[ Page 9295 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Tabling Documents –– 9296

Oral Questions

Chilcotin land use conflicts. Mr. Zirnhelt –– 9296

Budget deficit. Mr. Williams –– 9296

Additional school district funding. Ms. A. Hagen –– 9297

Government policy on tuna purchases. Mr. Mowat –– 9297

Forestry information fees. Mr. Miller –– 9297

Illicit use of drugs. Mr. Huberts –– 9298

Tabling Documents –– 9298

Budget Debate

Mr. Bruce –– 9298

Mr. Cashore –– 9302

Hon. J. Jansen –– 9306

Mr. Jones –– 9310

Mr. Peterson –– 9313

Mr. Blencoe –– 9316

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 9319

The House met at 2:04 p.m.

HON. MR. DIRKS: It is my pleasure today to introduce to the House Mr. Tony Joy, newly appointed consul-general of the United Kingdom in Vancouver. Mr. Joy has just recently moved to Vancouver from Delhi, India. We welcome him and his family to our great province. Would the House please wish him a warm welcome.

MR. SIHOTA: I would like to let members of the House know that in the gallery today are two people visiting us from Australia. They have been cycling around the world and have just cycled up here from San Francisco. They plan to go all the way to Alaska on their trip around the world. No, I'm not going, for those who are wondering. Would all members please join me in welcoming Julie Bros and John Siedel.

MR. PELTON: Hon. members, in the gallery today we have two students visiting us from Simon Fraser University: Brent Mueller and Julia Watson. Would you please make them welcome.

HON. MR. DUECK: It is my pleasure today to introduce members of the Child Welfare League of America, I am very pleased to let you know that the Ministry of Social Services and Housing has recently joined the Child Welfare League of America. Membership in the CWLA is one of the steps my ministry has taken to reinforce and strengthen our commitment to quality service.

Since 1920, the league has been a leader in the child welfare field. Almost 600 government and voluntary child welfare agencies participate in league activities, including publications, conferences, training, development of standards, public awareness and public information.

With us today are: Miss Joan McIntosh, director of the western office; Miss Maryanne Xavier, director of member services; and Mr. Dean Damel, senior field consultant for Canada. Joining them is the superintendent of family and child service, Leslie Arnold, the mother of 6,000 children. Will the House please make them welcome.

MR. WILLIAMS: In the galleries and on the grounds today are 150 students from Laura Secord Elementary School in Vancouver East. That happens to be the alma mater of Mr. Dave Barrett, present MP for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca. I think we might welcome them because of the likely trouble they might represent in the future.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I rise to ask the assembly to welcome to Victoria and to the precincts of this Legislative Assembly the members of the Greater Vancouver and Fraser Valley Real Estate Boards. Would this assembly please make them welcome.

MRS. BOONE: In the gallery today is John Ricketts, newly nominated candidate for the Prince George-Omineca riding. I'd like the House to join me in welcoming him.

MR. DE JONG: I'm pleased to introduce to the House today, together with the first member for Central Fraser Valley (Hon. Mr. Dueck), two school groups from our riding. There are 20 students from Yale Secondary School, who are with their teacher, Mr. Lee. They are somewhere on the premises, although not in the gallery. However, in your gallery, Mr. Speaker, are about 19 students from the Pacific Christian School of Mount Lehman, with their principal, Mr. Klassen, and several parents. I ask the House to wish them all a pleasant welcome.

HON. S. HAGEN: It is my great pleasure today to welcome and introduce to the House two Soviet Georgian exchange students who have spent the year at the University of Victoria. The first one is Levan Kverenchkilavze, who is majoring in English language and literature, and is in his fourth year. The second is Merab Manjgaladze, who is studying Canadian and U.S. history in his fourth year. They are accompanied by Dr. Nicholas Galichenko, who is a professor of Slavonic studies. These two students will be returning to Soviet Georgia over the next couple of months.

I'm also pleased to welcome today my wife's uncle from Trail, Fred Robbins, who has just celebrated his eighty-sixth birthday. He has spent many years in volunteer work in the province. Please bid them welcome.

MR. SERWA: Mr. Speaker, seated in your galleries are approximately 25 political science students, accompanied by their professor, Mr. Donald Balmer. The students are from Lewis and Clark College in Portland, Oregon. They are the latest in a series of groups that have visited the Legislature since 1957. This morning I had the opportunity to speak about the great British Columbia Social Credit Party and our excellent government here in British Columbia. Would the House please make welcome our good friends and neighbours from Portland, Oregon.

MR. ROSE: In joining the first member for Okanagan South in welcoming these graduate students from Lewis and Clark, I would like to say that I am looking forward to meeting them this afternoon, and I will be telling them about the Social Credit Party too.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: In the precincts this morning and visiting with a variety of ministries and ministers and seated in the House now are the executive of the British Columbia Institute of Technology student association. They are: Dave Souder, the president; Duff Gardener, president-elect; Adrian Wilson, the council member who is from Creston; and Lorne Hildebrand, the executive director. Would the

[ Page 9296 ]

members of the Legislative Assembly please make the BCIT student association executive welcome.

MR. CASHORE: I would like to add my welcome to Mr. Fred Robbins. I've known Fred for many years in Trail, and Fred has had a tremendous influence on a great many young people in the Kootenays, especially working through Camp Koolaree, so I am glad to add my welcome to Fred.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, on my own behalf and on yours as well, I would like to introduce to the House two people from Vancouver who are known to you and me, and who have done a great number of good things in the province, including volunteering and working and contributing. I would like the House to make welcome Will and Patricia Preston.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Visiting the House today are Sarah Heywood, daughter of Deputy Minister Claude Heywood, and 12 grade 5 students from her social studies class at St. Margaret's School in Victoria. I would like the House to give them a warm welcome.

Hon. Mr. Speaker tabled the 1989 annual report of the ombudsman.

Oral Questions

CHILCOTIN LAND USE CONFLICTS

MR. ZIRNHELT: I have a question for the Minister of Forests. Has the Minister of Forests commenced negotiations with the Toosey Indian band and other resource users in the southeast Chilcotin to resolve costly and disruptive land use conflicts and to ensure an orderly flow of timber to the mills in Williams Lake after breakup?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Yes.

MR. ZIRNHELT: A supplementary. I have written to the minister twice on this issue. Can he tell the House which forest user groups and government agencies are involved in the process and when he expects a negotiated solution to these conflicts?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: No.

MR. ZIRNHELT: Is the question "why" in order, Mr. Speaker? I would ask the minister why he won't tell us. The reason I ask the question is that there's a lot of fear and concern on the part of both parties. I would like to know why the minister won't make known the process of discussions.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: The member's question, Mr. Speaker, was: can the minister tell us when these negotiations with the user groups will be concluded? The answer is no, I can't. But I can tell you that I have had meetings with several user groups throughout the province and that this government is committed to involving the native Indians wherever possible in the economic part of forestry in this province. To that end, I have met with several native Indian bands throughout the province and have meetings scheduled with others. I believe the first meeting is scheduled with the Toosey band next Monday or Tuesday, and I am going to Williams Lake to meet with them. I have met with other bands in that area. I have also met with bands in the northern and coastal parts of the province in regard to timber supply, because we want very much to involve them in the economics of the forest industry.

[2:15]

BUDGET DEFICIT

MR. WILLIAMS: To the hon. Premier. Peat Marwick Thorne and Peat Marwick Stevenson and Kellogg, Canada's largest accounting firm, state on page 1 in this review of the budget that there's a real deficit of $502 million this year. Will the Premier ask the Minister of Finance to quit smearing the integrity of this accounting firm of some 6, 000 members and accept the conclusion that the budget is indeed not balanced?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, it's coincidence perhaps, but I have a whole big file in front of me, and I'm just reading this one rather extensive report from Rampart Capital Corp., wherein they say that they enclose their latest issue of their economic overview, which is now read by more than 1,000 investors, banks and government officials, etc., in 16 European countries. I haven't read all the detail, but it certainly appears extremely complimentary. I expect we will go through all of this pile and find many more that are extremely complimentary about the balanced budget we have this year — as we had last year and as we will have next year and the year after.

MR. WILLIAMS: On page 2 of this same report by Peat Marwick, our country's largest accounting firm, they refer to "a manufactured surplus." This company, Peat Marwick, has offices in Abbotsford, Barrie, Bathurst, Brampton, Brockville, Calgary, Cambridge, Chatham, Chilliwack, Cranbrook, Dartmouth, Edmonton, Fort McMurray, Fredericton, Grimsby....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Perhaps if the member wishes to table the list of the offices, it would be worthwhile. Now would you please come back to the question.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Premier, are you saying that Canada's largest accounting firm doesn't know what it's talking about?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I have here a letter, which again is one of many, and it represents, I believe, something in excess of 10,000 such offices, so I won't begin to name them all. It's the Institute of

[ Page 9297 ]

Chartered Accountants of British Columbia. They say; "There is lot's to laud and little to fault in this year's provincial budget." And on they go. And certainly they say, too, that they "could nitpick and find small things to criticize." But: "Overall we have to say our provincial government could give lessons in fiscal integrity and smart money management to the federal government."

ADDITIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT FUNDING

MS. A. HAGEN: My question is to the Minister of Education. The minister's last-minute attempt to correct inequities in block funding by providing an extra $4.8 million to 22 school districts has created great confusion in those districts facing referenda. How does the minister explain this last-minute decision — as political interference or simply incompetence?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Of course, the short answer is neither. The budget for the districts when they were initially calculated — and I think reasonably so — was the total of the provincial grant and the supplementary amount. That indicated the total expenditures. It's still a correct figure. Some people raised a point, but it changed the position between districts, because their supplementary amount was affected by whether they used the previous year's surplus to hold down the supplementary amount. That came to our attention.

Yes, we could have just said: "No adjustments." But whenever we find a legitimate adjustment is warranted, then we act on it. In this case we checked to see how many districts were in a position where putting their surplus in would put them at a disadvantage to the others, particularly as they could carry forward their surpluses in the future. It involved about 22 districts, and Surrey happened to be one of them.

Last Wednesday afternoon we phoned them and said that this was now added into their budget in fairness to those other districts, and they could adjust themselves accordingly. So I think it was a responsible action on our part.

The answer to the member's next question is no, I don't intend to change it.

MS. A. HAGEN: Supplementary to the Minister of Education. Would the minister agree that providing this funding at the last minute — after that board had sought for weeks to meet with you and had pointed out the problem they were facing — when it was too late to incorporate it in the ballot or too little to avoid a referendum, actually jeopardized the outcome of the Surrey referendum?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: First of all, Surrey was notified last Wednesday afternoon. They had time to change the ballot, had they chosen to do so. Secondly, since they are going to referendum for what they have dearly said are extra necessary items, if and when the referendum passes, they can submit a final budget. At that time they can reduce their final budget by that amount or they can have that money to do the things they want to.

It is not jeopardizing the referendum. Their referendum was for extra items not included in the block funding. The block funding is a little bit bigger now, and they can adjust their operations accordingly.

GOVERNMENT POLICY ON TUNA PURCHASES

MR. MOWAT: My question is for the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries. In view of the minister's new policy of supporting only dolphin-friendly tuna, will he undertake to provide purchasers in the province with the information needed to ensure that they will be able to cooperate in helping to protect the dolphin by encouraging the purchase of dolphin friendly tuna?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I can assure the hon. member that we will do everything we can in this province to ensure that when tuna is bought, it is in fact dolphin friendly. We're asking for total certification at source — where the tuna comes from before it is processed — that it is dolphin-friendly.

I think it's important to recognize that we have a concern about the marine biology of the Pacific Ocean, where a lot of the tuna is caught. I believe very strongly — as we did on the driftnet issues that we led in this province on driftnet issues, as you well know, and we will continue to do so. Therefore I'm very cognizant, and I have advised members who are sourcing tuna — outside sources — that they certify it is in fact dolphin-friendly.

FORESTRY INFORMATION FEES

MR. MILLER: Mr. Speaker, last year the Minister of Forests imposed a $50 per hour fee on people who legitimately requested information from his ministry, and this has obviously thwarted the legitimate desires of people to get information about what's happening on our Crown lands. Has the minister now decided to eliminate this unnecessary charge and to make information on forestry freely available to the public?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: All information is freely available to the public in this province regarding anything we do in the ministry up to a certain point, which involves person-hours. If it involves more than the normal request and would take a staff person's time for an inordinate length of time, then there is a charge attached to it.

We're reviewing the policy to see if it indeed is having the desired effect but, more importantly, to make sure that it is not curtailing any information from those who genuinely require it or genuinely need it up to — as we say — a certain point. But as you can imagine, some information regarding forestry harvesting plans requires hours and hours of research and compiling of information. If we get some organizations requesting the information time after time, there is a tremendous cost to it. So we are

[ Page 9298 ]

reviewing the policy to make sure it is not working a hardship on anyone and to make sure it's fair to everybody.

MR. MILLER: I have a new question to the minister. Written and verbal requests for information on tree-farm licences have been denied to the people of British Columbia when they approach your ministry. Could the minister explain why people who request information on Crown lands and TFLs are being denied this information?

I'll quote very briefly from a letter dated January 18 regarding an individual who requested information: "In regards to your request for information on MacMillan Bloedel scale information, this is confidential under the ministry's access to information policy." If the minister is going to review the fact that he's charging people for information in this province, would he also undertake to have his ministry make available information on waste billings and other information pertinent to TFLs available to the public as well?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I am sure the member must know that due to the very nature of the forest industry and its competitiveness, some information is confidential. A lot of information is not confidential, and in that case it is freely given. If it is confidential information, then it will remain that way.

ILLICIT USE OF DRUGS

MR. HUBERTS: One of my concerns is the illicit use of drugs by our teenagers. A new drug called methamphetamine — popularly called "ice" — has been introduced into the Victoria market. My question is to the Solicitor-General. What are we as a government doing about preventing the spread of that sort of drug in Victoria? Is there an educational program, and are resources available to combat that drug as well as other drugs?

HON. MR. FRASER: For the benefit of everybody in the House and the galleries, the ministry is very much aware of the problems related to drugs in the province. Certainly the officials of my ministry and those of the Attorney-General — in fact, all of us — are making every effort to prevent the spread of drugs. Indeed, we're prevailing upon the federal authorities to do something with respect to the length of sentencing, so we are indeed addressing the question addressed to me.

Hon. Mr. Couvelier tabled the annual report of the auditor-general for the fiscal year ending March 1990.

Orders of the Day

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

Budget Debate

(continued)

MR. BRUCE: Mr. Speaker, I finished off prior to lunchtime just mentioning a few items about the budget this year, and I would like to carry on from where I left off. I'm sure most of you would like to join with me in talking about this budget, which I happen to think is a very good budget for the province of British Columbia.

There's been a tremendous amount of debate as to whether or not this budget is balanced. Whether it's balanced or not — or whatever the words — a few questions that you might want to ask are: has the deficit been increased in this budget? The deficit has not been increased. We talk about the aspect of debt reduction. Tell me, has the deficit been reduced in this budget? Yes, it has been reduced. Tell me, has there been increased spending in most of the social ministries in this province in this budget? There, has been, has there not? Have there been any tax increases? There have been no tax increases — none whatsoever. Has there been property tax relief in the province? There has been property tax relief in the province.

So I really don't mind if the opposition has a hard time getting their minds around whether the budget is balanced or not. The simple answer to the whole question is: is it a good budget for the people of the province? Most certainly it is.

[2:30]

Let me just carry on a little about what the budget means to the people and what it means to our economy. The economy is fragile, and it's important that we understand that and build with what we have to shore up the economy. But while it may be somewhat fragile.... You people would like to hear this because normally you — the members of the opposition — would like to stand and talk about all the bankruptcies you may find in one province or another, all the things that are going under and all the bad things in this province and this country. Ladies and gentlemen, my colleagues here and Mr. Speaker, there are good things happening in the province.

You might want to take note of a column just written in the Vancouver Sun, and I know that you collectively read all of the columns in the Vancouver Sun, so I might just bring this one to your attention, because I didn't hear any questions asked in question period relative to this. This is relative to bankruptcies.

Did you know — and I'm sure my colleagues would agree — that bankruptcies in British Columbia are at a lower rate than anywhere else in Canada? I thought the members of the opposition might like to ask some questions of cabinet about what is actually happening in the economy, and how it affects some of these changes we're making and the total economy.

If I could quote I'm sure you would like to hear what Jenny Lee had to say. It's a little column called "Your Money" in the Vancouver Sun, April 30, 1990. It says: "The rest of Canada may be heading into bankruptcy, but here in British Columbia we're

[ Page 9299 ]

doing just fine, thank you very much." Those are nice things to hear.

Interjection.

MR. BRUCE: If I can just go on a little bit.... I'm sure you would all like to hear these words, because they're good words, and we'll come back to my colleague here.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I must ask the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) to restrain himself. Thank you. You've been absent for some time, and the House has noticed your absence; with your return, the House has noticed your repeated heckling. Perhaps the member could try to just tone it down a bit.

MR. BRUCE: Debating the budget is serious business, and I think it's something that we in this House should deal with in a quiet and orderly fashion.

I'd like to carry on, because this is something that the second member for Victoria would like to hear, as would other members in the opposition.

Just carrying on from the aspect of bankruptcies, it says here: "So although consumer and business bankruptcies across Canada have soared 29 percent in the first three months of 1990, British Columbia saw an increase of only 1.75 percent for the same period, according to Consumer and Corporate Affairs figures. 'In fact "' — and I think this is really important — "says Doug Welbanks, chief of the B.C. debtor assistance branch in Vancouver, 'we've noticed at debtor assistance an improvement in the overall financial health of people in the last two years.'"

My friends, that is good news, and I'm sure that all of you join with me in welcoming that news and sharing it with the people of the province.

This budget has a number of good things to it, but we come particularly to transportation and highways, and I'm very keen on what's taking place in transportation and highways. The other day the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) had the gall to ask where I stand in respect to the development of the Vancouver Island Highway. I have a problem comprehending where this member might be coming from. Let me tell you, my friends, in the spring of 1987 construction started on the Island Highway on a section called Tunnel Hill, which happens to be in the riding of Esquimalt-Port Renfrew. I make no bones about where riding boundaries are. If there's a job to be done, I don't mind getting on with the job and seeing it through to conclusion.

I got — and my colleague the second member for Nanaimo (Ms. Pullinger) would like to hear this — right down there. I got in touch with the then Minister of Highways and said: "The ministry owns all of the right-of-way. The plans have been done, and the design work. It's all set to go. Can't we find enough dollars right away to get on with that section of highway?" I then went right to the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) and said....

Interjections.

MR. BRUCE: Listen! I'll come back to that.

We went right to the Minister of Finance. We needed $2.5 million to get that project up and running. You will appreciate this, too, because you drive that section of road now. By the time the fall of 1987 came around, not only was the job started, not only was that section of road moved from three lanes to four lanes, but it was all done. That's action.

I say to you again: the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew has the gall to ask where I stand in regard to the Island Highway development. My friends, let me tell you, I'm right there at the lead, making sure that that highway construction is completed, not only through Cowichan-Malahat but also through the entire route of Vancouver Island. I wonder where that member stands when it comes to the development of the Island Highway.

Sure, there are some problems. Whenever there's development, whenever you are going to be progressive, there are going to be problems. You're going to take a route of road, and you're going to expand it. Then you're going to impinge on people's property, on access to the highway. You could turn tail, run away from that and say: "Gee, there are too many problems here. I've got to satisfy all the special interest groups. If I have to satisfy all the special interest groups, there's no way we're going to get this project done."

Listen, my friends, it's needed. It's needed for the economy; it's needed for the people of Vancouver Island. The job will be done, and it will be done by consultation with the people. Granted, there will be problems. But this government will work out those problems with the people who are affected.

The first member for Nanaimo (Mr. Lovick) — the highways critic — just yesterday, if you can believe this, stood in this House and said in regard to, the highways budget.... There were a lot of very big, long words involved in this, so I might have to paraphrase a little bit. At any rate, he said: "There is less money for transportation in this provincial budget this year than there was last year." I looked at the numbers. There's about $300,000 to $400,000 more this year than last year. No wonder they don't understand whether or not this is a balanced budget. There's $400,000 more this year in the budget than there was last year. Yet the highways critic is commenting that he thinks there's actually less money. The numbers clearly show that there is more money, my friends.

All of these issues, these things that cause us problems.... It is important that we know where people stand. One of the biggest issues that have affected a number of us here on Vancouver Island — and, really, throughout the province — is the Carmanah Valley. Where do they stand on the Carmanah? Where does the member for Alberni (Mr. G. Janssen), who spoke yesterday about it, stand? Is he in favour of a park?

He talks about the fact there will be 150 jobs lost and that it will affect his riding. Do I take from that

[ Page 9300 ]

the inference that he would have liked to have seen the entire Carmanah clearcut and that he doesn't want to see a park established there? Is that what the member for Alberni is saying — that he would like to see the entire Carmanah clearcut? I don't know.

What about the two members for Nanaimo? Are they in favour of the Carmanah? Are they in favour of the park that's been established? Or would they have preferred that the entire Carmanah was saved? Not only would they have lost, as that member says, 150 jobs, but maybe a couple of hundred jobs. Where do they stand on that?

What about the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew? Where does he stand on the Carmanah? Is he happy that we have a new park in the province, while at the same time preserving jobs in the forest industry, which happens to be the backbone not only of this province but of the economy of this country? Do we hear from them?

What about the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) ? What does he think about the Carmanah?

My friends, I am looking forward to debating the Carmanah legislation when it is brought forward by this government. I'm looking forward to finding out where the members over there actually stand. It's really incredible. You wonder all the time where the NDP actually stand. Are they in favour of higher income taxes or not? Some of their members say that they are in favour of higher income taxes; and then, sometimes, other members say they're not.

Yesterday there was an exchange. I think it's important that we clarify it. I come along the lines that the member for Alberni (Mr. G. Janssen) does. I will quote him again, because I think what he says is important: "I think we are all honourable members of this House, and we all like to come into this House well prepared 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." I subscribe to that. I believe we should make sure our quotes are correct.

The member for Alberni got up, made a great to-do with respect to the Minister of Municipal Affairs' (Hon. L. Hanson's) comments and inferred that perhaps the minister was telling less than the whole truth, giving less than the entire statement about what this member's colleague and friend, Mr. Krog, the candidate for Parksville-Qualicum, had actually said in respect to his beliefs on higher taxes. I think it is important that we read into the record exactly what Mr. Krog did say.

Mr. Krog, a Nanaimo lawyer, is going to run for the NDP in Parksville-Qualicum, and I will quote his first statement. It is important that we are correct, not only in the quotation but in the chronological order of these things that were said. What Mr. Krog said initially on March 8, in Bowser at an all-candidates meeting, was: "If we're going to be honest with the people in the next election, that's what we're going to have to tell the people of British Columbia; that these things" — that's programs — "are going to cost a great deal of money."

He went on to promise higher corporate taxes, and he said: "Believe you me, we're all going to have to pay higher income taxes." That is what Mr. Krog said. I want to underline the fact that he said, "If we are going to be honest with the people...we're going to have to tell them" — we being the NDP, the opposition — "that we, " you and I, all of us in this province, "are going to have to pay higher income taxes."

You can imagine the ripple. You can imagine the storm that would have been caused in the NDP caucus. I can bet you my bottom dollar that the Leader of the Opposition was on the phone almost immediately when those words came out of that candidate's mouth.

Then we had the clarification which the member for Alberni read into the record, so we are totally correct in the quotation and chronological order. Let me read that quote. I am sure this was said after the Leader of the Opposition had spoken to Mr. Krog:

[2:45]

"It was my intention to remind everyone that good government requires careful choices about which important programs and projects B.C. can afford. I was speaking to the high expectations British Columbians have about a New Democrat government, and I was calling for realism about the cost of reversing years of Socred neglect."

Well, my friends, it is extremely important that quotations are: (1) correct; (2) complete; and (3) addressed to the House in the proper chronological order. I am sure you would agree.

I have heard members in this House stand and say there is nothing in this budget to improve the lot of women in British Columbia. I really have a hard. time when they say that, because there are a number of things in this budget — and more that will be coming — that deal with the aspect of women in the workplace and in society as a whole.

They will talk about the pay equity package, and some of them will stand up and tell you that it's equal pay for equal work and all that sort of stuff. But this government has proposed discussion In bringing in a pay equity package which is equal pay for work of equal value, a very comprehensive way of dealing with what's inherent in the workforce today where the majority of women are in jobs that are lower-paying than those of their male counterparts. I think it is important. It is something that will cost an incredible amount of money, but it's something this government is prepared to do in trying to balance the situation in the workplace and improve the lot of women.

Let me talk to you about the B.C. pension plan, the White Paper that's going to be put together by this government and released for discussion throughout the province. That's another important document. Not only will it help small business persons without the ability to develop their own pension plans, but it's also going to be extended to cover, overall, women at home. That too has a significant impact, because in our society right now — although it is changing — the majority of people at home are women. This particular pension plan proposal will go a long way.

[ Page 9301 ]

There is nothing more important than making sure that those who contribute greatly to the overall well-being of family — and, in the end result, the majority of those people are women — are given the same pension coverage similar to their spouse who may be out there in the workplace.

So when somebody stands and says that there's nothing in this budget for women, they clearly have not read the document. Apart from that, there are a number of inherent programs in other ministries — through the Ministries of Attorney-General, Women's Programs and others — which go a long way to assisting women and which will greatly improve the lot of women in this province.

Education funding. By golly, we always hear from the opposition that there is nothing in the budget for education funding. How can there be nothing in the way of increases and funding in the Ministry of Education when the total global budget for the ministry has gone up 15 percent and is now pushing over $3 billion? Yet some people still have the audacity to stand up and say there is not enough in the education budget. Well, listen, not only has there been a 15 percent increase brought forward this year, but inherent in that increase will be steps taken to address and implement another whole range of the royal commission report recommendations, which will go a long way to improving the educational system in British Columbia. And as I mentioned earlier, action has been taken to ease the burden on property taxation within British Columbia. These are significant steps, and that is only in K to 12 — 15 percent, now pushing $3 billion for education in British Columbia today. I think we are moving in the right direction, and we are doing well.

Then you hear that there's not enough for health care funding. The second member for Vancouver Point Grey (Mr. Perry) is always quick to talk about the fact that the health system and health care funding are in jeopardy. There has been an increase of $500 million for this year alone in this year's budget — incredible! Yet in an article in the Province — just written today, I believe — the health critic, the second member for Vancouver-Point Grey, goes on with his prescription, so he says, for how to improve the health care system in this province. He ends by saying: "It may take a little more money than what we now spend on health."

Well, how much is a little more money? In 1986 British Columbia spent $2.6 billion on health; in 1987, $3.2 billion; in '88, $3.9 billion; in '89, $4.3 billion; and in '90, it is estimated to be $4.8 billion. How much more is "just a little more"? Are we talking $5 billion, $6 billion, $7 billion or $8 billion? Could you give us some idea? Could you tell me, my colleagues in this House and the people of British Columbia where you would finally draw the line if you actually had to bring in a budget dealing with health? What would you target as an estimate?

Truly the health budget is ongoing; it doesn't just stop. If you're in the hospital, and we come to the end of the estimates, they don't just close the hospitals down and say you don't get health care. What and how much is enough? When will it ever be enough? Will you just continue to stand up in your same negative way time after time and simply say that there isn't enough money in health?

Well, my friends, perhaps we would like to spend more and more on health. I'm sure, as God created little green apples, that this government will continue to spend more on health. But it's important when we talk about health to understand the capacity for taxpayers not only in this province but across this country to have the ability to pay.

In case you don't know, right now there are five people supporting one, with respect to those not working. By the year 2000, that will flip around to two supporting three. Since I will be about that age around then and will start to fall into that aspect of not working, I think it's prudent for us today — and you too — to have at look at not only what these rising costs mean in this year's budget but what it means when one extrapolates them, multiplies them and takes them down the road to the year 2000. I want to make sure that we have a good, solid health care system not only for 1990-91 but for 2000-01. 1 want to have a good health care system for many years to come, and that takes some prudence.

So it's okay if the opposition wants to continue to stand up and simply say, "Well, I think it takes a little more money for health," when from last year to this year we've already put in $500 million more. How much is a little more? Is it $500 million and $1? Because if that's what it would take to make them happy, I'm sure we could find one more dollar. Is it that little more, or is it another $100 million or another $500 million?

Interjection.

MR. BRUCE: Or another billion. I think it's important that you tell us. Perhaps the next speaker would like to get up and tell us how much money is enough when it comes to health. Would you like to just keep on spending? You have to take a look at that. You have to understand that it's not only today; government's responsibility is not only for this budget, for this fiscal year; you have to take a global view — for the year 2000, the year 2001, when things will change, when the demographics will change.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

We talk about regional economic development. Lots of things are happening in the province. I want to speak about Vancouver Island, if I may, Mr. Speaker, in regard to this budget and economic development. I don't hear either the first (Mr. Lovick) or second (Ms. Pullinger) members for Nanaimo, or the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota), jumping up from time to time and explaining some of the wonderful things that are happening on Vancouver Island. Sometimes I get concerned, because people might think, not hearing from the others, that what I'm talking about is all rhetoric. It's not all

[ Page 9302 ]

rhetoric when you look at what's happening on Vancouver Island.

I think it's important for the record and, really, for the people of the province to understand the things that are happening, particularly in central Vancouver Island, and what they mean in regard to the economic future of central Vancouver Island.

MR. G. JANSSEN: Which riding are you going to talk about?

MR. BRUCE: I can talk about a whole pile of Vancouver Island ridings, pretty well north to south. But there's one very good riding called Cowichan Malahat; it's a progressive constituency. Some great things are happening there.

One thing you'd all be interested in is the development of the Artisan Village. It's something that is coming alive in the community of Chemainus, and artists from around the world will come: a multimillion-dollar investment; a native cultural heritage centre, which will be opening its doors soon, where you will be able to see the arts and crafts being made by native people. There are jobs and economic development for native people, cultural preservation, language, heritage and all the rest of it. The doors are opening in a couple of weeks. They are the ones that are driving the development of the Native Heritage Centre, and I'm sure you will want to take part in that.

There is the Somenos Marsh interpretative centre in downtown Duncan, one of the most important flyways for birds as they come north and south. It, too, will be a major economic and incredibly important environmental initiative for the people in my area and, really, for all of Vancouver Island.

I could go on at great length, but the members of the opposition.... Everybody should know your role; everybody should know what you do best. If you do it best, stay there and carry on in that role. The NDP are the natural opposition party. They know how to service special interest groups; they look after special interest groups; they know that only the opposition can look after special interest groups. It's inherent in the NDP philosophy just to look after special interest groups.

They always come back to the fact that government must do everything. It was kind of inherent in the member for Alberni's (Mr. G. Janssen's) speech yesterday, when he talked about wheelchairs and the fact that somebody had to go to the Kinsmen to look for assistance to get a wheelchair. Well, I'll tell you, those fraternities, associations and volunteer organizations like to participate in the community. They like to be there. It's what building a community is all about: having those types of groups and associations.

It's not government that makes a country; it's not big business that makes a country. What makes a country and a community strong are the volunteer groups and organizations that want to participate in building their community. It's the individual enterprise of people that builds this province. That's why this budget is a good budget: it builds on individual enterprise.

MR. CASHORE: It's wonderful to hear the hon. member for Cowichan-Malahat spouting home truth from abroad at the conclusion of this speech. I'm glad to see the Premier is in the House to hear this speech, because obviously we have just heard from one of the chickens that came home to roost.

It's interesting to hear this member talk about the opposition, when he tried to form his own opposition party. He tried very hard; in fact, he was going to be the cock of the walk. He was going to have his own chicken coop, and he was going to be the head rooster. But that all got sorted out, and now we have to ask ourselves: '"What did he gain?" It's still the same Premier. The leopard hasn't changed its spots. No, the Premier hasn't changed; I'll grant him that. He's been consistent: he's doing now the same kinds of things he did during his first year in office.

[3:00]

What about this member and his cohorts, who were bent on establishing a new era in British Columbia politics, on forming a new opposition party that would be the party-in-waiting — a new way of achieving power? I haven't heard one thing from this member or any of the other chickens that came home to roost that indicates anything about values or that has anything to do with the decision they made and why they returned. It had nothing to do with what they believed; it only had to do with power. Let's make no mistake about that. It only had to do with power, and they saw the writing on the wall. If they were going to have any chance at all, they had to back this sinking ship, because they didn't want to go down in their own ship.

The debate is about the budget. It's a budget which, contrary to what that hon. member just said, fails to deal with issues of women's equality in any substantial way. It falls with regard to pay equity, women's centres and child care. I guess the crowning touch is that we have a Minister Responsible for Women's Programs (Hon. Mrs. Gran) who has not been given the financial wherewithal to fulfil the tasks that the Socreds try to create the impression she is about to fulfil.

It fails to address lists of people waiting for surgery. It fails to deal effectively with mental health issues, although again we have the kind of propaganda that tries to make it look as though they're dealing with the deinstitutionalization situation of this province — when anything but that is the case. It fails to address the need for affordable housing.

It fails to address key environmental issues of our day. As a matter of fact, what we see when we look at the environmental aspect of this budget is really disgusting, because it repackages existing programs and tries to dress them up and make them look new. There's no new money for environmental protection. We find that if we really look at the part of the budget that is being put into a special fund — some of it pulled from here, some of it pulled from there — there is less than a 1 percent increase in the environ-

[ Page 9303 ]

mental budget when you compare last year's programs with this year's programs. That's the way it is.

It's been interesting as we've heard speakers on different sides of the House talking about this budget. Is it a deficit budget? Isn't it a deficit budget? It reminds me of a story I once heard. It was about a little boy, and we'll say his name was Melvin. Melvin joined the sea cadets in his home town. Melvin went there and learned how to march with the sea cadets. One day there was this great parade, and Melvin's mother went to watch the parade. Melvin's mother was there with a few other women and men of the town. As she watched Melvin marching in the parade, she said: "Everybody's out of step but Melvin." That seems to be the way it is with regard to this issue of whether this is a balanced budget.

Let's look at what Peat Marwick says:

"If the proliferation of funds to be created by this budget is any indication, the B.C. government must be pleased with the general confusion created by its budget stabilization fund — the so-called BS fund.'

It goes on to say:

"In reality, this is not a fund at all — at least not a fund in the sense that there is money in an account identifiable with this fund. In fact, 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, 1990."

In other words, the accounts are in deficit by $2.667 billion. This report goes on to say:

"The privatization benefits fund receives the proceeds from the sale of government assets sold as a result of privatization. Since the costs to acquire these assets were expensed, it would seem reasonable to treat the proceeds of sale of these assets as revenue. However, the proceeds flow to the privatization benefits fund, and an arbitrary amount can then be transferred to revenue of the general fund, thus also arbitrarily impacting on the surplus or deficit.

"The newly created sustainable environment fund will have its own revenue sources and expenditures, but since these are consolidated with the general fund, there can be no impact on general fund surplus or deficit resulting from the existence and operation of this fund. The other new fund is the science and technology fund. In fact, this is treated the same as any government program with its sole revenue coming from a budget allocation and all such amounts scheduled to be expended on program items.

"Clearly, the government is not assisting with the understanding of its accounts by describing each such different arrangement as a fund."

Let's not forget the words of the MacKay commission on the Coquihalla Highway, because I think we have echoes of this same type of thing. In 1987, the MacKay commission report concluded that: "The Legislature was avoided. The Legislature was misled by the documents presented to it. The true costs were not reported in a forthright way." It found "the financial reporting of the Coquihalla Highway project to be tainted with an atmosphere of deceit and prevarication...."

This budget is more of the same. Therefore our finance critic — that father for the second time — was right on when he called this a dishonest budget. What he was saying was timely and appropriate.

We, as New Democrats, when we look at the environmental aspect of this budget, are committed to a new air-pollution control agency. We are committed to a self-financing recycling agency, not this joke of a process where a small pittance is being made available to municipalities and regional districts. We're committed to farmland protection. We're committed to community-based reforestation.

One of the things that we find in this budget is that the sustainable development fund is referred to as unique. It makes one wonder what is meant by unique in this sense. It certainly is unique in the sense that it is not very clear that It is being straightforward with us in calling its total increase at 24 percent. The sustainable development fund is being used to try to make it look as though it's that kind of an increase. In actual fact, it has rolled an unspent $28 million from last year's Lottery Fund into this new fund, so it's unspent money from last year. It's money that the Socreds were too scared to spend following the fiasco that we had in Surrey White Rock over the so-called recycling payment out of GO B.C. funds.

We have this process that is certainly inappropriate; it's not going to fool the citizens of this province, but it's incredible that we have to deal with such a thing. It ends up with a fund that is going to be controlled by cabinet, which means that again political decisions are used to decide how these moneys are going to be used. We've seen political decisions all too much in this province. As my friend and colleague for Coquitlam-Moody said: "With that amount of money, you can buy an awful lot of pork."

We need sound consistent programs that year in and year out will address the crucial and pressing environmental concerns we have in this province. We cannot carry on. It's to the peril of the environment if we carry on with this cat-and-mouse routine where they cut ministries of government, where they reduce the number of people working in those ministries so that they are hard-pressed to accomplish the volume of work that comes before them. They start going around as though it's a gravy train in the year before an election. It's very inappropriate.

I just want to mention in that regard that I have the highest respect for the people who work in the Ministry of Environment and in the Ministry of Parks, and I take exception to remarks made by the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Reynolds) at the beginning of his response to the throne speech, when he said that he was glad to see that the opposition environment critic was present, and he took a shot at me and accused me of criticizing his staff. That is a very inappropriate statement the minister made which I take as a personal affront. I have made it a standard of my work as an opposition advocate for the environment that I would never criticize those people who are so hard done by political decisions that have decimated their ranks through the removal of conservation officers and environmental protection staff. That he would characterize me as having

[ Page 9304 ]

criticized his staff is most inappropriate and most untrue. I regret that the minister did not have the fairness to withdraw those remarks, because he knows that one of the things I have stood for since I have been in this role is to uphold a great deal of respect for those dedicated people who work within that ministry.

We have made commitments when we think of, for instance, the conservation officer service. The propaganda and public relations that we had to deal with last year when a facade was presented to indicate that there was going to be a substantial increase in conservation officers throughout the province.... We all know it did not materialize, especially in the area of wildlife protection, the people who are trying to monitor wildlife and who deal with such things as the illicit taking of bears and the trade in bear parts. Wildlife concerns are simply not being monitored adequately in this province, and this is a reflection of the way in which in the early eighties Social Credit governments decimated the ability of that ministry to fulfil its mandate.

We have to do better than that. Funds have to be made available to the Ministry of Environment that enable that type of protection to take place. We think of people like Joe Saysell of Cowichan, who is constantly writing to the government and sending me the copies of the letters. He points out graphically how woefully inadequate the conservation officer services and the wildlife protection services are in this province. Again, that's no reflection on civil servants. Indeed, it's the opposite; it's a reflection of the yeoman's work they are doing, given very inadequate resources.

When we look at this budget and the way it is treating the environment, we have to ask: where is the consistency? Where is the continuity? We can only mourn the fact that it's not really addressing the very significant issues.

Among the items that would be funded by this so-called sustainable development fund are two think-tanks. There's the Round Table on Environment and Economy. I would just comment that that round table was 18 months late in being appointed. The plan that had been put in place by the Canadian Council of Resource and Environment Ministers had it that the round table was going to be appointed in sufficient time so that when the federal round table was appointed there would be an interconnectedness between those two bodies. The fact was that the federal round table was appointed before the provincial one, because the federal government couldn't wait for British Columbia to stop dragging its feet on this issue. At the present time there's no one from the provincial round table on that federal round table to deal with environmental issues.

So what do we see those dollars going to? I'm afraid they appear to be going to a method that the Environment minister has of having issues studied over and over again instead of acting on those urgent and pressing matters that require clear and definite attention.

Then, too, we have this embarrassment for the government where the right hand does not know what the left hand is doing. Apparently the Forest Resources Commission funding is to be governed under that fund, but nobody seemed to notice, and it caught the Minister of Forests and the Minister of Environment by complete surprise. So it's a question. Where is that commission? Doesn't anybody want it? Is it only there as a public relations exercise? Or is it something that really has some significance in the future of the province?

I would think we would have to say that the process is being used not to help develop appropriate public policy in this province but as window-dressing. It's being used as a shell game and is not accomplishing any of the tasks being mentioned.

[3:15]

Let's look at the revenue side of this fund for a moment. I mentioned the money that was rolled over from the GO B.C. grants that were unspent from last year. But there is another very interesting item: the amount of half a million dollars that this government Is projecting to receive from environmental prosecutions. The good news is that if they achieve that half a million dollars from environmental prosecutions, it will probably be an incredible increase over what they have ever received in the past. But what kind of message is going to polluters when this government only expects to collect half a million dollars from this entire province throughout an entire year? How is that going to be a message to any of the polluters out there who are causing such problems to people who work in the fishing industry, people who have lost their livelihood, people who look upon the Indian food fishery as part of the staff of life?

Interjection.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asks me what I would do. Obviously the hon. member has not read the package of 23 private members bills that we tabled in this House last year. That tells you what we would do, Mr. Member. I'd be glad to make another copy available to you. I'd point out to you that in developing legislation on your side of the House, some of our procedures have been incorporated, but it's been done in a willy-nilly inconsistent way and it simply isn't adequate. If you want to know what we would do, read that legislation, Mr. Member. Then you and I will sit down and we'll see.

MR. LOENEN: How much would you tax?

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Speaker, in terms of how much we would charge the major polluters, I can tell you it would be a heck of a lot more than half a million dollars. For starters, we should be causing these major polluters to put up environmental protection bonds so that money is up front and when this damage occurs, there isn't that fooling around. It's a time-honoured process in the business community, and this member knows it full well, that business

[ Page 9305 ]

uses bonding as a means of dealing with this type of situation, but not this government. Why? Because this government doesn't believe the environment is worth it. This government has more interest in protecting its friends who happen to make campaign contributions than it has in dealing with these urgent and pressing matters with regard to environmental protection.

Who are the losers? The losers are the native people, the sports fishing people, the people who operate lodges, the people who want to be assured that we have safe and appropriate food in our streams for the wildlife that happen to get the dioxin pollution into their systems from that stream.

All we have to do, Mr. Speaker, is look at the report that came out earlier this week or at the end of last week. It shows what is happening to ducks in the area of Port Alberni and what the situation is in Powell River.

In terms of what this government does, Mr. Speaker, it's absolutely pathetic to think that on average for this entire province for three years, the total amount from fines in any given year on average was less than $35,000, and this government is talking about increasing penalties to $1 million and $3 million. It's so much bafflegab. It doesn't mean anything. They haven't even collected in one year the sum total of any one of those fines — not the fines they're talking about now, but the fines they had in place previously.

It's just an attempt to manage the environmental concerns of this province through public relations Some kind of sickness exists among the people on the government side of the House, and the illness manifests itself in the belief that you can accomplish things with words and words only. They think that as often as they put out slick brochures and paid television advertising saying what a good job they're doing, somehow that will accomplish the things they say they're accomplishing. That is not the case; they are not accomplishing those things.

Let's look at some specifics in the budget, Mr. Speaker. Under the environmental protection fund for the budget, on page 94 of the estimates for 1989-1990, the figure is $10,134,158, and for this fiscal year it is down $2.5 million to $7,619,871. Under environmental resource management: last year, $37,756,000; this year, $35,834,000, down $2 million.

Let's just take a look at one of the smaller funds: the habitat conservation fund — and earlier I mentioned the real crisis in this province over the shortage of conservation officers dealing with wildlife issues — last year, $703,058; this year, $693,058 Again, it's way down.

Mr. Speaker, I turn now to PEP, the emergency preparedness program. When we look at the emergency preparedness program, I would like to point out to the House that there's a federal-provincial program called the joint emergency planning program operated by the government of Canada as a cost-sharing program. I have in my hand the funding that has been done by this program from October 2 to December 18, 1989.

The way this program works is that the province and the federal government work together in developing projects. We all know, Mr. Speaker, what an abysmal failure this province was in dealing with the Grays Harbor oil spill, and we also know how they like to put forward the thought that they're starting to get on board with this. As a matter of fact, we saw a picture of the Solicitor-General with a bunch of people from the Environment Youth Corps. If you look carefully at that picture, you'll notice they have tar all over their clothes and are all quite dirty, and he's there spiffy-clean. But it makes a nice photo opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, the fact is that the joint emergency planning program allocates $6.5 million annually to help provinces and regions of this country be prepared to do a good job in dealing with emergency preparedness issues — the very types of issues that we're talking about: oil spills, gas leaks, earthquakes, the things that are vitally important to our people. Now what has the situation been? Well, it's been this: in that period of time there was not one grant made to British Columbia. It is my understanding, and I'm still researching this, that British Columbia has not made use of this program for an entire year. I would be delighted to stand corrected on that.

It's incredible. Here's a financial resource that can be used to help us get up and running on matters of emergency preparedness and we're not even taking advantage of the opportunity that exists. When we think about that, we have to realize that we're talking about the protection and safety of our young people. I was at a meeting recently in my constituency where the focus was on emergency preparedness. Members of the fire department, police department, social services and many other agencies came and spoke to me and said: "You know, if we have an emergency, the province is not providing the coordination that is so needed in our area in order to make sure that everything functions effectively when a disaster occurs." That is another very deep concern.

I want to raise one further environmental concern before I go on to some other constituency-related items. I wanted to raise the issue of the reporting of toxic spills, primarily at pulp mills. I would point out that in this House and in the media, the question has been put to the Minister of Environment of the day on many occasions: when will the spills that are taking place around this province at various locations be reported?

I would like to refer to a Vancouver Sun article by Glenn Bohn, dated April 13, 1989. In the headline it names the minister and says that he has promised to name polluting firms. That was July 1989. It goes on to say: "'It's appropriate that this information be made public, so industries and municipalities — which are the major offenders — know that the public has that knowledge,' the Environment minister said." This was the Environment minister saying that this information was going to be given to the public. It was being requested by a conscientious newspaper journalist who specializes in environmental issues, and it was reflecting the concerns of the West Coast

[ Page 9306 ]

Environmental Law Association and of many others who want to get on with being part of the solution. Glenn Bohn points out that the pledge that the Minister gave came 14 weeks after the Vancouver Sun requested the release of the government records that revealed which firms are failing to comply with pollution limits set by the B.C. waste management permits. At that time the minister said — and I want to put this on the record at this late date: "I'm prepared to release the information, but not at this time."

We go a bit further, and on July 6, 1989, in response to a question that I put to the minister, the then Minister of Environment said in the House:

"Actually, I discussed that a couple of days ago, Mr. Chairman.... We have prepared a package with the information that Mr. Bohn and Mr. Andrews are seeking. We are discussing its contents now with the Ministry of Attorney-General. I have told MT. Andrews and I told Mr. Bohn — I guess I haven't told Glenn, because I haven’t talked to him lately...  — that the information will be released soon, and when I say 'soon,' I mean before the summer is over."

Mr. Speaker, that was a commitment. It was a definite promise and it stated a definite time, and these environmental organizations and others that are working on these issues have a right to have that information.

What happened next? Well, that minister never did what he said what he would do. I have a hard time talking about this without using unparliamentary language, because the minister did not do what he promised in this House he would do. We are still waiting for that information. In question period last week I asked the present minister when we would have this information; when he would follow through on the commitment of his predecessor and a commitment that he made. What the present Minister of Environment said was: "Very soon." Well, I say to the present Minister of Environment that that's not good enough for the people or for the environment of British Columbia.

People learn not to trust a government that indulges in that kind of behaviour. How long can this Minister of Environment go along playing that kind of game with a responsible member of the journalistic staff of a major Vancouver newspaper, with committed environmentalists that make up the organizations that are part of the West Coast Environmental Law Association, and with those of us who seek genuinely to have that information so that we can address these issues in an appropriate way? It is simply inappropriate and will not do.

I see my time is up, Mr. Speaker.

HON. J. JANSEN: It's good to hear that the member opposite's time has expired, because he wasn't making much sense during his debate.

I would like also to have an opportunity to speak on the budget and in support of it. It's a budget that, contrary to the misleading statements made by the opposition, gives a vision, fiscal leadership and the continued stability that is the cornerstone of our government's policy framework — that is, the responsibility to our electorate, all of the people of British Columbia.

This budget provides the catalyst and support to encourage expansion of what is internationally perceived as an already strong, buoyant and stable economy; one that has shown leadership in fiscal management for the rest of the nation. All of that is in spite of a crippling interest rate that is predicated on a central Canada focus, and a high dollar which punishes our largely export-oriented economy. In spite of that, we are still the province of choice for our labour force, families, seniors, investors and those who seek to trade with us. We take exception to the central Canada focus that has resulted in such a high dollar and in these crippling interest rates.

[3:30]

However, in spite of the irresponsible fiscal policies of our federal government, and in spite of the federal government's continuing tax grabs — such as the totally unwarranted, unsubstantiated, poorly thought out, extremely onerous and unsupported goods and services tax — British Columbia continues to grow. The concern from charitable organizations, service organizations, labour, small business — which is the backbone of our economy — and the public is overwhelming.

Already I have received countless questions from various interest groups about how to account for this burden, how to collect the tax, how to apply for credits, how to treat opening inventories, who is exempt, and how farmers and professional groups are treated. We cannot and do not support this bureaucratic nightmare; we are opposed to the GST.

In spite of this, we have shown fiscal responsibility and continue to meet British Columbia's growing demands for education, environmental awareness, health care and social programs — and this without tax increases. With this budget we will continue to show leadership for the rest of Canada. This budget deserves to be the yardstick for budgets everywhere. It is a budget that is based on sound financial and economic management, a commitment to care about all British Columbians and an ability to put the people's priorities first. Above all, it is balanced. Taxes have not been raised, as has been advocated continually by the socialists; yet we have provided property tax relief for homeowners and renters.

What is the socialists' response to this budget? I looked with interest to the comments of the finance critic for the opposition, the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Clark). I thought perhaps somehow I would be pleased that they had finally outlined their fiscal platform, shown some leadership and told the people of the province where they stood on fiscal management.

I said to myself that while they have not taken positions on other policy issues, surely they would welcome this opportunity to come clean with those whom they're seeking their support from in the next election. Surely they would welcome this opportunity to say more than "read my lips," as stated to the public, with contempt, by the Leader of the Opposition. Surely we could have the benefit of their minds

[ Page 9307 ]

as well. Surely we could hear what they think and what they stand for. Surely the Leader of the Opposition could use those lips to tell us what he has on his mind.

Yet again we and the public are disappointed. It is still like nailing jelly on the wall — no leadership, no policy, no direction, no substance, no vision, and no focus.

Interjection,

HON. J. JANSEN: You're right, member; just a no-no party. The only definite policy statement I could find in the NDP response to our budget — and it was mentioned no less than eight times — was: "We will provide relief for middle- and lower-income British Columbians." There was not any equivocation here. They said "we will" eight times. Good stuff.

You may ask: "What programs would they cut? How will they do this? What expenditures would they slash? What assistance would be curtailed?" Well, in fact, no fewer than 26 programs have been criticized by that same member, the opposition finance critic, as requiring more money. I believe that in the eyes of the NDP, every program requires more money. How would they accomplish this? As the NDP say: "Read my lips." They certainly haven't provided the public with any details, and we certainly can't read their minds.

The second member for Vancouver East questions our bookkeeping. Let me ask you, Mr. Speaker: where is the revenue side of their books? Isn't that an essential part of bookkeeping? How do they intend to raise funds for this multibillion-dollar spending spree? On this question, they remain silent. They just don't want to talk about those messy little details. That would just infuriate the public.

Leonard Krog has some thoughts on this matter, but he was given a gag order. But what they did say is interesting. The finance critic on the socialist side....

Interjection.

HON. J. JANSEN: What he did say was interesting: they would set mortgage rates in British Columbia — a profound statement, no beating about the bush, right to the point — and they would presumably set all other rates as well. I look forward to having this policy statement explained by the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams), who has a prominent role with credit unions. They would set mortgage rates. We will wait.

What do others say, who have some understanding of government expenditures and some knowledge of the real world and who are more credible to the public? What did the Institute of Chartered Accountants of British Columbia say about our recent provincial budget? Let me quote: "There is lots to laud and little to fault in this year's provincial budget.

According to Rick Acton, chartered accountant and president of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of B.C.: "Overall we have to say our provincial government could give lessons in fiscal integrity and smart money management to the federal government."

Acton also said: "The long-term planning aspect of this year's budget is praiseworthy. Multi-year funding is an intelligent strategy.... The concept of averaging over a period of years is sound financial management." Those are difficult words to hear from the opposition side.

What did the Certified General Accountants' Association of British Columbia say? Again let me quote: "B.C. president Ron Pickerill also welcomed the announcement of a major review of British Columbia taxes. British Columbia certified general accountants look forward to active participation in the review process. We also applaud the decision to apply a user-pay strategy to initiatives affecting such environmentally unfriendly items as batteries, tires and disposable diapers."

What did the Investment Dealers' Association of Canada say? "B.C. sets the example for fiscal management in Canada." That's a one-liner you hear very seldom on the other side of the House, because they know nothing about fiscal management. They know nothing about bookkeeping. They know nothing about mortgage rates.

What did Peat Marwick say? The member opposite has asked me that. It's an interesting question. They said: "A review of the balance sheet...." Do you know what a balance sheet is? I guess the member doesn't know what it is. He has difficulty understanding what revenues and expenditures are, let alone a balance sheet. "A review of the balance sheet, the general fund, the budget stabilization fund and the privatization benefits fund discloses that liabilities are projected to exceed assets by $2.667 billion as at March 31."

They said "a balance sheet." Members on the other side of the House have interpreted that to mean revenue and expenditures and that the balance sheet was somehow tied into a balanced budget. What Peat Marwick did not say is that our budget is not balanced. What did not get reported was that the deficit was a reduction from the '89-90 estimates of some $830 million and that our budget stabilization fund remains at a healthy $1 billion.

What is the public saying about all this? They are pleased with our continuing good leadership shown by this government in managing its fiscal house. They know that in the face of federal cutbacks — and they've been substantial — we have continued to increase our expenditures to meet the needs of the people, such as a clean environment, housing, education, health, day care, assistance for the disabled and job opportunities.

They are pleased with the long-term planning for a multi-year account, such as the $1.7 billion sustainable environment fund, the $420 million science and technology fund, and the $3.5 billion Freedom to Move account.

They support our initiatives for pay equity in the public sector to enable fairness between individuals, fairness between men and women, and fairness for all British Columbians. They favour, too, our positive

[ Page 9308 ]

and unique British Columbia pension plan. I hear very little comment from the members opposite about the pension plan. They're strangely silent now.

This initiative would enable British Columbians a unique opportunity of having the benefit of being covered by a made-in-B.C. pension plan. Homemakers, small business employees and others who are not covered by a retirement pension package would have a plan to provide for their golden years.

This year our government will spend $4 billion on education and training. A 15 percent increase in the Ministry of Education budget of $3 billion will provide $140 million to implement recommendations of the Royal Commission on Education and an additional $10 million for computers and Pacific Rim language instruction.

Education — primary, secondary and advanced — is an important issue, for my constituency. With an ever-growing population and the need for community-level access to all aspects of education, our government's response is welcome news indeed. A solid funding enhancement, complemented by a capital-intensive program is news well received by my constituency and indeed by the entire Fraser Valley.

Our college system continues to expand, and I look forward to working with my colleague the Minister of Advanced Education (Hon. Mr. Strachan) to see the opportunities develop also for Fraser Valley College.

It is important, too, that we recognize the need of individual students, and a 16 percent increase in our student financial assistance program will be money wisely invested in our future.

With the unprecedented growth in the Fraser Valley and the appeal of the area to the retirement population from the rest of Canada, housing has become a serious issue. It is an issue of concern particularly for seniors, low-income families and single-parent families. Our government's commitment to this serious problem and our new programs will be welcome news indeed.

[3:45]

This year's budget of some $1 billion for housing to enable assistance to low-income renters, creation of rental housing and promotion of home ownership will go a long way to providing for the housing needs of my community. But housing programs are partnerships — a partnership with developers; a partnership with our federal government; and perhaps most importantly, a partnership with our local governments.

It is the local government — our cities, our municipalities, our regional districts — who can make the biggest impact on this issue. They provide zoning, they provide the municipal infrastructures, and they can take the initiative to take full advantage of the many programs this government has to offer in housing.

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

Environmental concerns in the Fraser Valley continue to grow stronger each year with the growing awareness of the causes of increased pollution levels. Last year my colleague the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Reynolds) sponsored a town hall meeting in my constituency in order to hear the concerns and the suggestions put forward by our local citizens. The meeting was supported by staff from both the Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of Health.

The message from the public was unmistakable: we must all of us take responsibility if we are to make an impact on the preservation of our invaluable environment.

As a result of this town hall meeting I organized a local environmental committee which meets on a regular basis to promote environmental awareness in the community. The committee is comprised of community leaders, interested members of the public and — probably the most important element — our youth. It is fortunate, too, that one of the members of this committee is also a member of the Round Table on Environment and Economy — Mr. Allan Toop, who as a local farmer represents the interests of agriculture and who is also the president of the East Chilliwack Co-op. This very active committee will I am sure have a significant impact on dealing with what has become a very serious issue. Our initiatives to increase funding for our environmental programs by some 24 percent will be of significant interest to my committee and to our community. What is most noteworthy is the new sustainable development fund. This fund will enable revenues to be earmarked for and restricted to expenditures on the environment.

Interjection.

HON. J. JANSEN: This accounting treatment is fundamental to a commitment to environmental initiatives, Mr. Member. Remember that.

Residents of the Fraser Valley, and particularly of the Chilliwack area, are concerned about the unacceptable levels of ozone that have been recorded in the area, particularly in recent years. Vehicle emissions from the lower mainland represent the biggest factor in ozone pollution. It is great news indeed that we will see vehicle emission testing in 1991.

Recognizing the importance of both long-term and short-term planning for the needs of transportation, the Freedom to Move account, with its multi-year funding, will provide the continuity and stability that is necessary.

Interjections.

HON. J. JANSEN: The member opposite says: "Sure." That's a very good, positive comment.

The transportation needs of the community — particularly the need to remove level crossings on the No. 1 freeway — are crucial to safe development. The safety considerations addressed by this project will have a significant impact on my constituents. It is therefore with appreciation that we note that these projects, as well as projects in other parts of the

[ Page 9309 ]

constituency, will receive the priority status they deserve.

Interjection.

HON. J. JANSEN: The member asks: "What level crossings?"

The creation of jobs is also fundamental to the development of my community, Mr. Speaker. While it is noted that the unemployment rate in British Columbia has dropped from 12.5 percent to 7.8 percent, and that last year in the province we created half of the new jobs in Canada, the distribution of these jobs outside of the lower mainland is obviously of great importance to the constituents of the Fraser Valley and of the rest of the province.

We explicitly reject the attitude of the Leader of the Opposition, who says: "I have a yardstick. If it's good for Vancouver, I'm for it. If it's not, I'm opposed." Did you hear that, Mr. Speaker? However the finance critic on the other side, the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Clark), says.... Listen to these words of wisdom: "We will support regional development strategies which will ensure prosperity and diversity throughout British Columbia." Did you read that somewhere before?

MR. REID: Yes, the Premier said that.

HON. J. JANSEN: Absolutely.

Aren't those statements in contrast? Isn't it strange that when things work out, when programs work, suddenly the NDP is totally onside on issues? It's totally onside whenever programs work. Isn't it surprising to hear those comments, when they've had so much criticism of the regionalization program, and still do? What are you people — for or against, hot or cold? I guess it's not surprising, if you consider their track record: criticize first; but if it works, then you have to agree. Funnily enough, in all of their speeches, they're agreeing with every program this government has put in place.

We on this side of the House have always supported regionalization. Our community has supported it, and it's good to see that the socialists now support it as well. They always take a little longer than the rest of us to see the positive aspect of things

Turning to health care, Mr. Speaker, it remains the fundamental responsibility of our government. Our universal health care system remains the best in the world. We have shown leadership in such initiatives as mental health, the needs of our seniors, our community health, Pharmacare, preventive health and hospital programs.

This year our government has increased the health care budget by 11.2 percent — some half a billion dollars for this year alone. Spending on health care now accounts for $4, 000 for every family in the province, or $1,600 for every man, woman and child living in the province. The increase alone is almost $1.5 million per day.

But we on this side of the House are sensitive to criticism. We like to hear which programs should be enhanced, which ones are being misdirected and how we should be changing some of our policies. I wanted to listen this morning with interest to the health critic talk about the health care budget. It was unfortunate indeed that it was such a failure, because we received very little information. That means either one of two things: that the health critic has no interest and does little research on this, or that he can't find anything wrong with the health care ministry of the province.

The health critic listed some letters he had. He had a letter from a home support worker, a letter in regard to Vancouver General Hospital's use of disposables, a letter from a Victoria couple concerning a schizophrenic young man and a letter from a parent of a child in Langley Memorial Hospital talking about the pediatric ward. All these issues have been addressed.

He had a letter from a licensed practical nurse complaining that hospitals failed to hire LPNs. He didn't understand the issue, so he couldn't comment on it with intelligence. He read a brief from the Registered Nurses' Association that the nursing program was not included in any announcements of the UNBC, and he called for an end to disputes with health professionals. That was the extent of the hon. second member for Vancouver-Point Grey's (Mr. Perry's) criticism of the health care budget — a pretty sad commentary.

What are the two reasons for this lack of response in dealing with health care from the opposition health critic? Is it lack of knowledge or interest, or is he just too lazy? In any event, I found comfort in the Province newspaper dated May 1, 1990. That's today's date, and today's headline was: "A Prescription for a Health Care System." It was written by the NDP MLA for Vancouver-Point Grey, who is also the health critic.

He says that he would like to prescribe some of the things that the province should be doing for a change and a fresh look. "For a change and a fresh look" — those are important key words. He lists seven items, and every single one of them has been addressed by this government. Where is that man? When I first read this, I thought this comment was from a person from another planet or province. All of these items have been addressed by this government.

Mr. Speaker, I see my time is up. I would have liked to have spoken more about the good budget for the province. I support this budget.

MR. VANT: As I have some very important visitors here this afternoon, I am just wondering if the House would grant me leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. VANT: It's not too often I have visitors from the great Cariboo constituency, but today we're honoured to have all the way from Hanceville, which is about 65 miles west of Williams Lake in the Chilcotin, 22 adult students from the native adult education school, along with their teacher Mr. C. Smith. They belong to the Stone reserve, of which my very good

[ Page 9310 ]

friend Tony Myers is the chief. I would ask the House to give them a very warm welcome this afternoon.

[4:00]

MR. JONES: It's a pleasure to rise and participate in what I think is a very important debate — probably our last budget debate before the next provincial election. It's been a good debate that clearly points out fundamental differences between the government side and this side of the House.

If my colleagues have been unkind in this debate to the Minister of Finance, I would like to do a little bit to rectify that. We have to give credit where credit is due. Mr. Speaker, I think we have to compliment the Minister of Finance for what I consider to be a stellar performance, an Academy Award performance, a masterful tour de force that he gave a week and a half ago in this House as part of his budget presentation. Some would say that it was a performance as part of the theatre of the absurd; nevertheless I have to give full marks to the Minister of Finance, who huffed and puffed with enthusiasm in fact, with such energy and dynamism that he became hoarse by the end of his speech. Although he had a very thin script, he did everything in his human powers to make it a forceful presentation.

I think British Columbia will long be remembered for the phrase uttered by the former member from Point Grey, Kim Campbell, who said: "Charisma without substance is a dangerous thing." Clearly that's what we had during the budget speech. We had lots of charisma, but the budget itself lacked the kind of substance that would engender any enthusiasm on the part of the public.

Despite this great performance, when we look at the reviews the performance drew, we see that it was a very disappointing budget to the people of British Columbia — and I am sure to the government too, who must have gone out madly polling after that enthusiastic budget speech. I am convinced that the results of the poll will indicate that it did not play in Peoria; that the people in small-town British Columbia and in the urban centres thought it was a wash and were not inspired in any way.

MR. CASHORE: They were underwhelmed.

MR. JONES: Let's just have a look at some of the headlines that underscored the response of the people of British Columbia, who were — as my friend from Coquitlam-Maillardville points out — underwhelmed by the impact of this budget. .

What did the Times-Colonist say in response? It had a headline that said: "Budget Flimflam Insults Voters." That was one response from Victoria. The Minister of Advanced Education (Hon. Mr. Strachan) doesn't believe that this is how the response was, but we see time and time again, in response to that enthusiastic performance of the Minister of Finance, less than laudatory comments from leading British Columbians.

We have the headline from the Vancouver Sun: 'Labour Criticizes Flimflam Budget." Also from the

Sun we have: "No Big Deal, Tenants Say of Housing Measures." Another headline from the Vancouver Province: "Budget Blasted as Mere Juggling." The Sun also pointed out in a headline: "Pay Equity Specialists Suspicious of Promise." Another headline from the Province: "Old Dollars Recycled with Slick New Name." And from the Sun again, a headline reading: "$500 Million Deficit Incurred in Record Spending Budget." From the Province: "BS Fund Is Confusing, " and another headline: "Reflection on Mel's House of Mirrors." A headline from the Sun: 'Women's Groups Skeptical."

So you can see that, despite the stellar performance of the Minister of Finance, who impressed me with his energy and enthusiasm, it did not wash out there in the British Columbia that we know, because this government is a tired government. The people have finally seen through the shell game and the smoke and mirrors, and they did not buy any of the chicanery that normally would pass.

I don't know whether it was the faux pas of the Minister of Finance, who got very confused about what represents one month of a budget, or one-tenth of a budget, or one-twelfth of a budget. The Minister of Finance got confused to the order of some $200 million there. I would forgive the minister a faux pas like that, but I guess the people in British Columbia have recognized that this Minister of Finance is not serious; that he is a master of deception. The substance of the budget was not there to impress the people. The property tax relief — the supplementary homeowner grant, which would give considerable tax relief to the tune of some $150 to many people in my riding — one might think would have been a popular measure. But again, the people in my riding and, in the other constituencies throughout British Columbia have recognized that it's about time there was some property tax relief. They remember who it was that year after year shifted the property tax burden from the commercial and industrial property onto the residential homeowner. The people in this province have recognized that they have been carrying a tremendous burden — an overburden. We would like to go back....

Interjection.

MR. JONES: The member for Okanagan South mentions the homeowner grant. We would be happy to go back not even that long ago, to the days of Bill Bennett, when there was much fairer taxation in British Columbia. A much fairer share was paid by business and industry in those days. Those were the days before the current administration got in and turned British Columbia into a tax haven. We have — save for Quebec — the lowest corporate taxes in Canada. We have become a corporate tax haven.

We would be happy to go back to the levels of the days of your predecessor Bill Bennett. At least he understood that we didn't have to be more than competitive in terms of corporate income tax; we could do quite well, thank you, by taxing corporations at the same level as other provinces in Canada.

[ Page 9311 ]

But no, this administration had to shift the burden of property tax from the corporations, from the business and industry onto the poor, defenceless homeowner. Now the chickens have come home to roost.

Interjection.

MR. JONES: Sit down, you've got no point of order.

MR. SERWA: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. The member is engaging in debate directly across the floor. Would you please request that the member address and speak to the Speaker?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point is well made, hon. member. Please proceed.

MR. JONES: As I was saying, why didn't the property tax relief, in terms of the supplementary homeowner grant, play in Peoria? Why didn't it wash with the electorate in British Columbia? Because they have seen this government year after year transfer the burden' of property tax onto the homeowner and away from business and industry. That's why that $150 tax relief to the homeowner — in the budget they even quoted an unrealistic figure of $250 — did not garner any enthusiasm and did not gain any points in public popularity for this administration. In fact, it was a wash; it was a very negative response to this budget.

The previous speaker also mentioned the importance of multi-year budgeting as perhaps appealing to the public. The public may have been impressed with the concept of multi-year budgeting had the government introduced it in the first year of their mandate, but they are definitely not impressed with the multi-year budgeting process when it occurs in the last year of a mandate. In fact, it is incredibly presumptuous of this government to assume that they will even be in government a year from now to implement the second year of that budget. They are in the dying days of their mandate. They are certainly in no position to legitimately talk in any way about multi-year budgeting, which they get very confused about anyway, as I'll point out momentarily, when we talk about the budget of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways.

The other thing that speaker after speaker from the other side in this debate has pointed out is that we have a balanced budget. If that isn't deceptive and dishonest, I don't know what is. The headlines today ring out clearly: "Accounting Firm Rejects Balanced Budget Claim." This is from Peat Marwick, Canada's largest public accounting firm.

I wonder what Peat Marwick says about whether this budget is balanced. I don't suppose that they have any particular political axe to grind. I don't suppose it's in their interest to come down on one side or the other in this debate about whether the budget is balanced. I think that as responsible chartered accountants, they must look at the fairness, honesty and integrity of this government in terms of what they are presenting to the people and make a decision on whether the statement that the budget is balanced is a fair comment.

What do they say? I quote from the report of Peat Marwick: "If the proliferation of funds to be created by this budget is any indication, the B.C. government must be pleased with the general confusion created by its budget stabilization fund — the so-called BS fund." Very clearly, Peat Marwick.... The member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Mr. Mercier) understands accounting. He knows they have no political axe to grind. He knows they are just making a comment on the honesty and integrity of government. Peat Marwick is pointing out that the object of the government with this budget is to create general confusion and not to inform the public about the finances of this province.

Let me quote further from Peat Marwick: "In reality, this is not a fund at all, at least not a fund in the sense that there is any money in an account identifiable with this fund. In fact, a review of the balance sheet...discloses that liabilities are projected to exceed assets by $2.667 billion at March 31, 1990. In other words, the accounts are in deficit by $2.667 billion." When our finance critic accurately pointed out that expenditures in this budget are going to exceed the revenues by some $500 million, he was bang on. He was accurate; he knew what he was talking about. He was being honest with this House and honest with the people of British Columbia, but those who continually say this budget is balanced are not.

[4:15]

What does the auditor-general have to say? The auditor-general brought down his report today. Although I have not yet had time to read the report....

Interjections.

MR. JONES: There has been a report from the auditor-general. In a speech he made recently, Mr. Morfitt, who — as I think is well understood — is the independent, non-partisan watchdog of government finances, indicates that the government is using the so-called BS fund to distort the true picture of the provincial finances. Let me repeat that, Mr. Speaker. The independent watchdog of this province is saying publicly the same as Peat Marwick, that the budget stabilization fund is clearly a measure being used to distort the true picture of provincial finances. Mr. Morfitt said in his speech to the Kamloops Chamber of Commerce: "The bottom line...is completely flexible. It is a meaningless figure. It doesn't mean anything. It's strictly an accounting technique to alter the bottom line." So Mr. Morfitt is not so concerned about the BS fund itself, but about the way it is being used by this government in terms of being deceptive, of misleading the people of British Columbia and of presenting a dishonest picture of the books of this province.

Mr. Morfitt indicates that the main government accounts do not reconcile all the BS fund transactions. As a result, the public is given a less-than-com-

[ Page 9312 ]

plete picture of the bottom line. The purported balance would be a deficit without the BS fund transaction. So clearly we have a deficit budget; we do not have a balanced budget. The revenues and expenditures do not match. Clearly the revenue taken in is less than the expenditures, so we do have a deficit budget. In addition to not having a balanced budget, we do not have an election budget. It's not here, and the polls will show that, as the government side polls madly in the hopes of hanging on to the meagre public support they have at this point. So we don't have a balanced budget or an election budget, but we do have a budget with tax increases — they are numerous. We have a budget with some tax concessions that are not washing out there in British Columbia.

I'd like to speak about a couple of parts of the budget that my constituents are concerned about in the area of the environment, in the area of transportation and highways, and in the area of post-secondary education. We have heard a lot of hot air from the government side of this House. They are holding up their wet fingers and recognizing that the public of British Columbia are serious about environmental protection. In response, this government, rather than adding any substance to the budget that would ensure improved environmental standards and protection in this province, has come up — just like the budget — with a deceptive and dishonest approach. Again, the leadership of the Premier is being emulated in the Ministry of Environment in terms of charisma without substance.

What my constituents want is very simple: a clean environment, improved standards, improved monitoring and improved enforcement of that monitoring. It's not a tremendous demand. They're looking for simple leadership in environmental protection. But what do we see in the budget when we look at the estimates for the Ministry of Environment? We see a lack of commitment, a lack of belief that the environment is something we have to take seriously, a lack of environmental protection, a lack of water management, a lack of enforcement of even the modest standards that we have right now in terms of protecting our environment.

When I read the budget, what I see, as far as the Ministry of Environment goes, is a decline from some $10 million last year to $7.6 million this year — in terms of the part of the budget called "Environmental Protection." In terms of water management, we have virtually a status quo budget over last year, and a status quo budget in times of inflation again means a serious decline in terms of our ability even to maintain the status quo standards that we had last year.

In the area of the budget called "Regional Operations and Enforcement" we have a modest increase. Again, a modest increase means a decrease in the ability to carry out those regional operations and enforcement. So what we have, as I read the budget as far as the Ministry of Environment goes, is a total lack of commitment. This government is playing games with the people of British Columbia when it talks about any sort of commitment to improving standards, improving monitoring and improving enforcement.

This budget reveals that the substance is not there in terms of the resources required to carry out the mandate that the people of this province want to see, and the leadership that this province wants to see in terms of improving environmental standards. All we have from the government is rhetoric, rhetoric, rhetoric — not only in the Ministry of Environment but also in the Ministry of Transportation and highways.

I'd like to tell you about the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. Last year, when the first member for Cariboo (Mr. Vant) was the minister, we had a report called "Freedom to Move." At the time of that report, that former minister defined some $11 billion worth of projects. Talk about multi-year budgeting! That minister said they were going to finance those projects over a ten-year period. So we'd be talking about over $1 billion a year. What does it say in this budget? Well, it's a little more modest now. Ironically, it seems that as we get closer to the election, the Ministry of Transportation and Highways becomes more modest in its promises.

Which is right: $3.5 billion as now promised over five years, or $11.7 billion over ten years as you promised last summer? Which is it, members opposite? Which is the real Freedom to Move program? You don't know what the Freedom to Move program is.

I'd like you to go out on the freeway just south of my riding in the afternoon and tell them you are responsible for the freedom that they have to move on Highway 1 in Burnaby. I don't know if you'd make it back, any members opposite. They don't have the freedom to move, and the reason they don't have the freedom to move is....

Interjections.

MR. JONES: We're talking about the Trans-Canada Highway; we're talking about the freeway. It's very clear which highway we're talking about. We have no problem determining which highway.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, could we please have order in the House.

MR. JONES: We have little freedom to move out on the freeways in this province, but we have freedom to move our mouth with a rapid abandon here in the House. I want to know from the peanut gallery opposite: which is it, $11.7 billion over ten years or $3.5 billion over five years? You don't know. You've got your marching orders out there in the back bench. You rubber-stamp whatever number they put in front of you.

So we don't have freedom to move. We look at the budget and what do we see? We don't see any numbers like this; we see a 1.5 percent increase in the

[ Page 9313 ]

budget for the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, which is a decrease.

We see three areas that are being served by this budget. We see the Okanagan being served. We see Vancouver Island being served in a major way — and I think the Vancouver Island highway is one that should be supported. For the half of the residents of this province that live in the lower mainland we see a very modest budget in terms of the projects that are being supported here. No new projects. No projects to meet the real needs of British Columbians. No budget to meet the needs of my constituents, who are tired, as
the people of British Columbia are tired of this government, of commuters from other areas of the lower mainland going through their area, through their neighbourhood streets. They want to see some commitment to moving commuters rather than moving cars. They don't want to see what is on the drawing-board for the Freedom to Move proposals. They want to see some meaningful rapid transit. They want to see some meaningful park-and-ride. They want to see some commitment to a decent transit system, a transit system that makes it convenient for people to leave their automobiles; to move from their homes to their place of work without adding to the pollution, without adding to the safety problem, without damaging the environment; to travel in a convenient and comfortable way that saves our environment, and that reduces traffic accidents and brings peace and harmony to our neighbourhood streets.

This government can't deliver. This government does not have the substance to do so. They're not showing leadership, and they're not even catching up with the 15 years of neglect we've seen in transportation.

The other area I'm concerned about, having Simon Fraser University in my riding, is post-secondary education. Very clearly what we see in this budget is just like what we see in the transportation and highways budget. We see another situation of a decade of neglect of our students, our institutions and their faculties. Again, British Columbians are tired of a neglectful, tired, worn-out Social Credit government.

We see a story that is the same year after year in the fall. The student experience is that students are turned away. For every three students who are accepted, something like one is turned away — one qualified student whose horizons are being limited, whose opportunities are being diminished. We see the waste of a young person whose skills are needed in this province — a tremendous loss of opportunity to the future prosperity of that individual as well as to that of this province. Sadly, those who get in are forced, because of the underfunding of this government, to take courses that they don't want or need.

Again, we could make this situation a lot better. What we need is to increase the institutional capacity so that courses are available for those young people. We would prefer to see those students not waste the time of their professors and their institution, and public money and their money. The fees that students pay at Simon Fraser, the university in my riding.... Of the 23 top universities in this country, students at Simon Fraser pay among the highest. Only three universities in the Maritimes have fees that are higher than those paid in this province in 1989 or 1990.

What we saw this year on the campus of Simon Fraser University was a very serious situation, where students were protesting a fee increase on top of year after year of previous fee increases. They occupied the administration building on that campus until the Minister of Advanced Education agreed to meet with them and to study the effects of tuition fee increases. Also, the minister promised at that time to arrange a meeting with the Premier, which, to my understanding, never came about. The minister indicated that he felt that....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm sorry, hon. member. Under the standing orders, your time has expired.

[4:30]

MR. PETERSON: It's with a great deal of pleasure that I rise to speak in favour of this great budget for the 1990-91 fiscal year.

Before I do, I'd like to take the opportunity to congratulate and thank some people who work for and commit themselves to this Legislative Assembly. In particular, my congratulations go to our newly named Speaker, to our reaffirmed Deputy Speaker and, of course, to the member who now occupies the chair, who was appointed Deputy Chairman of the Committee of the Whole.

In addition, there are some other people I would like to mention: first, our Clerks. I think that quite often we take them for granted. They do such a wonderful job in trying to keep this House in order. I certainly appreciate it from my end, in the job that I've been assigned.

Also, our Sergeant-at-Arms and his staff — they are absolutely wonderful people, who are there at our beck and call. Again, I would like to thank them very much for making this a very joyful and interesting assembly.

I find very interesting some of the comments made by the previous speaker, the member for Burnaby North. I was very interested to see that he supports the construction of the Island Highway; at least one of their members has got his act together. They have this nominated candidate up at Parksville Qualicum, Mr. Krog. In addition to wanting to raise taxes, he also said that he does not believe that the Island Highway should be constructed.

Interjections.

MR. PETERSON: I know that the member for Burnaby North is leaving the House; it caused him a bit of embarrassment. You should travel up to that area, make some reference to that man and bring him onside.

[ Page 9314 ]

MR. JONES: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I would appreciate it if you would advise the member that he should speak through the Chair.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. Your point is well taken. I would ask the second member for Langley to proceed.

MR. PETERSON: Certainly. I'd like to talk about some of the major initiatives of this great budget. How about the half a million households in British Columbia that are going to receive larger homeowner grants because of it? That is Social Credit's commitment to home-ownership in this province, and it comes through loud and clear.

Over $550 million will be spent for environmental programs this year. That's a 24 percent increase over last year. Mr. Speaker, the member for Burnaby North, who spoke before and who has chosen to leave the House, can stand up and make erroneous statements.... He was talking about there being no commitment to the environment. There's a 24 percent increase over last year. That's highly commendable, and I applaud our Minister of Finance for that. I know our Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Reynolds) is going to spend those dollars wisely, not only to maintain the quality of life that we enjoy in this great province but also to improve it in my constituency of Langley and in every constituency in this wonderful province.

What about the multi-year sustainable environment fund that has been created in this budget? There is a commitment for the future, not just for tomorrow. We know that we may be in the last year or year and a half of our mandate, but that doesn't concern us. We know we're responsible; we know the citizens of the province count on us for long-term planning and for responsible government.

Our horizon isn't just at the end of our mandate; our horizon is in the years 2005, 2010 and 2020. Mr. Speaker, I guarantee you that the Social Credit government will be there, not those clowns on the other side of the House. We have a long-term commitment to the people of British Columbia, and we will follow through on that commitment. We're not interested in short-term rhetoric, like what comes from the opposition, who play to any issue for short-term political gain. This is a responsible government. The people of British Columbia appreciate that and will show it when they re-elect us with an overwhelming majority when the next general election is called.

MR. G. JANSSEN: Call it.

MR. PETERSON: Remember that, Mr. Member for Alberni. You're a really nice person — and he is, Mr. Speaker — but I'm sure your stay here is going to be short.

MR. G. JANSSEN: Drop the writ.

MR. PETERSON: Well, I'm ready for it.

I want to talk a bit about the $1.7 billion ten-year commitment to our forest renewal program. It is critically important to the future economic well-being of this province.

MR. G. JANSSEN: How many trees is that?

MR. PETERSON: I'd have to divide, and I haven't got my calculator.

This government is committed to that. In my own constituency there is a very large set of greenhouses in Aldergrove that specializes in producing seedlings to be planted in the forests of British Columbia. One of the owners is Gary Kenwood, a good friend of mine. I visit his facility often. That nursery shows you that even in an agricultural area like Aldergrove, part of the economic lifeline depends on the forest industry. At that nursery, depending on what's going on, he employs anywhere from 50 to 150 people.

That's a strong economic base for Aldergrove, and we appreciate it. He's adding to a stronger economic base for the future of British Columbians. This government recognizes that; that is why there's a ten-year commitment for $1.7 billion. This member certainly applauds that and applauds the Minister of Finance for it.

How about the science and technology fund to promote cooperation among industry, government and the science community? Again, there is a commitment by this government: number one, to diversify our economy, which is extremely important; and number two, to recognize that British Columbia can be on the leading edge of technological research in the world.

Indeed, I must applaud the efforts of our Minister of Regional and Economic Development (Hon. S. Hagen) and his work with the proposed kaon factory. I understand that maybe even the opposition is starting to see the light. They may even be starting to consider supporting this great project for British Columbia.

I remember that two years ago — or two and a half years ago — in this House the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) stood up and said: "There is no way the opposition will support that project." Do you remember that? I have asked the question a few times of the member for Burnaby North (Mr. Jones): "Have you guys come in?" And he says: "Well, I think maybe we will support it. Well, there are a few qualifiers."

But like everything else, they can't make up their own minds. You know what their problem is? They have to sniff the political winds. Then they'll decide what they're going to do.

Interjection.

MR. PETERSON: That's right, sort of like this, Mr. Speaker. Then they'll decide what they're going to do.

Well, the Social Credit government does not work like that. We have a long-term vision; we always will have a long-term vision. I could go back in history and prove that. I can talk about W.A.C. Bennett and

[ Page 9315 ]

what he did for health care in this province. Does anybody remember what it was like? Our health care system was in absolute shambles — a disaster. But thanks to that man, we now have a system that is the envy of the rest of the free world, and I am extremely proud of it.

I would also like to take some time to address the $3.5 billion for the five-year Freedom to Move transportation initiative. The opposition has made a lot of comments about it during this budget debate. Well, Mr. Speaker, let me tell you how this all happened, because they're missing the boat, as usual.

Do you know where the information for all that came from? It came through the regional initiative program. Regions throughout the province.... Committees that were set up provided the information to our Regional and Economic Development minister, who turned it over to the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. But the input came from the local people. These people don't like it. See, it's coming from the bottom up; not the way they like it. They like to impose things from the top down. Again, we don't work that way as a government.

I applaud that program. I am sure we will be hearing in the next few days of some very exciting things happening in our transportation system in British Columbia, and it will result because we got input from the local level — from local municipal governments and local people who knew the concerns in their areas — through our MLAs, but of course, not through the opposition MLAs. They wouldn't take part in the process. 'You know what? They have let their constituents down, because they have not taken the opportunity to represent them. I think they should be absolutely ashamed of themselves. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind.

MR. G. JANSSEN: Point of order. The member who is speaking made reference to the fact that we didn't participate in that process. I would just like to point out that I did participate in that process, and that the comments.... I take....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, that is not a point of order, and I ask you to sit down.

MR. PETERSON: It appears the member for Alberni is a bit touchy. Perhaps I'm touching a raw nerve there; I don't know. Are you having a problem? It's all right. After the member is defeated in the next election, his wounds will have time to heal.

[4:45]

Let's look at two of the fiscal highlights of the budget. The 1991 budget is balanced. Let me give you a qualifier. The Institute of Chartered Accountants came out and said it was balanced. I don't care how you cut it, that budget is balanced, and I applaud the Minister of Finance for that.

In addition to that, we have over $1 billion in the budget stabilization fund at the end of the 1990-91 fiscal year. I know the opposition don't understand numbers and don't understand logic, but what it really means is that it's a reserve like any other good government would have. In fact, there are some 16 states among our good friends south of the border who are setting up programs such as this, because they recognize what our Minister of Finance has done to level out government.

MR. G. JANSSEN: Can you write a cheque on it?

MR. PETERSON: The member for Alberni asked if I could write a cheque on it. If I had the signing authority, I could write one heck of a cheque on it. But I don't have the signing authority. There's a certain process we have to go through; it's called estimates and all that stuff. You're new here, you'll learn that.

What about the economic outlook for the future? As we see by reading business journals and things like that, it is indeed fragile. Our Minister of Finance brought that to our attention during the budget speech. Because it is fragile, we as government must tread very carefully in the future. What we as government must do is have a long-term vision. The people of British Columbia know that they must have a government with long-term vision, a government with a purpose, a government that cares....

AN HON. MEMBER: Good leadership.

MR. PETERSON: Absolutely, good leadership, and a government that is fiscally responsible, not as some of these members from the opposition would be, who would throw money at any problem for short-term political gain. They don't care. They'll do anything. They absolutely have fooled themselves into thinking that they may even have an opportunity to form government in this province. That would be an absolute disaster for all British Columbia, and British Columbians know it. They are not even an effective opposition; how in the heck are they ever going to be an effective government?

We must tread gently and carefully. We must have long-term vision, and we must manage. This government has that capability and has shown that capability, as Social Credit governments in the past have and as all future Social Credit governments will.

I would like to close by mentioning just a few things that are happening in my community. I think it's important, because Langley township is a community of communities. The population growth has been rapid: from 36,600 in 1976 to 60,841 in 1989, putting Langley among the 12 largest municipalities in B.C. Our average growth over that period has been about 4 percent annually. By the year 2001, the township is projected to be home to more than 90,000 people. That's phenomenal growth.

We as a government, in cooperation with our good municipal governments and our good school boards, must accept that challenge and be prepared to address it. I know I and my good colleague the Minister of Government Management Services and Minister Responsible for Women's Programs (Hon. Mrs. Gran) have risen to that occasion and we will do so after we're elected after the next general election and in the

[ Page 9316 ]

one after that, should we both feel fit to run at that time.

Most of this growth that I talked about is directed to our communities of Aldergrove, Fort Langley, Walnut Grove, Brookswood, Willoughby, Willowbrook and Murrayville. The remainder of the land in our area is agricultural land reserve and is the base for agricultural enterprises. The agricultural economic base In our constituency is extremely important to both the other member and myself, and we applaud and recognize the significant contribution it makes to the quality of life that we enjoy out there. Within our various communities the spirit of individualism and the vast local pride is most assuredly alive and well.

I'd like to talk a bit about housing. Let me talk about the Walnut Grove area, because that's probably the most phenomenal growth area in the whole constituency. Over 40 percent of all new single-family units constructed in the Langley area in 1989 were in Walnut Grove. Sixty percent of all the multi-family housing construction between '88 and '89 in the Langley area was also in Walnut Grove. In industrial development, 68 percent of the growth between '88 and '89 occurred in the Walnut Grove and northwest Langley area, and that's significant. In proposed development, there are a number of subdivision applications in progress, and if approved, approximately 1,300 new single-family lots would be created in the township of Langley. The majority of the proposed lots — 47 percent — are located in Walnut Grove. So Langley and the township, in cooperation with their government members, are responding to the housing needs in the lower mainland.

I want to applaud the two councils. I did in the member's statement I made last Friday, and I want to reiterate that statement, because I think it's critically important. The township council and the council of the city of Langley should be given full marks for rising to and accommodating the need for additional housing in the lower mainland. They have done that very carefully, and I think they should be applauded. Langley is a beautiful place to live. The quality of life we enjoy out there is highly desirable, and I believe we're the envy of a lot of other constituencies.

Mr. Speaker, I don't think I have too much time left. I would like to spend a moment to speak about my colleague the Minister of Government Management Services and Minister Responsible for Women's Programs. Very seriously, I am very proud of that lady because I think she has, on the women's programs side of her ministry, addressed those issues with dignity, compassion and understanding. Quite often we don't see that in politicians these days. So I am very, very proud of her, I know all British Columbians are proud of her, and I would just like to give her full marks for the great job she's doing in times that are sometimes difficult.

With that, I would just like to reiterate that this member, along with all other members on this side of the House, totally supports the balanced budget, the budget that shows fiscal responsibility yet addresses needs for British Columbians, because this government has a heart. We believe the government responds to regional aspirations. This government is committed to excellence in social programs, and we believe that safety and security are fundamental rights of all British Columbians. This budget proves that, Mr. Speaker.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

MR. BLENCOE: Having been away from this chamber for a little while and having been given the opportunity, through illness, to watch the budget delivery, and the Minister of Finance's and Social Credit administration's defence of that budget, I — and all British Columbians — once again see the kind of flimflam and smoke and mirrors that we have come to accept and expect from the Social Credit administration in the province. Today, despite this government wanting to convince the people of the province of what they perceive as the reality of their budget, the auditor-general in his annual report has delivered the truth about the Social Credit administration's financial abilities. The BS fund does not exist in British Columbia. That's what the auditor-general said.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: Let me read what the auditor-general has to say about the budget stabilization fund. He says:

"Since its inception, there appears to be some question in many people's minds as to the nature and impact of these special funds. With reference to the budget stabilization fund, when, the government said that it was making transfers between that fund and the general fund, many people assumed that separate bank or investment accounts were established to serve as depositories for the money in the same way individuals might set up their own savings or investment accounts."

Most people, when they set up an account, as the auditor-general says, put money in; there's actual money there. That's what the auditor-general is saying. Then the auditor-general goes on to say: "This is not what happened, however." There were no bank or investment accounts that could be specifically identified with the budget stabilization fund, Mr. Speaker. It's a phony fund; it doesn't exist. There is no fund. How can the government and the Minister of Finance claim to have balanced the budget, using the BS fund, when it doesn't exist?

If that fund exists, perhaps the Minister of Finance can tell us where it is and which bank account it is in. Most British Columbians, when they say they have a fund and they put money in it, have a little book that says there is money there.

In British Columbia, can the Minister of Finance tell us which province the account is in? I don't know. The auditor-general says there were no bank or investment accounts that could be specifically identified with the stabilization fund.

[5:00]

[ Page 9317 ]

Maybe the Minister of Finance could tell us which country the bank account has been put in. Maybe that's the question. Maybe we want to know which country it's been put in.

The fund doesn't exist. The balanced budget that the government talks about cannot exist because, as the auditor-general says, the BS fund is non-existent. There is no fund in the province of British Columbia; it doesn't exist. If it does, maybe the minister can show us the bank-book. Show us the account; show us the number — as most British Columbians do their banking. They want to see the dollars, the deposit, the amount and the book. But the auditor-general is saying: "Boy, I can't even find the account; I can't track it down." If it exists, would the minister come forward, step out of his back room and tell us where the account is?

I would suggest that there is a new book being written in the province of British Columbia by the hon. Finance minister. It's called The Joy of Cooking the Books in the Province of British Columbia. The auditor general says the fund doesn't exist. We can't find the bank account or the number. Even the Minister of Finance some months ago said it didn't exist, but during this budget it did exist.

We don't have a fund, and we don't have a balanced budget. That's why Peat Marwick — a very credible, prestigious accounting firm; the largest in the country — rejected the claim of a balanced budget. That prestigious accounting firm says we have a deficit of $2.6 billion. The surplus has been manufactured. It's an artificial and arbitrary basis, says Peat Marwick.

Here is this government trying to tell the people of the province they've balanced the books. Mr. Speaker, this is a dishonest approach to the books of the province and a dishonest approach to the people of the province. Why doesn't this government tell it the way it is? They are running a deficit and their BS fund is non-existent. If it exists, show us where the account is. Which bank is it in? What's the account number? Which province or which country is it in? We'd like to know. The surplus has been manufactured. We have a new book called The Joy of Cooking the Books in the Province of British Columbia, written by the Minister of Finance and co-authored by the Premier.

Mr. Speaker, it's a sad day when this government continues to support its balanced budget when every indication now is.... Today we have the real facts from the auditor-general, added to by Peat Marwick, that we have a deficit. We have a government that's once again using smoke and mirrors. The fund doesn't exist.

I want to talk a little bit about housing today as well. That happens to be a very important topic in the province. We have a government that continues to believe that the crisis in the housing area will go away. I see the Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Dueck) is in the House today. We have the government announcing that they're going to spend $1 billion on housing, but when we analyze the budget we once again find that it is really smoke and mirrors, that most of the money for housing is to go on already existing programs like GAIN — $470 million for GAIN of the so-called billion-dollar fund for housing, and $418 million to homeowners for the homeowner program.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Minister, I'm glad you asked about your units. Mr. Speaker, the minister is here and has asked about his units. The units that this minister and other ministers have announced over the last year in seven recycled news releases saying how many units they're going to build.... Do you know how many units you've built? Sixty-one units in 13 months. Supposedly you've committed $100 million to subsidize developers, and they're going to rent for about $750 to $950 a month. Sixty-one units through this great program.

HON. MR. DUECK: Wrong again.

MR. BLENCOE: That's the facts. Do we need the auditor-general's report on that too? You said we were wrong about the BS fund, that it did exist, that the people of the province had this great rainy-day account. We'll have to have the auditor-general take a look at the housing programs, and we'll find that once again we have smoke and mirrors and great announcements and recycled news releases, great TV ads about all the units being built. Sixty-one units have been built — that's all — under your rental supply program, and 111 are under construction. So much for your program. You said in last year's budget that your housing action program would build all those units for the people. Four thousand units you said you'd build for them. One year later, 61 units.

Housing needs a comprehensive approach. It doesn't just need subsidizing the private sector. Close to $100 million we're supposedly going to put into the private sector to subsidize their interest rates. We have a comprehensive approach to the problem of housing. Our party has tabled a policy document that is receiving support from both the private sector and the public sector as a comprehensive way to tackle housing problems in the province.

Mr. Speaker, we want to deal with home-ownership. We are committed to a starter-home program that has been welcomed by the private sector, by the Vancouver real estate board, and by the urban institute and others — a way to try and help young people get into their first home. One of the ways we would help young people get into their first home is by exempting the first-time buyer from the property purchase tax.

There are other things we want to do for homeownership, because we happen to believe that homeownership is still a dream in the province of British Columbia. Unfortunately, this government has done very little to help home ownership. We are committed to providing a second mortgage of up to $20,000 for first-time buyers and to increasing the qualifying

[ Page 9318 ]

price level to reflect the local market. We are putting forward detailed ways that we can help British Columbians into their first home.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: Thank you, the member for Prince George!

Every night we see on the television or read in the newspapers the problems of increasing rents and demolition for tenants — a million tenants in the province are asking for action by this government. But what do we see? Nothing. We see a minister responsible for the residential tenancy branch deal with rent increases by phoning up certain apartment building owners and saying: "Look, I'm getting a little heat from the NDP. Would you try to roll back your rent increase?" But will he introduce an official rent review procedure? No, he refuses to do that.

The tenants in the province are asking for a fair system of rent review. They are not asking for rent control; they're asking for rent review, a process and we've been quite clear about that — whereby tenants can have an increase they feel is unjustified examined. If it is found to be unfair or a gouge, it can be rolled back — fairness in the system.

But this minister — he's not here today — runs away from this issue every single day. What is his way of dealing with it? He says rent review is dangerous. But what does he do? He goes through the back door, calls up the landlord here in Victoria and says: "Oh dear, would you reduce your rents?" And the landlord does reduce his rents on the grounds of some cynical political move. The minister says: "Well, we're going to be in government. Don't worry about it; you don't have to increase your rents."

We on this side of the House say that if you're going to have a tent review procedure, you've got to have it for every British Columbian tenant, not for the friends of this government or by a backroom process that this minister has introduced. Fairness in the system, Mr. Speaker, and democratic dialogue between landlord and tenant on an economic issue as important as rents — there's nothing wrong with that. This minister and this other minister laugh about tenants in the province of British Columbia, about the 40 percent of the population of this province who rent.

Today they have no protection from any kind of rent increase in the province of British Columbia — no protection at all. So we would bring back the rentalsman. We would have a fair process of arbitration between landlord and tenant, and we would have a process of rent review in the province of British Columbia. There are a million tenants in British Columbia, and all they're asking — as we are on their behalf — is to have a process that deals fairly with them and gives them the opportunity to sit down with their landlord in front of a fair arbitration process.

My colleague and all MLAs in this House have now seen massive rent increases. When we have a senior citizen who gets a 50 to 60 percent rent increase, there's no justification for it other than the market, and it's a clear gouge. How can you say to that senior citizen who's living on a fixed income — and we've got them; the minister knows; I've sent him people getting $200- or $300-a-month rent increases — that it's got nothing to do with fairness? It's got everything to do with a gouge. How can this government say to that senior citizen: "Yes, I agree with you; that's a gouge. But we won't introduce a rent review. We won't have a way to have your case heard"?

We don't have that system in British Columbia, because this government continues to support the Michael Walkers of this world, who say the way to resolve housing problems is to give total economic freedom to the owners of property to do what they want. But there has to be a balance. There has to be moderation in the system, and at the moment we have no moderation. We have no mechanism to deal with unfairness in the system, and we have to tell senior citizens who have a 50 percent rent increase that they cannot have that review.

[5:15]

Mr. Speaker, in our policy we would give local government the ability to control demolitions. Every day we see good, affordable rental accommodation being destroyed to make way for half-a-million-dollar condominiums. We would allow local government the opportunity to control that situation if they see fit. It is our belief that local government should have a greater say in that area.

HON. MR. DUECK: That's why they turned down the units.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Ask Gretchen what she did.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, the members opposite are hurting on this issue. They know that they are refusing to deal with the issue of a comprehensive plan. They know there are potentially a million tenants in British Columbia who feel aggrieved and feel they have no protection. They have an extremely weak Residential Tenancy Act. They know that they are sitting on the sidelines doing nothing about it at all.

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell us what you've done.

MR. BLENCOE: I will send that member a copy of our policy. I'll send him all the things we have said we'll do in the area of housing.

One of the areas of major concern is discrimination by landlords against families. It's an issue we have to deal with in this province, on human rights grounds. In B.C. you are allowed to discriminate in housing based on family composition. We have to tackle that issue. Children are becoming second-class citizens in British Columbia.

We have committed ourselves to build and to double the allocation of non-profit and affordable

[ Page 9319 ]

housing in B.C. This year this government actually cut the amount of construction of affordable housing units in the province, when people are asking for a major initiative in the housing area.

We have talked about using Crown lands, and we've watched over the last two years the fiasco of this government selling our assets, our public lands. I don't have to go over the scandal. But it is our view that a certain portion of Crown lands should be set aside for the affordable housing component of the industry on a lease basis, so that they can participate in building housing on our Crown land.

At the moment, our Crown land policy is basically a condominium policy, with land selling off at extremely speculative prices, and most people in the affordable housing component cannot participate. We would give equal access to non-profit and affordable housing in the use of Crown lands. It's a very important component of our program. We would expand the rental conversion loan program, which provides first and second mortgages of up to $25,000 per unit when single-family homes and industrial and commercial properties are converted to rental accommodation.

We're committed to working with the private sector, and we've had meetings with them to see how we can work together. We must have a comprehensive approach to the issue of housing in British Columbia. We haven't had that, Mr. Speaker. That is why we have addressed ownership, rentals, the problems of owners of manufactured homes and also how to give local government greater power in the area of housing.

I believe that we have put forward and will continue to build upon an exciting housing program that British Columbians can relate to, that deals specifically with the issues that they want addressed British Columbians want home-ownership to be affordable. That's why we're talking. We are going to be working on a starter-home program. We'll be working on a Crown land policy. We are working....

Interjections.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, this government doesn't want to hear about housing and how British Columbians believe it is a key issue. You continue to avoid this issue in British Columbia.

We are prepared to work on behalf of the million tenants in this province for fairness, equality under the law, an equal playing-field, and to bring back the rentalsman and rent review — not rent control but a rent stabilization program, which has been successful in other jurisdictions.

We are asking this government not to just hope and pray that the problem goes away but to actually bring forth constructive suggestions and ways to deal with it, as we have put forward in our policies. There are answers. It has to be a partnership between the private and public sectors in dealing with our housing programs.

In the weeks and months ahead, we will continue I and other members from our side will be tabling private members' bills that will deal with the housing problem, that will show where the action has to come from and how the initiative has to be shown by government to really put forward a comprehensive housing program to resolve our problems. We have the talent in both the private and public sectors, but unfortunately we have a government at the moment that is refusing to deal with the issue. By smoke and mirrors they are trying to convince the people that they are doing something about it. But the evidence is that in one year — 13 months — the major program that this government announced, the rental supply program, has completed 61 units. That's all we have.

So what we suggest we do — a comprehensive approach — is listen to the non-profit sector; listen to those who have ideas in these areas; and listen to the tenants in the province. Give them protection and fairness and return the principle of democratic dialogue between landlord and tenant in British Columbia.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I have just listened to some of the debate again, and I must say that I am extremely disappointed with the quality of debate from the opposition. We're hearing those same old, tired arguments during this budget debate that we have heard from the opposition for years.

They told us last year that we would not have a balanced budget, but we did. They're telling us this year that we will not have a balanced budget, but we will. And they will be telling us next year that we'll not have a balanced budget, but we're going to. They were wrong last year, they'll be wrong this year and they'll be wrong again next year.

They keep trying to confuse the people by giving them information which is perhaps less than honest — certainly incomplete. I would like to give an example of that, because we just listened to the second member for Victoria quote from a paper prepared by Peat Marwick. I would like to quote from the first page, where Peat Marwick, in commenting on the budget, said: "We believe the minister's course of action was appropriate. Having a pre-election spending spree would have been a sorry way of completing this term of a government which has demonstrated so much fiscal responsibility."

On the same first page it says: "As at March 31, 1991, total net debt is forecast to be $16,000,007,000, which will be 21 percent of gross domestic product, its lowest level in 25 years." Then on the opposite side of the first page, it says the accumulated deficit "is forecast to be $4.125 billion at March 31, 1991, which is a decrease from $4.919 billion at March 31, 1989." On page 2 it says: "Notably absent from this budget are any broad taxation increases, but there are several relieving tax provisions: increased homeowner grants, increased renter's credits and the exclusion of GST from the base for B.C. provincial sales tax." Further on it says: "B.C. continues to have the second-most attractive income and sales tax jurisdiction in Canada after Alberta."

You see, they can — and continue to — selectively pick and choose. Frankly, I don't think that's totally

[ Page 9320 ]

honest. The member for Burnaby North (Mr. Jones) was in the House just a few moments ago as well. He was quoting from various editorials and columns — again, chosen selectively. He didn't read this editorial of Wednesday, April 25, 1990, from the Times-Colonist: "NDP Budget Options — Where are the Details?" He didn't read the one from the Province of April 22: "NDP's Fiscal Policy Naive." He didn't read "NDPs Budget Speech Short on Specifics," from the Vancouver Sun of Monday, April 23. He didn't read "Munro Takes on Spotted Owl" — oh, sorry; that's the wrong file!

The second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) just spoke about housing, but he didn't read the Province's big, bold headlines from Tuesday, March 13, 1990: "B.C. Tops in Housebuilding." The NDP didn't read this editorial from Wednesday, February 7 — the Province's big, bold headlines: "B.C.  — Our Growth Leader." You see, they selectively pick and choose, and they hope that somehow the public out there might be conned or somehow made to believe what they selectively pick and choose. But the people certainly are better informed than that. They can choose and know the difference. They certainly are aware of what's taking place in this province.

[5:30]

The finance critic for the NDP said that in its first budget an NDP government would reduce the tax burden for all middle- and lower-income British Columbians. Has anyone told Leonard Krog? Will poor Leonard Krog get a vote in all of this? I know we've spoken about Leonard Krog in the House previously. I heard our member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mr. Bruce) describe what Leonard Krog said, but I would like to say it again. Let me introduce Leonard Krog to you, because Leonard is going to be so well known that he'll be a topic of discussion in coffee shops, at work, at school, at social functions, everywhere.

Leonard Krog is the NDP candidate in the riding of Parksville-Qualicum. During the nomination meeting, he made a number of interesting comments which have caused some considerable concern for the NDP. They ought to be of concern to all British Columbians.

AN HON. MEMBER: What comments?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Thank you, hon. member. I'm more than happy to share Leonard's comments with you again today.

For years the NDP has been criticizing our government for not spending enough money. They've never indicated where the extra money should come from. Well, along comes our good friend Leonard Krog, and he's more than willing to be candid and forthright and tell everyone where the NDP will get the extra money they need to fulfil their many promises.

"Higher taxes, " says Leonard Krog. Leonard Krog told his nomination meeting in Bowser that an NDP government would have to raise taxes to pay for its programs. Here's what he said: "If we" — the NDP — are going to be honest" — and there's the key — with the people in the next election...we're going to have to tell the people of British Columbia that these things are going to cost a great deal of money. Corporate taxes would have to be raised, and believe you me, we're all going to have to pay higher income taxes." There you have it in black and white.

Good old Leonard spelled it out for all British Columbians: an NDP government would raise taxes dramatically. Now I don't think British Columbians want to go that route, and when the time is right they are going to tell the NDP that they don't want higher, higher, higher taxes.

As a matter of fact, I would predict that Leonard Krog will go down in political history in our province, and his name will become synonymous with political defeat. After the next provincial election, when the NDP is once again defeated, people will say: "They were Krogged." It's an expression that will make its way into everyday speech. When a youngster comes home from a ball game, the parents will say: 'Well, how did you make out today, Johnny?" The youngster will say: "We got Krogged." "Krogged" will eventually find its way into the Concise Oxford Dictionary. If you look at the dictionary, you'll find exactly where it fits. Go ahead and check Webster's dictionary. It fits right in between "kremlin" and "krugerrand."

Poor Leonard said that he was only trying to be realistic. Now even the Leader of the Opposition is anxious to tell British Columbians of the taxation plans the NDP have in mind.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Where is he?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I regret that he's not in the House today.

Last Friday, in an interview with CBC, when asked, "Can you promise that under an NDP government taxes would not be increased?" he replied: "No." He confirmed what good old Leonard Krog told us earlier.

The NDP tell us that they would increase taxes on corporations. That's just a start. Remember that Leonard said: "Corporate taxes... and believe you me, we're all going to have to pay higher income taxes." The NDP solution is to increase corporate taxes and to increase all income taxes.

The president of the Business Council of B.C., Jim Matkin, when he was first told of this, also said: "Increasing corporate taxes as proposed initially is simplistic and naive. Increasing taxes at a time when the economy is starting to slide is a good formula for driving out investment and increasing unemployment." It could very well ensure that we'll have a recession.

But the NDP is not concerned with our fragile economy or another recession. When British Columbia was hard-hit by the last recession, they just wanted to continue their wild spending spree. The NDP is not concerned that when corporations don't make any money, they start laying off workers. The NDP is not concerned that corporations would re-

[ Page 9321 ]

duce dividends to investors, many of whom are pensioners.

The NDP keeps talking about tax fairness, but their idea of tax fairness is that if you have money, it's fair to tax it. The personal income of British Columbians increased more than 10 percent last year — which was higher than the national average — and the NDP wants to tax it all away.

We say no to higher taxation. Simply put, British Columbians can have balanced budgets and lower taxes with Social Credit or reckless spending and higher taxes with the NDP. First it's corporate tax, then income tax, a municipal income tax and an inheritance tax. Will the elderly be able to leave anything for their children? I doubt it. If the NDP doesn't tax you enough when you're alive, they'll go after your family when you're dead. We say no to the NDP proposal for increased taxes.

Mr. Speaker, the opposition finance critic has described our budget as boring. Tell renters who are getting the renter's tax reductions that it's boring. Tell property owners who are getting school tax relief that it's boring. Tell those people who find a job this year in the hottest economy in Canada that it's boring. The Investment Dealers' Association of Canada doesn't think our budgets are boring. It said: "B.C. sets an example for fiscal management in the whole of Canada." The Institute of Chartered Accounts doesn't think our budget is boring. It said: "Our provincial government could give lessons in fiscal integrity and smart money management to the federal government."

Our government has been called a lot of things over the past four years, but boring is not one of them. Since we became government, we have increased spending on health care in British Columbia by $1.5 billion. How much more does the NDP want us to spend? That's the question. Since we became government, we have increased spending on education by $1.7 billion. How much more does the NDP want us to spend? Since we became government, spending on social services has increased by more than $300 million, even though 15 percent fewer people are relying on social assistance. How much more does the NDP want us to spend?

Over the last two years, Mr. Speaker, we have reduced the government's direct debt by $800 million. That's a burden that will not be inflicted on future generations. I'm sure that the NDP, when they are planning their strategy on how they might extract more money from the people, are not considering the impact on our children or their children. They are looking selfishly at what they could do today and how they might hit the taxpayers or create a further debt.

This government, in its budgeting and fiscal management, has not only responded to the needs of the people today but has shown concern for future generations like no other government in the country.

What about jobs? We have a record envied throughout the whole of Canada. In the latter part of last year, we created almost half of all the new jobs created in the whole country, even though we're only 12 percent of the population. We have been extremely successful in creating new employment opportunities for people throughout this province.

We hear a lot of shouting from the member from Port Alberni, but how much care have they shown as a party for the jobs in Port Alberni? What have they said about that? That member from Port Alberni is going to have to answer his constituents and answer the question: welfare with Harcourt or jobs with Vander Zalm?

Mr. Speaker, we are creating a more secure future for British Columbians. Since we took office, British Columbia has seen a tremendous record in job creation, in diversifying the economy, in handling the moneys that the taxpayers provide to government. Unlike the NDP, we recognize that government has no money of its own. We have to take it from the people, as they do elsewhere in the country and in the world. The difference is that the NDP knows no ends and thinks that somehow the people can continue to pay, pay and pay more. It's not going to work.

[5:45]

Mr. Speaker, I know I should probably pose a few more quizzes in order to drive home more effectively the message of what the NDP have been saying. But with so many of their members missing and with the Leader of the Opposition not present again, I will save this for another time.

Being the last speaker in this debate, I can tell you that I — like every member here on the government side — am extremely proud of the job that has been done by our Minister of Finance. I am proud when I visit other provinces and meet with my colleagues the Premiers from all parts of the country, and they hold forth what we've done in British Columbia as a model, and when they question how we've been so successful, not only in fiscal management but in diversifying, creating jobs, building homes and developing opportunities in every region of the province.

Despite the misinformation that has been presented by some of the members opposite, or the part-information that has been given during this debate by members opposite, I can assure you that the time will come reasonably soon when we'll have a chance to go out to our respective constituencies and to really show them the record of good government. And I can assure you that when people consider the prospects of higher taxes still, and when they consider the prospects of more people leaving the province as opposed to coming to the province, and when they consider the prospects of job losses and what will happen in the Albernis and places like that elsewhere in the province, and when they consider the record of the NDP socialists and compare it with the record of this government of Social Credit and what it has done in British Columbia for many years, the choice will be clear. They want jobs, they want prosperity, they want security, they want housing and they want good management of their tax dollars. This is what we commit to give, this is what we have been giving and this is what we will continue to provide.

[ Page 9322 ]

MS. CULL: It appears that the premier is not up on the rules of this debate; I don't believe he was the last speaker. However, I will move adjournment of the debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Richmond moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:49 p.m.