[ Page 9323 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Government advertising of budget. Mr. Williams –– 9323

Highway signs contract. Mr. Williams –– 9324

Financial reporting on land dealing. Mr. Williams –– 9324

Cost estimates for highway projects. Mr. Lovick –– 9324

Gaming-related fraud charges. Mr. Sihota –– 9325

Glucose testing for diabetics. Mr. Serwa –– 9325

Ministerial Statement

Public administration award. Hon. Mrs. Johnston –– 9325

Mr. Lovick

Budget Debate

Ms. Cull –– 9326

Mr. Serwa –– 9329

Mrs. Boone –– 9333

Mr. Crandall –– 9335

Mr. Guno –– 9337

Hon. Mr. Veitch –– 9341

Ms. Pullinger –– 9343

Hon. Mr. Couvelier –– 9347

The House met at 2:03 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. VEITCH: In the members' gallery today we have a very distinguished visitor. Would the House join me in welcoming His Excellency Samuel M. Kajese, who is the High Commissioner for Zimbabwe.

MR. D'ARCY: I'd like to welcome to the gallery members of the Real Estate Institute of British Columbia. They are over here in Victoria, hopefully, to expand our knowledge of their particular industry. I hope they don't expand their knowledge of us too much; we could all be in a lot of trouble. I would like the House to give them a warm welcome.

MR. CHALMERS: On behalf of the government members in the Legislature today, I would also like to welcome the members of the B.C. Real Estate Association here today. They represent over 16,000 licensed realtors throughout British Columbia. Among their group today are the president, Mr. Ken Johnson, and the chairman of the political action committee and president of the Real Estate Board of Greater Vancouver, Mr. John Eastwood. On behalf of the government side, I would like to ask the members to make them welcome.

MS. CULL: I'd like to ask the House to help me welcome to the gallery today my father, Mr. Jim Cull. I don't see him up there yet, but I know he's about the building and will be joining us soon.

HON. MR. DUECK: This afternoon, on behalf of the second member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. De Jong) and myself, it is my pleasure to welcome some very important people from the Central Fraser Valley who help us whenever help is needed. Whether it's volunteer work or anything that we might desire, they're always there to help. They are: Kathleen Agnew, Tilly Carey, Erica Doucette, Abe and Sue Dyck, Irma McFarland, Sarah Martens, Eleanor Ott, Paul and Rose Redecop, Agatha and Henry Ratzlaff, Jean Rempel, Ben and Gay Vos, Aron and Sarah Warkentin, Evelyn Warrington, Rose Toews and, last but not least, my wife Helen. Would the House please make them welcome.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, in the precincts today are two students from Belmont Secondary in my riding who are recipients of a Pacific Rim scholarship for a year's study in Korea and Japan respectively. One of the students is Danielle Scott and the other is Christopher Eaton. Although Mr. Eaton is attending Belmont, he actually comes from Fort Nelson in the Minister of Education's (Hon. Mr. Brummet's) riding. On behalf of both of us, could all members of the House please join us in giving them a warm welcome.

HON. S. HAGEN: It is my distinct pleasure today to welcome to the buildings two of our fine educators from the Comox Valley: Mr. Glen Parsons from Highland Secondary School and Mr. Geoff Horn from Georges P. Vanier Secondary School, together with 32 students from those two schools in the great community of the Comox Valley. Would the House please join me in making them welcome.

MR. SERWA: Today I'd like to introduce a very special person from Okanagan South: a person who counts. among her friends members on both sides of this House; a person who was recently recognized for 30 years of public service by being recognized as the city of Kelowna's woman of the year. May I ask the House to please welcome my best friend and my wife, Lois.

HON. MR. FRASER: Last Sunday was a very special day for me. It was the first anniversary of my wife's and my marriage. I would like you to welcome my wife Jone to the chamber today. There's no question I'm a lucky man.

Accompanying Jone is her mother, Mrs. Ernest Dittrich, and her sister, Marion Parkes. Would the House please make them welcome as well.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING OF BUDGET

MR. WILLIAMS: To the hon. the Premier. Your balanced-budget claim has received three serious blows this week: the auditor-general said your bottom line doesn't mean a thing; Peat Marwick said your budget is in deficit; and yesterday the auditor general’s report stripped the BS fund to precisely that. Will the Premier admit that the government's balanced-budget claim is a lie and withdraw the TV ads that you are forcing the taxpayers to support?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: First of all, most thinking people and those who review all the material would soon realize that the accumulated deficit this year will be considerably less than it was a year or two years ago. Most people would realize that not only did the accumulated deficit come down considerably but also taxes didn't go up. No, they came down considerably. So I'm sure that while accountants and those who would be accountants could use the material to whatever advantage they wish by selecting or doing what may be politically good today, average British Columbians, when looking at where the accumulated deficit is today as opposed to where it was, and when considering where their taxes are today as opposed to where they were, realize that this government obviously has managed extremely well fiscally, as has been said by experts across the land. We're told this not only by accounting firms but by investment firms which represent investors across the whole country. We realize too that when we compare the....

[ Page 9324 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think the answer is getting beyond the scope of the question.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I'll wind up my comments this way. We had a balanced budget last year, we have a balanced budget this year, and we will have a balanced budget next year — and as long as we have Social Credit.

MR. WILLIAMS: Have you read the auditor-general's report? He tells us you're not minding the till. He tells us you're not telling the truth about the books, and we know you won't admit when you're wrong. If W.A.C. Bennett were alive today and read this report, he'd vote New Democrat.

The auditor-general expressed concern about the accounts of the government and the reporting system of government. On page 19 of the auditor-general's report, he said he would be pleased to assist the government in this process. Will you accept his offer of assistance to correct the books?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Unfortunately, I must confess I haven't had the opportunity yet to go through all of this very thick document. Therefore, because I haven't been able to go through all of it, I can't just reach in and pick selectively from the auditor-general's report. But I can tell you that there are many, many favourable statements. I will certainly take the comment — or the question, if that's what it was — by the member on notice, which will give me an opportunity to pick from this report, as he's done, and to read all those wonderful things that he says. For example, in dealing with land acquisition, he says:

"We concluded that the processes for buying and selling real estate properties established by the ministries and Crown corporations that we reviewed are appropriate for achieving value for money. Additionally, we found that the established policies and procedures were followed during the period under review."

On it goes, and I will gladly take the question — if that's what it was — on notice and provide selectively many of those good quotes in the auditor-general's report.

HIGHWAY SIGNS CONTRACT

MR. WILLIAMS: To the Minister of Highways. The auditor-general advises us that the ministry paid $240,000 for signs that were not received from Trans Sign, the privatized sign company. Can the minister advise us why no one was monitoring the contract, in order to avoid that kind of penalty?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, I'm afraid I was unable to hear the first part of the question, but did catch most of it. I'll take the question on notice and get the information for the member.

[2:15]

FINANCIAL REPORTING ON LAND DEALING

MR. WILLIAMS: A question to the Premier again. The auditor-general advises us that there is a need for financial reporting from this government on a project based on issues such as the Expo lands. Will you do so in the future?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I will certainly take the question on notice.

MR. SPEAKER: The question was sort of, "have you decided?" I think. So it would be in order....

MR. WILLIAMS: A new question. The auditor general advises us that in fact on the Expo lands, there was $60 million in carrying costs not noted in terms of your books, $42 million for B.C. Pavilion and probably $40 million on cleanup. That would suggest a $150 million error in terms of reporting on the Expo lands. Wouldn't that justify changing your system?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I read the quote earlier in the auditor-general's report on page 178, which says: "We concluded that the processes for buying and selling real estate properties established by the ministries and Crown corporations that we, reviewed are appropriate for achieving value for money. Additionally, we found that the established policies and procedures were followed "

As I said, you can pick selectively, and certainly I can pick selectively if you begin to pick selectively. But I should mention as well — and perhaps this is overlooked by the member opposite — that in many of these dealings, whether in land or otherwise, certainly there are benefits that possibly are not always identified by the auditor-general, and understandably too. I think we need to look at the city of Vancouver and what we see for the city by the year 2000, and the tremendous opportunities that will exist for us and for future generations in proper and good development of those beautiful lands.

COST ESTIMATES FOR HIGHWAY PROJECTS

MR. LOVICK: Over two years ago the Minister of Finance assured this House that the government — and I quote — "has accepted almost...every...recommendation made by" the MacKay commission on the Coquihalla. Yesterday, however, the auditor-general revealed that a key recommendation of the commission, namely better project-estimating procedures, has not yet been put in place and will not be until next year. Can the Minister of Transportation and Highways tell us how, with no accurate means of estimating costs, she can ensure that the taxpayers won't be stuck with another half-billion-dollar overrun?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I am delighted to stand up defend the activities within the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. We have had an opportunity to go over very briefly the statements made in the

[ Page 9325 ]

auditor-general's annual report, and I can tell you that to a great degree we have no argument with some of the comments made. But I can also tell you, Mr. Speaker, and members of the House that a good number of the areas that have been identified as possible weak areas were already effectively identified within the ministry prior to the auditor-general's looking at the....Steps have already been taken to correct those areas that it is felt within the ministry require correction.

I believe it's important to advise all members of this House of the very positive activities taking place within the ministry. I'm wondering how many members in the House are aware of the Institute of Public Administration of Canada and the award....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, when your microphone fails, it's because the Chair has called you to order. When others call you to order, regular business could proceed.

All members, when being asked questions...if the scope of the answer is to expand beyond the scope of the question, then the Chair has no course but to narrow it down. Otherwise, we will spend the whole of the 15 minutes on one question. The Chair would be greatly assisted by brief questions put forward.

MR. LOVICK: It's passing strange if the minister is happy to defend this, because nobody else is — the story in there.

A new question to the minister. The auditor-general also talks about gravel management, and he points out that you don't know how much gravel you've got. You don't know how much is being taken away. You don't have a cash register there. Will the minister agree that it is time you put somebody in charge of that $100-$150-million-per-year operation?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: There is absolutely no question that the ministry is in charge. I would put the staff of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways up against the staff of the auditor-general any day of the week.

GAMING-RELATED FRAUD CHARGES

MR. SIHOTA: We've heard a little bit about W.A.C. Bennett today. There was a time when Social Credit was opposed to gaming, but under this Premier and this government, Social Credit has of course brought gaming to British Columbia. We have, according to the auditor-general's report, all types of skimming and gouging going on in British Columbia right now.

In his report he indicates that there were 19 occurrences of fraud and $312,000 of misappropriated funds. Could the Solicitor-General advise this House how many charges have been laid against those people who perpetrated that fraud and misappropriated those funds?

HON. MR. FRASER: I've been sending telepathic messages to the NDP socialists all morning, praying they would ask me this question, and they have.

There's another message I want to give them, Mr. Speaker. This minister wants to make sure that gaming in B.C. is done correctly. Another message is that the government wants it to be done correctly. I can assure the members opposite that since 1987 — you're talking history, of course — we have more than three and a half times the staff in the gaming branch. We have sent 1,400 volunteers through a training program for casinos. Bingo, which has been operating for years, has new training procedures coming in this year, and additional inspections are taking place constantly. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: All of that was very interesting, but the minister did not answer the question. If you would just state the question briefly, then I'll try and elicit the answer.

MR. SIHOTA: I guess his telepathetic....

Interjections.

MR. SIHOTA: I won't say it. The answer, quite frankly, is that there were none.

Mr. Speaker, I have a new question to the Premier.

MR. SPEAKER: If you have a new question, I ask the member to take his seat.

GLUCOSE TESTING FOR DIABETICS

MR. SERWA: My question is for the Minister of Health. It's prompted by a recent column in the Times-Colonist entitled "Diabetics, Pharmacists Puzzled by Test Strip Edict." With respect to your recent announcement that the province will now fund glucose test strips for all certified diabetics, could you please clarify the type of certification and the procedure required for individuals who wish to make use of this very worthwhile program?

HON. J. JANSEN: As the member indicated, on April 24 we announced that effective May 1 we would cover all glucose-monitoring strips. As part of that initiative, we also asked that patients would avail themselves of training programs available at 39 hospitals throughout the province. Recognizing that there is some problem in terms of access to this training program, we will honour all claims for the next three months to enable people to take advantage of the program. We have communicated this to all hospitals in the province, and we are communicating it to all pharmacies and participating wholesalers.

Ministerial Statement

PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION AWARD

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a ministerial statement.

[ Page 9326 ]

Annually there is a very distinguished panel that deals with recognition for a number of public administration bodies in Canada. The Institute of Public Administration of Canada has this year included among its recipients the province of British Columbia and the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. They have been honoured for innovative management in road and bridge privatization.

IPAC is a pre-eminent Canadian body which promotes sound public administration. They developed these awards that recognize Canadian government organizations for outstanding innovative achievement. The purpose of the award is to identify success stories in the public service that are worthy of emulation and to foster innovation in the public sector by recognizing organizations for creative and effective ways of doing their job as government organizations. British Columbia was presented with this award for the privatization of road and bridge maintenance. What is very important, in my view, is that the chairman of this panel is the Hon. Allan Blakeney.

It seems significant, because of the comments made by the members opposite, that this recognition was given to our ministry staff at this time.

Interjections.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: It is regrettable that members opposite have little respect for the civil servants we have working for us. I ask the House to join me in recognizing this award.

MR. LOVICK: Speaking of awards, it seems to me the minister ought to get one for best actress.

A number of us who have been watching and listening to ministerial statements for a while have never recognized that there is a new meaning and a new reason for them — damage control. Pretty obviously, that's what's happening today. Yesterday I had occasion to refer to Humpty-Dumpty. I'd almost like to repeat it. The words mean whatever they want.

The minister has the temerity to say to this House that we on this side should show greater respect for civil servants. Five minutes ago she effectively trashed the auditor-general of this province.

[2:30]

We are not going to take advantage of this opportunity to quote the roughly 37 pages of text that will contradict everything the minister said. Instead I'll merely make a couple of points in the auditor-general's report, which I would recommend to the minister.

If you wish to take credit for jobs well done by your ministry, then you ought also — as an honourable member — to take blame for castigations of your ministry. Two brief citations will make the point. Page 96 of the auditor-general's report. Here we go.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Point of order. Remembering your admonishment about question period, Mr. Speaker, a ministerial statement's reply should have some basis in the statement that was made.

MR. SPEAKER: That's an interesting point, but the scope of the statement was fairly broad.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: With all due respect, the statement was plainly and simply about an award received by the staff of the Ministry of Highways.

MR. SPEAKER: There was some additional editorial comment allowed. Perhaps the member could keep his remarks in the temper that we wish to have ministerial statements addressed in and bring other issues forward in committee when the Chairman will be in attendance.

MR. LOVICK: Precisely, Mr. Speaker. I will certainly aspire to dignity even though others opposite can't.

I was making two points about the auditor-general's report, which are in direct contradiction to the notion of that ministry being worthy of awards. The first point — and I think the statements say it all; they require no elaboration from me — is on page 96: "The ministry does not have an organized way of making use of the experience gained on previous highway projects." Another brief example: "We are concerned, " says the auditor-general, "that, because of a shortage of specialist staff, the ministry will not be able to conduct quality reviews early enough in the design process to ensure that effective changes can be made." I rest my case, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The House would be delighted if all members would review the very simple statement that is in MacMinn's book on how to make ministerial statements and what the scope of them may be. It would assist us all.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Just before we get to the orders of the day, I would ask leave of the House for the Special Committee of Selection to meet today at 4 p.m. in the Douglas Fir Room.

Leave granted.

Orders of the Day

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

Budget Debate

(continued)

MS. CULL: I am pleased to rise to take my place in the budget debate. There has been a lot of talk over the last couple of days about whether this is a balanced budget or not and whether the BS fund exists or not. The Minister of Finance tells us it exists one day; another day he tells us it doesn't.

We know the answer. Peat Marwick Thorne has told us that it's not a fund at all and that this isn't a balanced budget; it's a budget that's in deficit. That's the largest accounting firm in Canada telling us this is not a balanced budget and there is no such fund.

[ Page 9327 ]

The auditor-general has made it most clear. He says it doesn't exist and that the government doesn't tell the truth about the books.

The members from the other side have contributed their opinions on this subject, and one of the members yesterday said that the NDP was nitpicking. Nitpicking about a $2.6 billion deficit — I don't think the people in this province would think that was nitpicking.

The member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mr. Bruce) said yesterday that it didn't really matter whether the budget was balanced or not. Mr. Speaker, it does matter. What's more, it matters what is said about this budget because if the budget isn't balanced, if the BS fund doesn't really exist, then to say so and to keep saying so publicly in advertising every night on TV, in the newspapers and in this House, is to mislead the people of this province.

Mr. Speaker, the point I'm trying to make is that this so-called balanced budget and the illusionary BS fund are indicative of the entire budget. It's simply a shell game; it's fiction.

As the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Cashore) said yesterday about the Minister of Environment's budget, a so-called 24 percent increase, when you have a close look at it, it's a shell game Money has simply been moved from another program in another Ministry. The real increase is only 1 percent.

Let's have a look at the housing programs. They're announced as some new, wonderful housing programs, new money — $1 billion for housing. But look closely, Mr. Speaker. It's fiction. These are the same tired old programs that didn't work last year. It's simply more evidence of this government's idea of recycling.

Yesterday we were advised to consult our dictionaries, and I did so last night. I'd like to tell the House that the words "balanced" and "budget" fall between "bafflegab" and another word that I probably can't use in this House: it's the word that most people think the initials "BS" stand for in the BS fund.

Mr. Speaker, I couldn't resist. I also looked up the word "zalm." You'll find the word "zalm" in the dictionary between "yo-yo" and "zealot" and right next to "zany."

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, that part I must ask you to withdraw because that is unparliamentary.

MS. CULL: Mr. Speaker, I was simply commenting on some research I did in the dictionary last night, but I will withdraw. A little learning is certainly a dangerous thing, and hopefully the Premier has learned this. If he doesn't, come the next election, he's going to learn the meaning of "eating a lot of crow."

Mr. Speaker, this is a dishonest budget. There's no question about it. It's also a budget that is totally lacking in vision about how we're going to tackle the problems facing us in the urban environment, how we're going to address the housing crisis, and how we're going to come to grips with growth in the urban areas so that we can ensure the quality of life people in this province have come to expect and so that it can be protected and enhanced. I want to talk about these issues for the time I have remaining.

Let's talk first about the urban environment. One of the things people in my community were looking for in the budget was some protection for the urban environment, particularly support and commitment for sewage treatment. We want to know: what assistance is the government going to give us in greater Victoria in the area of sewage treatment? Well, Mr. Speaker, the budget is silent.

Members on the other side of the House blame municipalities for this. They blame municipalities for not getting on with the job and now, after having blamed them, they're going to penalize them. Instead of assisting them, they're going to tax them by increasing the permit fees for sewage. Instead of helping, they tax.

The public will is there. The property tax payers are simply fed up. They're fed up with having costs from provincial responsibilities shifted onto them in a systematic way — things such as schools, toxic wastes and biomedical wastes. I could go on.

I'd just like to read from a statement made by Mr. Brian Calder, past president of the Real Estate Board of Greater Vancouver:

"In the next two decades, it's the cities that must address air and water quality, public transportation, infrastructure, sewer, water, social services, policing, fire protection, seniors' care, land use and densities, traffic routing, and health services. But the biggest failing in our system is that the provinces make all the important decisions affecting our lives and receive all the taxation and revenue moneys. But it is the major cities that have to deal with all the human problems and services, and they have to rely on handouts and funding from the provinces.

"We must change our attitudes and priorities, and we must change our provincial and federal political will or replace the politicians with ones committed to the adequate funding and recognition that our major urban areas demand in the 1990s."

What does the government do in this matter? Historically, it has ignored our urban communities, and now it simply blames them and taxes them. What's needed is some leadership, some vision, some setting of standards, a fair funding framework and meaningful consultation with our municipal governments and the local people. People in this community are looking for that kind of vision.

We are also looking for vision in dealing with toxic pollution. This is a subject that brings up ridicule from the other side of the House every time I mention it. While Mike Harcourt and I are out in our community, recognizing....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Once again, the member must not use personal names, either in a positive or a negative way.

MS. CULL: Sorry, Mr. Speaker. While the Leader of the Opposition and I are out in our community, recognizing and coming up with ideas for how we can deal with toxic pollution in my community, the

[ Page 9328 ]

Premier, simply ridicules us. This is the same Premier who could not find time in the 28 days of the Oak Bay-Gordon Head by-election to pay us a visit; but he just laughs at toxic pollution in our community.

Well, Mr. Speaker, perhaps if the Premier would like to come to Oak Bay-Gordon Head, I could take him on a tour of the beaches and show him some of the pollution problems that we face. If he is busy.... I know he was very busy last fall. I still have that list of dentists; you could do some business on the side, Mr. Premier.

HON. MR VANDER ZALM: I don't think you'll be around for very long.

MS. CULL: This is a serious problem, Mr. Speaker, and once again the public will to deal with this is great. But there is no leadership coming from the other side of the House. There is a shortage of ideas coming from the other side of the House. There is a shortage of leadership and of vision.

Let me give you some ideas, Mr. Speaker. Let me give the government some ideas about how we could deal with this problem. How about using greater Victoria as a pilot project to clean up toxic waste? Let's address the problem. Let's map a public awareness campaign. Let's work with local businesses — polluters and retailers — to find safe alternatives to toxic chemicals that we use every day in our community. Let's open the toxic waste depot on Saturdays once a month, so that people can do the right thing and at least get rid of these products in a safe manner

There are lots of ideas that use the grass-roots local support that exists in my community. They would be effective; they're inexpensive, and we could create jobs with them. That's the kind of vision that people are looking for in this budget, and that they don't find when they look.

Let me turn to housing. The Premier and the members from the other side boast about housing starts. Well, of course, we have housing starts. We had 60,000 people move to this province last year. What we don't have is affordable housing starts. Vancouver is the most expensive city in Canada to live in right now. Vacancy rates are virtually zero. After years of rising housing prices and falling vacancy rates, we're looking for a little vision. What do we get? Programs that have been recycled from one year to the next.

When I read the backgrounder on housing, it's almost identical — word for word — to the same program we saw last year. There was lots of fanfare about last year's program, but, little consultation, I might add, with local government or the ministries responsible for delivering those programs. Eight thousand units were announced so many times that I've lost count. We must be up to about 80,000 units by now, I'm sure, if they would all be delivered.

The point I am making, Mr. Speaker, is that these are old, tired programs that have simply been recycled from one year to the next. What happens when there's no action? They certainly haven't worked; nothing has improved in the last year.

The members, from the other side once again blame the municipalities. They say the municipalities are not taking up the grants that are offered for development, and that they're not giving the zoning. Well, why is this? Maybe we should look at why municipalities aren't leaping to take up these programs.

Perhaps it's because there was so little consultation before these programs were announced last year that the ministry responsible for delivering it has finally — 13 months later — figured out what in the world the budget meant last year, what those programs meant and how they could deliver them. Maybe it's because the government doesn't bother to read the studies that it funds, which show that, some of the growth they're promoting in these communities actually costs municipalities money. This isn't growth that helps the communities; they don't understand that it costs money. Maybe it's because they've ignored the fact that the planning portions of the Municipal Act were gutted in 1985, taking out all the flexibility that municipalities had to deal with these kinds of development and making it easier for municipalities to say no rather than trying to work it out. Or maybe it's because, having eliminated regional planning, ignoring the metropolitan regions of this province and continuing to provide no leadership to urban growth.... Maybe it's because they don't realize there's no support or incentive for communities to solve these problems on a regional basis.

[2:45]

I think there are many reasons why municipalities are having difficulty handling growth right now, but one of the main ones is that the province is failing to provide any leadership, any support or any commitment to these communities to help them address these problems.

Again, first the government ignores the problem, and then they blame the communities. Never do we get a comprehensive program such as my colleague the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) outlined yesterday to deal with housing problems. Never do we get any vision.

Finally, I want to talk a bit about urban growth. Arthur Erickson was right when he said that ten million people would be living in the Vancouver area within 30 years. He just got his geography wrong. They're not going to be living in the city of Vancouver; they'll be living in the whole Georgia basin. If we have a look at the populations of Victoria, Vancouver, Seattle, Nanaimo and the communities in between, right now there are five million people living in that area. Within 30 years, we could easily have ten million people.

We're going to have to come to grips with urban problems such as those now being faced by the people in Los Angeles and the Los Angeles basin. Air pollution, Mr. Speaker. A conference last week in Vancouver noted that air pollution is just as bad in Vancouver as in Los Angeles. Right now they just don't have so many days when it's that bad. It's simply a question of time and population.

[ Page 9329 ]

In the Fraser Valley we're losing farmland to housing developments, golf courses and all kinds of urban uses, without any consideration of the longterm effects. We still have millions of gallons of toxic sewage being dumped into our oceans and the Georgia basin, this sensitive basin being shared by five million people now and ten million in the near future.

I'd like to refer to something that Mr. Brian Calder had to say on this subject. He first quotes Alan Artibise, director of the School of Community and Regional Planning: "'My concern today is with the challenges and difficulties, opportunities and constraints that face our cities in the coming decades as we struggle to maintain livability."' That's what we're talking about here: livability. "We're the second-largest land mass in the country, and in my opinion, we have developed as a strip mall along the 49th parallel with two anchor tenants in the middle — Toronto and Montreal. Bad planning." We are just continuing that bad planning here in this province. Worse yet, we have woefully inadequate systems of government in place to address the next two decades of urban trauma. "I'm calling on the provincial government of B.C. to immediately implement an elected regional government with its own revenue-sourcing, not dependent upon the provincial government."

He goes on and gives some examples. I'm not proposing any of the examples he suggests, but I am trying to say that we need to give some attention to the fact that we have urban areas, that we have rapid urban growth and that it is not being managed in any coordinated way. We've left it up to the municipalities. We've turned our backs on them and have not helped them. This government is responsible for the failure to manage growth in our urban areas.

Mr. Calder is calling for some vision, some recognition that we can't deal with these problems in isolation and that they can't be handled in an ad hoc and piecemeal way — 11 municipalities in greater Victoria and 28 in the lower mainland. He is calling for and I am calling for a thoughtful, coordinated approach. But nowhere in the budget or throne speech was there any recognition of these problems Nowhere was there any recognition that our urban areas face unique problems which need unique solutions. 

When we have a New Democrat government things are going to be different, because we will recognize those urban problems. We're not simply going to ignore the municipalities in this province; we're not going to ignore the metropolitan areas. We will not blame the communities for the problems they are facing. We will sit down with them and work out solutions.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I just want to say that we not only have a budget deficit, we have a deficit of ideas and a deficit of vision. I'll say it once again, as it has been said before: if W.A.C. Bennett were alive today and saw this budget, and if he saw the auditor-general's report, he'd be voting NDP.

MR. SERWA: It is a real pleasure and honour to stand here as a member of the government side of the Legislative Assembly and to speak in support of another great budget. Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I would like to congratulate you, not only on being selected as Mr. Speaker but on the accord and the strong support you received for your role from both sides of the House. It has been a testy session so far, and you've certainly met the challenge with your patience, your sense of humour and your knowledge of the rules. I congratulate you and wish you the best in a very interesting term as Speaker of this Legislative Assembly.

I would also like to congratulate the first member for Dewdney (Mr. Pelton) for his reappointment as Deputy Speaker; and special congratulations to the second member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. De Jong), who was selected as Deputy Chairman of the Committee of the Whole.

The major theme of the 1990 throne speech was to ensure the security of British Columbia's economic prosperity and quality of life. It is a fragile future and a fragile economy that we face. High interest rates, federal tax increases, reductions in fiscal transfers returned to the province, and uncertain future commodity prices are all external factors currently threatening the province's hard-won and fragile prosperity. Social Credit has always met such challenges by showing the firm and fair ability to make the tough choices necessary to balance needed programs with the taxpayers' ability to pay.

This budget contains the course of solid financial management that has been exhibited by this government since it was elected in October 1986. It is a budget that addresses our present needs as well as our future needs. It plants the seeds which will ensure that our province is well prepared to deal with future challenges. It is fiscally responsible, economically sound and socially progressive.

It is a balanced budget. Yes, we had a balanced budget for 1989-90; yes, we have a balanced budget for 1990-91. The balanced budget was accomplished with a transfer from the budget stabilization fund, which is basically a reserve account which allowed this to happen.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: It doesn't exist.

MR. SERWA: Some of the hon. members opposite are talking about the fact that it doesn't exist. It reminds me of an old gentleman I heard about once in the Okanagan, who didn't really have faith and confidence in banks. But finally he was encouraged by his family to deposit about $1,500 of his savings in one of the local banks. About every six months this gentleman would go to that bank and ask to see his money. The bank tellers knew this man, so they took a bundle of bills — $1,500 — wrapped an elastic band around it and gave it to him. He didn't realize that his account was simply that, an account in the bank, and that the money didn't stay in a selected place in that bank.

[ Page 9330 ]

The budget stabilization fund is no different from that. It is a reserve account that was accomplished through fortuitous economic activity encouraged by the sound fiscal and economic measures of the current government elected in 1986. It was called a rainy-day fund. In actual fact it is a reservoir that will take out the peaks and the valleys of economic activity beyond our control and the scope of the borders of the province. I am very pleased that the vision and foresight of our Minister of Finance has set aside this fund to act as a reservoir.

A substantial amount of demand has been placed on the current budget because of the restraint period and the tough economic years of the mid-1980s. What we have had to do is work to meet the challenge confronted by this current government to address the shortage of capital investment in a number of services required to meet the needs of the people of British Columbia.

I believe this budget plants the seeds that will ensure our province is well-prepared to deal with all of the future challenges.

The direct government debt has been reduced by over $800 million since 1987-88. There are no tax increases in the current budget. The finance critic, the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Clark), supported by a nominee, Mr. Leonard Krog, has said clearly that the NDP government would raise taxes. Where would they raise those taxes? Of course, they wouldn't raise them from the ordinary people; no, they would tax business.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Let me tell you about something I read this morning in the Vancouver Province. The business report in the Province this morning says: "More Signs Point to Recession This Year." What would higher taxes to business do? It would accelerate the recession.

"Canadian corporate profits are getting clobbered this year as other business indicators point more and more to a recession in the months ahead. High interest rates are putting pressure on business and consumer demand for goods as well as on capital spending plans by industry. At least two B.C.-based companies have already said they will pull back on their capital outlays. Statistics Canada figures released this week show that the gross domestic product slipped 0.1 percent in February, following a drop of 0.3 percent the month before."

It is a fragile economy, and the Minister of Finance has had the wisdom and vision to recognize that. The solutions that the opposition provides would reduce the opportunities for jobs and the cash flow required to look after all the needs and concerns of the people of British Columbia: health, education, social services and housing. They would encourage that by knocking the props out of a very fragile environment in the world today.

[3:00]

The homeowner's grant will benefit 500,000 homeowners. It is being extended from last year and continued this year. The provincial government will be paying interest on accounts that are in the revenue-sharing stabilization account. This is to honour a longstanding request of the Union of B.C. Municipalities.

When I sought nomination, it was because of my specific concerns with the fact that unemployment was devastating in my constituency of Okanagan South. As a founding member and director of an organization called KEREDA, for perhaps the first time in my life I recognized the devastating economic and social costs associated with unemployment. Perhaps the saddest thing in my life was to interview men and women who were 50 to 55 years of age who, through no fault of their own, had lost their jobs and had lived on employment insurance for awhile. They found temporary short-term jobs, were a little while longer on unemployment insurance, then on welfare. By the time I had the opportunity to interview some of these people for jobs that they were well qualified to fill with KEREDA, they had lost all sense of self-esteem and value for themselves.

I'm very proud to be associated with a government that has had such a strong commitment to creation of jobs In British Columbia — exceedingly proud. Compared to 1988, 77,000 more jobs exist in British Columbia in 1989.

What have we done? We have encouraged capital investment through prudent management of government affairs, through extensive promotion in all the countries in the world. We have expanded our markets in the European Economic Community, this amounting to some 16 percent of our exports. For the first time in the history of British Columbia, we have reduced our dependency on the United States market. For the first time this year, 41 percent of our exports have gone to the Asian Pacific market and 40 percent to our good neighbours and friends south of the border.

There were close to 39,000 housing starts in the province of British Columbia. What did it mean to my constituency of Okanagan South, and specifically Kelowna? I'll tell you that in Kelowna last year we had more residential housing starts — as a matter of fact, 150 percent more residential housing starts — than occurred in the whole of the province of Saskatchewan. I'm proud of that, Mr. Speaker. That's jobs for our young people, jobs for our trades, jobs for our retail sector and increased jobs in tourism. It strengthens and diversifies our economy in the Okanagan. Again, I give great credit to this government, which has a strong commitment to equal opportunity for all in British Columbia, and special privileges for none.

Last year we had $17.7 billion in exports. The budget allocates $80 million to ensure regionally balanced prosperity. This government has a strong commitment to people all over British Columbia and for economic opportunities to be made available there. This is seen with the commitment to our highways and transportation sector. It is seen with our commitment to airports and air transportation and to our railways, as well as the excellent ferry fleet that we have in British Columbia. We're not a government that dictates policies specifically de-

[ Page 9331 ]

signed to facilitate people in the lower mainland; we're a government that recognizes the economic strength of British Columbia is integral to equal opportunity for all British Columbians in all areas of the province.

I hear a great deal from members of the opposition about the Coquihalla Highway system. I'd like to talk a little about the overrun that our friends in the opposition continue to bring up. The matter was looked into and studied intensely, and there is absolutely no difficulty with the understanding that the only thing that happened was that the estimates did not follow the expansion in the nature of the project.

The opposition members — who are comfortable with the lower mainland position and who divorce the economic opportunity for their brothers and sisters in the interior of the province, who have every right to an equal opportunity — continue to play that up in the House day after day. Well, if I have my druthers, Mr. Speaker, we will have highways the standard of the Okanagan connector and the Coquihalla Highway system throughout British Columbia, again enhancing the opportunity for trade and commerce throughout all areas of the province.

Interjection.

MR. SERWA: The member for Prince George North (Mrs. Boone) is saying: "We would like the same thing for Prince George North." The whole future of that north country is dependent on the excellent rail and highway transportation system, so it's nice to hear a dissenting voice among the members of the opposition acknowledging the importance of that.

Another awareness of the value of the future of this government is the recognition that we have to gravitate away from being drawers of water and hewers of wood. The commitment by this government in this fiscal year to fund $420 million in initiating, for the next five-year period, research and development will move British Columbia forward and give our young people the opportunity to participate fully, actively, equally and competitively in the highly advanced technological world of tomorrow. I am exceedingly proud of that, Mr. Speaker.

The budget will allow the government to maintain and enhance its commitment to sustainable development. Our Premier has spoken a number of times; our government has made a remarkable commitment to the concept of sustainable development and to the concept of the Brundtland commission on our common future. The commitment was evidenced by the high profile that the government of British Columbia played out by participating actively in and supporting Globe '90 in Vancouver.

We had delegates to Globe '90 coming to beautiful British Columbia from over 60 nations all around the globe. Over 2,500 full-time registered delegates and another 1,500 registered for part of the functions attended. We had a large display section. Manufacturers, from all over the world took part in displaying their particular products: technological advancement relating to smokestack emissions, solid-waste management plans, methods of removing oil from fresh water and ocean water; exhibitors from Holland, from the Scandinavian countries.

I talked to a number of delegates who came from behind the Iron Curtain — Russia, Hungary and other countries of eastern Europe — as well as western Europe. I was amazed that the implication was that because of the economies they have and because of the socialist governments, they were supposed to be environmentally sensitive. On the contrary, I was horrified to learn, because of the socialist nature of those countries and the types of governments that those counties had, in fact, information on what was actually happening in those countries was not made available to the residents. The rivers, lakes, ground and air are being polluted in such a gigantic way that it's questionable whether they will be able to be recovered, so that people can reside safely and healthfully in those areas.

Recently coming to light, from under the umbrella they cover these important issues with, is the devastation caused by the Chernobyl nuclear accident. Each day we read in the paper of the number of people afflicted by the escaped radiation and of the results of what happened. Now it's clear what happened in the Ukraine, with the radioactivity that precipitated out of the clouds because of the air movement throughout that portion of eastern Europe.

Mr. Speaker, that type of problem is not dissimilar to the problem of the commitment the socialists had in British Columbia from 1972 to 1975. Of the problems that I'm confronted with in Okanagan South as far as pollution goes, a number are directly related to subdivision approvals made by the New Democratic government in their brief tenure.

Over $5 million was committed by this government to rectify the problems in one such area — the Black Mountain subdivision, just east of Kelowna — to help the residents clear sewage and effluent that was running in open ditches and down roads, into basements and in open waterways, creating an environmental and health concern. That subdivision was approved by the New Democratic government without consideration of soil types or the number of residents who would live there.

I'm confronted with a similar problem in north Glenmore; it's the same thing. We have heavy clay soils, which have a glacial origin, mixed with a fair bit of silt.

When they talk about their environmental concerns, I can see that it's a relatively recent phenomenon. I'm disappointed that they were not concerned then. They should have been concerned then, because a former Premier of the province, W.A.C. Bennett — a remarkable man with a remarkable vision — created in 1971 the Okanagan Basin Water Board in the Okanagan Valley. At that time he incorporated a funding assistance program to withdraw sewage effluent and to be utilized for sewage collection systems and for the design and construction of pollution control systems in the Okanagan. That

[ Page 9332 ]

happened in 1971. It's part of the continued commitment of this government and of the Social Credit Party to ensure that the people of British Columbia live in a healthy and sustainable environment.

Mr. Speaker, this budget provides for $1 billion in housing — not enough, say the nay sayers. It's a remarkable commitment from this government.

British Columbia has introduced a pension plan in this budget, which, again, is leadership in matters that are very important to people.

The budget commitment of $4.8 billion for health care is very strong and important. What is even more important, perhaps, is the recognition by the Minister of Health, who is to be complimented for introducing a royal commission to look into all aspects of health care.

[3:15]

Mr. Speaker, I have in my hand a report from the Nova Scotia Royal Commission on Health Care. I sent away for this summary, as well as for the full report, from the government of the province of Nova Scotia on their challenges in health care.

All jurisdictions are confronted with the problem we face here in British Columbia. We have a number of situations in common. It is interesting to know that in Canada the rate of provision of doctors is increasing at more than four times the rate of growth of the population. Clearly the federal government and all jurisdictions in Canada are going to have to look very closely at what we're confronted with here.

In Nova Scotia — and it's not dissimilar here — two major contributions to rising medical services insurance expenditures have been the increase in physician supply and the increase in the number of services provided by each physician. They state that the number of physicians in Nova Scotia has almost doubled since 1979, and is forecast to continue to rise by 2.2 to 2.5 percent annually.

It's indicated there that the expected rate of population growth is four-tenths of 1 percent. What we hope to do in British Columbia is what they've done in Nova Scotia. They are developing a new strategy for the revitalization of health service delivery. Past reliance upon medical and institutional care has seriously constricted resources available for other equally important aspects of health care, such as health promotion, disease prevention and community-based programs. It has also hindered development of other forms of care that should be available to Nova Scotians, such as rehabilitative services, home care, palliative care and pastoral care.

The evolution and orientation of the health care system has not kept pace with the changing patterns of demand of Nova Scotians. More attention needs to be paid to health outcomes. We in British Columbia recognize that while we have an outstanding sickness care system, we do not in fact have an outstanding health care, system. A great deal more emphasis needs to be placed on the concept of wellness among the people of British Columbia.

It is recognized that in British Columbia some 45 to 50 percent of medical health expenditures can be attributed to the abuse of two substances: tobacco and alcohol. It's within the ability — through self-discipline — of all British Columbians to recognize that they can reduce health care costs dramatically, making health care available to those who really need health care and allowing many other programs to develop. For individuals themselves, they will live a far better, more productive and fulfilling life.

As a representative for Okanagan South, I am particularly pleased with this budget that will help ensure that Okanagan South continues its rapid emergence as one of the province's major centres. There has been tremendous growth in the central Okanagan. That growth has been fueled again by the commitment of this government to highways and transportation systems. We are looking forward to the opening this fall of the Okanagan connector, which is a milestone for the entire family of Okanagan communities.

The commitment of this government to advanced education has enabled — for the first time in the history of the Okanagan — the following scenario to have evolved. For the first time, the young people of the Okanagan can get their public school education there; they can get their university education there; and they will be able to get a university degree there. They will be able to reside in the community they grew up in, to use their abilities and resources to make the Okanagan greater, better and more beautiful in every way than it ever was before. That commitment is no small measure of the continued monetary commitment that this government has made to advanced education.

I would like to point out that the constituency that I'm privileged to represent — as the first member — has had the honour of providing premiers of, the province for some 30 years. The concept of a university-degree-granting facility was first brought forward by W.A.C. Bennett in 1965, but it wasn't until now that this government took that initiative and made it possible. This government is making it possible in Kelowna, and it's making it possible in Prince George. It's making it possible in Kamloops, and it's making it possible on the northern portion of Vancouver Island in the Campbell River area. Access for All is a tremendous commitment to the future of British Columbia.

In agriculture, the tree-fruit industry — which is incredibly important to the economy of the Okanagan — is under heavy pressure. As a matter of fact, it is in dire straits. We are facing subsidy competition from the European Economic Community amounting to some 70 or 75 percent of the cost of production. We are facing the competition of subsidies from the United States of some 50 percent. I am very pleased that the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Savage) has initiated a commission of inquiry and is looking into the entire aspect of the tree-fruit industry of the Okanagan. It's important that we all recognize the two major challenges. The first challenge is international competition and subsidies, and the second challenge is to look at every aspect from the grower to the retail sector.

[ Page 9333 ]

MRS. BOONE: I am pleased to address the issue of this so-called balanced budget. Before I get into the meat of the budget, I'd like to respond to some of the comments by the member for Prince George South (Hon. Mr. Strachan). In his speech last week, he talked about the university in northern B.C. The member made some statements that cannot go unchallenged.

He had the audacity to claim that the authors and founding forces behind the great initiative for Canada's newest university came in 1987 from the Cariboo development region, of which he was a part. The university society was founded by individuals in Prince George who wanted a university, people such as Charles McCaffray, Dale McMann, Murray Sadler, Elsie Gerdes, Tom Stedman, Susan Park, educators, business people, labour. All these people united to formulate, the university society. They pressed for the university. The founding force did not come from the Cariboo development region; it came from the university society.

Socreds and New Democrats joined forces to convince the government of the need for a university in the north. I was one of the founding members, and I would assume that the member for Prince George South (Hon. Mr. Strachan) was also one. To suggest that your regional development group was the founder is neglecting the contribution of all those who donated time and effort to the university society It is as dishonest as this budget is.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: You can't stand it, can you?

MRS. BOONE: True! A hundred thousand dollars was provided for a study done after the society was formed, but not as the founding force. The minister — typical of this government — seems to think that the money is his to give away. I quote him: "Without my contribution of $70,000" — my contribution — "we would not see this university." It is not your money, Mr. Member; it is the taxpayers' money, and everybody in this province paid for that. I want to see your cheque if you are going to claim that $70,000.

Mr. Speaker, when Murray Sadler came to see me in 1987 regarding the university society, we agreed that this was an issue that could and should be supported by both New Democrats and Socreds. We needed to work together on this. We were going to keep this non-political, as Mr. Sadler stated. All my speeches were directed at making the then minister aware of our need; however, that wasn't to be.

The member for Prince George South ended that with his first speech as a minister, when he tried to promote the idea that New Democrats would not support a university, as they were closely connected to the faculty association. What hogwash that was! Absolute and utter hogwash. The faculty association has since called you on that and stated their position regarding the university.

The misinformation being passed on by the member for Prince George South will be put to rest today. A university was first mentioned by New Democrats, by Andrew Schuck and by Tom Bulmer — our House Leader's former son-in-law — in the 1983 election. The Socreds? No mention; nothing at all.

An education conference in 1986 in Prince George endorsed a degree-granting institution in the north. In the 1986 election, the university was supported by the then Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Bob Skelly, as part of the NDP platform. In 1986 both Liberal and New Democrat candidates supported the university. The member for Prince George South was silent on that. We were on the same stage as the member for Prince George South, and Mrs. Christiansen from the Citizen can attest to this.

In 1986, in my first speech as an elected member to the construction association, I talked about a university. At that time I got some skepticism and cynicism from them; they felt it wasn't going to come about. However, I said: "We've got to keep trying. I think it's a possibility. We can keep pushing for it, because we need this here." That was reported in the Citizen.

In my maiden speech in 1987, as also reported in the Citizen, I talked about a university — not a degree-granting institution; a university. During every estimates in this session I have pounded the Minister of Advanced Education for a university and have tried to get him to acknowledge our need.

In 1987 the Leader of the Opposition came to Prince George and spoke to the chamber of commerce, as well as in an interview with the newspaper about our university, and he made his commitment at that time. What were the Socreds doing at that time? Absolutely nothing. In 1986 the Minister of Post-Secondary Education, now Solicitor-General (Hon. Mr. Fraser) — I wish he were here; he usually is here when I am speaking — absolutely denied that we would ever have a university. In fact, what he said was: we should be seeking education through the Open Learning Institute. That was the answer in 1986 from the Social Credit government, from the Minister of Post-Secondary Education at that time.

In 1987 when our wonderful Premier — who has left the precincts; he can't stand the heat, I see — was talking about privatization and making his announcements about privatization, when he was divvying up the province to sell to his friends and insiders, he was asked: "What about hospitals and universities?" Any responsible premier would have said: "Absolutely not. They should remain in the public hands." However, what did our Premier say? Our Premier said: "Make me an offer." Is that what's going to happen to our university, Mr. Minister? Are we going to build a university only to have our Premier sell it out from under us later on? Make me an offer — have you ever heard such incompetence from the Premier?

In 1987, the Minister of Continuing Education, now the Minister of Regional Development (Hon. S. Hagen), was doing absolutely everything he could to avoid a decision on the university. Everyone knew that he did not want to put a university in Prince George.

In his budget speech the member for Prince George South says he's been interested in establishing a university since 1987.

[ Page 9334 ]

Interjection.

MRS. BOONE: It's in Hansard — you stated since 1987. It was about that time that you got on board, because that train was going to leave without you if you didn't get on board. So I don't blame you for coming on board about that time, Mr. Minister. The entire population was pushing you so hard you had no choice.

Even then, Mr. Speaker, he couldn't convince his own colleagues. We didn't get a commitment from the minister. In 1988 the minister said he had been supportive since 1987. In 1988 the member for Comox (Hon. S. Hagen), the then minister, showed his commitment, outraging all residents, by stating, and I quote from the paper: "In the interior people don't think of education beyond grade 12. The questions they ask at the end of the day are: 'How many trees did you cut today?' or 'How were things down in the mine?"'

[3:30]

That was the response from the Minister of Advanced Education when we in the interior were trying our hardest to get him to acknowledge that we needed a university, and trying to get him to make a statement in support of that university. That remark prompted letters and cries of outrage from throughout the community — from labour, from the business community, from the university society. Everybody in that community felt absolutely appalled that a minister could be so out of touch with the people that he felt we were only interested in cutting trees and finding out what was going on in the mine.

As a result of that I took a full-page ad out for my MLAs report and called on members from the entire community, which we were still trying to keep united in support of the university. It included such people as the president of the chamber of commerce, the school board, the regional district chairman, tribal councils, the mayor, the teachers' association, the mayor of Mackenzie, the regional district person from Mackenzie. All of these people wrote small comments which I put in my ad in support of the university because we felt that we had to make a statement, we had to make this government listen, we had to show our commitment to the university. That was a commitment that came not just from New Democrats but from the entire community of Prince George and the region. Everyone is in favour of the university.

Where was the member for Prince George South?

Interjection.

MRS. BOONE: I don't know; I forgot. You gave $70,000 for a study, didn't you? That's right.

In 1988 the member still couldn't convince the minister to act, so while other regions were having actual access to post-secondary education for third and fourth year, we didn't even have the commitment for a university that was expected at that press conference. An implementation planning committee was going to function for ten months. It should have put them past the time of an election, I would have thought. They were probably thinking they might have an election in the fall and they might not have had to act upon it.

However, as the fall came around and no election was held, I think the member for Comox suddenly got a shaky feeling that he was going to have to do something on this report. And he didn't want to do anything on the report because he thought we were only interested in cutting trees and going out into the mines. So what does the government have to do, because the member can't even convince his own colleague to support the university? They move him into the job and we have our first press conference. Everybody is expecting to get support for the university, but we didn't. We got a maybe. Then, when the Leader of the Opposition came to Prince George and made our commitment known and made our support known, we finally we got a solid commitment from the minister.

That decision held for ages, and we still didn't have the implementation planning committee's report being structured, even though the minister said he accepted it. Even though he said he was going to implement it, we had delays. We had delays on the appointments to the board, to the extent that yesterday the chairman he appointed stated that we can't have a university in 1991, as expected. We're going to have it in 1992.

We have not seen any legislation to date. We've had a series of delays. We had $100,000 put into the Dahllof report, which sat around and then was practically ignored. We had the implementation planning committee's report, which took ten months. I could have produced a baby in nine months, but it took ten months to get a report out of this committee.

Interjection.

MRS. BOONE: It was a good report. Yet now they say they aren't necessarily going to be bound by it. They are going to study it some more: "We're going to study it some more because we don't know whether we really need to have a school of aboriginal studies. We don't really know whether we need to have a school of forestry." Such hogwash! We need those schools right now. We need to have decisions made. We need to have a place picked out, and we could do that. But this minister is dragging his heels.

It is not my wish to make this university a political football. However, if the member for Prince George South wants to play that game, I warn him that I'll stack my record on the university up against his any day, and mine will win.

Interjection.

MRS. BOONE: I'll make the same commitment today that the Leader of the Opposition and I made in December. I've introduced my private member's bill. The minister says it's no good.

Interjection.

[ Page 9335 ]

MRS. BOONE: There is. That's another piece of misinformation. Read the bill. There are specifics mentioned in it: a school of aboriginal studies and a school of forestry. If the minister does not accept my bill, I want him to introduce his bill immediately. I want it put on the order paper here immediately. The Leader of the Opposition has already given his assurance that it would pass without delay. That is my commitment to the people of Prince George and the northern region. What commitment has this minister given us? None whatsoever.

I think the government has suddenly seen the light on a number of different issues. They have suddenly developed consciences I never knew they had. They suddenly care about women, through pay equity. We never knew that before; I don't think we do right now, because there is no commitment.

They suddenly care about the environment. Again, where is the commitment? We've not seen any commitment from this government on the environment in the past.

Suddenly they are opposed to the GST. That's incredible! I wish the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mr. Bruce) were here. We spent a long time during one of the Forests and Lands Committee hearings arguing about the merits or non-merits of the GST. The member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Miller) and I were unable to convince him that the GST was a false way to go about things. We were unable to convince him that it was an unfair tax and that there are alternatives. But that was when he was a maverick — an independent Socred, whatever that might mean — and thinking on his own. I suppose now that he has slithered back into the fold he may have taken up their whole idea. Or does he still keep his own ideas? I would assume that he probably still supports the GST, as he did when we had our discussion in January.

Last year we weren't able to get the Socreds to speak against the GST at all. In numerous question periods we asked the Minister of Finance to speak in opposition to that tax. Suddenly they are the only opposition. When Brian Gardiner, John Ricketts and I passed out anti-GST literature outside the Plaza 400 at 7:30 in the morning in January, where was the member for Prince George South? When I passed out literature outside the college at 8 a.m., at minus 5 degrees, where was he? When I plant-gated Northwood at 6 a.m. in opposition to the GST, where were they? How many Social Credit members have plantgated? How many Social Credit members have gone out onto the streets in opposition to the GST? I would verify that probably none of you have. I would say that probably none have actually taken to the streets in opposition to the GST.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where's your leader?

MRS. BOONE: He wasn't there. The member for Prince George South wasn't there, and he hasn't been anywhere else protesting the GST. The reality is that this government is "kissing cousins" to the Tories, and they support this tax.

Mr. Speaker, the Socreds crow about this budget being balanced, but it's not. They claim there are no tax increases, yet there are. There are taxes. What do you call a tax on tires and a tax on batteries? That's a tax. What do you call that?

Hidden on page 49 is a section that taxpayers will be very interested in, because they don't even call this a tax. They say "under other revenues." Under other revenues, a number of fees and licences will be increased during the fiscal year. I could bet on it; you bet on it. You can bet your bottom dollar there are going to be a number of fees and licences increased, The people of this province are going to be seeing those increases, and they'll know just how dishonest this budget is, and how dishonest this government is when it comes to what they say in the budget.

There are going to be increases in motor vehicle licences and permit fees. No increase in taxes? I think not. Tell those who go to the liquor store today to buy a bottle of wine or a case of beer, and they pay that 6 percent increase. Tell them there are no increases in taxes. Tell those working people who were promised by the Premier that he would lower the price of beer. Tell them, when they see the increases in taxes. Tell them that there has been no increase in taxes, when they have to pay 6 percent more on their beer. I think not, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this is a dishonest budget, and this government has increased taxes and fees over the past three years so incredibly that the public is crying out now in opposition to those things.

Five hundred million dollars have been shifted from corporations onto the backs of the average taxpayer in this province. It costs you more to do everything now than it did when these Socreds first came in in 1986.

It costs you more to be born — birth certificates, marriage certificates, death certificates, fishing and hunting licences, property purchase tax, MSP premiums, ICBC premiums and yes, even the small business tax. Isn't that incredible! This government that claims to support small business increased the tax on small business. For the government to expect the public to be grateful for no new taxes is a little like asking somebody to be grateful when someone stops beating on them.

This budget is a budget without a vision. It is a budget that carries on with the shell game of previous budgets. You are moving funds around and shifting moneys from accounts that don't exist to balance budgets that don't balance.

Mr. Speaker, the auditor-general's report clearly shows that this is a government that cannot manage. No one is in charge of the till; the taxpayers are losing. The taxpayers of this province are tired of paying for Socred mismanagement. They won't forget the Coquihalla. They won't forget the Expo land deals. They won't forget GO B.C. Mr. Speaker, it's time for a change.

MR. CRANDALL: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the 1990 budget debate

[ Page 9336 ]

and to comment on a budget that brings this province into the 1990s with a very solid foundation.

I would like to congratulate the Minister of Finance on one of the best budgets that British Columbia has ever had, and one of the best budgets that provincial governments in Canada have brought in in the last four years.

I thought it was interesting that before the budget was announced on April 19, in the media and elsewhere, there was quite a bit of discussion as to whether or not this would be what we call sometimes "an election budget." I think we found that it is an election budget, and not only that; it's the fourth election budget in four years.

When we introduced our first budget in 1987, we did something that probably no other provincial government had done in the first year of its mandate, and that was to reduce taxes. We reduced the social services tax from 7 percent to 6 percent, and not only did we do that in year one, but it has stayed that way through year two, year three and year four.

[3:45]

Then in 1989, we delivered to this province a balanced budget, and we followed that with another balanced budget in 1990. We certainly have a record unequalled by any government — provincial or federal — in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, it's interesting to notice the discussion regarding the balanced budget. I'm especially interested to look at the debt. The proof of the pudding as to whether or not we've administered this province well is what has happened to the total government debt over the four years that we've been in office. When you recognize that we've reduced government debt by $800 million.... That is indeed a record of which we can be proud.

Not only did we do that, but we've reduced the sales tax for those years. Now in 1990 we have delivered a budget that has no tax increases. Not only that, but we have reduced property taxes. I want to say that in my constituency of Columbia River that is a very, very important part of this 1990 budget.

I want to congratulate and thank the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Transportation and Highways for leading the review of property taxation last fall. They went around this province to the large and small Communities to hear what people had to say about property taxation. As a result, the supplementary homeowner's grant has been introduced in the budget. It will assist many property owners in the province, especially in my constituency, with reduced property taxes this year.

We've just listened to the previous speaker talk at great length about who got credit for a particular project — a university for the north. I’d like to spend some time not dealing with specifics, but talking a little bit more about the general overall items that this government has provided for the people of our province over these last few years. It is important to recognize that in addition to the financial management that we've provided, we've also reduced unemployment from, 12.5 percent to 7.8 percent. That is important to the people of our province who want to work. In doing that, we've provided 170,000 jobs — more jobs than any other provincial government in this country.

While we might talk only about those increases, there is a decrease that's also extremely important: as the number of jobs has increased, the number of people on social assistance in our province is down significantly. That is a decrease of which this government and the people of our province can be very proud. This is a number that takes the human factor into account. Our people don't want to be on social assistance; they want to be working. This government has provided those extra jobs and has been able to reduce unemployment from 12.5 percent to 7.8 percent. I think that’s extremely good for the people of this province.

The jobs don't come out of thin air, however. They come because business people are willing to invest — business people who have been in this province for a long time and who have come to British Columbia from other parts of the world because they were attracted by a free enterprise government.

We've seen the annual investment grow from $9.6 billion to $15.7 billion — an extremely attractive number, one that has provided jobs already and that will continue to provide jobs in the future. So I'm not surprised when the investment dealers of Canada say that B.C. sets the example for fiscal management in Canada.

In addition to these things, I'd like to point out that this budget provides a great number of extra dollars for the people of the province in some of the important areas like education, health and social assistance. Speaking of the Ministry of Education's funding for this year, I think it's great that we've increased that by $398 million to $3 billion. And I want it known that the constituency of Columbia River is going to benefit from that. Right at this very moment, we have a $9 million high school in Golden under construction — where nails are being driven right now to provide for the students of our constituency to go to school in grades 8 to 12 now and in the future. In addition to providing that future, it's a very significant construction project and is providing many jobs in our community. We are also at the present time considering — and it will be done at some point in the future — a replacement building, for the David Thompson Secondary School in Invermere. The school board has made a request, and the Minister of Education is considering. We look forward to a new building there.

I want to talk about health. As I mentioned before, my constituency has benefited from capital spending on education. We are also benefiting from capital expenditures in the health ministry. We have a Windermere district hospital under construction, for which, I'm proud to tell you, the sod was turned on March 7 for that hospital by the widow of the previous MLA for Columbia River, Mrs. Grace Chabot. That particular project is one that both the previous member and I were involved with in providing funding. Mr. Chabot, who represented our constituency so well for 23 years, was instrumental in

[ Page 9337 ]

providing the first $5 million; however, when additional funding was required, the Minister of Health (Hon. J. Jansen) provided the extra $1 million dollars at my request. That project is therefore one that both the previous member, Jim Chabot, and I have worked on together. I'm glad to see it under construction in our constituency.

I'd like to talk about highways for a moment. As we all know, highways are so important to us in the Interior. I am glad to see the initiatives that our government is taking following the previous fine initiatives that so many Social Credit governments have taken in regard to highways in the interior.

The present Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mrs. Johnston) is considering many major projects which were given to us by the Minister of Finance in his budget speech. They are such projects as the Okanagan connector, Vancouver Island Highway, the Cassiar connector in Vancouver, SkyTrain extensions and a new generation of ferries.

I'd like to add another project to that list, and it's the completion of the four-laning of the Trans-Canada Highway from Kamloops to the eastern border of our province. That is a very important project and one which I would hope, fully expect and know that this government will work on over the next few years.

I might also add that, in particular, there is an area of the Trans-Canada Highway near my home community of Golden which I know is going to need some substantial upgrading in the next few years, and that's the Kicking Horse Canyon just east of Golden. That is, along with probably the Squamish highway, among the toughest roads that have been built in the past, and it needs to be rebuilt. We just had some very dangerous rock falls there.

In addition to that, the overall construction of the four-laning from Kamloops to the eastern border is an important piece of road construction for the future, and one which I know this government will continue to take over the years. I'm happy that a $3 million project and part of that four-laning will hopefully be undertaken in the community of Golden starting right after Labour Day.

I also want to say — and I want this House and this province to know — that, in opposition to what the previous speaker just said about it, the Coquihalla Highway is a project that the interior of this province appreciates every single time we travel to the coast. That project was a great project, and I very much appreciate it. I know that my constituents do as well.

I want to talk about municipal revenue-sharing. I'm glad to see that we're increasing the municipal revenue-sharing grants by 18 percent to our municipalities. I might add that the small municipalities — examples of which I have in my constituency, in Kimberley, Invermere and Golden — appreciate these increases to the municipal revenue-sharing grants.

I want to mention that the $10 million local government emergency account which is being set up has almost probably been set up because of the difficulties we have had in the community of Kimberley with the closure of the Sullivan mine. I appreciate especially the commitment that the Premier and the cabinet have made to the continued support of the city of Kimberley in providing guarantees that the infrastructure of that community will not suffer substantially during this closure.

I want it known that we are working to diversify the economy of that city. We have just announced a substantial GO B.C. grant for an industrial golf course which will greatly enhance the tourism industry in that community. I want it known that I appreciate very much the extremely beneficial assistance that our constituency, the city of Kimberley and I received from the previous Minister of Tourism. Without his help, we probably wouldn't have obtained the $1 million dollars of federal funding. I appreciate that kind of help, and that is going to be an asset to the city of Kimberley and to the young people who will work at that golf course over the next many decades.

I wish to comment briefly on some of the increases that we see in the individual ministries. I'm extremely happy to see the extra emphasis that we've been giving to the Ministry of Environment this year. Without these kinds of additions, we wouldn't be able to offer the environmental improvements that we will see this year. We wouldn't be able to have the good management that the present Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Reynolds) is able to give us. I want to thank the Minister of Environment for coming to the East Kootenays last night, sitting down and listening to the residents of the city of Kimberley and the neighbouring areas. We did what government should do. We went to the people and listened to the current concerns they have about wildlife. We will take those concerns and do the very best we can to respond.

This is a positive budget for the people of British Columbia. I should say, too, that after the budget was delivered, we wasted a few days discussing the interim supply bill. Was I surprised that we wasted three, four or five days at the opposition's insistence, discussing this interim supply bill? I wasn't, because this is a good budget, and I knew they were going to struggle to find some issues they could criticize it for. But they weren't able to do it, so we wasted several days discussing the interim supply bill, which was passed routinely in previous years.

[4:00]

This is a very impressive budget. I am pleased that our government and our Minister of Finance have been so successful — not for the first year, but for the fourth year in a row — in providing good financial management in this province. I know this kind of free enterprise government will continue to lead the province in the future.

MR. GUNO: First of all, I am glad to have this opportunity to take part in the budget debate. I want to thank the second member for Nanaimo (Ms. Pullinger) for graciously allowing me to take her place on the speakers' list. I was on a trip to Atlin, up in the Nass Valley. I returned late last night, so I thought it appropriate to speak, knowing full well

[ Page 9338 ]

that the opportunity for me to do so is diminishing as each day goes by. It's always a pleasure to take part.

I want to speak, as have the rest of my colleagues, against the adoption of this so-called budget. I agree with my colleagues' assessment of it: it is unbalanced. This government has tried hard to create the myth that we have a balanced budget. That has clearly been discredited.

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

I want to speak from the perspective of a northerner. I believe we really have a two-tiered economy: one for the lower mainland and one for the rest of the province. Certainly this budget indicates that. I want to comment on a number of concerns that we northerners have about the myopia of this government when it comes to recognizing the unique needs of our northern communities. One of the more fundamental concerns of most northerners is the state of our highways. I have got up in this House time after time, almost ad nauseam, to talk about the horrendous state of the highways throughout the Nass Valley.

Yesterday we had a number of visitors from the government side. The Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mrs. Johnston), the Minister of Native Affairs (Hon. Mr. Weisgerber) and the member for Skeena (Hon. Mr. Parker) travelled to the Nass to cut a ribbon. I will speak later on that, because I really have some concerns. I want to know just how committed this government is. Certainly the budget does not indicate that there is any commitment.

Highway 37, which is now a major access between Alaska and Highway 16, is still a rough gravel road; it's unsafe. One of the joys — or the hazards — of representing Atlin is to witness firsthand the incompetence of this government when it comes to maintaining, and recognizing the need to maintain, our northern highways. On at least three occasions I have been involved in a very serious highway near-miss. In terms of the maintenance and the winter conditions of these highways.... In the summertime the dust is forever prevalent. They are not really built for public traffic, but for industrial traffic.

Just yesterday, in travelling from Terrace to Aiyansh, I had a near-miss because of the tremendous dust and the incredible amount of survey activity going on on that road. You can always tell that there's an election imminent by the tremendous amount of surveying that goes on in the north. But that's all that ever happens.

MR. MILLER: Ribbon-cutting.

MR. GUNO: Just ribbon-cutting, as the member for Prince Rupert stated.

As I said, I don't think any major tourist economic initiative can happen in Atlin, especially north of Meziadin towards the Yukon border, without major and substantial improvements on Highway 37. I think we're missing the boat by not addressing that. It would certainly vastly improve the economic opportunities for people who live in that area.

The Nass Highway was built in 1967 or '68 — I'm not sure — when the forestry activities began in the Nass Valley. There has been very little improvement done on that particular road since then. It has been largely administered by the Ministry of Forests. I was quite interested to see that the three cabinet ministers flew to Greenville in helicopters — I guess they didn't want to drive the road; it's just too damn dangerous for them — to take part in that ribbon-cutting ceremony and to recognize the fact that the road will be taken over by the Ministry of Transportation and Highways.

I would like to know if this government is really committed to responding to the real problems we have with the Nass Road. As I said, I have at every opportunity brought to this government's attention the horrendous state of that road system. There have been others before me. Mr. Frank Calder, when he was with us, the right people, continually pressed and called for major improvements and the eventual paving of that highway. The Nisga'a Tribal Council and other residents of the Nass Valley have, through various ways, called upon this government to respond.

I hope that the visit by the three cabinet ministers is not just a PR gambit and that they are serious about responding to this, because to raise people's expectations like that is a cynical move that I hope is not occurring.

There is another pressing issue in the Nass Valley, and that is the Kincolith road. I think about 10 years ago — and my colleague from Prince Rupert might correct me — the then Minister of Highways, Alex Fraser, committed the province's involvement, up to 50 percent of the cost of constructing that vital link between Greenville and Kincolith. Certainly the budget does not indicate any future design or even initial planning on that issue. I would suggest that if this government has any vision with regard to the tremendous economic opportunity that these improvements will unleash for that area, it would be more serious in the resources they allocate to begin this very important project.

One last aspect of the highway is the Gitwinksihlkw Bridge. That's a Nisga'a term for crossing the canyon. It's actually Canyon City, a small community right at the junction in the Nass Valley. This is a suspension footbridge with a life span of something like only ten years. I think it's three years over its life span now. It's the only access to and from Canyon City to the parking lot across the way, and it's also used by the schoolchildren twice a day. People there are naturally concerned that this bridge has outlived its life span and that every day that these kids cross that bridge, it presents some real danger. Parents have actually told me that if nothing happens soon, they're going to reconsider sending their kids to school if they have to walk across this bridge every day. I know that a certain commitment has been made by the Minister of Native Affairs and various others, but I would hope that they are serious and show that commitment by responding as quickly as they can to

[ Page 9339 ]

provide an alternative access for the people of Canyon City.

I want to talk just briefly about regional fairness, or unfairness, that I think is inherent in this budget. To have a healthy and sustainable economy requires that all regions of B.C. share in our prosperity. Yet the budget and the throne speech talk about a post-resource economy. I don't know if they have deemed forestry a sunset industry; that's something I want to canvass with them in the future. We're entering what is commonly called the "information era." I read a report recently — I didn't have time this morning to research it — that analyzed the current and future employment trends in Canada, especially with respect to the coming of the information age. Peter Drucker recently said in an interview that we have been in the information age for the last 20 years. You don't just get into the information age when the year 2000 comes. Generally speaking, these significant eras do not come with such predictability.

This assessment is about the current employment trend. There was the anticipation, largely advanced by Alvin Toffler, the futurist who wrote Future Shock and other books like that.... At one point he said that the whole computer, industry and information age would mean that we would have something like a cottage industry where people could buy their computer and bring their work home, and everything would be hunky-dory. This particular study states that instead of having huge employment opportunities available to people of all sectors and all areas of any community, it would mean greater disparity between regions in Canada. Much of this information industry will be centered in huge urban areas like Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver, and the rest of Canada will simply have to trail behind in terms of taking advantage of the opportunity that this information age would offer.

The report also said that there would be greater disparity in the incomes of people who are involved in the service industry — professions like lawyers, doctors, consultants, politicians, and those McDonald types of employment. So we can look at greater regional disparities in Canada and certainly within B.C. We will see greater disparities in the incomes of people who are professionally trained and those that do not have the adequate training because of lack of opportunity. We'll certainly have disparities between urban and rural areas, and this will happen in B.C. It's happening today.

[4:15]

This budget does not address the fact that we do have that disparity today in British Columbia. The budget does not address the need to close that gap between employment opportunities in the lower mainland and the northwest. In certain communities in my riding — and most of these are aboriginal communities — the unemployment is so great that we have two generations in a family who have never experienced a good, decent job.

I don't think this budget holds any hope for these people. It does not provide for any major initiatives in training and retraining in terms of alleviating the conditions of life for these people. I would submit that a government with vision would recognize that B.C. would have a healthier economy if we had a more balanced growth. I'm proud to say that I belong to a party, the New Democrats, who are committed to such regional fairness.

I just want to move on briefly to another question of fairness, and that's fairness between individuals. My colleagues have canvassed quite adequately and with certain eloquence the whole issue of fairness between men and women. I would certainly agree with them: I don't think this budget has addressed that particular problem. What I want to speak about is the fairness towards aboriginal people. As an aboriginal person, it's an issue that I find of great importance. We hear statistics about the conditions of life of most aboriginal people. I'm probably the only one in this House who has actually lived it and witnessed it firsthand. I grew up in a reserve before running water and indoor toilets were available. Every summer we'd move down to a cannery, and they provided these so-called "cannery row" houses for native people. If we were to look back and really assess the standards these dwellings had, you would find that they were not really far above the type of dwelling that exists today in the Third World.

Sometimes we become inured to some of the statistics that are there. But it bears repeating; people just have to be reminded constantly about the life situations of most aboriginal people: the intolerable conditions that they have, and the fact that they are systematically discriminated against. One of the benchmarks, of course, is the high rate of unemployment on most Indian reserves, often reaching 50 to 80 percent. Widespread poverty is a condition of life on a reserve.

Inadequate housing. The fact that several generations live in one small, inadequate dwelling on most reserves is stark evidence of the neglect that these people are facing.

Malnutrition. We express concern about the number of kids from urban areas who go to school hungry. If you multiply that by ten, then you will find that it is the situation for many of our kids, many of them having to live on junk food as a poor substitute.

The mortality rate among native Indians is twice as high as that for non-natives. The suicide rate among our young people is something like 2.5 times higher than that of non-native people.

I can recite these, and people will say: "So what? This is the way it is." But I don't think that's the way it should be. We have an opportunity — this government has an opportunity — to respond. Instead, in their budget, they have something like.... Correct me if I'm wrong, but even if I was on the high side, I would say you have something like $5 million as a sign of your commitment to meeting this incredible state of affairs that exists in our aboriginal communities.

This government has been paternalistic in terms of their response. They set up the so-called Premier's council that goes around the province consulting

[ Page 9340 ]

with native groups; and yet it continues to fight in court the whole issue of aboriginal right, to deny the existence of aboriginal title and to deny the opportunities that negotiations would provide.

Every year, or every time an election comes along, this government.... Certainly the Premier did it after the last election was called; he travelled to a particular reserve, donned the ceremonial robes and declared he was interested and wanted to become knowledgeable. Some weeks later he attended the constitutional conference in Ottawa, where he had the opportunity to demonstrate his newfound commitment to the aboriginal people. Instead he led the fight against the constitutional recognition of self-government of aboriginal people. I would challenge the Minister of Native Affairs to tell me if that position has changed. I would challenge him to show me where in this budget there is any financial commitment that you are going to change your position in terms of meeting the aspirations of the native people.

Instead, I think we will see a campaign that will be launched by this government — a campaign to scare off people by saying that there will be huge land transfers, the fact that we're claiming 125 percent, the fact that third-party interests will be jeopardized. All these bugaboos will be trotted out by this government in the coming election to incite racial hatred against the aspirations of the aboriginal people.

There are other issues that I wanted to cover. The so-called commitment to the environment is largely a shell game to create an illusion that suddenly this government has decided environment is a serious: matter. Yet if you look at the allocation of resources they have identified in the budget, that simply does not stand up.

In terms of affordable housing, the budget does not provide for any creative initiative that would respond to this very urgent need that we have not only in the urban areas but in the rural areas as well. Sometimes we think the housing crisis is only in Victoria and Vancouver and some of the outlying communities, but there are serious housing shortages in places like Terrace, which the member for Skeena (Hon. Mr. Parker) represents. I have run into many people who have simply given up looking for affordable dwellings in Terrace. Certainly it's true in Prince Rupert. It's true in Smithers. It's not a phenomenon just in the lower mainland.

The whole issue around the BS fund is evidence of the lack of honesty and openness of this government I agree with my colleagues that it's a tired government that is morally bankrupt and is reaching out desperately to find an issue on which to call an election. They have not yet been able to do that.

This is a government that prides itself or somehow builds the mythology that it's a competent economic manager, yet just about week after week we see evidence to the contrary. It's unfortunate, because we have the opportunity to draw people together, and people are our resources. Our young people are our resources.

In the north there are generations of people going to waste because there is a lack of access to quality education and a lack of opportunities for retraining for the people of the north in order to realize their potential as human beings.

There is also tremendous neglect in the area of health. Certainly the federal government provides basic health care for native people, but there are a number of other health issues that this government can respond to. For instance, in the Nass, which is cut off quite often in the spring and in the fall by flooding, there is no alternative medical evacuation capability. So the people there have been calling for helipads to be set up in the Nass, New Aiyansh, Canyon City and Greenville that would provide for night medical evacuation. Again, their plea falls on deaf ears from both levels of government.

In Dease Lake there is a small diagnostic medical centre. In fact, I don't think it really lives up to the standard of that kind of facility. It's poorly constructed. It was designed by someone who did not understand the appropriate design for that kind of medical facility. For instance, in order to get someone from emergency to x-ray, you have to wheel that person through the waiting room. When someone has a severe traumatic injury, can you imagine being wheeled by anxious relatives who are waiting in the waiting room? That has been in existence for some years now. They've been calling for a change or a new facility to be established in Dease Lake, and if we're serious about encouraging economic development in the northwest, then we ought to show that commitment by providing those basic infrastructures required for that kind of economic growth.

Mr. Speaker, I don't want to repeat much of what has been said by my colleagues, but it's becoming clear that this government has a major credibility problem. It has insisted against a mountain of evidence that this is a balanced budget. We now have the expert opinion of reputable financial institutions and the auditor-general that this budget is indeed unbalanced. It's unbalanced because it perpetuates the myth that the BS fund is somehow real. Instead, it's an empty fund.

It's becoming clear each day that this government has misrepresented the true state of fairness in this province. In terms of my critic area — the Solicitor-General — I did not see in the budget, nor in the throne speech, any mention about a new commitment to providing a more coordinated and appropriately financed emergency response capability. Right now, in spite of the fact that many experts have said that we live on a major fault line, and that a major earthquake can occur at any time, we simply do not have that kind of capacity. It was demonstrated last year when the oil spill occurred out on the west coast of Vancouver Island. I don't think anything has really improved since then. We still have a hodgepodge of different emergency programs, but nothing that is coordinated or provides for major public education on how the public should act to protect themselves in the event of a major earthquake.

[4:30]

[ Page 9341 ]

I want to conclude by saying that I really enjoyed the first member for Vancouver East's (Mr. Williams's) assessment of this government's performance, the fact that you have not minded the till....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am sorry, hon. member. I must inform you that under standing orders your time has expired.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, I haven't had the opportunity to congratulate you on your ascension to your job. It's an important job and you are well experienced. I work with you very closely, and I want to tell this province and this assembly that you do a first-class job.

I appreciated the words of the member for Atlin. He doesn't speak in the shrill tones that some of his colleagues do. There has been a long history of members from Atlin seeing the light and crossing over to this side of the floor. I know that you said you are not going to run again, but you might be able to make it three out of three if you followed the lead of your distinguished predecessors.

I remember someone telling me about Ron Worley coming to talk to W.A.C. Bennett just after they had finished a session here in this chamber, when they came in as a minority government in 1952. Mr. Worley, who was the executive assistant to W.A.C. Bennett, said: "What are we going to do, Mr. Bennett? We don't have a majority; we'll surely be defeated on the floor of the House." And he said: "You go out into British Columbia and you draw that circle wider." They went out and brought in CCFers, Conservatives, Socreds and Liberals. They brought in British Columbians who were interested in British Columbia. For 34½ out of 38 years in this province the people have trusted the Social Credit government, and they'll do it time after time again.

The people of British Columbia know about the kind of changes that can threaten even a seemingly secure prosperity. Even in those times, and especially in those times, they count on Social Credit governments to help them through.

I remember back in 1983 when the then Leader of the Opposition, Dave Barrett, turned to the people of British Columbia and said, "Throw out the compensation stabilization plan, throw out all your austerity, throw out all restraint; we're going to open up the treasury, " and the people opened up on Mr. Barrett and gave him one of the biggest rejections he's ever had. I'll tell you, the next time that we go to the people of British Columbia, this will happen again.

So I want to talk to the members over there who are rather new here. If you think you're going to become government, don't hold your breath. You'll turn rather blue in the process. It's been a long time.

Rapid changes make for interesting and challenging times in British Columbia and throughout the world. Our budget has been skillfully crafted to suit these times by the best Finance minister — and I've seen a lot of finance ministers — that this province has ever seen at any other point in time up until now; no question about it.

The primary aim is to protect British Columbia's fragile prosperity — a prosperity that is always fragile — against outside forces over which we have little or no control; forces such as unpredictable offshore markets and the recent federal budget which punishes the west. Somebody asked me yesterday on a television show what I thought Mr. Crow should do. I said I thought he should go out and find some useful employment somewhere, but not doing what he's doing.

What they're trying to do in central Canada, because of the wanton spending of Ontario and the government of Canada, is fix a situation that has occurred in eastern Canada by dumping it on the backs of western Canada. I say it's about time that they woke up in central Canada and realized that British Columbians are Canadians, that British Columbians probably send about $2 billion more per year to Ottawa than they get back in any way, shape or form. I think it's wrong to take another $120 million off that. We realize there is a price in Confederation; we pay it gladly, but enough is enough.

Remember that we have in this province a population of about three million people, and we've balanced our budget again despite those onerous and unexpected federal cuts. At the same time, the Minister of Finance has provided tax relief to homeowners, a $1 billion housing plan and a 24 percent increase in environmental protection and protection for reforestation.

Since introducing our first budget in 1987, this administration has worked steadfastly to get rid of the deficit, reduce the debt and diversify the provincial economy. Remembering that we have three million people in this province, during this administration unemployment has dropped in British Columbia to 7.8 percent from 12.5 percent; 170,000 jobs have been created here in this province — annual investment, Mr. Speaker.

That's confidence in this government, that's confidence in this province by people from both outside and within Canada. Annual investment has grown from $9.6 billion to $15.7 billion. Not only do the people of British Columbia trust this government; this government is trusted internationally and nationally, and it will continue to be.

Conscientious fiscal management has put us in a position to spend $550 million this year on environmental initiatives — an increase, as I have said, of over 24 percent — in a population of three million people; to grant tax relief to more than half a million homeowners; and to increase spending on primary and secondary education by $398 million, and on advanced education and technology by a further $132 million. We have done that with a population of only three million people. We have been able to bring spending on affordable housing up to $1 billion, while expanding the renter's tax reduction program to benefit an additional 40,000 families.

This budget provides $13 million a day for health care. That's an annual budget of $4.8 billion, or $4,000 per household.

[ Page 9342 ]

This budget also features a number of other important initiatives, including transportation, public sector pay equity and an increase of 18 percent in the province's municipal revenue-sharing program. I want you to contrast that for a moment, if you will, with Ottawa, where they have chopped $120 million from the money — our money — we sent to them that they did not send back to us.

In this province we have increased our share of municipal funding by 18 percent. In addition to that, there's a $10 million local government emergency account to help communities cope with difficulties like the Sullivan mine shutdown in Kimberley — all that in a population of three million people.

British Columbia must remain efficient, productive and competitive in a very rapidly changing world. That's the challenge to which this budget responds; that's the challenge of the nineties; and that's the challenge of Social Credit. In rising to the challenge, we have presented the people of British Columbia with an absolutely clear choice. That's what I would like to talk to you about for a few moments right now.

As I mentioned, British Columbians and people all over the world have witnessed dramatic changes taking place in eastern Europe. Political and economic systems based on the subjugation of the individual and the supremacy of the state — on the denial of individual enterprise and private ownership — are collapsing with astonishing speed all over the globe. Watching this phenomenon has rekindled interest here at home in the fundamental principles of democracy: namely, the freedom of individual opportunity for all.

Interjections.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Social Credit — always. Social Credit has been there over the years, but one thing has never slackened: the value we place upon these principles. We will never change our mind on these principles. The NDP and their glorious leader may come down on all sides of all issues — until he meets Mr. Krog; I don't know where that's at now — but we are constant. Special opportunities for none; equal opportunities for all. That's Social Credit, that's our principle, that's what we live by and that's what we have striven to keep as a government. That's why we have tried to keep government as small as possible over the years, and out of the way of the individual. That's why we have privatized services where possible to give individual enterprise a chance to do what individual enterprise can do best.

That's why we have worked steadily to reduce the deficit, to reduce the debt and to make government less of a burden on the individuals in this province. That's the Social Credit way; that's the private enterprise way. There is a clear choice in this province between Social Credit, represented on this side, and socialism, represented on the other side.

The other party in this province, the NDP — the one that considers itself a pretender to the office of government — does not believe in a balanced budget or in maintaining a lean public service. It doesn't see the value in it. A Vancouver Sun article on March 27 proclaimed this government's privatization program to be an outstanding success. This is a direct quote from that article by Joe Wurz: "The quality of highway maintenance is at least as good as before privatization; the government is saving substantial amounts of money; the maintenance contractors are earning a fair profit; and the ex-government employees now working for the contractors are finding their jobs more rewarding." That's private enterprise.

The Leader of the Opposition and his party do not believe in privatization. They fought it. They badmouthed it every step of the way. But one of these days, when the Leader of the Opposition sees it catching on, he will be the first to say: "It was my idea all along." There's no question about it — it will be his idea. But why do they not go along with it? Because the government employees' union, for obvious reasons, is opposed to privatization, and the NDP cannot set policy independently of that union. They can't lift a finger before checking with some special interest group. They are the special interest party in British Columbia; there's no question about it. Their health care policy is dictated by the health care unions and their education policy is dictated by the teachers' union.

I'm not in any way attacking unions. They play a vital role in our society. But they have no mandate at all to develop policy on behalf of the taxpayers of this province. That is done by the elected government of the province, not by unions.

Make no mistake about it: the NDP, as government, would spend substantially more than it could bring in, every year of their administration. The balanced budgets we worked so hard to achieve would disappear, and the taxes of every British Columbian would go up and up. There is no doubt whatsoever. Indeed, a candidate for that party, a gentleman by the name of.... What is his name?

[4:45]

AN HON. MEMBER: Krog.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Leonard Krog stated flatly that taxes would go up if his party is elected. He has since had a talk, I believe, with his leader, and he has been squirming away from that remark. But the alarm has gone out; you can't un-ring a bell. He's already sounded the alarm, and you can't un-ring that bell. I believe the name Krog may well become synonymous with political foot-in-mouth disease in the province of British Columbia. They're going to erect a statue to Mr. Krog — but it's going to be feet first — somewhere outside of Nanaimo after he loses the next election.

That party's finance critic stood in this House last week and said his party would immediately increase corporate taxes. Nothing makes a socialist's blood run faster than the opportunity to attack profit. Nothing makes their blood and adrenaline go more than the opportunity to get at a businessman. Oh boy, you shouldn't have profit! But as Jim Matkin said in a

[ Page 9343 ]

weekend article in the Vancouver Province, nothing would drive investment away from British Columbia quicker, than threats of higher corporate taxes; they would proverbially kill the goose that is capable of laying the golden egg. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker: that goose is not dead in Canada right now, but that goose could be terminally ill if the federal government in Ottawa doesn't change some of its wanton ways and take a leaf from this Finance minister's book, I can tell you that right now.

Matkin calls the NDP "naive, " which I think is a very kind assessment of that party. That other party owes too much to so many special interest groups to worry about fiscal restraint. They wouldn't care about that. British Columbians have always chosen sound fiscal management, and they will take that choice again when they are given the chance. I am looking forward with eager anticipation to that opportunity.

I remember another Speaker in this House, the Rev. Harvey Schroeder. He used to say that elections were where it was at; in between it was an endurance test. I'm looking forward to getting back on the hustings again to tell the story of this good Social Credit government. We've got a tremendous story to tell.

Our government tries to help people get off income assistance into gainful employment. The other party has a different approach that says it would double the welfare rates, Mr. Minister of Finance. The taxpayers already pay $930 million in income assistance; they want to double the rate to $1.85 billion a year

The time will come when people will have a clear choice, and I predict once again they will return Social Credit in large numbers to this Legislature, and I look forward to that opportunity.

MS. PULLINGER: I found it fascinating that the previous speaker, the member for Burnaby-Willingdon, opened his remarks by talking about a member crossing the floor once. I find that just amazing. This is a government from which — what was it? — seven cabinet ministers have been forced to resign and seven members have jumped ship; 14 out of 47 in one session.

I also find amazing the inability of this government and the Premier to admit when they're wrong. We've seen that throughout the course of this government. We saw it again last week, with a document mailed out by this government for REAL Women that attacks women and homosexuals, and the Premier is still saying that there's nothing wrong with that document. He's trying to hide behind the censorship issue. The Premier didn't have any problem with censorship when it came to a video to keep the AIDS virus from spreading among our young people.

There seems to be an enormous inability of this government to admit when they're wrong, which seems to be fairly regularly. We have seen that again today. Like last year, this year we're told again that the budget is balanced, and like last year it's not. This budget, like last year's, is a deficit budget. The government tells us the budget is balanced when in fact it shows something like a $600 million or $700 million deficit. It's not a balanced budget, and it's not an honest budget.

This government tells us it's reducing British Columbia's debt — a debt that I would like to point out has been accumulated largely under Social Credit government. It's worth noting that it took 100 years for the first $4 billion to accumulate, and it took just a couple of decades under Social Credit for that amount to quadruple — $8 billion in the last decade.

This budget shows an increase in B.C.'s debt of more than half a billion. After several years of a strong economy when we ought to be recording a surplus, this government is again presenting a deficit budget — this time for $684 million.

It's not surprising that we're again seeing a deficit. After all, we've watched this government lose money on the sale of one of the most valuable pieces of real estate in North America, and they did that in a booming market. It's amazing.

It's not surprising either to see the headlines in the paper this morning. We see in the Times-Colonist the headline that the BS fund is empty. The auditor-general says that, and he says that inept accounting has cost British Columbia millions of dollars. It's amazing.

MR. SERWA: Are you attacking civil servants?

MS. PULLINGER: No, I'm not attacking civil servants. That was your own Minister of Finance who did that. If you remember, he attacked the auditor general in a seemingly unprincipled manner. The newspaper this morning says that we have a "bumbling government whose accounting practices, quality control and security procedures are often inept, frequently incomplete, and have cost taxpayers millions of dollars."

Yet these people across here keep telling us that we have a balanced budget. They keep telling us about their fiscal responsibility. I think they have that wrong. They have a problem admitting when they're wrong.

The headlines this morning also said that the budget stabilization fund.... As we all know, it's the BS fund. This is the only government in Canada that has a fund for their b.s. It's empty. It is in fact money owed from general funds; there is no bank account. There's no money. There's nothing in it. The BS fund is b.s. That's a special fund for this government.

The Highways ministry privatization hasn't received exactly a four-star billing either. The headlines say this morning that throughout its major financial accounting, the government has not followed — or only partly followed — standards set down by the public sector accounting and auditing committee of the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants. It hasn't followed standard procedure. The deficiencies, according to the newspapers, run the gamut from late reporting to incomplete disclosure and hidden accounts of government assets and their values.

[ Page 9344 ]

The government that talks about fiscal responsibility and balanced budgets that aren't balanced has expended $14.6 million with verbal approval. There's nothing written until months later. This is the government of fiscal responsibility, they tell us.

It also says this morning: "The government procedures for prevention and control of fraud and financial mishandling" — a familiar slogan — "within the government were insufficient." The government doesn't have any sufficient checks; it's not following procedure; it doesn't have anything in the BS fund. This government has a major problem here.

It's interesting that this government came in in 1952 on a dishonest ballot, and it's going to go out in 1990 with a dishonest budget. We'll find no surprises there.

This government likes to brag about its record, so we'll talk about its record a bit. In the 1980s under Social Credit, poverty in British Columbia — and especially poverty for women and children — has grown faster than in any other decade in our history. That's a Socred record. Poverty has grown faster than in any other decade in our history in British Columbia.

Something like one in four kids still go to school hungry. In the riding of the previous Minister of Social Services and Housing, it's more like one in two; that's the figure I understand is correct for his riding. Kids going to school hungry in this province of affluence.... We hear about affluence, but we have kids who don't have enough to eat.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Food banks have become institutionalized in British Columbia under Social Credit. Food banks have become part of the structure of this province. Women and their kids, primarily, depend on them every day in order to have enough to eat.

Decent jobs and decent wages are scarce. We hear about all the jobs created, but we know darned well that most of them are minimum wage — or minimal wage — and part-time, and most of them short-term They're not good jobs at good wages.

We know that affordable housing is impossible to find in many places in British Columbia. In the paper today also, it seems that Vancouver tenants are saying that the actions that are hurting them are criminal. There's a big picture in the paper today saying that the rental housing situation is untenable and intolerable. They find these actions criminal.

MR. PETERSON: Somebody hand her another newspaper. She's running out of things to say.

MS. PULLINGER: Oh no, there's lots of stuff to say about Social Credit. We don't have to do much, because it's all out there. You do it yourselves. You create all of this stuff: "Expo Land Deal Fails to Add Up." There's lots of stuff here.

It's not surprising, Mr. Speaker, that British Columbians have lost confidence in this government. It's not surprising that increasing numbers of British Columbians think B.C. has been governed too long by Social Credit. It's not surprising that women and men in British Columbia want a change of government. It's time we had a government that we can trust, a government that will represent ordinary women and men instead of a never-ending lineup of this government's friends and insiders. We need a government in British Columbia that's honest, open and fair — one that will allow men and women to make their own choices. We need a government that will not impose its own personal and moral views on the people of this province, and particularly not on women and AIDS victims.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House are committed to tax fairness. Under this government the tax burden has increasingly shifted onto middle- and low-income earners. Corporations received a $500 million tax break under this government. Corporate capital tax was phased out. Non-residential school property taxes were reduced. Corporate income tax was cut. Tax breaks were given to banks and mining companies. There was a $500 million tax break for corporations under this government.

At the same time, taxes, charges and user fees for individuals, for the working people of this province, have increased. The burden of taxation has shifted increasingly from those with money, with wealth, onto low- and middle-income earners and small business.

Taxes have risen dramatically for the average British Columbian. This budget sees no relief for that. In fact, British Columbians will pay more for many items such as tires, batteries and disposable items. We have no problem with the principle of green taxes, if you like — environmental taxes. That's a good principle, and one that ought to be employed. But this government is taxing mothers, not manufacturers. It's taxing people, not polluters. If it's serious about stopping pollution, it ought to tax those who manufacture polluting items and who pollute the environment, to encourage environmentally friendly products and environmentally beneficial practices.

In this budget the government proposes a new sustainable development fund. The government would have British Columbians believe that there's a sizeable increase in environmental spending and a real commitment to cleaning up our environment. But the budget is deceptive, Mr. Speaker; it's dishonest. The sustainable development fund does not contain new funding; rather, it takes existing programs such as reforestation and silviculture out of Forests and plows them into a new fund which operates with a different set of rules — maybe like GO B.C.; I'm not sure. The actual environment budget has increased by less than 1 percent. It's not new money, and that doesn't show any commitment to the environment.

AN HON. MEMBER: Creative bookkeeping.

MS. PULLINGER: A member from the government side says it's creative bookkeeping. We've seen a lot

[ Page 9345 ]

of that under this government — no question. The headlines are full of it today.

[5:00]

The other progresses and new initiatives in this budget are equally deceptive. A new initiative like the vehicle emission inspection program was announced again. It seems to me that this is the government that poured cement all over the testing equipment in the motor vehicle testing offices in Victoria. Again, they've discovered that what we said was right — they should never have closed down those facilities. We had this announcement last year, I believe. I've only been in the House a year, but I think I've already heard this promise recycled.

They've announced a hazardous waste management strategy again. Funding for existing agencies such as the Forest Resources Commission and the Round Table on Environment have been announced again, but there's no real commitment to the environment in the budget, Mr. Speaker. This government, as we all know, is committed to something different We've heard it again and again. It's committed to "freeing up the engine of the economy, " the typical right-wing agenda. That means privatization; deregulation; a low-wage, high-unemployment strategy; and weakening workers' democratic organizations — trade unions — through legislation such as Bill 19 and privatization.

We've watched all of these things happen under this government, and we've watched it increasingly back away from regulation and monitoring of polluting industry at a time when it ought to be showing leadership and positive government intervention. The results are predictable.

Environmental standards are still lax, as we've seen in the recent problems at the Crofton mill, where this government has standards that are six times those of elsewhere in this country and, in fact, in North America. We've got lax standards. We have recent studies showing that every pulp mill in the province is in violation of the provincial air and water pollution permits, and polluters are left to monitor themselves. This government has put the fox in charge of the chicken coop.

Much of our coastal shell fishing areas has been closed by the federal government. Logged areas in the province are lying unplanted; over 500,000 hectares lie unplanted.

We are still dumping raw sewage into our oceans, and on the lower mainland we have the most serious air pollution problem in North America. We recycle only 2 percent of our waste in British Columbia. In the states to the south of us they recycle 10 percent; in Japan they do 50 percent. There's no real commitment to the environment in this budget, and we're seeing no leadership at all from this government.

Our commitment on this side of the House is clear: we've introduced over 20 environmental bills in this Legislature. We're committed; we've made a very public commitment to protecting 12 percent of B.C.'s wilderness areas as suggested by Brundtland .We will again double B.C.'s parks as we did in 1972 to 1975.

I think it's worth noting that in 1972 to 1975, we introduced the Environment and Land Use Committee secretariat. That was a leading-edge environmental concept of its time, and this government has gotten rid of it. We introduced the Agricultural Land Commission and the agricultural land reserve, also leading-edge environmental protection, and that's been gutted by this government.

We have Fantasy Gardens, owned by the Premier and his wife and built on some of the best agricultural land in this province. We set the direction.

Interjection.

MS. PULLINGER: The ex-Minister of Forests over there is defending the use of the Delta lands that ought to be the best agricultural lands in the province. He thinks it's a great idea that Fantasy Gardens — the Premier's business — has been built on the best agricultural land in the province.

New Democrats set the direction for environmental change in the 1970s; a direction and leadership that was needed then and is much more urgently needed now. We've developed on this side of the House an environmental policy based on present and future needs of British Columbians. We have a vision for the future based on a clean, healthy environment.

I think the story of the ferrochromium plant that has moved around from place to place on Vancouver Island and plagued many communities is an interesting one, and it tells us something about this government. I think it was interesting when he announced the by-election where I was elected. I think it was number three of six, wasn't it? It was a landslide, if I remember. We announced the sustainable development program, and the government announced a ferrochromium plant with no environmental studies.

Interjection.

MS. PULLINGER: I don't know where it is now. The last I saw of it, it was heading north-north-east. That's this government's commitment. I also think there's a steel mill going up somewhere in the province — I can't track that down either — also with no environmental studies. That kind of approval, that we get approval of government funding — taxpayers' money.... Approval to build a $41 million plant that's obviously got great potential to pollute should never be granted. That should never have happened. It's backwards. It's this government's policy of ready, shoot, aim.

Our future depends on cleaning up our environment, and we've got to do it now. We've got to make a commitment to reforestation and to increasing the yield of our forests that we will continue to log. Working men and women in this province ought to be able to know that their jobs are safe. We're seeing job after job — good jobs — lost under Social Credit.

What this government is doing is playing environmental concerns off against the fears of those working in the logging industry particularly, and that is unconscionable at best. Wilderness areas and repre-

[ Page 9346 ]

sentative ecosystems must be defined and protected in British Columbia. Similarly, agricultural and forestry areas must be defined, and the health and productivity of these areas must be protected and increased.

British Columbia gets fewer jobs from its resources than the rest of Canada. It gets fewer jobs than in many parts of the world. But I think that the working people of British Columbia ought to have better than that. They own these resources, and they ought to benefit from the use of them — not just a few of the government's friends and insiders. They ought to be able to count on decent jobs at decent wages.

Government has a responsibility to ensure responsible use of our resources, something that we have seen precious little of so far. This budget sees no changes; It's the same old tired government with the same old worn-out policies based on an outdated, nineteenth-century economic analysis. The government hasn't listened, nor has it responded to the concerns of women and men in this province.

I was astounded, in listening to the budget from the economic managers over there, to realize that tourism wasn't even mentioned. Tourism didn't get a word in the budget — nothing. A $3.5 billion industry in British Columbia; it's our second-largest industry.

Interjection.

MS. PULLINGER: Partners in Tourism — that's the program the government cut back, I think, as it was trying to impose its eight zones on the tourism industry's nine zones.

Tourism didn't even get a mention in this budget. It's the second-largest industry — and by all projections it's destined to be our number one industry by the end of the decade — but this budget didn't even mention it.

I notice that the government's advertising program — you know, the one that sponsors one government minister after another on the almost-news programs, paid for with our tax dollars — has a much bigger budget than the entire Ministry of Tourism. The government is spending more of the taxpayers' money promoting itself, promoting its ministers, trying to bail itself out and get itself re-elected. It's got more money going into its own advertising programs than it has going into the entire Ministry of Tourism.

Interjection.

MS. PULLINGER: The ex-Minister of Tourism is saying that we could talk about good news over here. But the news is made by the government — things like "Expo Land Deal Fails to Add Up"; the news here about inept accounting on the part of the government and of the millions that it cost British Columbians.

Tourism has great potential in British Columbia. I'm glad to see you realize that on the other side of the House. Tourism has great potential, but it could be used to even out regional development in British Columbia. As we all know, there is far too much growth in the lower mainland and not nearly enough in the regions. However, we don't see much happening from this government in terms of trying to use tourism — as it could well be used, for very little expense, with just a little bit of coordination and effort — to help develop the regions.

One of the principles in Brundtland — which I don't think anybody on the other side of the House has read — is that we need an evening out of economic growth as part of a sustainable development program I don't think the people on the other side of the House have read that document. I'm sure they haven't, because they don't seem to understand that. But we need to even out regional development, and we could use tourism well to stimulate economic development in the regions.

Tourism, as the members opposite don't seem to realize either, can be environmentally sustainable. Tourism is compatible with a clean environment; in fact, it is dependent on a clean environment. It is also dependent on things like good forest practices. The lack of government leadership in environmental concerns has resulted in things that we've seen throughout the last few years; things like the mountain-peak to-shoreline clearcut on the west coast of Vancouver Island....

Interjections.

MS. PULLINGER: Did you want to talk about recycling in White Rock? The ex-Minister of Tourism wants to tell us about recycling in White Rock. Isn't that amazing! He's not yet been recycled, but you never know.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Through the Chair, please, hon. members.

MS. PULLINGER: We have seen the lack of leadership on environmental concerns from this government result in things like the mountain-peak-to shoreline clearcut in Kyuquot Sound. Meanwhile the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Michael) is saying how beneficial that is to tourism. Good stuff!

I think it was Canadian Geographic that did an article on our famous clearcuts that are driving kayakers and canoers off in droves. That's the management of this government.

Then there's the resort in the Cariboo — the family business built up over, I think, a decade — that's standing in the middle of a clearcut. That's tourism by this government.

How about the pollution of our lakes and streams and of our salt water? A lot of people come here to fish, you know; but our waters, our lakes and rivers and streams and oceans, are polluted.

[5:15]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

[ Page 9347 ]

We need clean water and clean air. Good forest practices are essential to the tourism industry in British Columbia, and we're not seeing any improvement under this government on that.

Tourism has great potential in B.C. It ought to be the focus of innovative and creative attention from this government. Sadly, the government's innovative and creative abilities seem to be put to work more in the budget and in their accounting procedures than in tourism.

MR. LOVICK: Careful, Jan, you've really got the heavyweights against you.

MS. PULLINGER: With the arrival of the distant back bench — as my colleague points out — I think I will wind up my remarks and just simply point out again that the budget is not balanced. It is a result of inept accounting that has cost B.C. millions of dollars. I think that a government that came in on a dishonest ballot in 1952 ought to go out with this dishonest budget in 1990.

MR. SPEAKER: Pursuant to standing orders, the House is advised the Minister of Finance will close the debate.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: After six days of puffery, I am delighted to have the opportunity of responding to some of the remarks that I have heard expressed by the opposition side. I just noticed the last speaker for the opposition wanted to go into history. Maybe I should start off my remarks by reminding the members opposite of a little bit of history.

Maybe I should remind them about the election campaign in 1975, in which the government was changed, sanity prevailed and the Social Credit Party was re-elected. I want to remind the members opposite that what defeated them in that election was their inability to balance the budget. That was the issue around that election campaign. The fact of the matter is they couldn't balance the budget then, and they're certainly not going to be able to balance it now. And for them to talk about balancing the budget in the future, given their spending promises — that is if you are to believe the promises as being promises.... Clearly they'll never be able to balance the budget with the kind of programs they have been bringing forward.

Much of this puffery has focused on the budget stabilization fund, and I want to make a few comments about it. I was struck by the fact that the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) made the point — or attempted to make the point — that the Leader of the Opposition had something to teach us in terms of balanced budgets. After all, he had done it six times when he was mayor of Vancouver. I couldn't help but laugh to myself, because every municipal government is required to balance its budget. When their arguments are so weak that they have to resort to Social Credit legislation in order to try to paint their leader as having some financial acumen, I find that humorous in the extreme.

I can appreciate that the member for Esquimalt Port Renfrew, being relatively new to the experience, probably hadn't looked into the background around some of those issues that the Leader of the Opposition faced while he was mayor. I can remember that while that member was mayor of Vancouver, a couple of aldermen on the same council said that the city relied on property tax increases and draw-downs of the property endowment fund to cover current expenditures.

It's the height of hypocrisy for the Leader of the Opposition and his friends to criticize our budget stabilization fund. In fact, the Leader of the Opposition drew down his endowment fund specifically for the purposes of handling his Vancouver city budget. I can appreciate how that would have been conveniently overlooked by members opposite, but the fact of the matter is that one senior alderman said: "That endowment fund cannot forever keep pace with the city's deficits." Another senior alderman on that council said: "It gives a false sense of spending relative to revenues." So much for the acumen and management abilities of the Leader of the Opposition.

I am also reminded by his abortive efforts to create a concrete-mix plant for the city of Vancouver...I am reminded. about the debate on that city council when he and some of his socialist cohorts attempted to create another entity — another bureaucrat empire-building exercise in order to fill what was already a highly competitive situation. And I am reminded that it was only with great reluctance that sanity finally prevailed and council outvoted the mayor and his cohorts in that defeated effort towards socialism.

All kinds of history indicate how this individual looks upon socialism. But maybe there's justification for confusion. I do recollect some contradictory comments, or at least confusing comments by him on whether he's a socialist. Let me just remind the members opposite of some comments about that.

As I understand it, on March 7, 1990, the Leader of the Opposition said: "I've never been a socialist." On the other hand, on July 16, 1987, this same individual said: "As a successful business person and successful socialist...." What is it? Is it a socialist, or is it not a socialist? It is a chameleon, and I have to remind the members opposite that a chameleon trying to land on a Scotch plaid really has some great difficulties in attempting to determine what he really is.

The Leader of the Opposition is going to have great difficulty when he hits the hustings and has to face the people of rural British Columbia and explain his comments about his role as mayor of Vancouver. I just want to put in the record a statement he made in September 1983: "I have a yardstick for managing public affairs. If it's good for Vancouver, I'm for it; if it's not, I'm opposed." It does seem to me that someone so confused about what a responsible leader of a provincial party should be doing and thinking clearly is going to have some trouble when he starts

[ Page 9348 ]

touring rural British Columbia and asking for support.

On the other hand, he has also made some rather indicative comments — I want to put them on the record — regarding SkyTrain, one of the most successful people-mover experiences in North America. He said: "It is Bill Vander Zalm's ball game and a tragic mistake." Regarding the Alex Fraser Bridge, he said: "It will destroy Vancouver and destroy what's always been wanted." My goodness, I can't think of any more irresponsible statements for a provincial leader to be making as he travels the province. It really is unfortunate that it's the best that can be supplied in terms of opposition during the coming election.

Mind you, it isn't just the Leader of the Opposition who makes comments once in a while that sometimes come back to hurt. I'm reminded that the first member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Ms. Marzari) was quoted about child care as saying: "This is a bad deal, and B.C. will be the loser. We're asking the provincial government not to sign this federal program." I hear that same individual talking at length about day care and how appropriate it would be.

It's pretty obvious that these people are going to have some trouble once we challenge them at the polls. Like most of my colleagues, I look forward to that opportunity.

The socialist party, the NDP, has made many such comments as terms of their philosophical beliefs. It might be appropriate to put a few of them on the record. I've got so many good quotes here.... Here we go. This is from the second member for Nanaimo (Ms. Pullinger): "Social Credit lacks any form of long-term planning. We need positive government intervention." That's what this debate and this election is going to be all about, my friends: government intervention, the traditional socialist philosophical approach.

Here's one, admittedly a history lesson. This one comes from the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann): "Maybe we have to say that land can no longer be owned privately." Isn't that an interesting comment?

Then, of course, we have a gentleman from the NDP provincial executive who's quoted as saying "Clearly, capitalism and free enterprise is inconsistent with survival."

How about this one from the national leader of the NDP: "Capital, my friends, is too important to be left only in the hands of capitalists. Public control of capital is an essential step in gaining control of our economy." Let's not forget that this individual, while seeking the leadership of the national party, was endorsed by the provincial leader of the socialist party here in British Columbia — and, I might add, in opposition to the native-son candidate from British Columbia. One might have expected that as a matter of common courtesy he would have received the support and endorsation of another British Columbian. Of course, the Leader of the Opposition is truly a chameleon and finds himself having no difficulty in dancing around on the head of a pin attempting to justify it every time someone puts a microphone in his face.

Quite clearly, the NDP is an accident waiting to happen. Socialism doesn't know how to drive our economy, and the NDP have exhibited an equally reckless behaviour during this debate as they have during that short three and a half years they were in office. The Leader of the Opposition will lead us back to the cave with a candle and a prayer. He's so inept, he's already got British Columbians in the dark. No one knows for sure where he stands on any issue, including himself, and where he stands on socialism.

We don't want any more NDP ghost towns in this province. We want a future for our kids. We want them to be able to play in our streets in all of the communities in this province with comfort and confidence in their future. If the NDP were ever again to assume the leadership of this province, they would leave behind — as they did the last time — nothing but tumbleweed and unpaid bills.

I want to talk a little bit about comments that came from the opposition side during this debate. It's a difficult task. When we originally looked at this, I wanted to take some of their comments that were not factually based and rebut them with facts. After all, I believe the facts are all that really count; the puffery we can all ignore. I had great difficulty doing that because of the absence of facts in their various points that they made during the debate.

I was able to determine, however, that it is crystal-clear that were the policies enunciated by all the various speakers opposite to be added up, they would have increased the expenditures of this province by $3 billion. That's the cumulative effect of these outrageous statements that we've heard from the members opposite. I know they're well-meaning individuals, and I know they want to learn and grow in their jobs. I think that's commendable, and we should all help them. That's one of the reasons I wanted to point out quite clearly, so that you all understand, that your ability to manage the province is in dispute because of your record in 1975, when you were defeated because you couldn't balance the budgets in those years.

[5:30]

The budget stabilization fund debate really comes down to a debate of tactics. If you believe it is appropriate that government takes a long-range view of managing public affairs and designing budgets over the life of a business cycle — and I gather from comments made by at least one member opposite that that's what you really want to do, which is, of course, what we have done for the last two budgets.... If you take a long-range view of budgeting, it's clear that you're going to have to take a long-range view of revenue, and you're going to have to have a fund with which you can cushion the revenue changes or variations from year to year. So it's very clear that even in the area of tactics, the budget stabilization fund is going to have to be maintained if you are to do what you claim you're going to do, which is take a long-range view of budgeting, which we have done now for two consecutive years.

[ Page 9349 ]

Let me just give a little elementary school training program to the members opposite. Three billion dollars means a 10 percent rise in the provincial sales tax. We would then presumably have, under an NDP administration, a 16 percent sales tax in this province. Does anyone in this House really believe that the public is prepared to accept a 16 percent sales tax?

Mind you, they can do other things. If they wish to, they could double the personal income tax rate. That would give them the $3 billion. Does anyone really expect that they — or any government — would be prepared to or could double the provincial Income tax rate? No, Mr. Speaker.

Clearly, the members opposite have no real appreciation of what that budget stabilization fund is all about. The fact is that this province, by complying with the nationally accepted standards for government public accounting, has adopted what we call an accrual basis of accounting, as opposed to some provinces which have a cash basis of accounting. It's conceded that the accrual basis is the most responsible way of reporting public accounts. By virtue of that, it is necessary to have a fund such as the BS fund in order to deal with that cushioning or shock absorber need, as opposed to provinces on a cash basis which can move revenues from one year to the next without comment or criticism.

I noticed that the members opposite made some comments about our "decade of neglect" in spending on social services. I'm just astounded to hear the member make such a ridiculous statement. The fact is that since we took office, this government has increased spending on health by 42 percent, on education by 68 percent and on social services by 24 percent. That means that 75 percent of provincial expenditures are spent by this administration in the social service area. How much is enough? How much would you spend, my friends? The fact is that you don't have it to spend in the first place. How much more could the taxpayer possibly afford? The fact of the matter is that we have made education our top priority, we have continued to fund health care adequately, and we have not ignored the social needs of our citizens.

Here's another one. I noticed during the debate that the member for Vancouver East said: "This government has gutted the Ministry of Environment." My goodness, Mr. Speaker, total spending by this government on the environment will rise to over $550 million this year — a 24 percent increase. If that's gutting the environment, I'd like to know what on earth the opposition would do.

Here's another one. I noticed during the debates that the second member for Boundary-Similkameen (Mr. Barlee) — a well-meaning person — complained about high gasoline taxes. He seemed to feel that he wanted to do something about that, whereas the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Clark) said that the NDP would use innovative approaches such as green taxes which encourage environmentally sensitive behaviour — which we have done, of course. But really, does the NDP think that lowered gasoline taxes, as proposed by one member, would meet the needs of the other member who talked about the environment and his deep concern for it?

This further indicates something that was raised yesterday by the Premier, and that's the "Krag" element. This is another indication of how the members opposite were "kragged" by the inadvertent comments of some of their members.

Interjections.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Is it Krog? All right. My apologies to Leonard. Enough on that; I've attempted to deal with issues raised during the debate.

Let me deal with an issue of more current moment, which is the auditor-general's report.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. It's only ten minutes before we take the vote, and I would appreciate it if the minister would be left with a little less racket. I realize the whole of the budget debate has been noisier than might normally be expected because of the time of this particular parliament, but perhaps if we could have the next little bit just a little quieter than before.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: The auditor-general's report has a number of quotes in it which have been repeated by the members opposite, and I think it's appropriate that I put in the record the quotes dealing with the principal issues as I see them.

On page 19 the auditor-general says that his office .will continue to suggest to the government that, for future fiscal years, it present its financial information in the public accounts from the most inclusive level to the least inclusive...." What he is referring to, of course, is which financial statement appears first on the page. That's all he's talking about.

He seems to have the view — and as he has said, he is going to replay this record every year — that for some strange reason we should be dealing with consolidated financial statements rather than general fund financial statements. I have to tell the House that that view, held by him for valid reasons — personal judgment, I suppose — is not shared by other auditors-general in this country. I believe it's a matter known to him.

I can tell you that this issue of which statement comes first is really not of great moment, and hardly justifies all of the attention it's received. Clearly, the members of the House want to debate the estimates which are contained in the general fund statement, and there's not much merit in having them consider the consolidated statements.

I want to talk about the budget stabilization fund, and I want to remind the House that on page 23 of the auditor-general's report he admits: "This method of accounting for the fund is essentially the same as that used for all government special funds in existence in prior years." The point is, this government has been consistent and true to established account-

[ Page 9350 ]

ing practices. I suspect that had we not been consistent and true, the members opposite and other critics would then have criticized us for violating the traditional standards.

Clearly, the government is being criticized here for a policy matter that was debated and considered very seriously and one which has been replicated in 29 U.S. states which have budget stabilization funds the same as ours. So it's just tactics, and the magnification of the issue is merely politics. It doesn't do much to deal with the substantive issues of presenting reports.

I want to deal with the privatization transactions. I'm still on the auditor-general's report, page 248 — his overall conclusions — and I quote: "We found that the government's accounting for the 46 sales designated by cabinet as 'privatization transactions' to March 31, 1989, and as shown on pages...complied in all material respects with the provisions of the act and with the government's stated accounting policies."

The issue is quite simply that the auditor-general doesn't agree with the act or with the stated policies, and he would like to see them changed. It's his right, of course, to hold that view. But surely every generous heart would have to agree that it's the government's right to set the policy. That policy was considered, debated and implemented.

I want to close with a few quotes. The comments of an employee of an accounting firm have been quoted at length in the press and in the House. I want to make the members aware that there was a radio interview on May 1, in which he clarified some of those comments. I want to read into the record what he said in that radio interview: "All governments in Canada do have debt, and in fact B.C. is the government that owes the least amount relative to its assets or relative to its income. It costs B.C. four cents on the dollar to service its debt. The next best province is Alberta at over eight cents. The federal government is 35 cents." So from a fiscal point of view, this government is in the best shape of any government in the country.

Continuing with the radio comments: "First, I think the budget is excellent. I basically think the budget is balanced." I close his radio interview with another quotation from him: "You couldn't help but look at their fiscal performance and say, isn't that fantastic." Fantastic!

Furthermore, by virtue of erroneous, misleading comments by the Leader of the Opposition, I have in my possession a copy of a letter written by that same firm, Peat Marwick Thorne, and by that same individual who has often been quoted. He has addressed a letter to the Leader of the Opposition and sent a copy to me. He's pointed out to the Leader of the Opposition that he appears to have taken material out of context. I quote from the letter dated May 2: "This consolidated information is dearly disclosed on page 36 of the province's budget papers. There is a cumulative deficit of these funds of $2.66 billion — this does not relate to the current year's deficit, as could be implied from your comments." Clearly misrepresentation, for what purpose I'll leave you to judge.

Now some last quotes. Let me just put this in the record. The managing director of the Vancouver Board of Trade has said that they applaud the multi-year planning approach this government has brought to managing public affairs. The Institute of Chartered Accountants of British Columbia have already been quoted at length; I won't repeat that one. Jim Matkin has been reported at length. Here's another one that hasn't been reported. The Price Waterhouse firm said that individuals will be pleased with this budget: "This is a good-news budget. No tax increases; business will be happy; individuals will be happy; they'll be happy that again the government seems to be plotting a steady course. Business doesn't like massive change and this budget doesn't have it, and that's good news for all British Columbians."

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, page 16 of our Standing Orders, under "Schedule 2: Budget Debate and Amendments, " says: "On the sixth of the said days, at 15 minutes before the ordinary time of daily adjournment, unless the said debate be previously concluded, Mr. Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and forthwith put every question necessary to dispose of the main motion."

The question is: "That the Speaker do now leave the chair for the House to go into Committee of Supply."

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS - 38

NAYS - 19

MR. ROSE: Point of order. The government House Leader, who is usually very open and friendly and perhaps even loquacious, often informs us of the

[ Page 9351 ]

business of the House for the morrow. I wonder if he would care to do that before we adjourn, because we have a few speakers we thought we'd like to organize for the debate tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: It's not really a point of order; it's only a matter of information. If the government House Leader wishes to bring forward that matter, he may do so.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I'd be happy to. Does it matter to Leonard?

Mr. Speaker, for the information of all the members in the House, tomorrow morning at 10 a.m. we will go to second reading on the education bill.

MR. ROSE: And committee in the afternoon?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I thought by 11.

Hon. Mr. Richmond moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:51 p.m.