[ Page 9279 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Budget Debate

Hon. Mr. Brummet –– 9279

Mr. Perry –– 9282

Hon. Mr. Dueck –– 9286

Mr. Zirnhelt –– 9290

Mr. Bruce –– 9293

The House met at 10:02 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to introduce some visitors from St. Joseph's School in my constituency, Visiting the House this morning is a grade 5 class, accompanied by their teacher Mrs. Buckler and other chaperones. Please give them a hearty welcome.

MR. PERRY: Mr. Speaker, we have in the gallery members of the Fernwood Home Support Services Society: home support workers Ken Drouillard, Lorna England, Donna Purcell, Ramona King, Tina Paulsen, Corinne Wheeler, Emma Thom; and we may have Mrs. Vida Waltz and Henry Brown with us as well. I'd like the House to make them welcome. They're going to listen to the debate today.

Orders of the Day

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

Budget Debate
(continued)

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Speaker, as well as talking about what this government has done for education this year in this year's budget, I'd like to point out some of the things it has done over the last few years, probably to counter the very effective promotional campaign that still has some people in the province believing that we have cut back the amount of funding to education. I could go back to any time and find that the amounts that have gone into education have increased dramatically. Let me just take the last four or five years.

Of course, it does get reasonably complex in that part of the education bill is provided by government grants. Some of that comes from consolidated revenue, the general revenue that government takes in from all sources: sales tax, income tax or whatever. The government also takes in some from property taxation, and that amount varies. There is also the amount provided to the budget by school districts — their share — which has averaged around 17 percent of residential property taxation, give or take a little from year to year. As people are aware, with the increased homeowner grants in the budget this year, the $430 being left in place, the increase of $50 last year, plus the percentage of the difference between that and the actual taxes paid, the government is moving up this year from about 83 percent of the education bill to just over 90 percent.

It's interesting that when the Leader of the Opposition heard that we were going to provide some tax relief to property owners, he started getting on the bandwagon and saying that the province should provide 90 percent of the funds. Now that the province has provided 90 percent of the funds, up from 83 percent, their finance critic says: "Oh, goody, they have taken our idea." It's almost unbelievable how they try to take credit for all of the things this government has done.

Just to give you some figures from the consolidated revenue funds, in 1985-86 this government provided — I'm just rounding it off — $1.6 billion to fund education; in 1986-87, $1.64 billion, somewhat of an increase; in 1987-88, $1.673 billion; in 1988-89, $1.839 billion; and in 1989-90, $2.029 billion. So there has been a steady increase in funding and an accelerating increase from general revenue.

When you look at the total spent on education in this province — I'm talking about K-to-12 education — with what school boards added, and with miscellaneous revenue and residential property taxation, in 1985-86 it was $1.85 billion; in 1986-87, $1.95 billion; in 1987-88, $2.084 billion; in 1988-89, $2.277 billion; and in 1989-90, $2.589 billion. In 1990-91 we are looking at a total expenditure of $3.021 billion, as shown in the estimates provided with the budget.

That is a considerable increase each year. Some of the critics say: "But it has not kept up with inflation." Let me use a comparison. When you graph from 1981 to now, you will see that if we had funded education in line with inflation increases, the average cost per pupil in '88-89 would have been $4,118. In actual fact, the funding in education has gone up. In '88-89 it worked out to $4,954 per pupil. So those who claim that there have been cutbacks in education spending— I don't know, I guess cutbacks from desires or wants, but certainly not in actual numbers So there has been a great deal of money expended.

One of the things often done is making comparisons between provinces. We have said repeatedly that it is difficult to make those comparisons because each province deals with its funding somewhat differently than other provinces. We in this province break out the operating funds at the school district level and put a figure on that. This year that works out to $5,259 per pupil, a 6.17 percent increase over the equivalent numbers last year.

However, we also fund capital over and above that. This government made a commitment two years ago that they would be spending $1.5 billion on capital projects over a six-year period; in other words, $250 million per year. Because of the rapid growth happening, the Ministry of Education and I were able to convince this government that we need more of that money up front. Last year we did get $250 million for capital expenditures. This year we have $350 million for capital expenditures, over and above the operating expenditures. We have also committed ourselves to get computers into the schools, and we have. For three successive years now, we've come up with $15 million — this year it's $16 million — that we distribute. Some of it goes to central organization, to improve computer software and computer skills; some of it is for special education technology centres; and around $10 million is distributed directly to school boards to buy computers and software and provide in-service training for

[ Page 9280 ]

teachers. We are committed to that. Last year we added an extra $6 million to get one computer into each school so they can deal with the new directions in education and the new method of tracking students individually. That extra money was provided last year.

Most of the school districts have spent that money. You can imagine the shock when Vancouver School Board said that they had fewer computers per student in the schools than other districts and that they had to go to referendum in order to bring this technology into the classroom.

[10:15]

In view of the fact that we do it on a proportionate basis, based on enrolment, I asked my ministry to check why the Vancouver School Board, after getting a lot of money from us to buy computers, has relatively few computers in the schools. It came as a bit of a shock to find that we gave them grants of $1.2 million in the first year to buy computers, and that they have a balance in the bank of $1.2 million. The kids are doing without computers.

In the second year we gave them $1.5 million in direct grants to buy computers. Out of the total in the two years, they have spent about $700,000 and have a balance in the bank of over $2 million, and the kids are doing without computers. I have to wonder why that happens, and also why that would be one of the items going to referendum — that they need money for computers.

While I'm on the Vancouver situation, I might point out that last year they had every school and as many parents as possible write to me to say: "We have to have $500,000 to do an earthquake safety assessment on our schools." I said: "Go ahead. You get some minor capital funding, and that is available." But they said they had to have the $500,000 –– I wonder how many people now know that they're going to referendum for a bunch of capital items. How many people know that they have over $10 million in capital reserve sitting in the bank? So I would take it that the $500,000 that's so essential for assessing their schools for earthquake proofing is only a priority if it comes from Victoria. If they took half a million dollars out of the $10 million they're sitting on, it's not a priority. Those are the things they say, and they are completely supported by the NDP. The NDP just takes at face value whatever these boards say and carry on.

I might mention the Surrey situation. The NDP member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley (Ms. Smallwood) has made great mileage In saying, "Our kids deserve an equal chance with anybody else, " and nobody denies that. The only point is that she has completely ignored the facts. So it's a nice emotional issue: why, with this new funding system, doesn't Surrey get the provincial average amount per pupil? They are 13 percent below the provincial average. The member does not seem to want to even consider the fact.

MS. SMALLWOOD: You come and tour our municipality.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The member does not seem to want to consider the fact that the costs are over in Surrey.

MR. RABBITT: They're not interested in the facts.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: No, they're not interested in the facts at all.

Surrey last year had a budget that was 13 percent below the provincial average. Why? Because of a number of factors. Their costs were lower — not because of decisions by the board.

MS. SMALLWOOD: They're managing well.

HON. MR BRUMMET: I guess you can manage well or take the credit for managing well when your costs are a lot lower. For instance, the average teacher's salary in Surrey is about $2,000 per year less than in Vancouver. That is not because of good management; it has nothing to do with management. In Surrey they have a younger teaching force, and the salary scale brings the cost down.

There are a number of other factors. For instance, I don't think that member is a bit interested in making the comparisons to recognize that last year, because of the retirement of teachers at the top end of the pay scale and bringing in more teachers at the bottom end, their payroll costs went down by about 1.3 percent. When we say that they get their actual payroll costs plus 6 percent of an increase, it is a correct statement.

Using only the teacher's salary comparison, the pension deductions are based on the salaries. That's another factor. There are many other factors that come into this.

I don't why Surrey would have expected.... Because of lower costs last year, they were below the provincial average, and somehow or other, with a change in the funding formula to a block allocation, Surrey should move up to the provincial average this year.

Had we stayed with the old system, Surrey would have retained its relative position. Yet that member will stand up and argue that the funding system has changed....

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Perhaps all of this sort of thing could take place in the estimates of the Minister of Education when the House retires into committee. We are actually debating the budget speech now, and if there are fewer interjections, we could hear what the minister has to say.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I was using specific examples of how the budget we have provided for education is fair and equitable. It provides Surrey with relatively the same amount of money it had last year. It provides every district with an equitable amount of money.

[ Page 9281 ]

I've heard comments about this being a dishonest budget, but I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, of the dishonesty that is out there from the other side in trying to explain away their political agenda. It has to be political. Last year Surrey was really tight in its spending. They ended up with a $3 million surplus, but with that surplus, funding of $150,000 for feeding hungry students was not a priority. When we go to referendum, suddenly $150,000 is a high priority. Where was the priority last year?

In a $187 million budget, it has to be nothing but crass politics when they put $150,000 out of $187 million and say that they can't find it in their $3 million surplus or cannot find it in a $187 million budget. You have to go to referendum, and blame the province, my ministry and me for forcing them to do that. Is that honest?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. We don't have to go through it again. It takes so little time for this House to break down. This debate should take place during estimates. Let's talk about the budget.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Speaker, people say: "Well, who can we believe, with all of this information back and forth?" You don't have to believe me. People don't have to make a decision as to who they want to believe. If you take what's in the estimates — $3.021 billion — and divide it by 495,000 pupils, you get a lot more than $5,259 per pupil, which is being used to compare us to other provinces. As a matter of fact, to be fair, we'll take out of the estimates the $62 million or so that goes to independent schools, and we'll end up with the difference. You divide that difference of something like $2.96 billion by 495,000 pupils, and you get a per-pupil amount of something like $5,980. As I say, you don't have to worry about who to believe. Just do some simple arithmetic, and it will tell you how much is being spent on education this year.

In this budget we reflect the commitment of this government to improve the education system in the province, because over and above the standard operating amounts for the school districts, there is a lot of money for changes. Again, members have said that we have committed ourselves to making the changes in the education system that were recommended by the Sullivan commission report, and they've asked: "Where is the money?" Last year, over and above all the other operating expenses, something like $43 million was provided in addition to the block, in addition to the per-pupil funding. This year it's $140 million.

The interest in the changes recommended by the royal commission report is accelerating. The need for funding is accelerating, and government has accepted that. We have committed ourselves to $1.4 billion over ten years, not on an equal basis each year but as needed. So this year $140 million will be provided for the changes. The changes are happening in the schools. There is a great deal of interest in the schools, with teachers on board.

Only two forces seem to be against the changes. The NDP has put out a position paper asking to put the changes on hold, and questioning and criticizing the changes. Just last month the BCTF asked if it was still possible to reach a decision to stop the implementation of these changes. Yet the teachers are working on all sorts of committees to do this.

Let me quote briefly from the Sullivan report to give you some idea of where we are coming from in this budget and in the changes we are making. The Sullivan summary report says that spending on education has increased at about the same rate as the provincial economy since 1976, although very unevenly.

"We received many submissions which argued for a funding system which would be more stable and predictable than the present system and which would allow for long-range planning. We considered various methods of achieving these results, opting finally for a 'block funding' arrangement similar to that employed in federal-provincial transfer payments and linked, through appropriate indices, to the growth of the British Columbia economy."

We have now accepted that recommendation under the block-funding system. In the block, all the money that the government had put in and all the money that the school districts had added through supplementary referenda were included. In other words, actual expenditures formed the base block. And we have said that the increase each year will not be subject to the minister's decision or the government's decision; it will be subject to an economic adjustment factor in line with what the economy is doing. That means that we now have a stable budget for education. We have a predictable budget, because everyone can tell what the economy is doing. But I can assure you that in an economy running at between 5 and 6 percent, you cannot keep spending at a 15 percent increase per year. The budget builds in enrolment increases, and additions will be made as changes are required, but the basic operating increases must be in line with the economy.

[10:30]

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

The royal commission also said:

"The fiscal framework is a detailed and complex formula, with allocations to districts reflecting the somewhat differential costs incurred by different boards in different parts of the province.

"Although the fiscal framework has been criticized for various reasons...its integrity has been enhanced by the government's willingness to review suggested improvements made by educational organizations. Given certain amendments, the commission supports the continued use of the fiscal framework."

Most stakeholders in education agree with that. I guess the only problem is that they seem to feel that it will provide less money to some districts, more money based on costs. I think people can mathematically accept that when you come up with a provincial

[ Page 9282 ]

average, some people are below the average and some people are above the average.

My goodness, how time does fly. All I can say is that, in conclusion, they seem to feel averages are okay as long as everybody is at the average or above. That doesn't make any sense.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Minister of Advanced Education asks leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Visiting us this morning from Kelly Road Secondary School in Prince George is the Kelly Road Secondary School concert band with their teacher, Jens Jensen. Chaperoning the group are Mr. Jim McMillan, vice-principal of Kelly Road, and Mrs. McMillan. Would members of the Legislative Assembly please give the Kelly Road School concert band a nice warm Victoria welcome.

MR. PERRY: May I also welcome the members of the Kelly Road School band. I wish we had the opportunity to hear them; perhaps we will at lunch.

I also welcome the Premier back to the House. It's a great privilege to have his ear even for a few minutes.

MR. RABBITT: Order! Where's Mikey?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Where's your leader?

MR. PERRY: Just trying to be polite, Mr. Speaker.

It's a privilege and a challenge to rise in this debate, because there's a lot to cover in half an hour. I'll try to cover the major topics of concern to my constituents, and, I think, to much of the rest of the province. I would say that the striking impression I had listening to the budget presentation was the absence of any coherent vision. It was a quietly competent budget in some limited ways; it was rather pedestrian in others. The single striking feature was the lack of any vision for where the province is headed. The promise of a "Vision 2001" — a vague, remote promise — conjured up in my imagination more of a nightmare than a positive vision.

In some of my comments on the budget speech, I would like to outline where it falls short of a constructive vision, and where I think the people of British Columbia would like to see the province headed.

I'd like also to give credit for some positive features in the budget, and in the latter half of my speech today I will particularly concentrate on the area of health, where I see some positive features.

Let me begin with perhaps the single most glaring omission in government policy, which remains a challenge for all of us to face daily and which we frequently neglect: the resolution of the historical injustice towards the native peoples in this province. Perhaps the most striking omission of all in this budget, in the Speech from the Throne and in all of the government's pronouncements over the year since I was elected to this Assembly, is the abject failure to deal frankly with the issue of justice for native people.

On the anniversary of the debate over the Endowment Lands regional park act and the infringement of the historic rights of the Musqueam people, I recall how disillusioned and disappointed I was by the comments from the government side of the Legislature during that debate. I've looked with hope for some change in the attitude over the last year, and I have yet to see it. I've heard words; I've heard mouthings.

I've seen the belated appointment of an advisory group to the government on native affairs, yet I fail to discern any fundamental recognition of a point that I made in my speech to this assembly last year during the debate on the Endowment Lands regional park act, which was the recognition that merely because people lived first in this country does not suggest that they are entitled to less rights than those of us who came here later. It's a paradox to express the native rights issue that way, but I think it boils down to a simple truth: the native people were here first in British Columbia; their land was stripped from them — with rare exceptions — without any compensation, and they were grossly abused, maltreated and subjected to deliberate genocide, in some cases, in the Queen Charlotte Islands — documented in our provincial museum — and along the B.C. coast.

As a society, we have yet to face up to that historical injustice. The time is coming when the majority of British Columbians will realize — and I think they already do — that we must face up to that injustice. Therefore I'm disappointed that the budget and the Speech from the Throne have again failed to address that historical problem. I think it's one that calls for a non-partisan approach on the part of all British Columbians and for efforts by both the government and the opposition to reduce racism rather than foster it.

The next point I'd like to make is about the references to democracy throughout the budget and throne speech. I couldn't help thinking to myself last week, as I listened to witnesses before the Vancouver city task force on global atmospheric change, that municipal councils in our province in fact offer much greater access to real democracy in many respects than our Legislature does. I therefore lament the absence of any commitment to a serious parliamentary committee system in this province.

I have sat personally on the health and human resources committee of this Legislature for a year. I have not been summoned to a meeting. I have largely dropped my own professional interests in order to attempt to serve the public, and I have stood on call year-round, with the exception of very brief vacations, ready to serve on that committee. I have requested the committee's action on a number of important issues, both in the Legislature and in letters to the committee Chair and the responsible minister, yet the committee does not sit, nor do any other committees of this Legislature, in general. This is an aberration in Canada. Other provinces do not

[ Page 9283 ]

conduct their public business in that way. The Parliament of Canada does not conduct its public business in that way. And even our city councils are beginning to bring us a more realistic, functioning democracy. I make that as a constructive recommendation to the government and to the Premier, who is listening now, that they call the committees and allow them to function and to let us get on in a non-partisan way with searching for solutions to some of the pressing problems in the province.

Since the Minister of Education spoke about education, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make some very brief comments about education in the province. What concerns me more is not so much the level of funding but the continuing atmosphere of confrontation that seems to pervade virtually all of the government's relationships with professional organizations, be they teachers, physicians, nurses or others. I find it discouraging to hear him refer so disparagingly to elected school board officials, such as our own officials in the city of Vancouver, who, although they come from a different political party than I do, have a reputation as hard-working, devoted public servants noted for sound fiscal conservatism.

Although I would not agree with them in everything they do, I find it personally very convincing as the provincially elected representative for part of Vancouver, when members of a conservative political party such as the Non-Partisan Association tells me that they find the present funding arrangements so restrictive that they cannot meet the basic needs of the students, including the right of young students to be free from hunger in school. I think it's both a tribute to groups such as the Vancouver Medical Association, which has funded children's school lunch programs in Vancouver, and a great insult to our civilized society that we have to resort to that kind of measure.

Let me talk very briefly about housing issues, Mr. Speaker, because here I see an absolute conflict not only with the responsibility of government to protect the vulnerable, the poor and even the middle class these days, but also between the professed interest in true environmentally sustainable policies and what is going on in my own city.

Last July 19, just before the adjournment of the Legislature, I engaged in a debate with the then Minister of Housing and asked him whether it troubled his conscience at all to see perfectly good apartment buildings destroyed and vast mounds of rubble and waste created at a time when many of the world's people — some billions of them — are living without adequate housing. He replied that he could not see any moral issue there. I find that surprising in a government which prides itself on its Christian values. I found it surprising then, and I still do.

Since that time, I participated in the temporary occupation of a building which was to be demolished in my riding in Kerrisdale, a building in excellent shape which had the refrigerators and their coils containing CFCs intact inside the building as the crane approached. The crane was going to demolish the building, crush the refrigerators and release CFCs directly into the atmosphere. When I refused to leave the building until the Environment ministry was notified, calls were made to the provincial and federal Environment ministries, which notified us that nothing could be done. In fact, because the press were there, we were able to maintain the occupation of the building until the demolition team had carted out the refrigerators by hand. Had we not been there that day, at least 50 refrigerators would have been crushed and the CFCs released into the atmosphere. That's an example of fine talk about environmental protection and deliberate neglect of government responsibility. I see no indication in the budget that the present government is prepared to get serious about genuine environmental protection.

Let us look at the air pollution issue. Last year in the House, the former Minister of Health told me that Abbotsford air was the cleanest in British Columbia. In fact, I see him still championing the virtues of life in the Fraser Valley, which are many — including the presence of horses and veterinarians — but one of the virtues is not clean air.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

In forestry and in the protection of agricultural land, we see a continuing open scandal in the purported sustainable-yield management of our forests. Because I want to speak about health, I won't belabour that point. Let me simply note that the public sees through the sham of "sustainable" forestry in B.C., and it sees through the sham of government propaganda about environmental protection at the same time as this government is doing everything in its power to strip us of our prime agricultural land resource in the lower Fraser Valley or the shores of Boundary Bay, and to impede, if at all possible, through the development of golf courses, the development of an integrated protection plan for the ecological values of Boundary Bay, which are unique on the west coast of North and South America.

[10:45]

Let me turn to health. May I point out that....

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Three golf courses in Point Grey are fine, but no place else.

MR. PERRY: The Premier says there are three golf courses in Point Grey and he wants there not to be any golf courses elsewhere in the province. Or are you saying that I suggested that?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: That's what you said.

MR. PERRY: I'm sure we'll see much of that representation made around the province during the coming election campaign. But let's not confuse ourselves between propaganda and truth. We on this side of the House have nothing against golf courses in appropriate places. What we do question is the loss to golf courses of uniquely suitable agricultural land — which, to my great regret, Point Grey does not boast — be it Terra Nova lands in Richmond, along

[ Page 9284 ]

the shores of Boundary Bay or the Spetifore lands, when we live in a world in which food production is declining, in which global climatic change may raise sea levels and detract from our ability to grow food and in which ozone pollution is already reducing the productivity of our agricultural crops in the Fraser Valley.

May I say that since the Premier is listening, if he can demonstrate to me how to convert my small 33-foot lot on Point Grey into prime agricultural land, I would welcome his visit, because I know he has exemplary talents in his role as a gardener. I look forward to his having more time to apply his original trade in the near future. He'd be welcome to come and advise me on how to grow my grapes better in Point Grey.

Let me turn to health, because I want to say a few positive things, even though the Minister of Health (Hon. J. Jansen) isn't here at this moment. I hope that his fellows and the Minister of Social Services and Housing (Hon. Mr. Dueck) will convey to him that my attitude remains positive and I'm willing to give praise where praise is due. I do see in the budget, in the details of the estimates, such as they are, some increase in the mental health budget that may be significant, some increase in the continuing care service budget and, particularly, some increase in the home support service budget. Those figures are encouraging, but in the estimates debate I hope we will have chance to find out exactly what they mean.

Let me give you some examples. First, before I forget, an example of a conflict between the rhetoric of sustainable development and the reality within the Ministry of Health. Here is a letter from a prominent nurse at Vancouver General Hospital, Bernadette Stringer, an active trade unionist, who points out that on April 23 the Vancouver General Hospital will begin supplying disposable plastic urinals to replace reusable metal and heavy plastic urinals. The receptacle in question is not the important point, the use of a disposable product rather than a recyclable one is the point. I quote from the letter:

"These 'reusables' were cleaned and sterilized between patients by the workers of the sterile supply department. This department's managers claim that a shortage of space and equipment makes it difficult for them to continue to provide this service.

"The hospital has chosen to introduce disposable urinals instead of enlarging the work area or purchasing the necessary equipment" — to sterilize them. "They probably believe this is a cost-effective solution, but surely this can only be true if the cost to the environment is not entered into the calculation."

The letter goes on to make the point even more effectively. Here we have the rhetoric of sustainable development at the very time that a perfectly acceptable hospital tradition is being replaced by the use of throwaway plastic junk.

HON. MR. FRASER: Who made the decision?

MR. PERRY: The Solicitor-General asks who made the decision: was it the hospital or the Ministry? Clearly it is the hospital, but it reflects to me, Mr. Minister, a lack of leadership on the part of government. Government can provide the leadership to discourage this sort of hospital initiative.

Let me turn to the area of home support, since we have in the gallery a number of home support workers from the city of Victoria. I would like to read to you briefly from a letter that my colleague the member for New Westminster (Ms. A. Hagen) received recently from a home support worker, Corinne J. Wheeler. I will turn over the letter to Hansard when I've finished these remarks.

"I am a 24-hour, live-in home support worker currently on strike with Fernwood Home Support for what is now 11 weeks. The hourly wage I received was $8 per hour, and paid for ten hours of a 24-hour shift. I have provided personal comfort care to people of this community, which may even eventually include people in the Legislative Assembly. This care includes full transferring, bathing, hair-washing, pre-intern care, catheter and incontinence care and cleanup, toileting, dressing, bed change numerous times during the night, morphine and other medication supervision, and monitoring of pain breakthrough. I stay with a patient until they die, often in my arms, and say prayers with them in their last moments.

"Besides having full training in long-term care, I also have first aid and CPR certification as well as experience in a long-term care facility. My responsibilities as a 24-hour live-in home support worker are enormous and also include full care of maintaining a patient's home, sanitation and cleaning, nutrition...as well as emotional support in very sensitive areas for both patient and family members.

"I have worked with the Victoria Health Project" — may I say parenthetically that it is an outstanding example of innovation in the health care field which has received some support from the government and which I am pleased to acknowledge; if only we had it elsewhere in the province — "long-term-care quick response team, palliative response team and elderly outreach team. My skills in observation, reporting and teamwork have to be of an intelligent, effectual and professional level.

"The work I do has oftentimes been in abominable working environments which have included unsafe and harmful conditions, health hazards and extreme dangers to me physically. Diseases such as dementia, Alzheimer's, stroke brain damage, Parkinson's and AIDS have put me in these situations. Investigation or corrective action is seldom taken by the long-term-care division of the Health ministry. Homes are frequently not inspected for suitability for a live-in worker. We are directed by our supervisors to 'make the best of it.'"

I continue to quote, Mr. Speaker, because It's important that we understand what these people do in their working lives.

"My working conditions have included sleeping on the floor on an air mattress or in a recliner chair."

I note parenthetically that the second member for Cariboo (Mr. Zirnhelt) also sleeps under similar conditions, but in a more pleasant general environment. He shares my apartment, Mr. Speaker, so let every listener not think that Members of the Legislative Assembly live in luxury all of the time. I continue to quote from this letter:

"A sofa is often a luxury. I have had to bring my own linens and pillow, as some elderly homes are

[ Page 9285 ]

sadly ill-equipped or infested with fleas and bacteria. Old, cluttered homes are tinder boxes and extreme fire hazards. I am also expected to provide care and cleanup for pets, which has included an incontinent dog which was as ill and aged as the patient."

I could go on, but I think the point is made. I made a personal inspection visit last week to the homes of two people who benefit from this support in the company of Donna Purcell, a home support worker in Victoria who has worked for eight years, again with no formal training. She worked with native people on the west coast of Vancouver Island, took home-support courses at Camosun College over a year at night, has continued with continuing education and receives a maximum possible wage after eight years of work of $9.01 per hour. She pays her own medical premiums; she has three weeks' vacation, which is the maximum if she works full time. If she doesn't work — if there's no work on a particular day — she doesn't get paid. She told me that her total income last year in this job was $17,700.

I ask you, Mr. Speaker and members of the Legislature, to consider how we in this province are to expand our home support programs, to reduce hospital costs and to deliver the best possible care to patients in their homes, which clearly is a goal that all of us can share; it's a non-partisan goal. How are we to do this if we continue to exploit the workers upon whom that depends?

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

The minister's answer has been to say this is an issue for the non-profit societies to sort out. Let us not play games. The non-profit societies are agents of the government. Their money comes exclusively from government, and they cannot offer their workers better working conditions unless government is willing to admit that this is important work, and that it should be valued.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I was encouraged by the vague references — vague as they were — to pay equity in the budget speech. I challenge the government, if it seriously means what it says, to let us see some examples of this policy in dealing with the current dispute with the home support workers.

Let me go on to a number of other issues in health which trouble me. Look at the mental health plan. I frankly confess that until we get through the estimates debate and see what evolves in the future, it's difficult to know whether the ministry has really dealt with the issues raised in the mental health plan last year which were discussed in depth one year ago in this assembly.

Let me read to you from a letter received by my colleague, the member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head (Ms. Cull) on April 13 from parents in Victoria.

"We have recently been advised that our 19-year old son...is suffering from the mental disorder called schizophrenia. He is filthy dirty, eating from garbage cans, sleeping in building sites and abandoned houses. After persuading the Victoria police to take him to emergency and arranging for his doctor to start medical treatment, we were advised that there was nothing they could do, as Alan, in his own confused way, decided he did not require treatment.

"You can imagine our concern when we were told there is nothing anyone can do to help this very sick young man. There is no 24-hour response team, no psychiatrist, no care unit or centre that can be called on in an emergency."

Mr. Speaker, that's a tremendous indictment of our health care system. That is the letter from the parents of a terribly ill young man, writing to us and telling us that our system has failed that young man and his parents. How can we deny the reality of what they are saying in that letter, even though our own minister or perhaps our own officials tell us that in fact everything is in hand?

Mr. Speaker, I have great trouble when I read letters like that. They move me to great sadness and a determination that these problems must be dealt with. I know the former Minister of Health certainly felt that way. I feel that he was constrained by his cabinet colleagues, and I hope that the current Minister of Health (Hon. J. Jansen), who also shares some insight into the difficulties these people face, can prevail over his cabinet colleagues, particularly the Minister of Finance.

Let me give you another example of lack of planning in our health care system. I have a letter from a parent of a child in the Langley Memorial Hospital, where the pediatric ward was closed arbitrarily and later reopened after public protest. This is from a Ms. Louise Wilson of Aldergrove, B.C., writing to me on November 11, 1989, and I quote briefly from her letter:

"Where are these children who need hospitalization to go? Will their symptoms be assessed at the Langley emergency ward and then transported to unfamiliar areas away from families and friends? Clearly this could impede their recovery. My daughter was sent to Vancouver General last August and was put in a geriatric ward. Do you have any idea how she felt mentally with two of her roommates dying? How very depressing for a young, teen-age person!"

These letters speak for themselves. Let me give you another example of the failure of planning in the current system. This is a letter from a licensed practical nurse, JoAnn Corkum of Richmond, B.C., who wrote to me last October 25:

"As a taxpayer, I feel that our money is not being spent wisely in the field of health care. Some hospitals do not even employ LPNs, and most hospitals do not utilize us to our full capacity. There are procedures LPNs are trained to do, but the hospitals do not include these in our job descriptions, even though they are included in the booklet 'Competencies Required of the Beginning Licensed Practical Nurse.' A prime example of this is the fact that LPNs are not permitted to insert or remove catheters."

This is an example of a health worker telling us that she is competent to serve patients in this province, yet her skills are not utilized by the present system. Far be it for me to tell hospitals how to run their show; that's the least of my intentions. But surely our ministry has some responsibility to exercise leadership in encouraging hospitals to plan

[ Page 9286 ]

rationally to use womanpower and manpower skillfully, effectively and efficiently.

Let me read you one other example — there could be many. I see here before me a brief from the Registered Nurses' Association of British Columbia entitled "A University for Northern British Columbia, " dated September 1989, making the point that the much-vaunted and long-awaited University of Northern British Columbia will not have a nursing program. In a province beset by the nursing crisis, there is no plan for a nursing program.

[11:00]

Interjections.

MR. PERRY: The Premier and the former Minister of Advanced Education are asking me: "How do I know there will not be a nursing program there?" I very much hope there will be a nursing program there. I hope that one of the achievements of raising this issue in the Legislature will be to encourage them to take their responsibilities towards meeting the health needs of the province seriously. I am prepared to table the brief from the Registered Nurses' Association expressing their dismay that this was not included in the announcement of plans for the university.

HON. S. HAGEN: Send it over to me. I'll answer it for you.

MR. PERRY: The former minister asks me to send it to him. I'll be delighted to send it to him with a Page. I look forward to hearing that the nursing program will be announced at that university, and that the opposition will receive the appropriate credit for having ensured that that happened.

May I, if I have a few more minutes, deal briefly with a few other issues. I wanted to read to you more examples, but I will raise a few simply to bring them to the attention of the minister, even in absentia.

When are we going to see some responsible action to deal with the dispute with health professionals, including the physicians? In the long-term, the chiropractors, physiotherapists, psychologists, acupuncturists and pharmacists — virtually every profession in this province — have been rebelling in the last year. At the moment it happens to be the physicians who are constantly abused gratuitously by the Minister of Finance in the public media.

Interjection.

MR. PERRY: The former Minister of Advanced Education and the Minister of Regional and Economic Development (Hon. S. Hagen) now — if I'm correct — asks if I'm in a position of conflict of interest. Of course I'm not in a position of conflict of interest; I'm the opposition health critic, and it's my responsibility to raise issues of importance to the health of British Columbia. When a government persists in confrontation with health professionals in the province, it becomes impossible to deal with the kinds of problems that I outlined in the letters I read into the record.

Look at the hospital waiting-list issue. I've alluded to that briefly here. I could have read you many eloquent letters describing the problem, and I will during the estimates debate if we're allowed to have one this year.

Look at the issue of prevention in health. Have we seen any serious approach to the tobacco epidemic? I spoke at length about this last year. The Solicitor General (Hon. Mr. Fraser) has, in his own feeble way, introduced bills dealing with this in the past. Where is the action?

Where is the action on drugs and alcohol? We have a wonderful propaganda campaign, but we do not have the facilities to treat people in this province. The waiting-lists are absurd; people identified cannot get into treatment.

Where are the child development centres in places like Kamloops? Parents there are begging for attention.

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

MR. PERRY: I thank you for your patience, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. DUECK: I am pleased to be able to speak to the budget. I think I'm proud of it. It is a budget that I could campaign on in my constituency and anywhere in the province. When you have a budget like this — as the Minister of Finance has just presented — I think that everyone, on both sides of the House, has to say it is a good budget and that the business of the province is well looked after.

My ministry received an over $100 million increase, which represents approximately 6.8 percent. This budget recognizes the fiscal responsibility and also the social responsibility expected of governments, but which is so seldom delivered. We expect it from governments, but so seldom do governments in fact deliver a budget like we have here today.

Which government, I ask, has balanced the budget?

HON. MR. FRASER: Only one.

HON. MR. DUECK: That's right. Which government has paid down on their accumulated deficit?

HON. MR. FRASER: Only one.

HON. MR. DUECK: Only one. Which government pays only four cents of every dollar in servicing its debt?

HON. MR. FRASER: Only one.

HON. MR. DUECK: Only one. Our party has delivered responsible budgets for years. Year in and year out we've delivered responsible budgets, and we've balanced the budget for two years in a row. My

[ Page 9287 ]

constituency is thrilled with this budget. I can go anywhere in my constituency.... Even those people who are opposite or perhaps belong to another party say: "You've really done it." The NDP, the socialists, of course are very disturbed, mainly because it is such a good budget and they haven't got much to complain about. When I travel, I find the majority of the people in the province support the budget — not just in my constituency but around the province.

I would like to say just a couple of things about my constituency. The member from Point Grey mentioned that it is such a beautiful part of the province in which to live — clean air, stable families, a beautiful environment. All these things are true. It's an interesting community, because when I first moved to this community in 1951, we probably had a population of 20,000. It now is a very active, very prosperous, vibrant and stable community with approximately 85,000 people. It is a very desirable place to live, and this is why we have such an increase in population even in our area.

We have many societies and social clubs that operate in our community and do fund-raising. It is a community that takes care of its neighbours and other members of the community in a very personal way. This is what is so beautiful about a community like the central Fraser Valley.

On Earth Day — just to give you an example — in schools....

MR. BLENCOE: Election speech?

HON. MR. DUECK: It could be, yes. On Earth Day, not only did one teacher talk about the three R's — the recycle, reduce and reuse slogan — but they in fact composed a theme song, "Recycling Blues, " which they sang in their school during Earth Week. That was a tremendous opportunity to show the people in the community that we care about the environment.

Last but not least, my community has consistently voted the right way. I could go on and talk about the various aspects of my community, but I'll go back to the budget.

In 1990-91, the budget represents the clearest statement of what I believe is Social Credit philosophy. It is our philosophy in action, not just a philosophy that you may talk about. That is why the investment dealers of Canada — and you've heard it before but I want to say it again — say that B.C. sets the example for fiscal management in Canada. This is not Social Credit speaking; this is a financial association of Canada saying that we set the example of fiscal responsibility in Canada. You'd better sit up and take notice.

It must be very difficult for that side of the House to see such a good budget and then try and find fault with it. This is why they keep interjecting and saying things that have no meaning. As a matter of fact, they speak very abusively of things they don't even know about. They are always negative, but then, Mr. Speaker, when we talk about negativism, who could be more trained in that area, since they've been in the opposition all the time except for a couple of years? They are masters in the art of opposition and criticism, and you have to take it as such. Therefore that is their role, and we will accept that.

As I said earlier, for the second year in a row now we have balanced the budget. We have done this not only by balancing the budget. We have paid off roughly $800 million on the accumulated deficit, and we have some money in the privatization fund, and it still leaves us with $1 billion in our reserve fund.

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

Our party has always believed in lessening the burden of taxpayers, and we've done that. We've lessened the burden of the taxpayers, and we have....

MR. BLENCOE: Rubbish!

HON. MR. DUECK: Let me just go back, Mr. Speaker. For example, we spend four cents of every dollar to service our debt.

MR. BLENCOE: Absolute rubbish!

HON. MR. DUECK: Just listen up a bit. The federal government spends 31.9 percent. Do you want to hear about the other provinces? Ontario, 10.8 percent; Manitoba, 10.1 percent; Saskatchewan, 9.1 percent; Alberta, 6.4 percent; British Columbia, 4 percent. These are facts; these are not hearsay. Our party believes in individual enterprise and freedom from government. Again, this budget does exactly that.

What happens when government gets involved? For example, Ontario has now had rent controls for a number of years. They spend $40 million a year in administration, and it's going up every year. That is just the administration; nothing to do with all the people they have hired to administer it. It is an absolute nightmare. Not only have they spent $40 million in that area, but they also.... I think it was three years ago that they abandoned the department for taxing individuals who turned over their property in a short period of time to perhaps make some money — what is referred to as flipping. Would you believe that they did an analysis after they disbanded that department and found that they spent $1 for every three cents they collected? Is that the kind of management you would introduce if you got into power? Heaven help us if you ever got into power and had that type of management.

Interjection.

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, the member on the opposite side of the House is continually interrupting me. I wish you would ask him to please refrain from speaking.

MR. RABBITT: Point of order. The Chair has been very lenient. I suggest that the Chair direct the

[ Page 9288 ]

second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) to silence his comments, so we can listen to the minister's words on the budget debate. I find them very interesting, and I find the distraction from across the floor quite....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I believe that we want reasonable decorum in this House, and I would ask all members to accommodate such decorum.

Please continue, hon. member.

HON. MR. DUECK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate that.

As I was saying, they no longer have that department where they collected money on speculation on property, because they found that spending $1 to collect three cents wasn't good business. That side of the House feels that this is the kind of fiscal management we should introduce, and I have to say that it is not appropriate, and we certainly won't do that.

Mind you, the NDP have certainly tried to tone down their socialistic views. They're trying very hard to get rid of that image, but they're not united. When I hear one member say that they want controls, and.... The leader — who is a socialist one day and proud of it, and not a socialist the next day and never has been — said some years ago when he was on city council, that "the reason the developers aren't producing rental housing is because the provincial government has a rent freeze in place." He is now the Leader of the Opposition. He said the rent freeze was responsible for the builders not putting up rental housing. It was reported in the Sun.

[11:15]

You have to make up your mind. What do you want? You want both sides of the fence. You say one thing one day and something else the next day. I would say that the reason for the contrary views is that they can't find fault with the budget, so they have to make statements that are completely off the wall.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to report a bit about rent controls In Ontario. Here is a report from the Marketing and Public Affairs Committee of Ontario, which did an independent review to find facts about rent control. It was an independent survey. It says: "New Apartments Needed, But Rent Controls Interfere, Survey Shows" — facts. "Ontarians Worse Off Today Than Four Years Ago Under Rent Controls" — facts. "News Survey Finds Controls Unfair to Low-Income Tenants" — facts. "Tenants Want Right to Purchase Their Apartments" — facts. "The Rental Housing Protection Act Will Accelerate Urban Decay" — facts. "Tenancy Rent Controls Are Hurting Apartment Availability." That is Ontario's rent control, and that is something we do not wish to put in place in our province.

I would like to comment a bit about the specifics of the budget that relate to my ministry. Firstly, although human suffering persists in our province in our modern day and age, I believe there is nowhere in the world, and especially in Canada, where people are looked after as well as they are here in British Columbia.

As much as some of our citizens have difficult times with life, I feel good about the basic services that we offer in our province. For example, our various programs in shelter allowance and shelter care, food, medical and dental care, child protection, foster parents, day care subsidies, transition houses for women and children in need of protection, homes for the mentally handicapped, emergency shelters.... The list goes on and on. We could go into every one of those in more detail; however, time does not permit.

These are excellent services provided by dedicated and professional staff oftentimes trying to assist in almost impossible situations, putting people's lives back together. These programs are so respected that we have people from other provinces and the United States coming to this province and looking at our system to perhaps emulate or copy it and take some of the things from our system and incorporate them into theirs.

We are not necessarily perfect, and we don't pretend to be, but we're working at it, and we have improved in many areas in social services and in health. There are many more things to do, and this budget helps me to do that.

There are more funds for transition houses for families in need of protection. In fact, that particular part of my ministry has increased by 25 percent. We had roughly 400 beds in 1989, and that has been increased by 25 percent. We will be putting in an additional 170 beds.

There are more funds for emergency shelters for those in crisis, which were very badly needed, and more financial assistance workers and social workers to assist our needy, even though the number of people in need is declining. We find our caseload is decreasing and has decreased over the last two years, and we're still putting in more social workers to help those that are in need.

There's more money for day care. Day care has increased by 28 percent. There's more money for housing: up $120 million to $1 billion this year. In the Housing portfolio, which is in my ministry, we have social housing as one....

Just to show you how confused the opposition is.... This is why it's difficult to tell them what we're doing — because they don't listen, and then go off half-cocked and quote things that are not true. In the Hansard I'm reading of just a few days ago, the first member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Ms. Marzari) said: "I think of some of the difficulties this minister and this House have had with numbers. For example, 8,000 housing units. Social housing last year received an allocation of 1,700 housing units...announced, believe it or not, by the Minister of Housing" a number of times. When I announced the 8,000 units of rental housing, it had absolutely nothing to do with social housing. When they get that confused....

MR. CASHORE: Have they have been built?

[ Page 9289 ]

HON. MR. DUECK: Yes, a number of them have been built. I can give you the whole list. Anytime you want the list, I'll give it to you.

When we speak about social housing, we are talking about 1,886 units that have been allocated to this province from 1986 on. We've got roughly 7,000 units now of social housing in the program from 1986, which is 30-70 percent federal government funding. But over and above, in the province of British Columbia, we have just under 60,000 subsidized housing units.

That anyone can criticize a government or a province for not doing their job in housing is absolutely ludicrous. It's unadulterated puffery when they talk about such blatant nonsense. That is 8,000 units allocated for this current year. If you, Mr. Member, would go to your city council and ask them to speed up and take away the red tape so we can get these units on the turnkey operation.... The green light has been given by this province for 8,000 units as fast as they can be produced, as fast as they can get the zoning from the municipality and get their finances in place. For the life of me, I can't see anyone criticizing that.

MR. CASHORE: You keep announcing it, but you don't do it.

HON. MR. DUECK: We did not announce any more than we allocated. That is your mistake on that side of the House — that you keep duplicating the announcement. We did not duplicate the announcement. Again, that member is completely confused; although by and large, when he talks about mentally handicapped, he has some expertise in that area.

Programs for independence and shelter allowance will be reviewed and increased. Shelter aid for the elderly — the SAFER program — will be reviewed later on this year. The British Columbia rental supply program is progressing well, and I can give the list of how many are in place to the member anytime he wants. The homeowner grant has been increased. The property purchase tax relief program has been enhanced. The land tax deferment program and mortgage assistance program are all parts of the housing program in this ministry — a billion dollars' worth. I want this House to know that we're doing everything possible to take the pressure off the housing situation. The other thing that makes it quite difficult is that we've had 60,000 people net in-migration to British Columbia.

You cannot expect that housing will come up in two days. It's not like filling a grocery shelf and when you are low on supplies, you order them, and they come in the next day. Housing is a different matter You can perhaps build a house in three or four months, but from the time of inception to the time of completion we know it takes 12, 15 or 18 months — and I've got cases of 23 months. I know of one particular community where for 23 months a contractor was asked to go back and make changes. At the final reading, it was a tie vote, and the mayor voted against it, so there was 23 months down the drain. Although I have to say that in the last while they have been much more responsible and have tried to accommodate the housing need in the province.

We're all responsible for housing for our fellow man. It's not just the municipalities and not just the government; it's also the individuals on the opposite side of this House.

One of the programs handled by my predecessor the first member for Kamloops (Hon. Mr. Richmond) and House Leader is Opportunities to Independence. This program again clearly exemplifies our philosophy of assisting individuals to be independent and contributing members of our society. Here is the record. The number of single-parent families on income assistance is now beginning to decline. We had a decline in cases over the last two years, but the single-parent family was very difficult and is now showing signs of declining.

Not only is the number of single-parent families on income assistance now declining, but the number of people below the poverty line has been declining as well. In 1985 — depending on what gauge you want to use — it was 17 percent, and now it is 13.2 percent on that particular income level. I call this action, not just philosophy. I say this is government in action.

We have more good news. Through the Employment Plus program in the last year, 5,500 former recipients have been placed in new and on-the-job training positions. I was speaking to some about 35 or 40 employers recently. They had all used this particular program, and they told me that 41 percent of the people who went through the program stayed as permanent employees. Now that is good news. That is good news for the people who want to be part of this society and want to have self-worth and be employed again.

In another of our Employment Plus programs, the ministry is providing training in the tourism, forests and environment management sectors of up to 2,500 former recipients, again training and giving them employment. We fund those programs as well.

I would like to turn now to what this budget means to people living in my constituency. Very quickly, the interchange of Highway 401 and Highway 11 will be upgraded to provide greater safety and efficiency. The municipal revenue-sharing grant increase will assist the municipalities of Matsqui and Abbotsford to cope with the incredible growth in the Central Fraser Valley, which is, I believe, one of the fastest — if not the fastest — growing communities in all of the province.

Mr. Speaker, we have many young families in the Central Fraser Valley who have education as their priority, and I believe education should be our priority. The implementation of the Sullivan report has done much to help this. The Computers in Education initiative and the Pacific Rim initiative are welcomed by the citizens in my community. They are very concerned about education, and they are very pleased with the initiatives.

I have to say that this budget speaks to many of the issues in my constituency and to many of the

[ Page 9290 ]

issues in my ministry. Every ministry, when I go through the budget, has certainly addressed the areas of concern that we all know are there and that should be addressed.

The pressure in my ministry, of course, has been on housing. I believe that we haven't yet had the relief in housing that we would like to see. However, there are signs that people are now beginning to find a place they can call their own.

Going back to the housing issue, I recently heard the Leader of the Opposition say that they want to build 5,000 units for first-time buyers; I agree. We need to provide low-cost housing for the first-time buyer. But that same Leader of the Opposition, when he was on city council, said: "The single-family home is as dead as the dodo."

[11:30]

HON. MR. FRASER: He said what?

HON. MR. DUECK: "The single-family home is as dead as the dodo."

On the one hand, they are going to build 5,000 single-family homes; on the other hand, single-family homes are as dead as the dodo. Which does the opposition want?

HON. MR. FRASER: He's always on both sides.

HON. MR. DUECK: He talks on both sides of the fence. It doesn't work, and I'm telling you right now that this budget addresses the concerns we have In government and in the province. You should get on board and say: "We are with you, and we want to support that kind of budget." I would encourage the members on that side of the House, rather than opposing, to help do those things that will help the citizens of this province. I think we could work well together in doing that.

This is a good budget, a balanced budget, a responsible budget and a budget I am proud to support. I wouldn't mind going to an election with this budget. This is a budget that the citizens of the province certainly support. I certainly support it, and I think that everyone who looks at it carefully must support it.

MR. ZIRNHELT: I'm glad I'm speaking to a full House today, because some of the things I have to say are important. I realize that everybody reads the Blues, and I know that at least the people in my constituency will get the message I am delivering on their behalf.

I would like to start where the last speaker left off; that is, with the budget itself and whether or not....

MR. PETERSON: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. Unfortunately — and I hate to do this when the member is speaking — the opposition does not seem to hold up its end in this House, particularly when its members are speaking. There is not a quorum in this House at this time, and I would ask that you ring the quorum bells.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: We do have a quorum now, I understand. I would ask the second member for Cariboo to continue.

MR. ZIRNHELT: I wanted to say that in my travels around the Cariboo, I find the people feel they are being deceived by this budget in respect to the fact that recent evidence from reputable sources — and I'll quote Peat Marwick — indicates, in a review of the April 19 budget, that the public accounts are actually in deficit to the tune of $2.6 billion, not balanced as indicated by the Finance minister. A review of the balance sheet of the general fund, budget stabilization fund and privatization benefits fund discloses that liabilities are projected to exceed assets by $2.667 billion at March 31. The deficit has been divided up on "an artificial and arbitrary basis." Peat Marwick continues:

"The whole exercise is akin to being indebted to the bank for $50 but pretending that is the same as $200 of assets and $250 of debt and then telling the world about your supposed $200 of assets while ignoring your debts.

"This is not a fund at all, at least not a fund in the sense that there's money in an account identifiable with this fund."

I think that the people are being deceived, and I think that the members on the other side of the House should know that a government can never gain respect by not telling the whole truth.

Again from the Vancouver Sun, quoting the Peat Marwick study, it says, "the accounts are in deficit," and "it undermines the credibility of the budget as presented by the Minister of Finance."

HON. MR. FRASER: I don't think you know what you're talking about.

MR. ZIRNHELT: Neither does Peat Marwick. I think we do. I think we're looking at "government financing baffles the people, " and it's time you stopped baffling the people.

Interjection.

MR. ZIRNHELT: It didn't baffle me at all; I knew it from the start.

The next item I'd like to speak about is land use planning, mentioned first of all in the throne speech. I look through the budget to see what might be done, and I see that a sustainable environment fund is going to allow some opportunity for the government to play catch-up, but I don't see any strong indication that they are going to resource the Ministries of Forests or Environment in order to update the process of land use planning. I see a Minister of Forests who can go from one valley to another but who has not given a mandate to his ministry, and I see a Minister of Environment who has not mandated the officials in his ministry to go in and start a positive process to end conflicts in this province.

We have a number of issues in the Cariboo Chilcotin which, frankly, are somewhat frightening, because mill workers and loggers are concerned about

[ Page 9291 ]

their jobs. We're waiting for the Round Table and the Forests Resources Commission to report sometime down the road. In the meantime there are no initiatives being taken to address people's immediate needs and fears. It seems that provincewide initiatives might help us to address the need for a land use strategy on a provincial basis; but in the local watersheds, where the conflicts become operable, there is nothing in this budget that indicates there is going to be a concerted effort.

With respect to the forest resource, a critical one in the interior, we have a very vibrant forest industry, but it is in trouble. We have a general problem in the province of selling off resources, with very little return to the Crown and therefore very little reinvestment in the resource to keep up productivity. We are seeing fewer and fewer jobs. There is a real need to address backlog reforestation, so we don't have to put pressure on a declining land base.

I'd like to take a minute to quote from the budget some of the general economic indicators that relate to the forest industry. I'll just point out that this might be the source of the former Premier's comment about forestry being a sunset industry and of references in this budget to a post-resource economy. The first indicator, on page 91, is the amount of timber scaled: 87,414,000 cubic metres, which is up from the previous year. But in lumber production, we're down to 35,952,000 cubic metres. In pulp and paper we're down from the previous year — not substantially, but we are down. So in pulp and paper and lumber production, we're down; in timber scaled, we're up.

This indicates to me that there are some inefficiencies that had better be investigated. The general point is that we are creating less and less employment from this very valuable resource. I think it's time the Ministry of Forests and the Ministry of Environment addressed this issue together by looking at the need for planning this resource at the local level.

I don't see any bragging about the replacement of jobs that have been lost in the forest industry with value-added jobs. I know some jobs are replaced, but they don't go very far to match.... In the Cariboo alone we've lost a minimum of 1,000 jobs in the last eight years, and we've seen them replaced only to the tune of about 200 jobs, Mr. Speaker.

With respect to highways, I would hope that in this budget, which only increased 1.5 percent, we would see a couple of projects that are critical to people up there.

One is the need for a bypass to take dangerous goods off the main street of Quesnel.

I would also like to point out at this time that, in their deliberations over trying to expropriate part of the Mitchell farms, they have left these people hanging for months and not come clean on the location of an east-west connector across the Fraser River. The government is planning to cut this farm in half and virtually destroy a way of life on one of the oldest farms, in order to avoid a golf course. Where are the priorities of the government? In the situation agriculture finds itself in, we can't afford to destroy any units, especially those that have been viable and will remain viable if we don't destroy them.

Another bridge problem is in the southern end of the riding: the Ladoucer Bridge at Eagle Creek. It's a bridge that's going to be closed down, but one that crosses the river and the traditional road there and is a main connector for the old people living in the neighbourhood who want to go across to obtain their mail from the post office and shop locally. The government bypassed this bridge and intends to close it down. I would call upon the government to find the resources to maintain the bridge as a vital connector in a community. I think in this day and age we have to look at the social and microeconomic impact of these kinds of decisions.

In the field of tourism, I don't see any direct reference to increasing the capability of the Ministry of Tourism to be involved in a marketing strategy for the very important historical town of Barkerville. This is a regional resource and a provincial resource.

HON. MR. FRASER: Up, up, up.

MR. ZIRNHELT: Well, I'm hoping it's there. You can't see it, but it had better be there. Is it up there for Barkerville? If it isn't, you're missing the boat. It seems to me that, if you start below the riding in Cache Creek and go up through Clinton, 100 Mile House, Quesnel and right on up through the whole Cariboo, this is a drawing-card, and we cannot afford not to reinvest in marketing it.

The issue of conservation officers needs to be addressed. When roads are put in by the forest industry, we don't mitigate the impact. Everybody knows that a new road will open up the country to poaching. I can give examples where people working for the logging companies will take four moose — and there's no patrol around; just because somebody reported it. There's been a call for one conservation officer in the Chilcotin, which will help mitigate the impact of penetrating further and further into the wilderness with roads. I hope you can find some man-years in the budget for that. I don't see that, but I serve notice that during the detailed estimates debate, I'll be looking for it.

I'd like to point out the unemployment in the Cariboo, which hovers around 11 percent in the major towns and up to 16 or 17 percent in the south end of the riding. We've almost come to accept unemployment at these rates as somehow to be expected.

Interjection.

MR. ZIRNHELT: It's not down in the Cariboo. We've lost 2 percent of the population in the Cariboo because of the failure of the regional development plans.

I see there is $350 million being spent in school capital funding. I hope that the ministry will see fit to replace some of the "permables" — the permanent portables that house so many students in the high schools in Williams Lake. I would also like to say that

[ Page 9292 ]

I hope that with the increased expenditure in the Ministry of Education, they see fit to move with caution — but assuredly — towards some of the directions in "Year 2000."

I speak in particular about the graduation program, where there are some serious implications for the community in providing work experience for students. It doesn't appear to be funded, and it is causing concern for teaching staff. I hope that there will be some prototypes developed, since this policy doesn't appear to have anything more than a philosophical basis. It doesn't have an empirical basis, or a basis in fact. So until we accumulate some facts about how successful it can be, I think we need to move slowly but surely and develop some prototypes.

[11:45]

I'd like to indicate that the largest increase in government revenues is from government enterprises. If that's the largest increase, maybe that indicates that the mixed economy — we have the government involved in some business opportunities — is a healthy approach to take.

I'd also like to point out that with respect to fish and wildlife resources, the resource management initiative has a fund of $11.3 million, which includes the Forest Resources Commission. I think what's critical here is the implementation of a provincial wildlife inventory. It has been said that the forest resource inventory is 20 years behind the times, but the other resource inventories — fish and wildlife — are 20 years behind them. Twenty plus 20 is 40 years behind the times, so we have an awful lot of catching up to do. We're trying to make resource management decisions and plans to respect all the resources, and we don't have the inventory in place. I think that's an indictment of the past performance of this government.

They also mention that there is going to be a variety of integrated resource management initiatives, such as monitoring and assessing the impact of industrial and urban development on fish and wildlife and their habitat. This ought to be an ongoing function, not a special fund created before an election to try to pick up some points.

I'd like to point out that recently, in the hurry to put a pulpwood agreement on the market — that is PA 19 — to allow a company to secure financing for a fibreboard plant.... I have yet to see the assessment by the fish and wildlife branch or by the Ministry of Environment of the impact of this on the resources under their stewardship. We've heard about stewardship and government management from people in industry, and they're very serious about the inability of the government to carry out its mandate with respect to stewarding the other resources. That comes from the Cariboo lumber manufacturers' own brief to the Forest Resources Commission.

When we look at the state of uncertainty out in the hinterland, I think we see why the government is referring to a fragile economy. It's fragile because it's threatened from within; it's also threatened from the outside. I'm wondering if, when we see economic downturn on a world scale, this government will blame world economic factors fully for this decline, and then, when the economy is buoyant, turn around and take credit. I think this is part of telling the truth to people, so that people can make informed decisions based on the facts told without undue political coloration.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I also notice that there is an $80 million increase in the regional economic development program. I would like to underscore the need for the extension of power into rural areas. There are many areas where we see the development of fishing resorts which could benefit by such extension. I look forward to some detailed debate on that as well.

There are some remarks in the budget speech about initiatives to increase employment opportunities for native people off reserve. I think the House has to recognize, when we look at the estimates, that it's not only off reserve but also on reserve, because the reserves remain the home and will remain the home for the large majority of native people until they find some other place they can call home. They're not always comfortable living in the cities, because they don't do as well there. The unemployment rate off reserve is probably the same as it is on reserve — in the 80 to 90 percent range.

I would like to point out a matter with respect to the health budget. My colleague from Point Grey did commend a couple of initiatives in mental health and home support. I believe that the home support programs can be extremely cost-effective. I know the people in our area are providing an excellent service. In terms of keeping people in their homes, I would like to underscore the need for more support for this program.

I am concerned about the mental health services. I know there's an increase. We're not sure where the increase is going to go. I'd like to tell the House about a situation that happened in the Quesnel area. An 11-year-old girl who was suicidal was held for ten days in a padded cell in a hospital, waiting for a referral to the regional centre in Prince George — ten days in a padded cell, waiting to be referred to a psychiatrist, and the referral centre couldn't take them.

Interjection.

MR. ZIRNHELT: Listening to some truths. Admit the truth, and then you can deal with it.

With respect to health again, if the government feels they can't afford to spend more on health care and that they have to spend it differently, it's really important to recognize that some very well trained professionals, the doctors and nurses, feel so down about the way they're treated. We could take as an example the way in which some school districts, in particular our own, treated teachers during negotiations. One of the ways that you can treat professional people better is by allowing them some control over the decisions that affect the quality of the service.

[ Page 9293 ]

That often doesn't mean increased expenditures; it means different priorities and more effective expenditures. Cost effectiveness is the key.

In my discussions with doctors and nurses, the last thing on the agenda is fee increases. At one meeting with doctors, I said "fee increase" just to get it on the table; but the first seven items they dealt with had to do with the quality of care and the fact that they don't feel respected as professional people in this province. The government has to deal with that now, not after we wait a year and a half for a commission on it.

When I talk about cost effectiveness, I talk about performance — the output of professionals, be they teachers, nurses, or whoever. It's so much greater when they feel they are respected, and that respect has to go through the speeches of members from both sides of the House.

I would like to end by just reminding people who scream "socialist" across the floor here that you'll have to really define what you mean, because it sounds just like a bad word.

AN HON. MEMBER: It is a bad word.

MR. ZIRNHELT: You'll have to define it, because this government has.... Are you going to throw out medicare — a great socialist initiative? Are you going to throw out the Canada Pension Plan — a great socialist initiative? Are you going to throw out ICBC, B.C. Hydro, B.C. Ferry Corporation, just to mention a few?

Interjection.

MR. ZIRNHELT: Social conscience. That's the first time in this House that I felt like blurting out something impolite to the members on the other side. This budget has a number of socialist initiatives, and you're going to have to admit it if that's your definition. I mention the B.C. pension plan, the hazardous waste management corporation, a Crown corporation using Crown land in urban areas for affordable housing, more money for ferries — I could go on. So we're bolstering the mixed economy.

I started my speech by showing you that a lot of the increase in revenues come from government enterprise. So let's come clean on this and stop yelling insults across that don't mean anything.

MR. BRUCE: Mr. Speaker, I would really like to get into the attributes of this budget, and I know many of you would like to just sit right through the lunch hour and debate this budget, because this is a very good budget. It's actually one of the best budgets that has ever been brought in in the province of British Columbia and, indeed, Canada.

However, because I would rather speak to a full House than an empty stomach, I would suggest that we adjourn the debate until the next sitting of the House.

Mr. Bruce moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Richmond moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:54 a.m.