[ Page 9181 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Supply Act (No, 1), 1990 (Bill 22). Committee stage. (Hon, Mr. Couvelier) –– 9181

Mr. Miller

Hon. Mr. Strachan

Hon. Mr. Reynolds

Mr. Rose

Third reading

Budget Debate

Hon. Mr. Strachan –– 9185

Ms. Marzari –– 9190

Hon. Mrs. Gran –– 9194

THURSDAY, APRIL 26, 1990

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. JONES: I rise under standing order 26, at the first available opportunity, to raise a matter of privilege. I want you to know, Mr. Speaker, that I appreciate the importance of avoiding challenges of the Chair in this assembly. I have no desire to do so, nor do I have any desire to cast any reflections on the Chair.

However, Mr. Speaker, there is a more ancient and honourable tradition that predates the current rules of this assembly, which is the matter of individual privilege of freedom of speech or debate. Yesterday, in debate in committee stage of Bill 22, the interim supply bill, after an hour of debate that focused on a particular document, during which....

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I must stop you here. I listened to the first part of your statement. Is the Chair to understand that the matter of privilege you are referring to took place in committee? Matters that take place in committee must be dealt with in committee and may not be brought to the House. If you feel that you have a matter of privilege, the only way that the Chair could deal with it is if it came as a report from the committee.

I thank the member for giving me advance notice of the matter. If you would check the Journals of the House, there have been rulings by my predecessor, Mr. Speaker Schroeder, in conjunction with Mr. Speaker Lamoureux and Mr. Speaker Dowding, who have clearly enunciated that matters that occur in committee — whether Committee of the Whole or any other committee of the House — must be dealt with by the committee and not by the House itself.

I am prepared to listen to what you have to say and reserve on it, but perhaps you would like to consider the facts of what the Chair is allowed to listen to.

MR. JONES: Perhaps, then, Mr. Speaker, I could ask your direction inasmuch as I did raise the same question of privilege in committee yesterday and it was not dealt with at that time. So I ask for your direction on how I might raise a matter of privilege that was raised in committee and not dealt with there.

MR. SPEAKER: If you have a problem with committee, raise it in the committee. The Speaker cannot deal with these matters. In committee, such a matter would be a point of order; the committee has no power to deal with privilege. However, if the member wishes to leave the matter now and raise it again after discussion with the Clerks or other people, you might find a better route. The Chair is not in the business of dispensing information or guidance.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I call committee on Bill 22.

SUPPLY ACT (No. 1), 1990
(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 22; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The committee adjourned yesterday on Bill 22, having passed sections 1, 2 and 3; and having discussed section 4, schedule 1, the committee adjourned on schedule 2 of section 4.

On section 4, schedule 2.

MR. MILLER: I want to make it clear at the outset that there are questions that need to be asked about the supply bill. I think we're seeing a government that's looking at every opportunity to use in their favour. It's important that we use this opportunity to ask very pertinent questions about the government spending plans, because we may not get another opportunity to do that.

There is a long history of the government using various means to prevent the opposition from asking questions and, similarly, to put themselves in a position where they don't have to answer questions. We go back to some of the fundamental points made regarding our purpose in this place to ask those kinds of questions. It would be quite sad if we did not get the opportunity to do that.

I want to concentrate on the forestry and environment spending contained in this bill, because a number of questions need to be answered. The government has set up a sustainable environment fund. I'm not really certain, in the context of asking these questions, who is the appropriate minister. In fact, that is one of the questions.

The government has set up a sustainable environment fund. It appears to me to be an exercise in smoke and mirrors. The bulk of the fund is really funding that is ongoing in terms of the responsibility of the Minister of Forests to conduct silviculture on lands for which the ministry is responsible. Yet we see the transfer of....

HON, MR. COUVELIER: Point of order. This morning is a new day. We enter the chamber with a generous heart and a strong desire to restore the normal sense of decorum to House procedures that has characterized one or two days over the last three years. In any event, I point out that the member seems to be wandering.

As I understand it, the issue before us is schedule 2 of the interim supply bill, which has to do only with special warrants that were put in place to deal with the interim spending needed prior to the opportunity to deal with interim spending itself. The member is off onto a budget initiative that has

[ Page 9182 ]

nothing to do with schedule 2, which is the specific subject we're here to address.

MR. ROSE: I regret to advise the hon. Finance minister that once again he's wrong. If he looks on page 4 of the bill under "Environment" it says: "For the continuation of ongoing budgetary programs of the Ministry of Environment." Then if he looks down, counting up to two, he will see Forests. It's for the continuation of ongoing budgetary programs of the Ministry of Forests. It seems to me that my friend is certainly bang-on in order, as he usually is, and I encourage him to continue his interesting discussion on this particular matter.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair thanks both hon. members for their sage advice and is certain that the member for Prince Rupert is well aware of the requirements for relevancy. Perhaps he would continue.

MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, there is indeed some irony if you consider my prefacing remarks in terms of our role in trying to elicit information. It is the Minister of Finance who stands up, in my opinion, on a very weak, facetious point of order to prevent those questions being put.

[10:15]

It only confirms suspicions, and some candidness on his part would be welcome in this debate. I think I'm in order in trying to elicit from the minister how this money is being spent, because there is a great deal of confusion. The government has allocated specific sums of money to be spent for specific purposes, yet there is confusion surrounding that. I'm trying to clear up the confusion. Perhaps the Minister of Finance could help.

The issue of reforestation and silviculture is indeed a very serious one in this province. The neglect over a long period of time has led to a position now where we have a vast amount of Crown forest land that has not been treated. It has not been replanted, fertilized or thinned. It is, in fact, unproductive, yet remains some of the most productive forest land in British Columbia.

In contrast to the situation in the forest industry, in many instances throughout the province existing processing plants are facing critical timber shortages. The wood is not there to keep those plants operating. One of the ways that we can improve that situation is through silviculture expenditures.

As I said previously, the government has transferred some $222 million from the budget of the Minister of Forests into this sustainable environment fund. The sustainable environment fund appears to be under the purview of the Minister of Environment. In fact, they specifically talk about a cabinet committee which will authorize expenditures from the fund. The Minister of Forests will no longer be making decisions about silviculture expenditures; those decisions have been transferred to a fund. A cabinet committee will review those issues, and presumably two ministers who have no direct relationship — or at least a very tenuous one — with silvicultural expenditures will be involved in making those decisions.

I have a great deal of fear about that, because it's my view that too much politics has been played in British Columbia when it comes to forestry. I think we've got a sad history of political involvement in forestry.

I would like the minister to advise the House of the government thinking and planning, and what the process will be when it comes to expenditures that would normally be made by the Minister of Forests, but now appear to have been handed off to a committee that has a number of other issues as part of its mandate. It's regrettable that in this brief opportunity we have to ask specific questions about the operation of the government, which are of great importance to people in the forest industry.... They would like to know the answers to these questions.

The confusion that exists needs to be cleared up. The chairman of the Forest Resources Commission — which was this government's answer to the people's call for a royal commission, and which was this government's stalling tactic when it came to the need to have a royal commission — the chairman of that commission, which was put together by the Minister of Forests, is now saying that he reports to the Minister of the Environment. Nowhere in these budget documents does it say that.

I think the government has a responsibility to clear up some of these concerns. People in British Columbia are seriously concerned about forestry. They know, better than most of the members of this House, what the real issues are out there in terms of these mills facing declining amounts of timber for production. We have seen the pattern of neglect when it comes to reforestation, when it comes to dealing with the Crown lands of this province.

The Minister of Advanced Education (Hon. Mr. Strachan) should be well aware of the vast amounts of NSR lands — not satisfactorily restocked lands — in his region. He's well aware of the timber shortages faced by the mills in his region. And we want to know how the process is going to work when it comes to money that the government has committed. There are two simple lines here. The ongoing budgetary programs don't tell us anything, and I think that the answers have to come from the authors of the document.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The member is trying to elicit information with respect to his area of criticism, which is appropriate — with the exception of this forum. We are here debating expenditures by special warrant of all ministries. You are asking about a fund which has not yet been approved by this House. You are asking to enter into budget debate. We would like to do that ourselves as soon as we can get this interim supply bill finished, so we can get to the real debate on the budget and on the estimates.

As I mention estimates, I'll also advise you that it is known in our parliamentary practice that the appropriate time to discuss the administrative re-

[ Page 9183 ]

sponsibilities of a ministry is in the estimates. You are asking those questions now, which I know would be of interest to you, but it's very difficult for us to respond during this bill. Administrative responsibilities of a ministry are discussed during estimates. Those are the rules of Beauchesne, Sir Erskine May and parliament.

MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, more people than me are interested in these issues. I've tried to point out that the people of British Columbia.... Money allocated in this bill is going to those programs. It's unclear which ministry is going to authorize the money. Presumably the money identified in this bill, in these two warrants, will be used as laid out, in part. A portion of the money will be used for those programs. There is a lack of certainty about the allocations. I haven't calculated what portion of the money going to the sustainable environment fund is contained in these warrants, but presumably some of it is. It would have to be.

As I stated at the outset, here is our opportunity to ask a few brief questions. Given the uncertainty and the erraticness of this government, we may not get that opportunity.

MR. RABBITT: Trust me.

MR. MILLER: Surely the member understands that there's a decided lack of trust, which will only be regained given some full, frank answers to this House.

Mr. Chairman, we on this side of the House are concerned that money allocated to silviculture will not be spent on silviculture, and I think the government has to answer the question.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the questions that the member from the other side is asking, but the fact is that the money allocated in this bill is not going to the programs he's talking about. The programs he's talking about are in the budget, and until the budget is approved, we can't discuss those programs.

To start making statements about the Minister of Forests no longer making statements for forestry is irresponsible. The member will have a full chance during the budget debate to listen to people on this side speak. Then, when we get into estimates, he can ask details on these programs, which we are very proud of, and we'll be very happy to answer in great detail.

MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, the estimates are part of the budget. I suppose if the minister was prepared to stand and give an assurance to this House that we will sit for the full term, that we will indeed go through the full estimates debate....

MR. RABBITT: Trust me.

MR. MILLER: I'm afraid I can't accept the shouts from the member for Yale-Lillooet. Firstly, he doesn't have any authority on that side of the House to make those statements.

If the minister would be prepared to make the commitment to this House that we will have that opportunity, then I suppose this would be a rather short debate.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I didn't know the member for Prince Rupert was so concerned about us having an election.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Chairman, I really thought that last evening's discussions put the lid on all this nonsense. Let me read into the record comments made by Speaker Dowding in April 4, 1974, Hansard: "It is very unusual...for there to be any debate on an interim supply bill at any time, as you will see in consulting Bourinot." Let me also quote then-Premier Dave Barrett: "There also has to be some understanding, at some time, at some level of debate in this House, where public business begins and politics ends." Let me also quote Chairman Dent, who happened to be from the opposition side: "You may not question individual ministers on their estimates. This should be done when the vote is called for that particular vote. Otherwise, obviously, we could debate every minister's estimates, and we could go on for weeks."

Mr. Chairman, I submit to you that all of this is puffery and hypocrisy in the extreme. We have canvassed in its entirety the whole issue of the propriety of extending this debate. It clearly is not in the public interest to extend this debate. The government will be at some risk of running out of money if this filibuster is allowed to continue much longer. We served adequate notice on the members opposite that that would be the case.

I submit to you, Mr. Chairman, that based on past precedents clearly established over many years of the operation of the democratic system in this province and elsewhere in the parliamentary system in the British empire, interim spending estimates are approved as a matter of course. Party leader after party leader during debates of interim supply have confirmed that. I can give you additional quotes; I have four pages of them. If your desire is to establish once and for all what the proper procedure is, I'm very happy to take you through that litany. But surely it does no good for each of us to be standing here pontificating on a subject which doesn't merit it.

The detailed discussions that you wish to have can be held and should be held during the discussion on the estimates themselves, not this motion, which is merely for the purpose of continuing good government while estimates are being debated.

[10:30]

MR. MILLER: I'm familiar with the workings of government. I've watched this House for many years. I am aware that for the first time in the mid-seventies we had extended sittings of the House instead of those brief little sessions that used to be the pattern. For the first time we had extended sittings that gave

[ Page 9184 ]

the opposition the opportunity to question government. I'm aware that my party introduced that to this House. I'm aware we introduced Hansard. I'm aware we introduced a Public Accounts Committee with an opposition member as chairman. We have a long tradition and a long history of making sure that the process works.

Interjections.

MR. MILLER: I have specific questions. If the government members would quiet themselves — if they would de-lather themselves — perhaps I could pose the questions, and perhaps I could even get some answers.

We are concerned. We hear the words in the budget about a post-resource-based economy. We heard the Minister Responsible for Women's Programs (Hon. Mrs. Gran) yesterday talking about a post-resource-based economy. It concerns us when we tie that into some of the shenanigans in terms of where the money is, who's going to spend it and what the process is. We're concerned that the money that should be going into silviculture — into ensuring timber supplies for the processing plants of this province — might not go there. That's a valid concern to raise at this time.

The ministers were reluctant. I offered them the opportunity to give me and this House a commitment that we will sit through the full process and have those extended debates in estimates. But they were reluctant.

I should say, Mr. Chairman, that I'm not concerned about an election. Not at all. I said that at the outset. Let's go. If that's the desire of the government, then let's get at 'er.

I think it's important that we take this opportunity to try and elicit responses from the government about where this money is going. We're not getting that.

Specifically, with regard to the expenditures listed under the Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of Forests, could the Minister of Finance advise what portion of that money is allocated to silviculture, and under which ministry?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Prince Rupert.

MR. MILLER: Could the government advise which ministry will be overseeing the expenditures allocated in the warrant for silviculture?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall schedule 2 pass?

MR. MILLER: Could the government advise that all of the money contained in these warrants for the Ministry of Environment or the Ministry of Forests that is allocated to silviculture, as described in the budget — and the government refuses to respond to the question.... Could the government give a firm commitment that every single penny of that money will go to silviculture?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I don't want to prolong this, but I would remind the hon. member, and I'll say it again, that the budget has not passed yet and the time for that debate is during the budget. It would be unparliamentary to reverse that procedure for any member on this side.

I would also remind the member on the other side, when he asks if we will live up to the process, that this government has always lived up to the process and respects the parliamentary process, and he can be assured that commitment is still there.

He will also remember, I am sure, that this government that believes so much in the process took the closure off that the NDP put on estimates when they were in power so that we could have an open debate on estimates. This government did that. When the New Democrats were in power they wanted to tighten up the estimates so the opposition didn't have a chance to have full disclosure and to answer all the questions.

In this House you've got an open-ended debate on estimates. We could be here for six months. This government, as I've said before, is always committed to the process, and we will live up to that process.

As to where the money is going, it's going to the people of British Columbia, who keep on re-electing this government because of the good job they do.

MR. MILLER: I think having an open-ended debate may be fine if we are members of a debating society, but I don't view that as my role. It's regrettable that the Minister of the Environment is prepared to debate but he's not prepared to answer any questions. The substance of the issue is that the government will not answer specific questions about money allocated in this bill.

I fail to see why that's an unreasonable request. The government leaves me no choice at all, Mr. Chairman, but to draw the conclusions that I must from the brief debate that I had this morning: that they are playing games when it comes to silviculture expenditures; that they have transferred authority for silviculture expenditures to a political committee; that they are not prepared to say that all of the money they have identified in the budget will in fact go to silviculture expenditures.

I can only say that this is of grave concern to the forestry community in British Columbia, and I will convey to them, through every means I can, what the real state of affairs is in British Columbia with regard to this government.

MR. ROSE: When I first came to this House I was a shy, quiet, diffident fellow. So I don't really like or enjoy conflict. I like everything to be friendly and cooperative, and we've tried to do that, Mr. Chairman. We made a magnanimous offer of a five-minute vote for $2.5 billion yesterday. I don't see how you could ask the opposition to go much further than that.

The Minister of Finance said it was unusual that we would debate a supply bill. Yes, it is unusual, but these are unusual times, and this is an unusual

[ Page 9185 ]

supply bill. I understand what happened in '83. The House didn't sit all spring and we didn't even get back here until late July. Sure, you had to cover all those warrants from the previous six months. What you're doing here is going one month behind and three months forward, to the tune of $5 billion.

We think it's our job — and certain other people agree with us — to make certain that these things don't pass without debate. We're afraid, Mr. Speaker, as other people have said — and I'm doing the wrap-up on this; you'll be relieved to hear that....

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Getting the applause and enthusiasm from Thumper the Rabbitt over there gives me great confidence to proceed. He used to lead the Rabbitt pack, but a lot of his friends left him. Some of them are over on the other side there. They were the dissidents, and I notice that they have now begun swimming back towards the sinking ship.

We want an opportunity to ask questions. I think we're entitled to the opportunity to ask questions. Quite frankly, we don't think we're ever going to get to the estimates. And we're not really persuaded when we hear rumours that the nomination in Saanich has been moved from May 26 to May 6. That may be an ugly rumour, but it might have some implications for the calling of an election — I don't know. I'm very trusting and rather naive. I'm not a suspicious person.

You haven't given us answers. You've stonewalled us throughout. We are now three weeks into the parliament and you haven't appointed the Public Accounts Committee. We didn't even get the public accounts. You're so busy covering your tracks that I thought you might be taking lessons from the member for Yale-Lillooet (Mr. Rabbitt).

Mr. Chairman, we've had enough of this stonewalling. I think we've made our point, by ministry, that we protest this as a contempt of parliament, and people agree with us. Here's a little editorial from, I think, today's Sun. It says: "Not a Dime...." I'll spare you the agony of reading it all; I'll even read some parts that might not be so favourable to my side:

"The New Democratic Party is right to resist."

This is public opinion, informed opinion — hardly a socialist rag, the Vancouver Sun.

"That's not acceptable now, any more than it was 15 years ago when an NDP government tried to close off discussion of its spending estimates" — I'm not sure of the accuracy of that — "and the opposition leader of the day, one Bill Bennett, declared: 'Not a dime without debate.' Eight months later Mr. Bennett was Premier. Mr. Couvelier and his colleagues might care to ponder the significance of that if, as the NDP now suspects, the real purpose of the interim supply bill is to see the government through an election without proper examination of its budget."

Mr. Chairman, we have no further questions, because the government has no further answers.

Schedule 2 approved.

Section 4 approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Ree in the chair.

Bill 22, Supply Act (No. 1), 1990, reported complete without amendment.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: When shall the bill be read a third time?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Now, Mr. Speaker.

Motion approved on division.

Bill 22, Supply Act (No. 1), 1990, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, it is with delight that I call adjourned debate on the motion that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the House to go into Committee of Supply. I understand the Premier will be asking leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the second member for Richmond (Mr. Loenen) and myself, I would like to extend a welcome to 45 visitors from the Mitchell Elementary School in Richmond who are accompanied by seven adults. They're a fine grade 7 group, and I would ask the House to bid them welcome to the precincts.

[10:45]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, as I said before the Premier's introduction, we are going to return to the motion that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the House to resolve itself into Committee of Supply. This is normally called the budget debate, so we are back on the budget.

The first speaker this morning, according to the Speaker's list, is the member for Prince George South. Isn't that great? Here I am!

Budget Debate

(continued)

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I'm delighted to take my place in the debate this morning and be the lead-off speaker in support of that great budget presented by that remarkable Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) on April 19, 1990.

[ Page 9186 ]

There has been some criticism of this debate by some, but there has been some extraordinary praise by others. With respect to the financial and excellent fiscal management of the province, let me quote now to this chamber from Rick Acton, who is president of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of British Columbia. In responding to the budget and the great fiscal management by this wonderful government of ours, Mr. Acton said the budget is a very good one and deserves much more praise than criticism. "We could nitpick and find small things to criticize, but overall, we have to say our provincial government could give lessons in fiscal integrity and smart money management to the federal government."

MR. ROSE: Who said that?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Rick Acton, president of the chartered accountants' association of British Columbia. I realize that the chartered accountants' institute and Mr. Acton don't have the investigative capacity of the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Clark) in his remarkable analysis of our budget, but I would have a tendency to go with Mr. Acton and the chartered accountants of British Columbia, as they are the senior designation in the accounting field, whose comments must be taken with authority and some sincerity.

Mr. Acton goes on to say that he was impressed by the emphasis on long-term planning in the budget. Here's the point that I really wanted to get to: Mr. Acton further says that "multi-year funding is an intelligent strategy. The concept of averaging over a period of years is sound financial management." And he has nothing but praise for the budget stabilization fund. With that, Mr. Speaker, I rest my case on the integrity of how we are managing our budget and how the Minister of Finance has put it together.

If I could, I would like to turn briefly to my part of the budget speech and comment on initiatives that will be taken by the Ministry of Advanced Education, Training and Technology. I'd like to begin with a comment on the University of Northern British Columbia, because the funding is mentioned in there for that group and for the board of governors — which is already appointed — to begin their work.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to begin my comments on the University of Northern British Columbia by saying that the authors and the founding force behind that great initiative, Canada's newest university, came in 1987 from the Cariboo development region, of which I was a part. I want to mention the members responsible for putting the initiative in place. As a matter of fact, you, sir, were a part of that, in your former capacity as a member of the executive council. But I'll begin with the Cariboo development region board, which has members located throughout the region. They were: His Worship Bill Whalley, mayor of Mackenzie; His Worship John Backhouse, mayor of Prince George; His Worship Steve Kolida, mayor of McBride; His Worship Norm McNee, mayor of Valemount; His Worship Mike Pearce, mayor of Quesnel; Her Worship Donna Barnett, mayor of 100 Mile House; and His Worship Ray Woods, mayor of Williams Lake.

Further, on that committee was the then second, now first member for Cariboo (Mr. Vant), from Quesnel. Missing on the committee, but invited to attend, was the member for Prince George North (Mrs. Boone), who did not attend any meetings, who showed no support for the university, and whose support could have been used but who neglected to attend, for political purposes.

Interestingly enough, the current second member for Cariboo, who was a member of the New Democratic caucus, has begun to attend our Cariboo development region's meetings. There is an NDP member who is showing some responsibility for the Cariboo development region, for the central interior — far more responsibility than the current member for Prince George North does in these issues.

I might add, for the benefit of the House, that when the Cariboo development region was being formed, the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) referred to us as "a bunch of unsophisticated, rural rednecks." That was his opinion of those of us who live in the interior — because we had the ambition and took the initiative to think of such things as a northern university. Because we took the initiative to think of ways of making our interior region better, we were referred to by a Vancouver NDP MLA as "unsophisticated, rural rednecks." I found that offensive in the extreme. I found it offensive in 1987, and I find it offensive now.

With respect to the University of Northern British Columbia, there was also considerable assistance given by you, sir, in your former capacity as a member of the executive council; by the Minister of State for Northeast, our current Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet); and by the member for Skeena, our current Minister of Crown Lands (Hon. Mr. Parker). Without their support and contribution of $10,000 each, and my contribution of $70,000, we would not see the University of Northern British Columbia at the stage it is now, with a board of governors....

MRS. BOONE: Was it out of your pocket?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Remember the million dollars that you were complaining about — us unsophisticated, rural rednecks. Seventy thousand dollars came from that.

MRS. BOONE: It came out of the taxpayers' pockets, not yours.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Are you opposed to the university?

MRS. BOONE: No.

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Then why didn't you support it? You didn't want us to have the money, did

[ Page 9187 ]

you? Try and get out of that one. Listen, it's not going to work.

There was absolutely no support from the New Democratic Party on this initiative in 1987. We were referred to as "unsophisticated, rural rednecks." We were not given the opportunity to have regional determination, at least by them. They could not accept that there could be regional determination. Everything in their philosophy has to be dominated by a strong, central policy committee somewhere in Vancouver. Any notion that the north or central interior can be successful and show determination is certainly not accepted by that party.

However, in spite of that criticism and the criticism I hear now from the member for Prince George North, we forged ahead with the $100,000 from the various budgets. So the ministers of state for Skeena, Prince Rupert, the Peace and the Cariboo development region were able to fund the initial Urban Dahllof study which, although not totally instructive, at least gave us good impetus to take to cabinet. My predecessor, the current Minister of Regional and Economic Development (Hon. S. Hagen), put in place...

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Hey, guys, one at a time.

...the implementation planning group — a really good group — which in fact brought the final instruction to cabinet that there should be a university of northern British Columbia.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'm sure you'll have every opportunity to participate in this. It's taken us four days to get to this debate, and you're heckling.

AN HON. MEMBER: Stop heckling your own minister.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Right. I'm having so much fun.

In any event, I'm pleased to say that the University of Northern British Columbia is now a reality, with no help whatsoever from the New Democratic Party, but because of the good initiatives of Mayor Bill Whalley.

MR. HARCOURT: Tell the truth.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'll tell the truth. Yes, Bill Whalley will tell the truth. Steve Kolida will tell the truth when your member tries to run in Mount Robson. Norm McNee, the mayor of Valemount, will tell the truth.

MR. HARCOURT: Call the election. We can hardly wait.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Sure, you bet. By the way, when are you going to nominate?

MR. HARCOURT: Soon enough.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'll wait to see that. It's going to be interesting.

In any event, Mayor Bill Whalley and Mayor John Backhouse know the truth. Mayor Norm McNee of Valemount, where the member for Prince George North is going to try to run, knows the truth. Mayor Steve Kolida of McBride knows the truth of who supported the university and who didn't. We will see. During the election those facts will become apparent to all, I am sure.

I'm delighted we have the University of Northern British Columbia mentioned in the budget. We have legislation forthcoming that deals with it. That was mentioned in the throne speech. During this session we will have every opportunity to debate the legislation that is coming forward now, and I should point out that we are looking at the first draft. The University of Northern British Columbia board of governors is having input into the draft of that upcoming legislation. Murray Sadler, the chairman of the board of governors of the University of Northern British Columbia, and I have had some discussions on how that legislation should be shaped and framed to put Canada's newest university in place by statute authority.

I'd like to briefly turn to the ministry in general and discuss initiatives contained in the budget speech for the Ministry of Advanced Education, Training and Technology. They are indeed remarkable. I must give full credit to my predecessor, the current Minister of Regional and Economic Development, who has done a remarkable job in improving the ministry profile budget and Treasury Board submissions since his appointment In 1986. I must advise the House now that I am the benefactor of some very good work that was done by the member for Comox as minister in this ministry.

If you study budget documents since 1987, when we brought in our first budget, you will see that, in terms of post-secondary education, operating and capital grants have been increasing dramatically. The student financial assistance program has been revamped and funding has increased. A university matching program was set up to stimulate donations from the private sector. In conjunction with this came the ministry's highly successful Access for All initiative.

Let me just briefly speak about the matching program. That has been a remarkable success. All university presidents and university boards are working very hard on that and doing very well. Dr. David Strangway of UBC has made a remarkable contribution and done some remarkable fund-raising on that initiative. He has gone across Canada. UBC, being B.C.'s oldest university, has by far the largest number of alumni — and very successful alumni. David Strangway has used the reputation of that fine institution to really make the most of our government matching program. It's been most successful.

Access for All, another initiative that was begun by the member for Comox as minister, was very

[ Page 9188 ]

successful. Over $35 million was allocated in 1989-1990, and more than $21 million will be spent on this initiative in the next five years.

There are three university college systems that have been put in place and are operating quite successfully in Nanaimo, Kelowna and Kamloops, and we are, of course, establishing the University of Northern British Columbia.

This ministry also had some very good advice given to us just recently by the native advisory committee, a group co-chaired by Gordon Antoine, from the riding of Yale-Lillooet — a significant leader in native education. The other co-chair was Dr. Peter Jones of Fraser Valley College. Peter made a remarkable contribution to the record of Fraser Valley in terms of education for our native people. It's quite remarkable, and Peter Jones's contribution to that committee was excellent.

[11:00]

The system still needs to be increased; there's no question about that. But if members look at the budget documents they'll see that it's taking place. We knew in 1986, when we formed the government, that there was much to do. Briefly, I'll discuss capital planning, for example — capital acquisitions. We went from a budget of $25 million back in 1986, and our budgeting in this year and in further years for expenditures on an annual basis is $150 million. That's interesting, by the way, when we discuss capital budgets for universities, and will cause the NDP some embarrassment when and if we go to the polls. I took the opportunity to look at NDP spending on capital funding for post-secondary institutions when they were government, and it was reduced by 25 percent in the years 1972-1975. The government of Bill Bennett was the first government to bring capital spending back to an appropriate level. For whatever reason, the New Democratic philosophy does not believe in capital spending for post-secondary institutions, and that was evident during their time of government.

At the time, I was an employee of the College of New Caledonia, and I watched more and more students come to the door. I watched Eileen Dailly and Alf Nunweiler and other NDP politicians say: "No, you cannot have capital improvements to the College of New Caledonia."

It's interesting that a party which supposedly stands up for post-secondary education had an abysmal record of capital spending: a 25 percent reduction in capital spending on post-secondary institutions. The numbers are there in the estimates books from 1972 to 1975. All members can have a look at them. When and if we go to the people, I can assure you and all members of this assembly that I'm going to talk about the NDP record for post-secondary education, which was just abysmal.

If I could turn to what we're doing here in...

AN HON. MEMBER: Finally!

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Finally? You were the one that held up budget debate. We didn't; we wanted to get to it three days ago. I think you were afraid of budget debate.

MR. HARCOURT: What's $5 billion without debate?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: We're debating it now. That's what estimates are for. When you've been around here for a while, you'll learn how this place operates.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: You're here to change. I see. Tell me: if you're elected, are you going to reduce capital funding to post-secondary institutions by 25 percent again? Are you going to reduce the budget to universities again if you're government? Will you do that? Will you stand in your place and tell us how you're going to reduce capital funding to post-secondary institutions as you did in 1972? You reduced it by 25 percent when there was lots of money and a healthy economy. Are you going to do that again? Come on! You can take your place next in debate and tell us how you'll reduce those budgets again as you did in 1972, 1973, 1974 and 1975 — and don't tell me you didn't, because the budget documents are there.

I was working at the College of New Caledonia where we were working out of leaky, crummy portables because an NDP government would not give us the funding to build proper capital facilities. That's why there's not a university or college administrator in this province who will support your party. They're deathly afraid of your government. They remember the record; they know the NDP is not in favour of post-secondary education; they know you reduce budgets. You feel for whatever reason that post-secondary education is elitist, and capital budgets have been cut. The record is there. Don't deny it. Look it up in the book. The first government to restore decent capital financing to the post-secondary system was the government of Bill Bennett.

MR. JONES: You know more about '72-75 than your own current administration.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'm going to get to that now, because that's a great record. For the first time in history, this great Ministry of Advanced Education, Training and Technology has a budget which exceeds $1 billion. Our budget for this year is $1.1 billion. We have given post-secondary education a priority, Mr. Speaker. We're not cutting back on capital budgets as the NDP did. No, we believe in investing in the future of the youth of our province, in providing appropriate, good facilities, in providing funding for "Access for All, " for the university colleges in Nanaimo, Kelowna and Kamloops, and in providing legislation, board of governors and funding for a new University of Northern British Columbia. We're not going to cut; we're going to continue to build a great system for our students, for the future, for British Columbia to go into the twenty-first

[ Page 9189 ]

century proudly, with a responsible government looking at responsible post-secondary education.

AN HON. MEMBER: There's nothing for Langley in there.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: As a matter of fact, there is. Let me tell you about Langley. As you know — you should know this — we recently commissioned the four presidents of SFU, Kwantlen, Douglas College and Fraser Valley College to look at the growing population in the Fraser Valley, from Langley to Hope. The committee has reported. All of the MLAs representing those areas have convened with me. They're all Socreds, by the way - there's nothing I can do about that. I invite all MLAs to attend meetings with respect to universities. The first one was the member for Prince George North (Mrs. Boone), who for three years didn't attend any meetings to do with UNBC.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, as a matter of fact, we did. The second member for Cariboo (Mr. Zirnhelt) attends; that's the curious thing.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: You're not part of the Fraser Valley constituency. I'm talking about the Fraser Valley report, okay? The second member for Cariboo has been attending the Cariboo development region meetings. He's only attended two, because he was just elected in the fall, but he's made a remarkable contribution - far better than the member for Prince George North's, which really is disappointing, as she has had the opportunity since 1987 to contribute and has neglected to attend.

By the way, I'm going to digress briefly and, on behalf of my colleagues from Langley (Hon. Mrs. Gran and Mr. Peterson), introduce some Langley students who are in the gallery. I imagine my colleagues will be making a more formal introduction when I'm finished, which should be soon.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, that's all right. When I take my place, you can rise and welcome these students.

Let me talk about the Fraser Valley initiative, because it's quite important. We have the report now. It's an internal report. It was the work of Bill Saywell, the president of SFU, and the presidents of Kwantlen and Douglas Colleges. They recognized the rapidly growing population...

MR. JONES: Name names.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Bill Saywell.

...of the area. It's probably the fastest-growing area in....

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Adrienne MacLaughlin and Peter Jones, whom I referred to, and....

MR. JONES: Bill Day.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Thank you.

It recognizes the remarkable growth in the Fraser Valley, from Langley to Hope, and that there must be many more student spaces provided.

What the report does not do is truly identify how the student spaces should be managed and administered, and by what institution. It's instructive in the sense that it does indicate a critical need, which we will address and are addressing. We will have capital funding available to address those concerns. We will not be like the New Democrats, who reduced capital funding to post-secondary education when they were government. We will provide it.

The report is essentially internal, inasmuch as only the presidents contributed to it, and we see a greater need for public input. In answer to that response, I met with all of the area MLAs: the members for Surrey, Delta, Langley, Central Fraser Valley, Chilliwack, and, of course, Yale-Lillooet, whose riding includes Hope, which is in the Fraser Valley catchment area.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: All good Social Credit ridings.

We had a very instructive meeting. We concluded that inasmuch as we had a good internal report, we must get more input from the community at large. I'm pleased to announce today that within about three weeks, on behalf of all of those members from Surrey to Hope, we will be announcing a larger study group to identify the methods of education delivery, to look into ways that Simon Fraser might take part, maybe with a satellite campus...

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, they're very much interested in that.

... and the way the other three community colleges might take part, in terms of delivering post-secondary education to the Fraser Valley. These are very exciting times for the Fraser Valley.

We're delighted to see that initiative taking place. I'm delighted to know that we have some solid MLAs — people who will contribute to the governing system — who are ensuring that we have the best representation possible for the area and ensuring more and more seats for the students who live in their riding.

One of things we found out from the Fraser Valley report was that the participation rate really suffered considerably as you went east from Langley. That is unacceptable to us. We know it's acceptable to the NDP, because they always cut budgets. It's not

[ Page 9190 ]

acceptable to this government. We will ensure that those seats are delivered.

I'd like to close on a favourite theme of mine. As I said earlier, since 1987, as the MLA for Prince George South, I have been really interested in establishing a university for our area and for the central interior. It's probably the last area left in Canada of that population — about 300,000 — that is not served by a university.

With that in mind, in 1989 I went to visit Laurentian University in Sudbury and Lakehead University in Thunder Bay. They were schools in settings that closely resembled the Prince George and northern British Columbia area, inasmuch as they were resource communities — both Thunder Bay and Sudbury. They both had universities, and they were serving a large rural footprint and doing it very well. I visited those universities in 1989, and then I went on a larger tour this year — January 1990 — and visited Sudbury and Thunder Bay again and also the University of Lethbridge. I was going to go to Brandon, but they had a snowstorm, so I had to miss that. But I met the Manitoba minister.

I concluded by visiting the Technical University of Nova Scotia, which although located in a large city — Halifax — is a small specialized university. Although it's not what we're going to do in Prince George, it was instructive in that it presented a unique way of delivering highly technical engineering education to the students of Nova Scotia.

What I found out, though, and what I want to share with the House now with respect to UNBC is the fact that you don't have to be big to be good. At Lethbridge, Thunder Bay and Sudbury, I saw some remarkable examples of how a university of 3,500 to 4,000 students can be exceedingly good in terms of its course offering. I saw programs there that in fact attracted students from away from the area.

[11:15]

I see my green light is on, so I'm going to have to close. I did want to end on this note, because there has been some concern that a small university cannot be a good university. That is absolutely not the case. As a matter of fact, at Sudbury and Thunder Bay I saw how those universities attract students from Toronto for a lot of reasons. First of all, they're offering courses not available at U of T. They are far more reasonable communities to live in; the rents are not as high. Of course, they are offering a chance for Toronto students to get away.

I see that clearly happening at Prince George as we build our university, where in fact a good portion of the enrolment will come from Vancouver because of unique course offerings, and because of the very high rents and the highly stressed accommodation market in Vancouver and because the University of Northern British Columbia will probably be able to offer some unique programs that could not be delivered at Burnaby Mountain, Point Grey or Oak Bay–Gordon Head simply because of the physical setting.

Resource management, for example, is one; central interior forestry practices is another. Environmental studies, of course, is a logical one; aboriginal studies is another suggestion from the implementation planning group that our university must consider. We are considering that in the strongest terms. We will deliver those programs.

There are going to be many advantages to students who attend the University of Northern British Columbia, because of setting restrictions at Point Grey, Burnaby Mountain or Oak Bay.

With that said, I'll take my place, because my red light has gone on. I'll thank the members and you, sir, for your forbearance. I look forward to further debate, and of course, I look forward to taking my place in the estimates debate as well.

MS. MARZARI: Last Sunday, the second member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Mr. Perry) and I attended the first anniversary of Pacific Spirit Park in our constituency. We spoke to the debate that occurred in this House last year. When we were there, we talked about the fact that there was a park, and we were pleased with the advent of the park that had been fought for for so long and so hard by many members of our community.

We reminded the people gathered there that the Musqueam has first claim on that park. In fact, this House — your government — refused to allow an amendment to the transferring of the deed for that park to contain the words: "The transfer of this park shall not harm the ability of Musqueam to claim...." It was a major debate and a turning point for me as a politician in this House to understand just how politics get played and just how you, as government, play those politics.

After the end of our presentation and the small ceremony which was accompanied by rain and drizzle, but there was a good group of people out there to celebrate something that they had fought for, there was a tree-planting ceremony, and a dogwood was planted at the head of one of the trails close by. It was a rainy day, and the dogwood was planted in the right location perhaps, but it was planted in heavy clay soil. After she planted it ceremonially with the TV cameras on and everyone applauding, Iva Mann, one of the chief heroines of this park, mentioned to me quietly after the TV cameras had gone that she would be back first thing in the morning to replant that tree in proper soil — in soil that would breathe, in soil that would have the right acid mix to allow the dogwood to thrive and prosper.

There's a lesson there for all of us. I am not one to speak in metaphor, but I am beginning to understand that this House perhaps might understand the metaphor here. It is basically the metaphor of doing it right. After the cameras die away, and the press leaves, and the media walks out after the big budget speech, and everybody goes over for their cocktails and aperitifs - somebody's got to remain behind to do it right. And it is the job of this opposition to instruct and criticize and assist the government to do it right, until we ourselves are government.

What does doing it right look like in terms of this budget? I might make a few comments on a few procedures around this House which are sadly lack-

[ Page 9191 ]

ing. No matter how much money you throw back at the taxpayers in an election year, offending them with the sheer surfeit of dollars which are coming out of your pockets this year, I must say that the processes and the infrastructures that you are using are simply inadequate to deal with proper administration and proper public administration.

That, in my opinion, is the reason for the troubles we face in this province — the narrow-minded, blinkered approaches that your government takes to this business of handling taxpayers' dollars.

For example, three weeks ago a selection committee was struck to select members from this House to sit on various committees. One of those committees is the Public Accounts Committee, which should be sitting within days of the House opening. The committee looks at last year's fiscal statements. It takes a look at the actual dollars spent and how they were spent. It reads carefully through the auditor-general's report. It tries to instruct government how better to spend their money. It tries to take a look at how money actually got spent. That committee has not met yet. The selection committee to actually choose the members to sit on that committee has not had its final meeting. We will be lucky, Mr. Speaker, if the Public Accounts Committee, which is to look at the fiscal records and the financial records of this government in the year '88-89, already two years ago.... It has not yet met.

Interjection.

MS. MARZARI: I chair the committee, Mr. Member, and I must admit that in the 11 meetings we were allowed to have last year we accomplished a great deal.

I dare say that this year, if the foot-dragging continues, the Public Accounts Committee, if an election is called, will not meet at all. We will never see the content of those lottery grants. We will never see what has happened to the Stena Line. We won't even be able to look at the intricacies and the technicalities of the privatization program.

Interjection.

MR. RABBITT: Point of order. I regret to inform you, Mr. Speaker, that the second member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Perry) is occupying the Leader of the Opposition's chair and is speaking from somewhere other than his own chair. I would ask that you remind him of the rules of this House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Your point is well taken, hon. member.

MS. MARZARI: The auditor-general of this province has not yet produced his report for the House or for the Public Accounts Committee. It is not my job, nor is it my role, to speculate on why the auditor-general has not been able to bring forward his report, although I happen to know that both the public accounts and the auditor-general's report were largely completed long before this House ever sat. In fact, the auditor-general is having an informal meeting of the potential members of the Public Accounts Committee tomorrow morning at 11 o'clock. He is inviting members of this House to come and have a preliminary look at some of the workings of his office. I would suggest that the auditor-general is chastising members of this government, although he wouldn't do that verbally, over a matter of process such as this. He is reminding members of this government that it's time to get on with the job of a proper audit and a proper review of the books. I will be there tomorrow morning. I wonder how many people on the other side of the House will be there.

The public accounts had to be almost filched out of the government this year. Last year the Public Accounts Committee, in a unanimous vote — which included members of the government side of the House — asked for the public accounts to be produced at the earliest possible time and asked the Finance minister to look at ways and means that this could be done. The ways and means have to do with the public accounts being completed, possibly being handed to the Speaker and then the Speaker, using some discretion, and with another change in the Financial Administration Act, presenting the public accounts to the public long before the end of the calendar year. This could have happened last year; it did not. It happened finally on the second morning that this House sat — after complaints, after I put forward a notice of privilege, and after I tried to embarrass the minister. I was obviously successful at it and had the public accounts brought before this House. If this is what it takes to get the public accounts before this House every year, with a Minister of Finance who seems to deliberately go against his own backbenchers and his own members on the Public Accounts Committee, we are in dire straits indeed.

Doing it right. What does it look like to other people and other constituencies outside this House? Doing it right. I must go on. Sometimes kids cross their eyes, make big faces, pull down their eyelids, walk around with crossed eyes. Their mothers say: "Don't do that, your eyes will stick. Your face will stay looking like that. You'll grow up looking up like that." I have to say that the government side of this House has its eyes stuck, firmly crossed, without an eye on the vision and goals for this province.

You cannot help but offend people. It seems to be almost genetically in your bones. You have a $15.23 billion budget, a 10 percent increase over last year. There has never been so much spent by so few on so little, with so little vision and planning and so little scrutiny, as we just witnessed with the passing of the supply bill a few minutes ago — $5 billion intended to be spent in five minutes. Your politics get in the way of your common sense. Your politics get in the way of planning. Your politics get in the way of your own vision. What you have in front of you is politics. I must say that your politics get in the way of your own larger politics every day of the week and every week of the year. We can only sit back in amazement

[ Page 9192 ]

to watch, as yesterday we watched, the REAL Women newsletter hit this House, mailed out by the Ministry of Tourism.

Women are one of the groups that suffer from your shortsighted, blinkered attitude. Your political attitude will ultimately defeat you politically. Women have been told by this government that they simply don't count. They are not even mentioned in the budget. Although the word "women" is mentioned five times, no money is appended to their concerns. Pay equity is mentioned, but there is no money allocated; women's centres are not mentioned at all, and there is no money allocated; affirmative action is not mentioned, and there is no money allocated; day care is not mentioned, and there is no money allocated. Special programs for women in universities, such as women's studies programs, are not mentioned. There is no money allocated.

Money was allocated, just a week or so ago — $1 million — to the seal enclosure in the new zoo in Stanley Park. Women's centres — nothing. Women's centres could have been funded on an emergency basis by this government for less than $400,000, infinitely less than that, just to tide them through to see if they could have their own fund-raising in their own communities — not a cent, not a word.

[11:30]

A fast committee was trumped up by the minister in charge of women's issues, suggesting that the women sitting on that committee were representing the agencies which they sit on, when in fact those women were sitting on that committee as individuals, not as agency reps — a committee trumped up to advise the minister on women's issues. Well, that's just fine, but it was pulled together at the very moment when women's centres desperately needed the emergency funding to tide them over to the end of the month, or to the end of May or to the end of June, so that they could look into the future and see what they could possibly do.

Women's centres trashed in this province; women's centres — zero; the seal pond in the Stanley Park zoo — $1 million. Need we go on? Need we say anything more? Probably, and we will. But women are not even considered in this budget in any significant way at all. They are offended, and they know they are offended.

Even if you took the tax that you are going to collect on disposable diapers, which I've calculated at possibly $1.5 million for the next year — and that's a conservative estimate with 50,000 under-two-year olds wearing six diapers a day and subtracting the 25 percent of women who already use cloth diapers.... Put that towards women's centres. Put that towards women's programs. Put that toward some kind of a program that's going to give women some hope in this province, some hope that their concerns are being addressed.

Who else have you managed to offend? As we look around this province, who else has this government inadvertently or consciously offended with this budget — this rich, superabundant, out-of-our-pocket budget that's intended to win votes in this election year? How do you turn that into poison for people?

I'll tell you how. In education you've taken every school board in this province, and you've dangled them three inches off the ground just so their feet can't touch the ground and they'll remain there suspended and floating. You've told them: "We're going to give you more money than you've ever seen. On a per capita basis, we're even going to bring you up to almost close to — but not quite — the national average, but it's more than you've ever seen in 15 years. We're going to do it this way. You're going to get a lot of money for each child in your school system, but we are going to take away your ability to do any kind of innovative programming with that money, because you're going to be so strapped you're barely going to be able to get your core programming going. If you want to do anything extra, you're going to have to go to referendum."

That's what you've told school boards. Those school boards are not necessarily New Democratic; they range through the political spectrum. They are lifted there, suspended, saying on the one hand: "We know that referenda don't work in the communities. We know that the communities are feeling cash-strapped right now, and that referenda aren't necessarily going to serve our children's interests. We don't want the referenda, but we're going to have to raise money through referenda. So we have to go to little meetings and develop ways in which we can get people to vote for the referenda, even though we personally cannot support them."

Oh, what a great way to win over the educators. What a great way to go to communities and say: "Parents, children, teachers, trustees, look at us; trust us. We've got big bucks for you." My goodness, your bucks are expensive for everybody's integrity. My goodness, your bucks are expensive for anybody's sense of democracy and justice. You give them the money, and you take away their dignity. That's what you're doing on this education budget. It's not serving anybody's interests, and the ironic thing is that it's not serving your own interests.

Who else are you hurting? Who else do you offend and make angry with your big bucks as you march through communities with your big cheques? You offend the housing community. You offend people who are being dumped out of their houses right now in the large urban centres across this province. You give them the renter's tax grant, that's right; but on the other hand, you don't talk about a speculator's tax, you don't talk about demolition controls, you don't sit down and develop with those urban centres and municipalities housing plans that meet their needs.

You offer, you say, 8,000 new housing units. I happen to know that the social housing allocation that you're really going to be able to put up is closer to 2,000 units. But you are just going to announce it four times this year — 2 times 4 makes 8 — and you're going to announce 8,000 housing units.

You're going to blame the municipalities. You're going to blame the mayors. When the mayors can't

[ Page 9193 ]

come up with little allocations of land for your 2,000 units, you're going to say the mayors are to blame. You're going to blame the very people that you rely on for support to get anything done. Rather than sitting down with the mayors and saying, "We have some land; we have a little land bank; we can buy land; we're the province; we can take a look at an overall plan for your communities; we can take a look at the plan for your cities; let's do some stuff together," you're going to stand here — and in your budget speech, the actual official document that came out of that fancy meeting we had a few weeks ago — you're going to blame the mayors. Sit there and blame.

It's seven-year-old stuff, you know. It's like my boys blaming each other: "Who did it? Oh, he did." You guys just sit there and blame. Fifteen billion dollars, and you're going to spread it around and pass guilt with it, pass blame with it, pass gas with it. You are simply losing the larger strategic political battle, as well as the sense of justice, democracy and dignity in communities.

Who else do you manage to offend? You offend Jericho lands in my constituency. I've been following the Jericho lands because it is 100 acres of prime real estate in my constituency. Some in my constituency would call it prime parkland; others would call it a prime opportunity to do something interesting: to create social housing; to create decent park space; to create — because it's not serviced and there are no roads — a new kind of community where they can live together, enjoy the great view and develop some affordable housing all at the same time. But when we asked questions of the Minister of Government Management Services last year, we found out that it was probably going to be sold because it was on the privatization list. We asked three months later: "Whose list is it on now?" "It's on the Social Services and Housing list." "Oh, is it on a list to be sold for housing?" "Well, we're not quite sure," came back the answer.

I have a letter on my desk from the new Minister of Government Management Services (Hon. Mrs. Gran) assuring residents in my constituency that the Jericho lands are not going to be sold, and saying that if anything is to be done, it will be with appropriate planning with the community. Who are we to believe? We've spent a year on this. I don't believe any of it. I think you're sitting on those lands waiting to sell them off to your friends and turn them into single-family, expensive housing, just like the rest of my city, just like the rest of my constituency, ignoring the market and the need. That's what you guys do, I remember now. Buy high and sell low. That's right, that's what you do.

Who else do you offend? You offend small business. My God, the small business community — would you mention them here? You're going to give them relief? There's no small business relief in here. You're the ones who increased the small business tax from 8 percent to 11 percent. Now you've brought it down to 9 percent. Is there any decent relief in here for small business? No. In an eleventh-hour speech in this House, one hour after the GST speech closed down in Ottawa, you raised a ruckus about the GST. Did you use your fancy government publications to address the small business community in this province about the dangers of the GST before the end of the debate in Ottawa? No. Did I see the Premier running through the province for the last six months talking about the GST? No. I don't see any relief here for small business, and small business doesn't see any relief from this government. You've offended small business. They're beginning to think of you not as free-enterprisers but as free-lunchers. And that's all there is to it.

Who else have you managed to offend? You've offended labour. You intended to offend labour. You not only leave them out of any budget speech, but you deliberately set out to set up divisions inside the labour community with this suggestion or innuendo that you're going to be capping their wages. At the same time, you promised pay equity for women, once again suggesting that women would benefit but that everybody's wages would be red-circled — not exactly the way to win any friends in the labour union movement.

The last group that you offend — I'm sure you don't mean to offend, but you do almost instinctively, as you can't help yourselves — is the federal government itself. You, the stewards of our communities of health and welfare, have managed to come up with a budget that, rather than talking and negotiating and bargaining with the federal government to achieve some reasonable allocations under the equalization payments and under the Canada Assistance Plan, which are the mainstays of our health, post-secondary education and social services systems.... You say right here in your budget speech: "We must reduce our dependence on the federal government in a host of areas, including social programs, economic development programs and taxation arrangements." You've admitted defeat. You here have basically drawn a line beyond which you are not going to go with the federal government. You are simply selling us down the river. You are simply saying you don't care.

I've heard that we in British Columbia have 17 people working in our London office, where people can run around England and stay in our London home, whatever it is, I suppose manufacturing great job opportunities in London; but you have four full-time lobbyists in Ottawa. That was two years ago; you might have even fewer now. Four people to service our interests in Ottawa!

I am told that you bought an $8 million airplane which ended up costing you too much, but you rationalized it because you thought you would have a lot of trips to Ottawa to do some decent lobbying with the federal government, and that airplane would be your connection with Ottawa. On the airplane you would go empty-handed and come back with great slabs of programs and wonderful new moneys for British Columbia. The plane hasn't been used; it is in mothballs. You haven't got it together to go to Ottawa to bring back the bucks.

[ Page 9194 ]

Not only that.... I have to say it. You used these words in the budget the same week that Premier Buchanan was suggesting that the Maritimes would have to pull out of Confederation if Quebec was ignored or if Quebec and Meech Lake didn't make some reconciliation. A Premier of this country was actually suggesting that there would be a secessionist movement if Quebec pulled out and there wasn't some reconciliation. You, our government in British Columbia, started talking about "going it alone" in the budget speech — going it alone, without the support and assistance of our federal government. Going it alone — one of the richest provinces in Canada, which sends back millions upon millions in tax dollars to the feds. You're talking about not pulling that money back; you're talking about going it alone. Isn't that rich! The EPF gets sliced back at your request and we are left stranded, trying to fund our post-secondary programs and our health system.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Isn't it rich that the Canada Assistance Plan was cut off for three provinces — Ontario, Alberta and B.C. — and not a peep. Just the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith) saying that he'd piggyback on top of the Ontario government as it went to sue the federal government. Hundreds of millions of dollars were lost to us. What do we get out of this government? A statement that we should think independently and go it alone. Really.

[11:45]

Not a dime without debate. We can debate nickels and dimes until we're blue in the face. In fact, from my experience on city council, we often spent more time discussing the nickels and dimes than we did on spending for the larger picture. This is magnified here a hundredfold — in fact, today, a billionfold. We don't discuss the big numbers; we discuss the nickels and dimes. How pathetic and how ironic! We've got to do it right in this province. Like Iva Mann who went out Monday morning with a shovel, loam and peat to replant that tree in proper soil, we in this province are going to have to do it right. Immediately after the coming election, I can guarantee you that we on this side of the House will be doing it right.

HON. MRS. GRAN: It gives me great pleasure to stand up today in this debate and support the only balanced budget in all of Canada for the second year in a row. Before I begin speaking, Mr. Speaker, I would like to offer my congratulations to you for the position you now hold and to acknowledge the great amount of knowledge you have about that Chair. I also want to tell the House that as a very green MLA when I first arrived in Victoria, as Chairman of the Committee of the Whole, it was our Speaker who loaned me his book with all the proper rules and regulations outlined. Today, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank you for that. You have your book back now and need it desperately.

I want to spend a few minutes talking about the boundary changes that British Columbia is experiencing and about yet another division in the community that I live in and represent. That division causes serious concerns for the constituents that both the second member for Langley (Mr. Peterson) and I represent. It's another division that creates a problem in the community between two local governments who sometimes have difficulty getting together on their concerns. I know that after the next election the same two members will be returned to Victoria to work together, as they always have.

I also want at this time to recognize the second member for Langley, and say how proud I have been of him, particularly in the last year as he went through a family tragedy with his son. I want to say that it was very difficult for the second member for Langley to do his job and keep his mind on his job while his son was ill, but he did that and he did it well. I want to acknowledge that.

Langley is a growth area, one of the fastest-growing communities in British Columbia. Langley has more families per capita than any community, any municipality in this province. Langley has a quality of life that is the envy of many. We have a very deep respect for traditional values and for the family. We in Langley face a decade of change just as everyone else in this province and this country does. The decade of change that is coming and moving very quickly will see many changes in the Fraser Valley, where we enjoy wide open spaces, trees, and where we used to have clean air.

There are many concerns in the community I represent, ranging from water and sewer in the district of Langley to the lack of clean air — particularly the pollution from vehicles on the 401. I am proud to see in the budget that our government will institute vehicle emission inspections in the spring of 1991.

I would also hope for the residents of Langley that we will see the escalation of rapid transit and fast lanes for buses to help alleviate the pollution that some members of the NDP seem to find funny. They have a strange way of reacting on the socialist side of the House. Pollution is not something to laugh about or to make smart remarks about. Pollution is a very serious matter for the residents from my community. The member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) should know that better than anyone. Pollution is not a joke.

The residents of the Fraser Valley also have another concern. That concern is the proposed gas drilling and storage. I have met with many groups in that community who are concerned about the companies who have obtained leases for drilling and storage in our community. I want to say that no permits will be issued by this government without the support of the community. We have that promise from the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Davis).

The NDP would like to use that issue to try and make some inroads into the Fraser Valley. But let me tell you, the NDP will never see the day when they make inroads in the Fraser Valley politically. The

[ Page 9195 ]

people who live in the Fraser Valley are much too astute, aware and smart to vote NDP in this province.

We also have in Langley...

Interjections.

HON. MRS. GRAN: I'm going to try desperately to talk about my community, whether the NDP want me to or not.

I want to talk about the horse-breeders who live in Langley. Over half of the thoroughbred horse breeders in British Columbia reside in Langley. They are the people who provide the open air. They are the people who provide all of the beautiful scenery that people from the city like to come out to, drive around and look at. Those people deserve the support of all of this province. The thoroughbred industry is a multimillion-dollar industry that provides a lot of jobs and a lot of business in this province.

I think the second member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Mr. Perry), who sits and chats away about nothing, has probably not got the foggiest notion about a horse, but let me tell you, Mr. Member, that horses provide a way of life and a lot of jobs in the Fraser Valley. They provide a lot of jobs for veterinarians, who probably have more knowledge of the medical field than the member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

We have 85 percent of our community in farmland — farmland that we view as very precious — and the growth in Langley and the stress and the strains on those farmlands are great. It's a given that we have many pieces of property in Langley that are not good for farming. I want this House to know that our community is working in a very controlled way to make sure that development in the Langley area is done in a manner that will make sure that all the quality of life that we enjoy, and which we want people from the city to enjoy also, will be preserved.

Given the time of day, I would like to move adjournment of this debate until later today.

Hon. Mrs. Gran moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Fraser moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:56 a.m.