[ Page 9229 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Ministerial Statement

Safety in the workplace. Hon. Mrs. Johnston –– 9229

Mr. Miller

Private Members' Statements

Safety in the workplace. Mr. Miller –– 9229

Hon. Mr. Messmer

Challenges of intergovernmental relations. Mr. Peterson –– 9231

Mr. Guno

Family violence. Ms. Marzari –– 9233

Hon. Mr. Dueck

Hon. J. Jansen

Fiscal responsibility. Mr. Rabbitt –– 9235

Ms. Marzari

Budget Debate

Mr. Chalmers –– 9238

Ms. A. Hagen –– 9240

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 9244

Ms. Smallwood –– 9247

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

Prayers.

MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, this weekend marks the seventy-fifth anniversary of the Canadian Girls in Training. This organization was first established in 1915 by the YWCA, and it has always been a strong supporter of Canadian nationalism. Much has changed in 75 years in this program for girls who range from 12 to 17 years of age. But the commitment to their goals remains unchanged, and they have been a positive influence on these young people over these 75 years.

I would ask the members in our gallery to welcome Ruth Cairns, who is representing the Canadian Girls in Training, and I'd ask the House to join me in congratulating their organization on this seventy-fifth anniversary of service.

HON. MR. MESSMER: In the House today we have visiting us 28 grade 10 students and two teachers from McNicoll Park School in Penticton. They are social studies classes which have been dealing with the provincial and federal governments over the last few months. I would like to welcome the two teachers, Lea Sutherland and Bob Brownell, and the 28 students. Would you please join me in welcoming them.

MR. CRANDALL: I would ask the House to join me this morning in welcoming Sheila Lorentz and the group of Pathfinders and Rangers who are in Victoria today for the Duke of Edinburgh ceremonies. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

MRS. BOONE: On behalf of the second member for Boundary–Similkameen (Mr. Barlee), who asked me to give greetings to the class that is here from Penticton, I would like to extend congratulations, and hope that their stay here in the House is a happy one today. I hope that we don't give them too much entertainment today.

Ministerial Statement

SAFETY IN THE WORKPLACE

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a ministerial statement. I would like to bring to the attention of the hon. members that tomorrow has been proclaimed as a day of mourning for workers injured or killed on the job. Despite all the best efforts of labour, management and the Workers' Compensation Board, 218 workers in British Columbia were killed on the job last year. Many more were seriously injured or permanently disabled.

These bare statistics can in no way convey the grief and sense of loss felt by the family, friends and co-workers over these tragic accidents. Their lives are forever changed.

The ministry and the Workers' Compensation Board are continuing to stress our commitment to accident prevention by promoting health and safety in the workplace and in the schools for students about to enter the workforce. It is a priority to teach young people how to be safe in the workplace, including the importance of wearing protective equipment and how to recognize and avoid hazards. We don't want anybody to have to learn by their mistakes.

It is a sad fact that almost a quarter of all claims for compensation are made by young workers between the ages of 15 and 24. Let us hope that these programs create an awareness of safety on the job that will decrease the number of tragic accidents in the future.

Retraining injured workers continues to be a priority of the Workers' Compensation Board. The vocational rehabilitation courses and programs create new lives and a new sense of purpose for the people who have been injured.

Although we are working very hard to reduce the effects of these workplace tragedies, nothing we can say can compensate for the loss or injury of a loved one. Mr. Speaker, I ask the hon, members to join me in a moment of silence as a sign of respect for workers injured or killed on the job.

MR. MILLER: Mr. Speaker, I'll be very brief. As you are aware, I have a statement to make following this on the same subject. I would only wish to join with the minister in recognizing the tragedy and the trauma that is involved when people are killed or injured on the job. The ramifications go far beyond the simple act itself.

I would draw to the House's attention that the day has been declared by the Canadian labour movement. I would also draw to the House's attention that it is a sad fact that much of the best scientific work on the impact of the workplace on workers' health and safety has been initiated at the local or mill level. I'm familiar with some of those studies, which have been done, in my view, at great expense. Thorough analysis and scientific study are what we need more of in this province. Unfortunately, they have not been funded to the level that I think they should be.

I have certainly seen my share of tragedy and trauma on the job. It's always painful when we're dealing with young workers. I will leave my response at that and say more in my statement.

Private Members' Statements

SAFETY IN THE WORKPLACE

MR. MILLER: I don't intend to cite a lot, but some statistics indicate that we have not really met the challenge of the tragedies that do occur on the job and on the worksite. I don't think we have paid enough attention to some of the more invisible tragedies, some of the things that you can't — or don't necessarily — see.

[ Page 9230 ]

New injuries reported over the last year are up considerably, from 192,515 last year to 207,019 this year. Fatalities reported: again, up from 212 last year to 218 this year — not a good record. I would note from the reports of the WCB that occupational health and safety reports issued were down by 8 percent, yet assessment income increased by some 17— almost 18 — percent, up from about $440,000 to $520,000.

As I said earlier, perhaps the most traumatic event that can happen — the most shocking event in terms of its immediacy to us on the job — is a death. Unfortunately, I have been, in my working life, witness to some of those tragic events. But some of the trauma that we perhaps lose sight of after the event I think needs to be spoken about today.

I am talking particularly about injuries that are carried far beyond the accident stage. Certainly many of the occupations that people are engaged in, in this and other provinces, are very high-stress jobs. I am thinking particularly of our policemen and firemen. The mortality rates, particularly among firemen, are very high. In fighting fires and protecting the public they often inhale smoke that in some cases is toxic and detracts drastically from these people's longevity. It's not a single incident but a series of incidents over a long period of time, yet the result is just as tragic. I would include many others, as I said — teachers, policemen, firemen — who work in a high-stress environment. I would exclude present company in terms of that high stress.

I am aware, Mr. Speaker, of the tragedies that have occurred at sea. Many of my friends, and friends of my friends, have been lost at sea as they went about the very useful occupation of harvesting nature's resources so that we might enjoy them. There was a death recently just south of the Queen Charlotte Islands. We are very aware in my community of the trauma that flows from those kinds of deaths.

There continue to be constraints to injured workers. When you're injured on the job, it's necessary for the event to be described as traumatic. If it is not, you seriously jeopardize your chance of receiving compensation from the Workers' Compensation Board. So workers have, over the years, evolved; in fact, they've had to learn how to play the game in terms of trying to get these compensations that are their due.

When you report an accident, it's incumbent on workers — and sometimes they forget — to describe a very traumatic event that led to the injury. If they fail to do that, they end up fighting WCB forever and a day. I would note also from the statistics that many of the claims that we are now starting to pay for the first time — or paid for the first time in 1989 — indeed are for accidents that happened many years ago. It illustrates that people have sometimes had to fight for years and years to receive proper compensation from an organization, the Workers' Compensation Board, that was set up to serve the workers of this province and that the workers pay for.

[10:15]

I want to talk about the trauma of the disabled. Again, it becomes invisible. We tend to forget, after the event, that there are very real people who suffer very real tragedies in trying to get on with their lives. I have been personally involved in assisting workers who have had great difficulty dealing with the rehab services of the WCB. I think this is very, very critical in our province: when workers are injured to the point where they are permanently handicapped, at some point the Workers' Compensation Board says to them: "You are now fit for some kind of work" — completely ignoring that these individuals may have had 20 years or 30 years' seniority in a particular plant, and completely forgetting that there is absolutely no obligation on the employers' part to employ those disabled workers.

We have a very bad record when it comes to taking care of people who have been injured on the job. I think the employers of this land have not been doing the job that they should be doing. They have not been making a commitment to hire people who have been handicapped because of those kinds of traumas.

In fact, the best work has been done by the trade unions, and I am familiar with several cases where thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars were spent pursuing these types of claims through the arbitration process in fighting a very tough fight on behalf of injured workers. So I don't think it's enough that we say that we have a day of mourning.

Certainly it's a tribute, and it's fitting that we do that for these workers. But we have to make an ongoing commitment to make sure that their lives are fulfilled as much as they possibly can be through the ability to have meaningful employment, dignity and those kinds of things. I think there has been an abrogation of that kind of responsibility on the part of the Workers' Compensation Board.

HON. MR. MESSMER: I would like to respond to the remarks that were made by the member for Prince Rupert. Certainly I agree with much of the content of his statement as far as the tragedy and the trauma that people and friends and family go through when someone is killed on the job.

I think it's very unfortunate that 25 percent of all the claimants that we have in British Columbia are between the ages of 15 and 24. That certainly leads us to believe that we have to do a better job of education within our school system to make sure that this does not happen. I agree that part of this has to be on the job site.

A statistic to go along with it is that the number of fatal claims reported rose by 2.8 percent, from 212 in 1988 to 218 in 1989. As a percentage of total claims reported, the overall rate of fatalities has not changed. That does not necessarily mean that the system is completely correct. While these statistics are a reality, there is no doubt that in our society they are not acceptable. Our goal must be to reduce the numbers by education and by cooperation among management, the workforce and the government to create a safer working atmosphere. The elimination of claims is not impossible, but reduction certainly is possible.

[ Page 9231 ]

As you are aware, the Workers' Compensation Board is now going to be led by a board of governors which will have five representatives from management, five from workers, two from the public at large and a chairman. I'm very hopeful that when this board comes into full operation, we will see fewer cases reported within the workplace for workers' compensation. As we go through our lives, we realize that people are injured on the job. While the claims are paid for from a fund that is 100 percent self-funded through management, nevertheless those workers created the income that allowed for management to pay those funds.

While I agree partially with the remarks made by the member for Prince Rupert, we in government — and also on the other side — are very concerned about the number of claims and mostly about the lasting years of those people injured on the job site.

MR. MILLER: The Workers' Compensation Board was set up on the basis that workers forfeited their right to sue the employer for negligence, and that this fund would take care of them. They've been fighting it every since. I think that has escaped the attention sometimes of the members opposite. A pretty good argument could be made that it is not management who funds the Workers' Compensation Board; it is the workers who fund it. Then they spend the rest of the time fighting it.

It's not surprising that one of the inducements to forming trade unions — because trade unions are much more than just an economic association — is that they also look after the interests of their members. Certainly negligence on the job was one of the creative reasons why trade unions were formed. I repeat: they were at the forefront of doing the best scientific work in this province.

I think we've ignored a range of issues when it comes to workers on the job — women and video display terminals, for example. The kinds of constraints and situations that workers on the job are faced with sitting in front of VDTs hour after hour, and workers in canneries doing very repetitious work and eventually developing carpal tunnel syndrome.... There are some very elderly native women in my constituency who, in their sixties and seventies, are still putting in those long hours in the canneries.

No matter where you look — and I just want to reinforce this — the trade union movement has really been at the forefront of raising these issues and continuing to raise these issues on behalf of the workforce of British Columbia. I hope that the government would pay heed to that, and that we could eventually get to the point where we had an institute that would have as its mandate the responsibility to carry out the extensive scientific studies that are required.

The new risks that workers are facing are the many chemicals and environmental hazards which are virtually invisible. I've seen people who were burned out after working in pulp mills for 20 years. I've seen people whose lungs were shot. I've seen welders whose eyesight was shot. I've seen all of those things. We are not in the forefront as we should be. If we can devote resources to analysis of economic issues, then we surely could set up an institute that has as its prime mandate the scientific evaluation of on-the-job conditions that are fundamental to protect the interests of workers in this province.

CHALLENGES OF
INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS

MR. PETERSON: I wish to rise today to talk about the challenge of responsibility in intergovernmental relations. I'd like to focus my remarks on the responsibility of municipal governments to work with the provincial government in approving zoning for more rental housing, specifically for social housing. Make no mistake, the provincial government does not control the supply of rental and social housing. The province can provide funds and create incentives, but it's municipal councils which must provide the zoning so that suitable land can be purchased and developed.

An element of hypocrisy has arisen in the rental housing debate. The NDP and some of those municipal councils dominated by the NDP demand that the government do something; then, when faced with actual proposals for rental and social housing, they absolutely refuse to act.

Two examples come to mind immediately. On January 26, the Victoria city council turned down two proposed projects that would have provided 111 new rental units. Just recently, the Esquimalt council rejected a proposal for 84 units of low-rental family housing. In both of these communities, we hear of waiting-lists for rental and social housing. Where do we hear most often of families on waiting-lists for rental and social housing? Let me tell you, this is truly incredible, but we hear it from the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) and the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota).

What have these poor timid souls done to convince their local councils to provide land for rental and social housing? Mr. Speaker, absolutely nothing. I think that's deplorable. They feel perfectly content to berate government, then contentedly turn around and say nothing to their NDP farm-team councils. Is it any wonder from whom NDP municipal council members of Victoria and Esquimalt are learning hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is no easy vice. Unlike gluttony, it cannot be practised occasionally; it's a full-time occupation. It can be achieved, as we see, with the second member for Victoria and the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew.

It can be learned, as we have seen with eminently quotable Rick "It's my money" Kasper and Leonard "We won't raise the taxes — sorry, I can't say that" Krog. What about that one?

I should not leave the impression that all municipal councils have proven so insensitive to the needs of their community. Let me name a few. I'd like to single out for commendation four communities anyway.

[ Page 9232 ]

MR. MOWAT: Vancouver.

MR. PETERSON: Vancouver. Absolutely, Mr. Member. And Burnaby. In my own constituency, how about the city of Langley and the township of Langley. These communities responded to the government's initiatives contained in last year's budget to increase rental and social housing. Last year, through the government's multi-pronged housing action plan, nearly $900 million was spent on this problem. This year, I'm proud to say this government will spend nearly $1 billion to assist low-income renters, create rental housing and promote home ownership.

Since 1986, over 5,000 social housing units have been built. Out of the funds provided for in the 1991 provincial budget, an additional 8,000 units will be provided. What a government! You know our Minister of Social Services and Housing (Hon. Mr. Dueck) is doing an absolutely tremendous job, and we're so proud of him. That is good government.

[10:30]

I would also like to point out to my colleagues that the rental housing market is improving at this time, thanks to the works of our good minister and this government. According to the Rental Housing Council of B.C. in a recent special report from October 1, 1989, to April 1, 1990, the number of rental opportunities in the city of Vancouver has increased by 260 percent — good representation from Vancouver by these members over here. Overall housing starts totalled 39,000 units last year in B.C. alone. That's a 28 percent increase over 1988. What an action government this is!

But more can be done, and it will be done by our Social Credit government. We will fulfil amply our responsibility to the people of British Columbia and to municipal governments. For instance, we are increasing the municipal revenue sharing grant by 18 percent this year to $338 million — tremendous!

MR. GUNO: Mr. Speaker, I am at a loss to respond because when I heard that this member was going to speak on the challenges of intergovernmental relations, as a critic I thought I would be responding to a very reflective view on the challenges of intergovernmental affairs. Instead we get a rant about housing, and I'm not sure that I should be responding. Maybe we should have the Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Dueck) respond, because they are the ones who have been negligent in this regard.

Vancouver has expressed a desire to do exactly what the member is proposing. In fact, the city has asked for legislation to deal with this kind of housing strategy, and for the last 15 years successive Social Credit governments have refused to act on it. So with all the puffery that we have heard, the fact remains that we face a major housing shortage in B.C.

I just want to take this opportunity, because it's on the challenges of intergovernmental affairs. In a recent article in the Times-Colonist, the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) talked about his opinion that on a straight dollars-and-cents basis it doesn't make any sense for B.C. to be in Confederation. You can tell that election time is gearing up, because it's fed-bashing time, show time. This is the time that this government usually trots out that old bugaboo. It's really ritualistic and rather transparent; it fools no one. It's a nudge, nudge, wink, wink game.

This government has been negligent in terms of responding to the GST, which represents an unconscionable shift of the tax burden from the corporate sector to the working class of Canada. Questioned on whether his comments would have any effect on this very important crisis that we're facing with regards to Meech Lake, the minister is reported to have said: "You know me; I'm a bombastic and irresponsible sort of person who flies off at every opportunity." Mr. Speaker, you're not about to get into any argument about that kind of self-assessment from this side of the House. In fact, it shows in his last budget. I think it's the height of irresponsibility on the part of the Finance minister to make these kinds of separatist statements when we in Canada are facing a serious constitutional crisis. He knows that what he says as a senior cabinet minister will have an effect.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

I'd like to remind the House that it was the Premier who signed Meech Lake. He was there, and he was part of that elite group who overnight struck a deal that affects every person in the country. Yet he now wants to abandon it. I'd like to know if he said anything about the aboriginal people's concerns when the deal was struck. This accord shuts out any chance of a constitutional recognition of a right towards aboriginal self-government. Instead, when he reported his position to this House shortly after that constitutional forum, he dismissed it by saying it was a pig in a poke. There was no concern then, when this deal was struck and when the Premier was present, about women's rights, about minority rights, about northerners being shut out in terms of becoming a province.

There are challenges in intergovernmental relations, but this government has not shown any effectiveness in representing the interests of British Columbians. I don't think they have done it with much vigour and vigilance. It was this government that was asleep when the GATT ruling came down last year, which will now result in thousands of shore-workers....

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

MR. PETERSON: When the member for Atlin stood up, his opening words were: "I'm at a loss to answer...." Mr. Member, you have my sympathy. How could you defend the actions? There's no possible way you could defend the actions of the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) and the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota)  — or the lack of action. So what does he do?

[ Page 9233 ]

Interjections.

MR. PETERSON: If you people over there don't see what intergovernmental relations has to do with an MLA in his constituency dealing with his local member councils to provide social housing in your constituencies, pack your bags and leave, because you're failing your people, as you have been doing on every other issue. Absolutely unbelievable! If they can't understand that simple relationship, what are they doing here? Absolute incompetence, that's what it is.

MR. CASHORE: What's the topic of the debate on the order paper?

MR. PETERSON: The topic of the debate in the order paper is intergovernmental relations. And let me tell you, Mr. Member, if you don't understand that you, as an MLA, have a certain responsibility to deal with your local council and you have not grasped that in the time you've spent in this House.... Mr. Speaker, there's absolutely no hope for him — no hope whatsoever.

As I was closing off before I was interrupted....

MR. CASHORE: Are you at a loss for words?

MR. PETERSON: I must have really touched a sore point over here. This guy can't shut up.

I was saying that in this budget the revenue-sharing grant was increased by 18 percent, which is $338 million. This should help to pay for the municipal services that go to new rental housing developments.

Our commitments to our responsibilities — and we are responsible to our constituents, members of the opposition — stands in contrast to the federal government, which is cutting back on its legally mandated funding to B.C. by almost $1 billion over the next five years.

FAMILY VIOLENCE

MS. MARZARI: I have seven minutes to address the issue of family violence. In that seven minutes I hope to put together the results of a small investigation I've conducted over the past four months into the issue of family violence and violence against women and children and elders and to try to condense my findings and put them into perspective. Hopefully we will have an estimates debate in which we can elaborate on some of these findings.

I started doing this because of a letter written to the Sun a few months ago by Barbara Grier in Salmon Arm, in which she says:

"I wish those who study women's achievements would assess their results in the light of other relevant social statistics. For example, if sexual abuse occurs in 25 percent of families, then negative female attitudes flourish in probably 50 percent. If four out of ten grade 11 girls, according to a ... study ... are sexually active, only six can be sure of reaching post-secondary education without encumbrance."

She asked, and I took this personally: "So why should we be surprised to find gifted girls are still underachieving?"

I come back, then, to the statistics that come out of numerous federal studies that suggest one in four girls and one in seven boys are sexually abused. The problem used to be something that was considered a private problem inside the family. Recently we notice and we know, through newspaper accounts of trials going on, and from judges' statements, that it is not a private problem. It is a political issue, and it is threatening, in fact, to become an epidemic problem in our community that we can no longer hide and deny. In fact, our consistent denial of this problem, I think, has cost us literally billions of dollars as a nation, hundreds of millions as a province.

Family violence is the hidden crime, because it takes place within the privacy of the family. And there's a myth which we very often as public representatives perpetuate about the natural goodness and the sanctity of the family. It's simply not always true. We want the family to be our cornerstone, but we must also be realistic for the sake of children and the women and the elderly about the amount of violence that goes on in a lot of families. It's unpleasant. We don't want to know about it. It's horrifying, and we shun the information, but we still don't know, in B.C., about its frequency. We still don't know about its severity. We still don't know about the true impact on its victims lives, but we do know....

I've talked to social service workers, mental health workers, police, psychologists, psychiatrists and educators. They are telling me that we regularly create $6 million children in our province because of the lack of coordination of services and the real lack of services. We pay a high cost. Is it worth it? Obviously not. Why do we do it? Because we deny. Why does it happen? Going to the roots, it's an attitude in our culture that devalues women, children, feelings and elderly people. We live in a society that seems to value power and the material success that comes with power, action over reflection and men above women and children.

Abusers, whether they're verbal intimidators, physical bullies or sexual predators, are often victims of childhood abuse themselves. The statistics that I've gathered on this are just astonishing. The experts are telling me there's a 100 percent connection between physical abuse and sexual offences later. There is a 90 percent connection between alcohol, drugs and women who are victims of sexual abuse. There is a 100 percent connection between abuse and kids being on the streets. There is an incredible connection, therefore, between the act of abuse upon a child or a women and what that child or woman might do later, and upon their ability to function in the community or their ability to function at all.

[10:45]

The mental health workers tell me that people who are victims spend years of their lives — very often their whole lives — unable to function appropriately or deal with society's simple demands. The

[ Page 9234 ]

cycle of depression and incapacity travels on. Drugs and alcohol very often become involved with that.

What do we do about it? Obviously that is the question we must ask. What are the connections that must be made? Firstly we have to stop denying. We have to go through that phase of politically denying that it's happening. We can deal with the surface of it — the tenth of the iceberg that appears above the surface — with a few lottery grants and a few social service contracts.

We have a serious job to do. First of all, we have to allocate responsibility. We have to say to our ministries: "We have an epidemic here, and we need an interministerial collection coordination." We have to say to Social Services: "You're in charge of child sexual abuse." We have to say to the Attorney-General: "You're in charge of wife assault and sexual assault." We have to say to Health: "You're in charge of elder abuse." Wouldn't it be nice if we could say that to one ministry? But I am realistic. I have listened to experts talk, and we have to do it this way This is what we've got now.

Now that we've separated it out, we say to Social Services: "You choose a superintendent of child welfare that, in effect, might be able to work at arm's length, act as an advocate for children and set up a system that will connect the point at which a child discloses to a school, police officer, perhaps the Children's Hospital....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm sorry to interrupt your most interesting statement, hon. member, but your time has expired.

HON. MR. DUECK: Most of that statement I could have made myself and would have done it just about word for word, because it is a very serious matter This government — and I personally — is very concerned when it comes to abuse of family, children or anyone in society. Therefore it's an interministry approach that we have taken.

Of course, the Minister Responsible for Women's Programs (Hon. Mrs. Gran) is not here today, so I will take part of this time and ask the Minister of Health (Hon. J. Jansen) to join me in a few statements later on.

I asked a very prominent psychiatrist when I was in Health: "Is there an increase in abuse, or is it just that we are coming more out in the open with this whole subject?" He told me that it is both. We have a serious problem on our hands, and we certainly have to address it.

I would like to mention that we have 141 offices providing family and children's services around the province and 882 social workers dedicated to serving British Columbians, and the offices receive investigative allegations and follow them through. The 1991 budget has allocated an additional 35 FTEs exactly for that purpose. We have emergency lines and a children's crisis line. The Attorney-General also has a crisis line. He has just recently announced $150,000 for a wife assault coordination project that he's following up with. Emergency shelter and safe homes have increased this year. Last year we had roughly 400, and we've increased them by 25 percent. There will be some 107 additional beds.

It's an interministry approach, as I said. We have an interministry child abuse handbook in which we are showing an integrated approach with protocols and how to look at the various areas of this particular serious problem. An interministry training video is available. The ministry, through community projects, funds programs for various societies. Sixty-one family services projects are in place at this time, and we're always reviewing that area to see whether we can expand on it. Police, hospitals, legal aid, crisis lines and community agencies are all involved in this area of service.

You mentioned senior citizens. We also have a senior citizen counsellors program which addresses a lot of these issues. They come forward and are reported to us, and we try to deal with them.

The ministry program for independence provides another avenue of assistance to families in crisis, so I have to say that, with the Minister Responsible for Women's Programs, we are addressing all these issues and providing more funding. We are integrating other ministries in this serious problem of crisis in the family, whether it's sexual or other abuse. All I can say is that we must all get on board and report incidents. We have a duty — every individual has a duty — to report any signs of sexual abuse or other abuse of children. It is under provincial law that you must report it. Then we certainly will look after it.

I would like to turn over the last few minutes to my colleague the Minister of Health.

HON. J. JANSEN: To carry on that this is a ministry issue, I was very interested in the comments of the first member for Vancouver–Point Grey, but I disagree with her statement that this is a political issue. I believe that it is far more fundamental than that. It is an issue in society that we have to address.

We are going to be making very extensive announcements about our approach to this very serious issue, which will involve an interministerial approach. It will involve significant emphasis on community-based counselling in terms of treatment services for victims of sexual abuse, their families and also the offenders. Specific target groups will be outlined: children, persons with disabilities, native persons and people in remote and rural areas.

We are also working with Health and Welfare Canada to deal with the issue of....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm sorry, minister, but time has expired for the response.

MS. MARZARI: Through you, Mr. Speaker, yes, we all want to climb on board, but the train doesn't have any track to run on right now. The police are telling me that there are three separate police communication systems operating right here on the Saanich Peninsula. They cannot coordinate and track abusers or the abused.

[ Page 9235 ]

When a child is abused in Williams Lake and discloses in Vancouver, the Vancouver police put their hands on their foreheads and say, "We can't deal with it," because the overload is so great. When the Children's Hospital gets a disclosure, it finds it difficult to know where to take it, because there's no place to go.

School counsellors are telling me that when a child discloses, they put their hands on their heads and say: "Oh, my God, where's this going to go? How can we take responsibility?" Yes, we are opening doors for disclosure, Mr. Minister, but we are not giving a track for that treatment to follow. That child has to be given an advocate. It's the Social Services ministry that must be the advocate for that child.

In the Health ministry we have to make sure that mental health workers are prepared and ready and on salary, and that the MSP is going to cover counselling for survivors and mothers. We are closing down the WCB victim assistance program that provides some money now for counselling for mothers of abused children. We can have a child living in Williams Lake, a mother living in Vancouver, and an abusing father living in Burnaby. Nobody connects those three people. As they move and are transient, as they come together and fall apart again very often, we have no way of tracking. We spend millions, but we don't connect. That is my major point here.

The Attorney-General has to establish a friendly court, a place where children can disclose without being afraid of having to tell seven people their story. The police have to coordinate their communication systems and understand and learn how to work with social workers. Workers' Compensation has to reopen its doors on victim assistance.

We need counselling; we need treatment; we want to get on board. There is no railroad track for the train to run on now. Simple coordination and local municipal levels with little hubs of counsellors on salary are wonderful ideas, but they have to be connected to an overall system: educators, psychiatrists, children's hospitals, schools and day care centres.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Before we proceed to the next speaker, the second member for Richmond has asked leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. LOENEN: Mr. Speaker, it's a delight for me to welcome, on behalf of the Premier and myself, a group of students from the great constituency of Richmond. There are 40 grade 11 French immersion students in the gallery this morning. They're accompanied by their teacher Ms. Zimich. Would the House please give them a warm welcome.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members' statements continues.

FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY

MR. RABBITT: Fiscal responsibility: two words that are a matter of great importance to the future of this province. It may be foreign to the NDP opposition, but it is crucial if we are to secure today's prosperity for tomorrow. This year's budget again proves that our Social Credit government has the capability, political will and foresight that is necessary to protect British Columbians' long-term interests. Responsible fiscal management is absolutely essential if we are to continue to enjoy the quality of life that makes British Columbia the envy of the rest of Canada.

The alternative is unthinkable. The alternative is to follow the Leader of the Opposition, who in turn is a follower himself of opinion polls and the media, a follower who can't even keep track of the number of times he's changed his mind on the issues of the day. Yet he wants the taxpayers of this province to believe that he is a leader.

The people of B.C. don't know where he's headed. It's a mystery. He's a leader who wants us to follow him to who knows where. He certainly doesn't, but he knows the way to get there is to follow the pack. That's not good enough for British Columbia. British Columbians want to know where they are headed, and they want to know how they are going to get there, and that they're going to get there safely.

We've shown that a prosperous future is the way to go. We have shown that it is possible to get there with responsible fiscal management. Where would the NDP take us? To a place we've already been before and that nearly killed us back then. The Leader of the Opposition would take us back down the road to spendthrift ruin.

Let us not forget that this is the same person who, as mayor of Vancouver, had such great difficulty balancing his budget, never mind the fact that the law requires him to do so. It was the year of Expo when the Vancouver Sun issued its report card on Mayor Mike. The story read as follows: "The city of Vancouver coffers are almost $14 million in the red. A report on the city's 1986 interim budget says: 'Council has to find some way of bridging....'"

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I must remind you that it is extremely unparliamentary to refer to another member by name.

MR. RABBITT: Mr. Speaker, without debating with the Chair, I was referring to the former mayor of Vancouver.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That really doesn't matter, hon. member. It's still obvious to those in the chamber who you mean.

MR. RABBITT: I will continue, Mr. Speaker.

"A report on the city's 1986 interim budget says: 'Council has to find some way of bridging the $13.9 million gap between revenues and expenditures be-

[ Page 9236 ]

fore the end of the month.' Under provincial law, municipalities must not run deficit budgets."

Could you imagine him trying to balance the provincial budget? He thinks that balancing the budget is when you have money in both pockets. The taxpayers of this province don't want a repeat of the kind of spendthrift NDP government they got several years ago.

[11:00]

No more magical mystery tours. Socialism was a failed dream and a bad trip. We don't need it now, and we didn't need it then. It was foisted on us by a funny little guy. He tricked a lot of people to experiment with the NDP socialists. He was a joker all right: outside the doors here, in living colour on the wall, he was a joker. He got turfed out of office because the cruel joke he played was at the people's expense.

It's time the NDP learned that government is a serious business. Now there's a new generation of very serious-looking socialists wearing pin-striped suits, and they're talking the big game. Now they are mature, they say. They were young and naive when they said things that made them sound like socialists. Now they are democratic socialists. Really, what's the difference? Are they a little more democratic now, or are they just simply a little more social?

Certainly they like to hang out at more cocktail parties with the movers and shakers on Howe Street than they used to. Now that they've learned the jargon, they can even talk to the Vancouver Board of Trade about concepts like wealth creation and fiscal management. If they could only learn what that jargon meant.

One thing hasn't changed. They are still compassionate, especially with the taxpayers' dollars and when it comes to spending them. The Leader of the Opposition said in Kamloops in 1988 that our government is underspending by some $3 billion a year. Imagine! He said that the government services were not up to snuff and that we needed to spend $3 billion more each year. Where's the money going to come from? Collected from corporate tax and social service tax combined, $3 billion is equal to the figure. Three billion dollars is equal to 81 percent of the figure that our government expects to collect from personal income taxes each year. Three billion dollars is three thousand million dollars. Where's this money going to come from? Are the NDP saying that we should nearly double the income tax to raise the spending levels to what they say are appropriate? Or are they simply planning on doing the same thing the federal government has been doing for the last several decades — running up massive deficits and mortgaging our children's future?

To summarize, will British Columbia continue down the path that is tried and true? Will we continue to balance the books and provide programs and services that benefit all British Columbians in the future, including these children in the gallery? British Columbians will have to ask themselves these questions in the coming months. They will have choices to make: the choice between continued good government under Social Credit versus another socialist experiment.

MS. MARZARI: Fiscal responsibility. Well, I've spent eight years on Vancouver's city council. City councils aren't allowed to run deficits. I haven't seen anything like what I've seen since I've come to this House in Victoria, where the books don't get looked at, where the watchdogs aren't allowed to meet, where feet get dragged before public accounts will be made public.

Danny Kaye once had a song: in 60 seconds he recited the names of 90 Russian composers to the tune of "Flight of the Bumblebee." I don't deign to pretend I'm Danny Kaye, but I have my small litany. In the next one and half minutes I'd like to go through fiscal responsibility of the Social Credit government.

You can't collect the money. You can't spend the money. You can't keep control of the money, and you don't want anybody to see what you're doing.

Collecting money. The first thing that happened when I came into this House was Shoal Island. You didn't bother to collect $300 million. Then I learned on public accounts that you engaged in a little practice with the mineral royalties called double-dipping — something that cost our taxpayers $6 million. You let the mining industry get away with that. Then I watched the privatization process take away the log-scalers. You fired 200 log-scalers and told the industry to do their own log-scaling. What did that cost us? The auditor-general said some hundreds of millions. You took commercial and industrial taxes away from civil and school boards at the local level. What did that cost? They used to collect $67 million 15 years ago. Now you're collecting $11 million on their behalf. You're losing $50 million every year from something you did 15 years ago.

Then I watched your fiscal responsibility. You can't even figure out how GST is going to impact on this province. Do you realize what you've given up by not protesting the GST sooner?

You want to buy high and sell low. We've known that for a long time. You can't collect, and you can't sell the properties you want to sell. We've seen the Expo lands. We watched it being assessed at book value of $140 million. I think it was worth more than that. We watch it now being worth over $1 billion. We watched the $140 million that you actually ended up getting for the Expo lands being whittled away because you're going to have to put $100 million into cleaning away the toxic wastes.

You can't spend the money either. You fritter it away in lottery grants. You're working outside of your own terms of reference, says the auditor-general. You sometimes give money away without terms of reference at all; that's obvious.

You have $67 million for post-secondary education with no terms of reference at all. I'd love to see how that gets spent. And a new $80 million for economic development. You set up an $8 million fund two years ago for your secretaries of state, and we have yet to see how that money has been spent. We've

[ Page 9237 ]

watched you switch money from vote to vote, as you did on the Coquihalla with the $500 million overrun. We have watched you play around with money in side votes, as you did on public education when you gave some money over to the private schools a few years ago.

We know what you're up to. But when it comes to actually trying to quantify the extent of the wastage of money and of your inability to collect and spend properly, I've watched the Public Accounts Committee not being able to meet. And when it does meet, it's only been allowed to meet maybe 12 or 13 times a year if it's lucky.

Fiscal responsibility? You've got a lot to learn.

MR. SPEAKER: You have a little time left, hon. member. I was just going to remind you to please debate through the Chair. I notice you're not.

MS. MARZARI: Absolutely.

Ministerial behaviour around finances, It's become more and more arrogant in our three years here. We have a Minister of Finance who can't tell the difference between one-sixth and one-fifth of a year — a slight slip of $200 million just a few weeks ago. We have a $5 billion supply bill, trying to whip it through in five minutes — a billion dollars a minute. We have, of course, the legacy of this session and this government, the BS fund — the pièce de résistance. It expresses such contempt, such smoke and mirrors, such complete puffery. Now it's here; now it isn't.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Your time has expired, hon member.

MS. MARZARI: Now it's collecting interest; now it isn't. No, we're not referring to fiscal responsibility, we're talking skullduggery here.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Your time has expired.

MR. RABBITT: The hon. member across the floor talks about ministerial behaviour in reference to our Minister of Finance, the finest provincial Minister of Finance in all of Canada today, bar none. The NDP still doesn't realize that the money that governments manage is not theirs but the taxpayers'. I'll give you a couple of examples.

We all have heard of the candidate in — what's it called — Malahat–Juan de Fuca, Rick Kasper. He's not a member, so we'll mention him by name. He was recently taken to task in an editorial in the Times-Colonist which criticized him for referring to the taxpayers' money as though it were his. What they concluded was: "Some politicians need a message tattooed in fluorescent orange on the backs of their hands. 'It's not our money.'" Is that what you understand over there? It's not your money; it's the taxpayer's money.

MR. MOWAT: They don't know that.

MR. RABBITT: How true, Mr. Speaker. The NDP still is not concerned about deficits. The member, who was speaking on behalf of the opposition, should understand.... When she talked with the Western Report magazine last summer, this is what she had to say: "Certainly the NDP could balance the budget. But is that the end objective?" What is the end objective? Selling these future generations sitting up here down the drain? No.

We can recall what the NDP finance critic from East Vancouver said in response to last year's budget. Remember? That's not too long ago. He said: "Paying the government debt is not a priority at this point. I think the priority is money being spent creatively and not paying off the debt." Let me tell you, you guys across the floor are experts at spending it creatively. You can think up a new way with every breath you draw.

The Leader of the Opposition himself has echoed this argument. He criticized our responsible fiscal approach, saying: "I think this government is too occupied with what I call macho politics deficititis." Let me tell you, Mr. Leader of the Opposition, if you or your financial critic were in this House: yes, if that is the fault, and if I'm to be called guilty of wanting to eliminate the deficit and the mortgaging of the future generation's future, then I am guilty.

Just a week or so ago we heard from the member from Vancouver East in his role as financial critic. He said that government expenditures aren't a problem at the federal level. Where are you guys coming from? Smell the coffee!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Time has expired, hon. member.

MR. RABBITT: If Robin were here, I'd extend that to him too.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That concludes Members' Statements.

MR. MILLER: I rise on a point of order. It has been tradition that the Rag be flown at half-mast to respect the day of mourning that we discussed earlier in the House. I would ask that the Speaker attend to that for tomorrow.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is not a point of order, hon. member, but I'll certainly take it under advisement.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Democracy at its best here this morning.

Adjourned debate on the motion that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair. The hon. House Leader adjourned debate on behalf of the hon. second member for Okanagan South.

[ Page 9238 ]

Budget Debate
(continued)

MR. CHALMERS: I am pleased to rise today and speak to the budget debate. Certainly I am in favour of the budget. I am pleased that the Minister of Finance is with us here today, and I would add my congratulations and those of all the people of Okanagan South for yet another fantastic budget.

In fact, with this new budget, the constituency that I represent — and indeed all the people of British Columbia, I think — have much to look forward to. Advancements in our constituency in areas such as health, education, advanced education and the environment truly point to a bright future.

It was a balanced budget. We've heard much about that here from both sides. It's important that we have not only a fiscally balanced budget — which it is — but I think it's just as important that we have a politically balanced budget which meets the needs of the people of British Columbia. Certainly the people of my constituency are pleased with the way it's meeting their needs.

In my constituency, the major municipality is the city of Kelowna — a city that we're all very proud of. It's rapidly expanding. It's taking advantage of the expanding economy throughout British Columbia, and we haven't been spared the growth being experienced in many other parts of the province.

In fact, one of the statistics that I have used in this chamber before — but I like the statistic, Mr. Speaker, so if you'll forgive me I'll repeat it — is that the number of building starts in the city of Kelowna in 1989 totalled 2,306. That's just in the city of Kelowna, not in the district. To put that in perspective, that's 300 more building starts in the city of Kelowna alone than in the entire province of Saskatchewan for the same period of time. The first three months of this year are outstripping the starts of last year. Much growth is taking place in our area.

[11:15]

Our business incorporations are increasing at a rate much above the provincial average. The population is continuing to grow faster than the provincial rate. In fact, one moving company operator told me that for every family he moved out of Kelowna last year, he moved eight in. Many of them are coming from eastern Canada, and I don't blame them for that.

I guess the only thing that seems to be dropping in our area is the number of business bankruptcies.

As I mentioned earlier, the budget covers many areas that are of interest to the people of Okanagan South, but one of the most important issues in our region is health and health care. The community of Kelowna has been waiting for some 17 years for a new health unit, and I am pleased that an announcement was made not too long ago that a new $6.1 million health centre will be built in the city of Kelowna. That's going to bring four health services together under one roof: community and family health services; continuing care services; vital statistics; and hospital inspection staff.

The contract will be awarded on May 1, with completion set for about one year later. It's going to be a new building of 35,000 square feet located at Haynes and Ellis Streets, and it will accommodate 110 staff members to serve the people of our area.

Planning funds have been approved for the Westbank extended-care facility, a facility that the people of that area have been waiting a long time for. The planning funds totalling some $560,000 were recently approved by our government for a 100-bed extended-care facility in the community of Westbank.

The construction of that new $8 million facility demonstrates that we are committed to working with local groups for the betterment of the entire region. The financing will be cost-shared between the Ministry of Health and the Central Okanagan Regional Hospital District on a 60-40 basis. Our area should be proud to be the site of a brand-new, up-to-date, 100-bed facility.

Planning funds are approved also for the Kelowna General Hospital phase 2, and I was proud to participate just last month, along with my colleague the first member for Okanagan South (Mr. Serwa), in the announcement providing planning funds totalling $2.1 million for the second phase redevelopment program for Kelowna General Hospital.

We will soon see a new 20-bed intensive-care unit, surgical suite, coronary care ICU, a 30-bed nursing unit, laboratory and extensive renovations to departments in the existing hospital — much needed expansion. Kelowna General will soon be unique in the interior. The surgical suite will be the first facility in the British Columbia interior to be capable of providing open-heart surgery. We in the interior, being an area with a large percentage of retired people, are very concerned about the long lineups for that type of surgery, and those needs are being met by the Minister of Health.

We can expect phase 1 of the redevelopment to be completed by December 1991, and we will see a new radiology department, support services and additional acute-care beds. We are looking forward to a new cancer clinic in Kelowna in 1996.

The provincial government will spend nearly $20 million over the next seven years to expand our province's cancer treatment facilities. The cancer clinic in our area will be able to serve not only the residents of Kelowna and the immediate area, but in fact residents from throughout the interior of the province. It is believed that our new centre will easily be able to attract and retain the highly specialized staff needed to operate that facility.

It has been said in some of the newspapers in my area, because it's a fruit-growing area, that the budget was fairly silent with respect to agriculture. This is of concern to me because we have a lot of fruit growers throughout the Okanagan Valley, and certainly many of them are located in my constituency. The Minister of Agriculture a few months ago announced that a commission would be undertaken to take a complete and independent look at the fruit- growing industry and all of its concerns and needs.

[ Page 9239 ]

We have a proud 100-year history of fruit-growing in our area, but to say that they have fallen on hard times would be an understatement. They are experiencing severe difficulties in the short term. Also, although the commission will come in with recommendations on solving the long term, I have on many occasions — and will continue to — pressed the Minister of Agriculture for assistance for the short term, because it makes no sense to me to protect the farmland if we're not prepared to protect the farmer. We must help and we must help soon. Their needs are urgent and they are real.

The agriculture community contributes some $135 million or $140 million to our economy each year, but many millions of dollars beyond is put through the tourism industry that is so important to the province. I can't imagine what would happen to the tourism business in the interior if we woke up tomorrow and found that our orchards and vineyards were gone. So this need is real.

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

The Okanagan communities worked very hard together the last few years to ensure that we had an opportunity for the young people who live in the Okanagan and other communities around to obtain a university degree without moving to the lower mainland, where you uproot families and move at great cost to achieve a higher level of education. We were very pleased when the Minister of Advanced Education announced, through the Access for All program, that Okanagan College in our area would obtain degree-granting status. This budget will provide for the funding necessary to see that those programs are put into place.

A bachelor of fine arts program has been approved for Okanagan College, with third-year courses to begin in 1991. The Ministry of Advanced Education will provide start-up funds for this program in the 1990-91 fiscal year. Funding will be provided for the college to offer fourth-year courses in arts, sciences, education and nursing. Other major program areas will grow slightly and with a new program, rehabilitation assistant, will be approved for the 1990-91 year.

We in our constituency have much to look forward to. New programs will be offered, attracting students from throughout British Columbia and the provinces. Of course, our own students, as I said earlier, will be able to live and work in the Okanagan instead of moving to Vancouver or Victoria. The statistics showing participation rates of persons 18 years or older are indeed headed in the right direction — up. The Okanagan has witnessed increases in university transfers, career and technical studies, college preparatory and non-vocational programs. With our government's further commitment to the advanced education in the Okanagan, we will see that participation rate increase even more.

I'd like, if I may, to take this opportunity to congratulate all of the people of the Okanagan who worked so hard to bring that to being. Certainly the previous Minister of Advanced Education is to be thanked on behalf of all of the people in the Okanagan for the work that he did on our behalf.

The budget provides for some $3.5 billion for transportation and highways under the Freedom to Move program. A number of months ago it was announced that through regionalization each of the eight regions throughout the province would prepare a transportation study and make recommendations. These were not made by members of government or by bureaucrats; these recommendations were made by people in the communities on behalf of the communities — another opportunity for communities in each of the regions to work together to decide what their transportation priorities should be. Those recommendations were all turned in through the Ministry of Regional and Economic Development. A great deal of work was done by those many people. In our area of Thompson–Okanagan, Mr. Paul Mitchell, a lawyer in Kelowna, worked very hard as chairman of that advisory group. They listed their priorities and submitted them.

An announcement has been made in this budget that $3.5 billion will be made available over the next five years to meet our transportation needs throughout the province. Anyone who lives in the Okanagan or in the interior or in the northern part of this province understands the need for roads and transportation facilities. That has obviously been missed by many of the members of the opposition, because during the period 1973-75 1 can't recall one highway being constructed in this province. In fact, I can remember complaints of the fact that they weren't even being maintained during that time, when the Transportation minister was known as Pothole Lea. I think that indicates the commitment made by that side of the House to the transportation needs of the interior and the northern part of this great province.

It is important that the fund be established, because this allows some 29 communities throughout the province to make their plans for the future. It allows long-term planning, not only for those communities and the people who live in them but also for the industry that builds our highways and bridges and the infrastructure that we are so proud of in this province. We have developed one of the finest heavy construction industries anywhere in the world. Now they can look forward to the amount of work being done over the next five years and lay their plans so that they are not sending their equipment to auction, thinking that the work will not be there for them. This is very important not only to all those who are directly involved in that industry but to those who benefit indirectly.

I have heard comments here this morning about the Coquihalla. We in the interior are very proud of the fact that phase 3 of the Coquihalla Highway will indeed open this fall. I am sure it will open on time and on budget — if anybody on that side is listening.

I would like to pay tribute to the previous member for Okanagan South, who was the Premier of our province for some ten years, and thank him for the work that he did to ensure that the Coquihalla phase

[ Page 9240 ]

3 was started so that we in the interior can enjoy that fine highway when it opens this fall.

Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased about the amount of money that has been made available to our Minister of Environment. We in the interior and the Okanagan have the finest place in the world to live.

One of those reasons is our water quality, and we want to protect that for the generations that will follow us. One of the problems that we have had is an infestation of Eurasian milfoil weed in our lake system. With my constituents, I welcome today's announcement of government funding to help in the fight against the milfoil problem in the Shuswap and Okanagan Lakes areas. I have been told that our government has committed $730,000 to developing and building new milfoil control equipment. The funding, representing 75 percent of the total cost of the new equipment, will enable the Columbia–Shuswap Regional District and the Okanagan Water Basin Board to vastly improve the efficiency of clearing milfoil-infested areas. The Okanagan Water Basin Board has, for a number of years, watched this problem closely and done all that they can to improve it with very little funding. They have done a superb job. This new $730,000 being made available to them, I am sure, is going to be most welcome. Everyone in the Okanagan will benefit from our government's commitment — people involved in the tourism sector and residents who enjoy our area's natural beauty.

MR. WILLIAMS: Let's take it as read.

MR. CHALMERS: That's good, Mr. Member. I hope you are listening too. I particularly hope that the first member for Vancouver East is listening to my comments about the Coquihalla Highway, because that announcement, along with a picture of that member, sent to everybody in the Okanagan, will help re-elect this government very quickly, whenever the next election is called.

[11:30]

As I said, we are very concerned about the quality of the water in the Okanagan, and one of the major problems of the lakes is phosphorus from sewage treatment, septic tanks, agriculture and forestry. The sewage treatment plants that have been developed in the Okanagan, particularly in Kelowna, are state of the art and doing an excellent job to clean up the problem. The Okanagan water quality control project is a $40 million capital works project. Those funds will be putting in place the most advanced treatment facilities in the world in areas like Kelowna, Westbank and Penticton by the end of the next project year. Land disposal irrigation is now being used in Vernon, Oliver and Osoyoos, and hopefully in Armstrong very soon.

The ministry is now addressing the septic-tank problem through waste-management plans, with enhanced regulations through the Ministry of Health. In areas of my own community like Black Mountain, and now in the Glenmore valley, the septic tank problems in many of these projects that were approved between 1973 and 1975 with little care about the soil conditions at that time have now come home o roost. We are now trying to address those by providing enhanced funding so the people who live in those areas are not going to be faced with that burden by themselves.

Another area that all of the growth I spoke of earlier has put stress and strain on is our education facilities. Since 1988-89, School District 23 has been fortunate to receive almost $3 million in funding from our provincial government for certain capital works. These funds have been used in a variety of areas: installing automatic fire-sprinkling systems, purchasing school buses, replacing school roofs throughout the district and providing equipment for special education students. Purchases included computer-assisted instruction equipment and equipment for visually impaired students.

I have been very fortunate indeed for the last few years to represent a riding like Okanagan South and to be part of one of the best governments, I believe, in British Columbia history. My work as parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Regional and Economic Development over the last while, and the previous work I did through the Select Standing Committee on Labour, Justice and Intergovernmental Relations on the Fisher report and other things, has been very rewarding. I'm looking forward to the election that many members from across the floor have been calling for. The people in my area have been well represented by the Social Credit Party for many years, and they look forward to many more years of good representation.

MS. A. HAGEN: It's accountability time, and we've just listened to a rather bland speech from the member for Okanagan South about the real issues that people out there in British Columbia are talking about these days. This is probably the last time we're going to be able to look at financial accountability before an election and, through that accountability, at what this government has done, what it has promised to do and what it might promise to do in the future.

It's interesting. I want to put on the record that I've just come, at the end of our fourth week of sitting in this House, from a brief revisiting of the Public Accounts Committee, for some information about how that committee works. It's a sham; that committee doesn't work. It hasn't even been appointed yet. It hasn't met. It hasn't had any opportunity to deal with the accounts and the accountability to the people of this province. It's not allowed to meet, because of the government opposite, outside the parameters of this House sitting. It's an absolute shame and disgrace, the way this government treats the whole public accounts process. I want it on the record and known that it is part and parcel of how this government treats all of the areas in which it, in fact, could use its members and be accountable for its affairs.

This government came in in 1986 with a set of promises and, I think, a lot of expectations on the part of people that there was something new and fresh, because the Premier had changed and a lot of people who were sitting on the other side of the

[ Page 9241 ]

House were different too. They were new. In 1990, at the start of the next decade, boy oh boy — what a disappointed, frustrated and angry group of people we have out there in the province because of the failures of this government to live up to any of those promises.

I want to talk about some of those areas as we look at this year's budget, which the government is promoting as another set of promises — which allows us to look once again at the way in which they move figures around and try to create the illusion that they are doing something, when in truth, in reality, we've got the same old government, the same old issues and the same old gang.

If we look at the reality of people's lives — and most of the people in this House know that I tend to devote my comments to issues, programs and concerns that touch people in their daily living — if we look at what this government has done for them and what this government reveals for them, I'm going to take the side of the negative. The answer is: not anything that we can be assured is going to change people's lives.

When we look at the true believers over there and the spots they have worn with their personal choices and moral values, and at whether there's been any change there, I'm going to argue that there has not been one bit of change. When we look at the specific areas in which people's lives are affected — health, education and housing — what has changed? I will argue that not very much at all has changed for the majority of people in this province.

I'm going to talk about real people: women, seniors, children and families. Those aren't separate groups; they all interrelate and interlock with one another. I'm going to start with women, because if there's any area of provincial endeavour where there have been failures and inaction, it is programs and services for women. The reason we have failure in that area is that the government is not, in fact, supporting equality for women or choice for women.

We saw that in the last day or so when we had the incredible discussions in this House about this government supporting the mailing of a letter that is full of attacks against women. It attacked women Supreme Court judges because it calls them feminists; it attacked women's centres because it claims they dispense anti-government literature; and it attacked AIDS victims because it claims AIDS victims are the authors of their own illnesses. The letter from REAL Women blamed the grievous and wanton murder of 14 young engineering students in Montreal on a feminist who may have been involved in the abortion of a child of the man who committed the murder.

What have we had coming out of this sorry affair? We have had a Premier who I have watched in this House run back from an exit because he wanted to avoid talking to the media about it. We have a Premier who has absolutely refused to disown the contents of that letter. He has stated that it would be censorship for government not to mail out such literature.

That tells us — as the editorialists have said very tellingly — that we're looking at a leopard who cannot, will not and has not changed his spots. That has to mean that the women of this province — who need a government that is prepared to work with them and for them — know that it's not going to be the government opposite, it's not going to be the government under the leadership of the Premier and his cabinet.

In the past year finally, after much promising, we have a Minister Responsible for Women. We have been watching and listening to what she has to say about her mandate and what the government has asked her to do on behalf of women. Mr. Speaker, the women's ministry has a mandate that lacks one essential ingredient: money. Most of us know that it is pretty difficult to do very much without money.

Perhaps the minister herself is not very clear about what she should do. She talks about coordination, and maybe she needs to coordinate some of her own ideas and statements so she can give us a clear picture of what she's about.

On the letter from REAL Woman I've just spoken about — a group that she will be addressing tomorrow at Fantasy Gardens — she stated that she doesn't know whether she will condemn the letter when she speaks to them. That is an astounding admission of lack of certainty about what her role is. Surely it has to be about advocacy for women.

She has made statements that young women, if they are to achieve equality, will have to be more like boys in making choices of careers. This is a statement from a woman who at the same time is going around noting that she wants to do something about equal pay for work of equal value. She then says to women: "You have to look beyond clerical jobs." Automatically it puts hundreds of thousands of women in the pink ghetto where we know they are, because there is not equal pay for work of equal value. In fact, we have her putting the glass ceiling up there for women if they're not prepared to be more like men. In fact, she has exhorted men to be the guides to women's equality.

In the riding of the House Leader and Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Richmond), she is noted to have suggested at a luncheon that men in the community must get out and help women achieve economic independence. I might note that at that same meeting, she is reported to have said that the same minister is the only person from whom she would tolerate — and I quote — "a joke about my butt, and let him get away with it." Iona Campagnolo knew a little better about those kinds of issues.

She has stated that she cannot support women's centres, because businesswomen are not prepared to support them. The minister's mandate is a mandate to do nothing. It has the princely sum of $2.5 million available to her for women's programs. We already know, even before we get into the estimates, that $1.5 million of that goes to salaries and administration. It's a very significant and interesting figure, because that's the $1.5 million that was cut from the federal budget, the $1.5 million that women's centres were involved with last year for their very, very economi-

[ Page 9242 ]

cal operations, run mostly by volunteers with just a little bit of help from the government.

Will this minister advocate for choice? No. Will she advocate against the use of referendums for hospital services that provide for reproductive choice? No. Will she advocate for the opening of doors and the breaking down of male bastions like the Union Club and Vancouver Club — like her Conservative colleagues Ms. Campbell and Ms. Carney? Not on your life.

This is the women who is holding herself up as the person who is going to revitalize and renew the tarnished vision of this government with respect to women's programs.

[11:45]

In spite of what I believe are her very sincere feelings, which she conveys to us with great frequency and sincerity in the House, I would contend that they have not changed since her maiden speech in this House, when she said: "I would like to dwell for a few moments on the cry from the opposition on behalf of women about women's rights, equal rights for women and on and on and on. Let me tell you what kind of damage left-wing activists have done to women and children. The left-wing women's groups demand programs such as universal day care, full pensions, homemakers' wages and equality with men, whatever that is." Yes indeed, that's what we do demand.

Unlike the minister who has put together a politically correct committee to work in six weeks to bring in a pro forma plan for the future for women — another of the election year promises — this side of the House, under the leadership of the first member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Ms. Marzari), has been travelling the province. We have a White Paper that already has been around the province and has been the product of much consultation. We will be proud to continue to work with women on refining and improving it, so that we can genuinely get on with equality and choice for women — unlike the members on the opposite side of the House.

I can never speak in throne or budget debates without speaking about health care, because it is such a key part of the activities of my riding, with three excellent hospitals and an incredibly dedicated staff of people working in those hospitals and in community health services. I want to speak of two issues in stories, because stories tell what the issues are.

Once again, in the budget speech we have no indication of the goals this government has for improving health services. I have stacks of letters on my desk from people asking for that very initiative and wanting to see very specific goals set by this government for health care.

First of all, on the issue of seniors, would you believe that in the last 11 years — since 1979 and through nearly all the years of Socred administration in this province — there has not been a single adjustment upward of the top level of home support service available to a senior living in his or her own home? After all the rhetoric of aging in place and keeping seniors independent, we still have a maximum of 40 hours a month, ten hours a week and two hours a day for people living in their own homes.

I want to tell you the story of a blind, frail woman on two canes, who is singularly alert and tremendously independent. She is in need of double that amount of home care to supplement the family and community support she has available, so she can continue to live in her own home as she wishes — I might note, at risk. She is not able to get that additional 10 hours of care a week.

By virtue of that decision, this government is prepared to have that woman cost the taxpayers of this province an extra $10,000 or as much as $20,000 a year. That woman is being denied, because of antediluvian policies by a government that has not established goals for seniors and for home support. That woman is being denied her choice, and she is forcing us into capital costs and care costs that we don't need to undertake.

At the same time, yesterday in this House the Minister of Health (Hon. J. Jansen) made what I thought was a most inappropriate comment about a current dispute involving home support workers. In this House I have advocated that home support workers need to be paid fair wages and fair benefits. In the midst of a three-month labour dispute that is hurting workers and seniors in five different communities of this province, the minister stated his view, which was that benefits for home-care workers should not be accorded. The very fact that he commented about that dispute was inappropriate.

We now know where this government stands on home support workers. It doesn't stand for fair wages, fair benefits or for the improvements that people in that field need to have if we're going to have services to keep people independent.

The other issue I want to speak about briefly in respect to health is a very tragic event that involved the death of a well-respected resident of my city. The actual health problem — a very serious heart problem that triggered his death — occurred while he was in Kamloops. That man waited for a bed in one of the two hospitals that could provide him with the surgery he needed to save his life. That bed availability did not occur, and eventually we sent him to Calgary — as we're sending heart patients to Seattle. It was too late. That man, who had for 20 years been bursar of the college in my city, who had given great service and had just enjoyed one year of retirement, died.

Yesterday we talked about air ambulances and air ambulance service. We might have had some air ambulance service, but we didn't have any place to take that person. We didn't have, in a hospital in B.C.... In spite of medical evidence that the cause of his illness required the most emergent treatment and was life-threatening, we did not respond. That man is no longer there in his community, with his wife, to provide the services I know he would have continued to provide, as well as enjoy his retirement.

It is a great tragedy in the city, and it has hit people very hard. Better than any other story, it tells us what happens when we're not prepared to tackle those issues and get on with the job of ensuring that

[ Page 9243 ]

people have that care. There is no excuse for the failure of government. Once again, we have a royal commission which is going to put off any decisions for as long as they can possibly manage it.

Mr. Speaker, we've already had that putting-off with the seniors' task force, where the report is down. What is there in the throne speech about seniors' programs? What's possible? We know after three years: not much.

As people know, I'm the education spokesperson for our party and our side of the House. As people know, too, I have been a constructive critic of the work of government over the last two years since the royal commission came down.

Interjection.

MS. A. HAGEN: I liked the royal commission. It was something we called for for years and supported the government in when it called for that commission. In fact, it tapped a nerve out there in people who were absolutely jaded from trying to have an education system developed healthily out of the policies of this government. They poured into the commission hearings to provide their input, and the commission and its staff listened. I believed for a time that the government listened as well.

As I look at this year's budget and the litany of the Minister of Education's (Hon. Mr. Brummet's) statements, I realize that what we have here is much more of an election ploy than a real commitment to education. Let me tell you why I've come to that conclusion.

The government claims that it has brought stability, flexibility and accountability to the education system. It's not true. It has made no commitments whatsoever for this past year. It has simply put up a kind of smoke-and-mirrors game to try to get it over the hurdle — coming out of the years when things were really tough for education — and carry it over into the next election.

The increased dollars that we see this year are dollars that barely get us — in fact, they don't get us — to the point where we were in 1981. The government is claiming that it is going to provide taxpayers with a $250 tax relief on homeowner grants. I have talked to people in every kind of community in the province and in every kind of house — even on the west side of Vancouver. I can't find anybody — and I must say I didn't talk to anybody who owns a million-dollar house on the west side of Vancouver — who is getting even close to $250 in tax relief. I can't find anybody who is getting close to $150 in tax relief. Most of the people that I can find are going to have a little bit of tax relief.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

In New Westminster it's going to be somewhere in the order of $75 or $80. That is perhaps enough for a family to be able to go out and buy — to the minister from Point Grey who has young children — a pair of runners and maybe a pair of pants for a young child. If one is really shopping around and going to Value Village, one might, from $75, be able to get enough to outfit a youngster for spring. It's certainly not anything that's going to provide the kind of relief that this government is, in a charade, suggesting.

On top of not providing any commitments for this year and leaving school boards trying to figure out what the budget for next year will be, as a little bit dribbles down here and there and a picture emerges like some kind of a tulip with many layers that come out slowly, we have the referendum scheme. We have a referendum scheme whereby the Minister of Education first said that referendum schemes would produce inequalities, and then said no, he hadn't studied what had happened where referenda occurred in the past in B.C. or other jurisdictions.

The referendum scheme is one that has been so universally condemned that I'm surprised this government hasn't withdrawn it, since they're looking for something that will give them some credibility with people in education.

The Minister of Education finally went off to Surrey, as I'm sure my colleague from Surrey–Guildford–Whalley (Ms. Smallwood) will describe with great colour. He finally went to Surrey three weeks after they had tried to arrange a meeting with him to defend the referendum system. What did he say? Exactly what he has been saying. He's got the script and says it over and over again; I know it in my sleep, I've heard it so many times. It is exactly the same script. He's not listening.

In fact, Surrey was finally able to convince this minister that the very formula that was unfair in the first place was even more unfair for them because he had not acknowledged that last year they were working with a surplus from the previous year and hadn't built it in. Quietly, secretly, Surrey got a little bit more money because they finally were able to convince this minister that, yes, it was unfair. But he's not listening. That's so characteristic of this government: they are not listening. They do not want to hear. They are the people who can create the universe as it should unfold, and try, with nice buzzwords, to convince the world that it is true. The world is much wiser after three years of this government — much wiser and much less likely to be taken in by a smile or a sleight of hand or a protestation of deathbed repentance and reform.

[12:00]

Finally, because I think my time is beginning to run its course, I want to make one more comment. Again, it has to do with that whole business of the government trying to blame the victims. At this stage of the game, the victims are the municipalities of this province, who are being blamed — I cannot believe this — for the housing problems of the province. We have all said — and it bears repeating — that the housing situation in the lower mainland of British Columbia is the most critical housing situation in the whole of Canada.

We have said that the need for private and public sector cooperation is great. What does the government do in its budget speech? It says: "The only

[ Page 9244 ]

reason we haven't been able to do anything in housing is those awful left-wing councils."

I want you to know that in New Westminster we already have the largest stock of affordable housing per capita in the lower mainland. I want you to know that the pressure on that housing stock is absolutely phenomenal. I've spoken about what's happening to families and to seniors in my riding with their housing needs. This government has not come up with any programs that will, in fact, work for the needs of my community. It's absolutely not happened. I am here to say that my council is willing to work with any government that's prepared to come up with something. Just get on with it, friends, and you'll have councils who can work with you.

We have a budget that should give us a blueprint. We have a ministry of women without a budget. We have a Ministry of Health without goals. We have a Minister of Social Services and Housing (Hon. Mr. Dueck) who blames the victims — the families and people in municipalities — instead of developing a program that will deal with our housing crisis.

We have a Premier and leader who remains true blue in his attitudes that are so offensive to many people in this province. We have a Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet) who has forced the communities of this province to go to referendum — the only program to require a referendum in all of B.C. — as a means of getting hard-needed dollars for programs for children.

What do we have to say for women? What do we have to say for seniors and people who are in desperate need of life-saving health services? What do we have to say for children? What do we have to say for families? That we don't trust this government, that this government is out of touch, that this government has not changed, and that we will, when the time comes, be able to tell them that that's exactly how we feel. We look forward to the day when that happens.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make an introduction on behalf of one of our members.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, in the House today is the mayor of Towa, Japan, Mr. Kazue Oikawa; the head teacher of Towa Junior High School, Tetsuo Lino; and a group of students. They have come today to visit with the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. L. Hanson) who, unfortunately, is out of town. I would ask the House to make our visitors from Japan most welcome.

MR. VANT: Could I ask leave to...?

Leave granted.

MR. VANT: Thank you. It's not too often I have the pleasure of introducing constituents of mine, but this morning, we have no less than 32 grade 11 students from the Quesnel Secondary School. Indeed, it's many years ago that I finished my education at that same school. We welcome them and their teacher, Mr. D. Short, from Quesnel.

MR. SPEAKER: The first member for Vancouver Point Grey asks leave to make an introduction. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

MS. MARZARI: I'd like to recognize April 26 — yesterday — as the sixth anniversary of the closure of David Thompson University in Nelson. I'd like to extend greetings from this House to those protesters who are having a reunion after six years on the campus of the former David Thompson University.

MR. SPEAKER: The next order of business.... I presume the Solicitor-General (Hon. Mr. Fraser) has no one he wishes to introduce.

HON. MR FRASER: Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure to take part in this budget debate and to support the budget of the great Minister of Finance of the government of British Columbia.

Let me start with part of a letter from the Institute of Chartered Accountants of B.C. I will put into the record the second paragraph, which says: "We could nitpick and find small things to criticize, but overall we have to say that our provincial government could give lessons in fiscal integrity and smart money management to the federal government." How about that, Mr. Speaker? That's leadership. I know they're going to squirm and want to leave the room. The microphones all over the building are going to be turned off, because they don't want to hear it.

I want all of the students up there — everybody in the gallery — to listen, because there's lots of good news in this budget. If I had the chance to speak over and over again, I would, because I'd like to repeat the message that's out there.

I want to start with something that's near and dear to my heart: pay equity. We've heard a bit about it. I will begin my presentation by reminding the House that in my days as an employer, I was doing things like paying people equal pay for equal work, which in that day was a reasonably advanced step. We have gone one further....

MRS. BOONE: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. FRASER: You say, "Oh, oh!" Madam Member for Prince George North, but I'll tell you what: a lot of people didn't do it, so I speak from the position of one who set some examples. That is the example of the provincial government.

Now we have equal pay for work of equal value, which is a step up from what I just spoke about. That's the commitment of this government: to make sure that the women and men who work in the service of the province of British Columbia get compensated according to the job they do. That is a

[ Page 9245 ]

great step, and I hope that every woman and man in the province hears that message, because equity is what we're talking about. It doesn't sound very big, but it is if you're a woman who is sitting beside a man and getting paid less than him. That will no longer exist. It will no longer happen, and it will be better for everyone.

It is particularly significant when we see the social changes taking place in the province and note that more and more women are entering the workforce. The social changes taking place in the community indicate that more and more women will work. If that is to be the case — and many of them are to be the senior breadwinner in the family — then, of course, we have to make sure that fairness and equity takes place in all sectors of government. We are leading the way. Of course, if you lead by example, you can anticipate that others will follow. Naturally we are hoping that everyone in industry will see the example we have set and follow it. It is very important to do that.

I would like to give you a few examples of what the Ministry of Solicitor-General is doing. For one thing, we are making a conscious, definite and obvious effort to make sure that women are represented on the boards and commissions for which we are responsible. We are making a conscious, concerted and determined effort to make sure that women find places in management in the ministry and that there is a lot of opportunity. To get that done, we have established a full-time director of women's programs in the ministry. She reports directly to the deputy minister. That focus should give you the idea of the importance we place on that work, and that's why we've done it.

We are making a conscious effort to be sure that men and women are represented on the boards and commissions of the ministry. That is done so that it will be conspicuous that we are searching for and seeking the contribution of women in the community Indeed, we have women on boards in other ministries, such as Education and Advanced Education.

We will be providing counselling to the women in the Ministry of Solicitor-General so that they can move ahead more quickly. In fact, next week we are having a conference, which will end on Thursday, involving the women from the ministry, so that they can take maximum advantage of their potential in society. That is a critical thing that I am dedicated to pursuing. I know that the people in the ministry understand that and support it totally.

In short, then, we suggest that this minister and all ministers in this government are determined to make sure that everyone in the province, male or female, is treated equally, so that they can reach their maximum potential.

It sounds easy; it sounds simple. It's not historic, but this is the lead that's been taken. This is the determination that has been demonstrated by the government, and that is why we are doing it. That's probably why more and more women will end up joining and supporting the Social Credit Party and the Social Credit government. They will see that the fairness is there, the programs are there, the plans are there and the opportunity is there. When I talk about things of that nature, of course, all of you will remember— you've heard it all before — that I am encouraging all women to seek careers.

Interjection.

HON. MR. FRASER: The member for Prince George North thinks it's a comedy act when I talk about pay equity for women. I don't think so. It's no comedy to this government and to this minister that women should have a good opportunity. She thinks it's funny, but I don't. I hope people remember what you said about comedy — the efforts we've made for women. I hope they understand that you think it's funny. I remind you that I have consistently in this House encouraged female students to think of careers in what is considered to be non-traditional work. I certainly hope that the women in school will think about taking careers in science, or if they wish to have a career driving a truck or all those things that are considered non-traditional for women....

MS. SMALLWOOD: Do you want women to be more like men? Is that the message?

HON. MR. FRASER: No. The member from Surrey suggests that I want women to become more like men. That's not it at all, Madam Member. What I'm suggesting is that there should be no restriction on the careers that women seek. I encourage women to pursue those careers that they want, whatever they might be, and without restriction. That's what we're talking about on this side of the House, Mr. Speaker, and that's what we're looking for.

Education is key. I think you will note from the budget, which is here and which is very easy to read — and I know the opposition's having a great deal of difficulty talking about the budget, or at least attacking the budget, because it's difficult to attack a near-perfect budget — the hundreds of millions of dollars going to education for students all over the province.

There has been a complaint about the referendum from some people who do not seem to understand that the funding for schools in B.C. is unbelievably high. In the city of Vancouver alone, for example, the budget for schools approached $280 million a year. The cost per student is about $5,300. I think that's a major and significant contribution by the taxpayers of the province. We should be able to educate a student for $5,300 a year.

AN HON. MEMBER: Ask those students up there.

HON. MR. FRASER: Yes, ask the students in the gallery. That's a good question, my colleague, because I think the fact that they're here indicates that there's some money out there for them to see what goes on down here, and to relate governments from across the land, whether provincial, municipal or federal.

[12:15]

[ Page 9246 ]

When you think of what's happened in our budget — the '90-91 block, which started off with an economic adjustment, enrolment adjustments, program adjustments — you can be sure that the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet) has made no small effort to ensure that every single student in the province gets a good education.

The other thing that's important to note is that all students in the province of B.C., no matter where they happen to live, should be provided with the same educational opportunity, at least to the maximum possible. And that's the commitment of this government, so those students who wish to go on past the 12 level can move into a college anywhere in the province and know that the marks that they have earned will qualify them equally. It's important to let them know that they can go to the University of Victoria, if they wish to, or the University of British Columbia, or Simon Fraser, or indeed get a degree in the interior. And in the not too distant future I hope to be able to get away to attend the graduation ceremonies at the university of the north. I will be looking for my friend from Omineca, who, along with me on that day will be representing one of the new ridings in the province.

It's also important, in talking about the Ministry of Solicitor-General, to mention some of the things that we are doing to spend our money wisely. To deploy our forces effectively and significantly, we have introduced some new technology. It's ongoing, and I'll report to you briefly.

We now have a little electronic monitoring system. Those guilty of offences that would at one time have placed them in the prison system can now have a little electronic monitoring bracelet put around their ankles, and we can monitor them with a telephone system. We now have people being incarcerated pretty much at their own expense. That seems sensible, doesn't it? Why should society pay all the costs for those who do things wrong? We can now say to people, "You have committed an infraction against the traffic regulations, and for that you will now stay home between the hours of 8 and 4:30 in the afternoon," or, if necessary, 24 hours a day. If you're guilty of an impaired driving offence, for example — and that would be a typical offence where you would find yourself in this program — we will monitor the program by dropping into the house from time to time to make sure that you're not drinking. We will endeavour to enable them to work if that's within the scope of the sentence, so that their families will not suffer because of their own thoughtless activity. Then we will burden them with the cost of keeping themselves, and that makes sense to me.

We're doing a few other things that some people have initially not liked. I remember the former Leader of the Opposition, who one day was caught three times, I believe, going through a radar camera speed trap on the Island Highway. He came roaring in here, furious, ranting and raving about science. But science and technology are going to make this world work better, more effectively and more efficiently.

We have a test program going on. We put a radar camera out on the highway so that those who speed will be getting a ticket in the mail. Therefore, instead of putting out three or four policemen, we now can put out one. We have the record — time, date, car licence plate, the whole thing — and those convicted of that offence will pay a fine. Instead of having three or four policemen out there making sure the highways are safe — this is the whole the objective here — we can have one and use the other two or three for something else — for example, trying to control and eradicate the drug problem in society.

Clearly we do not want British Columbia to get into the same scene we hear about in other parts of the continent, where drugs are rampant and a disaster to society, and where large percentages of the population are addicts. We don't want that here. So we should make sure that we deploy our police forces, whether its CLEU or the RCMP, to endeavour to keep our community safe from those people who would wantonly create havoc and destroy our children, families and lifestyle in B.C. For those reasons you can say to yourself: well, maybe the radar camera, which I initially didn't like, is a good idea, so that we can spend our dollars wisely and get value.

We do other things for safety in the ministry, and that's why I like this budget. We now have a vehicle inspection program covering all vehicles in British Columbia, with commercial vehicles and taxis twice a year. We have said to all those who like trucks and passenger cars that we have a program in place now, not just in three locations in B.C. — the lower mainland, Victoria and Nanaimo — but in 1,300 places, where you can get your light vehicles inspected. And I'll tell you what: it's working. You can have your vehicle inspected — that's why I like this budget — and you can fix it yourself, have it fixed where you had it inspected or take it to some other place. There's no necessity to feel bound by the inspection report that you get. You certainly have to....

Interjection.

HON. MR. FRASER: You certainly drive to the polls safely because of this government — no question about that. It's interesting how it's working. The opposition hates all this good stuff, because it's so difficult for them to fight it. It's too positive for them. They can't handle it. I know they'll be going out and doing the things they should do to make sure that they drive safely, because goodness knows you wouldn't want to find yourself as a member of this assembly not doing everything you could to make sure it's done well and safely.

We encourage all people to take part in this great budget debate, and I want everybody to talk about this budget and every budget for.... Mr. Speaker, as you know, we are the only provincial jurisdiction in Canada that has such a budget — a balanced budget. If we could only get the federal government to do what we do, this country would be in great shape — unlike the NDP who would borrow us into deeper trouble. What are we doing? We don't want to pay

[ Page 9247 ]

the money on interest; we want to pay it into services. That's why we don't have a big debt. That's why we're paying down the debt. That's why the budget is balanced. That's the whole motivation. You can't borrow yourself out of debt, although some would think you can.

There are other programs that we haven't heard too much about, certainly not from the opposition, that I'm aware of at least. One is called the science and technology fund. We believe that industry in British Columbia has to go forward. We can't rely constantly on just the raw materials that we have. We have to do other things. We have to do some research. We have to build some high-tech products here. We can do that. We now have a science and technology fund program — a multi-year program. That is leadership. We are projecting to the year 1994-95, when the program will have totalled some $419.7 million. It's so easy to roll off these large numbers. But it couldn't be done if the opposition party was in power. They would squander again as they squandered once, wasting those hard-earned tax dollars that should be spent wisely. An ongoing recognition of science and technology in the province is one of the great things that this province has done. We're addressing those needs, funding the universities and funding the schools.

Not only that, we're facing the environment as we should. My colleague the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Reynolds) has a new solid waste management strategy, a new hazardous waste corporation coming on and a vehicle emission program, which I will be cooperating with, in the 1990-91 year. In those areas where there is air pollution caused by automobiles — as we understand most of it is caused, especially in the lower mainland — we want to make sure that all those cars out there are operating to the standards that they are designed to operate to. Someday soon, when we're flying over Vancouver, we won't see that yellow haze hanging over that great city.

I didn't hear anybody over on the other side of the House talk about that, because it's a good program. It's not that we're going off on a wild goose chase, as they might suggest from time to time. There are people in this business. We will be evaluating their programs and coming up with one of our own.

That's the whole idea of this government: to be thoughtful; to be sincere; to make sure we spend the taxpayers' dollars wisely; to make sure that those who need help get it; to make sure that those who need health care get it. Goodness knows the hundreds of millions of dollars that go into health care. It's amazing. If I remember the amount in the budget book, I think it's $4,000 per household — isn't that the average? Thirteen million dollars a day.

I must compliment the Minister of Health, by the way, because it seems that his approach to solving some of the present waiting-list problems is excellent. What you want to know, Mr. Speaker, is not necessarily the name of your doctor, it's whether the doctor doing the operation does it well. You don't really need to know the name of your car mechanic either, for that matter; you just want to know that he's qualified.

With the safety valve here, with the government managing to get a cooperative agreement with an agency or agencies outside British Columbia, doesn't that make sense? Would I do it? You bet. So would any other sensible person. Why wait if you don't have to? If you choose to wait at your own risk, I guess that's your choice, and I know that people have chosen to do that. When they have been advised by an MLA, a colleague of mine on this side of the House, if they want to leave their hometown and have the operation done in Vancouver, Victoria or wherever else they can have it done next week, or if they have it done in their own town, they could wait seven months. Some have chosen to wait. But I guess in a country like this, our fortunate country of Canada — and how fortunate we are — we can make those choices.

A democracy — what a great country we live in! Anybody who has had a chance to go anywhere else in the world can't find a place like Canada or British Columbia — no possibility. This is such a great country. That's why we have to be so careful of it, so thoughtful about it. That's why we need to plan for it. That's why we need the kind of government that gives the leadership that lets people keep their own money instead of spending all the money on interest. When is the day going to come, across the country, when we face the fact that you can't spend more than you make? It's really quite simple.

I know that when the ministries around this room make presentations to the Minister of Finance that they need money for this, they need money for that.... We all need more money; who ever wanted less? But the fact is that you have to have a priority list. You have to manage it cooperatively. You have to make sure that all your efforts are done directly and that you don't duplicate unnecessarily or duplicate at all if possible. That's why all the ministries work so closely together, whether it's Women's Programs, the Ministry of Labour and Consumer Services, the Ministry of Attorney-General or any of the others — Education, Health — all trying to work together to make sure the people of British Columbia get a decent shake for the tax dollars that they send in here.

That's what I'm in favour of and that's what I support, and that's why I'm defending this budget and supporting it.

MS. SMALLWOOD: It was extraordinarily difficult not to heckle that other member, but the business of my constituency, I think, is more important than dealing with some of this government's distortions. I want to talk about what's going on in our municipality, and I want the members in the House to think about what I've got to say.

[12:30]

Surrey is a special municipality, and not only because we are represented in three different ridings. I want the members to think about the fact that Surrey is the municipality where the Premier of this

[ Page 9248 ]

province was at one time the mayor. You would think that he'd have an understanding of the difficulties that our municipality is facing. The Premier was at one time a resident and a representative in this House for our municipality. In addition, we have two influential cabinet ministers in this government who are currently representing ridings in this municipality. And what is the legacy? What does this government bring to the municipalities of Surrey and White Rock? They bring a legacy of Socred infighting, a legacy of crisis management and a long list of scandals and service to Socred insiders.

We have the member for Surrey–White Rock–Cloverdale (Mr. Reid) disbursing lottery grants to his and government's friends. We have the Premier and the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Michael) supporting friends and insiders through the president of REAL Women. For the south Fraser, the list of Socred mismanagement goes on through the Delta Giordanos and Knight Street Pub, through the fiasco around farmland. The list goes on and on.

But what do the people in Surrey have to face? They have to face the reality of our schools — our schoolchildren doing without, being second-class citizens. The Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet) came out to White Rock a couple of nights ago and suggested that Surrey should be satisfied with their lot, that they should be prepared to do with less and that it was okay with him that the kids of Surrey were second-class citizens. Surrey is seventy-fourth out of 75 school districts in funding in British Columbia.

Keeping in mind that we have two senior cabinet ministers, or did have before one of the cabinet ministers was caught with his hand in the cookie jar.... We have the Premier coming from Surrey. What good has it done us? I ask you, the other members in this House: what good has a Socred government done for you? The reality in the lower mainland...

MR. REE: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I believe the member alleged a member of this House was caught with his hands in the cookie jar. I would consider that offensive for any member in this House, and there has been no such evidence, convictions or charges. The opposition threatened to charge, Mr. Speaker, but they haven't got the guts to do it. Now I ask the member to....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Don't abuse the rules of the House when bringing up a point of order. Your point of order is valid, but points of order are not the opportunity to engage in argument. I would ask the member for Surrey–Guildford–Whalley, if she imputed any improper motive to a member, to please withdraw it.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MS. SMALLWOOD: If I have offended anyone in this House, I would be glad to withdraw. I, too, find it offensive — the Socreds' record. I'm not surprised that the Socred member would get up and comment on that.

I want to talk about the kids in Surrey and our schools. I want to talk about the fact that our school grounds now look like concentration camps. The Minister of Education says: "That's okay." Our school grounds are covered by portables and the kids have nowhere to play. I think that is reprehensible, and I would love to have the Minister of Education or any of the representatives from Surrey get up and express their reprehension on that.

The students in Surrey get $4,500 per pupil. The average for the province is considerably higher. Abbotsford, Coquitlam, Delta, Richmond, Central Okanagan, Burnaby, Maple Ridge, Kamloops, North Vancouver, Victoria, Vancouver, Prince George, West Vancouver and New Westminster, just to name a few, all get more money per pupil than our municipality. We are not prepared to stand by silently. For the last three years in this House, I have brought to the attention of this government that our students are not being treated equitably. It's not good enough, and the government should know better. They have turned a blind eye to that reality. Surrey is the fastest-growing municipality west of Toronto. We have over 40,000 students. We are expecting an additional 2,200 in the municipality in the next school year. What do we get? We are the second-lowest-funded school district in the province. We get over $700 less than the pupils in Vancouver. I want this government to explain why have they not dealt with the needs of the kids in a growing municipality like Surrey.

If you can turn your back on these families and these kids, what have you got to be proud of? The Premier, two senior government members and the Minister of Education coming in and hearing what these families are having to deal with, and they think it's okay that a municipality like ours, a young community like ours, can do with less. That's your message: we will cost you more in taxes. You're satisfied with the children of this province being treated like second-class citizens. Shame on you!

Seven hundred dollars per pupil less than Vancouver. That means over $17,000 less per classroom. That means $351,000 less for the average school with 20 classrooms. When we're talking about the discrepancy in funding for our municipality, it is significant, and this government's value on education is exposed.

When this government talks about caring about children and families and about caring for education in this province, and you look at what is really going on, it makes a complete sham of all those nice words that are printed in your leaflets at the taxpayers' expense — an absolute and total sham, and you should be ashamed of it.

When you look at this government's record in the south Fraser Valley, the reality is that our taxes are paying for your mismanagement, our taxes are paying for those grants and Socred giveaways to their friends and insiders, and our taxes — when they go

[ Page 9249 ]

up year after year with this Socred government — are not delivering the services that are needed for the children, for the future generations, and are not delivering the services that the people in Surrey are paying taxes for. I think you should be ashamed of that.

When we look at not only the education system.... I intend to stand up again and again when we get to the estimates to talk about what is really going on in people's lives, to talk about not only education and what's happening to the children in my riding and in the south Fraser district, but about health care also.

We talked about health care in the throne speech and the reality that Surrey Memorial Hospital has a waiting-list of 2,600 people. We heard a previous speaker talk about people in small communities with a waiting-list of seven months. Do you know what a waiting-list of 2,600 people does for a hospital?

What it means is that people have to wait 16 months for operations. What it means is that people who are in some way waiting for an operation.... Perhaps it's a hip replacement or an injured worker. It's timely for us to be talking about injured workers on a day like today. When an injured worker has to wait for an operation in Surrey, what that means is that they have to sit at home waiting for the time when they can finally get into the hospital to be able to get the surgery they need to be able to get back to work and support their family with dignity and the commitment that they have given their family over the years. That's what this Socred government has left as a legacy in the constituency that I represent.

The previous member said that he tells people in his constituency that maybe they should leave their small town and go down to Vancouver or Victoria for the health care that they need — completely and totally out of touch with the realities that families face. Who's going to be at home to feed the kids? Who is going to be there to keep the family together? What kind of support does this government give and what kind of commitment to families, when the only thing that they can recommend is that people should be prepared to travel for the kind of care and services that they pay taxes for? Shame on you!

Member after member gets up and talks about the pending election. I would love to fight the next election on your record.

Let's talk about the fact that the Minister of Education has denied the Surrey School Board — the duly elected representatives of the parents and families in Surrey — the meeting that they have been asking for for months.

The minister has just come into the House; I am really happy to see you, Mr. Minister. I hope you were listening in your office to these comments, because it's about time you faced the students, teachers and parents in my constituency. It's about time you met with our school board. It's about time you sat down and talked about how you have backed our school board into a situation where they have to go to a referendum to meet what I consider to be the basic needs of education.

Interjection.

MS. SMALLWOOD: The minister says it's strictly political. I ask you whether your motive is strictly political when you are not prepared to meet with the duly elected school board. I ask you if it's strictly political when you cancel a meeting set up by the ombudsman and are not prepared to talk about funding inequities in constituencies such as the one....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. We're only two minutes from the agreed-to time of adjournment. Perhaps we could avoid these fireworks until Monday, when someone else will have the honour of being in the chair. Would the member continue.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Mr. Speaker, thank you for reminding me that I still have two minutes to enter into the record what this minister has laid on our schoolchildren.

This referendum will fund expanded programs for learning assistance, enhanced gifted and enrichment programs, and expanded programs for the learning-disabled. This government has put those kids back into the community. Now support them there and provide the funding. This referendum will deal with increased integration for special-needs kids. This referendum will improve English as a second language, provide programs for the hearing-impaired, expand adult literacy programs and upgrade library books.

[12:45]

Interjections.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I hope Hansard is catching some of these interjections. There are members in the government side that find it funny when we are talking....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. We are at the time of agreed adjournment. Can we just, for the sake of Hansard and for the sake of all members, allow the member to continue.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I find it necessary to answer a couple of the comments that were made by the government. The Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Richmond) finds it funny that the school board wants to upgrade the library books in our municipality — the fact that we have $17 and Vancouver has nearly $27 to replace school books. We're talking about those inequities.

The Minister of Education, when I'm reading what this referendum is about, laughs and says: "Who's printed this material? Is that the BCTF?" Shame on you! We are talking about the needs of children, and if you can justify those inequities and those discrepancies, and if you are satisfied with the reality that those children face in Surrey with schools that look

[ Page 9250 ]

like concentration camps, with programs that are in need, then shame on you.

I look forward to the opportunity to continue on Monday, and I hope that the minister will be present at that time. I look forward to the opportunity of holding this government accountable for the fiasco in our municipality, the inequities and the fact that this government turns a blind eye and holds its hands over its ears.

I would move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I too look forward to continuing this debate next week. Before I wish everyone a pleasant weekend, I would remind all the members that the House will sit next Wednesday in the p.m.

Hon. Mr. Richmond moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:48 p.m.