[ Page 11901 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Presentation of 1991-92 budget. Mr. D'Arcy –– 11901

Mr. Lovick

Convicted child abusers in positions of trust. Mrs. McCarthy –– 11902

Presentation of 1991-92 budget. Mr. Lovick –– 11902

Mr. D'Arcy

Boundary Bay wildlife habitat. Mr. Cashore –– 11903

Ministerial Statement

Child care. Hon. Mrs. Gran –– 11903

Ms. A. Hagen

Private Members' Statements

The pride of the Okanagan. Mr. Barlee –– 11904

Hon. Mr. Messmer

The state of politics. Mr. Brummet –– 11906

Mr. Zirnhelt

Political tradition in Oak Bay–Gordon Head. Ms. Cull –– 11908

Mr. Couvelier

Urban transit. Mr. Loenen –– 11910

Mr. Lovick

Tabling Documents –– 11912

Clean Environment Enforcement Act (Bill M202). Second reading. (Mr. Cashore)

Mr. Cashore –– 11912

Taxpayer Protection Act (Bill 92). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Veitch) –– 11913

Mr. Sihota

Mr. Barlee

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm

Ms. A. Hagen

Mr. G. Janssen

Mr. Jones

Mr. Brummet

Ms. Edwards

Mr. Blencoe

The House met at 10.05 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: The member for Surrey–White Rock–Cloverdale.

Oh. On an introduction, the first member for Saanich and the Islands.

MR. COUVELIER. Mr. Speaker, I rose, but I realize that with your advancing years, it's difficult to see this far down the room.

I wonder whether the members would join me in welcoming some residents of the beautiful town of Sidney — specifically residents of Beechwood Manor — who are with us this morning. They are Francis Thrupp, Phyllis Davidge, Anna Love, Fred Fossett, Helen Greenwood, Keith Alexander and Louise Dunlop. They are accompanied today by Pat Lloyd, the social director at Beechwood; she is accompanied by her son Brody Loster, who by the way is an honour-roll student. Their volunteer driver, Mr. Ken Berger, is also with them. Would you please help me welcome some constituents.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, I think the problem is that the member for Saanich is so far down the bench, it's hard to see him these days.

I'd like to recognize and introduce the mayor of Surrey, Bob Bose, who will be in the precincts today. Would the House please welcome him to the precincts.

MR. ZIRNHELT: I would like the Legislature to welcome my son Damon Zirnhelt, who is down here visiting for a couple of days; my nephew Robert Ferrier from Prince George, who is a student at the college here; and my constituency assistant, Sharron Ransbury, who is also down for a few days.

MR. LOVICK: I was tempted to rise to defend the Speaker's honour and eyesight against those terrible remarks from the benches opposite, but instead, I have an introduction, if I may.

I'd ask my colleagues in the House to please join me in welcoming the Smith family — Martin, Andrew, Dorothy and May — who are in the precincts today.

MR. SPEAKER: I believe the member's remarks were based on the fact that I'm closer to retirement than he is, despite a difference in years — much closer.

Oral Questions

PRESENTATION OF 1991-92 BUDGET

MR. D'ARCY: I have a question to the jovial member for Burnaby-Willingdon in his newfound capacity as Minister of Finance. Nine days from now at midnight, the government's authority to collect and spend the public's funds runs out. Has the minister decided to present a budget for the consideration of the people's representatives prior to his government losing legal authority to spend public funds?

HON. MR. VEITCH: I understand that the government has all of the authority required to spend funds on behalf of Her Majesty, and there will be a budget coming down.

MR. D'ARCY: Can the minister advise the people of British Columbia under what authority — without a budget and without interim supply voted on by this House — he believes he has the authority to take public funds — not government funds but public funds — and expend them after midnight on March 31 to the extent of $44 million a day, $307 million a week, $1.3 billion a month?

HON. MR. VEITCH: As the member well knows — I told him a few moments ago — there will be a budget coming down. That is future action and as such cannot be discussed in question period.

MR. D'ARCY: The government will not have spending authority as of midnight on March 31. There are school districts, hospitals, municipalities and numerous government services that need to be attended to. The minister, even though he is new on the job, has behind him the most competent technical and professional line staff in the province assembled by the first member for Saanich and the Islands. Those people are capable of producing a budget in November, let alone December, January, February or March. Why has the minister and his government failed to produce a budget for consideration by the people of British Columbia?

HON. MR. VEITCH: The hon. member for Rossland-Trail is acting better than I've ever seen him act in the House. I suppose television does something for one's character. We will have authorities.... School boards will be paid, government services will continue and a budget will come down.

MR. D'ARCY: I recall a few years ago in this House the then member for South Okanagan getting up and giving eloquent speeches about how he would not see the government spend a dime without debate.

We're not talking about dimes and nickels here; we're talking about billions of dollars that the minister — new on the job, with limited qualifications — intends to spend without any debate or even any scheduled spending agenda. It shows a government in total chaos: you cannot make the political decisions to present any kind of a document to the people.

Has the minister decided on a specific day so that the people of British Columbia will know what their money is being expended on and how much of it there is?

[ Page 11902 ]

HON. MR. VEITCH: The member alludes to another day and another time, when the NDP — the then government of the day — was overspending at a terrific rate. They had no idea where their finances were at, no idea where the money was coming from, and they called an election in the midst of winter to try to get around a particular situation.

You'll have ample time to debate the budget when we bring it down. I can tell you that we worked last night, we'll be working over the weekend, and as soon as it is physically possible we will be bringing a budget to this House.

I want to tell you something else. There are other items that impact upon a budget now: there are changes in the economy, changes at the federal level and there are things that have been done recently which impact upon an economy. You may want to go ahead and guess the way you, guessed on your last instrument that you brought into the House. We're not going to budget that way in British Columbia. We're not going to repeat the mistakes of 1972-75. The member can huff and puff all he wants. There will be a budget coming....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Chair is certainly pleased we don't have a question period every Friday.

[10:15]

MR. LOVICK: This is a very simple question to the Minister of Finance; indeed, it's tailor-made for the Minister of Finance. One week ago, this minister promised interim supply. The question is very direct and very simple. Where is it, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. VEITCH: Interim supply normally follows the tabling of a budget paper in the House. The hon. member would know that.

CONVICTED CHILD ABUSERS
IN POSITIONS OF TRUST

MRS. McCARTHY: My question today involves three or four ministries, all involved in social services: Attorney-General, Ministry of Health, Ministry of Social Services and Ministry of Education. I will direct this to the Minister of Social Services in his capacity as chairman of the social services committee of cabinet. Can the minister assure this House that anyone who has been convicted of the abuse of children and who is in a position of trust in a schoolroom, a day care, a child care centre or any other publicly funded institution will be disallowed to return to that position of trust or any other position which involves the serving of children?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I thank the member for the question. I can assure the member on the government policy with regard to that. That is demonstrated by the actions of my Ministry of Social Services, where we have the responsibility of protecting children. Nothing that's carried out in my ministry has the same attention and concern as the need to ensure that children are adequately protected when they are brought into the care of our ministry. That includes monitoring very carefully the people who are given the responsibilities and the rights to look after and care for these particular children. We do take every precaution to make sure that children are not in any way placed in jeopardy.

Admittedly, we deal with a great number of people. It's difficult to be sure that every single one of those is monitored to the extent of knowing precisely what their backgrounds may be. I guess this whole issue begs the question of individual rights of people against the need to protect. Perhaps that's something that the public of British Columbia should have the chance to voice their opinion upon. I, as Minister of Social Services, firmly believe that the right of Protection for the children comes before anyone's individual right.

MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I don't intend to go through each ministry of the social services with this question. I now have the assurance from the Minister of Social Services, but I would also like to have the assurance to this House today from the Minister of Education, who is responsible for children in the classroom.

HON. S. HAGEN: I would be pleased to respond to that very important question. I too feel that this is a question all British Columbians are concerned about. Some time in the future all British Columbians will have an opportunity to respond to that question. We in the education system are certainly concerned about that issue, and I know that parents and all British Columbians are.

PRESENTATION OF 1991-92 BUDGET

MR. LOVICK: A moment ago the Minister of Finance shattered our illusions and said that promises made about interim supply aren't going to be kept. Will the minister then answer this question: what authority do you propose to use to pay the bills after March 31?

HON. MR. VEITCH: I would hate to shatter any of the host of illusions that the member may have from time to time. We will use the authority given to us by law.

MR. D'ARCY: A few minutes ago the member from Willingdon spoke of 1974-75 as though.... That was the past. This is now. I would remind the minister that if we want to go far enough into the past, back to seventeenth century Britain when the Crown insisted on spending money without supply being voted by the Commons, they had a remedy: they decapitated the king.

I am not suggesting such cavalier action in this particular case. But the minister has said, in reply to both my question and that of the first member for Nanaimo, that he has legal authority to spend money without a budget and without — I'm tempted to say

[ Page 11903 ]

"in the fullness of time....” He is going to spend money without a budget and without interim supply. The only legal way to do this is through special warrants. Special warrants are available only when the House is not sitting. Mr. Speaker, the House is sitting today. Why can the minister not bring in at least an interim supply bill until he gets his act together and brings down a budget?

MR. SPEAKER: I might remind members that it was Mr. Speaker who was beheaded when he took the message to the king.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I don't want to behead either Mr. Speaker or the member for Nanaimo or, indeed, this wonderful member who is going on into retirement or some sort of a promise in NDP Valhalla-land somewhere — I don't know where.

MR. BLENCOE: Answer the question.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I'll answer the question if you will be quiet for just a moment, hon. member. You know, it's both listening and speaking.

We will do our financing according to the laws of British Columbia. There will be a budget brought to this House, which you will have ample time to debate. I believe the debate time is six days or eight sittings. You will have all the time you require, and I imagine you'll do the research that you have done before — which won't be much — but you'll continue to do it and you'll continue to criticize.

You'll also understand that if there are any warrants either before or after any given period, those are attached to any supply bill and you'll have ample time to debate. There is never a dime without debate in this House — only under the NDP.

BOUNDARY BAY WILDLIFE HABITAT

MR. CASHORE: This question is to the Minister of Environment. Trees are at this moment being cut in Boundary Bay in the only forest in that area. The property, coincidentally owned by the brother-in-law of the Minister of Parks, who is also the area's MLA, contains 80 different bird species and art archaeological site with a confirmed Indian midden, and as the only forest in Boundary Bay, it is a proposed nature park. The question is: has the minister decided to use his powers under the Environment Management Act to protect the blue heron and other wildlife in the area by declaring the forest a wildlife management area or by declaring this situation an environmental emergency?

HON. MR. SERWA: First of all, I would like to say that the House just had debates yesterday with respect to private property rights, and this side of the House really believes in the right of private property owners to enjoy those property rights.

In this specific case, to the best of my knowledge, the trees are being cut for a fence-line so that the individual can pasture cattle in that particular area. Over and above that, my ministry has sent a staff member over to assess if there are environmental concerns. I have talked to the mayor of Delta, so we're familiar with that. A staff member is going over there to have a look at it, but I would say that until that information comes back, there is no further planned action. There is no environmental emergency at the present time, and under the act it is only if there is an environmental emergency.

Ministerial Statement

CHILD CARE

HON. MRS. GRAN: I rise today to make a ministerial statement on a matter of major importance to British Columbia families and their children.

Last July I established a child care task force with a mandate to find and recommend ways to increase the number of affordable, accessible, quality child care spaces. On February 28 that report was released. It presented government with a wide range of options and recommendations. At that time I pledged quick action.

Today I want to inform this House that after a careful review of that report and its recommendations our government has taken positive action. We have allocated $55.3 million in new funding to cover the first three years of our child care expansion program, with $12.1 million to be spent in the first year. We have also established a child care team which will be led by Women's Programs. Under this new funding a number of important child care initiatives will be undertaken to support and expand existing child care.

Mr. Speaker, we believe as government that parents hold the ultimate responsibility to care for, support and educate their children. We also believe that expanded child care is good for both families and our economy. Our government is committed to stronger, healthier family units, because they are the core and the heart of our very society.

This new child care program and the related initiatives will further strengthen the foundation on which families in British Columbia stand.

MS. A. HAGEN: We of course welcome any dollars that are committed by government to the expansion of services to children and families. We would agree that there is no more important task than dealing with issues that provide for care and the economic well-being of families.

Yesterday we and, I know, members of the government met in this House with women who were poor, who live on marginal rates of welfare assistance and who are the working poor — people who are struggling with high rents, high costs and jobs which do not pay them a fair wage for the work they do. Many of these people have small children who require care in order for their parents to participate in the economy in any meaningful way.

The amount of money pledged for next year is small — $12.1 million. However small, it is welcome.

[ Page 11904 ]

But we must remember that there are 300,000 children in the province in need of care. I would note that we are perhaps in the dying days of this government's administration, and it is difficult for us to speak very cheerfully of this modest endeavour in the days when we are looking at a government which has had five and a half years to deal with this issue.

We hope that we will have an opportunity for this item to be debated fully through a budget, and that we are not looking at special warrants and the government operating outside this domain, so we can fully examine from the minister's brief statement how this money will be allocated and whether we can be assured that quality, affordability and accessibility are a part of it. It is regrettable that we do not have that opportunity to proceed with such a debate in the near future.

[10:30]

However, we welcome whatever the small initiatives are on the part of the minister, who we know is concerned about this issue. We will look forward, in fact, to the much more that is needed for the children and the families of this province if they are to fully participate in an economy and a society, that means they have a fair shake as the most important people in British Columbia.

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Statements

THE PRIDE OF THE OKANAGAN

MR. BARLEE: Like many other members in this House, both in the past and today, in following an honourable tradition, I rise with considerable pleasure as I take this opportunity to comment on the fascinating history, the present conditions and, hopefully, my vision of the future for my constituency of Boundary-Similkameen.

To those not familiar with this unique part of British Columbia, it closes on the U.S. border and stretches from east to west through the arid country of the province. In fact, the true desert of British Columbia is contained within my constituency. From the windows of my house, my wife and I look across Osoyoos Lake to the rolling sand dunes of the Inkameep Indian reserve. That part of British Columbia is virtually unchanged. The land is, I think, as pristine as it was several centuries ago when the Indians rode through it.

The western outpost of my constituency is the historical mining town of Hedley, once a gold camp of considerable renown. The eastern anchor of my constituency is Christina Lake, where I spent many happy days of my childhood. It's kind of strange how the memories come flooding back even from decades ago. I remember, with almost absolute clarity, sitting on a little wooden bridge on Sutherland Creek and watching the CPR, the Kettle Valley trains, trying to inch up the grade towards places like Farron and Fife. In those days the CPR often had to send down another locomotive from the roundhouse in Grand Forks so that they could make that grade. It is one of my enduring memories.

There a couple of others about trains. I remember, when I was about five, listening to the whistle of the Great Northern as it echoed across the valley. It was a forlorn sound, in the childhood memories that linger on. I guess it's easy to reminisce about familiar country. I suppose there's something special about wandering through an area where your parents and grandparents lived. Perhaps it's genetic memory.

My grandparents were there in the 1890s, when once-famous towns like Cascade City, Phoenix, Boundary Falls, Camp McKinney, Fairview and other storied towns were booming. Today most of those town have vanished — some of them without a trace. All things change, I guess.

So today I'm a representative of that constituency, which despite some potential has suffered some significant economic reverses in the past few years. When I travel up the Okanagan trough, which separates the Similkameen from the Boundary country in my constituency, I am particularly aware that, although there is considerable potential, we really haven't taken advantage of our natural gifts. Certainly that part of the Okanagan Valley is considered by many to be among the most scenic parts of the Okanagan. But many of the people there have been hard pressed.

The orchardists, in particular, have experienced years of hardship: hanging on to orchards despite the hard times, preserving the agricultural greenbelts for all of society. This is a region where the land held by the farmer — land which sometimes has been owned by generations of the same family — instead of being an asset, as it should be, is too often a liability. Apples that sell for 89 cents a pound or more in the supermarkets return about 4 cents to the grower. This has contributed to the present malaise in the tree-fruits industry, a malaise which threatens both the orchardists and the valuable greenbelts of the Okanagan.

I apologize for my somewhat reflective mood, Mr. Speaker, but there are areas of deep concern to me. Another disturbing sign is the traditionally high rate of unemployment all through my constituency. I don't care whether you go to Summerland or Penticton, Keremeos, Oliver, Osoyoos, Grand Forks or Greenwood — the story's the same. This area has some of the highest unemployment rates in British Columbia. Today that rate is an alarming 16.5 percent and growing daily. There are 20,000 unemployed in my area. That problem in turn affects our small businesses, which are already reeling under the impact of the free trade agreement. I've examined the effects of the free trade agreement since it was implemented, and I'm apprehensive about its far-reaching effects.

Every major town in my constituency — and there isn't one exception — is within an hour's drive of the U.S. border. The increase in traffic over the past three years has been staggering. Two-thirds of a million people now cross over into the state of Washington every year from the border points in my constitu-

[ Page 11905 ]

ency, most of them to shop. Those dollars that they leave in the United States are one-way dollars. They do not circulate back into British Columbia. The once-acclaimed free trade deal has been a poor deal for the border towns and a poor deal for my constituency.

Another indicator is the demise of the railways in Boundary-Similkameen. For three-quarters of a century the Kettle Valley Railway — a branch line of the CPR — ran through the towns of our area. It was a mainstay, a steady employer and historic link in the south country. But today that railway no longer runs. The hundreds of miles of track which threaded through some of the most spectacular scenery in the entire west lie abandoned, and the right-of-way stands deserted and overgrown.

Those years when copper, silver and gold were king in my country are long gone. Even celebrated mines like the Highland Bell, which produced 40 million ounces of silver, have been closed.

Despite these setbacks, I foresee a turnaround for my constituency, I believe our tourism potential is virtually unlimited and that our tree-fruit industry — the major employer in the valley — will soon turn the corner and become economically viable again. But to succeed, we must implement a strategy for both — a long-term and well-thought-out strategy.

HON. MR. MESSMER: I'm very pleased to be able to reply to the speech we just heard from the second member for Boundary-Similkameen. He certainly has taken us back into history and told us about the old days in Boundary-Similkameen and a little bit about today. Of course, it's today we're living in. While it's nice to hear about the past — and I agree with him that those are memories we all wish to relive once in a while — today we have the existing world of economics out there that we must deal with.

The Boundary-Similkameen area, of course, has looked ahead for many years, if you go back, it's because of the stance that was taken not only by the government of British Columbia but also by the municipalities on the waste-water management that they have in the valley. This started back in the seventies. We realized at that time that we had to develop some type of either spray or biological control over our sewage treatment in order to be able to put it back in the lake or to use it as spray irrigation. That started as far north as Vernon and, of course, has continued down through the southern part of Boundary-Similkameen. We realized that this had to be done in order for us to be a winner in the tourism game, because the lakes are so valuable not only to us who live there but to the visitors who come. At this present time we have probably some of the best sewage treatment plants in all the world. The biological and chemical plant in Penticton which has just been completed is outstanding. We have people from all over the world coming to view it and to see what the specifications of that plant are.

The communities in the south have always had controlled growth and zoning. Prior to the agricultural land reserve, it was communities in the south that knew what they were doing. They knew they didn't want large growth; they wanted controlled growth at roughly 2 percent, and this has continued. However, since the Coquihalla Highway has gone through, which was instrumental by this government, we now see a large increase in development within the Okanagan area. As a matter of fact, it was reported recently that the building permits in Kelowna were the same as for the province of Saskatchewan. That says a lot, either for us or detrimental to Saskatchewan — one or the other. Building permits in the south Okanagan are up.

Yes, I agree with the member opposite that unemployment has always been high in the Okanagan. It has been for years. Even though we have lots of jobs as far as the building and construction industry are concerned, these are seasonal jobs. We also have those people who come to the Okanagan because of the great weather that we always enjoy, who only work part-time and choose not to work for the rest of the year. It's a nice sort of life.

The member opposite talked about the fruit industry. I can tell you, on this side of the House we have tried to help the fruit industry. We haven't just said: "Vote for us, and all your troubles will be over." We initiated the Lusztig report, and because of that report we see today the Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority, which has already come in and decided that $2.1 million would be allocated towards replanting within the Okanagan area. They have offered $3,000 per acre. I'm pleased to say that already we have 65 applications representing roughly 130 acres. I'm hopeful there will be more coming in.

The wine industry, of course, has had a great turnaround in that we were forced to pull out the vines within the Okanagan, but we now have a stronger industry than we've ever had before.

Things are doing well in the Okanagan. The problem we have, of course, is trying to slow down the process so we can enjoy what we have, enjoy the golf courses that are being built for tourists to come and visit us, enjoy the luxuries we have, without becoming a large metropolitan area.

I'm sure that in the years to come you will see that Highway 3 coming from Vancouver to the southern part of Boundary-Similkameen, along with the Coquihalla Highway, will be filled with people coming to invest, to live and to enjoy their lives in the greatest place — I agree with the member opposite — of Boundary-Similkameen.

MR. BARLEE: I concur with some of the statements the member opposite has made. The grape industry has rebounded to a degree. However, I think the major problems still remain. We still have an inordinately high unemployment rate — 20,000 workers out of work, and the answers are not short-term jobs, part-time jobs or $5-an-hour jobs. The answer is a long-term strategy, which we have not had in the Okanagan for a decade or more. We still have a problem with the tree-fruits industry. Despite the Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority, most of the orchardists think it may be a bit of a sideshow. It may

[ Page 11906 ]

be smoke and mirrors. It may not be, but it's certainly late in the game for many of these orchardists who have been struggling for over a decade.

We haven't made any moves to dull the negative impact of the free trade agreement. Certainly taxes are still high, and it goes on and on.

Perhaps our most interesting wave of the future is tourism. I believe that a long-term strategy in tourism is necessary. I don't see any evidence of a long-term strategy. It's the number one business in the world, and we don't have a long-term strategy, The budget for tourism is $25 million a year, and this government took an extra $25 million and put it into Music '91. Well, that's a one-shot item. I think that money would have been better spent in the areas where it was really needed, with locals who understand the tourism problems.

Both of us come from the area, and both of us are quite familiar with it. Quite often we agree, and sometimes we disagree. We are both from the city of Penticton. I was there from 1984 to 1986 as curator of the museum. I was in contact with some of the tourism officials in Portland, Oregon, which is a large city not too far distant from the Okanagan. They had a little sternwheeler down there they called the City of Portland, and they thought it was marvellous. So I sent them a photograph of the SS Sicamous, which is probably the most magnificent sternwheeler in the entire northwest. It's intact, and it has been there for 75 years. Don't compare it with the Moyie. I like the Moyie, but there's no comparison. I can go over it bit by bit with you.

The answer I got from the city of Portland was this: "We think your sternwheeler is magnificent. We had never heard of it before. By the way," they said — their last words, "where is Penticton?" That's because we do not have a tourism strategy.

If any area requires a long-term and coherent tourism strategy, it's ours. We have virtually everything. We have the abandoned rights-of-way. We have a classic right-of-way from the old KVR with trestles and bridges — some of them several hundred feet long over a span of about four and a half miles. We have the SS Sicamous; we have the desert country; we have old mining towns which are still standing.

[10:45]

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

THE STATE OF POLITICS

MR. BRUMMET: Unaccustomed as I am to following a pre-prepared script, in the interests of time I will try to do so today.

One of the essential elements of our society is some form of government; another is some form of leadership. Without these essential elements, we would flounder in all directions, achieve very little order and make no common or societal progress.

As anthropologists and historians piece together the early evolution of human beings, they find that their survival and progress was dependent on some form of social organization. People developed an order, accepted or selected leaders and acknowledged the decisions made by those leaders. The leaders achieved their positions by virtue of some accepted prowess or leadership qualities, and they retained their leadership roles as long as they were supported by the majority. This structure has continued through the ages to the present time.

The accepted leadership qualities have changed — as an example, from raw physical power to social and intellectual strengths, although some remnants of physical power to determine leadership still persist. As our society has grown in numbers, each leader increasingly represented more people. In most societies we have a form of representative government.

Today, whether it be in clubs and organizations or at the municipal, regional, provincial or federal levels, we need some form of representative governance. We still select our representatives on the basis of leadership qualities. We select candidates because they have shown qualities such as honesty, integrity, social concern, initiative, good reasoning skills, intellectual capacity and good communication skills — among others. We select these candidates because we believe they have the necessary qualities to best represent us in leadership roles. But once they are elected, other than at the club or the organization level, we suddenly label them all "politicians" and treat them accordingly, whether they are elected to the government side or to the opposition side.

Progressively, our society then forgets the qualities which made them suitable candidates and tars them all with the same brush of derision. Suddenly they are generalized to be unthinking, uncaring, unresponsive and selfish. Newspaper columnists and open-mouth shows use a myriad of ways to express contempt for politicians in general. Snide remarks are standard procedure. Leadership per se, regardless of the individual involved, is in disrepute. With derogatory remarks a standard item in the news, is it any wonder that subsequent surveys show that people hold a low opinion of politicians in general?

I have no argument with any criticism where an individual is shown to be deserving of criticism, but I take umbrage at the generalizations that label all politicians as unworthy and uncaring. Undoubtedly, politicians "have brought some of this on themselves" through the actions of some. This has been further abetted by our protagonist system. Politicians make personal allegations and attacks on each other. Our media feel that there must be conflict or controversy inherent in a situation before it makes a good news item.

I should add that while in general our society denigrates its politicians, there are individuals who retain their faith in us as individuals. But even then they will subscribe to the view that politicians are not to be trusted — that they are "in it for themselves."

Members on both sides of the House are well aware of the personal and family sacrifices that any member makes to serve in this elected position. But whoever tells that part of the story.... If we allude to it ourselves, we are accused of whining and of having gone into the job knowingly. I submit that no one

[ Page 11907 ]

who runs as a candidate really knows in advance what this job entails, but they do learn to accept and adjust as required.

Yes, there are plus sides to this job: the broad learning experience, the opportunity to achieve results for people who need help, the travel involved, the people you meet, etc.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I want to refer to a recent column by Carol Goar, an editorial columnist. It was reprinted in several newspapers under the heading "Undermining Now an End in Itself." It was in reference to a speech by MP David MacDonald, and they made these points, among others:

"We may be too adversarial. Are politicians as a group really serving the country by taking sides on an issue driven by partisan objectives?

"Government critics, be they opposition MPs, interest groups, paid lobbyists or ordinary citizens, consider it their right to tear down everything that is placed before them, without worrying about the consequences or offering alternatives.

"Constructive criticism has its place in politics, but Members of Parliament and Canadians generally seem to have forgotten how to be constructive. Undermining those who govern us has become an end in itself."

Those comments express my thoughts better than I could do myself. I believe that we must have government, and consequently we must continue to elect representatives. As a society we must try to elect the best possible people and then perhaps retain some faith in them after they are elected — and in our own judgment in that regard.

Perhaps all of us as politicians could help to restore some faith in the system were we to place less emphasis on our partisan objectives and more on best serving the purpose for which we were elected. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will admit that I have played a partisan role in this House and that I have learned to give as good as I got. But I'll tell you, that was not one of the most appealing parts of my position.

Perhaps my views are idealistic, but certainly they offer more hope than the situation described in the preliminary report of the Spicer commission, which stated: "People are widely frustrated with their politicians." That serves no one well. From whence will come our future leaders, if anyone who achieves a position automatically becomes a personal target for the popular sport of undermining as an end in itself?

MR. ZIRNHELT: I'd like to start by thanking the hon. member for making his notes available so that we knew the high road he was going to take in his speech. I would like to reply in kind.

I got into politics because I thought it could be a better place to be, by allowing people to yank our chains, to force us to be accountable, and to feed ideas to us to make our society and our civilization a better place. But I think leadership is a two-way street.

We too feel that we are often called names and that politicians have gotten a bad name. But we feel that to make that better, we have to earn respect. I think that earning that respect means that we have to err on the side of doing what's right, doing what's honest.

One of the weaknesses we have as a culture, though, is that we have allowed leadership to be institutionalized. We haven't, in our institutions of parliament, taken leadership and said to the people: "You help us lead. We will share the power and influence." I think leadership is a two-way street. It's a constant process of saying to the people: "You take charge." When they say, "We can no longer take charge” or "We need government or a law," then they'll give us a mandate. Far too often we take our election as being a licence to do what we think should be done- and be accountable every four years — rather than seeing it as a mandate. Far too few things are developed. We have to emphasize that we need a process in and out of the Legislature to share information and to have the best possible information before we debate laws.

The fact that people feel they've lost control is a serious matter. I don't think it's an accident that the Spicer commission has reported that. I've made a lot of speeches recently about that and have gone through accountability sessions where I make myself available to answer the tough questions. There aren't that many tough questions. There are frustrations, but when you explain the other side, quite often people begin to see that other side. So we have to go out of our way to explain what we're doing. People don't want to be governed by public opinion polls, but when we tell them that this is a reflection of what they feel and that we're trying to respond to what they feel, then they react a little better. Problems occur when the right questions aren't framed and we get divisiveness. When leaders exploit those divisions instead of trying to collapse them and work on the common denominator....

There's been a lot of talk about the role of consensus — that if there isn't general agreement, then maybe on a lot of items we ought not to proceed and we should nurture the process of making sure that people get together and share common values, and reach some agreement on how government ought to proceed. That's the difference between governing by law and allowing the culture to govern the society. Culture represents shared values, and we have to talk about those values as they change and try to seek a common ground, because culture will always be stronger than laws, because in the end laws are coercive.

But it can't just be values; it has to be behaviour. People have to behave in accordance with the values they share. One way we can increase participation and confidence is to make what a former ombudsman has called a quantum leap in participation at all levels of society in those processes important to making decisions on what the government ought to do.

The other issue we have to be very careful of is majority versus minority rights — the whole idea of governing so that we don't run over the rights of the few by having some kind of a tyranny of the majority. We have to be very concerned about that when we

[ Page 11908 ]

talk about the rule of the majority. That's the delicate balancing we have to do in making judgments as elected leaders. That's not easy. But when people have explained to them that they might represent a minority view, as long as you respect that view, they will accept that maybe the majority will have to rule.

But I'd like to emphasize that it is critical that we see openness in our communication, openness in information, openness in process, and that when we teach our children in our schools, we encourage them to become educated as democratic citizens so that they have the feeling of effectiveness — that they can make a difference. They must learn those skills when they are growing up.

MR. BRUMMET: I've no problem with the comment of the member that we must earn respect. As individuals we earn that respect when we are selected as candidates. But once you are elected and called a politician.... Any show or column has derisive remarks about politicians. What happened to the qualities on the basis of which people selected us — on either side? They say: "They're all alike; they're all in it for themselves." What has changed those personal qualities?

I've always considered myself honest, but the general view is that because I'm a politician I can't possibly be honest. I take umbrage with that generalization. If I lie, then they have every right to attack me for my dishonesty. We're talking about individuals.

I have no problem with accountability. We should be held accountable, and we should be open. I've tried to do that myself as much as possible.

[11:00]

The member mentions that we should not rely on public opinion polls but that at the same time we must involve the public in every decision. In other words, we must elect our representatives and then have total town hall meetings to decide every issue. It might work. I have no problem with involving the public. But if public opinion polls are so bad, how can you say at the same time that we must ask the public on everything we do in terms of government?

I can't resist. When the member talked about majority and minority rights.... Yes, I think we always have to be cognizant of minority rights, even though we have to feel that the majority makes the decision. But ask any smoker about minority rights.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The opposition House Leader seeks leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. ROSE: I wish to make an introduction of 33 students and their teacher, Mr. Fuller, from Mary Hill Junior Secondary School in my riding. Would the House please make them welcome.

POLITICAL TRADITION IN
OAK BAY–GORDON HEAD

MS. CULL: I want to talk today about the people of Oak Bay–Gordon Head, their concerns and their traditions. Many people think they know Oak Bay–Gordon Head. They snicker about tweed curtains, crumpets and cricket and fall into the trap of the stereotype that many people think is Oak Bay–Gordon Head. But as a resident and as someone who has had the privilege of representing the people in this community since 1987, when I was first elected to the school board, I can tell you that while we too have some fun with the stereotypes, the reality of Oak Bay–Gordon Head is really very different.

To begin with, it's actually a series of small communities, including Oak Bay, Cadboro Bay village, the University of Victoria, the part of Saanich that is known as Gordon Head and, after the new boundaries come into effect, the rural part of the Blenkinsop Valley. All of these communities share one very important characteristic in common: they have a very strong independent streak in their thinking. They also share a dedication to the preservation of a style of life — a love of our residential areas, our trees, our beaches and our parks — and the determination to fight tooth and nail to preserve it and to improve it.

One well-known source frequently quoted by New Democrats — Gorde Hunter — described Oak Bay in this way, and I like to think it captures the entire tradition of Oak Bay–Gordon Head. Mr. Hunter said: "Whether deep thinkers know it or not, the actual hub of the universe is at a spot somewhere in Oak Bay village. More wisdom is probably spoken in those few short blocks than anywhere in the world, and certainly more common sense." Common sense — that's the characteristic I like about Oak Bay–Gordon Head. A practical approach to solving problems is the tradition in my community.

Oak Bay–Gordon Head is a conservative community — not in the big "C" partisan sense, but in terms of being cautious, suspicious about change for change's rake and wanting to know that those they've elected to represent them will think carefully before they make decisions. We're also looking for strong leadership that will protect our quality of life and for elected officials who really listen to us.

In the last 15 months I've spent many hours talking to people in the community, listening to their concerns and trying to find solutions to their problems. In a big urban riding like Oak Bay — and it's one of the most populous ridings in the province — it's difficult to be aware of all the issues and concerns out there. So I've tried to keep in touch with people by holding a number of neighbourhood meetings — 16 to date in the last year and a bit, with more scheduled. Through these meetings I've met hundreds of people and heard about almost every issue you can imagine. I want to touch on just three of these to illustrate a little bit about what Oak Bay–Gordon Head is all about.

[ Page 11909 ]

The environment continues to be a major concern for people in Oak Bay–Gordon Head, and sewage is their prime concern. We have beautiful beaches, and we want to be able to use them safely. More importantly, people in Oak Bay–Gordon Head want to act responsibly with respect to the environment. I've brought up this issue with the Minister of Environment from time to time both in this part of the session and last year. Both the current and the past ministers have sung the same refrain and said. "Clean it up yourselves; no special handouts." Well, the people in my community aren't looking for handouts, but we do expect to be treated fairly. Members on the other side seem to have forgotten that it wasn't too long ago that many municipalities in this province received 75-cent dollars to clean up their sewage problems.

But as I said, the people in Oak Bay–Gordon Head are practical, and we really don't have the patience to argue about what went before. What we do want to see from the provincial government on sewage treatment is a recognition of the problem, a timetable set out so that we'll know when we will have sewage treatment and a fair funding formula so that we can get on with sorting out the impact it's going to have on our taxes. We also want to know that the provincial government is going to go to bat for us with the federal. government and get some federal money to clean up our waters, as was done in the Great Lakes and in Halifax harbour.

Mr. Speaker, about 40 percent of the people in my riding have some university education. We know the value of education, and we're very concerned that our children have the best education possible. But it seems that this government has seriously misjudged my community's concern about education. Yesterday I heard the Minister Responsible for Women's Programs talking about how well this government has treated post-secondary education. I'd like to invite her out to the University of Victoria to talk to third- and fourth-year students who can't complete their degrees because they can't get the courses they need. I'd like to ask her to come to my high schools and talk to honour-roll students who can't get into university because there are no spaces for them.

Earlier this week 300 parents showed up at a meeting that the Greater Victoria School District held on its budget process. They made it clear that they hold this government responsible for the $14 million that has to be cut from the budget. Let me say again that we're not looking for handouts. We don't expect miracles, but we do expect a government that will get its spending priorities straight and recognizes that our children are our most important investment.

Oak Bay also owes a lot to its senior citizens. There are many senior citizens in Oak Bay–Gordon Head — over 20 percent of our residents are over 65 years old. Most weren't born here, but once we come here we don't leave. Why would we want to?

Seniors are feeling let down by this government. They can't understand why the government stalled so long on guaranteeing the future of the Victoria Health Project. Being practical, commonsense folk, they knew it worked, they knew it saved money, and they couldn't understand why we had to make it a national media issue before we got some action on it.

The true spirit of Oak Bay–Gordon Head was summed up beautifully by a parent at the meeting I mentioned earlier. Mr. John Minkley said: "Each of us came here to make a pitch for our own programs and ended up gaining respect for others. Let's work for our neighbours' children." That's the tradition in Oak Bay–Gordon Head: thinking through the problem and working together for a commonsense solution that makes everyone better off. That's the tradition I'm proud to serve in.

MR. COUVELIER: The subject matter is of such heavy content that I desperately would have appreciated the courtesy of an advance copy of the presentation so I might more adequately have responded to it. I notice that our side had that courtesy. Of course, the subject here deserves the full weight of serious debate. I'll do my best with the limited time I've had to respond.

Let me first of all say that I know Oak Bay well, having run as a candidate in that constituency more years ago than I care to remember. Let me also say that I've always felt an affinity for that marvellous part of greater Victoria.

I also must make the point that Oak Bay, like so many other of our smaller communities in greater Victoria, has a unique ambience and sense of place which tends to sometimes work against the development of coherent land use policies and coherent, coordinated public policy issues. That's not a criticism; it merely is a statement of fact. Somehow or other, we must find ways to properly promote our small pocket communities to more effectively relate with each other to deal with some of the larger regional issues.

That is a goal that has eluded previous governments, including the NDP government of the seventies, so I don't imagine it will be solved overnight. Nevertheless, it is a problem that does need some addressing and solution. I suspect that solution will only come through the active participation and leadership of locally elected members. I'm delighted to hear the hon. member opposite feels such a sense of pride for that marvellous jewel of greater Victoria.

She confused me a little bit, though, with some of her comments. For example, she makes the point that Oak Bay is famous for its strong leadership, and I certainly agree with that. I'd like to remind the hon. member that, prior to her election at least, the constituency was very adequately led and represented by a number of people from the other side of the political spectrum. If strong leadership is a characteristic of Oak Bay, I just have to make the point that the characteristic is obviously attributed to members of a different political philosophy than that held by the member opposite.

I'm referring, of course, to David Groos, Scott Wallace, Frances Elford, Allan Cox — so many capable, bright people from Oak Bay who have made such a useful contribution to provincial growth.

[ Page 11910 ]

I was struck by the members comments about Oak Bay's overpowering interest in the environment. Of course, that's true universally. She makes the point that sewage is a prime concern of Oak Bay residents. I'm delighted to understand and hear that, because it's always struck me as a little bit anomalous that Oak Bay transferred their sewage to Clover Point in Victoria.

She makes the point that Oak Bay is not interested in handouts, but obviously they still have an abiding interest in hand-offs to other jurisdictions. I would suspect that if sewage is such a big issue, it might be more helpful were the residents of these communities to apply themselves to local remedies rather than attempting to hand-off to other jurisdictions to finance and to consume it in some way.

She also commented about her desire for more provincial and federal money in the area of sewage, and I'm delighted that this side of the House has consistently brought forward expanding dollar amounts and dollar envelopes for the purpose of local communities dealing with their Sewage problems. Oak Bay is merely part of the greater Victoria sewage problem, and Oak Bay, obviously, must be part of the solution. But I find it a bit strange for Oak Bay to beat their breasts with pride and claim that they had this overriding interest in the subject, when in fact they failed to deal with it at home — as have had other jurisdictions.

May I also comment a little on the comments the hon. member made about education. Oak Bay certainly has not been shortchanged in the area of education funding. My goodness, Oak Bay has the University of Victoria in its environs. Oak Bay is one of those municipalities that have been the most adequately served of any part of the province in the field of education. The hon. member knows — as do I — that some of the quality high schools in B.C. are located in Oak Bay — and the entire K-to-12 system. I'm sure the hon. member is as proud of those students' accomplishments as I am and every greater Victorian is. It's a bit difficult for us to accept your argument that more needs to be done for Oak Bay in the area of education — at least no more than elsewhere in the province.

MS. CULL: I want to begin by assuring the people in the House that I'm sure the hon. member opposite was not intending to ignore the 60 percent of my riding which is in Gordon Head, not in the municipality of Oak Bay.

I also want to comment on the traditional representation of this riding over time. If I look back over the records of elected members from Oak Bay–Gordon Head, I believe there was really only one member of the Social Credit Party who was not mentioned by the member, and that is the former MLA, Brian Smith.

[11:15]

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

I want to return to my theme of the political tradition in Oak Bay–Gordon Head. People in Oak Bay-Gordon Head make their political decisions in the same way they make all their other decisions: they use common sense, not ideology. They want a government that listens to them and reflects their values, a government that will put seniors' health care and children's education above political advertising, or senseless and costly privatization schemes, or handouts to friends in the guise of economic development grants. They want a government they can count on to treat them fairly, a government that has one standard for everyone — not one for its friends and another for the rest of us. They want a government that has fairness at the heart of its economic policies, one that will actually provide economic equality for the women in our community — not simply talk about it. They want a government that will think ahead, set priorities, carry out its work and then evaluate it. You know, Mr. Speaker, regardless of what they say on the other side, planning isn't a bad word in my community.

They want a government that will set tough pollution standards and not change them just because of one telephone call. They also want a government that has high standards for cabinet ministers. They want a government they can trust to have high levels of conduct, not one that gives them a new scandal every week. They want a government that will act responsibly and bring in a budget that will do the people's business and not just run away when the going gets tough.

Mr. Speaker, the people in Oak Bay–Gordon Head don't expect miracles, but we do expect to be treated fairly and openly. We don't want to be embarrassed and patronized by this government any longer. That's why people in Oak Bay–Gordon Head respect Brian Smith. He walked away from this government and what it has come to represent. And that's why people in Oak Bay–Gordon Head are starting to listen to the Leader of the Opposition. They've come to see that they can count on him to share their values and reflect their priorities in his government. That's why Oak Bay–Gordon Head elected a New Democrat in 1989, and that's why they're going to help elect a New Democrat government in 1991.

URBAN TRANSIT

MR. LOENEN: One of the finest achievements of our Social Credit government has been the great people-moving system known as SkyTrain. Increasingly, we are learning to appreciate the foresight that that represented. It was a daring step, but it has proven to be correct.

I had the opportunity to visit Calgary, Seattle and Portland, because I'm on the advisory committee that is currently looking at the rapid transit link between Richmond and Vancouver. We can be truly proud of our system, if you compare, for instance, the ridership that our SkyTrain has attracted to the systems of the cities mentioned. I'd just like to mention the figures. The New West SkyTrain currently has 105,000 passenger-trips per day during the week. Compare

[ Page 11911 ]

this to: Los Angeles, 19,000; Edmonton, 20,000; San Diego, 28,000; Pittsburgh, 30,000; Buffalo, 31,000.

In addition to the fact that it carries more passengers, and that its convenient, safe, dependable and environmentally friendly, it is also economical. If we compare it, for instance, to the Portland system, the per-passenger-trip cost is $1.05 (U.S.). On our buses under the B.C. transit system, it's in excess of $2 (Canadian). The operating per-passenger cost for the SkyTrain system is a mere 33 cents.

That shows that that particular technology and that particular system, even though it is a large initial investment, will continue to be a very profitable and reasonably priced — in fact, cheap — form of transportation for years and years to come.

My community in Richmond is a fast-growing community. There is tremendous pressure there. We know that the road system is plugged. We know that adding more bridges and laying down more asphalt and concrete is not the answer. In fact, a recent survey done by Marktrend showed that 75 percent of the people interviewed — both in my community and across the river in Vancouver — said no to that.

Compare this to the support for a new rapid transit link. In my community the support is 94 percent. In Vancouver the support is 77 percent, and that is a survey done of people who live between Main and Arbutus. That is to say, in the neighbourhoods that will be most directly affected, 77 percent are favourable to the idea of building rapid transit. In fact, 77 percent say that we need it, and we need it now.

The city of Vancouver has so far, at least officially, been less than supportive of the idea of building a rapid transit link to Richmond. The mayor has suggested that we look at improving our bus system, indeed, B.C. Transit has commissioned a study to look at how we can improve the bus system, how we can add more buses, how we can have dedicated lanes and how we can get the most out of buses. But we know that is not a long-term solution.

If you consider the fact that our SkyTrain can handle the equivalent of 12 lanes of freeway, it is very evident that more buses cannot begin to compare to the volume the SkyTrain system can handle.

In addition to that, we have to fight pollution. We know that private automobiles and, indeed, the diesel buses that we use are great polluters not only of the air, but also of the water because of the surface runoff. Buses will merely add to the congestion. It's insufficient to do the job.

The technical people will tell us that it is 40 percent easier for people to move out of their private vehicles into a rail-based system than into a bus system. In other words, people are not inclined to move out of their cars into a bus, but they will, to a much greater extent, leave their cars for a rail-based system.

It has been suggested that somehow this particular transit line would benefit the commuters in Richmond only. That's not true, Mr. Speaker. Studies indicate that 40 percent of the ridership would be within the city of Vancouver, so it's not only for the commuters.

It has been suggested that somehow the whole notion and commitment to build this system by the year 1996 is an attempt by the Premier to favour his own riding. Again, it's wrong; it's factually incorrect.

In 1989 there was a GVRD study, together with the province and headed by Mike O'Connor, which had public hearings all over the region. It was a very intensive study and very in-depth. They came out with the recommendation that great priority be given to an extension of the system into Richmond. In fact, the city of Vancouver followed through on that recommendation by endorsing it within a month of the date the report became public.

I notice my time is up, Mr. Speaker. I'll be happy to continue after.

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed listening to the remarks from my friend the second member for Richmond, and I must say that it was rather nice to watch the member speak with a smile on his face about what he perceives to be good news. Certainly the last few times we have witnessed him in his role as caucus chairman for the Social Credit Party, he has looked rather under the gun, to put it mildly. So it's nice to see him talking and feeling good about doing so.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

The matter of SkyTrain is controversial, to put the matter charitably. What I think we need to establish very clearly at the outset is that, yes indeed, the municipality of Richmond ought to have some kind of rapid transit connection with Vancouver and with the rest of the lower mainland. The real issue, though, is whether SkyTrain itself is the appropriate technology. That's what I think we do need to pose some questions about.

Let me just start by drawing the member for Richmond's attention to the fact that the statistics about ridership aren't entirely attributable to the technology of SkyTrain. They're attributable to the fact that a decision was made a very long time ago that Vancouver would not be a freeway city comparable to, say, Seattle or Los Angeles. What has happened is that those roads, as the member quite correctly pointed out, are congested and clogged. Anything that will get people out of their cars in that whole lower mainland region will be in considerable demand, and thus SkyTrain's supposed great success story.

There are two problems with SkyTrain. First, let's not forget what the initial costs were. We're talking about an overrun in excess of $700 million. That makes the Coquihalla look like a good business deal, doesn't it? Ask yourself, Mr. Speaker, what the interest payment on that is per annum. We're still paying for that. So about SkyTrain, economically, you've got to pose some questions.

What about the efficiency question? Efficiency in terms of SkyTrain also has to be called into question

[ Page 11912 ]

when you consider the events of this past winter. How many of the trains got stuck? How many of the trains scared the living whatever out of their riders by not being able to stop, going through two different stations and finally coming to rest in a snowbank? This technology, which we bought from eastern Canada, proved to be not entirely compatible with winter conditions.

Clearly we've got to pose a few questions about the advisability of extending SkyTrain — the same technology, another area, another direction. Of course, the reasoning behind that marvellous decision not to worry too much about SkyTrain's ability to deal with snow was that, after all, it never snows in B.C. We don't have to worry about that in Vancouver, the lower mainland, Surrey and New Westminster, so therefore we won't worry about making sure the technology is compatible with winter conditions. Lunacy writ large.

I think it's safe to say that my friend from Richmond is not really here to talk about the technology of SkyTrain and about transportation and the large issues surrounding it. Rather, what he wants to do is make very sure he gets onside with the 94 percent of the people in his constituency who are pushing very rapidly to ensure that there is a rapid transit link to Richmond. We sympathize on this side of the House. We would also ensure that Richmond is well served, as it ought to be.

[11:30]

The question, however, I would point out again, is whether the appropriate technology is SkyTrain. Remember it had a checkered history. Remember that there is a suggestion that SkyTrain was purchased in order to lever dollars from the federal government, and the condition from the federal government was that you had to buy that Ontario-based technology despite the fact that there were apparently other, better, perhaps cheaper technologies available. So SkyTrain's story, with all due deference and respect to my friend from Richmond, is not entirely a happy little story of success.

MR. LOENEN: It is a delight to hear that the NDP will support this great initiative to build a system that will move people, preserve neighbourhoods, bring densification to our communities, that will indeed be.... There are so many positives associated with it. I want to say to the member that he casts a lot of aspersions on that great Canadian product, the SkyTrain technology. Mr. Member, you mentioned the sum of $750 million, and you said that it was a lot of money. Yes, it is a lot of money. If we use that type of technology, if we use the SkyTrain system, 80 cents out of every dollar — 80 percent of that sum — will be spent in B.C. creating job opportunities for British Columbians using British Columbia products.

This is not merely an expenditure. This is a great investment to, first of all, create jobs and secondly, create communities that are livable, where people have an opportunity to travel without endangering the environment of their neighbourhoods.

I know that the discussions will probably go on, and that's fine. To pick holes in the system because of some delays for a few days because of snow and frost.... We've learned from that; we'll straighten that out. I wonder how many of us who have private cars were inconvenienced because of winter conditions.

The member for Coquitlam said that we ought to be spending money on the extension into Coquitlam. I want to quote from an article in the Province on February 11: "Despite all this evidence, a number of Vancouver city councillors still insist the next rapid transit line should go to Coquitlam. They should put aside their parochial concerns and consider that an estimated 45,000 Richmondites head out to work every morning, and of those 45,000, 13 percent head to downtown Vancouver. A further 22 percent go to other destinations than Vancouver. From Coquitlam, a comparable 49,000 hit the road, but only 9 percent head downtown and 16 percent end their trip within the Vancouver boundary."

The truth is that there are more commuters going into the downtown Vancouver area from Richmond than from any of the neighbouring municipalities. This initiative and this promise by this government to deliver is based on need, not because it's the Premier's riding.

Hon. Mrs. Gran tabled the forty-ninth annual report of the Pension (Teachers) Act and the fifty-fifth annual report of the Pension (Public Service) Act.

Hon. Mr. Veitch tabled the annual reports for the Ministry of International Business and Immigration for the year ended March 31, 1989, and for the year ended March 31, 1990.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, this being private members' day, I wish to call Bill M202.

CLEAN ENVIRONMENT ENFORCEMENT ACT

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Speaker, it's a real pleasure to have a private member's bill called in this House. I'm very pleased and grateful to have this opportunity during this term — having been elected in 1986 — to finally have an opposition bill debated in the House.

As you know, I — along with my colleagues — have introduced a number of bills in this House dealing with the subject of sustainable development, a concept that is affirmed by both sides of the House. Taken as an array of measures, those sustainable development bills relate to a program to bring about a new era of response to environmental concern for the province of British Columbia.

We all know that if we accept the common ground that is contained within the Brundtland report, that is contained within the concept of sustainable development and a sustainable environment, that that common ground relates to the future of our children and to their children. It relates to the future of those we hope would have an opportunity in another generation, in another age, to participate and have a decent

[ Page 11913 ]

standard of living, an opportunity for sustainable jobs and to have the enjoyment of a healthy environment where we would know that waterways would not be damaged and, indeed, that the process would have begun which would clean them up, and that the air that goes out into the airsheds of our communities would cease to be contaminated with NOx and S0x and other kinds of emissions that we know affect the health and safety of our people and can cause tremendous costs in our health care system when those matters are not attended to. We know that in the concept of sustainable development we have to find a common ground at a level that downplays the partisan aspect and promotes an approach in which we enable all people to be part of developing the solution.

In introducing the first of the 11 bills that I have introduced, the Clean Environment Enforcement Act, I seek to address a number of issues that urgently need attention in this province. The first initiative of this bill would be to rename the Waste Management Act and call it the Clean Environment Enforcement Act so that the intent and goal would be very clear, and to bring that more in line with the purpose in the context of sustainable development. It would provide for effective monitoring of pollution and toxic spills.

I know that the Minister of Environment, who is listening very carefully, in going to cabinet and in seeking to be an advocate for the environment — which is his role — has to deal with the problems that a government has in seeking to balance a budget. He has to argue passionately on behalf of what he believes is needed in order to provide the protection that's needed for our environment in this day and age so that we will indeed have a sustainable future. I know that that minister understands that in a very real sense we do not serve our province well when we set up a duality between economy and environment, for instance. When we set that up as a duality, we create a false debate and we start to promote the idea that jobs are at odds with environmental protection, or that one part of society is against another part of society in terms of an urgent issue.

But I know that that minister understands that at the very basis they are not at odds — that indeed it is a sustainable environment which makes it possible to create the conditions that enable a healthy economy to continue to function and to hope to be able to function effectively for future generations. Therefore I know that when the Minister of Environment goes into that cabinet room and argues on behalf of the environment, he goes there and argues those points. I know that the minister seeks to approach his position as an advocate for the environment and that he seeks to encourage the understanding within the cabinet chamber of that reality. I know that in doing so he has his work cut out for him.

AN HON. MEMBER: How do you know that?

MR. CASHORE: I know that because this government has....

HON. MR. SERWA: On a point of order, I've enjoyed listening to the hon. member opposite, my critic of the environment. He says a lot of good things, and I think we share common objectives in that particular area. But in listening to the speaker — and I noted his statement that this bill would require the fighting of cabinet for funds.... Perusing the bill, I note that in section 4 — pretty well throughout the section — it calls for expenditures on the part of the Crown. That clearly calls for an impost on the part of government, and clearly with the parameters of a private member's bill, this bill is in fact out of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. The bill is out of order.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I would like to move to government business and call committee on Bill 92.

TAXPAYER PROTECTION ACT

The House in committee on Bill 92; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

MR. SIHOTA: I want to make some comments with respect to section 2 of this legislation. I want to talk a little bit about what's included and not included in this section, and I want to talk about some of the hypocrisy one can find in this section.

First of all, I want to point out that it's somewhat hypocritical for this administration to be bringing forward this particular section in light of its record over the past few years. I think it would be instrumental, in commencing debate on this section, to point out just what this government has done with respect to tax increases and to point out the tax unfairness it is freezing by implementing this section.

The point here is that over the past few years this government has consistently altered and adjusted the tax system to place more and more burdens on the ordinary working people of this province and has shifted the burden away from those who can afford to pay. By bringing this provision before the House, the minister is now freezing that tax unfairness.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: No, the point here isn't to increase it; the point here is to make sure that there's an element of fairness in what's being proposed by the administration. I know that point is lost on the Premier, who would rather heckle than enter the debate on this matter. If he wishes to debate, he should get up on his feet, rather than heckle.

[11:45]

Mr. Speaker, since this administration came into power in 1986, we have seen the imposition of 784 different fee increases. That's everything from driv-

[ Page 11914 ]

ers' licences, which have gone up 150 percent; to extended-care fees for seniors, which have gone up 27 percent; to marriage licences, which have gone up 150 percent. What this move does is freeze tax increases — for example, those 784 fee increases that this administration has brought in. In addition, what this section does is freeze the 229 new fee increases brought in by this administration. In other words, since this administration has been in power — in the 1,200 or so days it has been in — it has brought in a fee increase just about every day. It has brought in about 1,000 fee increases.

What it has further done with respect to personal income tax.... In the first budget it brought down in 1987, this government raised personal income rates from 44 percent to 51.5 percent of the basic federal tax payable, while cutting the surcharge on high-income earners. What this government has done through that provision is freeze that tax unfairness — the unfairness of a system that increased taxes to the average person in British Columbia from a rate of 44 percent to 51.5 percent of the basic federal tax payable and at the same time cut the surcharge on high-income-earners. Income taxes paid by British Columbians have increased by a whopping 64 percent since 1987. I don't want to jump to other sections of the bill, but that outstrips the 42 percent growth in the provincial economy over the same period.

British Columbians are now paying $1.4 billion per year more in income taxes than they did when this government took office; $1.4 billion more is coming out of the paycheques and wallets of British Columbians. That's what this government has done to this province since 1986. With that kind of record, it's clear why British Columbians are asking for a change in government. They cannot support a government which has increased the burden to the average-income-earner in this province and at the same time provided a cut in the surcharge on high-income-earners.

More importantly, the provincial government, in its activities in the last five years, has implemented large increases in Medical Services Plan premiums. They were introduced in the government budgets of 1988 and 1989. It now costs British Columbians approximately $200 million in additional premium payments each year. Interestingly, not covered here by the freeze is the matter of MSP premiums. That, of course, begs the obvious question as to why the minister chose not to freeze the premiums under the Medical Service Act. On the one hand, it has institutionalized tax unfairness; on the other hand, it has left the situation open whereby MSP premiums can be increased, notwithstanding the provisions of this legislation.

In my first question with respect to section 2, which places a tax rate freeze, I'd like to ask the minister why no provision was made for medical service premiums and to impose a freeze under the provisions of the Medical Service Act.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Again, the member is wrong. He's resorting to rhetoric — because of television, I believe — in order to attempt to delude the unwary, to delude the people who are watching television. With great respect, it follows a line of debate that this member has carried on in this House ever since he has been here. He hasn't learned very much. He talks about double standards, and really and truly, I would not want that member ever debating a double standard with anyone.

MR. LOVICK: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, we are ostensibly debating a tax measure. Every time the Minister of Finance stands up to speak, he proceeds to engage in character assassination. Surely, in a civilized House, we ought to abide by the basic rules of decorum and decency. I suggest that the minister's remarks are entirely uncalled for. Let's get on with the business, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, if the Minister of Finance had any improper intention, I'm sure he would apologize and withdraw that statement.

HON. MR. VEITCH: If I've made any aspersions that are improper against anyone, I would certainly withdraw them, but I don't want anyone telling me, Mr. Chairman, about character assassination. That bunch over there wrote the book on character assassination.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew was talking about our taxes being higher in British Columbia. That's not true. We have among the lowest taxes of any place in Canada — we're either number one or number two. We would have the lowest tax rates in all of Canada if it were not for Alberta, which has no sales tax whatsoever.

I want to tell you: we have the lowest small business tax. They keep talking about business people. Believe me, Mr. Chairman, if I have to say this over and over again, I will: any small business person who would put themselves in the hands of those people would be like a chicken going over to Colonel Sanders looking for help. I can tell you that right now. We have the lowest small business tax in the country.

Also, NDP governments have been notorious in bringing in payroll taxes, a tax on payroll, a direct tax on the ability to employ people to work in positions. The Manitoba government went right ahead and did it. The government of Ontario — the only socialist government in all of Canada at the present time — has a payroll tax. There are no payroll taxes in British Columbia — none whatsoever. Nor do we intend to bring in any.

You know, ours is among the lowest personal income taxes in all of Canada. We're much lower than the province of Ontario. The member talked about MSP premiums and the fact that they had increased. The policy has been for years — and that dates back to previous governments, to the one previous socialist government that we had in this province from 1972 to December 1975, when they called an election in the dead of winter — to set the MSP premiums at 50 percent of the cost of MSP. In this province right

[ Page 11915 ]

now, today, we are lower than 50 percent. Through good fiscal and financial management, we have set about keeping the taxes lower.

This section we're looking at — section 2 of the bill — goes one step further. It says that we are not going to allow these taxes to increase at a rate that the economy cannot afford. So we're freezing the rates on all of these taxes, sir. We're saying that the people out there don't have deep enough pockets to pay for socialism. We're saying that the people out there simply do not have the money — within the period that we're speaking of in this bill — to give government more from their pockets. So, under this bill, we're setting about to freeze a whole host of taxes — in fact, the principal taxes that this government levies.

Mr. Chairman, this is a good section; this is a good bill. 1 noted that in unison, in aggregate, the other side just yesterday stood up and voted for this bill, and now we have the hon. member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew saying: "No, it's no good. You have done something in the past, and you may do something in the future." This bill in law, in statute, freezes taxes for the first time in British Columbia. It is forward-looking administration from a forward-looking Social Credit government. It is a type of thinking that has kept Social Credit in power most of the time since 1952 and that, I know, will influence the people in the future.

Mr. Chairman, we did not increase the MSP premiums last year. So the hon. member is not speaking correctly when he addresses those issues.

MR. BARLEE: The question on this side of the House, after listening to the minister, is if this bill really protects the consumer. After examining the evidence and the exclusions, I don't think it will. Does this legislation really intend to protect the consumer? I don't think it does.

A case in point is the provincial tax on gasoline. The provincial gasoline tax is probably the most Draconian tax in British Columbia. It's also the most common tax, and it very effectively removes $450 million a year from every consumer in British Columbia. The total is $450 million a year; that's over $1 million a day. Every time someone fills up with about 40 litres, they pay $5 directly to the provincial government.

What is the government actually doing about the gas tax? Are they rolling it back under this legislation? No, they aren't. Are they going to freeze it? No, they aren't. So what are they going to do? Under this legislation, they're actually going to increase the gas tax in British Columbia, and we have the second-highest rate in Canada. Our provincial gas tax is higher than in every other province with the exception of Quebec. So you're going to draw $1.25 million every day, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 30 days a month and 365 days a year. I think it's a bit of sleight of hand; I think it's smoke and mirrors. The question is: why do you neglect to include a Draconian tax like the gasoline fuel tax in your legislation?

HON. MR. VEITCH: To the second member for Boundary-Similkameen, I'd like to remind the hon. member that consumers are also taxpayers, and taxpayers are consumers. That's why we are freezing these rates.

Our gasoline tax is tied to the wholesale price of gasoline, and it has been consistently tied at 22.5 percent of the wholesale price. Gasoline prices are coming down in the province of British Columbia. In aggregate, they are decreasing because the world price of oil is coming down.

I want to tell you that we have one of the best and most extensive highway systems through some of the most difficult terrain anywhere in all of Canada. We maintain good highways. We have announced a Freedom to Move initiative that's going to build more highways.

Hon. member, if you examine this bill and this particular section, you will find that in fact we are freezing taxes, and there are some areas that follow up and down with the marketplace. The wholesale price of gasoline in British Columbia has been declining, and by all appearances it will continue to decline. Gasoline prices are indeed dropping in the province of British Columbia.

[12:00]

MR. BARLEE: What the minister has said, after about three or four minutes of dialogue, is that they are not reducing the gas tax. They are not leaving the gas tax the same, but in 250 hours the gas tax in British Columbia goes up again to the second-highest level in Canada. That is the essence of the point. In other words, out of the 40 cents we pay in Vancouver, over 12 cents goes the province and over 12 cents goes to the feds — about 60 percent of that price goes to the two senior levels of government. I don't think it's good enough; that is not consumer protection.

HON. MR. VEITCH: For the hon. member for Boundary-Similkameen, the percentage of gas tax remains the same. As the price of gasoline at the wholesale level drops, so does the tax that government collects. Taxes to government on gasoline, by the very fact that wholesale prices are dropping, are being reduced. In fact, the government is taking in less money now than it did a few weeks ago on gasoline prices. It's tied to 22.5 percent of the wholesale price of gasoline. So I'm afraid that argument simply does not hold either gasoline or water.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just before we continue, hon. members, the member for Alberni has asked leave to make an introduction. I wouldn’t deny him this on such a beautiful day. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

MR. G. JANSSEN: I would like the House to help me welcome, on this last day of the House and on this very important date, 40 grade 11 and 12 students from my old alma mater, Alberni District Secondary

[ Page 11916 ]

School, and their teacher, Mr. Rick Chase, to the House.

MR. SIHOTA: It's wonderful to see that there are young people from Alberni here. I hope they'll stick around, because they'll get to see their wonderful, stellar, first-class MLA in action in a few minutes. Stick around. This guy is great.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's all the commercial time allowed.

MR. SIHOTA: That's it for commercials. I want to return to the line of questioning I started with the Minister of Finance. Under this legislation, you have frozen, for example, the Horse Racing Tax Act, but you have not frozen premiums payable under the Medical Service Act. Why?

HON. MR. VEITCH: I've just explained to the hon. member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew that for years and years — and I believe under the previous NDP government — it was the policy of government to hold MSP premiums — the fees we get for the Medical Services Plan — at 50 percent of the cost of MSP. Today, our rates are presently less than 50 percent of the cost of MSP.

We did not increase taxes. We did not increase the impost. It's not a tax; it's a fee. We did not increase the impost on MSP last year, and we have not increased it this year. It is constant. We are now paying less individually in MSP premiums than we did last year at this time.

The costs of medical services have risen. There's no question about that. All you have to do is go through the documentation tabled in this House, and you will readily ascertain that people in British Columbia are paying less, on a percentage basis, than they paid last year.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Minister, the argument with respect to policy and the level of premiums or taxes can be made with any statute covered here. You've made a conscious decision not to include the provisions of the Medical Service Act under this legislation. Would you not agree with me that, by not including the Medical Service Act in this section, you leave the door open for increases in medical service premiums? Yes or no?

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Chairman, I believe I've answered that question. This will be the third time. I'm prepared to go on and do it again. We're presently charging less than policy that has been in place for a long time. There is no indication, at this time, that we intend to increase taxes on people. In fact, we shouldn't be dealing with things that are not in this section, Mr. Chairman, with great respect. We should be dealing with items that are in this section.

You will note that a whole host of things, including horses, are included. The horse-racing industry is, in fact, a very important industry to a lot of people in British Columbia. We are freezing the following under this act: the Corporation Capital Tax Act; the Fire Services Act; the Horse Racing Tax Act; the Hotel Room Tax Act, which will help with our tourism industry; the Income Tax Act, which affects every British Columbian — we are already among the lowest in Canada, and we're still going to freeze income tax; the Insurance Premium Tax Act; the Logging Tax Act; the Mineral Tax Act; the Mineral Land Tax Act; the Mining Tax Act, the Property Purchase Tax Act; and the Social Service Tax Act — the rate we charge on social services covered by the Social Service Tax Act at a store or any place in British Columbia.

As a result of this section in this legislation, consumers can now go forward assured that those rates will not be increased. We are freezing the tax rate for British Columbians. It's the first time it's ever happened.

If you are looking for examples, you better start looking to the only socialist regime that exists in Canada. They are going to come in with a host of taxes, I predict, in this next budget that will make even you blush, sir. We are taking the only responsible way out for these times in which we live. The taxpayer simply cannot afford to have government grow bigger and bigger and bigger. By the very fact that we are freezing tax rates in this act, we are helping those people out there who are working, and those who are not working, to meet their mortgage payments, pay for their children's education, even pay for their medical premiums.

This is a humanitarian act. This is a responsible act for this point in time in history. This is an act that I dare your friends in Ontario to even bring in — faced with the terrible mess that they've got themselves into in that province.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, I would urge everyone to support section 2 for all of the reasons that we've heard from the minister responsible. But also I'm reminded of an article that I read in the Globe and Mail about a week ago, where a business person was addressing a major audience in Toronto. The quote was something to the effect that Ontario had suffered tremendously in part because high taxes were driving business and people out of the province. As well, those seeking to invest, to start new business, to expand on existing business, were looking at places other than Ontario because of their extremely high tax rates.

I think we owe it to all of the workers in this province — and those who might be moving here from Ontario, and there are thousands of them — that we provide them some haven in this country where they can invest with the knowledge that if they do invest and expand or grow or establish a new business to employ hundreds of people, they won't be driven out or punished through high and increasing taxes.

This will be a tremendous attraction. This will bring business to communities in the Cariboo, Port Alberni, the Kootenays, the lower mainland — particularly, however, the outlying regions in the province, which often are so dependent on single industries.

[ Page 11917 ]

People from other provinces, other parts of the continent, people looking to invest from the Pacific Rim or Europe, will look to this province as a model, as an example. They'll be comparing the tax rates here to those in other provinces or other jurisdictions. But they'll see as well a piece of legislation which is a first in this country, where a government has dared to go forth and say that for three years all tax rates will be frozen; we'll control the amount of budget; we'll balance the budget over the five-year term. All of that has never been spelled out anywhere in this country or on this continent, to my knowledge.

I would urge all members, particularly those whom we've heard from so far: if you're concerned about those jobs in Esquimalt, if you're concerned about the people keeping their jobs, if you're concerned about attracting new industries to those communities elsewhere in the province so dependent on new industries coming in, if you're concerned about the workers, if you're concerned about the shopkeepers and small business in all of those places, then support this section.

We can use the jobs. We need those jobs, and not only for our own British Columbians — those that are working, to give them security, those who might be unemployed, to find that opportunity which is so necessary and so deserved by them. Think as well about those many wonderful people that have decided to make British Columbia their home and are moving here in droves such as we've never seen before — from other provinces, most especially Ontario. You know, the old saying goes: in Ontario now — and I've said it before — if you see hitchhikers, they're prepared to go either way. They don't care anymore. They want to get out. Really, these people too deserve that opportunity.

This province will provide them that opportunity. We'll attract that business; we'll see business expansion; we'll make those jobs available. I want us, this government, to continue with the record which is second to none anywhere in this country, where we've created consistently more new jobs than any other province. In fact, at one point last year, with only 12 percent of the population, we produced practically half of all the new jobs in the whole of Canada. That's a phenomenal record. That's something we must be extremely proud of.

This type of progressive legislation, a first in the country, and this section particularly, will ensure that we stay number one, and that this province will be the best place in the country.

MR. SIHOTA: I suspect that somehow those will be the last words we'll hear from the commander as he leads his troops into retreat without so much as bringing forward interim supply for this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Chair has allowed considerable leeway, but one should be relevant to section 2, pursuant to standing order 61.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Chairman, that was second reading debate that we had from the Premier.

My question to the Minister of Finance is not a skill-testing question, and I'd like a yes or no answer. You talked earlier about the horse-racing tax measures being important to people. You're right. But so are the medical services premiums very important to people. Would you not agree that by not putting in a provision here with respect to the Medical Services Act, this allows the government to proceed with an increase in medical services premiums? Yes or no.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Chairman, I explained to the hon. member the other day that yes and no can both be definite answers; each one can be as pure as the other. This is not a court of law; you seem never to have learned that. This is parliament; this is a place for debate, hon., member.

Interjections.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Let me continue the debate. May I continue the debate, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair has recognized the Minister of Finance.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Medical Services Plan premiums in British Columbia were last increased effective April 1, 1989. That was $2.50 for a single subscriber, $3 for a family of two and $4 for a family of three or more, to $31, $55 and $60 a month respectively.

The hon. member is moving away. The hon. member can't take the heat, so he's moving out of the kitchen.

It's not clear which user fees are being referred to. Effective April 1, 1987, seniors have been charged 75 percent of pharmacists' dispensing fees, to a maximum of $125 a year. Seniors are reimbursed for payments above the annual amount.

[12:15]

Now we're in debate, Mr. Chairman. If Medical Services Plan premiums are frozen, more funding will be required for health care and more funding will be required to be raised through the general tax system, which we are indeed freezing. It's not clear to me, when this member talks about protecting the poor people.... They figure they have some kind of an edge on helping poor people, when Social Credit governments have consistently helped the poor, the working and all people in British Columbia. We don't have special interest groups in our party.

It's not clear whether user fees for the poor and low-income families would be protected from, for example, families on social assistance who do not pay for medications or any part of pharmacists' dispensing fees. Is the hon. member suggesting that we increase those fees, that we level the playing-field? Is that what he's talking about? We are protecting people, if you want a yes or no, answer a yes or no to that one, hon. member.

MS. A. HAGEN: I would like to move an amendment to section 2 of this act. The amendment would

[ Page 11918 ]

be to add a new subsection, subsection (m), which would read: "Medical Service Act." I would like to speak to that amendment now, Mr. Chairman.

On the amendment.

MS. A. HAGEN: We have had discussion over the last few minutes with respect to this bill between the Minister of Finance and my colleague from Esquimalt–Port Renfrew about whether Medical Services Plan premiums will be frozen. The intent of this amendment is in fact to make a clear statement to all the people of the province that this essential fee is one that will not be increased during the life of this legislation.

MR. REID: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I don't have the amendment in front of me, but I think it calls for the Minister of Finance to redirect funding, so I would suggest that this amendment is out of order.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member has not been recognized.

The Chair has considered the amendment. Section 2 of the act refers to a freeze on taxes. In introducing the amendment, the member referred to fees under the Medical Service Act. Not being taxes, and also dealing with the taxation prerogative of the Crown.... The Chair would have to find the amendment out of order.

The Chair might also further add that section 61 of our standing orders says that debate in committee should be strictly — and I underline the word "strictly" — relevant to the section. That does not permit debate on matters that are not included in the section. The Chair has been lenient up to now with respect to some debate on matters that are not within section 2, but it brings that to the attention of the members. The Chair so rules.

MR. LOVICK: On the same point of order, would you be good enough to give us the citation, please, for that judgment?

Interjection.

MR. LOVICK: I'm not challenging. I'm asking for some information, Mr. Chairman. Ignore the yahoos on the other side, Mr. Chairman; just address my question.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair directs the member to section 61 of our standing orders, as previously mentioned.

MR. SIHOTA: A point of order. First of all, Mr. Chairman, I must take issue with the fact that you made a decision without so much as asking the other side who was sponsoring the motion for our position with respect to the matter raised by the member for Surrey. It seems that basic fairness requires that if you're going to rule on one of these matters, you should at least ask for our submission with respect to what you are considering.

Secondly, Mr. Chairman, I find it surprising that you did not rule on what the member for Surrey raised, but you made your own ruling on another matter, independent of what that member raised.

Thirdly, Mr. Chairman, this section deals with a general freeze. It deals....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. The Chair appreciates and thanks the member for his viewpoint, but the Chair had reached a decision on the amendment before the member for Surrey–White Rock–Cloverdale had been recognized, and the comments of the member did not have any impact on the Chair's decision.

The Chair might also mention that the Chair's ruling is not challengeable.

MR. D'ARCY: I don't want to quibble with your honourable self or your legal adviser, but I have always made the assumption that if it involves money, and if government requires you to pay it, it's a tax. The government can call it a rental, they can call it a fee, they can call it a tax, but if you have to pay it — and if you want medical services in this province you've got to pay — then it's a tax. They can call it anything they want.

I realize your decision is going to stand, but I would really be interested to see the legal basis or the dictionary basis for saying that a tax is not a tax if the government chooses to call it something else.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The hon. member probably heard the Chair when it referred to the fact that the Chair's ruling shall not be challenged. The hon. member, I believe, has been a member of this House as long as almost anybody else and should, of course, be familiar with section 67 of our standing orders.

The member for Alberni on section 2.

MR. G. JANSSEN: The minister has made some remarks concerning small businesses in this province and how they benefit so greatly from the tax structure and will benefit from this tax freeze. However....

Interjection.

MR. G. JANSSEN: I do know about small business.

I would just like to talk about a study done by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business concerning taxes in this province. I will quote from the report. It says that taxes should not be frozen but should in fact be lowered, mainly because this government has increased taxes in this province since its term of office.

The analysis of the study's result revealed that Canadian retailers generally, and particularly small retailers, Mr. Minister, are at a serious competitive disadvantage. "The Canadian tax system penalizes small firms much more heavily than it does large firms." The study clearly shows that no level of

[ Page 11919 ]

government is without sin when it comes to excessive taxation.

Time and time again this government raised fees and raised taxes for small business in this province. The minister alludes to the fact that small business supports the government's initiative. If he feels that way, the answer is simply to drop the writ and see how many small businessmen will climb aboard the crumbling Social Credit wagon as it lumbers on down the road of defeat.

Whether it's food stores, variety stores, motor vehicle repairs, shoe repairs, hardware stores, women's clothing — I have tables here that I won't burden the House with — this indicates that as a result of the combined federal-provincial-municipal tax structure, small retailers located in Vancouver are at a significant disadvantage. In none of the 12 retail sections studied is the small Vancouver retail store in a position tax wise to compete.

These results show that highly detrimental impact of a punitive tax structure on British Columbia retailers, and all levels of government are guilty of contributing to this excessive tax burden. Accordingly, it is time for all levels of government to realize the system is killing small business in this province.

We talk about a tax freeze in this province. The government introduces this bill and says that the taxpayer protection plan, in fact, will protect taxpayers. It will do nothing to protect small business people in this province. The expenditure limitations and the balanced budget plan should be addressed in a manner to reduce taxation so that we get out of the recessionary mood we're in and get people to spend dollars more freely, with the government taking less and less.

Local taxes account for 52 percent of the total taxes paid by a small retailer located in Vancouver. Does the minister think we should freeze taxes at over 50 percent? Taking 52 percent of the dollars out of a business is totally excessive. Government must get to the root of the problem by relieving small business of uncompetitive and inflexible tax structure in this province, not by freezing an uncompetitive and inflexible tax structure.

If the minister were to be truthful, bring forth a budget in this House and reveal the true state of taxes in this province — whether they're balanced or not, where the money is coming from, where it's going — perhaps this uncompetitiveness could be addressed.

British Columbians could also lose other small businesses that opt to locate across borders in this province because of the harsh economic environment here. Talking about retailers moving from Ontario to here, the report clearly indicates the uncompetitive tax advantage and harsh economic environment in this province.

It is time for all levels of government to cooperate so the combined impact of tax policy changes made at each level of government can be evaluated; otherwise, the current uncompetitive status of Canadian businesses will further deteriorate, causing profound long-term damage to the Canadian economy. I suggest to the minister that the expenditure limitations of section 2 not be frozen but, in fact, be reduced so that business can get on with doing business in this province. The freeze is not acceptable. It is time that the taxes were lowered so that, in fact, we can get on with doing business and continuing to expand.

The Minister of Finance knows the rate at which businesses are going under in this province. Personal and business collapses — bankruptcies — are up in this province. They have been up for the last five months. By putting a freeze on taxation, you will continue that trend. It is time to relieve taxes so that expenditures can take place, business can prosper and so that when people have earning power, they can pay more taxes.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I just want to correct something I said to the House a few moments ago when I mentioned that gasoline taxes were tied to the wholesale price. It's actually tied to the retail price before tax. I just wanted to correct that for the House.

The hon. member for Alberni is making his speech to the wrong House. He should be sending a letter to the Hon. Floyd Laughren in Ontario. You see, there's nothing in this bill that precludes tax rates from decreasing. It precludes them from increasing. That's what it's all about.

The Premier mentioned that one of the reasons we are including section 2 in this piece of legislation is that we want to protect business of all kinds. Small business, yes. We realize, as the hon. member said, that our taxes are increasing too quickly all over Canada. They are increasing too quickly at the federal level; they are increasing too quickly in Ontario.

Here's a statement. People are coming here — small business people, employees and everybody else — in droves. After the election, when the Social Credit government is re-elected, I want to inform the committee, there will be many more businesses moving out of Ontario. I feel sad that Ontario has to do that.

Here's what the Hon. Floyd Laughren, the Treasurer of Ontario and Minister of Economics, said on March 18, 1991.

Interjection.

HON. MR. VEITCH: If the hon. member.... I'm on section 2, and I'll relate this to section 2.

[12:30]

He said: "The Statistics Canada employment figures released March 8 show that Ontario has suffered the worst job loss since World War II." Mr. Speaker, 196,000 jobs have been eliminated in the province over the last four months since they have been in power.

It continues: "The unemployment rate, which was already disturbingly high, has now soared to 9.5 percent." It gives me no pleasure to say that unemployment in Ontario is going to continue to soar and soar until the people get a chance to kick the socialists out.

MR. JONES: This bill flows from the Premier's January speech, where he implied that there would

[ Page 11920 ]

be real protection for taxpayers and that taxes would not increase in British Columbia. In section 2 we see the dozen areas for which there will be limitations until March 31, 1994, in terms of taxes.

What I'm concerned about now is that the message the Premier conveyed in January about a blanket .freeze has now been adjusted downward. Now the Minister of Finance, my friend and colleague from Burnaby-Willingdon, suggests that it is a freeze on a few specific areas — "a freeze of the principal taxes." So the Premier conveyed the image that it was a blanket freeze on taxes, but now the Minister of Finance says it's a freeze on principal taxes.

That's not quite the case. One of the hallmarks of this government and its predecessors of that political stripe has been a tremendous increase in school property taxes in this province. The hallmark of that government, in my nine-year tenure as a school trustee, was a shift of burden of tax responsibility from the province to the homeowner. So what we see are the. 12 areas in which there are going to be tax savings — a tax freeze for the residents of this province — but it doesn't include school taxes. So I'd like to ask the Minister of Finance why school taxes aren't included here.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Obviously, Mr. Chairman, you would rule me out of order if I answered the specific question the hon. member asks because, as you ruled previously, we can only discuss what is included in this legislation.

Property tax rates are not included. The province levies rural area taxes, residential school and nonresidential school taxes. Most property tax rates set by the province are expected to fall, and as individual tax rates are set for 75 school rates and the pressure is on, we hope they will continue to fall.

Most homeowners are expected to pay lower net school taxes in British Columbia as a result of actions by this Social Credit government — after deduction of the homeowner grant and the supplementary grant. We're saying that we are addressing those problems, and we will continue to address those problems. We will continue to keep taxes at the lowest possible level in British Columbia, year after year.

MR. JONES: The Minister of Finance makes my point exactly. The minister says that school taxes are a critically important aspect of taxation in this province- one of the largest single taxes that taxpayers pay. And I agree that there has been an initiative that I would call a partial initiative to address school property tax, but that initiative was for one year. It was not a freezing.

The statement made by the Minister of Education with respect to school property tax — I think the minister was trying to quote, but in fact misquoted — suggests that most homeowners will not see an increase in tax this year. So what we're talking about, rather than the legislation which is a three-year.... So if it had been included in legislation, it would cover the period to March 31, 1994, and not one year. Secondly, it says "most homeowners." Now if you're trying to create the impression that there is a tax freeze, it should apply across the board to school property tax and to all homeowners, not just to most homeowners.

The other loophole created in terms of putting a freeze on school property tax is that there is an exception for revenues from new construction. I would hope that, because of the number of portable classrooms we have in this province, it is going to be a substantial part of the education budget that we are using to provide decent facilities for those schoolchildren. The revenue from new construction will be substantial, and that will not be passed on. If we are going to say that we are freezing taxes — as is the impression created by the Premier in his speech — then we support this bill, and our support in unequivocal. What we're trying to do here is suggest that the message being conveyed by the government — that we agree with — is not a completely accurate measure. It is a very specified number of taxes, a very discrete 12 areas of provincial taxation, that are being frozen — and we support that. We're asking why, when you're conveying the impression that there is a tax freeze, you don't freeze taxes. Yes, there's a partial freeze on school taxes. Yes, it's for one year, not three years. Yes, it excludes taxes for construction. But why not include those other areas? You already explained, with regard to gasoline taxes, that you recognized a loophole there. With respect to small business, you recognized a loophole there. There's also a loophole with respect to the school property tax — a very serious omission of the part of this government, Mr. Chairman.

MR. BRUMMET: I can't help but note that the member for Burnaby is giving the same speech he gave a couple of years ago when there was some merit to it, but, of course, it's far out of date. He started out saying that there's something wrong with this section, because it does not freeze school taxes, and that there has been a burden of increasing school tax on homeowners. With the 25 percent reduction in the difference between the homeowner grant and the total tax last year, and with the committed 50 percent reduction this year, it is true that most homeowner school taxes will go down. I don't know whether the member is aware of it or is being deliberately obtuse about that.

I would like to commend the Finance minister for freezing in other areas and providing relief to the taxpayers, as has been done with the school tax. The member must also be aware that the provincial government now takes responsibility for collecting and spending 90 percent of the money for school budgets, which was quite an increase.

I'm intrigued — and I don't think the Minister of Finance could even answer this one, because it's so irrelevant — by the member from Burnaby saying the revenue from school construction is going to increase. I spent a fair bit of time in the Ministry of Education, and I don't think that in any of the school construction that we did we saw it as a source of revenue, other than perhaps indirectly with the jobs

[ Page 11921 ]

involved. But we certainly saw it as an expenditure. Tax on new construction. Who pays for the school construction? The government. So it is not a source of revenue; it is a source of expenditure, for heaven's sake.

MR. SPEAKER: The member for Surrey–White Rock–Cloverdale wishes to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. REID: Mr. Chairman, I thought I heard a no over there, so I'm going to take the liberty of doing it in any event. It's with a great deal of honour that I'm able to introduce Ald. Gary Robinson from the Corporation of the District of Surrey. He's here today, I understand, with the mayor and some of the other members of council. I do see Gary within the precincts, and I'd like the House to give him a special welcome.

MS. EDWARDS: The minister makes a great deal of what people can afford these days, and that is the issue, Mr. Chairman, with times as they are and with people suffering such things as.... You know, the nation is suffering a huge outflow of jobs because of the free trade agreement, which of course is not ours. But what it does is help create the situation where people are feeling the pinch, and they're feeling it extremely tightly.

I might say that, under section 2, we've mentioned a number of things that are in the act. It's interesting that as the government introduces this bill and suggests that they are trying to freeze taxation, it looks rather odd at a time when you look at the increase in rural taxation over the last four, nearly five, years that this government has been charge. In ten years, the increase in rural taxation has been over 100 percent, but even since 1986, the tax rate for rural properties has increased 64 percent. When you put a freeze on that kind of amount, you in fact are not doing exactly what the government says it's doing, which is putting a freeze on taxes to protect the taxpayer. In fact, you've already put an increase of 64 percent on rural taxpayers since 1986. That, first of all, is a point I want to make to the minister as I discuss some of the other situations where he is not being totally open about what is being frozen and what isn't.

One of the things that the rural taxpayers in my riding also notice is that there is no freeze, and there has been no freeze, on fees and licences. There have been 784 increases in fees and licences since 1986, and some of them are huge. The increase on drivers' licences is 150 percent. The people in my riding can ill afford that kind of thing, because they don't have public transit. We can't talk about SkyTrains and things, except for as much as they cost us for what goes on down here. We don't have buses. People need to have cars. They need to drive. They have to pay 150 percent more for their drivers' licences.

The government applauds family and tries to encourage it, but by the same token charges an increase of 150 percent on marriage licences. I hate to say that that may be counter-productive to what the government is trying to do, but it may be. Most of all, it's the business of who is being hit by the tax increases that have already occurred. This taxation is not getting to the root of some of the problems.

I might go back again to the Medical Services Plan. There is no freeze on medical services premiums, and this is an area which hits families. It hits families particularly with small children, largely because a lot of the work that's going on these days that has to be covered by medical services premiums and the Medical Services Plan if they're going to get it done is preventive medicine. There are so many more things that are happening these days — putting tubes in kids' ears, getting your kids' ears done, and they are straightening eyes to a greater extent.

[12:45]

The minister talks about increases in the medical costs. There are medical costs to families, there are increases, and the people who have these children are unable to afford any more increases in medical services premiums. That is the heart of what they do.

In fact, a lot of the so-called trend in medical services in the province is toward preventive medicine, but what the minister is saying is that it's not worth it and we can't put a freeze on. People have to increase what they pay for basic medical services. They shouldn't have to pay at the rate of another increase.

In 1988 this government put an increase of 33 percent on medical services premiums. In 1989 they raised it again. The minister said it hadn't been raised since then, but by 1989 they raised it. The cumulative increase is 48 percent for families' medical services premiums. That is a lot of money. It is putting a situation to families that is extremely hard for them to carry, and this bill for some reason or another refuses to put a freeze on the amount that people and families pay for medical services premiums.

I would like to ask the minister whether he doesn't consider it important that families have a freeze on the amount that they pay for that basic, important service.

HON. MR. VEITCH: This government has always been concerned about what people pay by way of fees and how we have our medical system operated in British Columbia. You've got to realize that one of the items that brought Social Credit to power back in 1952 was that the Medical Services Plan then was in shambles, and we have improved it year after year There have been increasing demands, and we have met those demands at all times.

I believe it was the hon. member for Burnaby North who asked why we were not freezing municipalities. The Minister of Municipal Affairs has already asked the municipalities to hold taxes at 1990 levels.

When I think back to our own community in Burnaby, that council, which is largely NDP-driven, received a massive windfall from the Metrotown area — a massive increase in taxes. What did they do? They increased the size and scope of government in

[ Page 11922 ]

that community by a tremendous amount. They are spending more and more. They are probably one of the most wanton spenders in all of British Columbia.

This government has reduced small business tax in 1988 by two percentage points. We have reduced the service tax by 1 percent. Each one percentage point is about $300 million in British Columbia, and now we're saying we're going to hold those rates. We're not going to say we're not going to reduce them; we're saying we're not going to allow them to increase, and we may still reduce them.

The problem that the hon. member for Alberni spoke about — taxes in Canada — is largely tied to the goods and services tax, which to me is one of the silliest taxes that has ever been introduced, even by an NDP administration, and this one doesn't happen to be NDP. It's a problem, and we have fought....

MR. SIHOTA: Do you vote Tory?

HON. MR. VEITCH: I don't vote NDP, hon. member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would you please direct all comments to the Chair. The member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew may stand and be recognized after the Minister of Finance is finished.

HON. MR. VEITCH: We fought the GST. We fought it in court; we fought it by action. Mr. Chairman, I still say it is one of the most regressive taxes ever placed on Canada. It's costing far too much to administer. On that much I will agree with the New Democratic Party opposite.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, when this legislation was introduced and we took a look at this section called "Tax Rate Freeze,” we went looking to see if it or other sections dealt with the real issue — what British Columbians want to see happen with taxes. Did this bill deal with the imbalance in taxes? Did it really deal with the critical issue of tax reform?

I looked in this section to see if it dealt with the fact that.... I'm sure that most British Columbians aren't aware that under this administration, for every $10 of income tax paid by individual British Columbians, corporations only pay $1.90 in income tax. The average British Columbian pays $10; corporations pay only $1.90.

Now most British Columbians would look in this section and say: where is that issue addressed? They don't address the imbalance. Most British Columbians would look at this section to see whether this government is dealing with the issue that over the past few years it has added $3,000 in additional taxes and fees to the average British Columbian. Have they dealt with that issue in this legislation or in this section? No. Where is the imbalance addressed in this section or in this bill? It's not. So where has this government been, when at the same time it has been creating an incredible imbalance in the tax system, and not dealing with the issue that British Columbians want — tax reform? We don't see that in this legislation. The greatest increases in the history of the province have been under this administration. Where does this section deal with that? It doesn't deal with it at all.

Where does it deal in this section with the $317 million in property purchase tax that's been taken out of the average British Columbian? Where does it deal with that imbalance? Where does it deal with those issues that face British Columbians? The tax hikes and the tax rates.... Here we are talking in this section of a tax rate freeze, but British Columbians want to deal with the tax reform. They want to deal with the fact that between '87 and '89, medical premiums for a family of three increased by 50 percent. Where do you deal with that in this section? Where do you deal with that in this legislation? You don't deal with it.

Mr. Chairman, this government has even put a $25 surcharge on braille texts for the blind. Where do they deal with that in this section? They don't; it's not dealt with.

You know, this government in its term of office has increased taxes and fees.... It has given $2 billion in breaks to corporations, while hiking income tax and fees for the average British Columbian. What they want from this minister is real tax reform and fairness in the system, not entrenching of unfairness in our tax system. That's what they're looking for, not a political game. They want reform. The evidence is here, Mr. Chairman: tax rate freeze. This section doesn't deal with the imbalance that has been created by this government or the unfairness in the system. That's what British Columbians are looking for. I'd like the minister to address those issues. Where is tax reform in the province of British Columbia? Where is the imbalance being addressed in this legislation?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Solicitor-General would like leave to make an introduction. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. MESSMER: There are 26 exchange students from Kings Langley School in London, England, together with their teacher Mr. Ian Hall, visiting in the gallery today. These students are on an exchange program with Southern Okanagan Secondary School in Oliver. They are visiting us today and spending the next four days on Vancouver Island. Would you please welcome them.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. Mr. Richmond moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:57 p.m.