. When British Columbians are looking for protection of our agricultural land base, the government responds by sacrificing land for the benefit of its friends. This is a government without vision, imagination or commitment; this is a government that has been in office too long.

On this side of the House, we have listened to British Columbians' concerns about the environment. We have met with groups across this province, we have talked to local and international experts, and we have developed an environmental policy with vision and commitment, because we recognize the importance of a healthy environment.

In one budget we could provide the funds necessary for the enforcement of air and water pollution regulations. We would provide funds for monitoring. We would introduce a comprehensive environmental impact assessment system to ensure that all industries are designed in a manner consistent with a healthy environment. We would create a new air pollution control agency to develop and implement an air pollution strategy for our major urban areas We would provide funding for sewage treatment, to improve our water quality. We would tighten land use regulations, to protect the erosion of our agricultural land. We would set up a self-financing utility to handle recycling in the province.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

We would make a commitment to reforestation to increase the supply of timber available for harvesting, thereby allowing us to protect employment in our forest industry while preserving sufficient wilderness areas to meet the needs of British Columbians.

We would look to innovative approaches such as green taxes, which encourage environmentally sensitive behaviour while generating revenue for environmental programs. For example, we would set an effluent charge on all pulp mills based on the amount of pollution generated. In this budget, they say they're going to increase effluent charges not just on pulp mills but on municipalities; that will generate a grand total of $2 million. That is simply a licence to pollute. We need real penalties, real fees and real taxes on polluters in this province to generate revenue to clean up the mess, the legacy left by Social Credit.

Such a polluter-pay policy would provide an incentive to pulp mills to reduce their toxic emissions while generating revenue to support research into new environmental abatement technology, which could then form the basis of a new high-technology export industry to assist other countries in cleaning up the environment. This is the type of innovative and imaginative approach we are prepared to take: one that protects our environment, taxes pollution instead of people, and generates new high-technology industries, exporting environmental expertise and technology throughout the world.

Mr. Speaker, in reply to last year's budget, I pointed to the housing crisis created by this government's record of inaction and neglect: its failure to introduce programs for affordable rental housing, which caused vacancy rates in the lower mainland to fall; its failure to reintroduce effective protection for renters, which led to unconscionable rent increases throughout the province; and its failure to introduce programs to increase the supply of land for housing, which has led to rising housing prices and an end to the dream of home-ownership for most working British Columbians.

In last year's budget, the Minister of Finance announced a provincial housing action plan, which, he claimed, "addresses the issues of affordability of housing...and the supply of rental accommodation." I predicted at that time that this series of ad hoc measures and subsidies to wealthy developers would do little to solve the housing crisis. Unfortunately, my predictions have proven to be an understatement. Last year's programs did absolutely nothing to ease the housing crisis in British Columbia; it is worse today than it was a year ago. This year the Royal Bank of Canada's affordability index showed that Vancouver has surpassed Toronto as the least affordable place to live, with the least affordable housing in Canada. Our major urban areas — the entire lower mainland — are now the least affordable. The dream of home-ownership is now even more remote for most British Columbians.

For renters the situation has gone from bad to worse. Continuing low vacancy rates, combined with this government's refusal to protect tenants, have led to a feeding frenzy by many landlords. Huge, unconscionable rent increases are literally forcing tenants from their homes. Let me cite a few of the dozens of examples which have occurred in the last month: the Morningside townhouse complex in Victoria — rent increases of 40 percent; View Towers in Victoria — rent increases of 60 percent; Centennial Manor, North Vancouver — a tenant's rent was raised 45 percent; another tenant in the same building — an 80-year-old woman living on a pension of $750 a month — has a rent increase of 55 percent, from $400 to $620; Beacon Hill Apartments in North Vancouver — rents for a one-bedroom apartment are raised from $620 to $850; in New Westminster, a 75-year-old pensioner living on $1,000 a month sees a rent increase of 30 percent, to $595 a month; and in the Kerrisdale district of Vancouver, hundreds of long-term tenants are forced to move as their apartment buildings are demolished to make way for luxury condominiums.

In this budget, Mr. Speaker, you would think there would be something to address the crisis for renters, the crisis of affordability for housing — and there are no new housing initiatives in this budget. There is a continuation of the failed programs that the government introduced last year. The government talks about 8,000 affordable rental units. As of April 6, 1990, only 62 units had been completed, and they're

[ Page 9074 ]

hardly affordable. The average rent requires an income of over $32,000. The government has no commitment to provide affordable housing. The neglect has gone on long enough. British Columbians are demanding that their government take action.

New Democrats have put forward again a new and innovative housing program for the 1990s. We will restore the dream of home-ownership for British Columbians by working with municipalities and builders to provide 5,000 economical starter homes for young families and first-time homebuyers.

We will exempt first-time homebuyers from the property purchase tax. We will relieve speculative pressures on housing prices by taxing windfall profits made by speculators who flip houses. We will introduce an effective land-banking program to increase the number of serviced lots for housing, and we will create a B.C. savings and trust corporation to work with credit unions to reduce mortgage rates in British Columbia.

As government, we will move to end the rental housing crisis by introducing effective rent stabilization legislation to protect tenants against unfair and unjustifiable rent increases and arbitrary evictions. We will double the number of non-profit and cooperative housing units started each year, leasing or selling Crown land to encourage the construction of low-cost rental housing, rather than simply selling large parcels to a single developer.

These are the types of innovative solutions to our housing problems which we are committed to. These are the types of actions which will be undertaken when we form the government very shortly.

Adequate levels of investment in human resources and social capital are equally as important as our investment in natural resources. Both are essential for our long-term economic and social development. However, the record of Social Credit government in developing our human resources is just as bad as it is in protecting our natural resources. We have lagged behind in the key areas of social capital: education, health, housing, transportation and social services. In place of a well-thought-out plan for the province, we have had a decade of neglect.

The most important priority in ensuring an economic future for our children is education. Our success in moving from a resource-dependent economy, vulnerable to world market fluctuations, to a more sustainable self-reliant society will depend on the quality of our educational institutions and the ability of our children to take advantage of the new economic opportunities of the 1990s in environmental enterprises, in new value-added manufacturing, in marketing new ideas and technologies to the Pacific Rim. It will all depend on the priority we give to education.

This government, in its expensive, high-profile advertising paid for by the taxpayers, has tried very hard to portray itself as a champion of education in this province. It clothes its policies in catchy phrases. The reality, Mr. Speaker, is quite different. In the public education system, our spending per pupil in 1989 was among the lowest in Canada. Despite the rhetoric, we still spend one of the lowest per capita per pupil in all of Canada. The underfunding of the public education system by the Socred government put an increasing pressure on property taxpayers to maintain the quality of our system. As a result, between 1982 and 1990, residential school property taxes paid by homeowners jumped an average of 14 percent annually.

The commitment of this government in last year's budget to implement the recommendations of the Sullivan commission provided some hope that this decade of neglect would be reversed. Sadly, this is not the case. This government has recently introduced legislation which gives it total control over the finances of school districts. Anybody concerned about education, who sees a Social Credit government take complete control of financing education, should be worried.

It now requires all spending above the levels determined by this government to be approved by referendum. This is nothing more than a cynical attempt to pit parents and school boards against property owners, to combine a pre-election tiny property-tax cut with a campaign to convince British Columbians that spendthrift school boards and teachers — not government neglect — are to blame for increases in school property taxes.

With this single act, with referendums, the Social Credit government has created chaos and uncertainty in our school system. Instead of renewed cooperation between government and school boards, as recommended by the Sullivan commission, we now have a return to confrontation, conflict and instability.

How can school boards provide effectively for our children's education if they don't know from year to year whether provincial funding will be adequate or whether the referendum necessary to overcome the shortfall will be successful? How can schools confidently develop long-range educational programs when those programs could be eliminated next year because of inadequate funding?

Nine school districts have already been forced to go to referendum. In the Richmond School District, the Premier has publicly come out in opposition to the extra money which must be raised by referendum to protect the quality of education. Another six school districts have declined to go to referendum because the odds are stacked against them. Instead, the trustees say — as they've said in North Vancouver — they will have to increase class size, lay off staff, cut maintenance and cut earthquake safety programs.

In summary, Mr. Speaker, referendums have never worked in the United States; they didn't work in British Columbia. In the short term, they create instability and confusion, and in the long run, they lead to a two-tiered education system in which the quality of our children's education varies according to the income of the homeowners.

In contrast, New Democrats believe that achieving a high-quality education for all our children should be the primary goal of our education policy. We believe that responsibility for funding should be shared between the provincial government and dem-

[ Page 9075 ]

ocratically elected school boards. We believe that block funding levels should meet the basic educational needs of all regions of the province. It is possible to combine property tax relief for homeowners with local accountability in a high-quality education system.

[11:30]

The record of this government on post-secondary education is no better. Over the last decade our universities have been systematically underfunded, while our post-secondary education participation rate is among the lowest in the country. In this budget the government announces again its so-called Access for All policy and claims to raise student assistance by $8 million. But last year the government cut $7.5 million for student assistance, so what they've done is restore a cut. That inconsistency is symptomatic of a government which is not really committed to access to post-secondary education.

Since 1980, college tuition fees have risen by an average annual rate of 14 percent — more than double the rate of inflation. University tuition fees have increased by an average of 11 percent a year. British Columbia's university tuition fees are now among the highest in Canada, yet this government dismisses the concerns of students by saying that high tuition rates don't pose a barrier to post-secondary education. The budget contains no relief from rising tuition fees. The reality is that low- and middle-income British Columbians are paying taxes to fund post-secondary education only to find their families are shut out by ever-increasing costs.

A New Democratic government would address this problem head-on by introducing a moratorium on tuition fee increases and a comprehensive review of student assistance programs.

Child care is a necessity for a majority of British Columbia families. Today in British Columbia there are 300,000 children under 12 who need non-parental supplementary care on a full-time or part-time basis because their parents are working. Currently there are only 20,000 spaces licensed in British Columbia.

The waiting-list for infant child care at Simon Fraser University, for example, is over two years. At Simon Fraser, parents are forced to register their children before they're even conceived. The salary of a senior supervisor in a day care centre is one-third less than the starting wage for a zookeeper. That's what we pay our custodians of children in British Columbia.

This government remains one of the few in Canada that continues to refuse to provide operating grants or start-up grants for child care, despite the evidence that shows a good day care actually saves money by allowing parents to work. This is a bottom-line government that can't even see the bottom line. It is time we had a comprehensive child care system in British Columbia. It's time that we stopped using the federal government inaction as an excuse and developed our own child care program. Just as Saskatchewan took the initiative in developing a medicare system which became a model for the rest of Canada, British Columbia should have the vision and the commitment to provide national leadership on child care, and that is a commitment we have on this side of the House.

Last year I observed that the major health care preoccupation of this government was with increasing premiums and user fees. I also observed last year that this government's poor planning led to long waiting-lists for surgery of all kinds. Mr. Speaker, shortages of nurses and other key medical staff have increased the problem of hospital waiting-lists over the last year.

Let me cite just a few examples: Victoria hospitals now have 6,500 people on surgery waiting-lists; Prince George Regional Hospital has 600 people waiting for elective surgery, with an average wait of six to eight weeks; Royal Inland Hospital has more than 2,300 people waiting for elective surgery, with waits of four to five months for some procedures; Langley Memorial Hospital has 492 people on its waiting-list, with waits up to five months.

The problem is most critical for heart patients. There are now more than 700 people waiting for heart surgery in British Columbia. Of those, 400 are considered urgent. This represents, in one year, a 75 percent increase in the number of people waiting for heart surgery in British Columbia. Patients have waited up to ten months for heart surgery, and at least 12 people have died awaiting surgery in the last year. The government's response to this crisis, to their own lack of foresight and planning, has been to send patients to the United States for surgery. It is unacceptable in a rich province like ours that we are forced to send patients out of the country for essential surgery.

Yet there is not even any mention in this budget of the crisis facing our health care system. There is no plan to end surgery waiting-lists and no assurance that any of the 11.3 percent increase in this year's health budget will be devoted to achieving this most critical goal.

Let me turn to the matter of fiscal competence. British Columbians not only want a government which is fair and which is in tune with the priorities of its citizens; they also want a government which can manage the taxpayers' money competently, which budgets soundly and lives within its means over the full economic cycle, and that knows how to get the greatest possible value for each dollar of taxpayers' money.

A decade of Social Credit rule has been a decade of mismanagement. Social Credit led British Columbia in the 1980s with an accumulated debt of $8.5 billion. After ten years of Social Credit, our provincial debt has now doubled to $16.9 billion. This year it's planning a deficit of $684 million at the peak of the economic cycle when we should be running a surplus.

Has this government managed public assets wisely? There was a $500 million overrun on the Coquihalla Highway and close to a billion dollars in northeast coal, which is on the verge of bankruptcy. Then there's the sale of one of the most valuable pieces of real estate in North America: the Expo

[ Page 9076 ]

lands. In 1988 this government sold the Expo lands to a single offshore developer, Concord Pacific, for a price of $140 million. The cost of acquiring these lands by the previous Bennett government was $113 million — an apparent profit of $27 million. Then we learned that the government would be completely responsible for cleaning up the contaminated soils on the site at a cost ranging from $40 million to $100 million. We also learned that the government will have to buy back land for affordable housing at a cost of $30 million.

This means that the government of British Columbia will end up losing between $40 million and $100 million on the Expo sale — losing money on the most valuable piece of real estate in North America to subsidize a foreign-owned development corporation. Only a Social Credit government could lose money on the most valuable piece of real estate in North America during a booming property market.

If this government operated in the public interest instead of promoting the interests of its friends and insiders, it would have realized an estimated $500 million profit for local builders, as was done in False Creek. If this government had operated in the public interest instead of promoting its friends and insiders, there would be an extra $500 million today in revenue, which could be used to clean up the environment, improve health and education services and cut taxes for hard-pressed middle- and low-income families. Five hundred million dollars was lost on the Expo lands deal; that's $500 for every family in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, it's not hard to understand why British Columbians have lost confidence in this government. This government has no commitment to tax fairness; it has no commitment to women; it has no commitment to affordable housing, and it has no commitment to openness and honesty. It is a tired government that has run out of ideas. It is a government that is out of touch with British Columbians. It is a government that needs a long rest in opposition.

British Columbians are looking for a government that is committed to tax fairness. They are looking for a government that understands their priorities and concerns. They are looking for a government that is honest.

On this side of the House, we are committed to tax fairness; that is why we will introduce, in our first budget, tax relief for middle- and lower-income British Columbians. We are committed to the environment; that is why we are prepared to enforce environmental laws. We are committed to equality for women; that is why we will introduce pay equity and provide the budget support to implement it. We are committed to quality education; that is why we will end shortsighted funding by referendums. We are committed to innovative housing programs and to health care. Above all, we are committed to honesty in government.

This is a beautiful province. We have a rich resource base. We have a highly skilled and talented population. We have potential second to none. We have the opportunity to lead the world in innovations and imaginative policies, and we look forward, very shortly, to providing leadership and commitment so that we can realize our full potential.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: On behalf of the Minister of Advanced Education, Training and Technology (Hon. Mr. Strachan), I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Just before we adjourn, I would like to remind the House that we will sit on Wednesday next at 2 p.m.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Richmond moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:40 a.m.