[ Page 12121 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Tabling Documents –– 12121

Supply Act (No. 1), 1991 (Bill 8). Hon. J. Jansen

Introduction and first reading –– 12121

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1991 (Bill 7). Hon. Mr. Fraser

Introduction and first reading –– 12122

Range Amendment Act, 1991 (Bill 5). Hon. Mr. Richmond

Introduction and first reading –– 12122

Oral Questions

Silviculture funding. Mr. Miller –– 12122

Agriculture budget. Mr. Barlee –– 12123

Earth First organization. Mr. Crandall –– 12123

Criminal injury compensation for sexual abuse victims. Ms. Marzari –– 12123

Long-term hydro exports. Ms. Edwards –– 12124

Omni-Script Services Ltd. Mr. Sihota –– 12124

Lottery grant to Eco-Clean. Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 12124

Restraining orders against abusive husbands. Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 12124

Member's Statement

Fantasy Garden World Inc. sales tax. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 12125

Budget Debate

Mr. Clark –– 12125

Hon. Mr. Dirks –– 12132

Mrs. Boone –– 12135

Hon. Mr. Parker –– 12138

Mr. G. Janssen –– 12142

Hon. Mr. Strachan –– 12145

Ministerial Statement

Report on investigation into former Minister of Health.

Hon. Mrs. Johnston –– 12149

Mr. Clark

Mr. Dueck

WEDNESDAY, MAY 22, 1991

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, prior to introductions the Chair would like to advise members that we have a neighbour visiting us today with his wife. He is the Hon. Tom Boyd, Speaker of the House of Assembly of the Legislature of the state of Idaho. They are with us here on the floor today. Would the members please make them welcome.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I'd also like to bring my greetings to Speaker Boyd, whom I have known for some time.

Mr. Speaker, it's very important to introduce several distinguished visitors in the gallery today. It's my pleasure to make an introduction of the High Commissioner from the United Kingdom, Mr. Brian Fall, and his wife Delmar. The High Commissioner is accompanied by Mr. Tony Joy, consul-general of the United Kingdom in Vancouver.

As well, in the gallery — or he will be very shortly — is His Excellency Richard Ovinnikov, who is the Ambassador of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to Canada. I would ask the House to bid him welcome.

I would ask the House to welcome the chairman of the Advisory Council on Multiculturalism for the province of British Columbia. I am meeting with the advisory council on Saturday along with representatives from immigrant-serving agencies throughout the province. I would ask the House to welcome Mr. Kewal Khosla.

HON. MR. DIRKS: Mr. Speaker, we're honoured to have with us in the gallery Dr. Klaus Schwab, founder and president of the World Economic Forum from Switzerland. The forum, as you may know, is an independent and impartial not-for-profit foundation, which is tied to no political, partisan or regional interests and is under the legal supervision of the Swiss federal government. The purpose is to contribute to the growth of worldwide prosperity through effective economic cooperation and the strengthening of entrepreneurial dynamism.

Members of this House may well recall the very vivid and glowing reports that have come back to this House from the annual general meetings held in Davos, Switzerland.

Would the House please join me in welcoming to these chambers Dr. Klaus Schwab, his wife Mrs. Hilde Schwab, and an associate member of the executive board, Mr. Gregory Blatt.

MR. JONES: We all serve in an "ombuds" capacity from time to time in serving our constituents. Therefore we've come to appreciate the ombudsman's office and its important service to this province in fighting for fairness and combating injustice. I'm pleased to welcome B.C.'s first ombudsman, who served this province and this Legislature well between 1979 and 1985. He is here today with 20 students from his legislative process class at Simon Fraser University. Would members please join me in welcoming Dr. Karl Friedmann and his students.

MR. HUBERTS: In the gallery we have with us Prof. Qin Huilang and Mr. Ma Xinle, as well as Mr. Jay Rangel, president of the South Saanich constituency association. Professor Qin and Mr. Ma are distinguished contemporary artists from the ancient capital of Xi'an. They are visiting the Art Gallery of Greater Victoria, where an exhibition of their work is now in progress. Would the House please help me in welcoming them.

MR. PERRY: Somewhere in the precincts — I hope in the gallery, though I couldn't spot him — is a young man, Arlo Erickson, who suffered from a significant handicap but had the pleasure today to meet the former former Minister of Health, who was helpful to him in establishing the at-home program, from which he has benefited. With him are his mother Joyce Lee and Anne Livingstone of Victoria. I'd like the House to make them welcome.

Mr. Speaker, I'd also like to acknowledge someone in the gallery who is obviously a member of Amnesty International, an organization helping me deal with a very difficult human rights problem in another country. I'd like to acknowledge Amnesty International as well.

MR. GABELMANN: In the gallery behind me on this side of the House are a group of students from North Island Secondary School in Port McNeill, serving Woss, Port Alice, Alert Bay, Sointula and other communities in that area including Port McNeill. They are accompanied today by a group of adults: Pat Parker, Nancy Bain, Faye Brown, and John and Joan Morgan. This group is a beneficiary of an annual tour that Fletcher Challenge provides to students from that area, and I want to pay particular thanks to Fletcher Challenge for their generosity in making it possible for these students to come down to Victoria to watch us in action.

HON. J. JANSEN: I have the honour to present a set of statements regarding borrowings and loans to government bodies for the 1990-91 fiscal year, in accordance with sections 41(5) and 43(2) of the Financial Administration Act.

Introduction of Bills

SUPPLY ACT (No. 1), 1991

Hon. J. Jansen presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Supply Act (No. 1), 1991.

HON. J. JANSEN: This supply bill is introduced to provide supply for the government's continuation of government programs until the government's estimates for '91-92 have been debated and voted upon in this assembly. This bill will provide interim supply for the initial four months of the '91-92 fiscal year. This

[ Page 12122 ]

includes the two months' spending initially authorized by special warrant, plus two months to allow time to debate and pass the estimates.

As the period covered by special warrant will expire shortly, interim supply is urgently required in order that a variety of essential payments to GAIN recipients, hospitals, school districts, universities and social agencies, as well as the government's payroll, may continue uninterrupted.

Bill 8 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

[2:15]

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 1991

Hon. Mr. Fraser presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1991.

HON. MR. FRASER: This bill contains amendments to 11 statutes: British Columbia Railway Act, Family Maintenance Enforcement Act, Forest Amendment Act, 1989, Hydro and Power Authority Act, Income Tax Act, Industrial Relations Act, Job Protection Act, Municipal Act, Personal Property Security Act, Provincial Court Act and the School Act. I will elaborate more in second reading, Mr. Speaker.

Bill 7 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

RANGE AMENDMENT ACT, 1991

Hon. Mr. Richmond presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Range Amendment Act, 1991.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, Bill 5 amends the Range Act to enable the government to better manage and protect the Crown range resource. Specifically, the bill enables the Ministry of Forests to maintain economically viable and stable ranching operations by ensuring a tenure remains with a base ranch property in the event of a lease or sale of the property expiring or not completing, or where the property is foreclosed on.

The bill vests the power to change a tenure boundary in the regional manager and clarifies the procedure by which a notice of boundary change is given. It provides for an appeal of the regional manager's decision to change a boundary to the minister or a person designated in writing by the minister.

It increases the compensation payable to a tenureholder for a range improvement lost because of a boundary change, and it compensates a tenure-holder for range improvements the holder must construct because of a boundary change.

Bill 5 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

SILVICULTURE FUNDING

MR. MILLER: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Forests. Page 25 of the budget basically reannounces the forest renewal plan. When this was announced originally, the minister said there was $500 million in new money. The budget appears to reveal a $32 million cut to silviculture programs over last year. How does the minister reconcile his previous statements about new money with the budget?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Our commitment to the forests is as definite and as strong as it was when the program was announced about two months ago, and that commitment is $1.4 billion over the next five years. Because we are a little late getting started with some of the programs, we find that we are unable to spend the entire amount allocated in this fiscal year. But I can assure members of this House and the people of this province that over the five years, the amount committed will be spent and the forests will be maintained. The NSR land, as promised, will all be restocked by the year 2000. It's a commitment that we have made, and we intend to invest the entire $1.4 billion over the next five years.

MR. MILLER: This forest renewal plan is starting to sound like the BS fund; nobody on the government side seems to be able to explain it. Plainly put, $500 million is $100 million a year in new money. We seem to have a $32 million cut this year — never mind the flimflam about being late getting started. Where is the new money that the minister promised?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Perhaps the member for Prince Rupert doesn't have the same commitment to the forests as we do. We don't think it would be very wise to try to spend money that's impossible to spend in this year, because we might not have the required seedlings to put in the ground or perhaps the site preparation hasn't been done. But the commitment is there to spend — rather than the word "spend," it should be "invest" — that money in the forests over the next five years.

MR. MILLER: The minister has now said that his ministry is not ready. Why did you announce a $1.4 billion forest renewal plan, when you are now standing in this House saying that you are not prepared to spend that money? Was it a political announcement or is there a real commitment? The money is not in this budget.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: We will be investing the money in the forests when we have the seedlings and when we have the incremental plans in place to do it. We don't believe, like the member opposite, that whether we have the trees to put in the ground or the people yet trained.... We are hiring, in round numbers, 200 FTEs for our ministry. We don't have them up and ready and trained yet. We think it would be dishonest to say that we can spend the full amount of

[ Page 12123 ]

money allocated this year when we cannot. By the sound of the member for Prince Rupert, they would press on and spend the money whether they were ready to or not.

AGRICULTURE BUDGET

MR. BARLEE: This is to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Agriculture underpins about 20 percent of the provincial economy, and it's our third largest resource industry. Last year the Peace River grain producers, the Okanagan orchardists and the Fraser Valley raspberry growers all experienced horrendous years. In recognition of this, has the minister determined why the ministry underspent its budget last year by $14 million? Fully 15 percent of the ministry budget was not spent.

HON. MR. CHALMERS: As the member well knows, I've occupied this chair a very short period of time. I am very concerned....

Interjections.

HON. MR. CHALMERS: Do you want to use up the 15 minutes? Go ahead. Be my guest.

I can assure the member that I am very much concerned not only about the money that was not fully utilized last year, but about how the money is going to be spent this year, because now I'm in a position to direct that to a certain extent, and I intend to do that in the best interests of all of those involved in the agricultural sectors in this great province. I fully recognize the fact that not only is it the third- or fourth-largest industry, but few people realize that it accounts for some $10 billion worth of activity in this province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. It's not the time for an estimates speech. The next question.

MR. BARLEE: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the same minister. Agriculture again failed to get a mention in the budget speech — not unusual. Agricultural spending this year is still about $19 million...recommended in 1986 by this government. It holds the position of about 0.6 percent of the entire budget. In an increasingly uncertain world, does the minister consider that amount adequate to promote food self-sufficiency in a province that already imports about half of its food?

HON. MR. CHALMERS: This minister, and certainly this government, are very much concerned about the needs in agriculture, and not relating it to a percentage of the overall budget. Much talk yesterday was about the amount of money that we are spending and investing in the social aspects — programs that are needed in this province. But you on that side are always interested in trying to draw attention to the fact that it's a small percentage of the budget.

What is important to the people in agriculture in this province, Mr. Member, is the fact that their needs are best met. That is not measured by percentage of the overall budget. In fact, every time you talk about the percentage of the overall budget, you neglect to add back the various ad hoc programs that this government provided to assist many of the grape growers in your constituency, Mr. Member, and as well the Red Delicious....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The scope of the answer is exceeding the scope of the question.

EARTH FIRST ORGANIZATION

MR. CRANDALL: I have a question for the Minister of Forests. In view of the fact that training is being given by American members of the Earth First movement, which advocates tree-spiking and other guerrilla measures to some Canadian environmental activists, I'd like to know what action the minister has decided to take to protect B.C. forest workers.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the question; it's a very important one. I think it's shameful that people from any area of British Columbia would bring in people who advocate civil disobedience and prevent decent people from earning a living in the forest industry. I happen to believe that no matter how just people think their cause is, it doesn't warrant tactics like we see happening — like bringing in members of the Earth First organization, who practise and preach civil disobedience.

Unlike the former member for Alberni, Mr. Skelly, I don't happen to believe that people who want to protect their jobs belong to some phantom religious organization or Guatemalan death squads or something like that. I think that if there is civil disobedience anywhere in this province, it's a matter for our law enforcement agencies to deal with. That part of the question should be referred to the Solicitor-General.

CRIMINAL INJURY COMPENSATION
FOR SEXUAL ABUSE VICTIMS

MS. MARZARI: I have a question for the Minister of Women's Programs and Government Services. Last week the Supreme Court of Canada decided that the passage of time does not permit a defendant to escape charges of sexual abuse. The minister must be aware that as a result of that decision, we can anticipate that more victims of past abuse — that is, abuse committed before July 1, 1972; most of them are women — will now be able to take their abusers to court. My question is: has the minister started procedures to amend section 25 of our Criminal Injury Compensation Act to ensure that these women will be eligible for compensation?

MR. SPEAKER: The question might better be put on the order paper; and perhaps is out of order, in that it requires legislation.

MS. MARZARI: A supplementary, then. Is the minister aware that at this point in time....? Yesterday

[ Page 12124 ]

the budget froze the provincial allocation for criminal injury compensation at $7.6 million. Is the minister aware of the increased demand of women in this province to seek redress, and is she prepared to ensure that it will be properly met in the budget?

HON. MRS. GRAN: Mr. Speaker, I think that I'm not the appropriate minister to answer, but I'd be happy to take the question on notice and bring back an answer.

LONG-TERM HYDRO EXPORTS

MS. EDWARDS: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. Last Friday Bob Wyman, the new chairman of B.C. Hydro, told a Vancouver audience that B.C. should increase its long-term electricity exports. He said his first task will be to educate British Columbians on the benefits of increased power exports. Does the minister agree with Mr. Wyman that long-term, firm hydro export sales should be increased?

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: There has certainly been no decision by this government to approve long-term exports of any kind — never mind to increase long-term exports. We only export electricity on a spot basis or from independent private producers, which is a very small amount of power.

MS. EDWARDS: That being the case then, my question to the minister is: does he plan to give some direction to the president of Hydro, who seems to think it's his job to educate the public on the benefits of electricity exports?

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: I think that everyone in British Columbia understands that B.C. Hydro has an independent board of directors, in which there is no direct interference from government in the operation of the corporation. I'm not going to instruct Mr. Wyman or the head of any other corporation on what he should or should not say.

MS. EDWARDS: Another supplementary. The minister recently announced an internal review of the Site C hydroelectric project. Can the minister tell the House whether B.C. Hydro's decision to promote long-term, firm power export is connected to a revival of Site C, which relates to hydroelectricity and is exactly what Mr. Wyman was talking about?

[2:30]

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: Mr. Speaker, I think any action that we take with regard to Site C would obviously have to be taken in consideration of the recent decision regarding the Kemano project. There is real concern, I think, in British Columbia, and should be, with continued interference by the federal government and by other agencies in matters relating to British Columbia. There will continue to be more and more difficulty getting projects approved and underway and in fact into operation, and I think all British Columbians should be genuinely concerned with what is happening in the area of federal interference in provincial jurisdiction.

OMNI-SCRIPT SERVICES LTD.

MR. SIHOTA: A question to the minister responsible for the superannuation branch. The most recent information booklet indicates that Omni-Script Services Ltd. was added as a rollover pension firm. Could the minister responsible explain why?

HON. MRS. GRAN: I'm sorry, I didn't hear part of the question.

MR. SIHOTA: I'll repeat it to the minister. It is with respect to her responsibility for the superannuation branch. Your most recent information booklet indicates that Omni-Script Services Ltd. was added as a rollover pension firm. Could you explain why?

HON. MRS. GRAN: No, I can't, but I would be happy to take the question as notice.

MR. SIHOTA: A question to the Attorney-General. Most recently the ministry chose to ask court clerks to record judgments and orders and the like in chambers. Omni-Script Services received the contract to do that work for Vancouver and the Fraser Valley. Could the Minister advise the House whether that contract was secured through the normal tendering process?

HON. MR. FRASER: Id be happy to secure that information and bring it back to the House.

MR. SPEAKER: The bell terminates question period.

LOTTERY GRANT TO ECO-CLEAN

HON. MR. FRASER; I have two questions taken as notice on May 14, Mr. Speaker.

I have one from the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew asking me about the status of the Eco-Clean funds. I can report that we're in the process of recovering those funds, but since it is before the courts I cannot talk about it.

Interjection.

HON. MR. FRASER: Obviously not the burning question of the day, right? I guess the burning question of the day from you probably is who's wearing the most makeup, the lady who's the Premier or the Leader of the Opposition.

RESTRAINING ORDERS AGAINST
ABUSIVE HUSBANDS

HON. MR. FRASER: I have a second question, from the first member for Vancouver–Point Grey, to do with legal services to families throughout the province. The service she asked about is now provided by the Legal Services Society.

MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make a statement.

[ Page 12125 ]

Leave granted.

FANTASY GARDEN WORLD INC. SALES TAX

MR. VANDER ZALM: Last Thursday the member for Vancouver East and opposition Finance critic suggested that without doubt Fantasy Garden World Inc. had not paid sales taxes in 1990. The suggestion by way of a question led to media reports using all their resources to publicize the allegation, complete with a picture of the first member for Richmond and former Premier.

This House is representative of all the people in the province and, as an institution that should command respect, must draw the line somewhere. Fairness and accuracy need to be considerations more important than a quest for power at any cost. I read you a letter from the accounting firm of Peat Marwick Thorne:

"Dear Mr. Vander Zalm:

"Please be advised that all social service taxes payable with respect to the sale of Fantasy Garden World Inc. assets and the social service taxes payable with respect to all other taxable sales of Fantasy Garden World Inc...to date have been fully paid. The social service taxes due on the sale of equipment to Asiaworld (Canada) Development Corp. in the amount of $12,120 were paid by the solicitors of the purchaser on October 19, 1990. Social service taxes due on other taxable sales have been paid on a monthly basis on the due date following the month of these product sales."

Mr. Speaker, clearly the member for Vancouver East abused question period and the privilege of this House, but rather than proceed further and incur public cost, I simply seek an apology.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, this is not a ministerial statement. There is no reply to a statement made by a member. However, the member on the floor is the next member to speak in the normal course of events. If he has some remarks to make, it would be appropriate to do so during his reply to the budget speech.

Orders of the Day

Budget Debate

(continued)

MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, this is the fifth and final budget of this government. It is the budget that they didn't plan on delivering. The budget contains the largest deficit in British Columbia history — over $1.2 billion. It marks the second large deficit in a row, and it projects continued high deficits into the future. The budget reveals that the province's direct debt has more than doubled since this government came to power in 1986. It is now $9 billion. The budget does not have one new idea on how to protect jobs and paycheques of British Columbians, at the very time that the Conference Board is predicting that B.C. will have the worst economic performance of any province in Canada. Instead, the budget contains a $208 million tax increase at a time when most British Columbians need tax relief. The budget is a big-lie budget, Mr. Speaker. It contains misleading bookkeeping, contrary to the recommendations of the auditor-general and every reputable financial analyst in Canada. A $746 million deficit last year is portrayed as a $15 million surplus. This year's record deficit....

MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order, because I believe it to be parliamentary tradition that when another member seeks the withdrawal of an incorrect or improper statement, such be given. I have not heard the member for Vancouver East provide either an apology for or a withdrawal of the statement made. He talks about lies and big lies. I think this is a most appropriate time to seek a withdrawal or apology from this member.

MR. SPEAKER: If you wish to speak to the matter of order, I would just like to clarify that the Chair has no power to enforce a withdrawal or an apology by any member. It's up to individual members to do that.

The member who has the floor now — or had the floor before you interrupted him with your point of order — has the opportunity to speak. Since he is the member who was brought into question, he had the opportunity to do so. But the Chair has absolutely no power to enforce that. That's entirely a matter for the member.

MR. GABELMANN: On the point of order raised by the member for Richmond, it seems to me common courtesy to at least allow the member for Vancouver East to review Hansard from last Thursday and to review the issue before making any comment on that subject.

MR. SPEAKER: Again, the same rules apply.

MR. REYNOLDS: Following up on the member for North Island, I would agree that the member may want to review the documents he is being accused of making a mistake on and lying about. But I think also that as common parliamentary courtesy, he might stand up and say: "I will withdraw those comments and I will review the material."

But in the meantime, one member has asked another member, Mr. Speaker — and I know you have no authority.... But in this House we are honourable people. If that member over there doesn't want to....

Interjections.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, that's part of the problem with these socialists: they don't understand honour. Parliamentary tradition demands that when one member asks for a withdrawal or an apology from another member, he gets it. If he wants to take other recourse tomorrow, he should. But under parliamentary tradition, be the man that you should be and stand up and offer a withdrawal — from a person who has given you some facts that are true.

MR. VANDER ZALM: In order to assist the member for Vancouver East, I would ask leave to table my statement and a copy of the letter from Peat Marwick Thorne.

[ Page 12126 ]

Leave granted.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, in the early part of the point of order raised by the first member for Richmond, he said that the member speaking had used the word "lie." It's not appropriate and not even parliamentary to use that type of language in this chamber. It's acceptable if members choose to use it in describing an action such as a budget, but it is not appropriate to use it when you are describing the actions of an individual member.

The first member for Richmond raised the point. I must advise the hon. member that the remarks made by the member for Vancouver East are appropriate in terms of the particular language that was used. That clarifies all the outstanding points of order.

MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, in clarification then, what I said was that the member had referred to "lie" and "big lie" in response to the budget speech. I said this might be an appropriate time....

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you very much. That clarifies the matter. The member for Vancouver East can continue.

MR. CLARK: I would reinforce the comments made by the member for North Island. I am certainly quite prepared to review the record and will comment on it at some later date.

This year's record deficit of $1.2 billion is stated as only $395 million. As the president of the Certified General Accountants' Association of British Columbia concludes: "It's more smoke and mirrors. The Finance minister states that the deficit for the current fiscal year is $395 million, but in reality it's $1.2 billion." As the Victoria Times-Colonist complains: "The budget speech is downright misleading." Mr. Speaker, why can't this government be honest and simply tell the truth?

This government has had five years to improve the lives of British Columbians, and it has been five years of neglect. It has shown a lack of commitment to tax fairness. It has shown a lack of commitment to social concerns, particularly those of women and natives. It has shown a lack of commitment to the environment and to sound management of our natural resources. It has shown a lack of commitment to financial accountability. Above all, it has shown a lack of commitment to honesty.

In my remarks this afternoon I will show why this government has lost the respect of British Columbians, why this government has lost its credibility, and why this government no longer deserves to govern.

Let me begin with the issue of honesty. The Social Credit government has been a dishonest and closed one right from its first day in office. The former Premier, the first member for Richmond, promised before the last election to "resolve differences and solve problems through a spirit of cooperation." This government then proceeded right after the election to bring in confrontational labour legislation drafted by a select group of insiders, with no consultation.

[2:45]

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Before the last election this government promised open government to the people of British Columbia. They then steadfastly refused to bring in freedom-of-information legislation, and have governed with a degree of secrecy unprecedented in Canada. They promised, in the words of the ex-Premier, "to leave no doubts whatsoever in the minds of the public as to the ethics and integrity of those who serve in public office," and then proceeded to behave with a lack of ethics and integrity unparalleled in British Columbia history. This basic lack of honesty and openness has permeated everything this government has done. It has been front and centre in their financial dealings.

The centrepiece of their approach to financial management was the budget stabilization or BS fund — aptly named by a discerning government bureaucrat. They told British Columbians that this BS fund was a rainy-day fund and that it would accumulate money in good times to cushion us during the economic bad times. But it really had only one function: to manipulate the financial bottom line to create artificial surpluses or deficits to suit this government's electoral agenda. The BS fund allowed this government to engage in a pre-election spending spree, increasing expenditures by over 12 percent in each of the last two years — well in excess of economic growth. It allowed them to run a $746 million deficit last year and proclaim that it was a surplus budget. Now it is being used in a futile attempt to hide the largest deficit in British Columbia history, to artificially reduce $1.2 billion to $395 million. But as the auditor-general stated, the BS fund is "strictly an accounting technique to alter the bottom line."

The national accounting firm Peat Marwick Thorne stated: "In reality this is not a fund at all." The president of the Certified General Accountants' Association of B.C. stated: "I can't think of a public accountant doing that sort of thing in a private business, and I can't see any auditor allowing it in a private business. It's all smoke and mirrors."

The Finance minister was finally forced to admit that there wasn't any money in the BS fund. Last month, in a last-ditch effort to salvage some credibility, the government abolished the BS fund. British Columbians had seen through it, and it had lost its political usefulness. But this Social Credit government wasn't content just to admit they were wrong and leave it at that. They were determined to use the BS fund in one last-ditch effort to hide their financial incompetence from British Columbians.

As the Victoria Times-Colonist noted today: "No matter what" the Finance minister "(the budget fall guy for the government) or any other Socred says, the actual deficit — the anticipated shortfall between money collected and money to be spent — is $1.23 billion. To argue otherwise is simply dishonest."

This government claims continually that their fiscal management has lowered the provincial debt. But when the hidden debt identified by this year's auditor-general's report is included, the direct government debt has risen to $9 billion — a doubling of the direct debt in just five years. Only Social Credit would have the audacity to call this a debt reduction plan — a debt

[ Page 12127 ]

reduction plan that increases the debt. When will this government come clean? When will this government tell people the true state of the province's finances without manipulations?

British Columbians are looking for a government whose economic policies and financial management create confidence and stability. Both businesses and consumers need stability in order to invest and plan their economic future. For businesses, a stable environment means increased effectiveness in planning and diminished risks. For working British Columbians, stability means fewer ups and downs in unemployment and a lower level of anxiety. Stability is a key requirement for ensuring the new investment we need for economic growth and regional development.

A government which seeks to create this climate of confidence and stability must do three things. First, it must demonstrate competence in its management decisions. That means getting the greatest possible value for each dollar of taxpayers' money. Second, it must pursue policies which counteract rather than reinforce the disruptive cyclical changes that periodically affect our economy. And third, it must avoid erratic changes or reversals of its own policies and programs.

Let me turn first, Mr. Speaker, to this government's record in the area of fiscal competence. Let us pass over the blunders of previous Social Credit administrations: the $500 million cost overrun on the Coquihalla Highway, the $1.5 billion down the tube on northeast coal and the multimillion-dollar loss on BCRIC shares. Let us focus on this current Social Credit government's five-year term of office, starting with its most spectacular blunder: the sale of the Expo lands.

Last year's auditor-general's report finally provided an independent accounting. The total cost of the site was over $240 million when all project costs are taken into account. Sales proceeds on the basis of accepted accounting principles were $85 million. The result is a loss of $150 million on a site whose market value is now conservatively estimated at $600 million to $700 million. Only a Social Credit government could lose money on the most valuable piece of real estate in North America during a property market boom.

The member for Vancouver–Little Mountain, the Social Credit minister who was then responsible, said: "If we had to do it all over again, we would do it again." The Expo land sale is only one of a long list of financial blunders and administrative incompetence.

The province's Environmental Lab, with an assessed market value of $2.8 million, was sold for only $850,000 — less than one-third of its real value. The B.C. Steamship Company, worth $17 million, was sold to a Swedish cruise line company for $6 million. A year later the company ceased operations and stripped the company of valuable assets, leaving Victoria without a car ferry service linking it to the valuable Seattle tourist market.

The auditor-general's reports have revealed that the government has proven itself incapable of managing our multibillion-dollar forest industry. His 1989 report revealed that this government did not have the ability to ensure the collection of millions of dollars of stumpage payments for timber cut on Crown lands.

His report for this year reveals that, in the auditor-general's own words: "...monitoring practices do not give adequate assurance that forest companies meet...requirements to manage, protect and conserve...forest resources." Harvesting is not properly supervised. Roadbuilding is not adequately monitored, and there is no assurance that companies are meeting their obligations to reforest the land they cut. In every single aspect of forest management, this government has been found wanting. It is simply incredible that a government which cannot manage even our most important natural resource and our most valuable economic asset can claim to be a party of sound financial management.

When all of this was going on, the former Minister of Forests, the member for Skeena, assured us: "The state of our forests is excellent." Just last year the current Minister of Forests asserted: "My record speaks for itself." It certainly does, Mr. Speaker.

Forests are not the only valuable public resource this government has mismanaged. In 1990 the auditor-general concluded that this government did not have the ability to ensure that millions of dollars of royalties were collected from Crown gravel pits.

This government has also been shown as incapable of building and maintaining our highways in a cost-effective manner. Last year, when the current Premier was responsible for highways, the auditor-general's report showed that this government had learned nothing from the half-billion-dollar Coquihalla highway overrun. He found that this government simply did not have the ability to plan and build highways in a cost-efficient manner. He found that privatization and associated staff reductions had destroyed the ministry's ability to function effectively. This year the auditor-general found that this government expended over $1 billion on highway construction over the last four years without any assurance that the taxpayers are getting value for their money. He found that millions of taxpayers' dollars continue to be wasted by poor planning.

This year's auditor-general's report also found that this government is not monitoring $40 million worth of outstanding economic development loans, which is putting millions of taxpayers' dollars at risk.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, the auditor-general felt obliged to chastise the government once again for its failure to release the public accounts on time.

How has this government responded to this litany of mismanagement? Have they apologized to the taxpayers and promised to do better? No. Last year, in fact, the ex-Minister of Finance, the member for Saanich and the Islands, thanked the auditor-general for his efforts by calling him a bean-counter who should have kept his nose out of the public trough.

This year the member for Kamloops, the ex-Attorney-General and ex-Minister of Economic Development, reacted to the auditor-general's report by denying that the auditor-general even had a role in ensuring that British Columbians get value for their tax dollars. He said: "Value-for-money auditing is a growing boondoggle invented by various self-serving and self-administered professional organizations across the country."

[ Page 12128 ]

In this budget, the government asks British Columbians to believe that it will audit itself behind closed doors. In the meantime, this Social Credit government has declined into such chaos that it can't even fulfil its most basic financial obligation to bring in a budget on time.

I could continue, but I will now turn to the second requirement for economic stability: the pursuit of fiscal policies which counteract rather than reinforce the ups and downs of the private sector. This requirement is a simple one. Government should make provision during the good times to allow it to weather the bad times without unnecessary job losses, tax increases or cutbacks in essential services.

Again, this Social Credit government has boasted about its fiscal foresight. At the beginning of this economic downturn it claimed that its BS fund was a rainy-day fund — one which would allow British Columbians to avoid a recession's impacts. But once the BS fund was revealed as nothing more than a device to manipulate the bottom line, to cook the books, the real consequences of this government's policies were revealed.

They introduced record spending increases and deficit financing during good years, while making no provision at all for the bad years. In fiscal '89-90, in the middle of an economic boom, spending rose by almost 13 percent, well in excess of British Columbia's 10 percent rate of economic growth. Last year's budget provided for spending to grow by a further 12 percent in fiscal '90-91, despite the fact that economic growth was projected to be only 8 percent. This expenditure growth was financed by a $746 million deficit.

Why did this government engage in high spending and deficit financing at the peak of the economic cycle, leaving nothing for a rainy day? It's quite simple. It's because this government operates on an electoral cycle, and the last two budgets were supposed to be pre-election budgets, because this is a government which will say anything and do anything to hold onto power. Unfortunately, it is the people of British Columbia who are paying for the Social Credit government's irresponsibility and lack of foresight in this current budget British Columbians are now facing a record deficit of over $1.2 billion. They are facing deficits continuing into the foreseeable future. They are facing a mushrooming public debt which will, at the end of this fiscal year, total some $9 billion. They are facing tax increases totalling $208 million this year and another $246 million next year.

Let us now turn to the third dimension of stability: the avoidance of erratic and sudden policy changes When the history books are written, I believe that this government will be remembered primarily for two things. The first is its complete lack of ethical standards; the other is its complete lack of any consistent policy direction. Virtually every one of its policy decisions has been reversed or abandoned. There have been so many changes of direction it is difficult to count them all.

Let's look at some examples. At the beginning of this administration's term of office, it announced with great fanfare its privatization initiative. There was to be phase 1 and then phase 2, but only two years later the government had abandoned the program. There was no phase 2, and the word "privatization" has rarely been heard since.

[3:00]

In September 1987 the former Premier announced a major new regionalization initiative: eight development regions were set up. In 1988 the then Premier assured this House that "the decentralization process is working wonderfully throughout this province." A year later this grand initiative had been dismantled, never to be spoken of again.

As the election loomed on the horizon, this government appointed the second member for Kamloops — the government's most political minister — to head up its economic development activities. He then proceeded last March to launch a pre-election spending spree in Social Credit ridings using taxpayers' dollars in a futile attempt to buy votes.

In April the current Premier suddenly reversed course again, freezing economic development assistance. After a playing a front-and-centre role in a government that channelled community lottery grants to its friends and used economic development dollars to buy votes, she then announced that she doesn't believe government has any role in providing economic development assistance.

Throughout this government's term of office, its spending policies have been equally erratic. In their first budget in 1987, provincial spending increased by a modest 4 percent. In their next budget spending was increased by 7 percent. But in their third budget — delivered when a provincial election was looming on the horizon — they threw caution to the winds with a 12 percent spending increase. Last year — when a provincial election seemed a virtual certainty — their fourth effort contained another 12 percent spending increase. Then, when the emerging economic downturn could no longer be ignored, the government sharply reversed direction once again. Across-the-board spending freezes were suddenly put in place and retroactive public sector wage rollbacks were legislated.

We have seen the same erratic shifts on the taxation side. Huge tax and fee increases during the earlier years of this government's mandate, totalling some $3,000 for each B.C. family over the past four years, were suddenly replaced this year by expressions of concern for the taxpayer's ability to pay. The former Premier promised on provincewide television to freeze taxes. He stated, and I quote: "We will impose a freeze on taxes. To increase taxes, as others would do, would hinder exports, new business, business expansion and especially job security and job creation."

Just two short months ago his government enacted a so-called Taxpayer Protection Act, which supposedly guaranteed a tax rate freeze. In introducing this legislation, the former Minister of Finance stated: "The people want legislated tax limitation, and this bill is going to specifically provide that for British Columbia." Now, however, this budget contains major tax increases, and the so-called Taxpayer Protection Act is effectively legislated away. This government is so

[ Page 12129 ]

erratic that it cannot even wait until after an election to break its election promises.

This government's environmental policies have been equally erratic. In 1989 this Social Credit government finally responded to growing evidence of damage from toxic pulp mill pollution by promising tougher regulations and enforcement. In the words of the member from Prince George, who was then Environment minister: "These controls will virtually eliminate dioxins from the effluent discharges."

The next Environment minister, the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound, took a watered-down version of the regulations to cabinet late last year and promised tougher enforcement. These regulations were immediately reversed by the then Premier, the first member for Richmond. After a single phone call from the pulp and paper industry, the Premier relied on his considerable expertise as a scientist to conclude that there was no basis for tougher regulations.

The next Minister of Environment, the first member for Okanagan South, confirmed this sudden change in direction and then proceeded to loosen up the existing pulp pollution regulations to prevent pulp mills from being charged with pollution offences. In the minister's own words: "This is only legalizing it so we don't fine them repetitively."

In 1988 the government embarked on education reform by committing itself to major changes recommended by the Sullivan commission. Yet this year the Year 2000 project has not even earned a mention in the education estimates. By this, and the Premier's rhetoric, and the minister's rhetoric, the government has shown once again that it is incapable of following through on reform.

Let me touch on just one more of numerous possible examples: the resolution of long-standing aboriginal land claims. Throughout most of this government's term of office they went out of their way to deny the validity of aboriginal claims. These claims had all been extinguished before B.C. Joined Confederation, they asserted, and in any event, a settlement was exclusively a federal issue. In order to reinforce this position, they spent millions of taxpayers' dollars in litigation against native people. Then suddenly last summer they repudiated this position and decided to sit down and negotiate land claims, but continued to insist that the federal government had sole financial responsibility.

Then just two weeks ago this government reversed itself yet again and stated that it will pay a fair share of land claims settlement costs. At least in this instance the changes were in the right direction. But taken together these sudden shifts are disturbing, because they show once again that this is a capricious government that changes direction without thought or concern for those affected. Even when policy shifts appear enlightened, British Columbians have no reason to believe that they will last any longer than the next day, let alone the next election. This government has simply lost credibility, and that creates a fundamental source of instability in this province — one that can only be removed by a general election.

British Columbians are looking for a government which is prepared to spend their hard-earned tax dollars on public priorities, not the partisan political priorities of Social Credit. But this government is more interested in taking care of themselves and their friends than in addressing the urgent priorities of British Columbians. They have shown no hesitation in spending millions of taxpayers' dollars to reward their friends and pursue their own political agenda.

They have had no trouble finding money to provide large wage increases and pension awards for their political appointees. David Poole, the former principal secretary to the former Premier, got over $170,000 for less than two years of service. Socred ministerial assistants have received pay hikes of between 12 and 20 percent in the last six months alone, while public sector workers are forced to accept lower incomes.

Social Credit cabinet ministers had no qualms about using the government's air ambulance jets as a political taxi service. Last year alone it cost the Medical Services Commission an extra $1.2 million to charter additional air ambulances when government jets were flying around this province empty to pick up cabinet ministers.

This government has not hesitated to use millions of dollars' worth of economic development and lottery funds for purely political purposes. In 1989 British Columbians witnessed the spectacle of a minister channelling more than $250,000 worth of lottery grants to his friend and former campaign manager. In the same year they saw this government spend millions of dollars in a futile attempt to buy votes in the Cariboo by-election. This year they saw more pre-election spending targeted to Social Credit ridings by the former Minister of Economic Development, the second member for Kamloops.

This government boosted government advertising by 50 percent during its term in office in a futile effort to convince British Columbians that Social Credit deserves to be re-elected. This government had no trouble finding an extra $25 million to provide 100 percent taxpayer-funded pensions to doctors, and now it's going to send the bill to British Columbians in the form of Medical Services Plan increases. Other workers are expected to contribute to their plans, and two out of three British Columbians have no workplace pension plan at all.

In their preoccupation with taking care of themselves and in dealing with the numerous crises that their behaviour has created, they have neglected the real priorities of British Columbians. They have neglected the environment, health care and education. They have failed to protect the jobs and paycheques of British Columbians. They have failed to ensure equality for women, have neglected British Columbia's families and have failed to ensure fairness for the taxpayer who ultimately pays the bills.

Through successive budgets this government has gutted both the Ministry of Environment and Ministry of Forests. There have been six Environment ministers during this government's term of office — a clear illustration of its lack of commitment to the environment. Despite all their high-profile public relations

[ Page 12130 ]

efforts, the list of unaddressed environmental problems has scarcely changed during this government's term of office. Environmental standards remain unenforced. In the latest Ministry of Environment compliance report, nine pulp and paper mills are still seriously out of compliance with their permits. Imperial Oil, Chevron Canada, Neptune Bulk Terminals and Vancouver Wharves significantly exceed their allowable pollution levels despite the serious impact on Burrard Inlet documented by the Greater Vancouver Regional District.

Last year this government repeated its promise to develop a comprehensive hazardous waste management system. It set up a new Hazardous Waste Management Corporation. Eleven months and $3 million later the corporation is in organizational disarray and a waste management plan is not even on the horizon. Vancouver still has one of the most serious air pollution problems in North America. British Columbia still has one of the worst records on solid waste recycling. Victoria and other municipalities are still forced to dump raw sewage into the ocean.

This year's auditor-general's report confirms that this government lacks the basic ability to manage our most important natural resource: British Columbia's forests. This year's controversy over bulk water exports to California illustrated that this government had no ability to manage our critical water resources. This year's budget simply repeats the same old announcements and broken promises, with no new initiatives at all. Clearly, when it comes to protecting our environment this is a government without vision, imagination or competence.

Our health system continues to deteriorate, Mr Speaker. Our hospitals remain plagued by shortages of key professional staff. Hospitals throughout the province lack the key medical specialists they need. Staff shortages have been further aggravated by budget cuts and layoffs. During the last six months alone Vancouver General Hospital has been forced to lay off 79 nurses. Mount St. Joseph Hospital has laid off ten staff, temporarily closed 24 acute-care beds and shortened emergency service hours. Richmond General Hospital has laid off 36 nurses and support staff. Royal Inland Hospital has laid off 20 health care workers and closed 32 beds. The result is long waiting-lists for hospital surgery. A recent survey of hospitals around the province showed that patients in Cranbrook, Williams Lake, Quesnel and Prince Rupert have to wait two to six weeks for hospital admission; patients in Nanaimo, Kamloops and Prince George wait seven to 12 weeks; and patients in Kelowna and Vancouver wait 16 weeks

[3:15]

In last year's budget response I pointed out that British Columbians were dying waiting for urgent surgery This year Mary Sallis died because there were 780 people on a waiting-list for heart surgery and she had to wait one month for an emergency operation. Stan Roberts died because he couldn't get an emergency biopsy — the facilities were there, but Vancouver General didn't have sufficient staff. Last year the waiting-list for heart surgery got so bad that the Health ministry started sending heart patients to the U.S. for surgery. This year the waiting-list for radiation treatment has grown so long that the Health ministry is sending cancer patients to the United States for treatment. This budget contains no action plan to end health staff shortages and hospital waiting-lists.

During my last budget response I noted that our per-pupil spending on public education has been among the lowest in Canada during this government's term in office. I noted that the underfunding of the public education system had put increasing pressure on the property taxpayer to maintain the quality of our system. I noted that this government's seizure of total control over the finances of school districts had created confrontation, conflict and instability. I noted that tuition fee increases well beyond the rate of inflation were shutting out low- and middle-income families from the post-secondary system.

This year the situation is even worse. The arbitrary and retroactive wage controls introduced by this government have thrown school districts into confusion from one end of the province to the other. Provincial interference in overturning collective agreements makes it next to impossible for school boards to make sound budgetary and staffing decisions. This year's budget makes it clear that this government has no commitment to the Year 2000 initiative, announced with such fanfare last year. This year has also seen another round of steep tuition fee increases: 10 percent at UBC, 9 percent at the University of Victoria, 7 to 12 percent at East Kootenay Community College, 12 percent at Northern Lights College, 10 percent at Northwest Community College, 10 percent at Selkirk College, 9 percent at Vancouver Community College.

This government's confused and erratic regional development policies have failed to prevent the emergence of two British Columbias: an urbanized, more diversified economy in the lower mainland and a less urbanized regional economy which still depends on a narrow natural resource base. As a result of these disparities, the current economic slowdown has impacted the non-urban regions of our province much more severely, British Columbians in the lower mainland have experienced a relatively mild slowdown; those in other regions have suffered a wrenching economic downturn. In forestry alone, over 8,000 workers have been laid off, with thousands more affected in dependent industries. In the central Kootenays 9,000 jobs have been lost in the last year, and unemployment has doubled from 8 percent to over 16 percent. In the forest communities of Vancouver Island 8,000 jobs have been lost, and the unemployment rate has risen from 8 percent to almost 12 percent. In the Cariboo-Prince George region 3,000 jobs have been lost, and the unemployment rate has climbed from 12 percent to 16 percent. In the Okanagan unemployment has risen from 11 percent to 15 percent. The Conference Board of Canada just forecast that British Columbia will have the worst economic performance of any province in Canada this year — the worst, Mr. Speaker; under Social Credit.

What has this Social Credit government done to counter the immediate impact of the recession? Absolutely nothing. This budget does not have a single

[ Page 12131 ]

statement or plan for economic recovery, despite the government's own forecast of a 0.5 percent decline in economic output for this year. Instead, it brings in tax increases that will only make the recession worse. It cuts job training at the very time that it is most needed to counteract the recession.

The record of this government on equality for women is well known. This is a government that put their own personal religious views ahead of the law; they restricted a woman's freedom to choose by denying funds to hospitals providing abortions. This is also the government that refused, throughout its mandate, to introduce pay equity, despite repeated urgings on this side of the House and among many women in the province.

The member for Shuswap-Revelstoke, the then Minister of Government Management Services, told the House two years ago: "Well, it is a priority, and it isn't a priority." This year, on the eve of an election, this government is now promising a limited pay equity program for 13,000 women in the public service. But the comprehensive legislation promised by the ex-Premier, the first member for Richmond, has not materialized, and hundreds of thousands of women working in schools, hospitals and municipalities have been ignored. This budget doesn't even mention equality for women; instead, even worse, it tries to hide its lack of commitment by a shell-game transfer of $12 million in child care to the women's ministry budget.

Mr. Speaker, the nature of family life is changing rapidly in British Columbia. The traditional family of one wage-earner and one caregiver represents only 30 percent of today's families. In over half of all families with children, both parents work outside the home. One family in six is headed by a single parent; almost half of these single-parent families rely on income assistance and social assistance; and over two-thirds are below the poverty line.

During my last two budget responses, I raised the issue of family and child poverty in British Columbia. I noted the National Council of Welfare's findings that family poverty grew faster in British Columbia than anywhere else in Canada in the 1980s. I pointed to the two federal government studies showing that death rates for poor children are 56 percent higher than those for higher-income children. I noted that poor children are twice as likely to drop out of school as other children.

A year has passed and little has changed. A survey by the national nutrition council late last year found, and I quote: "People living on income assistance and low-income wage-earners cannot afford to eat nutritious food." The lines at food banks in British Columbia are longer, not shorter, while food supplies are shrinking. There are now over 127,000 children living below the poverty line in British Columbia, and more kids are going to be hungry. Poverty is on the increase in British Columbia.

This budget projects a 24 percent increase in the social assistance caseload. After presiding over five years of inaction, the interim Premier and member for Surrey is trying to convince British Columbians that hers is a kinder and gentler government. Now, on the eve of a general election, she says she is willing to participate in providing lunches for hungry school kids. But this budget tells the story; it provides no money for such a program.

The housing crisis created by this government's inaction and neglect has adversely affected both low- and middle-income families. Throughout its mandate, the government has steadfastly refused to address this crisis, preferring instead to introduce a series of ad hoc measures and subsidies to developers. They claimed that market forces would eventually ease the housing shortage and moderate prices.

We are well into an economic slowdown and, the problem of affordable housing remains. Our major urban areas remain among the least affordable in Canada for home buyers, and the dream of home ownership remains remote for most British Columbians. Vacancy rates in most major centres are still below 1 percent and rents have not moderated significantly.

This budget claims that new, unspecified programs will be funded out of the earnings of the privatization benefits fund. They seem to have forgotten that they already allocated this money to support their theoretically new pension plan.

The lives of British Columbia's lower- and middle-income families have also been made more difficult by the government's refusal to address the child care issue during their term of office. Finally, during the fifth year of their mandate, they got around to establishing a task force. This task force simply confirmed what British Columbians have known for five years and before that. It stated: "There is a critical shortage of quality, affordable, accessible child care spaces in British Columbia." It found, for example, that only one child in ten has access to the licensed care it needs. For children under three years of age, only one in 20 is receiving the care it needs. This budget does not provide direct funding for a single new day care space.

Funds for seniors have been frozen. Despite inflation and increasing demand, SAFER benefits are frozen in this budget. Funding for bus passes for seniors is frozen. Funding for counselling for seniors is frozen. Funding for senior supplements has actually been cut. British Columbians deserve better.

Finally, this government has failed to ensure fairness for the individual taxpayers who pay the bills. The record shows that over the last four years, this Social Credit government has unleashed an unprecedented $3.5 billion tax attack on middle-income and working British Columbians, while extending over $2 billion in tax breaks to corporations. This government's tax and fee increases have cost the average B.C. household an extra $3,000 over the last four years. These increases include, in this government's term of office: a personal income tax increase from 44 to 51.5 percent of basic federal tax payable; a new property purchase tax which now generates over $200 million per year; a $200 million per year increase in medical service plan premiums in the last four budgets and an additional $58 million in this budget — that's a total of 784 fee increases and 229 new fees since this government took office; a fuel tax increase from 20 to 22.5

[ Page 12132 ]

percent, at a cost to B.C. motorists of over $45 million per year; a new hidden tax on electricity consumers, costing British Columbians an extra $124 million in 1990-91 alone.

On the other hand, this government has boasted openly about its generosity to large corporations. In the words of a 1989 government publication: "Provincial tax cuts worth more than $500 million annually to businesses in British Columbia have been made since 1985. British Columbia now offers one of Canada's lowest rates of corporate taxation." As a result of this unfair shift in the tax burden, corporations pay only 19 cents for each dollar in taxes paid by individuals.

This budget simply hikes taxes by $208 million at a time when British Columbians can least afford them, rather than making any progress towards tax fairness. More than one-quarter of this government's revenue grab comes from Medical Services Plan premiums, an unfair and regressive tax which is borne mainly by lower- and middle-income British Columbians.

British Columbians are already looking beyond this discredited caretaker government. We live in a rich province with a tremendous amount of potential; our future can be tremendously bright. But British Columbians are looking for a government which can help them realize this potential rather than squander it away in confusion, neglect and incompetence. They are looking for a government that is prepared to address their priorities and to meet the challenges of the 1990s. Fortunately, Mr. Speaker, there is an alternative on this side of the House, and British Columbians will soon have an opportunity to consider that alternative at the ballot box.

Mr. Speaker, New Democrats know that government cannot perform miracles. We know there are no easy answers to many of the problems that face us, and we know that government must live within the means of the taxpayers. But we also know that there are things that a provincial government can do, and that is why New Democrats have been putting forward positive alternatives. We have put forward a comprehensive package of draft legislation to ensure fair and open government. We will be honest with British Columbians about the finances of this province, and we will be consistent in our policy directions, rather than reversing course with every shift of the political winds. We have one standard for all citizens, rather than one for friends and insiders and another for everybody else.

New Democrats have put forward a comprehensive package of draft legislation and other initiatives to protect and enhance our environment. We have introduced bills to clean up pollution from pulp mills and other industries, tighten up environmental enforcement and achieve provincewide recycling. We have worked with British Columbians to develop new approaches to managing our natural resources and resolving tough land-use conflicts. We have introduced draft legislation to require better forest practices, to protect parkland and to double park and wilderness protection. As government, New Democrats will achieve a better balance between the economy and our environment. We will not be deterred by corporate phone calls.

[3:30]

As government, Mr. Speaker, New Democrats will take immediate action to address the health care crisis. We will end the climate of conflict and hostility created by this government and begin to work cooperatively with our health care professionals.

We will work to bring British Columbia's education system up to the national standards and achieve greater access to post-secondary institutions.

Earlier this year we put forward an action plan to protect the jobs and paycheques of British Columbians in the face of a deepening economic slowdown. As government, we will implement this plan and take new actions to diversify our regional economies, to increase research and development and to boost value-added manufacturing over the longer term. We will restore the link between manufacturing jobs and access to our public forests.

We will increase the access of regional businesses in communities to economic development funding administered at the local level and give communities more direct control over the development of their natural resources.

New Democrats have put forward a comprehensive package of draft legislation to protect families and to achieve real equality for women. As government, we will give the highest priority to achieving pay equity, improving the availability of high-quality child day care and alleviating poverty.

Finally, New Democrats have put forward a program to achieve greater tax fairness for middle- and lower-income British Columbians. As government, we will provide tax relief for B.C. families, while ensuring that large, profitable companies pay their fair share.

Regrettably, Mr. Speaker, this budget perpetuates the legacy of a government that has lost its ability to govern, that continues to be dishonest, that has a taxpayer protection plan that increases taxes, that has a debt reduction plan that increases debt and that has a surplus which is really a deficit. No government in the history of British Columbia is more deserving of defeat or is more in need of a period in opposition.

British Columbians are looking for a change. They are looking for a government that is committed to fairness and to social priorities. They are looking for a government that will develop a stable and balanced economy to ensure prosperity for all British Columbians. Above all, they are looking for a government that will be honest and forthright.

New Democrats are committed to these principles. We look forward, in the very near future, to providing the fresh and imaginative leadership that British Columbians are demanding and deserve.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

HON. MR. DIRKS: Mr. Speaker, it's indeed a pleasure to stand and speak in favour of the provincial budget. I am very delighted to be the first member of this House to have the opportunity to speak in favour of the 1991 budget.

[ Page 12133 ]

This budget is a major step in ensuring the long-term well-being of our province. It's a document that deals with today's economic realities, This budget is fiscally responsible and economically sound.

During the past hour this House has listened to the opposition, like a broken record, repeating their grab-bag of misinformation and misinterpretation. The opposition talks a big game. We've heard the member for Vancouver East talk about all the great things they would do, but let's check it all out. The NDP talks about moderation. They say they're not socialists. But let's look at the reality of it. Let's see what they have really done in the past little while that would reveal what they would do. I am very concerned, and I think the people of British Columbia should be concerned, because the opposition was deeply involved in the Ontario NDP budget — a $9.7 billion deficit.

Let's look at the actions of our opposition brothers and sisters in the socialist paradise of Ontario. Why the emphasis on Ontario? Well, the Leader of the Opposition, the first member for Vancouver Centre, likes to point to the Ontario NDP as a model socialist government, a government that can manage the business of government. As far as I'm concerned, this is a model that the B.C. voters will certainly keep in mind when they go to the polls later this year.

The Leader of the Opposition even loaned some of his staff, some of his experts, to go to the Ontario NDP and tell them how to act during the transition period. In other words, the Ontario budget has really been drafted by the opposition NDP sitting in British Columbia today. That budget not only mortgaged the future of the children of Ontario; it sold it off completely.

I've had a chance to compare our government's budget to that of the NDP in Ontario. I noticed when I was listening to the second member for Vancouver East that he really didn't talk about the budget. He talked about all the things in the past. He ran this old litany past us again, but he really didn't want to come to grips with this budget.

I think that if people compare our budget with Ontario's, they will see a great difference. An article in the April 30 Globe and Mail pointed out that over the next four years Ontario's first socialist government will have run up a deficit of $34.8 billion, whereas our Social Credit government in British Columbia will have a $300 million surplus by that time. In four years the Ontario NDP will have accumulated a higher deficit than Ontario amassed in the previous 125 years.

This will cause a problem for the rest of Canada; it's not only a problem for the good citizens of Ontario. It will create some money shortage. It will create upward pressures on the interest rate and create inflation for all Canadians. The effects of this Ontario deficit are already being reflected even in Ontario today because of the downgrading of their credit rating. Ontario's deficit equals over 18 percent of its spending, a shocking and catastrophic amount.

On the other hand, let's look at British Columbia's budget. Because of our responsible financial and fiscal strategy, British Columbians can be assured that government spending and revenues will be balanced over five years. Our government's budget builds for the future. Unlike other provinces, we do not penalize future generations with a massive legacy of debt, yet this budget invests in education, social services and health. It invests in seniors, natives, children and families. It invests in our greatest resource: the people of British Columbia.

This budget provides an additional $1.2 billion for health, education and social services. Seventy cents of every tax dollar is being spent in these three areas. In terms of health care alone, we're spending more than $1,680 for each person in the province. Our commitment to health care is exemplified by the fact that one out of every three dollars is for health services. With our emphasis on community-based care, we have made health care accessible to communities in all regions of our province. By expanding the Medical Services Plan to include travel allowances, we will assist patients who have to obtain specialized treatment away from home. This is of particular interest to me as an MLA from the interior where people must travel to larger centres to receive specialized treatment. This is a very positive initiative for those British Columbians who live in small rural communities like my riding. It will truly make higher levels of health care available to all British Columbians.

The budget increases funding for education by $232 million to $3.3 billion. By making this commitment to education, we're making sure that the next generation of British Columbians will have the skills necessary to successfully compete in the economy of the nineties and beyond. We are ensuring that our workforce will be highly skilled.

Presently, 37 percent of our gross domestic product is dependent on exports. We are in a global economy, and if our economic well-being and our standard of living are to continue at their present level and we are to compete in this global market, it is imperative that we have a highly skilled workforce all over British Columbia — and that means quality education.

I've seen this commitment in education and post-secondary education in my riding. Under the Access for All initiative, we are upgrading and expanding post-secondary education, ensuring that more and more young British Columbians outside the lower mainland and Victoria will have the opportunity to pursue a post-secondary education.

I've seen the expansion of university classes....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. SERWA: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It seems to me inappropriate that the member across is continuing to interject when he's not sitting in his own seat.

MR. SPEAKER: The member for Prince Rupert does know the rules. He is only required to.... Actually, members aren't allowed to interject from any seat, but the Chair is particularly forceful about members interjecting from other seats. So I'd appreciate it if the member for Prince Rupert would restrain himself during this scintillating debate.

[ Page 12134 ]

HON. MR. DIRKS: I was talking about education expansion in my own constituency. I have seen the expansion of university classes offered at Selkirk College in my riding. Through the Access for All initiative, community colleges now have the ability to offer second- and third-year classes. This indeed will assist areas like mine. We want to make sure that all British Columbians have the ability to fully participate in the opportunities of tomorrow. Through our continuing commitment to excellence in education, we are fulfilling our duty as a government.

Yesterday the Minister of Finance said that a caring government helps people. In today's challenging times, we know that strong social programs are of vital importance. We have recognized this in increased expenditures for Social Services and Housing by 16 percent. Our commitment to assisting those who require help remains stronger than ever.

In my riding over $2 million has gone towards low-income housing for seniors and the handicapped. In fact, tomorrow I'll be opening 12 units at the Creston Handi Capable housing complex. Five new units have opened in Riondel and 12 in Erickson — just to name a few.

Our social programs are of a high quality, and the budget confirms that the level of service continues to improve. I'm especially pleased that this budget reaffirms our commitment to seniors. Seniors have made a very vital contribution to British Columbia, and they deserve to enjoy their retired years.

In addition to meeting the needs of British Columbians in terms of health care, education and social services — particularly for seniors — this budget plants the seeds for future economic growth. Through the forest renewal program, $1.4 billion will be provided to improve the management of the province's forests.

Interjection.

HON. MR. DIRKS: The member for Prince Rupert says: "He doesn't know where to spend it." Let me tell the good member that since 1986, this government has spent close to $10 million on reforestation in Nelson-Creston alone. This translates into 30,000 person-years of employment. Forestry is a very important employer in the West Kootenays.

The sawmill industry today faces two major challenges. First, in keeping with this government's commitment to a cleaner environment, we must seek solutions to the wood-waste problem. The abolishment of beehive burners by 1995 creates a serious problem for the smaller mills in my riding. I will continue to express my concerns and the concerns of my constituents on this matter with the ministries of Environment, Energy and Forests. Hopefully over the next year we will find a solution that will create a new energy resource out of waste wood.

[3:45]

The second problem is the matter of the oversupply of wood chips. I was very impressed last spring and fall as I watched the integrity of the major project review process unfold over the last year at the Celgar mill. I think it will have the highest standards of any mill in the province, perhaps even in Canada. This mill expansion will go a long way to solving the wood chip problem.

This is a budget that supports investment in capital infrastructure all over British Columbia. In my own riding, investments in infrastructure have provided a real boost to the entire region's economy. For example, the completion of Slocan Bluffs. You remember my maiden speech in the House, Mr. Speaker; I believe you were the Minister of Transportation and Highways at the time. I referred to the Slocan Bluffs, that rocky one-lane path on Highway 6. I'm pleased to say that that is completed, a beautiful two-lane highway. It will certainly enhance tourism throughout the Slocan Valley.

Through our continued commitment to sustainable development, we will ensure that tourists and British Columbians alike continue enjoying our splendid natural heritage. Tourism is a growing industry throughout this province, even in my riding of Nelson-Creston. What we need to do over the next year is develop the infrastructure that is needed to handle those people. We need to finish development of the parks that have already been put in place.

Because of our commitment to free enterprise, though, and because of our solid fiscal and economic management, we have created a climate for economic growth and diversification in all regions of the province, a competitive climate where businesses can flourish.

Like businesses, government also has to be competitive. I know this is alien to my hon. colleagues across the aisle, but it is a fact that cannot be ignored. Our government has ensured that British Columbia is competitive by providing an educated workforce, by cutting red tape and by providing a fair tax structure. We've made ourselves attractive to investors.

While provinces like Ontario are trying to spend themselves out of one recession and right into another one, we are preparing British Columbia for the economy of tomorrow. For example, the $700 million Celgar pulp mill project in Castlegar that I mentioned earlier will preserve more than 400 jobs for the region. This project will also create over 1,100 construction jobs and provide important spinoffs for businesses throughout the Kootenay region and the entire province.

At the same time, this budget realizes that some industries and towns face special challenges. Through the job protection commission, we are helping communities deal with these challenges to preserve existing jobs.

As is the custom, I know that over the next several days the naysayers in the opposition will criticize this budget. They'll say we didn't spend enough money on this or that program. This is all too typical of the socialists. We know from days gone by how compassionate they are, especially when it comes to spending taxpayer dollars — and spending and spending and spending. I've often heard that socialist governments spend money like there's no tomorrow. Well, after socialism there is no tomorrow; it's already been spent. First they will mortgage the future, and then they will sell it off.

[ Page 12135 ]

Given the experience of Ontario, the NDP political left has yet to learn that government has no money of its own. Socialists will complain that you can't compare B.C. to Ontario. Well, they're right; as a province, British Columbia stands above the crowd. However, where we can draw the comparison is by looking at that NDP government and the opposition NDP here in British Columbia. They are parties of special interest, and they both believe in socialist policies — policies that now occupy the dustbins of history.

We've seen the results of the socialist experiment in Ontario: a $9.7 billion deficit, a drop in the credit rating, a decline in investor confidence and an economy in shambles. I know that British Columbians don't want to see a repeat performance in this province. And they won't, because they have better sense than to elect an NDP government.

I know that Ontario has adopted a new approach to small business development. These days it turns out that the best way to start a small business in Ontario is to start with a big one.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to close my comments by saying that this budget deals with realities facing British Columbia. It is a real budget for real British Columbians. It is a clear, straightforward, responsible and realistic document. The fiscal and economic record of this government is one of which all British Columbians can be proud. We have created an economic climate that will ensure stability and will ensure that our province is well prepared to meet future economic challenges. The 1991 budget reaffirms that our government is continuing to act in a fiscally responsible manner in the interests of all British Columbians. I am proud to have had the opportunity to stand in this House today and to speak in favour of this very responsible budget.

MRS. BOONE: Mr. Speaker, I'm going to give my speech in three parts. First of all, I'm going to expose this government for what it is: void of policy and direction and incapable of being honest about the finances of this province. Secondly, I'm going to show that this government has never lived up to its promises. Thirdly, I'm going to talk about what is missing from this speech.

In looking at what this budget promises and at some of the things in this budget, I couldn't help but look back into the Hansards of previous years. I went back to December 14, 1987, and at that time the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam introduced into this Legislature An Act To Feed Hungry School Children. Four years ago the New Democrats were talking about feeding hungry schoolchildren. It has taken this government that long for it to sink through their heads that this is a problem and that they should be acting on it.

I think the government tries to put all the promises and all the problems they had onto the former Premier "We wouldn't have done that except for the former Premier. We're a different government, Mr. Speaker. We would never do these things." However, there was generally support from all ministers and all people on that side for the fact that we were not going to feed those hungry children.

On May 9, 1988, the then Minister of Education, the member for North Peace River, said: "I'd like to touch on the issue that the Leader of the Opposition has made so much of: the disgusting display of whatever with regard to the hungry schoolchildren in the Vancouver system." On May 12, 1988, he went on to say: "By trying to force the provincial government into doing a lunch or breakfast program in the Vancouver school system, you generate a whole Pandora's box, because you can't do it for one district without putting in a formula, without doing all of the things that put in lunch programs."

On April 12, 1988, the Minister of Social Services and Housing stated: "We've said from the start we're not going to stand in the way of their doing that; that's fine, if they want. We're just saying we're not getting involved in a program of that nature." Now, in 1991, the Socreds suddenly find heart or their stomachs or something. They suddenly realize that hungry children do exist, and in the budget speech they say: "Children can't learn if they are hungry. We are working with school boards around the province to put in place a school lunch program." So what took so long? Why didn't you do this four years ago when we first called for this?

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

In the budget speech there are comments with regard to a program to pay for transportation for health costs. I looked back, and I thought that sounded very familiar. On March 11, 1987, the member for Prince Rupert stated: "Finally, dealing with health care, the time is long overdue for our basic medical coverage to include the cost of transportation and lodging when individuals are required to seek the care of medical specialists not available in their communities." In 1987, Mr. Speaker, the member for Prince Rupert called on this government to provide services to people in the regions and to provide money to pay for those costs.

That member never gave up. He continued to question the minister, and in 1989 he questioned the Minister of Health regarding assistance for travel. The response at that time was: "I don't think that at present we can cover that under MSP, because the costs would be quite horrendous." That was in 1989. Today they've suddenly decided that they can and should cover those costs. What took you so long? We've had people calling for these things. We've had people suffering because you have not implemented those services before.

I want to move on to the area of land claims. The Minister of Native Affairs, on June 28, 1989, said: "It is my opinion and the belief of my government that native land claims are a federal issue." Then he went on to quote the Leader of the Opposition: "The provincial government has to come to the table." The minister of the day said: "I don't know what we'd be at the table for." That's what the minister said in 1989. Now they state: "By being an active participant, we will ensure that land claim settlements benefit all British Columbians." That was what we needed you at

[ Page 12136 ]

the table for in 1989, and you've taken this long to get there.

Had this government acknowledged its commitment to negotiating land claims, we would not be in the state that we are today. You ignored these issues until you couldn't do it anymore. You stuck your head in the sand and now we have to deal with it.

[4:00]

The government now hopes to convince the public that it cares. It just won't wash. Just saying that you are a gentler and kinder government won't make it so, because the memories of your past actions will not be forgotten. We will remember. We will remember the AIDS victims who suffered because you failed to provide funding for AZT. We will remember the heart patients and the cancer patients who were forced to go to Seattle for services that should have been provided here in British Columbia. We will remember the bed closures in the hospitals and the number of people who have not received services there. We will remember all of those things. Just saying that you are kinder, gentler and that you care is not going to wash with the people of this province. It's not going to wash at all.

Last year's budget promised a White Paper on a B.C. pension plan. Where is it? We haven't seen a White Paper on a B.C. pension plan. A whole year has gone past. We've not seen it at all.

They also promised last year in the budget to institute vehicle emission inspections in the lower mainland. Guess what, Mr. Speaker? It's in this year's budget too. Do you think maybe this year they can actually get this going? Do you think that maybe this year they can act on a promise — something they've put in there?

Last year's budget mentions a model recycling program for beverage and other containers. We still do not have recycling in many communities throughout this province — recycling which is urgently required and wanted by people. In my community alone — last week, on Mother's Day or the weekend before Mother's Day — we had a recycling program for newspapers put in place by a volunteer group of people. In one day they managed to accumulate two truckloads of newspapers to take to Vancouver. We have no recycling of newspapers in that area. We have no recycling whatsoever in those areas. This year the province is talking about implementing a tire and battery recycling program. We'll just wait and see if that actually comes off the ground too.

Last year they said that they were going to review MSP premiums. They said the question was whether the current MSP premiums are the best way of raising revenue fairly. That's what they said last year. They said the same thing this year and now they're going to review it again. In the meantime, while they look at whether it's a fair way to implement these things, they're going to charge you more. Even if they don't know if it's a fair way to deal with it, they're going to charge more.

I'm quoting from the budget: "Society cannot tolerate the human and economic cost of alcohol and drug abuse. People are killed, families are ruined and workplaces disrupted." That's true. Every single solitary thing there is true. However, do you know what they did? They said they were going to be spending almost $50 million on alcohol and drug programs. That's a reduction, Mr. Speaker. Last year they spent $50,137,000; this year they're spending $49,456,000. In a time when they're saying it's a real problem, they're reducing the amount in this budget.

One has to look at the section of the budget that deals with the mentally ill. They state that they are going to put in force a legacy fund, to which the proceeds from the sale of the Riverview and Woodlands sites.... That revenue fund is going to be for developing community-based housing for the mentally ill. By the time they've sold off the Riverview and Woodlands sites and emptied those places, it's going to be a little late to provide accommodation for those people. Those people are in our communities today. There will be more of them tomorrow. It's not good enough to wait till you sell off Riverview to provide those services for the people. We were promised regional centres with the downsizing of Riverview. We've watched the downsizing of Riverview take place and the regional centres not come into place, and we've watched the mentally ill in our communities not being able to find adequate housing. It has not happened at all.

The previous speaker mentioned a commitment to seniors: "These and other programs reflect society's appreciation for the contribution of our seniors." However, what does that appreciation actually come to? Frozen budgets for seniors' counselling and for bus passes, and an actual reduction in the seniors' supplement. If that's the way they show support for seniors and the contribution that seniors have made, I really don't think that society as a whole is very appreciative.

Not only have they broken promises in the past, they broke a promise of one month ago. One month ago in this Legislature the members over there brought in a taxpayer protection bill. They promised no tax increases. Today we see a bill to override that bill and to allow them to increase taxes. The Minister of Finance says that the tough economic situation of today forced them into doing this. He had to raise taxes or come into a large deficit.

What has happened to the economic climate in one month? We had the same economic climate a month ago, when we brought in this bill, as we have today. Nothing has changed. The only thing that has changed is the political climate. These guys were never expecting to have to bring in a budget. Now they are stuck, a month later, with breaking their own law and bringing in another bill to override their previous bill.

How can the public believe this? How can the public trust a government that doesn't have a bill in place for one month before they have to override it with another bill? How can we trust you? I certainly know I can't.

In addition, over the past four years we've seen increases of over $3,000 per family in fees and permits. They have brought in 784 new fees for everything from the Medical Services Plan to drivers' licences — marriage licences, birth certificates, hunting and fishing licences, park fees, you name it. Every kind of fee and

[ Page 12137 ]

permit has been increased by this government to pay for their rapid spending.

We've seen tax increases now — a tax increase now? — on corporations at a time when companies and people can least afford it. When times were good, this government increased their spending 12 percent. They spent the money that they should have been saving for today. Had they put that money aside, had they actually created that rainy-day fund that the previous Minister of Finance talked about, had there actually been money in that fund, we wouldn't be in this situation. That's what a responsible government does: they save when times are good, and then they spend that money in a recession.

I want to talk about what's not in this budget. There is no talk about decentralization and regionalization now. Several years ago, those were the key words. Everything around here was regionalization and decentralization. If you'll remember correctly, Mr. Speaker, we had $8 million that suddenly came in through special warrants to create the eight ministers of state. Then within a very short period they were reduced to six, and then we had a superminister. Now we see no mention of regions, we see no offices or jobs that have moved to the regions, and we have seen an economic development budget being reduced by $1 million and a regional development budget that has been rolled into the government agents' office. So we don't even know how much there is for regional development and how much there is for the government agents' office. Once again, it's smoke and mirrors. What is there? Where are the dollars? It's been impossible to track the funding of any of those regional development or economic development programs over the past four years, because there has never been a stable ministry to track that money.

We've seen more actions to deceive from this government. I was looking in there, and I thought: how much money do we have for public relations nowadays? Last year they spent $40 million to let the people know what they were doing — a propaganda machine, I think one could call it. Where is that money now? It took me a while, but I found that they've rolled all of those things into operating costs. Not only are they operating costs; it's information, publications and all of those things that the government didn't like having picked out and thrown at them. Also, it's in professional services. We don't know how much they're spending on contracting-out; we don't know how much money they're spending on public relations; we don't know any of those things. It's all rolled into operating costs. When they talk about increases in operating spending, that could easily be spending increases for more propaganda for the propaganda machine.

We see two economies in British Columbia once again. This government says in its speech: "Thanks to the province's strong economic performance in recent years and this government's excellent fiscal management, we are in good shape." Mr. Speaker, that is just not true. It's the lower mainland mentality to think that we are in good shape. If you go to any of the forestry-oriented communities in this province, you'll find that things ain't goin' so well there. We have failed to diversify into other economies. If you go to some of the mill towns, you'll find out just how much they are suffering.

We may not have as many laid off as we had in previous recessions. However, what you will find is job-sharing and shift cuts. You'll find that independent mills are being eaten up rapidly — and I do mean rapidly — by majors, because they're unable to compete due to stumpage. Anyone who says that's not true is... — I will not say that in this House, Mr. Speaker, because that's unparliamentary language — not being forthright.

The Times-Colonist said today: "A major economic think-tank predicts British Columbia's economy will sink the lowest of all recession-ravaged provinces...." That doesn't sound to me like a province that is doing really well; that doesn't sound to me like a province that has missed the recession, as the previous Premier seemed to think we were going to do.

The Times-Colonist also today — it was a good day for the Times-Colonist — talked about the job outlook shifting. It stated: "Structural change in the past decade signals a desperate need for worker training, a study by Employment and Immigration Canada shows." We need to have more training for our workers. That article went on to talk about core jobs — a core job is a full-time, full-year job — which now make up 54 percent of the employment in this province.

What answer does this government have for those problems? What answer does the government have for those men and women out there who find themselves unemployable, unable to get into the job market because their skills no longer are required? What have they done, this people-oriented government — this caring government — that we have? This caring government has cut $10 million in science and technology programs, which provide for the promotion of science and technology initiatives in the province, with a focus on enhancing resource industry technologies and other advanced technologies. They also cut the job training and apprenticeship labour market policy program by $1 million.

Does this make sense at a time when we are facing a crisis of employment, when we have no jobs for our workers, when our workers are being sifted out slowly but surely because of new technologies? Does it make sense to say to the people of this province that we're going to cut the job training processes? I don't think it does, Mr. Speaker. I think that is one of the key areas where this government has failed the people of this province tremendously. We constantly neglect our training processes; we constantly neglect the education of our people. We as a society have found it cheaper to import people from other countries — or even from other provinces, for that matter — rather than train our own. You don't have to look too far to find areas where we just do not do any training whatsoever.

[4:15]

This government has been distancing themselves from the federal Conservatives, and they did so in this budget. They say: "We have no political ties with other jurisdictions. We are a British Columbia government." Do you really expect us to believe that you don't have

[ Page 12138 ]

in your back pocket or your purse somewhere a blue Conservative membership card? Don't you remember 1988? The federal election in this province was a battle between the Conservatives and the New Democrats, and the New Democrats were running against the GST and against free trade. Who did you support, Mr. Speaker? Who did you support, over there? Did you vote New Democrat? I don't think so. So don't tell me you don't support this federal government, and don't tell me you don't have a blue Conservative membership card in your pocket.

No mention in this budget of free trade. It has devastated many of our industries. Promises of revisions to the MOU once the free trade deal was implemented — that was promises. The industry was saying we should do this. You sold out our forest sector; you sold out our fishing industry. Now we're looking at free trade with Mexico. Will you stand by once again while your friends in Ottawa — they aren't my friends — sell us out to the Mexicans? Will you do that? Just saying that you have no ties will not change the fact that under that Socred coat you have a blue Tory three-piece suit.

Mr. Speaker, this budget shows that the government has no policies that they are committed to. The NDP called on the government to pay for the drug AZT for AIDS; the government refused. The NDP called for a school lunch program; the government refused. The NDP called for payments for travel for health care; the government refused. The NDP called for increased corporate tax when times were good; the government refused, and instead implements them when times are tough.

We've seen programs implemented and then abandoned. There are so many programs that have come out: the TRY program, the this program, the that program. People don't even know which are around anymore. Ministries formed and then altered. Ministers formed and then deformed; perhaps they were deformed to begin with. Clearly this government has no vision. It's so worn out of new ideas that they are looking to the New Democrats for ideas.

Mr. Speaker, this is a dishonest budget that has been labelled as such by everyone. I'll quote here: "'The provincial government continues to use the mythical BS fund to disguise the real nature of the deficit,' said Al Kerfoot, president of the Certified General Accountants' Association of B.C. 'It's more smoke and mirrors.'" Al Kerfoot, Mr. Speaker, is not a New Democrat.

This is continuing the dishonest economic policies of all past Socred governments. We go back to the Coquihalla: a $500 million overrun they were talking about ended up a $1 billion overrun — a 100 percent cost overrun there. The Annacis Island system: a $355 million overrun, or 273 percent. The northeast coal access road: a $47.2 million overrun, and that was 94.4 percent. Why can't this government get it through its head that they have to budget correctly? Why can't they put in processes to do these things? This government has shown us over and over again that they are incapable of running this province, and it's time for a change

They are incapable of being honest with the people of this province. The Finance minister states that the deficit is $395 million; it's really $1.2 billion. Nowhere do you talk about the fact.that you have racked up a $9 billion debt in this province. Nowhere do you talk about that. The people of this province deserve to know the state of their economy They deserve to know that the people serving on their behalf are going to be honest with them, and that is something that this government has not found the power to do. Quite frankly, they don't understand how to do these things.

This budget does not deserve the support of the people. As Graham Leslie, the former Deputy Minister of Labour, states, this government doesn't deserve the support of the people of this province.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The debate continues with the Minister of Lands and Parks.

Interjection.

HON. MR. PARKER: My friend from Rupert babbling in his place.

Mr. Speaker, I was really disappointed today to see the refusal on the part of the first member for Vancouver East to do the honourable thing and apologize to the first member for Richmond for purposely misleading this House. That kind of behaviour is reprehensible.

The first member for Richmond, when he was Premier, did a great deal to help the northwest portion of British Columbia, where I live. As a matter of fact, he did so much on behalf of northwestern British Columbia that I found I had to deal with most of the constituents from Prince Rupert and Atlin as well as my own constituents. And Mr. Speaker, you only gave me enough funding for one constituency office. But thankfully I have good staff to look after everybody that comes through the door. We've been serving the entire northwest for the last five years; it's been a pleasure.

This budget helps us to continue to deliver services in the northwest. The services that really count up where we are, are things like health care.

Interjection.

HON. MR. PARKER: Yes, the member for Prince Rupert is trying to climb on the bandwagon now. But those of us representing this government in the north have been working long and hard to get that travel subsidy allowance in the MSP so that people living in the north can enjoy the same benefits as those down here in Victoria or the lower mainland.

It is not unusual for people from the north or the interior to be requested to go to Vancouver or Victoria for certain medical tests, only to find after they got there that they had to be postponed — maybe somebody in the lab was ill that day and couldn't be there. If you live in Victoria, it's probably a $3 or $5 taxi drive to the lab, but when you're coming from the north, it's $1,000.

MR. MILLER: Where were you before?

[ Page 12139 ]

HON. MR. PARKER: Where was I? I was working in government. And what happened? We got it. I want to thank my colleagues the Minister of Health, the Minister of Finance, my Premier of today and my Premier of yesterday for working for the people of the north.

I guess the most important thing that's happened in the last five years in the northwest is the recognition by the provincial government of the concerns of the aboriginal peoples of this province. I live up there, and my family lives up there. I haven't moved off to the big smoke like some of the folks across the way. I believe in living in the constituency I represent. And I do that on a full-time basis.

MR. REID: Good for you. Every member should do that. They're leaving now.

HON. MR. PARKER: Yes, they're leaving now. They have to slip home for a quick supper. They live just down the street.

Mr. Speaker, in 1987 the Nisga'a Tribal Council didn't go to their MLA, the member for Atlin; they didn't go to the member for Prince Rupert, who's leaving. No, they came down to the constituency office in Skeena and asked if I could arrange a meeting with the Premier of the province. The first member for Richmond said, "Yes, absolutely, as soon as possible" — the first Premier in the history of this province to meet with the Nisga'a Tribal Council.

Over a hundred years ago the Nisga'a Tribal Council came to the birdcages here, the parliament buildings, requesting to meet with the government of the day. They were driven off with night sticks by sheriff's officers. This government met the responsibilities that the people of British Columbia should have been meeting over the last hundred years.

The Minister of Native Affairs, the first one appointed in this province, worked hard to make it possible for aboriginal issues to come to government, to be heard and dealt with in this House. This budget is a means of making sure that they're dealt with responsibly, so that we get a fair settlement for all British Columbians. It's really important in the northwest. It's important in the rest of this province, but in the northwest the aboriginal peoples constitute a third of the population.

The first member for Richmond, as Premier, worked hard at decentralization of government — not centralization, "grasping," as we heard from the last member of the opposition from Prince George North about bringing everything close in, taxing more, bringing control into Victoria and leaving the people of the province out of the decision-making process. The first member for Richmond initiated a regionalization process that created eight development regions in the province and the opportunity for people in each of those regions to have direct input to the decisions of this government. This budget ensures that we can continue that pipeline, that opportunity for people all over the province.

In the northwest we made sure that everybody was represented, all the senior elected officials in the region: the chief councillors of the native bands, the presidents of the tribal councils, the mayors, the chairmen of the regional districts, the chairmen of the hospital boards, the chairmen of the school boards. We made sure that people who were responsible to an electorate were in there participating. And they have made real participation a fact. They continue to direct the policies of development, social services, health, education and transportation — which is very important where I live. From the town of Terrace, if you decide to drive north to Atlin or south to Vancouver, it takes the same amount of time. That's an immense area in the northwestern part of British Columbia, and this budget is going to make that area more accessible. Transportation infrastructure is very important. This budget makes it possible for it to continue to be developed and maintained.

[4:30]

The highway north to the Yukon — Highway 37, or the Stewart-Cassiar — is in a state of rehabilitation. It has been a gravel road. It started, as a matter of fact, as a mainline logging road, and it has evolved into a very good highway. There are portions of it being rebuilt and blacktopped. It passes through the Atlin constituency, which is an opposition-held constituency, not a Socred constituency. All of that work was put out to tender, tendered and secured by British Columbia companies, employing local British Columbians, in a lot of cases; their own equipment and labour process.... One of the big players in that is the Tahltan Tribal Council. With their own equipment and their own trained personnel, they are very much a part of making sure that the transportation infrastructure in the northwest is available.

That transportation infrastructure includes such things as helipads that are instrument-flight-rule-rated; that means that helicopter Medivacs can take place in all kinds of weather conditions. This government made money available to communities like Hartley Bay in my constituency, in the Douglas Channel. It made it possible for those communities to get that kind of service. This government made it possible for an IFR helicopter to be located in Prince Rupert, to serve the coastal communities that so often are fog-bound or otherwise weather-bound.

Part of the infrastructure for transportation includes things like port development in Kitimat, which was very much sought after by the people of Kitimat. The municipality of Kitimat funded studies for port development in Kitimat — the people of Kitimat. They started in 1975, but there had been a sweetheart deal signed by the Premier of the day, Mr. Barrett, and the federal government of the day — a Liberal government — that there would be no port development, other than in Prince Rupert, for 15 years. So by 1988 Kitimat certainly had its homework done and worked with a number of agencies to determine that it was very practical to have a seaport development, a public facility in Kitimat. At this time the three facilities that exist there are private: Alcan, Eurocan and Ocelot. It's most important to have a public facility. there, because it means that secondary industry can develop in Kitimat, and they will have a means of reaching the Pacific Rim and European markets. This government

[ Page 12140 ]

and this budget are going to make it possible for the people of Kitimat to realize what they have been working for for 16 years.

If we don't have the infrastructure.... One of the things we really have to provide.... I know that the people opposite will tell you that it's only people services. Well, we have to have an economic engine so that we can afford the people services. We must, as government, provide infrastructure — particularly transportation infrastructure — if anything is to happen. We present opportunities to private enterprise, and they'll carry the ball. This budget supports that kind of development.

We have worked very hard in the northwest in the last five years to diversify the economy of the area. More and more, there are tourism opportunities coming in, and more and more private enterprise is developing — tourist opportunities in the northwest. This government has supported those opportunities. There is an excellent example of private initiative at Lakelse Lake, a place known as Mount Layton Hotsprings. It's been totally developed by a family from Kitimat — Bert and Marlene Orleans — entirely from their own cash flow from their business as towboat operators, and entirely from their savings; no government money. They provide almost a hundred jobs in the area. They fit right in with the ski development on Shames Mountain, and they'll fit right in with the ski development on Claque Mountain that the community of Kitimat put together. Together with the communities of Terrace, Kitimat, Smithers and Prince Rupert, it all helps draw a substantial amount of tourism, not only from the Alaska panhandle but from parts of western Canada.

The way the people from the other parts of western Canada get there, Mr. Speaker, is through a good road transportation system. Highway 16 is constantly being upgraded. Responsible budgets that this government has brought forth year after year have made it possible for bridges, overpasses, grade separations and other safety matters to be dealt with, for the road surface to be improved, for the shoulders to be widened and for communities like Hazelton to see a new major crossing of the Bulkley River. That bridge is under planning and will be constructed in the next couple of years.

But to be able to do all of these things, we have to be able to have that most important resource of all: we have to have the people to make it all happen — and we have that in the northwest. We have up there — I've lived in the northeast too, in the Peace River country; it seems to be a hallmark across the north — self-reliant people, people who.... When their hand is out, it's only there to help somebody else; it's not there for a handout. The people in my community have done such things as attract nuclear medicine facilities to the Mills Memorial regional hospital in Terrace. They have helped, and are helping, to get a CAT scanner into Terrace to serve the communities that surround Terrace — indeed, as far away as the southern Yukon.

Those people have put forth a proposal to this government which has been recognized by the Premier of the day and by the Minister of Social Services and Housing as a very unique initiative in support of housing for seniors and physically disabled people in Terrace. They've got the support of the municipal government and the support of this government through the acquisition of the lands necessary In the not too distant future we will see that support of housing in place. But that's only possible through responsible fiscal management, and this government has provided that.

It is evident in the world financial markets, Mr. Speaker. We can acquire our funds at a much more advantageous rate than Ontario can, for the good reason that there has been responsible fiscal management here for five years. The lending institutions and major financial institutions which governments all over the world go to for repeated short-term and long-term borrowings recognize this province and government as being a good risk and a safe risk. This party and this government have provided the leadership and the responsible fiscal management to make that possible.

There are frequent allusions to Ontario and the state that they're in. Remember back to when Peterson was first elected, it was a Liberal government and a minority situation, and to stay on as government, he had to rely on the NDP. So guess whose fiscal policies he had to adopt? It was the NDPs. In his next mandate he had a majority, but he was locked into the NDP policies that he'd kowtowed to before. When the people of Ontario decided to have a change of government, what happened? They jumped the wrong way, and are they ever hurting now.

However, there's a big upside. We welcome the investment from Ontario into British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where is it?

HON. MR. PARKER: It's coming. Pay attention.

One of the big downsides of what has happened in Ontario is the fact that we will continue to be faced with an overvalued dollar and high interest rates. It won't be very long before we'll see a switch in the current trend and the interest rates climbing.

That impacts on the forest industry in my region and in a lot of regions in this province. When you're selling your product into the States or elsewhere.... Fortunately a good number of the manufacturers in the northwest sell into the European and Asian markets. However, just a little east and into Smithers in the eastern end of my constituency, they're selling into the U.S. rail market, and it's very difficult with an overpriced dollar and high interest rates driven by eastern Canada.

At a time when the economy was really bubbling and strong, Ontario continued with deficit budgets. That borrowing has really caused the Canadian dollar to be strengthened unrealistically. As a result, we have an exchange situation with a dollar that really should be in the range of 79 cents to 81 cents but is artificially held at about 86 cents. That impacts very negatively on our forest industry, and as a result, we see a number of layoffs throughout the province.

If we were down to about 79 or 80 cents on the dollar, we would see break-even situations, or better, in the solid-wood industry, and we wouldn't see those

[ Page 12141 ]

layoffs. But that's precisely what has happened, and we have nobody but our good friends in Ontario — those good old socialist money managers — to thank for that. They'd have you think that they know what they're doing. Well, if you believe that, then you'll believe that pigs can fly.

I'd like to touch on some of the highlights of this people budget introduced by my friend and colleague, the Minister of Finance. The expenditures for '91-92 are concentrated on maintaining programs for people. The priorities are health, education and social services. These three areas account for more than 70 percent of the total provincial budget. This year's spending on these three areas will increase by $1.2 billion, to a total of $11.9 billion.

Even with declining revenues and a slowing economy, we are still able to build for the future. The government has approved social capital expenditures totalling $1.3 billion, an increase of almost 50 percent from last year. These capital investments will go to build schools, hospitals, courthouses and other facilities in many regions of the province. Some examples include the new University of Northern British Columbia in Prince George, which will start construction this year. UNBC is scheduled to hold its first classes in 1993. I'd like to take a moment and commend Mr. Geoff Weller, the president of the University of Northern British Columbia, for getting out all over northern British Columbia and carrying the message that UNBC is indeed a special university, a diverse university for serving the diverse communities of northern British Columbia. It's a long way between communities. It takes the better part of eight hours to drive from Terrace to Prince George, for example.

The University of Northern British Columbia is working closely with the colleges across the north. Northwest Community College, College of New Caledonia, Northern Lights College — they're going to be able to deliver services into little places like Telegraph.

Interjection.

HON. MR. PARKER: Telegraph Creek. If you live up there you call it Telegraph. I've got to remember where I am. People like you from Victoria wouldn't know if I didn't say Telegraph Creek, so: Telegraph Creek. That's for your benefit, my friend.

That's going to be delivered not only by UNBC and Northern Lights College — because Northern Lights College reaches across there — but by the Open Learning Agency, a unique agency which this government has set up and which this budget will continue to fund It is that agency that reaches into all those remote communities. Not only that, the OLA is looked upon by other jurisdictions all over the world as being a foremost delivery system for education — not only post-secondary but from K to 12, because in many cases it's adult literacy that you really have to address. Fortunately, that modern technology makes that happen in those remote areas.

[4:45]

Other major social capital projects underway this year include the Rick Hansen Secondary School in Abbotsford; the new hospital in Powell River; new health centres in Dawson Creek and Fort St. John; a new multilevel care facility in Port Alberni and one underway in Chilliwack; new courthouses in Masset, in Delta and in Kelowna.

By supporting local economies and creating jobs, this budget helps those hurt by the economic slowdown and lays the foundations for recovery. It's responsible spending in areas of important social needs.

Direct assistance to those unable to find work is provided by the Ministry of Social Services and Housing programs for independence. The slowdown has increased the pressure on our social safety net. To cope with the demand, the Ministry of Social Services and Housing has had its budget increased this year by $273 million.

Our underlying philosophy remains that we must help those who can't help themselves, but we must avoid chronic dependency on government. To this end we are renegotiating a program with the federal government to help people on income assistance find employment.

Mr. Speaker, this government recognizes the importance of the family in keeping society together. This budget supports our efforts to help strengthen families, and in response to the recommendations of the Task Force on Child Care we have committed $12.1 million in 1991-92 for increased child day care subsidies and to improve the effectiveness of services.

People are very concerned about family violence, and this government shares those concerns. Believe me, I've seen a great deal of it. I was raised an army brat, and there are lots of people in Victoria that are military brats. Living on the bases, it wasn't uncommon to see family violence. Sometimes it was very heartbreaking — often alcohol-related. This government has committed an additional $4 million this year for programs to help those who suffer from such things. We have in place 59 emergency shelters for battered women and their children, and a victims' assistance program. A Task Force on Family Violence is looking at ways to improve services. It's very important to have the services, but it's also very important to know how effective they are and to continue to improve delivery.

Associated with this problem is the growing tragedy of elder abuse. The need for urgent attention to this issue was brought to the government's attention by the Seniors' Advisory Council, another initiative of my friend the first member for Richmond. That Seniors' Advisory Council includes a gentleman by the name of Lou Gair from Terrace. This council meets regularly and advises this government on seniors' issues, and we listen and we implement recommendations from that council for supporting the independence and dignity of seniors through many programs. We thank the people like Lou Gair for helping us find the right solutions.

In health care, Mr. Speaker, the emphasis is on preventive care, wellness and community-based care, taking a healthy approach to aging. Total spending on health care this year will increase by $591 million to $5.4 billion. Millions and billions. I have a difficult time getting my mind around the magnitude of those

[ Page 12142 ]

numbers. They're enormous. It works out to $1,680 for every person in British Columbia.

We enjoy one of the world's best health care systems, with universal coverage and quality care, but the ever-increasing costs are a major concern to taxpayers and to the government. How can we protect the accessibility and excellence of the system while keeping it affordable? That's a conundrum every government in Canada is facing, but we're the government that's done it with the lowest debt. Last year we created the Royal Commission on Health Care and Costs to find some answers to this question. The report is slated for this year. We're all waiting for that report.

Another initiative in its second year is the Access for All program for post-secondary education. Already we have seen major expansion and enhancement across this province. For example, we've created three new university colleges in Kamloops, Kelowna and Nanaimo, offering third- and fourth-year degree courses. For many people unfamiliar with the community colleges, over the years these colleges have grown to the point where they were delivering first- and second-year courses. Now we have these three community colleges in southern British Columbia that offer third- and fourth-year degree courses in cooperation with the established universities in this province.

This year we are providing funding to start construction of the new University of Northern B.C. Its central campus will be at Prince George, but it will be reaching out throughout the north. Using the already established network of community colleges and other community facilities already in place, it will be making good use of the taxpayers' investment in physical plant and making sure that the service is delivered where it's needed.

Demand for higher education is also growing very quickly in the Fraser Valley. The next degree-granting institution will be in this region.

This year we will contribute $428 million to the operating budgets of British Columbia's three universities and $374 million to the colleges and institutes. That's a total of $802 million, another big number. We're delivering on our promise to bring post-secondary education to more British Columbians in all regions, and we are investing more in our kindergarten-to-12 system. There is a great deal of evidence that higher education means better jobs and a better quality of life. Our children will have to compete in a fast-changing and increasingly competitive economy. We must provide quality education now so our children can make that grade. Over the past five years we've made massive investments in our school system. Even in these more difficult economic times, students and teachers are well provided for. Funding for schools will total $3.3 billion in 1991-92, a $232 million increase from last year.

Mr. Speaker, I see my time is running out. I thank you for the opportunity to share my thoughts with you and this House. This budget is a responsible budget. It's a people budget. It reaches out to all parts of the province, and it really reaches out to the people of the northwest, for which I'm thankful. On their behalf, thank you.

MR. G. JANSSEN: The member for Skeena started his remarks by suggesting that the first member for Vancouver East apologize. If anybody should be apologizing to this House, it should be that former speaker. I remember when he made the remark that AIDS was a self-inflicted disease. He never apologized for that remark. If any remark deserves an apology, it's that remark.

He also went on to expound about monetary policy and how high interest rates carried on a high dollar. Exactly the opposite it true. The best thing that could happen to British Columbia and to Canada in these hard economic times is for the dollar to drop a number of points. The way that happens is quite simple. Interest rates have to stay high, because if interest rates are high, the dollar will drop. There's not a country in the international marketplace that has low interest rates and a high dollar. It's always the other way around. Dollars are attracted to those interest rates, and they bolster the monetary unit of that particular country. I would suggest that the former speaker, the Minister of Lands and Parks, go back to his research staff and get some instructions.

I rise to speak on the budget, and it's with some sadness that I have to speak on the budget. The economic affairs of this province are truly in a sad state. This government has had four and a half years in a province that is rich in both resources and in skilled people who are willing to put those resources to work. They've squandered their opportunity. They haven't taken advantage of the entrepreneurial skills that are available in this province. They have created a deficit of $1.4 billion in the province. At a time when we should be looking for new opportunities, what happened? We got an interim Premier, and one of her first actions was to do away with the Ministry of Regional and Economic Development's loans and grants programs — an investment in the province of British Columbia. She hung up a sign that said B.C. was closed for business, that if anyone wanted to create an opportunity in British Columbia, or create some wealth, new products or new markets, the government wasn't willing to participate. What have we got now?

Interjection.

MR. G. JANSSEN: The former Premier says he didn't do that. Right. The new interim Premier did that. There's always a new interim Premier or interim minister in this government. As a matter of fact, the present Speaker warmed one of the ministerial benches for a couple of months. What's happening? We swept the table clean for those people who wanted to invest in British Columbia. But the present Premier swept the slate clean, so to speak, only after she approved a loan for somebody in her own constituency for $1.6 million the day before.

There are people who were ready to carry on business in this province, in my own constituency, for the guarantee of the interest. That's all the government had to do. Forty-five jobs could have been created, but the table was swept clean. The Regional and Economic Development ministry was shut down, and we now

[ Page 12143 ]

have people from Alberta, Washington, Idaho and Oregon in British Columbia talking to those business people, saying: "Why don't you move to our jurisdiction? We're willing to put in the infrastructure; we're willing to assist so that you can create those much needed jobs, that much-needed economic development that's necessary in today's climate."

This government has wasted billions of dollars — regionalization ministers. They reorganized the government a number of times: ministries were removed, departments were shifted, people resigned and people with skills were moved to departments where those skills weren't utilized. We just printed new phone books, and they're virtually useless.

What happens? The new ministers are known as MOMs — ministers of the moment — because we don't know how long they'll be there. Billions of dollars are wasted. They manipulated B.C. citizens with a BS fund and a rainy-day account that wasn't there. Well, it's not raining outside; it's pouring. Thousands of people have been laid off, and what does this government do? It offers a rowboat, when what is needed is an ark.

In my own riding of Alberni a mill just closed. There are 354 people out of work. There was a demonstration on the lawns of this Legislature. Not one minister of this government came out to speak to those workers. There were other workers — laid-off workers from a Nanaimo plant that closed; there were workers from Chemainus and North Island here. Not one minister of this government took the time to go out and speak to those workers. But after the mill closed, what happened? The interim Premier sent a minister to Port Alberni. He didn't bring a cheque or any ideas; he simply tried to console the workers. As a matter of fact, the president of the IWA, who represents the workers at that mill, was not even invited to the meeting and had to ask if he could come there.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

This government has to get back to basics, and the first thing it has to do is get back to honesty of government. People are losing faith in all governments, and this government is leading the way.

The economy, according to the Conference Board of Canada, will shrink by 1.8 percent this year — the lowest of any province in Canada. Growth will go down. The B.C. Central Credit Union predicts growth of 1.5 percent this year and 2.3 percent in 1992, yet the budget deficit is 8.1 percent this year and is predicted to double next year. How can we continue this growth when the government is saddling the people of British Columbia with debt?

[5:00]

They believe the budget will be balanced over five years, but it will be a rotating five years. Every year they move up a year, so this year it's '91 to '96 that will be balanced, then it will be '92 to '97 and '93 to '98. They'll continue to carry the balances forward and continue to promise to the people of British Columbia that next year they'll have a balanced budget. That is just as dishonest as the budget stabilization fund. I'm glad the minister is not the accountant in my business, because if he were I'm sure my doors would be closed in no time at all.

As a matter of fact, what did Al Kerfoot, the president of the Certified General Accountants' Association of B.C. — of which the minister is a member — say? He said that the budget was mythical, and that it was smoke and mirrors. The Society of Management Accountants came right out and told it all: the real deficit is $1.2 billion, not $395 million. The business community in this province is dismayed at those numbers.

Can you take this budget to the bank, Mr. Speaker? As a businessman I wouldn't dare, and I'm sure the rest of the business community wouldn't. The bank would ask you for a management plan. Well, if this budget is a management plan for the province of British Columbia.... Can you imagine going into the bank and saying: "I'd like a $395 million loan, and I want to take $839 million out of an empty bank account — the BS bank account. I want to borrow $1.2 billion, $1.3 billion or $1.4 billion, and I don't want to put forward a management plan"? Because this is not a management plan.

Let me just quote what the new Finance minister had to say in question period yesterday:

"That is part of the dilemma accountants face in putting statements together, because if we showed both the assets and the corresponding equities, we would inflate our balance sheets substantially. Whether or not that is the picture the Leader of the Opposition wants to show, I'm not sure, The other problem respecting the showing of the capitalization of assets is that one then talks about depreciation and what type of depreciation rules should apply respecting those assets. So there is a whole host of things."

The minister is a CGA. They have a book of rules and ethics, and I suggest he read them. In business there are rules that are followed; they are pretty simple. You are allowed to depreciate a certain amount every year. It's different for buildings, for cars and for different assets. There is also appreciation on a fixed asset. Values rise or sometimes depreciate, as some developers found out in the last recession of 1982 and 1983, when in fact some banks and trust companies were forced to close in Canada and the United States. You just have to look at the savings and loans trust in the United States that is now in great difficulty. But there are rules, and they are generally accepted and followed. They are followed by Revenue Canada for tax purposes, and they are followed by the banks for loans.

I'd like to see how this Finance minister is going to go to New York, Japan or Switzerland to borrow the $1.2 billion he's going to need to balance his budget. Because if he asks for $395 million, as he tells us the real deficit is, they won't give it to him.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. If I could interrupt the member for just a moment, I am reminded of Sir Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, twentieth edition. I think that at this time of day it would help a few members if I remind them that on page 440 there is a little passage about reading newspapers during the debate. If all members would remember that reading

[ Page 12144 ]

newspapers is something we would like to discourage during debate, then the member could continue. There are offenders on both sides. One need not look around to find out who is involved.

MR. G. JANSSEN: As I was saying, there are rules that are generally accepted, but this minister and this government have rules of their own, and those rules are quite evident by the number of resignations and scandals. That's the proof of the type of rules they follow in this government. What we need is honesty in government, and that's not what we are getting.

The budget says that we are going to create a legacy account by selling off Riverview and Woodlands. This fund will develop community-based housing for the mentally ill. If they make as much profit off of Woodlands and Riverview as they made off of the Expo lands site, we are going to have a lot of homeless people in British Columbia, I can tell you that.

What about the mentally ill? A single male of 40 who lives in a group home receives $116 a month to buy his clothes and his toiletries and to go out once in a while. Is that the legacy the government is leaving? Is that the type of legacy we have from this government that says it cares for people?

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

There's more housing in the budget: 2,000 housing units for seniors, disabled and low-income families; 6,500 affordable rental units from the earnings of the privatization account. I'm sure everybody got this in the mail — I did. It's called: "The British Columbia Retirement Savings Plan." What does it say? It says it's going to receive funding from the privatization fund. Well, which will it be? Will it be housing or will it be a retirement savings plan?

AN HON. MEMBER: It could be both.

MR. G. JANSSEN: Could it be both? With a $1.2 billion deficit, I rather doubt it.

Why are they announcing these two programs out of one funding source? Again, we have to address the question of honesty

A 1 percent tax increase for corporations. Only this government would increase taxes on corporations in a downturn. The way it works is very simple. Perhaps if the members opposite, particularly the cabinet ministers, were to listen up for a minute, they would understand. We saw hundreds of millions of dollars — sometimes a tripling — of profits in '86, '87 and '88, and what did this government do? Did it tax those increased profits? No, they gave them a tax break. Now, when the corporations aren't making any profit, they decide to increase taxes to them by 1 percent. When you don't make a profit, you don't pay any taxes. That's how it works; it's very simple. You don't need a degree in economics. I know only a few members over there have one, but listen carefully: if you don't make any money, you don't pay any taxes. It's very simple.

They said there was no tax increase for small business, yet they shifted the burden of taxation. Over 800 tax and fee increases went onto the backs of working people, the backs of businessmen in this province — regulation, red tape, no help for training programs. In fact, they cut the Challenge programs this year, so students who are facing higher tuition fees.... Businessmen who would like to hire those students for summer work programs had to say no because this government backed off.

We've had over $3,000 per family in fee and tax increases since this government took office — $3,000 that could be spent in small businesses so that they could recognize profit and pay their fair share of taxes. But what have we got? We've got cross-border shopping — billions of dollars leaving this province every year. And what did this government do? It put up a sign on the highway that says: "Please turn around and shop in British Columbia." It's 20 percent cheaper on average to do business in the United States than it is Canada. That's not because of wages; it's because of tax costs to business people.

This government supported free trade, and they're seeing the benefits of free trade right now. People are taking their money out of British Columbia, going across the line and leaving their money there. Instead of assisting small business in this province by lowering taxes so they can be more competitive, what do they do?

They say there are no taxes on small business. What do you call the 10 percent premium hikes in the Medical Services Plan? That's a payroll tax. Many businesses include it in their agreements that they pay the Medical Services premiums for their employees. This tax is a payroll tax on the backs of business people, and they have the nerve to say there is no increase in taxes. Honesty again.

Direct government debt has increased from $6 billion to $9 billion. Those aren't NDP numbers; it's right here in the auditor-general's report. You've increased taxes....

MR. VANDER ZALM: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I'm listening to all this debate, and I certainly appreciate many of the comments made. I think it's helpful for us during debate to hear from all of the members. But I find it offensive to have the member refer to a payroll tax brought in by this government when there is no such payroll tax, or even the suggestion of such. He knows full well that only Ontario and other provinces have this tax, not B.C. I think that should be changed for the record.

MR. BLENCOE: I know the former Premier is anxious to participate, but he really should read the rules. That is clearly not a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps you would ask the former Premier to hold back and read the rules. He hasn't had a chance to over the last few years.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I might point out that that is not a point of order. The hon. member will have the option of raising the point when he rises in debate on the budget.

MR. G. JANSSEN: I recognize that the member for Richmond may be out of sorts. He hasn't had as much

[ Page 12145 ]

chance to get on his feet as he used to, but I'm sure he'll have the opportunity again.

Those numbers didn't come from the New Democratic Party; they came from the auditor-general's report, as I said. Taxes have gone up. Some fancy footwork was done by this government. They borrowed $100 million — now that's usually classified as debt. Then you lend it to the transportation authority, and it becomes a receivable, because they have to pay you back. Try to take that argument to the bank sometime, Mr. Speaker. It won't work. Again we're talking about honesty.

The government announced that there would be an intermediate-care home built in Alberni. On March 21, 1991, they say an intermediate-care home will be built in Port Alberni. As a matter of fact, it was back on December 20, 1988, that they first made the promise. Three years ago they announced an intermediate-care home, and now they announce the same thing. On April 25 — barely a month ago — the contract was let for $3.9 million.

There has been a bit of recycling in this budget, as we know. They've announced a number of projects again and again. They keep having these false starts to election campaigns. But then they have to shuffle the cabinet because somebody else has to be removed or has to resign from cabinet, or they have another scandal on their hands. So again they have to put off the election campaign and bring up some new promises. Basically, as with the intermediate-care home, they've run out of promises, so they recycle the old promises. The government must come clean.

They're trying to shore up support, so they come up with the taxpayer protection plan. It came in just a short while ago. Now it's out again, and it keeps coming in and out.

[5:15]

MR. VANDER ZALM: Good plan.

MR. G. JANSSEN: The former Premier says it's a good plan. Perhaps he could tell the present Premier that it's still a good plan. I don't know if she's listening to him, but he could make the argument. Perhaps he will in his speech. I'll be looking forward to that.

An increase in the Pharmacare deductible. Not only is there a tax on the sick with Medical Services premium increases, but the deductible on Pharmacare is going up $50. To tax the sick in a time of recession is simply incredible.

Regionalization lasted a year — millions of dollars. We had ministers appointed, then we had secretaries to ministers appointed. Now what has happened to it? We're centralizing again. They've reduced the size of cabinet. Only the Premier is making the decisions. We had the Minister of Finance, the fourth one in as many months. They come and they go. Ministers barely have time to get their seats warm. Forty-three ministers in 54 months of government.

I wonder what the pension plan scheme is going to look like. Some aren't there long enough to get a pension, I recognize that, but certainly there must be a large increase. They talk about a pension plan for ordinary British Columbians. If this government stays in power an extra five months, right to the end of its term, it will certainly be able to cycle into cabinet every single one of the MLAs who hasn't had a chance yet. They'll be there for the month or so it takes to warm their seats, and then they can be on their way.

Democracy is not working in British Columbia, because of scandals, resignations, and this government's inability to govern. It spends more time on its own political agenda' than it spends on running the province. This province is the most poorly administered province in Canada. When you go to other parts of Canada they say: "What's happening in British Columbia?" Unfortunately I have to say: "I'm sorry, I haven't read the latest newspaper yet." Because it changes from day to day.

I'm saddened, because when I go across this province, when I go to my own constituency, young British Columbians come up to me and say: "Why should I bother to vote? We see ministers coming and going. We see the mess the federal government is in. We see what the provincial government is doing. I didn't want the GST; I got it. I didn't want free trade; I got that. Provincial taxes have gone up. I have to go shopping across the border in order to clothe and feed my family." Young people are saying: "Why should I bother to vote?"

The thing that really bothers me the most, Mr. Speaker, is that if we continue on this slippery slope, if we continue with the dishonesty in government, if we continue with ministers' resignations, where young people no longer can look up to the people they elect, we'll end up like the United States — which supposedly is the most democratic country in the world, yet less than 50 percent of the people bothered to vote in the last election. Only 47 percent of Americans bothered to vote, because they've given up.

What this government is demonstrating — the type of government they're giving British Columbians; the resignations; the scandals, week after week after week; the government not knowing whether to call an election or not, not knowing whether or not they can put forth a $1.2 billion deficit, which they call a $395 million deficit.... Honesty is what people are looking for — honesty in government.

If every one of those members looked deep inside their heart and said: "We've been in power long enough. If we've done such a good job, we should be able to go to the people and get re-elected." But they keep putting it off. Let them put their names on the line. If in fact this is a clean government, their wish will come true and they will be re-elected, but if in fact the voters in British Columbia see them for what they really are, and see this budget for what it really is — a $1.2 billion deficit on the backs of ordinary working British Columbians — they'll get rid of this government.

Interjections.

MR. G. JANSSEN: Put your record on the line. Do the right thing. Call an election.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, my best wishes to you in your position as Deputy Speaker once

[ Page 12146 ]

again and my best wishes to all Members of the Legislative Assembly.

There are a number of things I'd like to touch on today in kind of a light-hearted look at the budget presented yesterday by our Minister of Finance. The first thing I think we should talk about is the budget stabilization fund and the methods used for the statement of accounts over the last four years of our government.

Perhaps just to explain briefly, government revenue can fluctuate significantly from year to year; I think we're all aware of that. It's common when you depend on resource industries, as we do in B.C., for your revenues. To maintain stability in government programs over an economic cycle, revenues should be spread over weak and strong years. One mechanism for spreading revenues over an economic cycle is a budget stabilization fund. When you have more than you need in one year, you set that extra aside to pay for services in a year when revenues are down.

Since the 1987-88 fiscal year, $1.6 billion has been set aside in the budget stabilization fund. With the economy going through a slowdown, this money has been used to balance the budget and preserve programs. In 1990-91, $761 million was brought back into government revenue, and a further $839 million was brought back in '91-92.

Critics argue that in any year when government takes in less revenue than it spends, it has a deficit. In fact, as long as government is committed to multi-year budgeting by using some form of rainy-day account, there must be deficits and surpluses on a consolidated basis as revenues are moved from strong to weak fiscal years.

The most appropriate measure of a government's fiscal performance is the debt of the province, including both direct government debt and Crown corporation debt, in relation to the level of activity in the economy. In 1987-88, the total of direct and Crown corporations debt for British Columbia was $16,966 million, which represented 27 percent of the provincial gross domestic product. For '91-92, total debt will be $19,983 million, which represents 23.5 percent of the provincial gross domestic product. Clearly a reduction in terms of our direct and Crown corporation debt.

Although the opposition and other critics may make some fun of our accounting procedures and try to poke holes at them, the real test will be when we look at our bond rating. I can assure you that our bond rating will not suffer dramatically as it did in Ontario, thanks to the NDP government there.

That will be the true test. Although the New Democrats opposite would argue that they would not bring in a policy such as Bob Rae has introduced to Ontario, we have the Leader of the Opposition arguing strenuously for a $3 billion increase in social services spending, yet at the same time arguing that they would not replicate the budget of Ontario. That's clearly a contradiction. If they're going to advance the notion of a $3 billion increase in social services spending, they are going to have to consider either extreme deficit measures or increased taxation.

HON. MR RICHMOND: Or both.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Right. I've just been handed a note from my barber.

AN HON. MEMBER: Two loaves of bread.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: And pick up some bacon. I'll be more than happy to do that.

Where were we? We were speaking of Ontario and of the B.C. Leader of the Opposition's promise to spend an extra $3 billion on social services. That was two years ago. By now the inflationary factors would have probably driven that up to $5 billion, which happens to be the Ministry of Health budget for '91-92.

Clearly, if we look at the Ontario record and if we look at the Leader of the Opposition's statements, we know that there's no way the New Democratic Party — if they were government — could operate and maintain those promises unless they increased the deficit substantially or increased taxes substantially. In my opinion, if they were elected government they would probably have to do both.

Listening to the opposition critic, the first member for Vancouver East, I was reminded that.... As is typical of NDP statements and speeches in the House, there was very little policy advanced. As a matter of fact, although we've heard a lot of criticism today, we haven't heard one solid piece of policy advanced to us in terms of what the NDP would do if they were government. They are clearly critical of the government, which I guess is their position. But if you're going to....

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I've been here all afternoon, and I haven't heard one comment about the budget. The budget was just presented yesterday, my friend. I've heard your critic and other speakers spend two hours without advancing one shred of NDP policy with respect to fiscal spending. They don't have any. I've listened carefully — not one piece of budget policy. There was some mention of draft legislation, but I don't see anything in the bill book. There is no policy there. There are no speeches, no policy advanced — totally bereft of any ideas.

I was reminded — with regret — that probably the best Finance critic we had was Dave Stupich, who's now sitting in Ottawa. I'm sure a lot of members remember him. Dave always had a policy of coming in here and offering sound, sincere criticism and pointing out what was....

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Oh, you didn't like Dave Stupich? I never debated Dave Stupich — are you kidding? You guys couldn't either.

In any event, Dave did a fine job. He would not only talk about how he felt the government should be doing things and how he could be a good responsible critic, but would always advance policy on how he would do things if he were Finance minister. That was always

[ Page 12147 ]

refreshing, and it showed courage. It showed that he was innovative, that he had ideas and that he was fresh thinker. It showed that he could think on his own and that he could come into this House and say: "I think the government should be doing this as opposed to this." We haven't seen any of that since Dave Stupich left. We certainly haven't seen it from the first member for Vancouver Centre, nor have we seen it in any subsequent New Democratic speeches this afternoon — totally bereft of advancing any policy.

Again, the question we have to put to the voters is: if you're going to vote for this party, what are you voting for? You certainly can't vote for what we've heard this afternoon, because there's nothing there. There's no advancement of policy, no policy projected — not one shred of policy that we can look at, criticize, discuss or even think about. Whereas when you are government....

MR. BLENCOE: Call the election.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: We'll get around to that. I've heard that for 12 years, my friend: "Call the election." And we keep coming back, and we keep calling the election. We will when it's time to do it, and we'll be back again.

[5:30]

I'd like to spend some time speaking about health care. Members will note that it's the largest spending portfolio of government and has been for some time. It is one-third of the total budget, and in terms of percentages it's been that way for some time.

Total spending on health care was $3.6 billion in the 1987-88 fiscal year and is budgeted at $5.4 billion for this '91-92 fiscal year, which is an increase of almost 50 percent — a remarkable commitment, Mr. Speaker and members of the assembly, to health care and to the social services of our province. Last year provincial spending on health care amounted to over $1,500 for every adult and child in British Columbia, including $735 per person to support B.C. hospitals. This year provincial spending on health care will amount to over $1,680 per person. Last year the province paid over $1.1 billion to physicians and surgeons for their services to patients. In 1991-92 it expects to spend $1.4 billion.

Medical Services Plan premiums paid by residents cover only 14 percent of the cost of health care; the remainder is funded from general revenues, and the remainder is set aside by a government that has a caring philosophy and really is concerned about the social benefits and social programs of our province. Let's not lose sight of the fact that it was W.A.C. Bennett, a Social Credit Premier, who was the second Premier in Canada to introduce a medicare program.

Universal care is a cornerstone of the health care system, and 98 percent of all British Columbians are covered by the Medical Services Plan, in contrast to the situation existing south of the border, where 37 million Americans are not covered by any plan at all. Seniors are key beneficiaries — 46 percent of the health care budget is spent on services to people over the age of 65, and as much as two-thirds of that is spent on people over the age of 80. And that's going to increase, I can assure you.

As the Minister Responsible for Seniors, I'm often reminded of Maurice Chevalier. When he turned 80 someone asked him what he thought of turning 80 and he said: "Well, it's wonderful, especially when you consider the alternative." For many seniors, I'm sure they'll have that alternative in British Columbia.

Last year over 400,000 patients were admitted to B.C. hospitals, an average of 1,160 per day at an average cost of $438 for each night's stay. Some 400 ambulance vehicles based in 163 communities across the province made over 300,000 trips. The continuing care program provides 16,000 beds and 413 residential care facilities for adults with physical and mental infirmities. Mental health centres provide out-patient counselling and treatment at 55 locations throughout the province. Clearly one can see that we have an outstanding and substantial commitment to better health care in this province, and I would commend to all of you and to all members of this Legislative Assembly that the health care system in British Columbia is probably the best of any province in Canada, without question.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair]

I'd like to spend a bit of time on advanced education, because as many of you know it was my previous portfolio. One of the outstanding commitments the provincial government has made is to the University of Northern British Columbia in the northern part of the province. My colleague the Minister of Lands and Parks and the MLA for Skeena spent some time earlier in this debate talking about the University of Northern British Columbia. One of the points he made — and I think it is critical to the success of this university — is that this university is clearly for northern British Columbia. As a matter of fact, included in the UNBC legislation of last year was a provision that government-appointed members of the board of governors and the senate would represent the Northwest Community College area, the Northern Lights College area, the College of New Caledonia area and the Cariboo Regional District, thus ensuring the broadest regional representation not just by a promise but by a statute.

This brings to mind the NDP legislation tabled about the same time which did not recognize any regional representation and clearly did not consider that there should be representation at the University of Northern British Columbia from all of the north. That is the Vancouver–lower mainland mind-set on centralization in not ensuring that all people were involved in management and in ensuring that there would be centralized control — something not acceptable to our government.

In our new and unique legislation we were able to show that we had a responsibility to all the people in northern British Columbia who had supported the university concept and stood behind it — the 15,000 members from Anahim Lake to Fort Nelson to Prince Rupert to the Charlottes. We clearly indicated in our legislation that they would continue to have a sound, legislated voice in the operation of that university, and

[ Page 12148 ]

we're very proud of the way that legislation was developed.

One more thing. The member for Prince George North spent some time trying to understand our principles of regionalization, the ministry of state concept and what we have done. It's clear that had the member attended any of those meetings, which she was clearly invited to...

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: About three.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, as a matter of fact, he was.

...the member would have known how actively that committee worked, particularly in the development of the University of Northern British Columbia. The committee that we put together for the Cariboo development region was composed of the mayors or alternates from village and city councils, and the two chairmen of the regional districts — the Regional District of Fraser–Fort George and the Cariboo Regional District. It was a very good management unit, and of course all MLAs were invited. I attended as chairman, the first member for Cariboo attended and the second member for Cariboo, a member of the New Democratic Party, attended after he was elected. But the MLA for Prince George North has studiously avoided any of those meetings, with the exception of three out of probably 36, and then only on a half-time basis.

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Hey, I'm speaking. You're next, right?

HON. MR. RABBITT: Tomorrow.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'll wait.

Anyway, that organization put together the University of Northern British Columbia and the wood waste plant at Williams Lake, and was responsible for many remarkable initiatives in the interior. It's one that we are clearly proud of and are going to see develop.

I can tell you that the regional development concept still exists. Our next meeting will be on July 15 in Mackenzie. I'm sure the member for Prince George North, although it's her riding, won't be there. Our meeting will continue in Mackenzie, we'll be responsible, and we will continue to provide good, solid government and good direction to the people of British Columbia and particularly to the people of northern B.C.

I'd like to spend some time on some more recent initiatives within the Ministry of Health. They are important, and many of them deal with issues and services for the people outside of the lower mainland — which, of course, is very important to me and to my colleagues who come from ridings outside of the lower mainland.

Back to the Health portfolio. Recent initiatives include a mammography unit, which is providing service around the province to bring health care closer to the people. In addition, new cancer clinics will be built outside Vancouver and Victoria. In 1991-92 the Medical Services Plan will be expanded to include a travel allowance system to assist patients who have to obtain specialized treatment away from home. Again, this is a solid commitment of services to all the people of British Columbia from our government.

Let us be reminded, Mr. Speaker, that over the past five years the government has allocated over $1 billion in new capital funding to build and expand hospitals and other health care facilities in our province. We have set in place a Royal Commission on Health Care and Costs to consult the public and examine the B.C. health care system. The commission's report is expected later this year. It is a signal and a sign to the people of British Columbia that we are a government that cares and a government that listens.

The "Toward a Better Age" strategy for seniors focuses on wellness and healthy aging. The benefits of this strategy include helping seniors preserve their independence and supporting community-based health care services.

Innovative community-based solutions, such as the Victoria Health Project and hospital-community partnerships, were launched to bring health care closer to the people. The benefits of this strategy include coordination and delivery of more efficient and appropriate services at the local level.

Major policy shifts are greater emphasis placed on health education and preventive services and the promotion of healthier lifestyles. The number of drug and alcohol prevention and treatment agencies increased from 64 to 171. In the 1991-92 fiscal year almost $50 million will be spent to provide substance abuse treatment at detoxification centres, out-patient clinics and residential treatment centres. Major new funding under the mental health plan provided $10.1 million to meet critical needs and provide long-term care alternatives to institutionalization. Technological advances, such as CareCard and the Teleplan computerized billing system, have been established to improve the efficiency of the Medical Services Plan.

Mr. Speaker, all in all, as we examine this budget we can see that there is no question that in one word it is responsible. It recognizes declining revenues, which we're all aware of and can't lose sight of, yet it recognizes that to be a responsible government we cannot inflict huge tax increases on the people of the province, such as the New Democrats would have to do if they stay with the $3 billion increase in social services spending. We cannot cut services to the people, because they are essential to the people of British Columbia. The people of British Columbia expect the best social services possible, and we are providing them. I see an 11 percent increase in my Health budget alone. Clearly we have to continue with the excellent Access for All education program begun by the former minister — two ministers back. It continued while I was minister and will be continued. It provides more and more opportunity for post-second-

[ Page 12149 ]

ary education and for students — not just in the lower mainland but in areas outside of the lower mainland — to receive a quality, degree-level education. We are carrying on with that. As well, the Social Services ministry has increased its budget, again providing services that are clearly necessary to the less fortunate in our province. We have done all of this with absolutely no increase in taxes, without cutting back on major social services programs, and without any heavy hit on industry or small or large business.

Let's face it: all business, small or large, is critical to British Columbia. We realize that we cannot be like the Ontario NDP government and bring in legislation that would add to a payroll tax or make boards of directors personally responsible for plant operations — legislation that is clearly going to drive big and small business out of that province. We see in Ontario, from some of their policies, retrograde legislation that is going to impact negatively on any investor development or confidence in that province. We've seen their bond rating drop. We will see other measures. We will see a summer of discontent, a summer of economic horror in Ontario as this Bob Rae legislation develops and develops.

You will not see that in British Columbia as long as the people of this province stay with a strong Social Credit government. Instead you will see market stability and government stability, and a government that is responsible to the needs of the people, the needs of industry and the needs of our economy.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: They're not heckling; it must be sinking in.

You will see a government that meets the needs of the people, that knows you just can't tax or spend your way to prosperity, but that you must demonstrate to the economic community, the social services community and to all people of the province that you are responsible and have their best interests in mind. If you don't have a healthy private sector investing in the province and in its future, you have nothing at all.

Mr. Speaker, I am advised that there's a very important and happy announcement to be made soon by the Premier, and I'm therefore going to take my place. In closing, I do thank you and all Members of the Legislative Assembly for your attendance and diligence in listening to me this afternoon. I, for one, will be supporting the budget that was tabled by our Finance minister yesterday, and I would urge all members to do so.

[5:45]

Ministerial Statement

REPORT ON INVESTIGATION
INTO FORMER MINISTER OF HEALTH

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for allowing me this opportunity to make what I consider to be a very important announcement in the House today. I'm sure that all members of the House will be pleased with the information that we're bringing forward.

Approximately a year ago, a very highly respected colleague, after allegations, chose to do the honourable thing and step aside while he was under investigation. This investigation has taken the better part of a year. It seems like an awfully long time, and I'm sure to the first member for Central Fraser Valley it probably seems like far longer than one year. But there has been an extensive and lengthy investigation done. The RCMP investigated, and there was a special prosecutor appointed as well.

Today we have received word that after all of this extensive investigating, it is obvious that the first member for Central Fraser Valley was, as we expected, performing his duties in accordance with the traditions of high office, and there was absolutely no evidence of any criminal wrongdoing by our member.

I know that all members of the House would like to join together to offer our — the word isn't condolences — strong support to the first member for Central Fraser Valley and to congratulate him for the manner in which he upheld the tradition of his high office. We are all very pleased that this cloud has been lifted from his head.

MR. CLARK: Just to briefly respond on behalf of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, I too would like to congratulate the former minister on the good news that we've just heard. I think it also is clear that the former minister responded according to the highest standards — which we have come to expect in a parliamentary democracy — by tendering his resignation at that time. We are pleased, and indeed think that all British Columbians are pleased, when this kind of matter is cleared up and when members who have the public trust and are elected to serve have been reviewed and have not had criminal charges laid against them. So we certainly wish to congratulate the member on the news we've heard today.

MR, SPEAKER: The hon. first member for Central Fraser Valley — leave will be required.

Leave granted.

MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, I'm overwhelmed today. I would have to say to every member in the House that I feel a lot different today than I did 12 months ago. It was the low in my life as a public servant and the low in my life — period. In the time I've spent in business, I've never had an experience where they questioned my integrity.

But I have to say that while I waited for the results of the investigation, there was a time when I really doubted my judgment and felt that I had done the wrong thing by stepping aside; I have to admit that today. But since the news came out that I've been vindicated, I feel I did the right thing.

I would certainly challenge everyone on both sides of the House.... When something like this happens, the honourable thing still is to step aside and let an independent body look at it at arm's length and see

[ Page 12150 ]

whether there has been wrongdoing and that it comes out in the proper manner.

I see one fault with the system. I don't think anyone — a bureaucrat, an elected person or anyone on the street — should have to wait 12 months before charges are laid. I would like to give an example: Sylvia Russell, or my former deputy. Whether they're guilty or not, to wait 12 months to find out whether charges will be laid or not, I think, is too long a period of time. I think something should be changed. We should look at it very seriously.

Justice should be done, but it should be done swiftly. There is an old saying that justice delayed is justice denied. I know it's an overused phrase, but it is very true.

All these months that I've been under a cloud, even some of my best friends said: "We truly believe you're not guilty, but what in the world happened?" I've had the opposition members come to me and say: "I know you're not guilty." But at the same time, that cloud was over my head and I had to sit back and couldn't tell the whole story, didn't want to tell the whole story, didn't even know the whole story. It's been a very trying time.

I just want to thank every Member of the Legislative Assembly on both sides of the House for their patience and for the trust. I'm just so glad everything's over.

MR. CLARK: I ask leave to make a short statement in response to the first member for Richmond.

Leave granted.

MR. CLARK: The information provided to me in the first week of May 1991 from reliable government sources indicated a sales tax delinquency on the part of Fantasy Garden World Inc. It was on that basis that I sought confirmation from the Minister of Finance.

In light of the new information provided by the first member for Richmond, I have no hesitation at this time in extending an apology.

MR. BLENCOE: Given the lateness of the hour, I would like to adjourn debate on behalf of my colleague the first member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Richmond moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:53 p.m.