[ Page 9197 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Ministerial Statement

Local government awareness week. Hon. L. Hanson –– 9197

Mr. Rose

Oral Questions

AIDS information, Mr. Perry –– 9197

Surgery waiting-lists. Mr. Perry –– 9198

REAL Women. Ms. Pullinger –– 9198

Vancouver Community College dispute. Mr. Jones –– 9198

Home support worker dispute. Mr. Serwa –– 9199

Purchase of computer equipment. Mr. Lovick –– 9199

Air pollution, Mr. Cashore –– 9199

Royal assent to bill –– 9200

Budget Debate

Hon. Mrs. Gran –– 9200

Mr. Barnes –– 9202

Hon. S. Hagen –– 9207

Ms. Edwards –– 9211

Mr. Mercier –– 9214

Mr. Sihota –– 9217

Mr. Huberts –– 9221

Mr. Miller –– 9224

The House met at 2:03 p.m.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today are five members of the Western Canada Wilderness Committee: Adrian Carr, Paul George, Joe Foy, Derrick Young and Ken Lay. Will the House join me in making them welcome.

HON. MR. MESSMER: Mr. Speaker, visiting us today from the great city of Penticton are two good friends: Glo Hamilton and Bill Muir. Would the members please join me in welcoming them.

MR. PERRY: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to welcome Ms. Nancy Skinner, who is a councillor from the city of Berkeley, which, as some of you may know, is often said to have the second-best university in the world after UBC. She's a prominent environmentalist and active in municipal initiatives for environmental protection. It's a delight to have her with us today up in the gallery.

MS. PULLINGER: Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure today to introduce two people. One is a young New Democrat — I believe he's in the Speaker's gallery — Simon Philp. The other is David Winter, who is the representative of the CLC for Vancouver Island and the north coast — also from my riding of Cowichan Ladysmith. Would the House please help me make these two people welcome.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, just before I call on the Clerk for the next order of business, members are advised that following question period, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor will be attending the House for passage of the Supply Act. Members should be advised that immediately after question period, we will show His Honour the courtesy of staying in the House for that brief period of time.

Ministerial Statement

LOCAL GOVERNMENT AWARENESS WEEK

HON. L. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a ministerial statement. Each year at this time, the province celebrates Local Government Awareness Week. Each community in British Columbia is celebrating this event in some manner. I would like to ask members of the House to join me in recognizing the important role of local government in the life of this province.

We all understand that local government is the cornerstone of Canadian democracy. Moreover, local government provides the vital services and public Works that citizens of British Columbia depend on every day.

Excellent management at the community level has helped spur British Columbia's remarkable economic growth. I ask that members of the House join me in commending the efforts of our colleagues at the municipal level and wishing them well as they face the challenges of municipal government in the nineties.

MR. ROSE: I'm pleased to respond to the minister and thank him for making certain that we have this ministerial statement of his, which I think conforms admirably to the guidelines for ministerial statements. He must have been reading that great source, George MacMinn, on page 52.

Many of the people in this room are former participants in local government. I think we have some appreciation not only of what the responsibilities are, but of the fact that you are very close to the people you represent and also what an important part of our three levels of government they really are. The former mayor of Vernon who just gave that is, I think, an example of how it's often an excellent training ground for people who wish to go on to other offices.

I'm really pleased to hear that the government has seen fit to honour local government because I felt, during the early part of the throne speech and budget, that they were kicking them around as being obstacles — or something like that — in the way of development, housing and that sort of thing. This will certainly reassure them. I'm reassured; I hope people in local government are. I thank the minister once again for making this available to us.

MR. SPEAKER: I wouldn't want the House to be misled. It's page 50 of MacMinn, not page 52. Page 52 deals with a rather unpleasant issue which we wouldn't want to discuss.

Oral Questions

AIDS INFORMATION

MR. PERRY: The minister is no doubt aware that the REAL Women newsletter contains malicious and dangerous information regarding persons with AIDS. Has the minister decided to correct some of the damage caused by this government-financed mailing by assisting the Persons with AIDS Coalition and the distribution of educational material to help halt the spread of AIDS?

HON. J. JANSEN: Mr. Speaker, I'm not familiar with this document, but I would hope that the hon. member would, through the consultative process that we are going to undertake with the AIDS strategy, bring this information forward to us at that time.

MR. PERRY: On a supplementary, the information question was front page in the provincial newspaper this morning. Does the minister not realize that without an explicit attempt to counter this government-financed misinformation, his entire ministry's efforts towards AIDS prevention can only be undermined?

[ Page 9198 ]

HON. J. JANSEN: It's unfortunate that when we get questions in the House, there are two questions always written down, and regardless of what the answer is, the second question is always asked. I would again refer the member to my comments that we're going to undertake a very extensive consultation program in terms of developing an AIDS strategy. I would hope he would be very active in that regard and give us a lot of information to ensure we do present a balanced policy.

SURGERY WAITING-LISTS

MR. PERRY: I can assure the minister I will be active in that regard.

At the moment people in British Columbia are dying because of delays in getting hospital treatment. Most recently a Kamloops heart patient died in Calgary after being turned away from British Columbia hospitals and waiting 30 hours in Kamloops. The minister is sitting on a private report by an Ottawa consultant that reports on the reasons for these deadly delays. Has the minister decided to level with British Columbians on why people on surgical waiting-lists are dying and table the report in this Legislature?

HON. J. JANSEN: It's regrettable, again, that the member opposite sometimes allows his politics to influence and cloud his professional judgment. A statement such as that is irresponsible to the extreme.

The report that the member is referring to is about two years old. It relates to open-heart surgery. We have implemented all of the recommendations except for one. If the hon. member would like a copy of the report, I would be pleased to give it to him.

MR. PERRY: Supplementary. I thank the minister for his assurance that he will table that report. This latest death in Kamloops is not an isolated incident. At least 12 heart patients died in British Columbia last year while waiting for surgery.

The Finance minister (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) has told us that heart surgery waiting-lists are the fault of there being too many doctors. Can the Health minister name one patient who died in this province because there were too many doctors?

REAL WOMEN

MS. PULLINGER: I have a question to the Minister Responsible for Women's Programs. Yesterday your Premier said that he saw nothing wrong with the REAL Women newsletter distributed by this government. Even the Tourism minister (Hon. Mr. Michael) agreed that some of it was offensive after he read the newsletter. On behalf of the government side of the House, is the minister now prepared to repudiate the contents of this literature?

HON. MRS. GRAN: I had an opportunity last night to read the letter in question. I have already said to the press today that I intend to speak at that meeting. I think that group needs to hear my message more than any group in this province. Let it be known to the members of the opposition that the Minister Responsible for Women's Programs in this province does not believe in intolerance, and that I care very deeply about all of the women in British Columbia.

MS. PULLINGER: I notice that the minister did not repudiate the contents of this document. What we're asking from this government is ethical leadership. Will the minister please confirm that she refuses to repudiate this literature because its author is a political friend and supporter of the Premier and because this government shares the view expressed in this literature?

HON. MRS. GRAN: Mr. Speaker, I have no difficulty — as I didn't yesterday — in saying that the contents of the letter are not appropriate and are not my views.

MS. PULLINGER: In light of that latest comment, has the minister decided that when she speaks to REAL Women on behalf of all British Columbians, she will specifically inform this group that the people of this province do not support and are in fact offended by their ongoing campaign to deny women choice on abortion?

[2:15]

HON. MRS. GRAN: At this point I would like to point out to this House that there are sides in every issue and sides where women are concerned also extreme sides. But 80 percent of the women in this province hold the same moderate, caring views as I do, and those are the women I represent.

MS. PULLINGER: Mr. Speaker, British Columbians are offended that this government paid to distribute this literature. Does the minister not realize that without an explicit condemnation of this material in her speech, women in British Columbia can only assume that she supports these policies?

MR. SPEAKER: I don't believe there was a question. The member for Burnaby North.

VANCOUVER COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISPUTE

MR. JONES: I have a question for the Minister of Advanced Education. As of tomorrow, some 1,500 UIC-sponsored students at Vancouver Community College will lose their sponsorship and support in their job training programs. I'd like to ask the minister: what steps has the minister taken to ensure that those UIC-sponsored students are going to be able to complete their training?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The steps that will be taken by this ministry in that issue will be taken when they have to be. But let me say for the record that in the case of this dispute, which I feel terribly

[ Page 9199 ]

bad about, the Legislative Assembly has to remember that government is neither the employer nor the employee. This is a legitimate labour dispute in the province between an employer and an employee.

Regrettably, as in most labour disputes, there are people who are going to suffer in one way or the other. However, the law is the law. Negotiation continues with mediator Allan Hope. I would urge both sides to return to the table and bargain in good faith. I can assure this assembly that it is not my position nor the government's to intervene in legitimate labour disputes.

MR. JONES: Supplementary to the same minister. Unless a settlement is imminent, those 1,500 students will suffer great personal hardship. The minister is reported recently as having said that he will try to get talks rolling again. I would like to ask the minister: what is he doing? What has he done to get those talks rolling?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Unlike the New Democratic Party, it is not our policy to interfere in these matters. Bargaining is continuing, and if I was the result of that.... That's conjecture. I assured everyone a few days ago in the statements that the member is referring to.... I urged both sides to return to the table. It's my understanding that they have, and I sincerely hope they can conclude their negotiations and begin the operation at Vancouver Community College and those two struck campuses as quickly as possible.

MR. JONES: A short supplementary. Is the minister saying that he has been misquoted in his statement that he will try to get talks rolling again?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, you could conclude that, because I never said I would try to get talks started again. My comment in this issue, as it was in the Douglas dispute of late last year, was this: "I urge both sides to return to the bargaining table." Those are the only comments I have made with respect to this dispute and the previous dispute, so they are consistent with the policy that this government takes to commenting on labour disputes.

HOME SUPPORT WORKER DISPUTE

MR. SERWA: My question is to the Minister of Health. Sheila Fruman, a British Columbia government employees' spokesperson, and an individual who has acted as a press officer to the Leader of the Opposition, accused you in this morning's Times-Colonist of abdicating your responsibility in the home support worker dispute. Could the minister advise the House of the current situation regarding the provision of these very important services?

HON. J. JANSEN: The BCGEU is seeking a contract with four home support agencies, and this I believe to be a first contract for the BCGEU in this particular care. They are seeking a contract that is richer than other contracts signed in the industry. They are proceeding with bargaining and unfortunately have reached some confrontations.

My colleague suggested before that we urge further negotiations. It's obviously not a matter for the Minister of Health to become involved in. We buy services from these home support agencies, and they are represented by the Continuing Care Employee Relations Association.

PURCHASE OF COMPUTER EQUIPMENT

MR. LOVICK: A question to the Minister of Transportation and Highways. Can the minister confirm that in the last month of this fiscal year her ministry purchased some $10 million worth of personal computer equipment?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, I would have to take that question as notice. I don't have that knowledge.

MR. SPEAKER: A new question?

MR. LOVICK: A new question, Mr. Speaker, to the same minister. If indeed some such equipment was purchased, can the minister tell us...?

Interjections.

MR. LOVICK: It was worth a try.

MR. SPEAKER: The members are starting to police themselves. The Chair is delighted.

AIR POLLUTION

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Environment. The Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Richmond) has waffled on the issue of reducing C0₂ emissions by reducing slash-burning. Will this minister confirm that the best way to reduce C0₂ emissions, given the report that came out recently, is to reduce slash-burning?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I disagree with the comments made by the member about the Minister of Forests. I would suggest to him that he should read more than one report before he asks a question in this House.

MR. SPEAKER: Before recognizing the member for Rossland-Trail (Mr. Darcy), I would advise the House that the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Clark) is absent today because his wife and he are the proud parents of a new baby girl. In celebration of that, the House would like to send them a note.

The member for Prince George North (Mrs. Boone) is today celebrating the annual occasion of her birth. The House will please make her welcome.

[ Page 9200 ]

Hon. members, I am advised His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor is in the precincts. I would ask all members to remain in their seats.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor entered the chamber and took his place in the chair.

CLERK-ASSISTANT: Supply Act (No. 1), 1990

CLERK OF THE HOUSE: In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth thank Her Majesty's loyal subjects, accept their benevolence and assent to this bill.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

Orders of the Day

Budget Debate
(continued)

HON. MRS. GRAN: As I was saying before we adjourned for lunch, I am proud to stand up and debate in a positive manner the budget, the only balanced budget in Canada for the second year in a row. Instead of the debt that the NDP stands for, the spending of the NDP socialists on the other side of the House were they government would be quite a different story today in this province. They expect the voters in the next election to elect them as government so that we, once again, can find ourselves debt-ridden in a province where we have a balanced budget and money in the bank for a rainy day.

Having talked about my constituency, I want to now talk about my ministry. I want to talk in particular about women's programs and take this opportunity to dispel some of the myths that have happened because of things that have been said by opposition members.

The first thing I want to make very clear is that the Ministry of Women's Programs is an advocacy ministry. It's a ministry where 1, as Minister Responsible for Women's Programs, make sure that all of the programs offered by every ministry in government are good programs, that they're working and that they're what the women of this province want.

[2:30]

My ministry is committed to assisting women in becoming economically independent. A perfect companion for that to happen in an orderly and speedy fashion is Government Management Services. Government Management Services consists of a ministry of people who are committed to customer service. They're committed to quality, and they're committed to caring. Those are all the ingredients necessary to make women's programs work.

So Government Management Services offers women's programs an extra measure of support that would not be there if women's programs were a ministry on its own. The office of information technology, as we heard yesterday, has put together a position that will assist women in the public service to obtain new skills for jobs when the jobs they hold as clerical workers disappear through technology. Those are the kinds of innovations this ministry is responsible for.

In the last five and a half months, this ministry has created more successes for women than at any other time in this province — even during the years of the NDP. I remind this House what a former member of this House on the NDP side had to say about Dave Barrett when he was the Premier of British Columbia: "This condescension was galling, an example of the most glaring paternalism centred on the introduction of a women's ministry. Dave Barrett, the new Premier, publicly rejected the policy of a women's ministry." That's how much the NDP care about women in this province.

She goes on to say: "The depth of Barrett's ignorance about women's issues was profound." That particular member of the NDP is now a member in our federal Parliament. Not only that, but Barrett ran for the leadership of the NDP, hoping to be the Prime Minister of Canada, and holding views that clearly do not coincide with the views we continually hear about women's issues from the other side of this House.

MS. PULLINGER: Rosemary Brown said nobody could do better than Dave Barrett for women. He did it.

HON. MRS. GRAN: Yes, I think the second member for Nanaimo is right. He did it; he did nothing — absolutely nothing for the women in this province.

Interjections.

HON. MRS. GRAN: Let me talk, Mr. Speaker, about some of the things we've done in the last five and a half months, and the leadership that this government has shown. Let's talk about pay equity for the public service in British Columbia. Let's talk about the many women in the public service who will benefit from that pay equity program.

Fairness for women in the public service will cost millions of dollars when it's implemented. That is leadership on the part of this government, and I'm proud of it. That is just the first step.

The private sector must take note of what the government is doing and implement their own pay equity programs. They must remember that on the other side of the House, the NDP have promised that they will implement the heavy hand of government throughout this province with legislation not just for public servants, but for every individual business in this province.

The devastation of that for business will be great. Jobs will be lost because of the kind of implementation that the NDP are known for doing. The NDP have all their friends to look after. They owe big debts, and those debts would have to be paid.

[ Page 9201 ]

Now let's talk about child care centres. We hear a lot about child care from the NDP. On this side of the House, this government has instructed every ministry to look at every building to see where child care centres can be implemented, to demonstrate leadership for the private sector.

Let me tell you what the critic for women on the NDP side has to say about child care, quoted from the Vancouver Sun, September 16, 1988: "The federal government is proposing a $6.4 billion child care program spread over seven years. We are asking the provincial government not to sign it." That's how much the critic on the other side of the House cares about child care.

Today British Columbia is in the position of having to ask its taxpayers on their own to put in place the child care, which we need the help and assistance from the federal government for. So I think the women of this province can say "thank you" to the NDP for helping to defeat something that was badly needed.

I want to talk about some of the goals being set for the addition of more women to boards and commissions and management positions in this government. Those goals are in place, and they are working. There are more women in management positions in government today and in the last three years than at any time in the history of this government and this House.

I want to talk about regional development. I want to explain to the other side of the House how this ministry works. In its budget, Regional Development will include programs for women who want to get into business, including home occupations. When you're looking at the budget for the ministry of women's programs, you have to look further than that. Look at Regional Development and Advanced Education, which have received more funding. That funding will In many ways assist colleges to offer more training programs for women, especially for those left on their own to support children and without the job skills to get good-paying jobs. Advanced Education is responsible for a very big part of that.

Let's talk about social services and the myth out there that women's centres are shelters. Women's centres are not shelters. Shelters are provided by the Ministry of Social Services, and with the 25-percent increase in funding for transition houses this coming year, we will be spending $10 million in this province on transition houses — safety for women and children being battered at home.

I want to talk about the Ministry of Health and the greater access to mammography testing recently announced by the Minister of Health — another indication that this government cares about women. I want to talk about millions and millions of dollars in services to women, including access to a B.C. pension plan. At least 50 percent of the people in this province do not have access to a pension plan. This government....

Interjections.

HON. MRS. GRAN: Well, you start with a White Paper — for the member for Prince George North (Mrs. Boone) — so that people in the province can have some input.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Could we please have the minister address the Chair, and could we have fewer interjections. This is the most interjections we've had so far in the budget speech; somewhat fewer would make the House a little more pleasant and might give a better impression for our visitors today.

HON. MRS. GRAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Then I won't have to speak so loudly.

I just noticed that on the other side of the House there are four female members in the NDP and one very nice male member whom I have very fond feelings for. I'm going to do something a bit political at this point and point out the difference between the philosophy of women on this side of the House and that of women on that side of the House.

I look at the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) and wonder how he felt when the female caucus of the NDP tried to have him defeated in his nomination meeting. I wonder what feeling that gives in your caucus. I wonder how the men in your caucus feel and whether they trust you.

Interjection.

HON. MRS. GRAN: Well, you see, your view of democracy and my view of democracy are different. Shoving a knife in your colleague's back is not democracy, in my view. Anyway, it points out in a very small way the difference between the women in the Social Credit Party and those in the NDP.

MR. BARNES: On a point of order, I first of all want to thank the member for her very kind, adoring words which she bestowed upon me. However, I should set the record straight with respect to some of her other remarks about the female members in the caucus.

MR. SPEAKER: That's not a point of order.

MR. BARNES: It's just a clarification of the facts.

MR. SPEAKER: No, hon. member. You have the opportunity, according to my speaker list, of being the very next person to speak in this debate, and you'll have ample opportunity at that time to clarify anything you wish to clarify. Would the minister please continue.

HON. MRS, GRAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the member for his point of order. When he gets up he can make up the usual stories that the NDP make up about us. I happened to have read that

[ Page 9202 ]

in several publications, so I assumed, as you always do, that It was true.

Anyway, on to women's programs. It's important for all of us in this House to recognize that women are not just adult women and young women. The women in this province start as young girls in school and they end as seniors in this province. There are many concerns that need to be addressed, and those concerns need to be addressed in a very caring way. It's most important for women to work together. We can have our political differences in this House, but one of the things I really feel very strongly about — and the letter yesterday that we've had much debate about pointed it out more than anything that I could ever bring to the House — is that women must join forces and work together for the betterment of all the women in this province.

The polarization that exists is very demeaning to women on both sides. Some of the statements made.... I think the massacre in Montreal that was mentioned in that letter was the worst part to me. It was the most tragic thing that I've seen happen in my lifetime to a group of women, and for someone to use that in the way it was used in that letter is very sad.

It was also sad to see the way some women's groups made all men feel like they had committed that terrible crime. I think that's the issue I want to point out: how women hurt themselves sometimes by being filled with hate.

Many of the meetings I have gone to as minister for women's programs have had that hate. One in particular that I think about — you could cut the air with a knife — was a difficult meeting for me, just as Saturday's meeting will be a very difficult meeting for me. But I think it's important for me, as minister responsible for women, to go to those meetings, to tell my story about working together, about unity, caring and, above all things, working together for the good not just of women but of children — because if women don't represent children, who will? We don't often hear speeches in this House about children because children don't vote. Children are not a power, but children are our futures, and I believe....

[2:45]

Interjection.

HON. MRS. GRAN: The member for Esquimalt Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) doesn't want to hear me talk about how important children are. He just likes to hear people talk about — especially in his own voice — how important he is.

Mr. Speaker, it's important for all of us, as people sent here by our communities to represent them, that children are treated fairly, that there is adequate housing for children and their mothers and fathers. You hear a lot of criticism from the other side of the House about the government not providing housing. They know on that side of the House that this government has put millions of dollars into subsidies and incentives to provide rental housing. They also know that the biggest problem we face in this province is local governments who will not give the zoning for that kind of housing, and you know it's true.

The other thing you know on the other side of the House is that the building of rental units ended after the NDP reign when we had rent controls. It's true that no one, including the member for Esquimalt Port Renfrew, would put their money into something that could end up being a debt-ridden burden for them and governed by Big Brother. There are lots of reasons why there isn't enough housing.

I want to end my remarks by quoting the Leader of the Opposition, who said: "I have a yardstick. If it's good for Vancouver, I'm for it; if It's not, I'm opposed to it." The province has rejected that notion election after election, as Social Credit governments were elected in every region of this province.

Mr. Speaker, I support this government, I support this budget, and I believe that the people of this province in the next election will send Social Credit back to Victoria to do the good job that they have always done.

HON. MR . REYNOLDS: I know it is extremely unusual to ask leave to make an introduction in the afternoon session, but there is a very important group here, and I would ask leave to make an introduction.

MR. SPEAKER: I would like to quote almost verbatim from Mr. Speaker Reynolds in his encouragement for members not to do this, but I will ask the question.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I would like to introduce up in the gallery from Sentinel Secondary School in West Vancouver some grade 11 students and their teachers, Mr. Millard and Mr. May, and ask the House to make them very welcome.

MR. BARNES: I do not rise to support the budget. It has several flaws in it and omissions.

I would like to say before I proceed with some of the remarks I have prepared for today.... I'm not sure if this is the business of the Legislature, but inasmuch as the matter has been raised with respect to some of my female colleagues in caucus stabbing me in the back, I can assure you nothing could be further from the truth.

It just shows you that when you get information from the press, you do take your chances, because we're not obliged to confirm what one may read in the press. I know that there have been some misleading, inappropriate comments made that were incomplete with respect to the true situation. I don't want to get into details, but I can assure you, seriatim, right down the line, for every single female in our caucus I have nothing but the utmost respect. They have respect for me. We are a democratic party. Although I was challenged — and I regret this very much — by a female, it was done in the spirit of democracy, and it was fair game. I was vulnerable; I was attacked; I

[ Page 9203 ]

survived; I got support from a few of my colleagues voluntarily — they were not forced to do it. That's the end of the story. We are all a happy family over here.

I have made so many speeches in this House that you could just go to the computer and push a few buttons and pull out speech number 1, 2, 3 or 4 and say the same thing again. I'm not terribly enthusiastic about going down this budget and talking about what it doesn't do.

We all know that the budget is a contrivance by the Minister of Finance to try and create the illusion that the province is being managed well, that the budget is reflective of good government, and so forth. I find that those numbers are misleading because they don't really get to the concerns. What really matters in the end is services to people, the benefits to be derived and the affordability of those services.

What we are faced with today are disparities in terms of the accruing benefits. It depends on where you're sitting or where you're standing. If you happen to be a person who has a good job, a good income that allows you sufficient dollars to buy the goods and services that are available in society, fine. But if you are in a situation where you don't have sufficient income to meet the demands of the marketplace, then you are in difficulty.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

I want to talk about one aspect of the responsibility of government that I think is neglected far too much. I'm not sure if I'm going to be able to make the case in terms of the economic benefits that should accrue to the people's government. In other words, we are talking dollars and cents, but what about human conditions? What about human relations? What about some of the symptoms that we are experiencing today with respect to discontent in the community?

I am absolutely appalled to think that we are less than ten years away from the turn of the century. What we are experiencing today in terms of reactions to the demographic changes that are taking place in this province is frightening.

In the throne speech just a few days ago, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor was given the document to read in which he promised that in June the government would be sponsoring a major symposium on multiculturalism. That in itself should tell us something. If the government is going to sponsor another — they didn't say another, but you can add "another" — major symposium on multiculturalism, there has to be an election in the making, because every time we have ever had any attempt whatsoever to have a conference with the people in the multicultural community in this province, it has been just before an election. That goes back at least a decade, that I can remember. We've had all the recommendations repeated and regurgitated, and they are all stacked up in somebody's office.

So what are we talking about? We're talking about cynicism, usury, exploitation of people who are counting on a government to show some responsibility and get on with showing leadership as we approach the twenty-first century. We're not just talking about approaching the twenty-first century, business as usual; we are talking about some major changes that are taking place before our eyes.

I have a list of symptoms — call them reactions — to those changes, and we've all been reading about them. March was a big month for some of these symptoms. Just a few days ago we had more symptoms; we have been getting them almost daily. The government itself just got caught up in some of those symptoms, which I will comment on.

But the situation has been neglected and ignored, and now the chickens are coming home to roost. "Chickens" is a complacent attitude that we have had about the demography of this society, about the diversity of this society, about the real history of this multicultural society — a society that is made up of peoples from all races, all cultures, all sexes, all religions, and all shapes, forms, sizes and ages from around the world. And it has always been like that. In fact, one of the first people to these shores 300 or 400 years ago was a black man coming over with the French to the east coast, and he was an interpreter. If he had been a hip politician, we probably would have had a better break as black people in this country. But he was only a go-between; he didn't get very much out of the deal.

I can suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that as we look at the reality of what's happening, we have the French and we have the English, who feel somehow that in their culture they have the dominance in society. That has been tradition; that is the perception that's out there. I'm suggesting that your government has failed to recognize the demographic changes that have taken place, and you've allowed those people to sit there and get themselves in a state of mind that is inappropriate for this day and age, and it has been for a long time.

Sure, we accept some realities. We are basically a bilingual society, except we realized later that we couldn't live with the bicultural. We are multicultural; we always have been. There are some things you're going to have to accept, some things you're going to have to change. But right now we're talking about a serious dilemma, an emergency situation. This is why I'm picking this issue, because the symptoms have been loud and clear for a long time, and now we are at the brink of disaster.

Just a few weeks ago, Angus Reid, a well-known pollster, found that at least one-third of Canadians were bigots. Even more surprising, he said that at the very most, only one-third of them even believed in the mosaic called multiculturalism, although we have a national, federal policy called multiculturalism, one which we just enacted in 1988. We have been pushing to have the act duplicated in this province. We don't have it yet, although we're getting promises and promises.

[ Page 9204 ]

Mr. Speaker, there's no need for this neglect. There's no need for us to play politics with every single thing we do. Why can't we be responsible? People's lives, people's security and people's goodwill are at risk. Unless we address the concerns that our young people are going to have to live with in the future right now, and in a legislative way in this chamber and not leave it up to osmosis and hope that people will somehow love each other and get along.... That would be great, but that would be a miracle that has never been duplicated anywhere in the history of the world.

We're going to have to be realistic. People are naturally concerned about their own self-interest; they want to be protected. When anything changes their environment, they feel threatened because they are not in control and do not understand. For too long we have sat back and allowed what we call the free society, the free marketplace, to run wild. This Legislature is here for a purpose: we are here to look after the best interests of society and to be sensitive to the needs, the changes and the diversity of society, and to address those in a democratic atmosphere and deal with those principles that ensure that everyone is respected, has status in this society, and is recognized for their individuality and for their rights under the constitution of this country.

Until we can assure that every individual feels that, how can we be assured that they are going to protect that process, that policy, that principle and those ideals? We're failing them, because the things I've been reading in the paper lately tell me that people are reacting rather than being responsible. They are making demands and jumping to conclusions about their fellow human beings, what their rights are and what they think the other person's rights are without knowing the facts. I'm sure this is the case.

[3:00]

We're dealing with ignorance. We're not dealing with maliciousness. We're not dealing with people who are out to destroy because they simply are, as Angus Reid is saying, "bigots." They didn't destine themselves to become bigots; I'm sure of that. I think it's neglect. The New Democrats on this side of the House and I believe that people fundamentally want to live in peace and with goodwill. They want to be able to trust their neighbours. They want to be able to go to sleep at night without having to worry about someone burglarizing their place, or that they are going to be demeaned, disgraced or put to shame because of the colour of their face, their lifestyle, their value system or their religion.

We have allowed these things to fester and grow out there in an atmosphere of superficiality as far as goodwill is concerned, because it is all a facade. People are uptight; they are worried. They are asking a lot of questions. We're not giving them the answers.

People don't understand enough to have confidence in the system. I wonder how many people, when they are criticizing immigration policies — which have shifted somewhat from the European immigrant to the so-called visible minority along the

Pacific Rim — stop to think what would happen if we abolished all immigration in this country. Some people would say: "Good, now we don't have to have growth. We will all have lots of jobs for ourselves."

But Mr. Speaker, that's not the reality. The hard facts are that Canadians do not reproduce enough of themselves to maintain the population. We are far less in numbers than we require. We have something like 1.6 children per female, which is below the mortality rate. It doesn't work out.

HON. S. HAGEN: I did my part.

MR. BARNES: You did your part.

In a generation from now, somewhere in the first quarter of the twenty-first century, we would probably have something like 25 percent to 40 percent less population than we have in this country today. In other words, instead of 26 million, we'd probably be looking at 15 million or less in another generation.

You have the immigration. We've always had the immigration. We will continue to have the immigration. This is my point. We are not recognizing the impact this is going to have on the lives of people who do not understand what is going on. Through ignorance, we are leaving them vulnerable to all of these negative reactions which are hurting this country and this society.

There's no need for that; there's no need for this neglect. This is a serious matter. I have stood up in this House time after time and begged the ministers over there — the Provincial Secretary when he was in and the former Provincial Secretary who Is now out.... The best we were ever able to get out of them was an advisory committee on multiculturalism.

There's the new Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Dirks).

We have given them the right to advise, but no mandate whatsoever to implement. There isn't a dime in the budget to deal with anything other than a symposium, which I'm sure you know about. You've probably got a whole bunch of big dollars. That means song and dance; that means more reports. That means the Premier and all of his cabinet ministers will parade in front of these people, take a few pictures and get everything looking good. It's all a facade.

HON. MR. DIRKS: Are you against the symposium?

MR. BARNES: Yes, I am against the symposium that is going to duplicate what you've done before, because we've got all those reports already. You've got recommendations already. What you've got to do is act. Why don't you act? What are you going to find out in a symposium that you don't already know? You don't need a symposium.

All you need is action. You've got to get into the school system and stop some of this stupid stuff that's going on with these kids attacking each other. What's happening with the university students — the UBC engineers.... It's shameful that people in post-

[ Page 9205 ]

secondary education — in an institution of higher learning — would get their kicks by talking the way they do about native Indians, women and others in society.

I think it's disgraceful, but it's happening. It happened the other day with the rugby students of the Meralomas rugby team in Vancouver. They got their kicks by looking at skits about hanging Chinese who were going to purchase some property and about women in sexually offensive and demeaning shapes. How can we accept that? These are young people; these are not the old people.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: You agree 100 percent with me? Then you should tell the Premier and the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Michael) that they should start reading the stuff before they give people the privilege of using tax dollars to put out hate literature. That's what that was. The government is not organized. That's exactly what you were doing.

Let's get smart and get wise because we are, by neglect, allowing this place to corrupt. This place is decaying. People's security is the thing. You can be sure that is happening when Angus Reid says that one-third of the people in this society are bigots. That is enough. That's horrifying. I suggest to you that it hasn't just started. It has been this way for a long time. I am not overreacting, Mr. Minister. You say I'm overreacting. We have our female members here who were just over to the Union Club the other day to try and exercise the privilege that has been extended to them as MLAs.

AN HON. MEMBER: And to you....

MR. BARNES: And to us, of course. I never knew there was a problem, although I haven't tried to apply for full membership. I may find that there is some small print in the bylaws. Be that as it may, these colleagues found out that they were not extended the full rights they thought they had as MLAs.

Are we going to say that they're out because they're malicious and don't respect people's humanity if they happen to be the opposite sex? Let's be fair. Let's try to be more gracious. Let's try to say that it's only by practice, custom and habit that they know not the negative effects of their ways. What we have to do is begin to enlighten people, and tell them to pay attention to their behaviour and the effect it is having on other people.

It's about time we looked, first, at the person and see a human being, and don't look and see a sex. It's about time we look and say: "There is a person." Sure, people will continue to have their colour and their hair texture, and they will continue to wear certain kinds of clothes. They will continue to have their religions, beliefs and lifestyles. First of all in a democratic society, we've got to say: "That's a human being — number one." And it's on that basis that we establish our principles.

The problem is that we don't do that. This is what's annoying me when I see these incidents in the paper. Imagine this Meralomas group, who found it fit to do a mockery of those 14 female Laval engineering students in Montreal who were massacred.

Keep in mind that these youngsters thought this was fun. You've got to understand what we're talking about; we are talking about people who think this is fun. We're talking about people who go and buy rental snuff movies of people being killed — people who are getting used to rape and violence on television.

HON. S. HAGEN: Where are their parents?

MR. BARNES: Where are their parents? Where are their entrepreneurs who are exploiting them through commercialism? They're selling this stuff on television; this stuff is for sale. It's hard to go out and find any toy that doesn't have some violence attached to it. We get our kicks, we get our fix, we stay high by abusing each other. We are the most inhumane people in this so-called democratic society in the world, because we pretend that we're not. We really do get our fix by hurting people.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Does that include football?

MR. BARNES: I can tell you that I know what I'm talking about because I used to do it for a living, and it's kind of hard to withdraw from that kind of a lifestyle.

I may not make not all my points with respect to the economic benefits of this problem, but I can assure you that if we did a good job of making people feel that they were human first — especially if we're going to be the province in this whole country that is going to set the stage and be the leaders in the world today.... And there aren't that many places in the world today that you can count on like Canada.

The reason British Columbia is so important — even more so than Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and all the provinces in the east — is that we are the gateway. All of the politicians have talked about the gateway to the Pacific and about the easy accessibility to our shores from all the other countries down under and out in the Pacific. We do a lot of business. In fact we would be in really bad shape if we didn't have access to those markets. And we know that.

People are coming here. As much as we fought the bad side of Expo 86 and the way the government overspent to buy those realty lands and then gave them away — a buying high and selling low mentality.... I'm sure the stock market could never survive with that approach. Nevertheless, that's an aside. You did that. You promoted, and you got a good response. We're now having people coming to British Columbia from all over the world, but you haven't done your homework. Where's the multicultural policy? Where's the commitment to preparing people so they can understand the dynamics? There are forces that are taking place that you have created. You've sat back and said: "We'll leave it to the free market-

[ Page 9206 ]

place." The free marketplace has to be regulated. The people who are participating have to understand how it works.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: That's right and you know it. You've got to ensure fairness and equitability, and you've got to ensure that everyone can participate. You've got to protect people and have working conditions. You've got to make sure that there is no exploitation. You've got things like fair wages. You know what I'm talking about — regulation. There's no such thing as a free lunch, and there is no free market. There are markets that are regulated, equitable and fair in order to ensure that people can participate. They don't participate in a market that is one-sided.

What I'm saying is that there are some people who cannot participate. We still have people sleeping under bridges in this province. We have people who are getting kicked out of their homes because of the high cost of land, land that is being raised higher than it should be because of exploitation and no laws that protect against flipping because of absentee landlords being able to buy land and not use it for their own homes, etc.

In other words, people's homes are not really theirs unless they've got a lot of money. If they are tenants living in an apartment building, they are at risk. They do not have a home. They are always going to be at risk, because there is no rentalsman; there are no controls; there is no protection whatsoever. They are 30-day itinerants, no matter how long they've been living there. You've got some very well-off tenants in the Kerrisdale area — not in this member's constituency — who are finding that out. Their homes are being converted to condominiums; some are being demolished. People are finding out after 30 and 40 years of being good citizens and saving their money that it is really only so much paper. People are willing to buy homes nowadays sight unseen — just for the land. They're going to raze the buildings in any event. That is not the kind of government we need to ensure fairness and inspire confidence on the part of the population in this society. I am sure that your budget will satisfy quite a few people if they are already pretty safe and secure, but it doesn't address a lot of the people in my constituency.

We were talking a little while ago about young people. Something else I think it's about time we started to address is the youth and the problems they have in getting the education they need in a new information society, which is going through some major changes as to where our wealth is going to come from in the future. There are going to be people who are not only functionally illiterate but simply discounted by sheer numbers, by competition. Mr. Speaker, you will have literate people, who will be trained and will have degrees but who will not fit in, because we are not recognizing that we must have a better system of planning and rationalization of what we're doing in our post-secondary institutions, high schools, technological institutions and throughout the whole system.

[3:15]

There has to be some respect for those young people, because they are the ones on the other side of the equation or ledger. We have to pay for those mistakes, and we are going to be paying for them.

However, the specific thing I want to talk about is young people. This is why I'm so happy that the young couple who, in January I think, had a little baby named William.... I think the lady's name was Mrs. Cope. Does that ring a bell? An article just the other day in the Province said that Mrs. Cope was advised by her landlord that she could no longer stay in her apartment because she and her husband were expecting. It was one of those adults-only premises. So Mrs. Cope protested. Nonetheless, she was evicted. But that wasn't the end; that was only the beginning of her frustration and humiliation. She went to all kinds of apartment buildings and ran into the same thing. She simply couldn't get a place. She had to leave the Victoria area and go someplace up the highway.

Ten years ago there was a similar situation in the West End concerning a woman who worked for B.C. Hydro, I think, and her husband who worked some other place. They'd been in the West End for eight years, living in an adults-only building. She became pregnant. The landlord found out and sent her a letter that said: "That's good news. Congratulations!" The bad news was: "However, you do realize that you've been living in a building which is for adults only, and I hereby serve you notice." This was all in the same document.

That's what is happening in this province. We just finished celebrating Earth Day over the weekend; we had a peace march. We're telling people that we're going to have to retool and deal with sustainability. We're talking about how we're going to manage our resources and how it's going to be in the future. What about sustainability of the human race? What about human relations? What about people learning to get along? What kind of complex is a person going to have who knows that he was rejected by society because he was born? The parents who had been living in the community found themselves uprooted. This is the kind of thing we've got to address. These are the inequities that work against all the balanced budgets you could ever come up with, because you're paying for it on the other end.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you against balanced budgets?

MR. BARNES: I'm against budgets that appear to be balanced, when in fact we know that they're not.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to conclude, because I don't want to talk about all the other things. There are a lot of things we could talk about. We could go back and talk about the Minister of Women's Programs, when she was talking about Dave Barrett and trying to chide him for not bringing in the women's ministry. But he also brought in funding for the

[ Page 9207 ]

status of women, which your government destroyed. It was the member from Little Mountain, when she was the Minister of Human Resources, who wiped out most of those human services programs.

I remember one specific program that she wiped out, and although I've had five children, I'd never heard of this. It shows you how healthy my wife was in those days. Rosemary Brown was sitting next to me, and I had these notes and I said: "I want to talk about this syndrome, but what is it? It's called post-partum depression." And she said: "Oh, that's what happens when you've had a baby and things are pretty rough and you've got to have some time to recuperate." We had programs like that in place. Grace McCarthy wiped that one out, along with all kinds of other programs that dealt with children's concerns.

I'm telling you we were the government of the people then, we're going to be the government of the people in the future, and I can tell you in closing that there has never been a more desperate need for a New Democratic Party government than today. We are going to get in because our time has come, our policies are appropriate and we are the people's choice. The only hope for the future is a New Democratic government.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Before we proceed, the member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley has asked leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'd like to have the House join me in welcoming students from A.H.R Matthew Elementary School and their teacher Ms. McLean. There are 25 grade 5 students in the precincts, and I believe they are accompanied by three of the parents

HON. S. HAGEN: It is an honour and a privilege for me to participate in this debate on the 1990 throne speech, and I want to say that I wholeheartedly support the budget for the 1990 year.

As the Minister of Regional and Economic Development and as a member of the Legislature for Vancouver Island, I am proud of what this budget proposes to do for this and every region of this great province.

This budget builds on the solid work of the last two budgets. It builds on the positive vision that this government has set for the future of this province, a vision that will lead us not just through the decade but well into the next century that awaits us.

The central focus of that vision is a dynamic, environmentally sustainable economy, one that builds on the strengths of our regions and one which gives British Columbians the opportunities that they deserve to improve their quality of life and standard of living.

This budget is all about meeting the challenges of a rapidly changing world. It's about securing our future and the future of our children. It's about creating the conditions for private sector growth, particularly in the area of small business — our number one job creator. It's about sound and careful management of taxpayers' dollars. It's a budget which makes prudent investments in the tools that British Columbians need to compete with the best in the world.

For example, there are strategic examples and investments in primary, secondary and post-secondary education. These are the investments that will pay big dividends back to the economy for many years.

MR. SIHOTA: I notice that the member has been a member for three and a half years in this House. So have 1, and sometimes we forget things. I may be wrong on this, and I stand to be corrected, but usually you don't come in here and just read a prepared text.

I thought there was some kind of rule, Mr. Speaker, and perhaps you can guide me on this. It's kind of peculiar that the minister would just come in and read a prepared text for half an hour and mail it out. I think his constituents should know — and hopefully he'll put the comment in with the mailing that he does — that the minister just comes in here, reads a prepared text and doesn't respond to any of the comments or debate that's been going on here.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: If the members review Beauchesne, they will note that it is common to use notes and printed material when referring to the address in reply, the budget speech and particularly when you're dealing with technical detail, which the minister is clearly doing now.

MR. SIHOTA: I didn't think there was any technical detail at all. It's a sort of pom-pom speech that kind of puffefizes — if I can put it that way — the budget. There's no technical detail in there. It's just a rah-rah booster speech on the budget. I don't think it's the kind of situation where a minister should be referring to notes, particularly a senior minister. He's had a lot of experience in the House.

HON. S. HAGEN: I certainly hope that the members opposite — and I notice they're down to two or three — will listen carefully to the copious details that I will be outlining in support for this budget.

This budget will increase spending on primary and secondary education in this province by $398 million, to a total in the 1990-1991 budget of $3 billion — an increase of 15 percent. That's more money for putting computers in classrooms than for our commitment to the Pacific Rim education initiatives.

I hope they'll listen to this as well. Funds for post-secondary education and job training will increase by $132 million to a total of $1.1 billion in this fiscal year.

Our commitment to our regions is evidenced by a doubling of the funding for the Access for All post-secondary strategy. As a former minister of Advanced Education, I am pleased to see that we

[ Page 9208 ]

have built on the successes of Access for All, a strategy based on extensive regional consultation,

Obviously the member for Esquimalt is not interested in the post-secondary system, because he's not listening.

The strategy this year will include money for an additional 2,400 student spaces, not only in the greater Vancouver and greater Victoria areas, but spread throughout the province in the Okanagan, Cariboo and central Vancouver Island.

People in my Comox riding and throughout the Vancouver Island region will benefit through the introduction of fourth-year university courses in Nanaimo and funding for a new business administration school at the University of Victoria. The budget also allocates funds to extend fourth-year courses throughout the province.

The strength of our province depends on the strength of its regions. Everything is not centred in Esquimalt or Victoria. We have a lot of things going on throughout the province. These are expenditures the people of British Columbia have called for, and we have delivered them, through our regional development board, our region advisory councils and the numerous task forces — a wide range of issues. We've helped people at the grass-roots level build a regional consensus and bring it to government for action.

This government has performed. We have brought together people with varying philosophies, from a great variety of backgrounds, listened to them, and acted on their recommendations and concerns. We have brought together people from small business — and of course, Mr. Speaker, we know that the people on the opposite side of the House know nothing about small business and don't support the small business sector. We have brought together people from local and regional governments, from community groups, and we have helped them get results on regional issues. In my own riding of Comox, we saw a consensus of regional business, community and government come together to make possible improvements to the Mount Washington ski hill. This is a perfect example of British Columbians working together to create new economic development initiatives and new tourism opportunities. I know the member from Esquimalt, especially, is interested in that project.

I am very pleased that this process is being acknowledged and assisted in this budget with an $80 million investment in projects which will ensure regionally balanced prosperity in this province. This will be an investment in the future of the province, an investment that strengthens not only our regions but all of British Columbia.

People in our regions have told us that they want better access to quality services like education and our world-class health care system. As members of this House heard last week, this government is spending $13 million per day for health care in British Columbia, an average of $4,000 per household annually. In total, our health care commitment is $4 billion in this fiscal year, just under one-third of the entire budget. All of this has been achieved by careful management of financial resources. British Columbians will get quality health care with no increases in MSP premiums despite federal cutbacks.

This budget underlines opportunities and our commitment to seniors, people who have given so much to build this great province and make it what it is. In addition, our seniors will be receiving even more help In making their accommodation more affordable.

The government's action to alleviate the tax burden on British Columbia homeowners will be especially helpful to our seniors. This year all homeowners will receive a supplementary homeowner grant equal to 25 percent of school property taxes in excess of the basic grant. For seniors who receive a basic $700 homeowner grant, a school property tax bill of $1,430 would be reduced from $730 under the previous system to $548 this year. It represents a tax saving of $182, which will double next year.

[3:30]

I notice that the socialist opposition has spoken loud and long against this initiative. They can take their complaints to the seniors and all the other homeowners in my riding of Comox and see what the people think of it. I tell you, I know that the people of Comox, if you give them a chance, will show the NDP at the next election what they like and don't like.

People who rent are going to get lower taxes as well. The renters' tax reduction will be expanded to help people with low and moderate incomes. A family of four with a net income of $30,000, who would have received a tax reduction of $200 for 1989, will receive an income tax reduction of $570 for 1990.

Mr. Speaker, I know the people of my riding, and they applaud these measures. Something else they're going to like is the budget's commitment to the Island Highway. One hundred million dollars Is slated towards the construction of the Island Highway in this fiscal year.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to point out that the socialist New Democrat candidate who was recently nominated to run for his party in the newly created Parksville-Qualicum riding demonstrated his party's lack of commitment to this, which is the most important issue on Vancouver Island. He said: "I just can't tell you that I'm going to say rah, rah, rah for an Island Highway. I think we could better spend the money somewhere else." That NDP candidate, Mr. Len Krog, made these comments on March 13, 1990. I'm sorry that the leader of the opposition, or at least one of the Leaders of the Opposition, isn't in the House this afternoon, because if he had any commitment to the people of Vancouver Island, he would go up to Parksville-Qualicum and refuse to sign the candidate's nomination papers and send him packing.

MR. SIHOTA: On a point of order, I hope the minister will put this point of order in his mailer he's going to send out to his constituents. He knows full well that Mr. Krog has issued a note explaining his statement and putting it in proper context. So when the minister mails this to the residents of his riding,

[ Page 9209 ]

I'm sure he'll mail the clarifying comments I've just put on the record. Thank you.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, that's clearly not a point of order. We might conclude that the member has now taken his place in debate. It's a consideration.

MR. SIHOTA: The minister has, as all members of this House do, an obligation in the course of his comments to make sure the full truth is uttered in this House. When there is an omission, it seems to me it is only appropriate for members of the opposition to point out that omission. It's not debate; it's a reminder to the minister that he should be mindful of making sure that all aspects of the matter are raised.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, it certainly wasn't a point of order, hon. member, and I would ask the minister to continue.

HON. S. HAGEN: I would remind the member opposite that these were not my words. These were words uttered by the candidate on his nomination day in the riding of Parksville-Qualicum. It shows his non-commitment to the number one issue on Vancouver Island. As a matter of fact, many of us may buy some buttons that say: "I like Leonard." I think we're going to send him on a speaking tour of the province, as a matter of fact.

Mr. Speaker, the people of this province know where their government stands, and that's foursquare behind the Island Highway project. The government has created a special five-year $3.5 billion Freedom to Move account. Listen to this: $3.5 billion for the Freedom to Move account to make sure that these and other much-needed investments have a secure funding base from which to proceed.

The government's transportation planning process — and they should listen to this as well — has been aided tremendously with the input from the eight regional transportation committees which reported In July 1989. The Freedom to Move special account is going to help make many of these regional priorities a reality all over the province.

I am proud of the very strong commitment this budget makes to protecting our province's precious environment. As Minister of Regional and Economic Development, I can assure members of the House of this government's dedication to working with businesses large and small to ensure that sustainable development becomes a reality. As the budget documents point out, the government of British Columbia is committed to a healthy environment and to the principle of living off the planet's interest, not its capital. This point was driven home at the recent Globe '90 world conference on global opportunities for business and the environment, which was funded in part by my ministry and other ministries of this government.

This government is not afraid to make the hard choices — listen, you'll learn something — to secure the future for all British Columbians. Hard choices go into producing a balanced budget like the one we've had for the last two years. Hard choices also go into protecting and preserving our environment.

Let me talk about one major issue on Vancouver Island. The Vancouver Island gas pipeline is becoming a reality, because this government took action. In the last election, in 1986, the socialist opponent who was defeated by me took a negative position. She did not support the Vancouver Island gas pipeline. I'll tell you why I supported it. I supported it because not only is this a great economic development project for Vancouver Island, but it's a great environmental project. For dirty, imported California bunker fuel it will substitute clean Peace River, British Columbia natural gas. It will reduce the number of barge loads coming into the Strait of Georgia. The 300 barge loads a year will be eliminated with the flow of clean natural gas. The socialist candidate who ran against me did not support this project — no commitment to the environment.

This project will also reduce fly ash going into the air by 10,000 metric tonnes a year. The quality of life for residents of Vancouver Island, the Sunshine Coast and indeed all of the Fraser Valley will be improved with this project. That's good government.

Over the past couple of years, this government has introduced a number of changes to legislation and regulations to help protect the environment. Just in February this year my colleague the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Reynolds) and I presented a new mechanism called the major projects review process. This new process will ensure that all major projects are thoroughly assessed for their environmental and social aspects and impacts.

What's important about the process is that industry will now have a clear picture of the regulatory requirements for approval. It focuses the approval process by giving proponents a single window of contact with the provincial government to deal with environmental standards. The review process will be administered by a steering committee headed by representatives from my ministry and the Ministry of Environment. The public will have input at all stages. This government believes in democracy, unlike the socialists from the other side, who don't like referendums and don't want public input unless it agrees with their particular philosophy.

Strong environmental regulations and their vigorous enforcement will continue, as will spending Initiatives on new parks, improved sewage treatment, new research and new forestation.

Another important environmental objective we're following is to give British Columbians an economic incentive to protect common resources. These initiatives will be in the form of new environmental levies, such as those on new tires, lead-acid batteries and disposable diapers, which contribute to waste management problems.

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

Reforestation will receive $222 million this year from the new sustainable development fund. Over

[ Page 9210 ]

the next ten years, the province's reforestation commitment will exceed $1.7 billion, demonstrating the importance this government places on the forest industry.

Another example of this government's commitment to sustainable economic development is the budget support for science and technology. Earlier I spoke on the budget support for Access for All. The Access for All strategy will attract new minds to British Columbia. The brightest and the best will be here and in fact are already here in British Columbia.

Speaking of centres for excellence leads me to the TRIUMF kaon factory project. This leading-edge proposal will build on the current strengths of Canada's TRIUMF particle physics research laboratory at UBC. There have been several articles in the media over the last few days because of the winning by Helmut and Hugo Eppich of the Entrepreneur of the Year award. They, of course, have been leading proponents of the expansion of the TRIUMF facility to the kaon factory. This project is attracting support from Japan, West Germany, the United States, the European Economic Community and four other nations, all of whom want to help Canada and contribute up to $200 million towards the expansion of this facility.

People in this province and all across the country want their federal government to take a more significant role in world science. We can do that by paying more to send our best scientists abroad to work in other countries, or we can send them to our own facility here. Which is best: paying to send them to other countries or paying to keep them here? Obviously it is best to keep them here.

All of the initiatives I have described are made possible by a strong British Columbia economy. British Columbians in all regions of this province have responded to strong economic and leadership initiatives. In the last three years, the unemployment rate in this province has dropped from 12.5 percent to 7.8 percent; 170,000 jobs have been generated; annual investment has grown from $9.6 billion to $15.7 billion; and retail sales have also gone up over 10 percent, more than double the national average. I notice that the opposition is not listening, because they are not interested in economic matters, employment creation or increased investment.

Let me talk about the small business sector, the most important sector in our economy. Our small business sector is leading the way in job creation: 90 percent of the jobs generated in this province were generated in the small business sector. The small business sector is the backbone of our provincial economy. The members of this government applaud their efforts. This budget keeps faith with our commitment to work with our private sector to create the conditions for small business to keep doing what it's doing best; that is, creating real and lasting jobs and economic prosperity.

Further to that commitment, I want members of this House to know that in the very near future I'll be announcing new programs for financial assistance for businesses in British Columbia. This government believes that British Columbians should enjoy the rewards of their labour. That's why we've kept government lean and responsible.

Every time the government makes sacrifices to reduce government overhead, the opposition makes a fuss. All the while, they've never told us what their true agenda is. All the while, they've left British Columbians to wonder if they have a secret agenda. What is the true cost of the NDP agenda, and who will pay for it? Of course, the taxpayers will pay for it. Maybe they could use a few words of wisdom from the candidate in Parksville-Qualicum — my favourite candidate, who will become the best-known NDP socialist candidate in the next election, and still lose. Here's what he said: "If the NDP is going to be honest with the people of British Columbia, these things are going to cost a great deal of money, because believe you me, we're all going to have to pay higher income taxes." That comes from the NDP candidate in Parksville-Qualicum, who is saying we're going to have to pay higher taxes.

[3:45]

Just last week the finance critic for the NDP said: "An NDP government would spend more and pay for these spending increases by increases of corporate taxes and shifting priorities." Is this the new NDP campaign slogan: "corporate taxes and shifting priorities"? It sounds more like a declaration of war on the small business person in British Columbia.

Our government believes small and medium-sized business are a priority. As I said earlier, they are the number one job creator. In an economy like British Columbia's, we can't afford a government that wants to play Russian roulette with the prosperity we currently enjoy.

Much of the budget debate has centred on B.C.'s fragile economy. We all know that when it comes to economic management, the NDP are bulls in the china shop. The worst thing we could do at this critical time is let them loose on the economy of this province, only to create a path of mismanagement and chaos. The small business person and the investor want a stable economy. They want a climate where they know that their capital and expertise are welcome. This government has worked hard to create that stable economic climate, and we're going to work even harder to make sure that the socialists don't get a chance to ruin it.

I want to complete my remarks with a few words from the budget address: "Good government means making hard choices. It means showing leadership. It means making the right choices. It means recognizing that government has no money of its own, only the taxpayers' money, and there are limits on their ability to pay." I know that the socialists don't believe that, but just listen to that and try to understand it. I'll just say it again, because I know that the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) is having difficulty with it. It goes against the socialists' beliefs and against his beliefs. I'm quoting from the budget speech: "It means recognizing that government has no money of its own, only the taxpayers' money, and there are limits on their ability to pay."

[ Page 9211 ]

Here is the last quote that I would like to use, and this relates to the socialists as well: "A government that promises everything will deliver nothing." That's exactly what the socialist government delivered from 1972 to 1975: nothing except higher taxes and higher government costs.

Indeed, Mr. Speaker, government is about making the right choices, making financially responsible choices; making choices that will secure our children and the future of our children. That is what this budget is about, and that is why I support the budget.

MS. EDWARDS: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the minister — I believe it is international trade now, is it? — for signaling the end of his speech so many times.

I want to talk about British Columbia Hydro, and how the budget tells us it is going to go. B.C. Hydro is crucial to the operations of this government, and what goes into the budget is extremely important to how we read this budget. It provides nearly 10 percent of the increase in the general fund revenue over last year that the B.C. Hydro dividend — which is, by the way, not yet approved.... It is budgeted at $124 million. The annual increase in general fund revenue is $1,358,000, 000, so that $124 million is nearly one-tenth of the increase of everything that we are talking about, as far as revenue is concerned, in the budget this year. It's a hefty contribution, and it means that B.C. Hydro needs to be looked at very carefully, not only for this reason but also because of the direction it is going.

Without B.C. Hydro there would be a decrease in the contributions from government enterprises, and that is quite interesting. The increase, actually, is $95 million, and as I said, B.C. Hydro's dividend, not yet approved by the B.C. Utilities Commission, would be $124 million, meaning that if it were not for B.C. Hydro, government enterprises would be giving to general revenue less than they did last year.

The question, Mr. Speaker, is: is this the fallout from privatization? Is it because we have fewer government enterprises now that this one government enterprise has been asked to make up the difference and to ensure that with all the privatization and the giving-away and the selling-away of the government enterprises, the revenue remains at least as good, and therefore one of the government enterprises is fingered for $124 million to boost the government coffers?

This is going on at the same time that Hydro's debt is increasing. The debt, which is nearly half of the total provincial debt.... Hydro's debt is approximately $7 billion, and the total provincial debt is $16 billion, so this one government enterprise bears nearly half of the total provincial debt. If you look just at the direct government debt, B.C. Hydro has a debt that is nearly double the direct government debt. So by taking away $124 million as a dividend, it isn't because B.C. Hydro doesn't have debt problems of its own, or certainly a debt situation of its own. B.C. Hydro bears a huge amount of debt and is still asked to put in this $124 million in order for government enterprises' revenue total to be as good as, or a little better than, it was last year. In fact, B.C. Hydro will require $249 million more borrowing this fiscal year, according to the budget figures.

I think that indicates, again, how important B.C. Hydro is to government revenues and indicates something more about this $124 million that was asked by the government of B.C. Hydro almost out of the blue as a blunt instrument of increasing prices, because as the ministry and the authority itself said, we want to ensure that we have conservation. Conservation in order to do this, Mr. Speaker — it was a rather odd rationalization for what the government decided to do.

It is fairly clear, when you look at it, that this is the agenda: that government needs more revenue and that is the reason that B.C. Hydro may have to pay the $124 million if it is approved by the B.C. Utilities Commission, instead of taking a more intelligent approach to conservation and to demand side management by B.C. Hydro and doing a restructuring of rates. That has been promised by Hydro, but they weren't given time to do that. They were asked to pay $124 million on a 3-percent-per-year increase right across the board, for the poorest people in British Columbia just the same as for anybody else. That was unfair, and it does not effectively and intelligently address the needs of this province and the need for energy conservation that British Columbians have.

Generally, Mr. Speaker, conservation is part of a broader program which we call demand side management. Demand side management is the key to our energy future. We need more than just this sudden rate increase, with a directive to the Utilities Commission that it must consider environmental issues when it takes into account applications for Hydro to be able to pay a huge amount to the provincial government in a new move with questionable motivation ascribed. We need a clearly-thought-out, very clearly stated and effective demand side management policy. The effect of demand side management can be significant, and it has been used very effectively in other jurisdictions.

Ontario Hydro has been able to estimate achievable savings of 25 percent on current annual production by the year 2000 through its conservation measures. That is all for electricity that costs less than 5 cents per kilowatt-hour, and that is very close to the avoided cost of B.C. Hydro.

The California Energy Commission reported in 1988 that in the years between 1977 and 1985, its energy efficiency programs had led to a 10 percent reduction in electricity use. That's a significant amount, Mr. Speaker.

The Northwest Power Planning Council, immediately to the south of us, identified potential realizable conservation savings of 15 percent over the total customer base — and later I'm going to talk more about the northwest area in the U.S. and what they've done. They are managing 15 percent conservation savings over the total customer base between 1985

[ Page 9212 ]

and 2005, and all of the power they have identified would be available at 2.4 cents per kilowatt-hour. If you were looking to a higher cost for that energy per kilowatt-hour, you would have significantly higher conservation savings.

According to B.C. Hydro documents, supplied at the rate application hearings, Duke Power is aiming for a demand side management goal of 24 percent reduction in peak summer demand and 29 percent in peak winter demand by the year 2002. 1 quote these simply to say that there is a major opportunity here — a potential — for B.C. Hydro to follow demand side management and to achieve the kind of direction we need in our energy policy in British Columbia.

Before I discuss again what goes on in the budget and the government's probable consideration of conservation and the kind of energy policy and conservation we need in order to protect our environment, I would like to refer to a recent letter that came out from the Bonneville Power Administration under the Department of Energy in the U.S. southwest. Down there the Northwest Power Act of 1980 — that's a full decade ago, Mr. Speaker.... In 1980 the United States federal government instructed the Bonneville Power Administration to give conservation first priority in adding new power sources to meet northwest power needs. So this authority has a decade of experience. What they have done is learn how to achieve energy savings systematically and track energy use so that they can be sure of the amount they're going to save, can make predictions and plan ahead, and can be efficient and intelligent in how they go about it.

One result, says this letter — which comes out with a publication on big savings from small sources, how conservation measures up and so on — of their decade of activity is a 300-megawatt addition to the power supply. I've mentioned other achievements that have happened In the northwest. The other result — and this is the Important one as far as I'm concerned — is confidence about conservation as a power resource, confidence that has enabled the Bonneville Power Administration to rely on conservation "to meet most of our expected power growth through 1997."

That is exactly the problem that B.C. Hydro has said it has. It doesn't know what's going to happen with its conservation policy. All it needed to do was look south, Mr. Speaker, and it could have seen an authority with a decade of experience which has enough confidence in what it can do in its conservation program, with the results that it has brought out of its conservation program, to predict that until 1997 they need nothing except their conservation policies to meet the demand for electricity.

[4:00]

Demand side management in energy and conservation is the key. So what do we have in the government's budget this year, when we have talk from Hydro and the ministry that that is what should happen? We have a sustainable development initiatives fund of $18.6 million, of which energy is only one part.

Now if Hydro is having as many problems as I have tried to indicate it has, and as many problems as it mentioned when it was talking about this very issue at its recent application for a rate increase, then it seems to me that we need a concerted approach to the problem. We need an approach that should have been in this budget. There should be something in this budget that indicates that we are going to go ahead and do something coordinated that will be effective in achieving the energy conservation which will sustain our environment and allow us to make the decisions that all British Columbians want. What we didn't need was chucking the whole issue in as one of a grab-bag of things in almost a collector fund — a collector of moneys from various ministries where the money would otherwise have been spent — and calling it a big fund for something, when it is really just a new frame for a number of amounts of money which otherwise would have been spent, probably more correctly, in the real industries in which they should have been spent.

This sustainable environment fund — basically an election poster — is managed by a committee. That, to most people in this day and age, says something very clear. We have all seen the cartoons of a swing being done by a committee; we've seen the horse designed by a committee that's a camel. So why, when it's so obvious that we need a clear, organized and direct approach...? Even the minister and the government recognize in the budget speech that we need a direction for energy conservation and we need a way of doing demand-side management, as we've heard from the major authority, the B.C. Hydro and Power Authority. Why do we put this into an election-front committee? Why would the government decide that that would be an adequate way to address the issue? What is the reason that we take the action away from the ministry and B.C. Hydro, this authority that is so big within the government of British Columbia and the budgetary calculations? There is no reason put forth in this budget speech to say why it has been taken away from the normal channels. There is certainly no reason to suppose that what this fund will be doing is additional to what the ministry would otherwise have been doing.

The question is: is there any net benefit? Is there anything that is going to be done that could not have been better done under the normal practice and with the industry grabbing hold of what is so obviously a good example and going ahead and finding for British Columbians a conservation program that achieves as much as has been achieved further south in this country where their resources are not so rich and not so easily tapped into?

I really have to repeat the absolute necessity of a concerted, thought-out drive to achieve what we want to achieve. What we need is this approach instead of the outdated political flag-waving that we had all last year and previously on the proposal for a Site C dam. This government proposed it all last year and said that they absolutely had to have the Site C dam ready to go — a huge megaproject out of the past, out of the olden times when this government

[ Page 9213 ]

thought that they needed huge projects to which they applied the term "mega" in order to get elected. So we are having that kind of thing that was flagged all last year.

When it finally became clear that conservation and independent power production — in other words, the whole demand-side management gamut of things that you could use — would be adequate to meet our needs, and it looks like it would be adequate to meet our needs.... Certainly the budget figures that we put out indicate that electrical power generation was down in 1988 from 1987 and was down in 1989 from 1988. Electrical power generation is down, presumably for reasons that indicate we may be getting hold of some of this. But the government was still going ahead and declaring that Site C was necessary.

When the government finally decided they would not do that, they didn't say: "We're not going to do Site C because we don't need it. We can find a power supply from somewhere else." They didn't say: "We're not going to do Site C because it would do too much damage to the environment." They didn't say: "We're not going to do Site C because of the aboriginal land claim which interferes, or the necessity to relocate one of the Indian bands whose land settlement has never been adequately put together since the original Peace River dam was done,." No, they said they would not do Site C because it was too complex to figure out how to manage the environmental assessment and review process that would be required under federal legislation.

The government is out of date and out of control on this one.

MRS. BOONE: Tired old government.

MS. EDWARDS: They are a tired old government. They could have put together a plan for energy conservation that would have looked good and would have had the support of all the people in this province, because the people are ahead of the government on this one, and they are ready to go for a program that makes sense, a program that is affordable, a program that uses our resources in the best way that we could possibly use our resources.

I also want to talk a bit about an environmental premium. That was announced as a surprise goody — it was a surprise to a lot of people, even those in the ministry, I understand — by the Premier in the Cariboo by-election. A year and a half later it has been announced again. It has been said that in fact we will give an environmental premium to one energy project: the Williams Lake wood waste project, which is being built by NW Energy Corp. We assume that that environmental premium will go, because.... We don't know yet. It hasn't been paid; the money isn't there.

As a matter of fact, whether it's paid or not, we don't even know on which criteria a decision was made about that environmental premium. There is an amazing amount of doubt, not only among the general public, who barely know — and they sometimes don't expect to know — the details, but among the people who do expect to know the details. When you ask them their perception of how a decision will be made on who gets an environmental premium, and that decision has not been made, they make a guess. But nobody is sure exactly how it's going to be done.

When you look at the budget, you see that the $124 million dividend B.C. Hydro has to pay to the government goes straight to general revenue, but you can't see how it would go out if it were paid to the NW Energy Corp. as an environmental premium. One wonders, because of some of the language, whether it would go through that sustainable environment fund.

The problem is that the whole thing is mushy at the edges. You don't know where the money's going in, and you don't know how the money's going out, how the decisions are going to be made or where it's going to be. It's disappointing, again, to find that we have another budget, and we still don't know what's happening with the environmental premium. We don't know what the criteria are for making a payment out of the Hydro dividend that goes into the government revenues. We have been told that that's where it would come from, but when it goes into general revenue, that's just balancing talk, Mr. Speaker; it doesn't necessarily apply at all.

This is a matter of considerable interest, because until we have some clear guidelines and know how it's going to be financed, so we can follow it through the books, we don't know if it's just friends of this government and insiders who are going to get this kind of assistance over the years that it is offered.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Are we still on the budget?

MS. EDWARDS: Yes, we're still on the budget. I'm sure that the government is still in control. I'm sure they knew that this was going to be budget speech day, and I'm sure it's going to go on until we have had at least six sittings on the budget.

I want to make a positive statement in my speech, because it's something that one has to say occasionally. There is a hint in this budget which has nothing to do, unfortunately, with energy conservation or B.C. Hydro. There are words in the budget document that say that there will be a provincial wildlife inventory implemented. That is the kind of phrase that can raise my spirits to the skies. It is needed so badly that it is a delight to see it. Unfortunately, again, one looks at where it is in the budget, and one sees that it's in the resource management initiatives of the environmental initiatives of the sustainable development fund. It's in with other things. It is in the same group as the operations of the Forest Resources Commission, and so on, which came over from the Ministry of Forests. Presumably the implementation of a provincial wildlife inventory comes out of the Environment ministry.

The amount is $11.3 million, and I know that's not going to do it yet. However, I must say that I am delighted to see that it is recognized as a need in this province. I trust that whatever amount goes toward a

[ Page 9214 ]

wildlife inventory will be increased later and that we will continue with it.

It's not the only inventory that's needed in this province. We need an inventory of all of our resources, because we cannot manage anything adequately unless we know what we're trying to manage. I've been saying that ever since I came in here, like a broken record, and I guess I'm going to have to continue to say it. It is a delight to see this phrase in the budget, and I welcome it.

I would like to mention, too, particularly because the minister who preceded me was on it quite a lot, the business of Access for All. It's almost a cruel joke in the southeastern part of our province. Access for All was put forward with a great deal of fanfare. It indicated that people right across this province would have access to a broad range of post-secondary education. Then every initiative was made in the central or western part of the province; the east was not there. Third- and fourth-year university programs were put in at colleges in the central part of the province and on Vancouver Island. There was a university in the north, but what happened in the east? We could have at East Kootenay College, after a considerable amount of arm-twisting, one course which would be put forward to train teachers. They could get a bachelor of education degree. As it turned out, they had spots for 25 or 30 people. At the original basic information meetings that the college put on to find out who was interested, 250 people came out. That was just the first blush of this.

What happened and what they were told was that under the program, they couldn't get their degree until five years after they began it, for various reasons I won't go into. What I mean to tell you is that it was the most disappointing initiative. To follow up, the increase in the numbers of students at our college is not being recognized in the degree of funding that is offered to the college under the Access for All initiative. It has simply been, as I say, a cruel joke in our area, and I am sorry to see that there will be nothing more for the colleges which are not included in the first pass.

I notice that the fees and licences have increased the revenues of this province by 6 percent, according to the predictions for the fiscal year upcoming. I'd like to tell the Speaker that the people in my riding bear much of the load of those increases. It's very difficult for those who need to get to court to file court documents, because they're often among the poorest and the most needy in our society. That's one of the places where the fees are increased considerably.

[4:15]

It affects everybody with septic tanks that need inspections and which have to have things done for installations. There are major increases which are felt often very strongly by the senior citizens who remain in their homes or who move to different houses, instead of going into public institutions and staying in private residences.

That concludes my remarks on the budget. I cannot support the budget as it is being put forward.

I have mentioned several things that are important, the most crucial of which is the energy policy for this province, which must be dealt with more adequately and more directly.

MR. MERCIER: The budget is the most important document we deal with in this Legislature. There were occasions in the past few days when this House was distracted from its business and was barraged with the smut and dirt dredged up by the opposition. The people we represent must wonder about some of the things we discuss in this House, when there are so many people with serious problems and all the opposition concentrates on is dirt.

By the speaking order, I see the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew follows me, so he will be able to make any comments he wants to rebut that. He's the master mud-dredger, in my opinion.

I want to get on to the budget, but first make a comment about the debate on interim supply. It was a stall. Why do you think the opposition would stall us in the interim supply and in other measures they use? I don't think they wanted to talk about this budget. I don't think they had anything to say about this budget, and I don't think they had anything constructive to add to it. This was the best budget, and it has the best programs for the best government in this province. For the people of this province, I'm very proud to speak about this budget.

The main items that were important to the taxpayers: no tax increases and a balanced budget. The homeowners and low-income renters really won. Increases in the homeowner grant will knock an average $100 off more than 500,000 homeowners' tax bills, and 40,000 low-income renters will receive a tax credit increase. No wonder the opposition can't criticize this budget.

The NDP has made attempts to discredit the remarkable achievement of two successive balanced budgets. I'd like to take a few minutes and talk about the criticisms and negative comments on the balancing of the budget by the use of the budget stabilization fund.

That's like knocking reserve accounting. In our government setup in this country, governments can have reserve accounts and utilize those accounts from time to time. In a province where a budget of $15 billion is under consideration, it's appropriate to have a stabilization fund of $1 billion or more. At the municipal level you would call that a reserve. It's appropriate to deal with that reserve. In times when you have excess revenues, you add to it; in times when you need to take funds from that reserve, you do so.

For the NDP I would recommend reading the municipal accounting and other accounting handbooks. If you call the budget stabilization fund a reserve, I'm sure they'll understand that it was an appropriate action to take at the time. And that's not to mention the money in the privatization benefits fund.

Almost $500 million dollars has accumulated in the privatization benefits fund. If people understand

[ Page 9215 ]

the accounting used throughout the democratic world in government settings, they'll understand that it's appropriate to have reserves and to transfer to and from those reserves. Above all, the discipline necessary to have a balanced budget was followed by this government. That discipline has not been recognized in this country at the federal level, and you can see the difficulty we're in there.

I'm proud to work with a Premier who has fought for two consecutive balanced budgets. I'm proud to work with colleagues on the government side who respect the taxpayers' right to a balanced budget. If there's any dishonesty in this House, it's the approach of the opposition to say that, in some miraculous way, they're going to increase services but not taxes.

Take the financial critic, who said that if the NDP were elected, about $400 million of the benefits he had described would be financed largely through corporate taxes and shifting priorities. I ask you: is he thinking about little corporations or big ones? The major number of corporate taxpayers are small business corporations. Are they talking about increasing the tax load on small business? If they did that, it would restrict those corporations' ability to create employment, expand their own businesses and fuel the economy of this province.

We saw that before, when they came down on small business and increased those taxes and took that money out of the hands of the engine-room of our economy, the small businesses of this province. I'm sure the taxpayers of this province understand that much. They don't have to understand that we have a $1 billion surplus fund called the budget stabilization fund, but they must understand that the financial critic of the opposition has said that they will increase corporation taxes and shift priorities.

I'd like to talk about the NDP financial critic and shifting priorities. Our budget shows one-third of the $15 billion budget going to health care. Is he going to shift that up or down? Our budget shows 27 percent of $15 billion going to education and over 10 percent to social services — $1.5 billion. Is he going to shift that up or down? So the list goes.

When they talk about shifting those expenditures, let's assume they mean shifting them upwards. Let's assume they're going to shift them upwards by another $1 billion or $2 billion. On the other side of the ticket, then, they have to find the revenue, and where are they going to find it? The taxpayers of this province have been taxed by successive politicians over time. We've found that they're not willing to be taxed any more, any higher. Yet the opposition talks about increasing programs. Is a tooth fairy in the House? Is someone going to come up with the money that they're going to try and buy the voters with in an election campaign? I think the taxpayers and voters of this province are too smart to listen to that rhetoric.

If there's any dishonest approach, it's that of the opposition when they tell the taxpayers and voters of this province that somehow they're going to increase services without increasing taxes. If they're going to increase taxes, where are they going to do it? They're going to have to get the money from income tax and social services tax. They're the main part of our tax revenues. Which ones are they going to increase? And what are they going to do if the federal government increases taxes to satisfy the requirements they have to repay the deficit and the interest on it?

Let's face it, opposition members, you have nothing to criticize in this budget, because you can't increase services without increasing taxes. In our judgment, the taxes are fair, the burdens are properly absorbed and the services are the best that the taxpayers of this province can afford at this time in this country.

It is a remarkable achievement to have a balanced budget at a time when most politicians, for the last 20 and 30 years, have been prepared to promise the people program after program. Somebody had to put himself on the line and take stock. Our Premier did. He has stood by this balanced budget approach, much the same as we require, by law, that municipalities balance their budgets. We require the children of this province — those children called municipalities — each year to plan their expenditures and raise their revenues and balance their budget.

It's only fair that the province balance its budget — it's only fair. If we could only teach the federal government how and when they should balance their budget, this country would be in great shape. We'd have a better chance of affording the programs that we've developed over the past years, especially those social service programs brought in since 1945.

This country is in danger of losing the ability to pay for those programs. This is a grave time for this country. A year ago I said that this province would be better off financially to join with California. A year later, at this time, I see the Maritime Premiers and people talking about secession. I see Quebec talking about secession. Is that any way to build Canada?

We can't have this kind of financial crisis. We must put the country's shoulder collectively to the wheel. The promise of British Columbia is in the financial condition that can help the federal government, but we don't want to be bludgeoned by Ontario and Quebec. Financially they have bludgeoned this country. They've beaten the other regions into submission almost since Confederation.

Almost since the beginning of this country we've been at the beck and call of those two major population provinces — those two provinces that really have the ability to put this country right fiscally and financially. They haven't been good examples themselves, and they certainly haven't been the best partners in Confederation.

Why is that relevant when we're talking about our budget — our $15 billion budget? Because the federal government is losing each year in its annual deficit twice what our whole budget is. They have accumulated deficit in the hundreds of billions of dollars, and if we can't straighten that out federally, then all the good work that our Premier and his government are doing provincially will go for naught.

On that point, I think the Meech Lake accord should be reconsidered. I've supported the New-

[ Page 9216 ]

Newfoundland Premier — and I wrote to tell him I support him — on a reconsideration of the Meech Lake accord. And I'll tell you why. There should be absolutely no further discussion of culture and language rights until the federal financial house is in order.

The people of this country know — and it's reflected In the polls and the lack of support for the federal government — that fiscal matters are a priority. We must have the house financially in order for this country to survive. It is absolutely no benefit to the people of Canada if we don't. And it makes us wonder in this province about the hard work of bringing forward a balanced budget, about the discipline we have to employ to do that, if we can't get the federal deficit under control.

[4:30]

We want to have a conference.... I support the Premier of Newfoundland. I don't know why I like that man so much. The other day he said we should have a federal conference of all the provincial elected people. It sounds logical to me that we get together at this time. Year after year the federal-provincial conferences have been a closet of a few selected people and federal members, but what would really turn this country around, as the Premier of Newfoundland said, would be If we could get all of the elected members of every province in a room. I want to sit down beside the Québécois — the people in that province that were elected to represent them and who came from the same forefathers as I — and ask them what their game is. They got $3.5 billion last year — more out of the federal pot than they put in They've got the resources and the towns and the people and the energy to take a bigger role instead of throwing the red herrings at us.

If you look at the financial sharing arrangements, they're almost a sovereign state of their own. This province could be a sovereign state of its own with a balanced budget, the debt being paid off and the expansion we have ahead of us. Do we say that? No. We're so polite we're getting sucked down the tubes by those two central powers. It's happened for a hundred years, and it's got to stop.

MR. MILLER: Is this a separatist speech?

MR. MERCIER: That's a typical opposition reply. I joined with them and they joined with us to oppose the general goods and services tax brought forward. Goods and services tax is a retail sales tax. You can't call it anything else, because when consumers buy something, they pay for it.

Just at the time in our country's history when the provinces have established the right to collect retail sales tax, just at a time when it's almost entrenched — and we should be thinking of entrenching in our constitutional conference the right to have the retail sales tax — in comes the Minister of Finance federally with a bunch of bureaucrats who designed a program for him. He swallowed the whole thing hook, line and sinker. They told him it would be easy, and three years later he's finding out that the people of his country object every way he's turned, no matter what he's called it. It started out as the federal sales tax and then they called it something else and something else, and it wasn't going to be a direct tax, and then they start giving rebates because of the low-income people. It's a complicated mess. What is it doing to us?

Can you imagine — in the future when we might need it to finance social programs — when we go to the taxpayers of this province and say, "We'd like to increase our social services tax to provide for the hospitals that we are going to need...." We are going to need more and more money spent on health care because of our aging population. We have an obligation, and we intend to meet it in the coming years when we're still the government in this province. We will want to meet it, and we may have to increase the sales tax to meet those obligations of the social services tax.

How are we going to go to our people when on top of the 7 percent, by the time we have to do that, the federal sales tax will probably be in the order of 15 percent? What are the taxpayers in this province and this country going to think? Look at the 80 countries that have put in a similar tax to the goods and services tax; it's crazy

The federal bureaucrats, when they designed this program for the Finance minister of this country, forgot to tell him — and no one seems to have thought about it — that all those other countries like New Zealand and the European countries do not have provinces. For 100 years the provinces have been trying to get a revenue base equal to their responsibilities. Now what does he do? He takes away what could be the most significant potential revenue base for this province.

So I ask you.... We're here discussing our budget, and we're here doing a responsible job. We've got a gutsy Premier who has balanced the budget in successive years. He and I have disagreed on some other things, but I'll tell you one thing: I back him on this.

The responsibility of this government and successive governments to meet the reasonable demands of the taxpayers for a service from reasonable revenues — we have done it, and it's a remarkable achievement. It was nice to see that Ontario did it the other day. I think they copied our lead. I think last year we embarrassed them. They have the biggest industrial base in this country, and I think we embarrassed them into balancing their budget. They didn't have any choice.

Now if we can only get the collective heads together and do the same thing with the federal deficit, if we handle our affairs properly, we could throw something in the pot to solve that deficit without going to the goods and services tax. I think we could do it, and I think we could have a strong country out of that.

What does all that have to do with our budget? Well, it has plenty to do with our budget, because we have an opposition group here that thinks they can buy their way into the next election by promising people. You know, for 25 years I've been in this

[ Page 9217 ]

political game. For 25 years in Burnaby I've listened to these people promise. The only thing that's changed now is that the socialists of the world have effectively gone down the tube. The socialist policies were bankrupt because they didn't work. A funny thing happened with modern communication. The taxpayers realized that now when they need a program, the money comes out of their pocket. The news travels too fast now. It used to be in the old days that you could promise a program, and it was a year before the tax bill showed up. But now it happens instantly. The public is more sophisticated. They aren't going to buy that baloney that there's going to be some magical pot.

So if the opposition promises the programs, and they try to win an election on that, I'm going to ask the taxpayers of this province to stand up and be counted and realize that they can manage their money from their own pocket better than the government can. This budget is an example of good management of the taxation dollars, and I am sure the people of this province will recognize it, no matter how many times the opposition says it's dishonest or a lie.

A reserve of $1 billion. If we have a decline in the economy, that will be like a hiccup. If we have a serious slowdown in forestry and mining resource prices, that will look like a hiccup. I think the people of this province will realize that a government like ours will manage us through difficult times. They know that an irresponsible group making irresponsible promises can in no way manage the affairs of this province.

In closing, I would just like to comment on a couple of points that bothered me in the opposition criticism. They talk about the Expo lands and relate it to money management. The Expo decision was made by an independent board. The advertising for the sale of that site was worldwide. It was the best price at the time for that property, and there is a huge amount of land — 25 percent of the site — dedicated as park, and millions of dollars were put into the infrastructure for sewer, water, sidewalks and so on.

The expert on property development and a couple of the sub experts on the other side have been wrong, wrong, wrong on almost every occasion. When you go to sell a piece of property, you sell it in the best market at the best time. In fact, that sale led to an infusion of money from investors coming to this province. That money was followed by additional money, and then the opposition says the prices are too high now. Well, you can't have it both ways. We believe in progress; we believe in individual initiative. We believe in people getting things done, and I hope the city of Vancouver finds it in their hearts someday to give a building permit to the guy who laid out all that money, because these guys in opposition do not know about things like building permits.

How would you like to put $50 million down, and two years later still not have a sniff of a building permit? It's easy to say; it's easy to look back. But it really makes me sick to listen all that negative talk in this.

Interjection.

MR. MERCIER: An apartment? I mentioned 25 percent or more, giving the parkland in. How would you like to be that developer listening to all this opposition? How would you feel if you were a person having to invest just a few hundred million more dollars to build the actual units, and then dedicate land to social housing? What a crock!

That pub operator, who isn't in this House today, is from the same end of town I was born in. He just does not know what he's talking about. He didn't in 1972; he didn't five years ago; and he doesn't this year. It Is not easy to be a developer, and it Is certainly something that we should encourage and promote.

Housing. I have heard that housing is something that the opposition would do more of than we have. We've put up a billion dollars for housing programs. We've helped in social housing programs; shelter aid for elderly renters, SAFER; a renter's tax reduction; a shelter allowance for GAIN recipients; start-up grants for non-profit seniors' developments; homeowner grants to help defray property taxes; the mortgage assistance program; the land tax deferments for seniors; the long-term leases on Crown land for development of affordable housing; British Columbia rental supply program, which provides an interest incentive for developers of rental housing; property purchase tax relief program; and the residential tenancy branch, which is working for tenants at all times.

What more is the opposition going to add to all of those programs? They're probably going to tell you they're going to do it without more employees and without more tax load. I'll tell you what they're going to have. They are going to be interfering in the marketplace. They're going to have their finger into every housing pie, and they'll accomplish exactly what they did in 1972 to 1975, which was zip-all. They ended up with a....

AN HON. MEMBER: Why are you quitting?

MR. MERCIER: Why? The point is, I'm not quitting my speech; my speech is carrying on because I'm just getting warmed up.

Which program is it? Where is the opposition's criticism of a specific program. Let's hear It. And when we hear that criticism, let's hear how they would get the money to pay for any improvements. We have good plans; we have good programs. We're setting this province up for the future and we Intend to manage it in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to have spoken on this budget today.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you that this is a dishonest budget. It's out of touch with the views and the needs of British Columbians. I'll explain both of those. I'll explain in my submission why I think it's dishonest and I'll explain why it's out of touch.

[ Page 9218 ]

Before I do that, I do want to thank the Minister of the Environment (Hon. Mr. Reynolds) for applauding when I stood up. I want the speaker before me, the part-time Socred who snuck away from the caucus, who slithered away from the caucus and has now slithered his way back into that caucus and joined the flock of sheep on the back bench to read from their prepared texts, to tell them that....

Interjections.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

MR. SIHOTA: It's interesting to see that he's not going to run again. But it's also interesting to see that he's approving of the Premier now. I want to know what's changed. The Premier's still out of touch, still imposes his views on the people of British Columbia and still favours his own friends and insiders. But more about that later on. But here we have that member who was part of the rebellious four, the gang of four, now slithering his way back into caucus.

Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you that this budget is dishonest. It's dishonest for anyone to come in here and say that the budget is balanced, because it's not balanced. The minister for women would say....

HON. MRS. GRAN: You're tedious.

MR. SIHOTA: I hear her saying that the comments I'm making are tedious. I want her to listen to this, and I want her to listen to some new information that I have to offer here in a minute.

This budget is not balanced. It spends $684 million more than it takes in. It's not balanced. It purports to be balanced through an accounting mechanism that is appropriately known as the BS fund — a fund that doesn't exist, a fund that's not there, a fund that's aptly named the BS fund. It doesn't exist. It's an IOU. It's an accounting device where the government goes out and borrows and puts money into an account to artificially suggest that they're balancing the budget.

[4:45]

Mr. Speaker, I said this is a dishonest budget, and I want to tell you I was offended by the fact that when I picked up this morning's newspaper, I saw all these three-quarter page ads saying that B.C. has a balanced budget. It's not true. It's a lie that we have a balanced budget. It's a lie for anybody in this House to stand up and say that it's balanced. And I want to tell the members, because I don't think it's come to their attention yet....

MR. MERCIER: Point of order. The member said that for someone to stand up in this House and say it's a balanced budget is a lie. Since I had just said in my address that it is a balanced budget, I would like the member to indicate that he wasn't referring to me or else that it was not a lie.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm sure the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew was not imputing any....

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, I was referring to a practice and not to an individual.

The facts will speak for themselves, in any event. Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, just what those facts are. I know that they're yelling and heckling over there. I just want them to be quiet for a moment and listen, not to MY words but to what the auditor-general of the province of British Columbia had to say about whether or not this budget is balanced.

This is new information; this is something that has just come to my attention. He gave a speech the other day in Kamloops.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: There's the member with woodpeckers flying around his head again, talking. If he just settles down, let me tell him what....

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: Oh, that minister. He says he doesn't need a hard-hat, you know. As someone said the other day, woodpeckers go to their natural source, Mr. Minister. That's why they are hovering around your head.

I was telling the members, and now that they've quieted down, let me tell them. Here's what the auditor-general had to say. "Auditor-General scoffs at Claim of Balanced B.C. Budget, " says the headline.

MR. MERCIER: Whose auditor-general?

MR. SIHOTA: British Columbia's auditor-general. I'll read you the story. "Figures used by the provincial government to indicate it has produced a balanced budget are misleading and inaccurate, the accountant who takes an independent look at government books said Thursday."

AN HON. MEMBER: Where's he working next year?

MR. SIHOTA: Oh, the member for Burnaby-Edmonds says: "Where's he working next year?" So anyone who tells the truth in this government — any civil servant who tells the truth — is going to be fired. Just like that worker in Kelowna two years ago when he stood up to say that he took issue with the government's privatization of highways. He was fired for telling the truth when he said that privatization was wrong. Now the member for Burnaby-Edmonds would suggest....

Let me go on for the rest of the statement. Let me quote what the auditor-general had to say.

MR. MERCIER: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I really think it's inappropriate that the member is reading from an independent person such as the auditor-general and reading his comments out of context. I'm not sure about the propriety of that entering into the budget debate. Either the auditor-

[ Page 9219 ]

general's whole statement should be filed with this House or the member shouldn't refer to it at all.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I must say that that is not particularly a point of order. But I understand what you're saying, and I will ask the member to continue with his speech.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, I can understand that the members opposite — the Social Credit Party — don't want to hear what the financial watchdog of this province has had to say about their claim of a balanced budget. I'll tell you something, Mr. Speaker: it is in the interest of those members to perpetuate a myth out there that there is a balanced budget in this province. They don't want to hear what the independent watchdog has to say. So let me tell you what he's got to say. I'll go back to quoting.

"Speaking at a Kamloops Chamber of Commerce lunch, auditor-general George Morfitt said that the government produces three sets of accounting figures annually, but uses the wrong ones to tell the public about revenue and spending. 'The bottom line — the balancing line — is completely flexible/ Morfitt said, 'so it is a meaningless figure. It doesn't mean anything.'"'

Mr. Speaker, they failed to balance the budget, and it is indeed, in my opinion, misleading advertising for the government to buy space in this province's newspapers and suggest that they've got a balanced budget, when the auditor-general says that it's not. It's a big lie.

"He said the Social Credit government uses the budget stabilization fund, which does not include information about Crown corporations, as a method of evening out the peaks and valleys of a fluctuating financial picture. Morfitt said he has been trying to convince the government to use consolidated financial statement figures instead because they present a more realistic picture of where the province stands financially. 'It is strictly an accounting technique to alter the bottom line,' he said. 'I'll keep asking the government not to refer to that set of figures.'"

Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you something. It is misleading for this government to buy space in the province's newspapers and say that it is a balanced budget. I would encourage the government, which spends a lot of our taxpayers' dollars — in this case putting out what amounts to falsehoods, in my opinion — to also put this newspaper article, the opinions of the independent watchdog of the government, the auditor-general's opinion, in those ads. And I would tell the members opposite to stop the myth. Stop the big lie. You are spending $684 million more than you're taking in. Your budget is not balanced. The auditor-general has said all you're doing is engaging "in an accounting technique to alter the bottom line." Falsehoods, deception and dishonesty.

Social Credit hasn't balanced a budget in British Columbia at least since 1971. 1 want to tell you something: if you want to know how to balance a budget, then ask the Leader of the Opposition. I want to tell you that the Leader of the Opposition, when he was the mayor of Vancouver, balanced the budget — not once, not twice, not three times, not four times, or five times, but six times. And I want to tell those members opposite that if they want to brag, then balance the budget and come back to us when they've done it six times in a row. They won't ever get that chance, because the people of this province don't trust this government. They want a change in government, because they want a government that represents the views of mainstream British Columbians.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: That's us.

MR. SIHOTA: Oh, the members say: "That's us." I'll tell you something. It used to be that people could argue that Social Credit.... Yes, my colleagues tell me six balanced budgets in the Leader of the Opposition's.... Six by-election victories.... And the seventh victory.... And I'll tell you the real reason why we're not having an election right now: the Premier's afraid to call one. When the people of Vancouver saw the Leader of the Opposition balance all those budgets....

MR. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, this is a serious problem, and I don't know how to handle it. I just talked to the auditor-general. The auditor-general said: (1) he has never criticized the budget stabilization fund; and (2) he has never said that this year's budget was not balanced. He did say...

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I'm awfully sorry. You're entering debate. You've already had your turn....

MR. MERCIER: I want a comment withdrawn.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, you're not rising on a point of order. I'm sorry. You had your place in the debate, and we cannot permit you to debate any further.

MR. MERCIER: Would the jury disregard that remark.

MR. SIHOTA: I'm just telling you.... And it shouldn't come as a surprise to the member for Burnaby-Edmonds. He said the same thing during Public Accounts. Maybe the member didn't get up on one of those sleepy mornings and attend the meeting, but he said the same thing some time ago in Public Accounts. I tell you, he'd say it again in Public Accounts if this government had the moxie to create that committee and let it do its work. But they don't want the scrutiny.

As I was saying, the people of this province want a change in government because this government — the Social Credit government of the day — is out of touch with the concerns of ordinary people. Ordinary people of this province are tired of a government that for three years puts the thumbscrews to people and then in the fourth year tries to give them ice-cream cones as some way of trying to curry favour and get into office.

[ Page 9220 ]

HON. MR. VEITCH: Are you talking about the government from '72 to '75?

MR. SIHOTA: Just settle down, Mr. Member. You'll get your chance to get into debate. We're talking about your government.

I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that this budget doesn't address the concerns of ordinary people in this province.

I see the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Reynolds) in the House. Let's talk about this budget and its shortcomings as it relates to the environment.

MR. MERCIER: No, let's talk about the auditor general.

MR. SIHOTA: You wanted him fired a minute ago. Wait until next week — we'll be talking about him. I'm sure we'll be talking more and more about the auditor-general.

[5:00]

On the environment, people In this province are tired of the kinds of emissions that we've allowed into our water and Into our air from pulp mills. Every pulp mill in this province has broken its pollution permit — every one. The Minister of Environment knows that. There was not a mention of that in the budget speech; not a mention of air pollution; not a mention of the kinds of oil spills we see on a regular basis; not a mention in the budget of trying to do anything about the kinds of confrontation and tension we have between those who work in our forests and those who seek to protect our environment.

What does this budget do about the environment? It puts a tax on batteries and tires. That's all it does. It says to the consumer, to the person who goes out and buys a battery — and I don't know how many batteries other people buy here, but I don't buy that many....

MR. RABBITT: Are you against that?

MR. SIHOTA: I'll tell you what I'm against and what I'm for if you just hear me out.

I don't know how many tires the average person goes out and buys, but it's not going to raise a lot of money. It's philosophically incorrect because that provision in the budget taxes the product; it taxes the consumer. It does not in any way fine the polluter; it doesn't tax the polluter.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who's the polluter?

MR. SIHOTA: The minister asks who the polluter is. The polluters are those pulp mills, and this budget should have announced that the government was going to fine those that pollute our environment, that it was going to fine those corporate polluters who degrade our environment. Rather than a tax on people — a tax on batteries and products — there should have been a fine for corporate polluters. That would have raised more money than the taxes that are going to be on batteries and tires.

There's not a mention in the budget of a local issue, the dumping of raw sewage that this government has allowed to go on for so long in the greater Victoria area — not a mention.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: There goes the minister with woodpeckers around his head, talking again.

Housing. That's a concern, I can tell you, in my riding. Young families in my riding and throughout this province are having difficulty affording and buying their home. They still have a dream of buying their first home and getting started. Young families find that the cost of housing is such that it's out of reach for them to acquire homes for the first time.

Parents who have children are banned from getting access to apartments — not a word about that in the budget. There's nothing tangible in the budget to deal with the real housing crisis that we've got, because this government is fixed on this mentality that they're going to let the market decide what happens with housing.

I'll tell you what they should have done. There should have been an announcement in this budget of the type of starter-home program that we New Democrats have outlined. We would provide young families with 5,000 starter homes immediately, a program that has received the endorsation of the Vancouver real estate board. There should have been a provision in this budget — as we would put in our budget — to remove the property purchase tax with respect to those young families that are buying their first home, to take away that financial impediment.

Do you want to know where that money would have come from? We would have more than got the money. We would have got more than the money we would have lost by putting in that provision by closing off the loophole that allows people to transfer million-dollar skyscrapers in Victoria and Vancouver without paying the property purchase tax. A family wanting to buy a home in Esquimalt to start out has to pay the property purchase tax, and a wealthy individual selling a million-dollar skyscraper in downtown Victoria doesn't have to pay the property purchase tax. When we say fairness in taxes, we mean fairness in taxes. That's how you achieve equity and fairness in taxes.

There should have been a provision in that budget to talk about rent review and the rent review process. There should have been a commitment by this government that they would end discrimination against children when it comes to renting. There should have been a provision in the budget about a bill of rights for mobile-home owners. None of that is there, because this government doesn't have a commitment towards housing and doesn't really care about the needs of ordinary people. We'll talk later about who it is they're concerned about, Mr., Speaker.

Health care. Waiting-lists, sending people to the United States, and confrontation between doctors and the government and nurses and the government are

[ Page 9221 ]

the qualities and characteristics of this government. We have a serious crisis in health care. Just for the record, let me read a letter that I most recently received from a constituent that I think reflects the extent of the concern. 

"Dear Mr. Sihota:

"I am a constituent with a grave concern about our medicare system, primarily in regard to cardiac care. I was a victim of a heart attack in October 1988, and by the grace of God had a successful angioplasty performed, thereby avoiding the traumatic experience of a long wait for surgery.

"On December 5, 1989, my brother, Jim Robertson, in Kelowna, B.C., passed away with heart failure at the age of 65. Jim was placed on the heart surgery waiting-list in January 1989. He was to have a heart valve replacement, which never occurred. The family doctor advised the family that the results of the autopsy showed his death was directly attributable to his heart problem, and had he had the operation he would be alive today.

"Further to this needless tragedy, while attending my brother's funeral I happened to come across the enclosed clipping from the Kelowna News about a Mr. Jim Robinson, from Kelowna, who passed away one day...and he too was on the waiting-list for surgery. Here are two deaths in as many days of persons who were the victims of our apparently inadequate medicare system.

"I read in the paper where 150 to 200 heart patients are to be sent to areas in Washington State for surgery and that a commission has been formed to assess the medicare system, a process which is estimated to take two years. I find this to be merely band-aid action to the Immediate problem....

"It is my opinion that this measure, coupled with a commission to study the medicare system, is nothing more than a political ploy in an attempt to appease the public, and does not attack the backlog."

That is the kind of concern and the reality that British Columbians are facing. There should have been a commitment in this budget to put an end to that type of misery that the people of this province are facing, rather than saying that our solutions rest in sending people down from Canada — where we've always taken a lot of pride in our health care system — to the second-rate system of health care that exists in the United States. We have in this province now, Mr. Minister, a second-rate government sending people to a second-rate country for second-rate health care services. What the people in this province want is a first-class government with first-class, quality health care in this province, right at home, and that's why they want a change in government. They're tired of a government.... They don't want to give the Premier and his party another chance, because they haven't earned it.

Under this Premier, this government has changed. They're out of touch with the mainstream. They no longer represent the values of the majority of men and women in British Columbia. This government has grown arrogant and stale in office, and it's a government that is too quick to impose its own moral values on others. It's a government that won't listen and a government that won't change. Above all, it's a government that won't admit it when it's wrong. I'll tell you, Social Credit needs a thorough housecleaning. They need a long, long spell in opposition to sort themselves out and rethink the type of leadership that they have under this Premier.

People want the constructive, fresh approach that people like the Leader of the Opposition and the New Democrats bring to this province. They want a government that will protect our environment, that will provide educational opportunities for children and for the young, that will look to providing affordable housing for families and for seniors, hospital and health care throughout the province, and a system of fair taxes. That's what the people of this province want.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

It's about time we got rid of the kind of government that we have right now, because what we have right now is a government that doesn't act in the interests of ordinary people, but rather favours its friends and insiders. We saw that In the Knight Street Pub affair, where the Premier's campaign manager, the Premier's bagman and the Premier's principal adviser got together and conspired to try to get a neighborhood pub licence for the Premier's friend. That's what happened. It's a government that favours its friends and insiders. I see that some of the members are scoffing. Are they going to scoff, too, about the lottery giveaways to friends and insiders?

We have a situation in this province right now where a society that never applied for money — and you talk about management of our finances — was given money by a former minister of this government. The society was told by that former minister to direct it to his former campaign manager. Friends and insiders are the beneficiaries of the largesse of this government, of the $162 million slush fund that's been set up under the lotteries by a government that favours its friends and insiders — a government that the people of this province can't trust; a government that seeks to cover up, as they did on the Coquihalla, its over expenditures. It's bad enough to have a government that overruns its budget by $500 million on a highway. What's worse is a government that lies about the extent of that cover-up. That's why that government should be defeated.

As other members on the government side have mentioned, the next election is about choices. It's about a choice between the Socreds and their Tory friends in Ottawa, and a fresh approach by the New Democrats.

MR. HUBERTS: This is a unique opportunity today, because we've heard nothing but negativity all afternoon from the opposition side. We're going to get the opportunity to hear something positive. I just hope that some of my positive personality will rub off on some of my friends across from us. Things would look a lot brighter in the future.

I rise in support of this excellent budget, and I commend the government for not only balancing it but also finding the balance between the environment and the economy. I'm sure you'll agree, Mr. Speaker,

[ Page 9222 ]

that most British Columbians and most members of this House realize how blessed we are to live in this beautiful province. People from all over the world come to see our majestic mountain ranges, to travel on our waterways and to camp in our beautiful provincial parks.

While I'm talking about provincial parks, I want the commend the Minister of Parks (Hon. Mr. Messmer) for restoring Bedwell to Strathcona Park. It was something I was honoured to be part of, by initiating the steering committee when I was Minister of Parks. It's a decision that will restore Strathcona Park to its original state, and it certainly gives tremendous recreational opportunities to all British Columbians. I want to commend the Minister of Parks and the government. I know that the majority of the people of British Columbia are very pleased with that decision.

[5:15]

As a parent — like all parents — I am concerned about our children's future.

Interjection.

MR. HUBERTS: Are you concerned with your children's future? I'm sure you are. I care about their inheriting a clean and healthy environment. Talking about our children, I care enough to spend the next five years at home with my children, which is right for me. If you would allow me to read the news release:

"After careful consideration and discussion with my family, friends and supporters, I have decided not to seek re-election as a Member of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia. This decision was not an easy one to reach, but it is what I believe to be best for my family, myself and the Social Credit Party.

"For the past three and a half years, I've had the privilege of representing the people of Saanich and the Islands as one of their MLAs. During this time I was also privileged to serve the people of our province as minister of state and Minister Responsible for Parks. These responsibilities were undertaken with the belief that every citizen should do what he or she can to contribute to the life of the community around them. This I have done with pleasure.

"However, I also believe in the importance of family life, in the values which can only be transmitted within a loving home environment, and my two boys are at an age when I feel they need to see their father much more than they have in the past three years. I do not believe that I can offer them the family life I would want while seeking re-election to an office which demands such a commitment of time and energy."

Mr. Speaker, that's right for me. I realize that there are other members here who are able to handle both positions and do it well. But for me, this would be the right decision.

I also want to state that I believe in free enterprise, in the rights of individuals, and that a government should manage the affairs of the province in such a way that individuals have the right and opportunity to achieve some of the goals they wish to achieve. I also want to mention that it was not my wish to be part of an internal political struggle, the end of which would result in one incumbent member for the new constituency of Saanich North and the Islands being nominated at the expense of the other and, I believe, at the expense of the unity of the Social Credit Party and the constituency. We must stand united if we are to remain the only real alternative for the people of British Columbia.

I want my children, your children and all members' children to inherit a clean and healthy environment. I realize their future quality of life depends on our committee to good stewardship of our resources. As elected members of this Legislature, we have a dual responsibility. We must have the vision to protect our natural surroundings, while shaping a sustainable economy. This budget works towards that goal and in many ways achieves that goal. The government has proposed several measures which, once implemented, will ensure our prosperity as a province as well as maintain our control of environmental conditions.

In this budget there's $1 billion for housing initiatives; a renter's tax reduction; an increase in health care — $13 million a day is being spent on health care in British Columbia; an increase in our transportation budget; an additional $400 million going into our educational budget — an increase of 15 percent, for a total of $3 billion; and $132 million into our advanced education budget, an 11 percent increase. I'm particularly gratified to see $420 million going into the science and technology budget, because I believe science and technology are where the workforce of the future will be.

This government has backed up its belief in a sustainable economy with action. In the past three and a half years, this province has done tremendously well. Last year we had a 4½ percent increase in growth. Next year it might be a bit slower, but we're probably aiming for a 3 to 3½ percent increase in growth.

Other countries recognize this province; Canadian provinces recognize this province; British Columbians recognize the tremendous opportunity that exists in this province. They all want to live here. There are 6,000 a month coming to live in this province because of good government.

I heard the member opposite speaking about environmental programs and saying that we weren't taking care of them. Spending for environmental programs this year has increased by 24 percent. Last year the Ministry of Environment budget increased by a tremendous amount. Last year waste management went from $21 million to $37 million. Enforcement went from $5 million to $10 million. In 1989 the introduction of the environmental youth program was very positive for the people of British Columbia.

The new sustainable environment fund will ensure that revenue is available to address environmental issues. The beautiful thing about this fund is that through good fiscal responsibility, this government will ensure this fund does not add to the burden of the average taxpayer, since it will be based on special environmental levies.

[ Page 9223 ]

We continually hear that the opposition would tax the polluters. We're not interested in taxing polluters; we're interested in getting rid of pollution.

Also, concrete proposals like Crown corporations for hazardous waste management guarantee progress for the whole province in protecting our fragile environment. I would hope that this Crown corporation would be lean and mean.

The disposal levy on lead-acid marine and automotive batteries will encourage recycling and reduce the amount of harmful chemicals in our environment.

Some members opposite have said that this government does not consult. In my opinion, this government has been consulting, and it does listen to the people of British Columbia. Last year we went to Tofino and listened to the people of Tofino and to the logging industry. As a result of those meetings, a Round Table on Environment and Economy was established, and this gives an opportunity for industry, environment, residents and government to come together to find the balance between the economy and the environment. Also, since that time, a Forest Resources Commission has been established to improve forestry practices.

The opposition has complained about our initiatives to tax tires and disposable diapers and our plan for vehicle emission inspection, I don't think that putting a tax on diapers will necessarily stop some Individuals from buying these diapers, but if in some way it could educate them that there is a real problem with disposable diapers in our landfills, and if somehow it could make them think there was a better way, then the tax has already served its purpose. Mr. Speaker, you would be aware that travelling from Vancouver to Toronto on a non-smoking flight would not necessarily stop some individual from smoking generally, but it must certainly make him think about smoking and teach him that there is a better way.

There are also a lot of questions about the vehicle emission inspection. The question was brought up: why did they remove it in 1983? That shows the weakness of the opposition. Because of restraint problems, 1983 was a difficult year. When there's not the revenue coming into a province, a government has to look around and say: where can we cut in order to continue to keep the province out of debt as much as possible? At that time the decision to remove inspection for vehicles was the right decision. However, as soon as it was possible and revenue was coming back in, this government saw the opportunity to bring vehicle inspection back in under the private sector. Emission inspection is now a good initiative with a government that is in a positive budget.

MR. G. JANSSEN: If revenue drops next year, you'll take it out again?

MR. HUBERTS: I am totally baffled by the opposition to the measures.

Interjections.

MR. HUBERTS: Certainly any attempt to manage....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. There seem to be four or five members speaking at one time. We barely have a quorum. Perhaps we could just hear the one member who is supposed to be speaking. I needn't name those who are participating in the debate because there are so few left if I do.

MR. HUBERTS: Certainly any attempt to protect our common future must include large-, medium and small-scale initiatives. The budget includes the smaller steps, but it also includes $222 million for forest renewal.

The opposition has failed to understand that a task as large as environment protection must be approached from many different angles. Diversity and creativity in the government's initiative will ensure that success. To be really successful, each one of us needs to look at the environment issue, to be aware of it and to be vigilant about it, and we need to show leadership in that area. Surely all conscientious members have eliminated the use of hazardous or environmentally dangerous products from their homes and recognize that this small action is, in itself, a great contribution.

It's also good to see that the government, through the Ministry of Government Management Services, has initiated the successful Paper Push campaign and effected recycling all across this government. I'm particularly pleased to note that the budget documents were printed on recycled paper. We all bear the responsibility for environmental protection.

This government — through this budget — is demonstrating its understanding of issues and expressing a commitment to act. This government recognizes the value and the potential of this beautiful province and has the competence to manage those resources. Many times we get heckled in this House when we talk about the competence of this government to manage resources. I think the last three years have shown the ability of Social Crediters to manage the resources of the province.

But sometimes I ask: does the NDP have the competence to manage the resources of this province? I know that in 1972 we asked the question: were they competent to manage the resources of the province? The answer was no. Were they competent to manage the resources of this province in 1973? The answer was no. Were they competent to manage the resources of this province in 1975? The answer was no. And the people of British Columbia said no, no, no. Were the NDP competent to manage the province's resources in 1979? The people of British Columbia again said no, no, no. So in 1983, restraint time, were the NDP competent to manage the resources of British Columbia? The answer again was no. The people of British Columbia said no, no, no. In 1986, good times are starting to come around, and again the people of British Columbia are asked, "Do you think the NDP are competent in management of the

[ Page 9224 ]

resources of British Columbia?" and the answer again is no, no, no.

Now we are at 1990 and 1991, and it may be true that the NDP even have a few initiatives that are worth looking at. But when the people of British Columbia are asked, "Do you believe that the NDP have the ability and the competence to manage the affairs of British Columbia in 1990 or 1991?" the answer again will be no, no, no.

This budget ensures sustainable development and a high quality of life for all British Columbians. We can and will see growth in the future in our economy, in our resources, in tourism, in our high-tech industry — and that's very positive for job opportunities for British Columbians. We can and we must and we will continue to protect our rich environment. I challenge all members of the House, on both sides, to do just that.

MR. MILLER: I would like to preface my remarks by paying some tribute to the member who just spoke, the second member for Saanich and the Islands. I think it is a tough job on families, being active in political life. It has certainly been my experience, and I am sure other members have shared it. It is a very demanding profession. Although we are often accused of being self-serving, I would congratulate the member for putting the interests of his party over his own personal interests. I would further say that I enjoyed, while he was Minister of Parks and responsible for region 6, a good relationship with him. I think he was constrained by the policies of his government; nonetheless, I believe he was legitimate in his desire to try to achieve some change.

[5:30]

Mr. Speaker, I want to also comment on some of the things he had to say. I suppose one of the easiest rhetorical devices available to speakers who lack the facts to back up a statement is to ask themselves a question and give themselves the answer. It may often be a good rhetorical device, but in substance it doesn't really achieve that much.

In going back and referring to the previous years of any government, of course, it's easy to ask, "Were they good in such and such a year?" and then answer no or yes. My only comment in terms of the past is really to remind that member, and indeed all members of the House, that during those difficult recession years, it was this government and this party that not only dealt with economic issues but in fact went far beyond them.

I remember the infamous 29 bills — the package of legislation we received. Many of those were non-budgetary items. I remember the cancellation of the B.C. Human Rights Commission and similar types of activities. That was a dangerous intrusion into the rights of the people in this province. It's not a record that I would care to stand up and be proud of. I think memories of convenience have kind of taken over for some members of this House. Certainly the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Mr. Mercier) seems to have forgotten entirely the extreme displeasure he had with the Premier, and presumably the government, which caused him to walk away. He was making what I thought was a mildly separatist speech, and at one point I tried to yell out to him: "Why did you separate?" He didn't stay with the fold when the going got tough. When the going got tough, that member decided to take a walk. Now he's back, and he has forgotten. Did he get his mind cleaned out?

He talked about taxation. I appreciate any member who gets up in this House and tries to explain the BS fund. It's a source of some hilarity and much confusion. The member for Burnaby-Edmonds is also an accountant, so I was relying on him to be maybe a little notch above some of the other very inept explanations I have heard of that mythical or fictitious fund. I have to report that he failed.

The only suggestion I can make to the members of the government is that perhaps they should hire Ed Watson, with his jug of beans and a couple of empty glasses. They could maybe do a commercial, with Mr. Watson pouring jellybeans into a jar and explaining the BS fund.

The member referred to municipal financing. I am not an accountant, but I was, I think, a fairly hard-working member of municipal council in my community. I always tried to seek the advice of those whom I thought were experts in the field.

Interjections.

MR. MILLER: I am being heckled unmercifully, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Ignore the interjections, please.

MR. MILLER: I try to tell the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Long) that he is not his usual jovial self as I meet him in the hallways these days this session. Normally he has a little joke to share, none of which I would repeat in this House. I was kind of chastising him for not being so friendly this session. He has completely disregarded my advice and is now viciously heckling me from the corner of the House. I can only conclude that things are so grim with his party that he can't think of any jokes to tell.

To get back to my comments, as an alderman in Prince Rupert it was.... Of course we did carry what we called a surplus. I do recall that....

Interjection.

MR. MILLER: Mr. Speaker, I prevail on your good offices to protect me from this attack from the corner. I'm having difficulty getting my point across.

We did in fact maintain that kind of fund, and I always argued in favour of it against some of the Social Credit members of council, but I always argued in favour of it for some pretty good reasons. One is that the revenue doesn't really start to come in until mid-year in the municipality; we operate on borrowed money, and it was always good to try and offset the amount of money we had to borrow, to

[ Page 9225 ]

reduce our borrowing costs, by going to our reserve funds.

I recall several years when interference by the government caused us to virtually deplete our reserve funds when the province shifted more of the costs onto municipalities. But I'll leave that for another day.

My point is that when we dip into those reserve funds, there is actually real money in the bank. In the case of the BS fund, that doesn't exist. There is no money in the bank.

HON. MR. PARKER: How do you know?

MR. MILLER: You don't have to be an expert in these things. I think a little simple logic should allow any of us to come to some rather simple conclusions.

At the municipal level they have reserve funds. They are real funds. They are in the bank. They produce interest for the municipality. The municipality can actually write cheques on them. But the BS fund of this government is mythical — it doesn't exist. I recall the Minister of Health (Hon. J. Jansen), when he learned about the $120 million reduction in federal transfer payments, saying: 'We will get some money from the BS fund." And the Minister of Finance said: "No, we won't, because it's not there."

I'm going to look forward, whether they hire Mr. Watson, who.... Oh, he's gone. I see he came into the gallery. His name was mentioned. Whether they hire Mr. Watson to throw beans from one jar into another, whether they get the member for Burnaby-Edmonds or even the Minister of Finance to explain it, I am going to look forward to it. The people of British Columbia are going to look forward to it. I think it's going to be a fundamental thing that you will not be able to overcome.

I want to deal with some other issues in the short time that I have available.

AN HON. MEMBER: Carmanah.

MR. MILLER: I do intend to deal with forestry later in my remarks and, if the members opposite can wait with bated breath, I'm sure that they will appreciate any remarks I do have to make.

I want to deal with some of the constituency issues, because this is the opportunity we have to register in this chamber some of our concerns as MLAs representing our areas. Specifically, I want to start with the issue of the B.C. Ferry Corporation and its complete and utter disregard for the needs of the constituents on the north coast of the Prince Rupert riding. For more than two years now I've tried to convince the government that they have a responsibility to live up to in terms of providing service to people in the remoter regions of this province.

We really do have two British Columbias. We have the hinterland, which never used to be ignored in the old days. In fact, I think W.A.C. Bennett had some feel for what happened out there in the hinterland, in the regions. Similarly, I think the just deceased member for Cariboo had some feel for those regions. That really is British Columbia; it's not downtown Vancouver. British Columbia is really this vast and wondrous geography and this source of immense wealth for this province.

I have a lot of regard for the people who live in those small communities and make their living in the primary resources. They have been ignored in this budget. The B.C. government receives $16 million a year in a subsidy from the federal government, because back in 1977 the federal government arbitrarily cancelled a subsidy they paid to a private company — Northland Navigation — which serviced the small, remote communities along this coastline. There's a long tradition, and I remember, as a boy in places like Port Alice and Beaver Cove, that that was our mode of transportation. That's how we got from those small logging camps down to Vancouver.

Interjection.

MR. MILLER: The Minister of Forests — or the ex-Minister of Forests, for good reason — says "Oh God." I remember those modes of transportation.

What does the government do with the $16 million it received from the federal government? It pumps it into the lower mainland service and completely ignores the needs of people in northern British Columbia.

MR. LONG: That's false.

MR. MILLER: I've tried to talk to that member for Mackenzie. He was on the board of the B.C. Ferry Corporation, and he hasn't delivered. They've even ignored having representation on that B.C. Ferries board. A year went by when there was absolutely no representative from the north on the board of directors of B.C. Ferries, despite previous commitments to the contrary. There was no voice. He finally appointed one and I went up to him — it's a fellow I know, someone I was on council with — and said: "Good on you. I know at least he'll speak up for the region." But they left it vacant for a year.

The residents of the Queen Charlotte Islands have no dangerous-cargo service. They cannot get basic commodities that you and I take for granted, or they can only get them at extremely high costs. It's a low population area; it requires a subsidized transportation system in order for those people to be able to obtain the goods that you and I take for granted.

This government receives a $16 million subsidy which was expressly put in place to provide that kind of service. The original terms of reference of that agreement with the province of British Columbia were to provide freight and passenger service, and they've abandoned that responsibility.

I see the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mrs. Johnston) is in the House, and I hope that we can have a dialogue later in the estimates. She'll see that there is a compelling need to deal with this, and it is not a major budgetary Item.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Why don't you come and talk to me about it?

[ Page 9226 ]

MR. MILLER: Madam Member, I will indeed come and talk to you about it. I have raised it in the House for two years and have received no satisfaction whatsoever. If the member is indicating that she is prepared to listen to some reasonable arguments in terms of reinstating that service, I thank you very much, and I indeed will come and talk to you.

Just continuing with ferry service, Mr. Speaker, again, the small communities up and down this coast — and we do forget that the lifeblood of British Columbia at one time was the small communities along this coast, and a lot of them have disappeared.... A lot of the native communities are now in a similar position. In Klemtu, for example, the people pay 29 cents a pound for everything that comes into the village. They don't get fresh groceries, fresh produce, or anything else. In the wintertime they get one barge every week to bring that stuff in. You talk about the GST and what its impact is going to be. You can imagine what the impact of the GST will be on people in those small communities.

Similarly, on the north coast, where the weather is frequently an impediment to getting around both by air and by sea, there is no service. Why there can't be that kind of reasonable service to these small communities like Klemtu, Hartley Bay, Kitkatla and Port Simpson is beyond me. I think we have a responsibility that we have not lived up to in terms of addressing the very real issues, needs and concerns of British Columbians. Maybe they live in small, remote communities, but their needs are sometimes greater than ours.

[5:45]

The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that in terms of highway construction and all of those other kinds of issues, the north is a forgotten part of British Columbia. It took us years; we finally got a small, seven-kilometre section of highway. It's not complete yet, but we finally got it. But we've got other highways that are extremely dangerous to travel and that are in a deplorable condition, including Highway 16, which needs major upgrading. We're disappointed that those kinds of expenditures have not been indicated in this budget.

AN HON. MEMBER: You need better representation.

MR. MILLER: Mr. Member, it's not a question of representation; it's a question of whether or not we have a government that's prepared to listen to the people of British Columbia.

Housing. The very excellent program, in my view, that moderated the cost of housing in some of the smaller communities where it's still possible to landbank, where there are still Crown lands available, is gone. It was an excellent program. The province provided the up-front financing, the municipality developed the building lots for sale and sold them to individuals — and it's very high-cost development — and people could get on building lots. Many people are independent and capable and build their own houses — it's a pattern I've seen in my community. That program has been abandoned; a modest program for small communities has been abandoned. It's not a major cost issue to the government. They must have ideological blinkers on when it comes to that.

Health care. This really touches us in the north and remote regions of the province. In order to receive health care that people in the south take for granted and might have to take a cab ride to get, we have to take a plane ride. I've circulated an extensive mailing in the north on this issue and elicited a great response from people up in the Peace River and Skeena regions — right across the north. This issue touched them in a very real way.

There was a letter from a woman in Smithers, a senior citizen, who in order to receive just a checkup for her pacemaker, had to fly to Vancouver, stay a couple of days and fly back to Smithers. The cost for her checkup was $700. Has this government, this Social Credit Party, been so dominated by members from the lower mainland that they've lost touch with and lost their feel for the people who populate all of British Columbia?

Interjection.

MR. MILLER: "Look at the cabinet" — the member from Dawson Creek. People from Dawson Creek were writing me in Prince Rupert, saying: "Please, would you carry our interests forward?" I can only assume, Mr. Speaker, to the member from Dawson Creek, that he wasn't prepared to do it or that he can't make any headway in his own cabinet. They're ignoring the needs of the people in the hinterland, the second British Columbia, the forgotten British Columbia.

We talk about recreation. Again, in large population centres you have access to a wide range of recreational facilities. The most difficult issue you face is deciding: "What will I do?" That's the really troubling issue in southern British Columbia in the high population centres. In the small communities particularly, they lack those kinds of recreational amenities. They don't have simple things like playing-fields. They don't have the fiscal ability to pay for them; they're too small. And yet, we see this pork barrel, grease-pit government shelling out money to their friends and insiders. It's nothing but a grease pit. It's a public trough that they've bellied up to, and they're giving it out to their friends and insiders, and they're ignoring the needs of the people of this province in doing so. They are ignoring the needs of the people in the small population centres.

We will be dealing with the report of the auditor general. I think it's going to be very revealing in terms of the pork-barrel system — this system of favouring friends and insiders — that this government has developed. I guess when you're out there working for the Tories, you borrow those ideas from Mulroney. How do we reward our friends and insiders? How do we ignore the legitimate desires of the people in the small communities of this province?

I was amused to pick up the phone one day, in response to it ringing, to get a call from the Regional Development minister, who said: "What do you think of this application?" I said: "I think it's a good

[ Page 9227 ]

application, and it should go through. But by the way, you're doling out millions of dollars of taxpayers' money."

The people trot down to buy those lottery tickets in the hope of striking it rich — to escape their present situation, I suppose. I think that most of the money probably comes from lower-income people. There's a certain vicious circle that takes place when you're in that position. You're always trying to get out. You're pretty desperate. You'll even resort to spending a lot of money on lottery tickets in the hope that one day you might strike it lucky. What do they do? They take this money from these people and use it for their own political ends.

I finally got a call from this guy, and he said: "Well, what do you think?" "It's good, " I said, "but, look, you're doling out all of this money. What system do you have for determining priorities, for determining the real needs and for making expenditure decisions that are intelligent decisions? How do you do this?" What did I get on the other end of the phone? I got a blank. I got: "Duh, I don't know."

We know, Mr. Speaker, what the system is. We know what the pork-barrel system is in this province. Despite the early promises of a fresh start, this is a party and a government that has reverted to type. They have gone back; in fact, they are refining some of those pork-barrel techniques. They're coming up with ones that nobody else has ever dreamed of. In the process they're ignoring the legitimate needs of British Columbians right around this province.

There will be a price to pay for that, and it will come whenever this government has the courage to test the feelings of the people of British Columbia with regard to their stewardship. It will come when they develop the courage. I don't think they have it right now, because if they did they'd give it a shot They're afraid to do it, and the facts speak louder than words. They don't have the courage. They know they're behind in the polls, and they know what the people of this province think about them.

I'm sorry that I don't have a lot of time, but we will have other opportunities in this House to deal with the issue of forestry and the failure of this government over a very long period of time to exercise proper management on the Crown forest lands of this province. You have been abysmal failures when it comes to managing the forest lands of this province. We now require extensive government investment in those lands because the investments weren't made at the time. They were ignored at the time; they were ignored by Forests minister after Forests minister after Forests minister. We not only face a huge area of insufficiently restocked land in this province....

HON. MR. PARKER: Also ignored from '72 to'75.

MR. MILLER: Let the former Minister of Forests — I repeat, the former Minister of Forests — who was such an embarrassment to this government that they fired him, they fired him, they fired him, they fired him.... And they're going to fire you when you go on the campaign trail, too — mark my words.

Five hundred thousand hectares, and that's only the best sites. That doesn't deal with all the other sites that this government has ignored for over 30 years. There's the member for Skeena (Hon. Mr. Parker) sitting across the way, who said to his constituents via a newspaper in his riding that we would get a $1 billion FRDA program. The fact is that the ineptitude of this government is going to get us a pretty small FRDA program, a second FRDA program — pretty thin, because you can't go around attacking the federal government, telling them to cut their budget and then when they do, start to shed crocodile tears. You asked for it, and you are getting exactly what you asked for. It was a really stupid mistake.

Other forestry jurisdictions receive a great deal more benefit from the resource than we do. We pale in comparison to some of those other jurisdictions. Again it's.... I was going to say "tribute." It's not a tribute at all; it's a feature of this government's failure to properly address resource management which has led to this position. We generate less than one job per thousand cubic metres of timber harvested in this province. Yet when we look at other jurisdictions and what they develop and what they generate — the rest of Canada 2.2, Sweden 2.5, the U.S. 3.5, New Zealand 5 — we can see that these figures are concrete proof of the failure of this government to manage the naturally given resources of this province for the benefit of the people of the province. When we look at any objective analysis of these fundamental points in terms of resource management, we come to the sorry conclusion that this government has been a total failure when it comes to managing the resources of this province for the benefit of the people of the province. They haven't produced the jobs. They've allowed the forest to be over harvested; they've allowed too many processing plants to be built; they haven't done their reforestation in silviculture. I'm going to take great delight....

interjection.

MR. MILLER: I will debate the ex-Minister of Forests in any forum in this land, as I did once already. I will debate him in any forum — in his riding, in my riding, anywhere you care to name, Mr. ex-Minister of Forests.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I thank the member for his comments. They were instructive and interesting.

On behalf of the member for Okanagan South, I will move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Strachan moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:58 p.m.