[ Page 9251 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Tabling Documents –– 9251

Oral Questions

Government advertising of budget. Mr. Harcourt –– 9251

Contaminated fish. Mr. G. Hanson –– 9252

Mr. Rabbitt

Merritt timber supply area. Mr. Rabbitt –– 9253

Contaminated fish. Mr. G. Janssen –– 9253

Contaminated game birds. Mr. G. Janssen –– 9253

Budget Debate

Mr. Rabbitt –– 9253

Mr. Barlee –– 9257

Hon. Mr. Savage –– 9260

Mr. Harcourt –– 9263

Hon. L. Hanson –– 9265

Mr. Lovick –– 9267

Mr. Loenen –– 9271

Mr. G. Janssen –– 9274

Hon. Mr. Brummet –– 9278

The House met at 2:03 p.m.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Prayers.

MR. MOWAT: I am very honoured today to have three special guests from Imperial Oil Ltd.: Mr. Don Coghill, public affairs manager; Marlene Miyanaga, public affairs assistant; and David McEvoy, vice-president of explorations for Esso Resources Canada Ltd. They're in Victoria today. Imperial Oil Ltd. is sponsoring the Victoria Symphony this evening. I would ask you to make these special guests welcome.

HON. MR. MESSMER: Visiting the Legislature today from St. Margaret's School in Victoria are nine grade 9 students, along with their teacher Carmel Linka and driver Allan Young. They're the young ladies up here to the right in the red blazers. Would you please join me in welcoming them.

MR. LOENEN: Mr. Speaker, I have the rare opportunity to welcome some immediate members of our family. Some of our children are here in your gallery accompanying my wife Jayne: first of all, our daughter Marianne, who just completed her graduate work at SFU and expects to receive her degree in criminology next month. Soon she will be leaving for Ontario, where her husband will pursue a master's degree at the University of Guelph. Next is our son Jeff, who has just completed his third year at UBC in philosophy, accompanied by his wife Annette, who is a unit clerk at the Vancouver General Hospital; as well, our youngest daughter, Heather, who has just completed her first year of college, accompanied by her boyfriend Bill Nederlof, who is a graduate student at the University of Alberta. Missing from our lineup is our son, who is in Ann Arbor, pursuing a doctoral program in economics at the University of Michigan. Would the House please welcome them.

MR. BRUCE: In the buildings today are 35 grade 11 students and their teachers Mr. Foster and Mr. Towner from Chemainus Secondary School, from that "great little town that did" just up over the Malahat. Would you please make them all feel welcome.

MR. CHALMERS: In your gallery this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, we have a friend and constituent of mine from Okanagan South. I would like everyone in the House to make Mr. Tom Capozzi welcome, please.

MS. CULL: In the gallery today is Mr. Chris Causton, who is an alderman in the city of Oak Bay. I'd ask you to welcome him.

MRS. McCARTHY: I would like the House to welcome to our precincts and gallery this afternoon a Member of Parliament from that big House in Ottawa. Sheila Copps, Member of Parliament for Hamilton East, is in Victoria today to talk, among many other things, about her opposition to the goods and services tax. She will be in our gallery near the end of today's question period, and travelling with her will be her staff members Linda Conway and Bryan Baynham. Will the House please make them welcome.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: In the gallery this afternoon we have a group of 23 grade 5 and 6 students from J.T. Brown Elementary School in Surrey. They are accompanied by their teachers Mrs. Brock and Mrs. Thoroaldson, and I would ask the House to please make them welcome.

Hon. L. Hanson tabled the 1988 annual report of the British Columbia Assessment Authority.

Hon. Mr. Richmond tabled the five-year forest and range resource program for the years 1990 to 1995.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING OF BUDGET

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Provincial Secretary. The BS fund has been identified by the auditor-general as just that — b.s. Peat Marwick also disputes the government's claim of a balanced budget. Can the minister responsible for government advertising assure the House that he has decided to cancel the misleading television and newspaper ads that wrongly suggest your government has balanced the budget?

HON. MR. DIRKS: The opposition seems to have some problems finding out who they should ask questions of, but I would certainly defer that question to the Minister of Finance.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I can appreciate, for members who lack business experience and understanding of how public accounting is conducted, that the proper reporting of public financial matters is sometimes confusing.

Mr. Speaker, I have to ask you and the House to consider that we started the year with $1 billion in the budget stabilization fund, ended the year with $1 billion in the budget stabilization fund and reduced the accumulated debt during the year. So, insofar as we wound up with what we started with in the rainy-day fund and reduced, not increased, our debt, I have to ask the hon. member who framed the question how it is that he doesn't believe the budget is balanced.

MR. HARCOURT: I'm pleased that the Minister of Finance questions the business acumen of the auditor-general and Peat Marwick. It shows where his business acumen is.

I have a supplementary for the Provincial Secretary. Last year your government pulled a "B.C. Government News Update" that crossed over into

[ Page 9252 ]

political advertising when you extolled the virtues of the government's new cabinet. Peat Marwick has exposed your government's balanced budget claim: "The accounts are in deficit." Will the minister finally agree to cut the b.s. and cut the ads?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Insofar as for some peculiar reason the Leader of the Opposition keeps misdirecting the question, I will attempt to respond. The hon. member opposite should possibly have his research staff do a bit more homework; it might consume less time of this House.

The fact is that the Investment Dealers' Association of Canada have lauded the presentation of this government's financial practices. The fact is that the chartered accountants' institute have lauded the presentation of this material. The fact is that the Vancouver Board of Trade have lauded the former presentation, and the budget stabilization fund and the ingenuity that created such a fund. The fact of the matter is that since the inception of the fund.... The fact that it exists and the security that it will be a billion dollars to cover us in a rainy day have resulted in an improvement in our international credit rating among four of the most prominent rating agencies.

When it comes to managing public finances, I suspect the Leader of the Opposition is really out of his league, and that's exhibited by the naivety of his questions.

MR. HARCOURT: I'm used to balancing budgets during tough times and I'm astounded you can't balance your budget during good times.

Supplementary to the Provincial Secretary, who is in charge of the government's advertising program. If the Minister of Finance is now in charge of your ministry too — as he is of the Health ministry — we'd like to know that, because my question is about these misleading ads. It is not a balanced budget. The experts are saying that very clearly. Are you prepared to cut the b.s. and cut the ads?

HON. MR. DIRKS: Well, he obviously wants a quick answer. The answer is no.

[2:15]

CONTAMINATED FISH

MR. G. HANSON: I want to ask a question of the Minister of Native Affairs. As you know, aboriginal people in British Columbia rely heavily on fish as a source and a staple of their diet — that is their food, to a large extent. We are shocked to find in a report from the federal government that high levels of dioxins and furans have been found in Dolly Varden and other fish stocks in the South Thompson and North Thompson drainage. I would like to ask the minister what specific steps his government has decided to take to protect the health of the aboriginal people of the Shuswap nation.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: I'm sure the member recognizes that the responsibility for the environment and control of pollutants within the water system....

MR. MILLER: It's your responsibility.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: Don't get excited, fellas. I'll answer the question.

The fact is, Mr. Speaker, I met with the Shuswap nation about three or four months ago. At that time they expressed a concern about the possible contamination of the water system where the fish that they rely on come from. Since then, the Ministry of Native Affairs has had discussions with the Ministry of Environment. The information you referred to has just been published, and undoubtedly the Ministry of Environment is investigating the issues.

If you are looking for specific technical information about how you would deal with the issue of pollution within the river system, perhaps you would be better off referring your question to the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Reynolds).

MR. G. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, that minister has a responsibility to the native people of British Columbia. You should be the advocate for health matters, whether it falls within your jurisdiction or not. The fact is that for over a year, the aboriginal people have been concerned that they were being contaminated, because human beings are the top of the food chain and aboriginal people eat more wild fish and so on than the rest of the population does. There have been warnings for 11 months.

My question is: what specific steps has the minister taken to arrange for compensation or alternatives to this poisoned food? Or is George Watts right that harm is not granted as harm to anybody unless it's to white people?

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: First of all, I think the member and the House must understand that the Minister of Environment has a responsibility to look after the environment for all people in British Columbia and that no one looks at whether it is Indian or non-Indian people affected by pollution within the water system. As I said the first time I stood here, the Ministry of Native Affairs has been discussing this issue with the Ministry of Environment for several months now.

MR. G. HANSON: I'm going to go to the Minister of Environment on this same subject. Health and Welfare Canada has been testing furan and dioxin levels in human and other animal tissue for over ten years. All the documents are available. Can the Minister of Environment tell the House whether his ministry has taken any steps to close or place restrictions on sport fishing for Dolly Varden or other trout in the Thompson River basin? Or have you decided to issue another public warning, soon to be forgotten?

[ Page 9253 ]

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, the member should be aware that the mill in Kamloops that was producing the dioxins has been upgraded, and the levels of dioxins are undetectable. We will be issuing....

Interjections.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: It's nice to hear the yelling from the team across the House that can only put half their members in the House on a Monday afternoon.

This government has taken the issue very seriously. It has issued new regulations in British Columbia — the toughest in Canada. That mill has lived up to those regulations. The problem is decreasing. We are working with Health and Welfare Canada. We will issue warnings only in this case because that is all that is felt necessary by both the federal government and ourselves.

MR. RABBITT: My question is on the same subject to the Minister of Environment. I want to know if the minister is prepared to meet with the central interior steelhead association in order to receive their input because of the detrimental effect that could have on steelhead fishing in that particular river system.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Yes, I am not only willing to meet with that group, but I'm willing to meet with the native people and anybody else in that area who wants to meet on this topic.

MERRITT TIMBER SUPPLY AREA

MR. RABBITT: The second question I have, Mr. Speaker, is to the Minister of Forests. The minister is aware that jobs are being seriously eroded in the forest industry, particularly in the Princeton area of the Merritt TSA. I would like to know what steps the minister is taking to guarantee that forest jobs in that area of my riding are going to be protected.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: The annual allowable cut in the Princeton district has not been reduced. However, there is increased competition for the wood in that area, as the member knows — especially since two years ago, when we took back 5 percent of the AAC for the small business program. I am pleased to say that although there were some jobs lost due to the closure of an old mill in Princeton, they will be more than made up for by some of the value-added sales taking place in the area. Two in particular should add between 25 and 50 jobs net in the Princeton area.

MR. RABBITT: Supplementary to the same minister. A helicopter logging licence is presently pending. I would like to know the status of that application and whether we can expect to see the licence approved shortly.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Technical studies are underway now regarding that licence; that is one of the sales I referred to. I am pleased to tell the member that the value-added jobs from that licence will be going to Princeton.

CONTAMINATED FISH

MR. G. JANSSEN: A question for the Minister of Tourism. The government's dismal record on the environment now threatens a multimillion-dollar sports industry in Kamloops. Has the minister decided to warn sport-fishing tourists about the dangers of eating fish that are contaminated?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: I would refer any questions dealing with the environment to the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Reynolds).

CONTAMINATED GAME BIRDS

MR. G. JANSSEN: The ministers opposite seem to be quite good at ducking the questions today, but the ducks in Alberni are quickly becoming dead ducks.

The highest dioxin levels ever found in B.C. game birds have been detected near Port Alberni in birds that form part of the diet of the Nuu'chah'nulth Tribal Council and the peoples of the Nuu'chah'nulth. Perhaps the Minister of Native Affairs could be more specific than his counterparts on the other side of the House. What specific steps has the minister taken to protect the health and safety of the Nuu'chah'nulth peoples?

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: I think the question would most appropriately be answered by the Minister of Environment.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I'm very pleased to see the member for Port Alberni standing up and asking that question. As he knows, when I was in his community a couple of months ago I informed the owners of the mill in Port Alberni that they would meet this government's new regulations or they would have to close down. I'm wondering if he is up here today recommending to me that the mill should be closed down because of the pollution it's creating.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, adjourned debate on the budget.

Budget Debate 
(continued)

MR. RABBITT: Good afternoon, colleagues. It is certainly my pleasure to rise today and offer my views on the recent budget.

I think it was most appropriate when a press release came out dated April 19, 1990, which said basically that this budget represented more help for the environment, more help for homeowners, more help for housing supply— and those were just the highlights of a $15.26 billion balanced budget. I think

[ Page 9254 ]

the Minister of Finance has done a commendable job. He probably has brought forward the most responsible budget of any province throughout Canada.

When we look at the overview of the provincial budget, there are a variety of things that we can assess. The economic indicators suggested that in 1989 British Columbia's economy was by far the strongest in Canada. The economy grew approximately 4.9 percent, and that has been the third successive year that we've experienced rapid economic growth in this province.

In 1989 this government promised a balanced budget, and they delivered. In 1990 the government promised a balanced budget, and again the Minister of Finance delivered. We actually saw in that budget a promise for 1990 that will see all sectors of the economy receive good, strong, solid government support.

Indicators are only indicators. British Columbia, along with Canada, is possibly in the late stages of prolonged expansion. Economic growth can be expected to slow, possibly later in the year. The growth from capital investment will moderate, and consumer spending should remain strong. What this is all telling us is that we're in the midst of a fragile economy. The opposition has tended, when the minister brought forward the budget, to laugh at that concept. But those who have seriously studied the budget procedure of this province understand that we are living in a fragile time; the economy is a fragile economy. There are many items that are beyond our control.

The balanced budget of '90-91 has been brought forward through solid, good fiscal management. The government has planned to significantly increase investment in social, economic and environmental programs.

The outlook for the next five years is commendable, but it's going to be challenging. This challenge is one which I believe can be met, but it is going to take a great amount of effort and a great amount of planning. We can concentrate on a variety of sectors. One is the high-technology sector. We can concentrate on research and development. There's been a strong commitment this year, and there will have to be a strong commitment over the next five years.

[2:30]

British Columbia has also diversified its export markets, and with about 40 percent of our exports now going to the Pacific Rim nations, 40 percent to the American market and 15 percent to the European market, we can see how British Columbia can be, should be and will be stronger in the next decade as compared to Ontario, Quebec and the balance of Canada. This has not come just by chance; this has come because the leaders of this government — both present and past — have made a strong, dedicated move to preserve and build a future for British Columbia.

When we look at the budget itself, we see that the homeowner grant will be maintained at $700 for seniors and the disabled, and it will also be maintained at $430 for all other homeowners. In 1990 we've had the addition of the supplemental grant, which is 25 percent of the residential school taxes that exceed the basic grant, with a commitment for 1991 to see that supplemental grant raised to 50 percent. This change is expected to help approximately half a million homeowners.

When we look at the income tax changes for the renters' tax reduction, we see that the level has increased from $200 to $225 and a new eligibility formula has also been reintroduced.

With consumer taxation, the commitment by the minister not to impose our provincial sales tax on top of a federal goods and services tax — if it does occur — will save British Columbians an estimated $80 million a year. I can tell you that if it was the opposition in government, we would see a tax grab there with nothing said, and $80 million picked out of the pockets of average British Columbians by the socialists.

Property purchase tax. Tax relief is implemented to help those home purchasers in the lower mainland areas who are experiencing severe market pressure and where we're seeing real estate prices driven very high.

MR. SIHOTA: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I'm listening to this speech from the member — who wishes, I'm sure, to be a minister — but I note that he's reading his speech. Of course we have a provision in the rules where members can refer to notes for technical administrative matters, but I've been watching the member carefully, and he's just reading verbatim from material he has.

MR. RABBITT: Mr. Speaker, I have been in this House when the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew has abused the rules time in and time out, and I'm not going to stand here and let that sleazy tactic be used on me.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, we'll have to actually withdraw that word.

MR. RABBITT: Would "slippery" suffice, Mr. Speaker?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Nothing suffices, hon. member. just withdraw, please.

MR. RABBITT: I withdraw.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you very much, and now if you'd like to continue with your presentation on the budget.

MR. RABBITT: Mr. Speaker, my apologies to you for doubting your guidance. I'm sure that you always try to guide this House with your wisdom, and I appreciate that effort in this particular case.

Consumer taxation affects every household, and that's why I mentioned the fact that it was very important that the minister was not doubling up and imposing the provincial tax on top of the federal tax.

[ Page 9255 ]

Property purchase tax, which I was moving on to, is also one which the lower mainland people have felt the effects of more than those throughout the interior, where I come from. It was good to see that the minister had the foresight to develop a plan to assist these people in purchasing their homes, because this is what this party believes in. This is what this party is all about.

I have a few items I did want to refer to with regard to the summary of the federal budget and how it affects us, Mr. Speaker. The expenditures announced in the federal budget were basically reductions to us and resulted in changes to our budget. The reduction in spending amounted to $2.8 billion in the 1990-91 year and is expected to rise to $3.3 billion in '91-92. That, combined with the cuts announced in December of '89 — federal spending will be reduced by approximately $3 billion in '90-91 and by $3.8 billion in '91-92 — means that British Columbia is going to feel the effects rather severely.

I believe that the provinces, especially British Columbia, Alberta, and Ontario, are being asked to shoulder a substantial burden of the federal expenditure reductions. Again, this is unfair. It's believed that 32 percent of these savings will come from reduced transfers to the provinces. Again, I differ with that.

It should be noted that, out of the budgets brought forward to date across Canada, only one other province is delivering a balanced budget — Prince Edward Island. Of course, when you look at the size of Prince Edward Island compared to that of British Columbia, the dollar values are very different. Yet for that little province, attaining that task was equally hard. Our task was actually harder because we had our federal participation reduced.

The cruellest act that the federal government is playing on us now is the unreasonably high interest rates. Canada's fiscal policy has been built around the concept that what is good for Ontario is good for Canada. The golden triangle of southern Ontario has determined federal policy, fiscal policy and interest rates since the inception of Canada.

There is a need for change. There's a need for regionalization, and the regionalization of things such as interest rates.

Interjection.

MR. RABBITT: Western Canada should not be dictated to by central Canada. It's strange — I get heckled from across the floor. If we were a little banana republic, we would be able to set our own interest rates. But here, because we're a segment of a whole and because of federal legislation, we can't. But there is no reason why the federal government could not implement rates which would reflect the needs of a particular part of the country.

Less than 50 miles away, Stateside, we have homeowners, businessmen, and consumers obtaining loans and mortgages at five points and more below what we are here in Canada. That's unacceptable. Under these conditions, consumers will stop buying major items; they'll quit buying vehicles; they'll quit buying homes; businesses will find themselves with less volume of sales, less profits, less ability to pay these unreasonably high rates of interest that are continually going up.

The province will see lower sales tax returns and eventually lower personal and corporate income tax returns. Fifteen percent interest is too damn high. The policy will result in a major recession. We need change.

Compared to the other provinces across Canada, British Columbia remains second when you look at real domestic product. Unemployment rates are high, but our employment growth rate is also second in Canada.

In the budget we have a provincial effect, we have a federal effect, and we have a local effect, which affects every individual within our community, every individual within our riding.

Yale-Lillooet, which is made up of a consortium of 43 little communities — some organized and some unorganized — has a variety of difficulties that it must face. One of the ways I have been able to solve some of the problems and meet some of the needs of my riding is through lottery grants and GO B.C. funding.

I should mention to the member across the way that I've seen him argue in this House for lottery funds when he never filled out a form.

MR. SIHOTA: That's not true. Give an example.

MR. RABBITT: The Komagata Maru — does that ring a bell with you?

MR. SIHOTA: The member has uttered a falsehood. I never made an application for lottery funds, and I never made an application for the Komagata Maru for any type of funds. I understood the member to say that. If the member can prove it, he should; if he can't, then he should withdraw it. I take exception to the falsehood uttered by the member, and I would ask him to withdraw his statement.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, if I might assist the Chair, the content of another member's speech is not a point of order. If the member feels that the member has told a lie about him, let him get up and say it like it is; tell him. But I don't think the member has imputed any false motives, so it's a spurious point of order.

MR. SIHOTA: If I may respond, it is improper, as members of the government should now know, in light of the auditor-general's report on the affair involving Semiahmoo House Society — for one to receive lottery funds without having filled out an application form. The imputation by the member for Yale-Lillooet relates to a suggestion he made — which I have no knowledge of — that I somehow made an application for lottery funds for the Komagata Maru in a fashion that was inconsistent with the

[ Page 9256 ]

rules: namely, that no application forms were filled out.

There are two falsehoods in that: (1) I never made an application; and (2) I therefore couldn't have filled out....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Minister of International Business and Immigration.

HON. MR. VEITCH: On three occasions in the last couple of minutes, that member for Esquimalt-–Port Renfrew — he is a lawyer — has accused the hon. member for Yale-Lillooet of committing a falsehood. That's tantamount to saying that another hon. member is lying in this House. That is clearly against the rules of the House. Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to have him withdraw that immediately or leave the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair heard full well what was said. Let the Chair just state that the reason we find ourselves in this minor dilemma at the moment is that members — and it was happening on Friday as well — insist on debating across the floor instead of through the Chair. As long as that goes on, we're going to have a problem.

[2:45]

It did seem to me, hon. member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew, that there certainly was a straight-out inference that the member opposite was lying. I think, in the interest of this debate going forward in a smooth manner, It would be in the interest of all if you could withdraw that imputation.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, I'll withdraw, on the expectation that the member will withdraw what he said. I have no problem doing what I have done, and I would think he would have no problem in withdrawing what he had to say. There is no basis for the comments he has made.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the hon. member for Yale-Lillooet now like to continue with his speech and perhaps clarify the comment that was made. I would suggest that the least that could be done in this instance is for the member to assure the House that he was not impugning the reputation of the member opposite.

MR. RABBITT: There was no intention of impugning anybody's reputation. What I was trying to point out was that people do support lottery applications even though there may not be an application in place at the time. We heard the member get up in this House and speak very emphatically in favour of a certain project, when there actually was no lottery application in place. I was trying to point that out to the member.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a repeat of what you said before, hon. member.

MR. RABBITT: Yes, it is.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Perhaps you could move along. I notice you suggested that you weren't impugning the reputation of the member opposite.

MR. RABBITT: That's correct.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: We'll continue. Could we be relevant to the budget, please.

MR. RABBITT: When I brought up the point about lottery funds, I was suggesting that they have been a great tool to help the people of my communities. We have had seniors build drop-in centres; we have had children's playgrounds built; we have had community centres and civic centres constructed; we have had information centres for tourism established; we have had some sports facilities; we have had improvements to rodeo grounds; we have had playing fields built; we have had swimming pools constructed; and we have had golf courses upgraded.

These things are all good. Unlike the NDP, I don't feel that lotteries are bad. Lottery funding is good; it has helped my riding immensely over the three and a half years I have been the member representing Yale-Lillooet. I'm proud of the funding this government has allowed to be committed to that area.

I've heard harping in this House about giving lottery funding only to our friends. Let me tell you, the 36,000 members of Yale-Lillooet are all my friends. When I was elected, it was to represent the members of all parties. We don't ask people for a party card when they come into a civic centre or a swimming pool. When people send in an application and ask me to support it, I don't ask them whether they are members of my party or some other party.

I must tell you, Mr. Speaker, lottery funding is a tremendous tool. It can help every little corner of our province. In Yale-Lillooet it's doing just that, and I'm proud of it.

The government has taken a very strong position with the helping of small communities throughout Yale-Lillooet. We've had upgradings of several hospitals. Presently we have one extended-care facility in Hope that's under construction, and within the next two months, we'll have one under construction In Merritt.

I've heard catcalls from my colleague from Esquimalt–Port Renfrew across the floor asking me what I am doing for my constituents in Yale-Lillooet and suggesting that while he's heckling me down here, the NDP candidate in the riding of Yale-Lillooet is out gobbling up the votes. Let me tell you — and I'll tell Mr. Lali this: when ballot time comes, the people will check both track records, add them up and make the decision about who has done the best job. I suggest that you, Mr. Member, look after your back yard. Then I won't have to go and remind the people over at Willis Point how they got the road and how you couldn't help them. I won't have to go up to Prince Rupert and tell the people in Masset how they got the funding for their airport.

Mr. Speaker, I think this year's highways program is a substantial one. It's carrying on from last year.

[ Page 9257 ]

We're seeing the Duffy Lake Road get a major commitment from this government. Many of you In this House, especially urban members, may not have heard of Duffy Lake Road or may not have travelled it, but I can tell you that with the minor amount of money going into it, this little road will do more to change the heart of the interior and create more opportunities in the tourist industry than any other dollar value that I can think of.

Naturally I'm supportive of this, because it goes right through my riding. It comes through Pemberton, over the pass and right into Lillooet. Lillooet — the Indian word for the little onion — is the jewel of British Columbia. Anybody who's ever visited it loves it; it's a great place to visit. Mr. Speaker, I'd recommend that you and your wife travel over there this summer and enjoy some of the good hospitality of the Lillooet area.

One project that I was very proud to get off the ground this year was the Ashcroft Bridge. You wonder why a bridge can tie a community together, but if a community is built on two sides of a river and the weak link is a 60-year-old bridge that can't take a full-loaded vehicle across it, then for the urban members down here, I'd like to tell you that that $4 million bridge — or whatever the final price may be — becomes as important as water, gas and electricity Now we've got that link; it's under construction. The foundations are in. The superstructure will be going on, and it will be finished next year. Even if it isn't finished before the election, the people of Ashcroft know who got it for them.

Let's talk about Coquihalla phase 3. We've sat in this House and heard day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year negative replies from the NDP about phase 1, phase 2 and phase 3 of the Coquihalla. Let me tell you that the people of the interior think it's pretty good, fellas. You bet. The people of the interior think that the Coquihalla not only saves them time; it saves lives. It's the safest road we have in all Canada, and I'm proud that this government had the intestinal fortitude to build it.

I'm just sorry that my old colleague the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Davis) is not here. I wanted to thank him for the effort he put into developing a policy this year that will determine whether or not some of my rural communities get extensions to gas and electricity We've got a $2 million program that will allow the extension of gas and hydro lines to rural communities.

The urban members who have everything at their doorstep forget how it gets there. Normally it comes on a right-of-way through my riding. I hear about people not wanting rights-of-way through their watershed. If I took the position of not wanting a right-of-way through my watershed, there would be a lot of people in the lower mainland who wouldn't have gas, oil or electricity. So I think a few people should sit back, listen and smarten up.

Mining is a very important part of my riding. I have the largest open-pit copper mine there. It doesn't need any handouts from government. But what does need recognition from government are the prospectors and the little people who are out there, and they're getting it. Prospectors are getting support, and that's good. Also, the allocation and the commitment by the minister to see that resources are going out to regional initiatives within the ministry is also a major step.

To sum up here rather quickly, I just want to touch on two items first, being as I still have....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: One minute.

MR. RABBITT: With that one minute, I'll sum up quickly. When the NDP opposition suggested in their rebuttal that this budget wasn't doing anything, I looked at the summaries, and the summaries throughout the news media did not agree with them — whether it was the Vancouver Sun, the Vancouver Province or the Victoria Times-Colonist. They all disagreed.

I thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for having patience. I was wondering if you had added to my time the time that the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew had taken off by his frivolous points of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think by now we have, hon. member.

MR. BARLEE: I was rather interested when the member for Yale-Lillooet said that the prospectors should be recognized by this government. They have been recognized. Some years ago I used to pick up my free miner's licence for $5 a year, and now it's $25. So they've been recognized for 500 percent. By the way, a placer miner's lease used to be $20, and now it's $250. So that's a little over 1,000 percent. The miners of this province — the free miners especially — have been recognized very well by the government. I'm sure they're pleased with all of that.

However, I'm not really here to dwell upon the mining fraternity of British Columbia, although I could spend some time doing that. But I'll mention a few things that the previous speaker just mentioned. He mentioned that this particular government doesn't make any tax grabs, and he mentioned fuel. Let's discuss fuel, and let's discuss tax grabs. For instance, I stopped this morning to get some fuel in Victoria, and I paid about 60 cents a litre. I can go across into the state of Washington and pay 32 cents a litre. Why the difference?

Interjection.

MR. BARLEE: No, generally I buy my fuel in Canada; I believe in it.

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

Let's take a look at the difference, and there are reasons that there is a fair difference. I've done a little research on it. You'll be quite interested if you're worried about it. You find it a laughing matter,

[ Page 9258 ]

but people on low incomes, on minimal wages, don't find it a laughing matter.

In 1986, the provincial government charged 9½ cents a litre in tax, fuel tax and gasoline. Now it's up to 12 cents, and it's going higher this year, according to your estimates. Your estimates, by the way, said that you were going to take in $505 million last year, and that was about right; this year you're going to take in about $590 million. So what is the fuel tax going up to? Is it going up to 15 cents a litre?

[3:00]

By the way, this government has done a very fine job. They've actually surpassed the dreaded federal government tax on gasoline. The federal government charges 11 cents a litre; the provincial government charges 12 cents a litre. So every time somebody stops at the gas pumps and orders $20 worth of gas, direct tax to the provincial government is $4 and direct tax to the federal government is $3.75. The gas companies — the member will be interested to know — are making $12.25.

Let's compare this, to the state of Washington. Why the big difference? The taxes in the United States total eight cents a litre in Canadian funds. The oil companies — Shell Oil, Esso, Texaco and all those multinational oil companies — get 24 cents a litre in the United States. By the way, they have an octane rating down there, so the gas is probably better. In Canada, our taxes total 23 cents a litre, the majority of that from the provincial government. But the interesting thing I find in going over this information is that those same oil companies in Canada — Shell Oil, Esso and Texaco — don't make 24 cents a litre up here as they do down there. They make 37 cents a litre up here, so that's 13 cents more a litre.

I'm not generally a cynical man or too suspicious, but is there some sort of unholy agreement between the federal and provincial governments and the multinational oil companies? After all, paying double for the gas is a little too much, especially for those people on reduced incomes and pensions. I'm kind of curious about the 50 percent difference between what the oil companies make in the state of Washington and what they. make in the province of British Columbia.

Interjection.

MR. BARLEE: That isn't the point. The point is: what is a fair price? Evidently the member doesn't understand that. I do not think 60 cents a litre is a fair price. You may think it's fine, and at the rate this government's going it will be 70 cents a litre before this year is out. I don't think it should be above 39.9 The member may be able to afford it on his salary; I know there are lots of people in this province who can't afford it. That's a direct flat tax. It's also a regressive tax, and I simply don't think it's fair. The government is evidently looking for more.

The member may not know that each driver in British. Columbia pays more than $200 every year for provincial gas tax alone — that's a lot of bucks for people on restricted incomes. I think it's rather disgraceful.

The member for Yale-Lillooet was absolutely correct about tax grabs. There are some tax grabs, and they're pretty healthy tax grabs. And how does it affect us? Mr. Speaker, I think it affects us in a number of ways. I come from the second part of the province, sometimes called the second British Columbia. This is the interior of British Columbia, and it hasn't had a lot of good times in the last decade. In my particular constituency the unemployment rate is 11.2 or 11.3 percent. That's a true 15 percent.

That 15 percent is double the provincial average, and why? We have an area of chronic unemployment. In many parts of my riding the unemployed are a real business— in places like Keremeos, Midway, Greenwood, Grand Forks, Oliver and Osoyoos. Practically every part of my riding is undergoing extremely heavy unemployment rates.

There are several reasons why. First of all, the fruit industry, which has been the backbone of our particular area for almost 100 years, is in disarray, and I think it's in danger of collapsing. If it does, 5,000 jobs collapse with it.

Secondly, small businesses are not getting the deal they should from this government. They really aren't getting the help they need, and the small businesses this year, by all admission, are probably facing a slowing economy. The member for Yale-Lillooet mentioned the high interest rates of 15 percent. Not many small businessmen can afford 15 percent, so the outlook is not too rosy for them either.

Finally, let's take a look at another area. This is an area in which I've always been interested, and that's tourism. When we look at tourism, we look at the industry that is the leading industry in the world. How did the provincial government look at tourism in their budget? They barely acknowledged it, and I'll tell you why. It came up from $23.2 million in the budget to $24.9 million — a minimal increase for an industry that can help the interior, the second British Columbia. That's only a 1½ percent increase. It doesn't even keep up with the cost of living, for heaven's sake.s

What about the tourist attractions? Is there an overall plan? I don't think there is. I don't think this government really knows what it's doing in the tourism area, and I'll tell you why. In my particular riding of Boundary-Similkameen we have a number of tourist attractions, and we have, I think, a unique area there. We have a lake system, desert country, orchards and many other things. And we have three continent-class attractions, perhaps four. I'll elaborate on each one of these three continent-class attractions.

One is the town of Greenwood, an old mining town established as a bona fide city. It's the smallest city in Canada, established in 1898. It was a copper mining town, one of the great mining towns of British Columbia which can be compared, perhaps, to Nelson. What about Greenwood? Has it realized its potential? Of course it hasn't. You can walk down its main street in the middle of July and probably see ten or a dozen people on the streets, and that's all.

[ Page 9259 ]

Let's compare it with a little town in the state of Washington, just a few miles away. Let's compare it to Winthrop, Washington. Winthrop is a made-over town. it hasn't got the stature, history or attractions of Greenwood.

I see that one of the members on the other side is listening rather intently, and I think he does understand. That's kind of interesting.

Greenwood has a lot of possibilities. There are old towns around Greenwood like Eholt, the famous city of Phoenix, Boundary Falls, Deadwood and all those storied camps of the past. But we haven't done anything with them. Greenwood lies there virtually unused. It's a terrific, potentially valuable tourist attraction.

We've done something, and I'll commend the government on it. Something has been done in Nelson, as we well know. Baker Street in Nelson looks fairly good. It's proven to be valuable; it's a good tourist attraction. We haven't done that in Greenwood, and Greenwood needs the help, because the unemployment rate is very high and their tax base is very low. What have we got there? We've got virtually everything.

Old Copper Street — you know it as well as I do. The member for Nelson-Creston (Hon. Mr. Dirks) knows that Copper Street is very interesting. The false-front buildings there are the original buildings from 1898. There is no phony town in Greenwood. It's not like Winthrop, Washington. You can't even get down the main street of Winthrop in July and August...

HON. MR. DIRKS: There are no socialists down there.

MR. BARLEE: ...because they've had a long-term look at the possibilities of that town, Mr. Member. I think you realize that. It doesn't ask for a flippant remark. It really requires a long-term projection, a long-term tourist plan. I don't think we've had it.

Greenwood will be celebrating its one-hundredth birthday this decade, and it has all sorts of potential. It has never realized it, and it won't realize it, because it has been given nothing but handouts — a bit of ad hoc help but not a long-term plan. If Greenwood were to receive a long-term plan, it would be much more successful than Winthrop or even Leavenworth, Washington. They've realized it down there; we haven't here.

Let's talk about another area we've missed the boat on — that's a bit of a pun. There is one area in the central and south Okanagan where we also have not touched the potential. That's the historic SS Sicamous, an old CPR sternwheeler which first began to go down Okanagan Lake in 1914 and sailed for over 20 years, until 1935. It's the last of the great sternwheelers of the northwest.

Interjection.

MR. BARLEE: No, I'm afraid it isn't, if you compare the length and the history of the Moyie, or the Minto, for that matter, or any other sternwheeler. I can go over the Okanagan and the Aberdeen; I know them all. The Moyie is a marvelous little ship. It's not bad, but it does not compare to the SS Sicamous. The SS Sicamous compares to the Nasookin, which was in Nelson as you well know. It was the sister ship, a great ship. It broke its back in Nelson in 1949. 1 know the history of all these ships; I've studied them for years, But we have not realized the potential of the SS Sicamous.

MR. REID: Why don't you put the money into it?

MR. BARLEE: I see that the member on the other side from White Rock realizes that it does have some potential. Indeed it does, but it isn't well known. I phoned up the city of Portland and asked them about their little mud sternwheeler the City of Portland. I sent them down a photograph of the SS Sicamous. They couldn't believe it, nor the lousy job we've done on tourism. Mr. Member, I'll tell you what a lousy job we've done on tourism. The last words they said to me were: "By the way, we think your sternwheeler is marvellous. We've never heard of it. Where is Penticton?" That's what a good job we've done in tourism. Money spent on the SS Sicamous is money well spent. It is a steel-hulled sternwheeler. It will be with us a hundred years from now. Putting money into that ship is not a loss; it's looking to the future. It's looking to the tourist attractions of the 1990s, the year 2000 and beyond. You know it as well as I do, Mr. Member, that it's a very valuable tourist attraction — and it's not the only one.

Let's talk about another tourist attraction, the Kettle Valley line. The Kettle Valley line winds through the interior. Some of the members on the other side know it fairly well; indeed they do. The member for Yale-Lillooet probably knows the Kettle Valley line as well in his area as I know it in mine. I also know it fairly well in his area, by the way.

The Kettle Valley line was allowed to be abandoned by the CPR a few years ago without a whimper, by the way, from this government. It's very interesting, because the Kettle Valley line was designed by a genius — a man called Andrew McCulloch. By no stretch of the imagination, he was definitely a genius. It is considered one of the great lines of the Pacific slope, and what did we do?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Cowichan-Malahat has risen to speak.

MR. BRUCE: Mr. Speaker, I hate to interrupt the very informative discussion taking place here, but I wonder if I may seek leave from the House to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. BRUCE: In the House this afternoon along with those I mentioned earlier from the Chemainus high school are 30 grade 11 students from both Lake Cowichan Secondary School and Cowichan Senior

[ Page 9260 ]

Secondary School, which happens to be my alma mater. They are here under the guidance and through the assistance of Fletcher Challenge. I would ask the House to please make them all very welcome.

MR. BARLEE: We were alluding to the Kettle Valley line. I think this is a shame. They have little lines in England, such as the lower Seven Valley line, which does not have the attraction that the Kettle Valley line has. The Kettle Valley line has, in a 214-mile stretch, two massive tunnels and about 12 bridges and trestles. It's marvellous scenery, cut through rock walls, leaning over canyons. It really is an unusual railroad line for any part of the west. We really have not made much of its potential, which is quite magnificent. The government has leaned away from it. Now the CPR is going to abandon other parts of that line, and we still haven't done anything about it. I think that's very remiss of the government.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I think that the member for Yale-Lillooet, whom I listened to rather attentively for about 15 or 20 minutes, mentioned our highway system. He didn't mention one thing: the privatization of the highway system.

There may be certain areas where privatization is required, where it's advantageous, but I don't think they've taken a good look at it. I travel the Hope-Princeton probably a hundred times a year — approximately 50 return trips. I occasionally fly, but usually I drive. I have never seen the Hope-Princeton in the condition it was this year. I thought: okay, maybe I'm biased. And perhaps I am. But then I got a call — I think it was on February 2 — from the Greyhound bus drivers. Representing 144 years of driving experience, 13 drivers were there. They said they had never seen the roads by and large in British Columbia as bad as they were in the last two years.

The privatization system hasn't worked very well. I'll tell you why. I see the member nodding negatively. In three months this year there were eight fatalities and hundreds of accidents on the Hope-Princeton. They didn't do the job. I would travel 100 kilometres on that highway and never see a truck by the private company now doing the work on that road. It was really quite atrocious.

In concluding, I think the record in all of these areas is wanting. Its rather dismal. It leaves a good deal of room for improvement.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Speaker, I am indeed honoured to rise in the House today and speak to you about the 1990-91 budget presented by my colleague the hon. Minister of Finance. I'm extremely proud to be part of a government that has proven its responsibility year after year in presenting not only another balanced budget, but a budget filled with vision and leadership built on a stable foundation for the 1990s.

[3:15]

One year ago, I rose in this House to announce my joy at the birth of my first grandchild. What a year she has had to grow up in in British Columbia. I would like to say aloud: thank you to my Social Credit colleagues in this House, my colleagues in cabinet, the Premier and the citizens of British Columbia for pulling together and giving this province the quality of life that has been so good for her to live and to have the opportunity to grow up in such a well-managed province as this.

I also feel very secure in the future for her in British Columbia and in the knowledge that I am aware — and I hope everyone is aware — that each of us will see a responsibility and bear that responsibility to see that this little girl has the opportunity to grow up to be a fully contributing adult with the support of services and programs this government has announced in its new budget for the 1990s.

I feel secure in knowing that our health and social services are fully operational and flexible to meet the needs of this one-year-old and all the other one-year olds in British Columbia.

The future will demand new skills, but she has before her — without a doubt — one of the best education systems anywhere in the world. It is backed by a government committed to preparing for the future; a government which has a long-term vision for this province and its people and whose budget leaves no room for despair or doubt or, for that matter, too much complaining.

We are in a positive mood on this side of the House, and it's a mood wanted by British Columbians in their government. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, it is growing. It's a mood that is getting stronger in every home, town and region of this province.

Never forget that we, the Social Credit government, are a disciplined government who do not take our responsibilities lightly. I echo the words of the hon. Minister of Finance from his budget speech when he said that the government has no money of its own. It only has the money of hard-working taxpayers of this province. It is our commitment to manage our way to a strong, enduring, sustainable growth in a stable, secure and sensitive way.

This province was built by citizens through hard work. The rewards of these fine citizens' hard work goes beyond personal reward and supports the services and programs that assure us all of a high quality of life. I congratulate the taxpayers of B.C.

It's the same hard work that the agriculture and fishery sectors are built upon. It's the same hard work that fuels the economic growth of this sector. It is based on real wealth generated by people who know the values of our free enterprise system.

Has the opposition done its homework this time, or are they presenting only a convenient part of the picture for the people of British Columbia? Has the opposition studied the 1990 Agriculture Canada projection on farm income in Canada? Have they read the analysis in the Globe and Mail? This is public information. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, I've read it. It says that the realized net farm income in 1990 in the whole of Canada is going to be down by some 33 percent. In Saskatchewan it's going to be down by 87 percent — a phenomenal drop. In Alberta it's going to be down by some 46 percent. In Ontario it's going to be down by approximately 7 percent.

[ Page 9261 ]

But right here in British Columbia, the projection for farm income is up by 5 percent — the only province in Canada to have such a forecast. That success is showing in the ledgers on the right side. In 1990 the projection for all the country to see is that British Columbia is in the black. We do not want figures in the red in this province, and I, as one member of government, will do everything I can to make sure we continue a balanced budget.

The nature of the new global economy requires our best people, our best products and, let me assure you, our best efforts. British Columbia's agriculture and fisheries sector know this very well. They understand the pressures and demands of the international marketplace, and right now they are competing successfully with some of the best in the world.

British Columbia foods have an international reputation for excellence. They are priced competitively We do not need the doomsaying members of the opposition undermining the confidence of the sector by telling the farmers and the fishermen that they are not quite good enough. This government believes in the innovation and ability of the people of the province. It's about time the opposition started doing the same thing.

The agriculture and fisheries sector in British Columbia is worth over $10 billion annually. It employs close to 200,000 workers and is growing at 3 to 5 percent per year. It is growing because the people in agriculture and fisheries do not believe in the myth that competitiveness and production are best helped by a government of free lunches. They have never believed this, and I doubt they ever will.

Theirs is work based on values built up over many generations: the love of the land, the immense pride in their independence, the quality and respect between men and women that you find nowhere else Their hard work, their partnerships with their land, and their families create that $10 billion of real wealth in this province. They know in their hearts from years and years of experience that this isn't the type of progress that grows from an easy-street giveaway mentality.

This government is committed to the agriculture and fisheries sector of B.C. because we genuinely know what it means to every individual and family in British Columbia. We know that in times of fast change some systems can and do fail to make the grade. We pick up the pieces and we survive; that is how it works. But we know that if our agriculture and fisheries system failed, it would mean none of us would survive. That's why our plans assure there is strength in the system to survive. That strength would slip away bit by bit if the giveaway mentality was ever to take over and undermine those real values that give this sector its capability to challenge the best in the world.

Right now a very real problem facing this sector is overabundance — not famine, but overabundance. Because of this, in the western world many governments are competing to outbid one another in subsidization. The marketplace sees this as merely one more negative factor contributing to overabundance. The tragedy is that not every country in the world which needs and wants our food has the stable economy that produces the purchasing power to buy what they really need. If you want to see food problems, go to the socialist countries and see how their systems have failed.

This government believes in the free enterprise system. We believe that those people who participate in an industry are the most knowledgeable about their industry. It is only common sense, therefore, that those stakeholders who stand to benefit from a decision should be the primary decision-makers in their own industrial strategy. Government should not be telling them how to run their businesses.

The Berlin Wall has fallen, and those of us on the government side of the House know very well why it fell. Most of the world knows why, except I don't believe the opposition has figured it out yet. We have listened time and time again to the whining of the opposition about every little change that requires adjustment in a sector due to global factors. They will try and interpret facts and figures to point to the negative side of any adjustment. But we know it is only a tactic, and the people of British Columbia know that all too well too.

Last year, I announced the grape and wine agreement to finance more than $11 million to assist in the adjustment in 1990 of the grape and wine industry. What we have witnessed is an $11 million success In just one year, as this industry — mainly through its own foresight and planning — has positioned itself to compete successfully in the world. They have their feet down. They are ready, and they will succeed in the nineties.

The NDP paints the end of that very successful first year as a lack of support for agriculture in British Columbia, because the $11 million did not appear in this year's budget. The grape and wine farmers and producers in British Columbia do not want to be wards of the state. They want real fair returns for their efforts in the marketplace, not a politically motivated welfare state for farmers.

We do not believe you can build a viable agriculture and fisheries industry on the principle of constantly rewarding failure and constantly punishing success. Farmers and fishermen are adults and, unlike the opposition, this government treats them like adults and not like children — adults who have rights and responsibilities in the marketplace and live with the real consequences, both positive and negative. That's how free enterprise works. With it, British Columbia has created one of the highest standards of living and one of the greatest qualities of life on this planet.

This year the support for the second phase of the grape and wine agreement is over $1 million. If the opposition carefully studies the budget, they will see that the 1990-91 operational budget of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries has increased by some 8.7 percent. This increase will be used to continue existing programs and to build exciting new programs I will be announcing in my ministry estimates later in the spring.

[ Page 9262 ]

We will still have more complaining from the opposition, this time about the tree-fruit industry. They ignore the reality of the $384 million of taxpayers' money that has already been spent. I wish the opposition a lot of mileage on this tactic, as time runs out for their whining and opportunism. The NDP are fully aware that the government is awaiting the report of the commission of inquiry into the tree-fruit industry. Their constant bickering and negativism is an attempt to derail that report and is typical of NDP tactics of interfering with the democratic process.

Commissioner Lusztig is dean of the faculty of commerce and business administration at the province's largest university. When his thorough, in-depth review of that industry is complete — and only when it is complete — I will report to this House.

Withdrawing from tax dependency is not a failure it is a sign of success. I understand that the tax addicts on the other side of the House don't understand that. But they should report to us what they and their socialist pals saw when they visited Nicaragua. The farmers and fishermen of Nicaragua did not vote to support the Sandinistas, and farmers and fishermen will not vote to support the "Spendinistas" on the other side of the House.

The opposition has made promises in the past few days that if they were government, they would give all things to all people. I repeat: balance the budget? It is obvious to me that the Leader of the Opposition is trying to impose his narrow religious views on the people of British Columbia, because everything he has promised could only be done by divine intervention.

British Columbia has a great role to play in the world. Our agriculture and fishery sector will be part of that contribution. We are uniquely positioned in Canada to tap into the fastest-growing market in the world: the Pacific Rim. These sectors will contribute to the billions in exports that lead us to a positive trade balance, which in turn helps us pay for our first-class health care, education and transportation systems.

We will grow in agriculture and fisheries in B.C. because of our real and long-term commitment to the environment. It is this partnership and commitment that will create real wealth. You see this commitment in the eyes of the cowboys in Merritt and in the strong hands and backs of the deck-hands in Prince Rupert. Their work is based on values that work for real people in the real world. They are the values of free enterprise, which is growing and getting stronger every passing day in British Columbia.

[3:30]

You won't find these values etched in the soft pink hands of the opposition leader. These values say that individuals and families have a right and a responsibility during their lifetime to work in a system that rewards them. It is a system that offers real-world rewards, not handout giveaways that spend more and more taxes. Any party that tries to take those values away from the people should not have the word "democratic" in its name.

When I look forward to the direction British Columbia is going, I am filled with pride and promise for this little girl I mentioned at the outset, my granddaughter. She's growing up in a healthy environment with the best services available if she needs them. She is growing up at a time when there are tremendous educational and economic opportunities for her, and when she has opportunities equal to those of any little boy in British Columbia. She will learn to use a computer as early and as easily as learning to ride a bicycle, because her family and government are looking forward to that day and are planning for it.

Most of all, she will not grow up shackled with the debt of a socialist government. I'm not sure how the opposition defines democracy, but their vision of the future is based on a taxation and debt philosophy. And what is debt? Debt is the taxes plus interest to be paid by future generations. I don't want my granddaughter burdened with debt and fiscal mismanagement.

This government will not write a blank cheque in our children's and grandchildren's names. That's what this budget says, and that's exactly what this government is saying. The challenge of the nineties is for the people of British Columbia to be allowed to aggressively develop their potential for our share of the bounty that is available for anyone who wants to work hard. That is the promise of free enterprise. That is the promise of the future of this year's budget. People do not want to hear from the opposition, who keep saying — especially the financial critic — that we'll have to have more and more taxes. People want to have money that they can spend to enjoy themselves, not pay it all to governments.

I believe that the Finance minister has brought in a very responsible budget, and I believe, on behalf of the people of British Columbia, that they will benefit from the budget that has been brought forward, like the previous two, to make sure that future generations have some stability in their future.

I also believe that when you look at the number of programs offered by the province and paid for by the people of British Columbia, it's important to recognize that we have to show leadership, which I believe our Premier has done very well. We have to show leadership as a cabinet in making decisions that guide future generations, that guide decisions with regard to those people, with regard to people that are presently with us, and I believe we will always be responsible in making decisions on behalf of the people. Therefore I believe strongly that we will continue to serve the people of this province come an election.

I would like to thank the hon. Minister of Finance for bringing forward the budget that he did, on behalf of every single individual in this province.

MR. JONES: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

[ Page 9263 ]

MR. JONES: I would like to introduce a group of 45 grade 11 social studies students joining us today as part of their education. As you know, Mr. Speaker, it was the Burnaby North students who sent all the members last year a calendar as part of their campaign to establish, as a recreational corridor park, the Harrison-Lillooet Trail. This is a historic gold rush trail as well as a favourite hiking destination for these Burnaby North students.

I would like you to welcome them. They are accompanied today by their teacher, Mr. Shannon, as well as by Miss Elsie Jang, Mr. Josh Aubut and Ms. Debbie Redenbach.

MR. HARCOURT: I listened to the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Savage), who has now left. When he started his portfolio we thought he would be the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, and over the last couple of years he has turned into the minister of condominiums and golf courses.

The discussion that he had about his granddaughter enjoying the education system that we have, and his mentioning that there are no free lunches, brought to mind some children that I see in my riding association....

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Point of order. In spite of the immense popularity of the Leader of the Opposition, I note that there is not a quorum in the House Perhaps, sir, you could ring the bells to summon members.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, we now have a quorum. The debate will proceed.

MR. HARCOURT: I heard the discussion by the minister of there being no free lunches in this province. May I say that there are no lunches for a number of grandchildren and children in this province. There are over 600 children in the Vancouver school system who are hungry at noon. We know that that lunch costs money to provide, but it costs a heck of a lot more for those children not to have a lunch and not to be able to learn and to improve their circumstances in life. They're from poor families; they are from families that are suffering the burden of poverty. They are suffering from the problems of adjusting to a new country.

The priorities of this government are what we're speaking about here today. The priority of this government is not those low-income students. The priority of this government is to send snoops and inspectors out to track down, punish and penalize the parents, rather than to feed the children. The priority of this government in this budget is not to provide affordable housing, or to deal with the environmental pollution it has allowed for the last 15 years, or to bring about equality for women, or to deal with the question of settling with our aboriginal people. The question of priorities is very important.

I listened to the previous speaker talking about this government's priorities. You can see that, in the opinion of the majority of British Columbians, they are basically dealing with the priorities of their political friends and insiders when they bring in their budgets. Basically what we have is a dishonest budget that is now using misleading advertising to try to sell the fact that this government is spending taxpayers' money to mislead voters.

The latest "B.C. Government News Update" boasts of a balanced budget. Those who watch this government every day have exposed the truth. The Vancouver Sun's post-budget headline was: "$500 Million Deficit Incurred in Record Spending Budget." Peat Marwick has exposed this government's balanced budget claim. It says very bluntly, in accountant's language: "The accounts are in deficit." The auditor-general has questioned the use of this technique to bring about a balanced budget, using borrowed money.

What we have here is the great Socred myth that they and they alone can best look after the people's money. After 15 years of deficit financing, how can they make a statement like that? Through good times and bad, there's been deficit financing — not balancing expenditures with revenue. The only ones in the black on this are the political friends and insiders who have benefited and who get the GO B.C. grants and $25 million worth of financing to put in a particle-board plant up in the Peace, and then sell it back to them for $18 million after they've had six years of interest-free loans.

Of course, we know about the great deal we got on the Coquihalla, don't we, Mr. Speaker? I sure hope the Island Highway doesn't go the way of the Socred bookkeeping on the Coquihalla. What I want to do is look at the facts and make a few comparisons. I want to look at the wrong way to run the people's business and to take care of the money we're entrusted with by the people of this province. I want to look at the wrong way to do a highway.

The Socred Coquihalla overrun. They originally predicted that it would cost $375 million. They committed, in this House, that it was $375 million; they misled this Legislature. It wasn't until there was a royal commission, which was pushed through by this side of the House, finally demanding that the truth be told.... When the truth was told, it was a billion-dollar misleading of this Legislature,

The Social Credit government finally had to realize that you can only mislead the public for so long; you can only have dishonest budgets for so long. The truth will come out. The public inquiry led to the fact that this Legislature was misled by the Social Credit government. The government sheepishly had to change the accounting methods of the Highways ministry in order not to mislead the people of this province, just like they're going to have to change the BS fund to stop misleading the people.

If they finally want to deal with real money instead of what we call Socred funny money.... They're going back and reading Major Douglas; they're reading the funny-money theory of the Socreds. They're regressing; they're going back decades.

[ Page 9264 ]

I want to tell you the right way to run a highway project. I'll give you an example in the city of Vancouver: the Cambie Bridge, built in the depths of the Depression. It was accelerated by the Social Credit government. It had full public participation. It went out to a plebiscite which I supported, and it received the highest vote that any plebiscite in Vancouver's history has had — 75 percent of our citizens showed confidence in the way that our city hall was running the finances and conducting projects. There wasn't a secret set of books like the Socreds had on the Coquihalla. There wasn't a misleading of the Legislature. There wasn't an overrun of $600 million, Mr. Speaker. I'll tell you what there was.

[3:45]

HON. MR. VEITCH: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition just accused the government of misleading the Legislature. That is clearly against the rules of the House. I realize he's not in here very often and doesn't understand the rules, but he ought to withdraw.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm not sure whether the Leader of the Opposition said the government had deliberately misled the House. Perhaps he wants to clarify his position.

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I was just answering to the point of order by the member for Burnaby-Willingdon, who indicated that the Leader of the Opposition had stated that the government has misled the House. I've asked the first member for Vancouver Centre to clarify the point made in the debate.

MR. HARCOURT: I will clarify it. We had a royal commission headed by Doug MacKay. He made it very clear that the Social Credit government misled the Legislature. The Social Credit government of the day, when the Coquihalla was being talked about in the House.... It's very clear what the inquiry said. I'll read into the record what the inquiry had to say.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Point of order, Mr. Speaker The Leader of the Opposition is going to unwarranted lengths to perpetuate what he has done in the House: that is, to say something that is clearly against the rules of this House. He clearly said that this government had misled this Legislature.

Interjection.

HON. MR. VEITCH: There he goes again.

The penalty is withdrawal from the House, if the Leader of the Opposition refuses to withdraw that statement. I would ask that you bring him to order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I do not believe that the first member for Vancouver Centre said that the government deliberately misled the House.

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Speaker, I will tell you what the MacKay commission of Inquiry did say on December 22, 1987:

"...the commission finds the financial reporting of the Coquihalla Highway project to be tainted with an atmosphere of deceit and prevarication.... The Legislature was avoided and misled by the documents presented to it, the true costs were not presented in a forthright way.... These deliberate and planned actions were politically motivated and were designed to give the impression ... the Coquihalla Highway was on budget."

That's the same as the budget that has been put down in this Legislature. It is not balanced; nor was the Coquihalla balanced. It was to have cost $375 million; it cost over $1 billion. I am saying there is a better way to do projects, and I am saying you can bring a highway project in — particularly in the middle of a depression, as we did in Vancouver with the Cambie Street bridge — 25 percent under budget, seven months ahead of time and built by all-union labour.

I'm glad to see that some of the Social Credit members are applauding the fact that somebody in this province can balance the books and bring in projects under budget.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

If the Social Credit members aren't prepared to accept the wrong way that they went about the Coquihalla and the right way that the city of Vancouver went about building the Cambie Bridge — balancing six budgets, not laying off staff, working through the depression with our citizens, and increasing our credit rating from a double-A to a triple-A, the highest in the world during the recession — then I'll give them another example of a wrong way to conduct the public business that Social Credit has shown our citizens; that is, the sale of the Expo lands.

Only a Socred could sell the largest undivided parcel of urban land in North America, a quarter of the size of downtown Vancouver, to one developer, in one chunk, in a housing boom, and lose money. Only a Socred could do that. I couldn't believe it. Not only did they not learn from that.... And the Premier trying to slide it over to his best friend and bagman, which was a disgraceful performance and started the slide of this....

AN HON. MEMBER: Why didn't you buy it?

MR. HARCOURT: Because an offer was put forward for $100 million of pension funds, and this government turned it down, when I was the mayor. The new mayor made the same offer, and this government turned it down because they wanted to flog it at a loss, just to get rid of that valuable land. If you want to establish a real rainy-day fund and you want to use the public's assets the way they should be used, you don't sell land. Mark Twain said it:"Buy land. Buy land, my son. They're not making any more of it." Particularly not in downtown Vancouver — a

[ Page 9265 ]

quarter of the downtown. They're not making any more of that.

That wasn't good enough. They decided they had done such a good job of losing money on the Expo lands, but that was only a couple hundred acres: "Let's sell 1,400 acres — the Westwood lands — and really lose money, and in this one we won't even keep back some land for the schools." The school board in Coquitlam had to go and buy the land back to build schools for the people going in there...let alone keeping some of the land back for the social housing that should go in there for people to be able to afford housing.

Mr. Speaker, they're not only going to mess up that sale, they're going to do the same thing out in the Mission lands. Two hundred and seventy-five acres of prime land in the middle of a zero vacancy rate, and they're going to flog that land which could be used to build affordable housing for working people, senior citizens, people with disabilities and low-income women trying to raise their kids. They're going to sell that land and do an equally rotten job as they did with the Expo lands.

Mr. Speaker, if they ever want to see a way to do it, if they are ever down there visiting the B.C. Club or looking at the lost cause of how they got rid of the Expo lands, all they have to do is go and stand on the north shore and look south at the city-owned lands on the south side, which people come from all over the world to look at — a model development. Or if you want to know how you could do a suburban development of prime land, go and look at Champlain Heights and see what you could have done with the Westwood lands, the Mission lands and the Colwood lands out here in one of the fastest-growing areas of greater Victoria. It's the missed opportunities that are the disgrace of this government — what they could have done.

We put in housing for 5, 000 people, from senior citizens on fixed incomes to millionaires like Herb Capozzi and Art Phillips, the ex-mayor. It's got a full mixed community that gets along, that works well. You could have done that on the north side, Mr. Speaker, and you could have leased the land. I'll give three examples of what the government could have done instead of this misleading of the Legislature, instead of the phony balanced budget they put forward and instead of selling off prime assets. They could have put together, as the city of Vancouver did, a property endowment fund, where the resources of the south side of False Creek and Champlain Heights — worth $70 million when we started in 1976 — are now worth over $400 million, creating revenue of $30 million to $40 million a year, an asset that will be worth even more in 40 to 50 years when the prepaid leases.... That's what they could have done.

They could have followed the example of Alberta, which in the good times took the resource revenue and put it into a heritage fund, because they knew that in a boom economy there's going to be a down economy. They took the resources of the people of Alberta and put them aside for the difficult days — instead of squandering resources as Social Credit has done and instead of being the prodigal sons and daughters, the spendthrifts this government has been for political friends and insiders. Thirteen billion dollars later, it's pumping out the funds required during the down days in Alberta. It pumped out revenue that allowed the government to write off the municipal debt in the early 1980s and allowed those municipalities to start fresh, instead of being burdened down with debt as the municipalities in this province are because this government didn't have the foresight to take the natural resources of this province and put them into a heritage fund, a property endowment fund.

They could have looked at the New Democratic government in 1972-75 with the Petroleum Corporation and the revenues from that, the hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars—- and the billions now — that formed the basis for the municipal revenue-sharing program that New Democrats started.

I say there are better ways. Social Credit has squandered the resources and opportunities of this province for far too long.

I'll close by saying that the principle of free enterprise is supposed to be that you buy low and sell high. Social Credit has redefined that to Socred enterprise, where they buy high and sell low. That's Social Credit.

We want to get past the flimflam government we've had and get to the basic fact that this is a dishonest budget, that in 1990-91 the current government will spend $684 million more than it takes in. By anyone's definition — except the Socreds — that's a huge deficit. That's a dishonest Socred budget.

HON. L. HANSON: It's my privilege to rise and offer some comments on the budget recently introduced by my colleague. It's interesting to note that when the Leader of the Opposition gave quite a long discourse just now, it was necessary to ring the bells to get a quorum for even his own members to listen to him. It has been written in a number of articles and letters to the editor, and very well documented, that the biggest difficulty the NDP are having with this budget is that it's such a good budget that they're grasping at straws to find things wrong with it.

[4:00]

It's interesting to mention at this point that a new candidate, who will be entering the race in an election coming up, said that if they were going to be honest, they would have to say that the policies the party had enunciated and would put into place would mean an increase in taxation. I don't have the words of the actual individual, but the clear message was that if they were going to be honest as a party with the people of British Columbia, they would have to say that their plans meant an increase in taxation. That honesty was good for a short time. Obviously some pressure was exerted on that candidate, and very quickly there was a retraction of that statement. The retraction said that wasn't what he meant to say. In case there is any suggestion that someone doesn't understand, that was a member of the New Demo-

[ Page 9266 ]

cratic Party who is going to contest one of the seats here on Vancouver Island.

I believe that the budget that was recently tabled represents to the people of British Columbia good management and fiscal responsibility. I am a small business man of some years, and I say to you and to the people of British Columbia that that responsibility is as important in government as it is in business, and this has demonstrated it.

Despite the fact that a candidate was being honest, we on this side of the House feel that the taxpayers of British Columbia have already been burdened enough — and we would not introduce new taxation in our budget. I don't think the members opposite have researched a lot of the issues in the budget. I notice that the Leader of the Opposition was negative on Expo, and then all of a sudden came on side when it seemed to be a success. He was also negative to transit, and is now supportive of it. I believe he represents a party that at one time enunciated a policy that there should be no private land ownership.

The leader also suggested that the revenue-sharing which, I will admit, was started during some dark years in British Columbia, would have eventually ended up.... For the benefit of the House — I am sure everyone here knows — the revenue-sharing that is allocated to our local governments in this province is made up of a specific percentage of various British Columbia government revenues. I would suggest to the House that if British Columbia had not re-elected a free enterprise government, there would have not been any moneys for the local governments to share.

To show how well that has worked: in the budget it was announced that there was an 18 percent increase to the municipalities in the amount of money they would share. It was also announced that there would be an almost 100 percent increase in the amount of funds available for specific revenue-sharing programs such as the sewer and water infrastructure grants. I say to you that that demonstrates good government, good fiscal management and responsibility to the province.

The Leader of the Opposition also got up and said recently — just now, as a matter of fact — that it wasn't a balanced budget. I am not going to get into a long discourse about balanced budgets, because I am not an accountant, but something to me seems pretty simple: the government of British Columbia was able to reduce its debt by almost $1 billion over that period of time. That says to me — and I don't care if the budget was balanced — good fiscal responsibility and good management of money.

Interjection.

HON. L. HANSON: It is interesting to hear the members say: "Go back to your script." I don't have a script; I'm just working from some notes here. I wish I did have a script.

MR. G. JANSSEN: You'd get the numbers right, then.

HON. L. HANSON: The numbers are correct.

I would like to, just for a second, deal with the balanced budget issue. There was a suggestion that a private accounting firm had made some remarks about the balanced budget. I think that most of the members of the opposition and the House have been made aware of some comments made by the Institute of Chartered Accountants, which I believe the firm mentioned is a part of. I would like to quote directly from that.

It says very simply — and in language that I, who am not an accountant, can understand — that they could nitpick and find some small things to criticize, but that overall they have to say our provincial government could give lessons in fiscal integrity and smart money management to the federal government. That is a news release from the Institute of Chartered Accountants.

They go on to say that, apart from the fact that the budget stabilization fund has an unfortunate acronym, the concept of averaging over a period of years is sound financial management. I think that demonstrates that the budget presented to the people of British Columbia is a responsible one. It is certainly a budget that the people of this province will see as good fiscal management, good business management and good for the future of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, another issue that was raised by the member opposite is the environment. The Ministry of Environment's budget has been increased by over 100 percent in the last two years. The government's responsibility is demonstrated again by the appointment of an environmental round table and an Environmental Appeal Board.

The pulp mills in British Columbia now face the most stringent regulations in Canada regarding dioxins. Finally, I think the April 19 budget showed just how committed this government is to the environment; and as a result of that, the sustainable development fund was created.

I heard a lot of talk about honesty in reporting things. I have here a letter that was circulated to British Columbians signed by the Leader of the Opposition. It says in here— and there's nothing leading up to it and nothing qualifying it: "Bill Vander Zalm asked Brian Mulroney to cut federal funding to our hospitals and universities." Mr. Speaker, that is just not true.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Did he send that out at public expense?

HON. L. HANSON: I don't know how this was mailed out, but I suggest it probably was at public expense. I have no comment on it.

Another quotation from that letter: "Why are we paying Seattle hospitals for surgery when British Columbia hospitals need the funds to provide this care?" If you were reading it literally and didn't have any political motivation for misconstruing the mean-

[ Page 9267 ]

ing, you might interpret that to mean — in my mind — that we are not providing enough funding to hospitals, and that's why we are going to Seattle.

The truth is that heart surgery in British Columbia is specifically funded separately, and we are currently 300 to 400 cases behind. The reason for that is staff shortages. Those staff shortages are not peculiar to British Columbia; they are worldwide. The hon. Minister of Health (Hon. J. Jansen) has put in....

Interjections.

HON. L. HANSON: The member over there who is waving his arms and making all of the noise is suggesting that there is a shortage of doctors. I would remind the member that in order to perform heart surgery, a number of people are involved, and not all of them are doctors.

[4:15]

As a short-term solution to the difficulty, the Ministry of Health provided funding for 200 cases — if the patients requested it — to be handled in the United States. The plans of the Ministry of Health are to open new facilities this summer in the Royal Columbian Hospital in New Westminster and in the Kelowna General Hospital. The Ministry of Health is also taking action to hire more nurses. They are going to assist training in critical care for those nurses, and they're going to implement that training very aggressively, to handle the difficulty as quickly as possible. Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you that that is good government and good management, and that we are responding to that issue.

The main issue is that in a publication, the Leader of the Opposition, who accuses us of doing things that are misleading.... I suggest to you that the evidence is here that they should clean up their own back yard.

We have increased the budget for health care funding by almost $500 million. I'm sure the members across the floor are aware of this, but I'd like to remind them that every day, we spend $13 million on health care in British Columbia. To break that down even further, we spend $4,000 a year per household, on average. We have one of the best health care systems — the best health care facilities — in Canada, North America and, I believe, the world. We should be proud of it.

We talk about things that the opposition has put in place. In past debates, I believe the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia was raised. Mr. Speaker, the socialists brought that in during their short term in office, and I think it demonstrates one of the very basic flaws that that party faces. It took the Social Credit government to make the plan work; that's why ICBC is in the position it is in today. When I was minister responsible for ICBC, we had a number of applications for ICBC to provide coverage in other jurisdictions because it was such a well-run, responsible insurance program.

I have to say that the idea was that of the NDP in their short term in office, but it's the Social Credit government that has made it work.

By the very definition, the opposition have to be negative. I think they carry that definition beyond what is reasonable. They appear to be negative by nature. They appear to be negative by party policy. The biggest difficulty they were having with this budget and this budget debate is that the budget is so good that they're having trouble finding ways of complaining about it. I have to give them credit for being very inventive, because as much as they have tried to bring up substantial and reasonable problems with the budget, they cannot. They keep frittering around the edges with things that aren't really the topic of debate for this budget for 1990-91.

I think the House should support this budget, and I appreciate the opportunity for comments.

MR. LOVICK: You know, I am accustomed to listening to the Minister of Municipal Affairs engage in debate. He is normally, of course, affable, mild-mannered and fair-minded. However, he made a couple of comments today I must take issue with for the record. When he presumes to begin talking about our lack of ethics on this side, I would just remind everybody that never, ever in a New Democrat government did we have a cabinet minister sitting next to his senior deputy minister, listening to that individual lie and not correct the record. Never.

I would also remind members opposite of a saying from a former Attorney-General of this province, one of ours, the hon. Alec Macdonald, who once said: "Those who throw dirt tend to lose ground." I would remind members opposite, you'll have considerable difficulty if you get into that game. Be careful, I admonish you.

I don't propose to engage in that kind of personal attack. I want to talk in somewhat different terms about this budget. I want to talk about what I think is fundamentally a problem with credibility that that administration — that collection of members on the other side — as government happens to have. As I listened to the budget speech, I was reminded of a conclusion that a number of academics and other political analysts have come up with over the years in recent times to do with the nature of government. The conclusion that a number of those people draw is that government, sadly, is increasingly becoming a matter of public relations and public opinion polling. When I heard all the particular threads and all the particular themes in that budget speech, I thought: "Yes, indeed, here is a government that is clearly responding to what the polls are telling it."

Of course, we've been having public opinion polls for a long time. We all know that. We also all know that it's quite understandable and legitimate for governments to conduct polls to find out, in fact, what the public perceives about issue x, y or z. There's nothing wrong with that. The problem, though, is when governments begin to take the public opinion polls and use those results only for changing the message — not for new action, not for new initiatives, but to change the message. It's a matter of talk versus action. One can go through the motions of saying that we are committed to the same issues that

[ Page 9268 ]

the public expresses to us, but the question, surely, is whether there is an action commensurate with the rhetoric, whether in fact government is doing what ought to be done or is rather, essentially, talking about it.

There's something frightening about government by public opinion polling. If governing essentially becomes no more than an ongoing public relations campaign, and if governing becomes a matter of telling people what they want to hear rather than addressing the issues, then we can get deceit in government. We can get misleading activities by government. We can get misleading budgets. That's precisely what has happened in this budget.

We have a document that is frankly misleading. There's something terribly wrong with a government that will produce a document that's misleading as well as the fact that the document itself is.

Let me give you some examples of that, Mr. Speaker. I want to make my point, and I want to do so carefully. We all know — all of us who are familiar with the political landscape in this province — that Social Credit is traditionally identified with — God help us how this could happen, but it did — fiscal responsibility and being sound managers.

Interjections.

MR. LOVICK: And just on cue, I note members opposite, in the good old tradition of trained seals, thumping on their desks, those same individuals, of course, who have no difficulty saying that the Expo lands, northeast coal, Coquihalla Highway are all examples of good fiscal management. The tragedy is that despite all the evidence to the contrary, the mythology remains intact. This government knows it. This government therefore tries to couch everything it does in terms of its fiscal responsibility. Thus it is that the principal claim to fame of this government in last year's budget and this year's budget is the "balanced budget." For these people, that is the summum bonum, that is the greatest good; and that is the best they can come up with.

The predicament, of course, as most modem economists will tell you, is that maybe it's not the case that a balanced budget is the greatest of all possible goods, because it's debatable whether a balanced budget is something to brag about if, in fact, we have people dying because they can't get the required surgery from our health care system. It's debatable whether a balanced budget is a desirable commodity or entity when, in fact, we are wasting millions of dollars on our education system because we're sending young people to school who are hungry and therefore can't learn, and can't take advantage of that million-dollar-plus education system. It's debatable whether a balanced budget is desirable when we have a housing crisis in this province.

The point, though — and I'm glad that for a change somebody on the other side has picked up on it — is that it's debatable whether the budget is balanced. That's precisely the point. If this government's greatest claim to fame, the great achievement it wants to trumpet to the world, is a balanced budget, and if the budget isn't balanced, what then, Mr. Speaker? What kind of credibility can this government have if its greatest claim to fame is suspect? And it is very clearly suspect.

Let me just give you a couple of brief examples to make the point. The day after the budget came out, we and the people of this province witnessed some interesting newspaper headlines. The Times-Colonist headline was: "Budget Flimflam Insults Voters." The Vancouver Sun headline, equally significant, was: "$500 Million Deficit Incurred in Record Spending Budget." Note "deficit, " Mr. Speaker. There's a Canadian Press story, the headline of which is: "'BS' Fund Is Confusing" — a little understatement, but the point is made. There's a Sun editorial describing the fiscal wizardry of this government that has a headline as follows: "Now You See It, Now You Don't."

The simple truth is, by all the normal economic definitions, by all the normal means of calculus, we have a deficit in this budget. You can talk about creative bookkeeping; you can talk about financial sleight of hand. The reality is that there is a deficit, and there's no denying that — just as there is no denying the fact that we have not decreased the accumulated debt. The minister can hint and intimate as much as he wants in his speech and in that budget document; the reality is we are seeing the same old Socred game — namely, we're not taking into account Crown corporations and other government agencies, and we're hiding the debt there.

The reality is, and the government's own documentation makes the point very clearly, the public debt has increased by a factor of some $414 million. The government, nevertheless, persists in saying that it is the great fiscal manager.

That is the government, of course, that is offended when somebody talks about its ethics or absence thereof. You recall very well, I am sure, Mr. Speaker, what happened on the first day in the chamber when we moved our motion for a select standing committee about ethics. The Premier of the province almost leapt out of his chair. I feared for the chandeliers 40 feet above. They are so sensitive to anyone questioning their ethics. The reality, however, is that we have all the evidence in the world that leads us to the conclusion that their ethics must be questioned.

[4:30]

This government and this Premier are so quick to impose their moral views on the rest of us. But, sadly, they don't recognize the immorality of telling us that we have a balanced budget and that we've reduced debt when the opposite is in fact the case. This government can't recognize its own immorality. That is our predicament.

This government, I think it's fair to say, has been around too long. I think it's become arrogant. I think it has lost the confidence of the people. I don't believe this government deserves another chance, and I suspect that more and more British Columbians will come to just that conclusion. The people of this province want a number of things. That is fundamental; that is clear. Among other things, they certainly

[ Page 9269 ]

want fair and open and honest government. They do not want to be misled.

The mellifluous Minister of Finance tried to describe what was happening in the budget. As I listened to him talk I was reminded of Humpty-Dumpty. You probably recall Humpty-Dumpty in Alice in Wonderland. What people don't recall is what Humpty-Dumpty said. He told Alice, when she was being confused by the words he was using, that a word "means just what I choose it to mean." Alice said to him: "The question is whether you can make words mean so many different things." Humpty Dumpty's response, you'll also recall, was to say: "The question is which is to be master — that's all." The important point — don't be fooled by the fact that it's a children's classic — is that we're talking about using and abusing language for purposes of power and control. The question is...to be master; that's all. That's what I think is the reason for the Minister of Finance's answers.

I just might add, to lighten the tone somewhat, that this same minister ought to remember the conclusion that Humpty-Dumpty came to: "All the King's horses and all the King's men couldn't put Humpty together again." This minister is also, I think, cruising for a fall, and some of us are watching avidly to see it happen.

I'm watching my time, because I want to devote a little attention to the critic area of transportation. I just want to make a couple of riding-specific comments, briefly, before that.

The budget makes various claims — and this is especially offensive to those individuals who are not benefiting from government programs or government largesse — about the wonderful work we're doing in the areas of health, education and even, dare I say, this government's claim that it is doing something about women's equality. I'll touch briefly on each of those.

During the throne speech debate, I read into the record a statement from the board of trustees of the Nanaimo Regional General Hospital, pointing out what in their terms was a crisis in health care in our community. They were talking not about some token gesture towards patching up the system — not about something loosely called palliatives — but rather about a significant infusion of funding. They haven't got it.

We can understand this government crying poor and saying: "Look, we recognize that health care is a huge expenditure, and we simply can't satisfy all the demands." If government would come clean and tell us that, I think we wouldn't have so much difficulty. But when we have to listen to this government constantly tell us that everything is wonderful, we have the best system in the world and nobody has a right to complain about that system, then the people of my constituency — and I suspect others like it throughout the province — have every right to be offended.

Similarly, when we hear this government talk about education and the referendum system, I think the government ought to recognize what the people in the constituencies out there are saying. In my community, for example, the new funding formula for education amounts to a $2 million shortfall. That's something that the local school board had to grapple with. They're tossed into the position of having to go to referendum, which they know they can't win in my community.... The people simply won't. The reality, however, is that they do not have sufficient money, under the new formula, to provide the good and necessary programs that they have been providing for lo these many years.

I also struggle when I listen to this government brag about its fiscal responsibility and how good times are. I confess I struggle when I reflect on the reality of their commitment to women's equality, despite their vaunted reference saying that they are indeed going to bring in something like a pay equity program. There is a minister sitting in the House right now, responsible for women's programs, who is on record as saying that she does not agree with the proposition of pay equity. There are at least two other cabinet ministers on the other side who have said the same for the record. We nevertheless have the spectacle in the budget statement of the government accepting something like a pay equity program, or the principle of one. The obvious question is: which statement is the true one? We're certainly anxious to check that out; and believe me, we will be doing so during estimates.

When I talk about this government's problem with credibility.... Let me give you a very specific example of why we pose that question and why I think it's fair to do so. Everybody knows, if you do any polling or examination of what the electorate is feeling right now, that the single biggest issue is environment. I see some young people sitting in the chamber here, and if anybody is well aware that that has become an "in" or a hot issue it's young people. We all know that the environment has suddenly become the issue. This government reminds me of the born-again environmentalist movement. They suddenly got the call; they suddenly got on side. The trouble is, has what they've done in any way measured up to the rhetoric that goes with it?

Interjection.

MR. LOVICK: Let's take a quick look at the budget — to the member opposite. The sustainable environment fund is some $293.3 million. This was advertised as a brand-new, authentic commitment to the environment. The reality, however, is that some $238 million of that sum comes from existing programs that have been thrown into the hopper. And those folks have the temerity and the gall to sit there and talk about this program as if it's something new and significant. That is outrageous; it is misleading; it is misrepresenting. And it will not be tolerated by these folks — meaning the people of the province. The problem is credibility.

I want to touch very briefly on my own critic area, transportation — again to make the point about credi-

[ Page 9270 ]

bility, to compare what the government says it's doing with what in fact is happening.

Page 9 of the budget speech is where we get the section on transportation. We get there some 32 lines on the subject of transportation out of roughly 750 lines in the budget. That represents — if anybody's calculating — about 4.6 percent of the total attention in the budget.

Do you recall, Mr. Speaker, how the Minister of Finance began his section on transportation? He said: "My friends, as I...." It sounds like the Minister of Finance, doesn't it? "My friends, as I drive around this great province of ours, I am proud that Social Credit governments have had the foresight to invest in the transportation links that tie this province together."

Oh, isn't that interesting that the members opposite suffer from the same tunnel vision and myopia as the Minister of Finance. If they didn't have that particular affliction, they would recognize that the Freedom to Move study completed last summer said that B.C.'s highway system is in an absolute state of shambles. It's in a crisis. We're going to have to spend billions putting the system back together because of the neglect by this government for lo those many years. Rose-coloured glasses — but that's only a part of the problem with this.

The Minister of Finance said in his comments: "I am today able to announce a new Freedom to Move special account. Through this account we are committing $3.5 billion over the next five years...to transportation investment." And everybody said, "Isn't that wonderful! My goodness, $3.5 billion!" — forgetting that it's over five years, which means it ain't so much money. But let's remember just how real all that money is.

Unfortunately for the ministry, some of us have a little sense of history. We remember, for example, that last year's budget for highways was the first $1 billion budget. We also remember that it wasn't that very long ago that the former Minister of Highways announced a $10 billion ten-year plan. Suddenly it looks like we are retreating. Now it's $3.5 billion for five years. Yet the minister, despite his propensity to hyperbole, says nevertheless that his $3.5 billion program is the most comprehensive highways construction program ever. How can you reconcile those two statements?

A year ago, $10 billion over ten years; now we're talking $3.5 billion over five years. How can you call it the most comprehensive program ever? You know, Mr. Speaker, it's even worse than that. It's not just a simple contradiction in math. The other problem is that if you look at the Freedom to Move document, you discover it's all old stuff. There is nothing new there. Everything in it was announced before. Here's what I mean by the financial sleight of hand, by the deliberate misleading of the people of this province. If you have a look at the Freedom to Move special account, you will discover that it's just an old-fashioned highways capital construction and major highways capital construction program.

MR. MILLER: No, would they do that?

MR. LOVICK: In answer to the question from my colleague from Prince Rupert, I think they would do that, and that's the tragedy of it. Last year in the 1989 estimates we had a capital construction budget of $225 million. Then we had a major highway capital construction budget of $187 million. We also had contributions to B.C. Rail of $15.3 million, to B.C. Ferries of $55.8 million and to air transport assistance of $4 million. All of last year's capital budget totals about $487 million. This year the Freedom to Move account — this brand new budget, this great new pile of money we are injecting into the system — amounts to $576 million. And you say, "Well, wait a minute. That's okay, because after all, we've got the difference between those figures — almost $90 million-odd." But something else is buried in the Freedom to Move special account, something called a grant to B.C. Transit, which of course used to belong to Municipal Affairs. In other words, if you put in B.C. Transit with all the rest of the 1989 capital construction part in the Ministry of Highways, you know what you discover? You discover that we're getting less money, not more. I submit to members opposite that that is simply dishonest and misleading and misrepresents the case.

The Minister of Finance standing up and talking about a new "Freedom to Move" special account, as if that is a matter of significance and as if that's new money, is patently misleading all of us. It's scandalous that it should happen; it shouldn't happen in this province.

I would remind members opposite also of the simple fact that the total....

MR. LOENEN: Point of order. Mr. Speaker, we on this side love to listen to the words flow from the member for Nanaimo. Many times over the past 20 minutes he has talked about dishonesty and about misleading. He used those terms just now in respect to the Minister of Finance. Is he in any way impugning the motives of our Minister of Finance?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member might like to comment, but the Chair listened closely and couldn't pick up anything where the member was impugning the motives of any individual or said that any person had deliberately done anything. Perhaps the member would like to comment. He has used the terminology on a number of occasions.

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me your ruling makes the case very clearly. I would rather not waste my time on frivolous and dilatory points of order by people opposite who obviously haven't learned to listen closely. I accept your ruling, and I thank you for it.

My point is that the new Freedom to Move special account is a new name masquerading and hiding the fact that we are getting less under the heading "Transportation." There are no new projects. The total budget for Highways is up by some 1.5 percent

[ Page 9271 ]

over last year. Of course, that doesn't factor in inflation. The clear conclusion is that we are getting less. We're taking steps backwards. That's the problem.

Mr. Speaker, by the way, may I ask you how my time is? Thank you.

In the few moments I have left, I would like to raise another very serious question that may have the effect of making members opposite somewhat more attentive and somber. It worked.

I just want to draw everyone's attention to something else — something curious — in the Freedom to Move special account that I detected after spending a little time. It's been the practice for a number of years for the government of this province to make an operating subsidy available to B.C. Ferries and B.C. Rail. Last year, the amount approved under vote 73 to B.C. Ferries was $55 million, of which some $51 million was for operations. This year under the Freedom to Move account, it says: "No funding is provided in 1991 since an additional contribution was made to the corporation in 1989-90."

The obvious question is: where did that authorization come from? There is no special warrant for 1989-90 for that purpose. How then was the money paid? Also, how much was in fact paid? On what legal authority? I would pose those questions. I hope that members opposite are listening. They are serious questions. My fear is that the Freedom to Move special account may be hiding much more than the fact that there is less money for transportation in this province this year than there was last year.

[4:45]

MR. LOENEN: It is a delight for me to take part in the budget debate; I can't get enough of it. This is such an excellent budget. I have talked about this budget ever since it was brought down and, as I said, I just can't get enough of it. There are policies which this government has brought in over the last three years that are starting to pay off. It represents a wonderful achievement. Instead of servicing debt, we are servicing people. That is the essence of what is happening here.

As we know, so many other provincial jurisdictions, and in particular the federal government.... All they do is use taxpayers' dollars to service debt. We don't have that problem in British Columbia. We can instead extend our services to people.

As some of my colleagues have noted, the president of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of British Columbia, Mr. Rick Acton, said: "There is lots to laud and little to fault in this year's provincial budget. Our provincial government could give lessons in fiscal integrity and smart money management to the federal government."

Mr. Speaker, the Investment Dealers' Association of Canada, as has been noted, also put its support behind our government and our Minister of Finance when it noted: "B.C. sets the example for fiscal management in Canada." Good management has resulted in the fact that, since the current administration formed the government in '86, we have paid our bills. In addition, we have reduced the debt, and we have a privatization fund of $423 million. We have been able to accomplish that with very few tax increases. In fact, this year's budget has a substantial decrease in property taxes, particularly in the lower mainland and the lower end of Vancouver Island.

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

We've heard it said this afternoon and before by the members opposite that somehow this is not truly a balanced budget; that somehow it is deceptive and dishonest — on and on it goes. We have statements from the firm of Peat Marwick and from the auditor general that seem to lend some support to that. The fact is that the experts, the specialists, the purists, those who are interested in splitting hairs and in using technical jargon, will forever go on to talk about whether something is truly balanced or not. But the people in my riding who pay the dollars and cents know that this government has paid its bills, that it paid as it went, and in addition, that it has been able to reduce the debt from $5 billion to $4.2 billion. It means very little to them what the so-called experts, who use nothing but technical jargon, say about it. They know that we have delivered good government and sound management of their dollars, and that as a result we have been able to put less money into servicing the debt and more money into services for people.

The people of my community certainly know that we have a good budget. On budget night I held a public forum at the Richmond Inn, and I invited the community to come out. I did the same thing last year. Last year we put out 100 chairs, and 30 people came out. This year we put out 75 chairs, and 110 people came out. Some of those people stood for two and a half hours because they wanted to listen to the good budget this government brought down. They were delighted that we were able to break the cycle of overspending, live within our means and be responsible. There is great interest in this budget all around the country, because people want to know our secret. They want to know how we do it, and they want to know what makes B.C. different from the rest of the country.

The overall theme of this budget is how we can maintain and enhance our quality of life in a fragile economy. Why do we say we live in an economy that is fragile? We know that in each of the past three years in British Columbia the gross domestic product has decreased in real terms. We know that in Europe, Japan, the U.S. and central Canada the economies are weakening. Just yesterday I was reading in the Financial Post that corporate profits are down 26 percent.

I was talking last night to a constituent who is a fine builder and has been in residential construction for many years. He had great plans to continue to build some new homes, some new projects. He said he was worried about the high interest rates that the federal government is inflicting on our economy. Yes, our economy is fragile. This budget, in the face of

[ Page 9272 ]

that fragile economy, seeks to enhance, if possible, and certainly to maintain the high quality of life we've all come to treasure and cherish. We are able to do that, but it also means that we have to be responsible. For those reasons, the policies which have been outlined will seek to do exactly that.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but feel distressed when time and again the members opposite — as the first member for Nanaimo (Mr. Lovick) did just now — tell us: "Don't worry about the deficit. Don't worry about overspending." Yes, he said that. I heard him say that, and you can check it.... He said it during the debate on the GST; in fact, he mocked the idea and took our side to task. He said: "You people, you have a Victorian morality. It's the same all over again. Live within your means." He mocked that idea. Look it up in the Blues, and you'll find it, Mr. Member.

Interjection.

MR. LOENEN: You're wrong again, and you know it.

Mr. Speaker, we know that we live in an economy that starts to show certain signs of weakness, and we have to be on guard against that in order to avoid some of the things that happened in the early eighties. I do not for one minute understand why we have a federal government that continues a monetary policy of maintaining a high dollar and a high interest rate. In fact, for the west and for our industries, we need a low dollar and a consequential low interest rate. I do not understand for one minute why the government of central Canada would continue their policies which are so harmful to our economy and our people.

Mr. Speaker, our businesses have to compete while just south of the border in Washington State, the interest rates are 5 percent, 6 percent and 7 percent lower. How is it possible that we continue these disparities? We have to prevail on the central government to make sure that it comes to its senses and starts to drop our dollar as it compares to the U.S. dollar.

I want to speak about education and what is happening in our own community in terms of education. Next Saturday there will be a referendum, and all eligible voters will be asked to approve — or not — a $1.6 million additional expenditure, which will amount to approximately $40 per homeowner.

[5:00]

I do not believe for one minute that it's necessary for us to go for this extra money. I want the people to know — particularly in my community, but throughout the province — what the Ministry of Education is currently funding and intends to fund in the year that lies ahead.

First of all, we're going to pay the same amount for all the regular services and the special needs services such as ESL and students who have particular handicaps or special needs. We're going to pay exactly the same amount as was paid last year. To recognize the impact of inflation, on top of that, we are increasing that by some 6.17 percent, which is a very generous increase — well ahead of inflation.

Over and above all of that, there will be funding made available for special targeted grants, such as those that relate to the implementation of the "Year 2000" report, the programs that come under Pacific Rim initiatives and money for computers that has been dedicated and prioritized in years prior — the Passport to Education program. Of course, in addition to all of that, the ministry will continue to fund all of the capital needs and capital programs for the buildings and the equipment.

In fact, this year's capital expenditure under the new budget is a very substantial increase over last year. This year it's $350 million; last year it was $258 million. Last year, under the $258 million, our school district received some $16.5 million for new schools in our district. That $16.5 million — just to put that in perspective for a minute — was more than all of the seven previous years' capital funding combined. So what we see here under this budget is a commitment to education that continues to be exceptionally strong and will continue to benefit not only the people of my region, but the people throughout this province. For that reason I do not believe for one minute that it's necessary for us to have that particular $1.6 million additional expenditure approved and, as a result, have people pay a higher rate of property taxes for that.

I think it ought to be pointed out that — and this relates to the fact of a weakening economy — what our taxpayers need to know is that in our district, as in most, in the last two years the cost per student increased by 25 percent. This year in Richmond, as a result of that and growth, the budget will increase by 20 percent. Ten percent is for growth, but that still leaves a 10 percent increase, while the economy's real growth is well below 3 percent.

In addition to that, we have to recognize that over the past two years, teachers' salaries increased by 15 percent, while inflation was running at 9.5 percent, and the private sector wage settlements were no more than 7.9 percent. What we've seen is a runaway in the costs of education, and what the block funding and the referendum are all about is an attempt to temper that. It is in no way to be described as somehow underfunding. It is in no way to be described as somehow underfunding. It in no way diminishes our commitment to education, but we cannot allow the rate of spending in education to run at three times the rate of inflation. That simply is impossible. We have tried, through block funding and the referendum, to bring some discipline into that system.

I know that the parents and residents in our school district are currently being told that all this rapidly rising cost is necessary because of the ravages of restraint. I've seen that phrase used in letters that principals send home with the kids to parents. I'd just like the people to know that study after study has shown that our students — not only in district 38, Richmond, but throughout the province — during the time of restraint continued to out perform most other

[ Page 9273 ]

jurisdictions. In fact, study after study has shown that there is no direct correlation between amount of money spent and output in terms of what it is that the students accomplish. We have to be aware of that because so easily the impression is left that somehow there are indeed those ravages of restraint. I want the House to know that our students are performing very well, did so even during that time and will continue to do so.

This government is committed to making sure that education will continue to flourish in this province, because we know how important it is for our young people. I know from my personal life how important education is, I see it in the lives of our own children, and we as, a government are committed to ensuring that our economy will be able to sustain the education commitments that we are making.

The point has been raised that there are certain inequities in the funding between districts; that some districts over the past few years readily went to the taxpayer for additional money, and in fact got it; and that that funding is now being picked up by the province and has become part of their base, etc. In addition to that, there are some districts, such as my own, that are making a strong pitch to say that the funding for ESL programs is insufficient.

I would like the people to know that, yes, perhaps there are some inequities in the funding levels between districts, but that that in itself is no reason for them to go to referendum. If that is the case and there are some inequities that need to be addressed, certainly the board of school trustees ought to make their pitch to the Ministry of Education, come to Victoria and explain why such inequities exist. They should not use that as a reason to go to the local taxpayers for more money.

I believe very strongly, as the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet) has indicated publicly, that this is a broad-stroke approach using a very broad brush, but that he is totally committed to fine-tuning this and looking at the various representations that school districts are making. In fact, over the weekend there were some 22 districts which, as a result of their representations, received some additional funding because it was felt that this was just and right.

Overall, the education budget is up some 15 percent, and that shows our commitment to education. It also means that in the coming budget year some 90 percent of the education funding will be carried by the Ministry of Education and, on average, only 10 percent by residential homeowners.

One of the finest things that has come out of this budget pertains to the supplementary homeowner grant. I think that mechanism, that initiative addresses a longstanding concern expressed by the people in the lower mainland, particularly since in the last few years the assessed values there rose so very rapidly. What this supplementary homeowner grant will do is pay 25 percent this year and 50 percent next year of the amount by which a person's property tax for education purposes exceeds the basic homeowner grant. What it means is that in a riding such as Richmond we will see that the average homeowner will get a reduction of some $100 this year and as much as $200 next year.

It's a mechanism that will give relief to those property owners who have seen very dramatic and rapid increases in their assessed values. They have often complained long and hard, both at the local level as well as to the GVRD. They have made submissions the last number of years saying that they feel very badly treated. This will more than offset their concerns. It is an example of the fact that this government does listen to people, that it is concerned, that it is sensitive to people's needs and that it wants to do the right thing. It also allows more of our elderly to stay in their homes and not be chased out because of high property taxes. Overall, it's a measure of fairness that I know will be appreciated by many.

Advanced education: 2,400 college spaces; degree granting institutions at Kamloops, Kelowna, Nanaimo, as well as a special university of the north for Prince George. Our commitment to education is immensely strong.

I'd just like to take a minute to talk about Kwantlen College and its significance to our own community. We are committed to a $38 million construction program for a new permanent facility in Richmond for Kwantlen College. For 20 years Kwantlen College has been housed in temporary quarters. The promise we made is a promise kept. We're looking forward to actual construction starting this summer. Soil testing has been done. The design has been completed. I've been told it is beautiful and, in fact, exceptional. Our community is looking forward to that.

A college like that makes a wonderful and great contribution to our community. It allows more and more of our people to upgrade their skills through night school and special education courses. As a result, they make a greater contribution to our community.

I want to also talk for a minute about the importance of Kwantlen College for that entire area south of the Fraser River. Kwantlen not only serves our community; it also serves the communities of Ladner, Delta, Surrey, White Rock and Langley. That's a very large area, and it's the fastest-growing area.

Too often and for too long we, have had the feeling that somehow we need to go into Vancouver proper to get a proper education. That simply is not the case. It's for that reason that I'd like to make a pitch to ensure that soon we will see the fulfilment of the promise that was made to Langley regarding their needs, to get on with the planning of their Langley campus. I'm pleased to support their plans to add a horticultural component to their college. I know that in our community many greenhouse growers grow flowers of all kinds. What is often little understood is that every morning there is a small army of trucks going south along I-5 servicing the Seattle market.

I'm reminded of the country of my birth, because small though that country is, it supplies not only Europe but virtually the world with fresh-cut flowers of all kinds. There's a tremendous opportunity here

[ Page 9274 ]

in the lower mainland, with the kind of industry that has already been developed, with the quality of the people that are in the industry and with the kind of climate we have, for us to capitalize on that. If you ask yourself why tiny little Holland in western Europe — in terms of its agricultural output — is so far advanced over so many other countries, the answer is because of the educational opportunities they offer to their young people. Kwantlen College intends to add to its campus a horticultural component. I want to encourage them in that because I know how important that is.

[5:15]

I said that the south Fraser area is the fastest growing. It also should be noted that Kwantlen College serves a greater population base even now than any other college; and yet, at the same time, the number of student spaces that have been allocated to Kwantlen is much smaller than, say, Vancouver Community College. Look at the figures. Vancouver Community College has been funded for some 10,195 places and they serve a population of 457,683; Kwantlen College has only 3,683 places for students and it serves a population that is greater than that served by Vancouver Community College, a population of 507,869. If you look at the population increase over the next 20 years, Kwantlen College's population area is expected to grow by a quarter of a million; the comparable area for Vancouver Community College will grow by only 90,000.

When we talk about access for all, we must ensure that those community colleges do indeed serve the community right where the people live. I find it disappointing that we still continue to favour Vancouver Community College over Kwantlen College. We should, for all kinds of reasons, take a second look at that.

Perhaps we can take a leaf out of the Minister of Health's (Hon. J. Jansen's) book, because he recently took 90 beds out of Vancouver and put them where the people actually live, and that is in the area south of the Fraser. We have to look at the impact of transportation. Why do we have colleges away from where people live? Would it not solve many of our transportation problems if we were alert about providing those facilities where the people live?

I want to say a word, before my time is up, about health. Over the weekend I had occasion to meet Dr. Blatherwick. He said, about the recently announced AIDS strategy: "That is absolutely the best of any jurisdiction in North America."

MR. G. JANSSEN: You made this speech last year.

MR. LOENEN: No, I didn't, Mr. Member, but you ought to listen because not enough people know. He said: "Why is it that when you clip a few seconds from an AIDS video, somehow that gets all the attention? But when you come out with a policy, a structure, programs and initiatives that are absolutely the best anywhere, how is it that the media somehow fails to report that?" And I said: "Dr. Blatherwick, I'm so happy to hear you say that. Why don't you say that publicly?" He says: "You know, I have. But somehow the media haven't reported it." And that is one of the problems we are up against time and again.

I would like to recommend to the members of this House and to the people of this province the very extensive and very substantial initiatives that have recently been undertaken by the Ministry of Health in meeting that very tragic problem of AIDS head-on. We're doing a good job, and I would invite the media to check with Dr. Blatherwick, because those are the words he used to me on the weekend.

I recently also had occasion to be part of the "Give It Your Best Shot" campaign. Many members of this House took part in that, and through it we learned what it is that people who suffer diabetes have to put up with. At the end of that session — those three days — the Ministry of Health came through with a very important announcement to the effect that from now on the Ministry of Health would pay the cost for the test strips that are used to measure the glucose content of the blood. Again, somehow that was not reported. And I know it is important, because it saves people between $100 and $200 a month.

Mr. Speaker, my time is up. I regret that because there are so many other good things to be said.

MR. G. JANSSEN: I have been listening intently to the member's comments from across the floor. He made some references to the speaker from Nanaimo who spoke before him, about what he said in the GST debate in the House, and that he was in favour of deficit financing — and about the Victorian morality of deficit financing. Well, I was here for that debate. So I went and got Hansard, which was lying directly behind me. And I just want to set the record straight. The member for Nanaimo in fact said: "It's Victorian morality written all over again. It says, 'Live within your means, cut your spending and we'll all survive nicely,' but it ignores, sadly, the fact that this tax is going to impose much more hardship on the lower end of the scale than it will on people in that bracket over there." I say, pointing to the member opposite, that no reference was made to the deficit, and I would just like the record to show that the member was wrong.

That seems to be a role the other side of the House likes to play. When the minister spoke before him, he said he didn't have the press release but quoted the candidate from Parksville-Qualicum. As a matter of fact, not only did he not have the press release, he couldn't remember the riding. Well, the riding was the new riding of Parksville-Qualicum, and the person making that statement he referred to was Leonard Krog, whom I have known for some 20 years of my life. He prefaced his remark by saying he didn't have the press release, so he was just going to sort of recall what Mr. Krog said. Well, I happen to have the press release, and I'd like to set the record straight — again — for those members opposite that have trouble with their recollection: "I urged everyone to be aware of and honest about the cost of implementing virtually all the programs and changes the vast

[ Page 9275 ]

majority of British Columbians would like to see accomplished by government. Good government requires careful choices about which important programs and projects B.C. can afford."

I think we're all honourable members of this House, and we all like to come into this House well prepared and to set the facts straight, and if we're going to make quotes, to make sure that those quotes reflect the honesty and integrity of this House.

The previous speaker, the member for Richmond, also made some comments about the country of his origin, and that country of his origin also happens to be the country of my origin and yours, Mr. Speaker: Holland. He said how advanced that country was with the greenhouses and how they shipped bulbs and flowers around the world. Well, they're also very advanced in the area of social programs — very good social programs in my home country of the Netherlands.

Unlike British Columbia, in Holland when you need a wheelchair for your crippled child or for your handicapped children, you don't have to go and ask the Kinsmen Club, as the former Health minister sitting opposite advised me to do once when I inquired about a wheelchair for one of the handicapped young people in my community. The government provides that. They recognize the responsibility to their young people. There's no surcharge for hospitals. Elderly people receive a decent income that they can live on; they don't have their taxes upped, their charges for living in intermediate homes raised, such as this government did in the year previous They even receive holiday pay on their pensions so that they can go out and enjoy a holiday like the rest of us.

Interjection.

MR. G. JANSSEN: There are comments made about the rate of income tax that is paid. The income tax — especially that paid by corporations — is higher than it is in Canada. But do those corporations leave Holland to come to Canada to set up shop so that they can take advantage of our lower income tax? Of course not, because the people in Holland recognize their social responsibility. That is something members opposite from that country — particularly the Premier — seem to have forgotten and seem to have left behind when they immigrated to this country.

The member from Richmond also made some comments about Mr. Blatherwick and the AIDS video. I find that rather amusing. When the REAL Women fiasco, initiated by this government, was raised in this House last week by the second member for Nanaimo (Ms. Pullinger), the Premier of this province said he didn't believe in censorship. Yet he took the AIDS video and chopped sections out of it. If that isn't censorship, I don't know what is. But it's similar to most of the statements made from that side of the House. I've been trying to point out here that they speak out of two sides of their mouths. They have one statement....

HON. MR. RICHMOND: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, we don't mind the member getting all wound up and emotional and making incorrect comparisons, but I think the phrase "speaking out of both sides of their mouths" is tantamount to calling the members on this side liars. I would ask him to withdraw the statement.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would ask the member for Alberni to withdraw his remarks in that regard.

MR. J. JANSSEN: Mr. Speaker, I did not specifically mention any particular member of the House. However, the government House Leader seems to be a little testy today when the truth and the facts are spoken, so I will withdraw.

I'd like to talk about the budget. I'd like to look first at the 1989-90 budget that the government presented. In 1989 we heard such statements in that budget as: "External factors are likely to moderate growth." They predicted a growth rate for '89-90 of 3 percent. It was actually 4.9 percent. Now they're predicting a growth rate of another 3 percent, saying we're going to be living in a "fragile economy."

They said employment would go up only 2.5 percent. Actually, unemployment went down 9.7 percent. They said that "strong capital investment will be dampened by higher interest rates and slower export growth." As I've just mentioned, the growth went up, and the unemployment went down.

The reason I'm pointing this out is that we're running a budget this year of $15 billion. There are few corporations which have that type of budget to deal with. If they had ministers — or directors of the board, as we may call them in private business — out that much on their predictions, they wouldn't have their jobs very long. As we have seen with the previous six by-elections, if and when they get up the nerve to drop the final writ, I'm sure those members opposite won't have their jobs very long either. It won't be the shareholders of the company, it will be the electorate of this province passing judgment on their dire predictions.

[5:30]

They forecasted housing starts in 1989 of 29,000. In reality it was 38,894. Wrong again. Who's doing the forecasting over there? They're doing that over there because, like this budget, they really don't know what's going on. They reach into the air and grab something and they say: "Let's throw this out to the public. They're not really paying attention."

The public was paying attention, and they sent a message out after the Boundary-Similkameen byelection. The government wasn't listening. They sent another notice out after the Alberni by-election, and the government still wasn't listening. Then a message came from Nanaimo and Point Grey, and the Premier said: "Well, maybe we'll have to make some adjustments." Some of the caucus members from the other side of the House were heard to have a few grumblings.

Then came the by-election in Cariboo, where the Premier said it was a test of his credibility, a test of

[ Page 9276 ]

the government. They lost again. But did they get the message? No, they didn't. Right after the by-election, the Premier got up — I saw him on television — and said: "Oh, it doesn't really mean anything." Some of the caucus members got the message: they left. They walked out and called themselves independent Socreds; away they went.

Then after the Oak Bay by-election, which they lost again, for the first time.... I think the phrase was that the Tweed Curtain had lifted. What happened? The Premier said he'd have to consider where he was going. We waited a month, he tantalized the media, and he got on television. He thought he might apologize, but he really couldn't. He said that he'd been misquoted; he said that the people didn't understand. We thought he was actually going to call an election, but he didn't have the nerve to put it to the final test.

They had a few caucus meetings, and they did some arm-twisting. The four came slithering back into the fold, and now they say they're united again. They say they're ready. They brought out a budget that they say is balanced — $684 million short, and they call it balanced.

Well, let's look at the budget. Since the 1980s the Social Credit government has given a $500 million tax break for corporations and a $500 million tax increase consequently for individuals.

MR. WILLIAMS: How much?

MR. G. JANSSEN: They put taxes up $500 million. We can see the effects of that now. Not a week ago we noticed in federal statistics that came out across Canada that bankruptcies are up 29 percent. I'd like to see the figures for British Columbia. The reason there were that many bankruptcies — and I'm sure the figures are similar in British Columbia — is that this government has been taking money out of the back pockets, out of the paycheques of workers before they get a chance to go out and spend it in business, before they have a chance to make those businesses solvent, and purchase those goods and services that make this such a wonderful province to live in, and raise the level of life that we enjoy here.

The Finance minister said there were no tax increases in this budget. I heard him. He said it more than once. I'd like to turn to page 49 of the budget: "Application of Tax to Electricity Clarified." I ask you: is that a tax increase? "Effective April 20, 1990, the application of tax for electricity used to produce taxable personal property is clarified." They're going to put a tax on it. Simple. It's there in black and white. You don't have to argue about that.

Further down the page it says: "Other Revenue. A number of fees and licences will be increased during the fiscal year. These include land registry and motor vehicle licence and permit fees." You can call them fees; you can call them licences; you can call them user fees; you can call them whatever you like. The people of this province know what they are: they're tax increases. And they're being put on the backs of ordinary people of this province so they can't afford to buy those consumer goods I spoke of.

What's happened to the jobs? Four out of five jobs in the lower mainland are at $7.50 and $8 an hour. Sixty-one percent of the families in British Columbia would live below the poverty line if women didn't work. We've heard this government talk time and again about the value of women in society and how women should appreciate their role as mothers. They're forced by this government to go out and work rather than live in poverty.

Jobs are down. We only have to look at Kimberley, where they closed the mine after they got a big grant from this government — an outright grant.

[Mr. Pelton In the chair.]

What do we do in Alberni? The Ministry of Forests came out and said: "Have we got a deal for you on the Carmanah." There are 150 people out of work because of that decision and $4 million in lost revenue to the community of Port Alberni, and they talk about compensating MacMillan-Bloedel, whose profits have been up dramatically for the last five years. There's no compensation to the workers.

We'll talk about Moresby Island. Those workers still haven't received compensation. That's how this government treats people in this province.

Friends and insiders and the corporate elite get the tax breaks, and the rest of us have to suffer. The ordinary people in this province are getting laid off because of direct actions of this government, whether it's in Kimberley or in Port Alberni.

Over the weekend in the press we heard about all the nice dioxin levels that are going on in Port Alberni. The highest dioxin content ever recorded in Canada was found there in the liver of ducks. You can't eat the fish in the Kamloops lakes system now — the upper Thompson. The worst pollution of all is in Powell River, and the member's answer to questioning is: "Do you want us to shut the mills down?" Is that the option? You can either have pollution or you can have a job.

The New Democrats have a much better way. We would take some of those profits those companies have been making and give them to the people that are being put out of work by the pollution that they're causing. This government doesn't want to do that — no, sir. They talk about fining them and taking them to court. Well, every pulp mill in British Columbia is polluting, and you're taking two to court. What a record!

They negotiated a contract with the government employees. And what did they do a year or two later? They said: "It's too high, by God! We negotiated a settlement that was too high." Did they take the blame for it? No, they tried to blame the government workers for it. They said: "You're outstripping the private sector." Was the forecasting wrong again? You bet!

They talk about pay equity. I hear them talking about the government workers making too much money: "What we want to practice is pay equity." I

[ Page 9277 ]

know what that means in Socred terms. It's very simple: they'll lower the men's wages down to what the women are making in government service, and then we'll have pay equity. That's their idea of pay equity.

Women deserve better. We talk about funding for women's centres. We haven't, got it. They say it's a federal government responsibility. Those services are being denied the women of this province. If they don't get those services, we'll pay ten times down the road. We'll pay when they end up in hospitals. We'll pay when the children end up in Social Services care or even in the justice system.

Could we hear about day care? There are 20,000 day care centres in British Columbia. Certainly some of the members opposite have children; they know the value of day care. Three hundred thousand spaces are needed; 20,000 are provided.

Not only don't they fund women's centres, not only don't they fund day care, but the food lineups get longer and longer and longer. It's not people on social assistance who are in those food lineups; it's the working poor. It's people that aren't making the wages to survive in high-rent areas, that aren't making enough money to clothe and feed their children, that haven't got enough to send them to school. Do you think they enjoy going and standing in a food lineup every second week with grocery bags for two or three hours just so they can feed their children? Does this government care? Not at all.

They talk about the environment. Well, the environment is crucial to all of us. I am sure we all went to Earth Day. There were many children there, and I congratulated those children in Port Alberni. Hopefully they will do a better job of taking care of this earth than we've been doing.

We've been promised vehicle emission in this budget — promised for the third time, mind you. We are told there is going to be a tax on batteries — no tax increases, but there will be a surcharge of $3 per tire and $5 on batteries. Think about that for a minute. Here they are putting these taxes on these products, but there's a department of this government that they have direct control over and take no interest in. I am sure the hon. members opposite have been out to the liquor store once in a while. I went in there, and you should see the number of plastic bottles these days. You can buy brandy in plastic bottles; you can buy gin in plastic bottles; you can buy vodka in plastic bottles. But does the government do anything about it? No, they don't. Are they recyclable? No. More and more every week on the shelves, and they encourage it. I remember many years ago there was a fellow by the name of Ben Ginter, who produced a little round keg type of beer bottle, and the government of the day said: "You can't put that on the shelf." At least it was glass, and at least it was recyclable. But plastic bottles? No, Mr. Speaker. "Bring them in one after the other. We're going to do something about baby diapers, but plastic bottles are just fine."

This is a tired government, and it's got a lot of tired ideas.

Housing. There is a 0.4 percent vacancy rate in Vancouver, the least affordable city in Canada. When did this happen? During a New Democratic Party government? No. It all happened when the Socreds were in power. They made one of the most beautiful cities in the country and in the world the least affordable city in which to live. Then they said to the tourists: "Why don't you come and visit us? Come to the most expensive city in Canada." People paying over half their income in rent — produced by this government; enhanced by this budget. The New Democratic Party wants to build 5,000 affordable starter homes a year — year after year after year — so young people can get married, move into a home, raise a family and lead a decent lifestyle. Well, it's dismal again.

[5:45]

I'd like to talk about economic development. it wasn't mentioned in the budget, but I'd like to speak about it anyway. These people turn around and say they like to run business. There are a few problems with economic development in British Columbia, and maybe that's why they didn't mention it in the budget. A paper, Business in Vancouver, April 2 to 8.... I'd like to talk about the seed capital loan guarantee program According to Al Droppo, who is president of the Canadian Bankers' Association: "The program was announced and operating and we were still negotiating the meanings of various terms with the government for months after. The name 'seed capital' was a misnomer; it was a nice, cuddly political term."

Brian Fox, manager of commercial services for the Toronto-Dominion Bank: "We are receptive to [the guarantees] but it doesn't mean we've done one yet." Is that economic development? They say these loans shouldn't adversely affect the competition.

I'd like to read what Kathy Sanderson from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business said: "'At $50,000, it doesn't really answer the need for the second-stage financing level, which is where this is targeted,' Sanderson said. A lot of people weren't participating, because they weren't aware of it and because the limit wasn't really enough to make it worthwhile."' This is economic development — too little too late, is what these people are saying. They're the economic leaders in this province. They are the ones who know the value of economic development, with the government reaching out and trying to assist people in business. But this government doesn't understand that. We've already heard time and time again about how they lost their shirts — I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker; I should say "our shirts" — on the Expo land deal, the Coquihalla Highway and the Coquitlam lands deal. We could go on and on.

What have they done for economic development? It is British Columbians who have seized the opportunity and have gone out there taking a chance in the business community, trying to make a living in British Columbia, trying to raise their standard of living and trying to add to the economic activity of this community. As we can tell from the financial

[ Page 9278 ]

institutes in this province, they aren't helping them one bit.

Said Droppo of the Canadian Bankers' Association: "By the time you make your application to the bank, the government and a regional board, you're probably talking about waiting three months. This is for a $50,000 loan, not a $500,000 one."

HON. MR. BRUMMET: They didn't have any growth problems from 1972 to 1975?

MR. G. JANSSEN: The members opposite like to bring up 1972-75. That was a long time ago. I think they call it the 1,200 dark days.

I'd like to go back a little further than that. We can go back to '56, '57 and '58, and we can see what went on in Social Credit then. We have a similar problem now. What happened? The only minister in British parliamentary history to ever go to jail....

AN HON. MEMBER: Who was that?

MR. G. JANSSEN: Was he a Liberal?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. G. JANSSEN: The opposite side of the House is silent. Don't they know the story? Was he a Conservative?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No.

MR. G. JANSSEN: Was he a New Democrat?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No.

MR. G. JANSSEN: No, he was a Social Credit member — the only one to besmirch the British parliamentary system, and he went to jail.

MR. LOVICK: Are you surprised?

MR. G. JANSSEN: Of course not.

We were in government from 1972 to 1975. We didn't have people going to jail. What do we get from this government? Caucus members leave the party, ministers have to resign, crisis after crisis after crisis — people trying to run this province.

When I started my speech, Mr. Speaker, I spoke about....

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

HON. MR. BRUMMET: We have listened to a great deal of comment from the other side about this being a dishonest budget, and I don't think, in the history of this province, there has ever been so much dishonest information distributed by the NDP socialists, with no principles as to how it is done and no reference or resemblance to the facts and with good training in getting out emotional statements about cutbacks, cutbacks, cutbacks, when education funding has increased 10 percent, 12 percent and now 15 percent. They say: "It's not enough. We would do a great deal more, and we would do it as a government, because the taxpayers cannot afford any more money." I don't know where you would get your money; probably from deficit financing or borrowing.

I'd like to canvass some of these points and point out something that is the most shocking thing that I have seen in all the years I was in education. There is absolutely no hesitation by the Leader of the Opposition and by other people to use the kids in the system, to indoctrinate them and to allow that sort of thing to happen. I'd like to point out some of the examples, some of the dishonest statements being made and some of the incorrect information with which people are being asked to make decisions.

I know I can't develop that theme or give these examples now, so I would like at this time to await tomorrow morning and move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Richmond moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:53 p.m.