[ Page 12167 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Point of Privilege

Fantasy Garden World Inc. sales tax. Mr. Reynolds –– 12167

Mr. Clark

Oral Questions

Government borrowing. Mr. Clark –– 12169

Child safety. Mrs. McCarthy –– 12170

Government borrowing. Mr. Clark –– 12170

Seedlings for reforestation. Mr. Miller –– 12170

Criminal injury compensation for sexual abuse victims.

Hon. Mr. Messmer –– 12170

Motions on Notice

Appointment of conflict-of-interest commissioner. Hon. Mrs. Johnston –– 12171

Mr. Harcourt

Budget Debate

Mr. Barlee –– 12172

Mr. Reid –– 12176

Ms. Edwards –– 12180

Mr. Crandall –– 12184

Mr. Lovick –– 12187

Hon. S. Hagen –– 12190

THURSDAY, MAY 23, 1991

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

HON. S. HAGEN: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to make some introductions. I have a friend in the gallery today from the great riding of Comox. Melanie Zimmer and her friend Dave Fedoruk are visiting the Legislature –– I would like the House to please assist me in bidding them welcome.

Also in the gallery today is Mr. John Watson, the president of BCIT. He is in Victoria today for a meeting of the Premier's Advisory Council on Science and Technology. Would you please bid him welcome.

MS. EDWARDS: It's my pleasure to introduce today two dear friends from the constituency of Kootenay. I think it's a pleasure for them, with their long interest in politics, to be able to fertilize that interest every now and then with a visit here. Please help me welcome Henry and Evelyn Mathias.

MR. REE: Each year at this time the province celebrates the artistic talents and visions of its citizens by supporting the B.C. Festival of the Arts. Yesterday the Minister of Municipal Affairs and myself had the pleasure of opening it in North Vancouver. On behalf of the people of North Vancouver, Mr. Speaker, I would invite yourself, all members of the Legislature and the people of British Columbia to attend North Vancouver on Thursday, Friday and Saturday for a fun time, to see the 1,800-odd artists performing indoors and outdoors. They will have a great ball.

MR. CASHORE: On behalf of the first and second members for Vancouver–Point Grey and the member for Prince Rupert, I'd like to introduce a very good friend, Angie Todd-Dennis. She is the coordinator of the first nations health care professions program at UBC and is here with one of her students, Joanne Nelson of Prince Rupert, a third-year biology student. They are here seeking support for this very important program that they are operating on behalf of native students seeking employment in the health care professions field. Would the House please join me in making them welcome.

MR. HUBERTS: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery we have some very close friends of mine: Brent and Tracy Sheppard. Brent and his brother accompanied me in 1980 to a country in West Africa called Upper Volta. While I was doing some dissection on the animals and working on an elephant that had been shot by poachers, Brent was right there beside me in the 130-degree temperature. Will the House please welcome Brent and Tracy Sheppard.

MR. CRANDALL: This afternoon we have about 24 grade 12 students from the great city of Kimberley. It's a long way from our constituency to the capital, and I'd like the House to welcome those 24 students and their teacher, Mr. Terry Oscarson.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: On behalf of the first member for Dewdney and myself, I'd like the House to welcome Mr. Jim Arthurs and Elsie Derksen from Mission.

MR. PERRY: We have in the members' gallery today a visitor from about as far as it's possible to come to attend this Legislature. Dr. Christine Ebert-Santos is a pediatrician who is the director of medical services in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. I assume all other members are familiar with where that is, but in case there are any, like me, who needed refreshing, it's about 160 km from Guam, somewhere in the region of the Philippines near the Mariana Trench.

I'd also like to welcome two first-time visitors to the Legislature: Mrs. Charlene Gram from New Westminster; and a member of the very great riding of Vancouver–Little Mountain that I'm sure the first member will join me in welcoming, Mrs. Marjorie Smith.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I have two groups of guests here I would like the House to welcome. First is a group of grades 3 and 4 students who are visiting from Serpentine Heights Elementary School in Surrey. Secondly, visiting from Vancouver are Mr. Andrew Saxton and his wife Sophie, who are joined by Dr. and Mrs. Paul Fenje. They are here on board the heritage vessel Saxony, of which Mr. Saxton is the proud owner. Would the House please make them all welcome.

MR. COUVELIER: I notice also in the gallery an old protagonist of many of us in this House, but nevertheless a loyal free-enterpriser, one of the important coalition that this party represents, Mr. Maxwell Tracy. Would the House please welcome him.

Point of Privilege

FANTASY GARDEN WORLD INC. SALES TAX

MR. REYNOLDS: This morning I served notice of my intention to raise a matter of privilege involving the member for Vancouver East with respect to a statement he made in this chamber shortly before adjournment last evening.

I wish to table that statement now, along with other relevant information I will be referring to, in support of my contention that by his actions and tacit admission a prima facie case exists that the member for Vancouver East breached the collective privileges of all members.

Specifically, the privileges at stake are the right of the Legislature to regulate its own proceedings and the power to punish for contempt, as identified in the second section of MacMinn's Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia, page 36.

On May 14, 1991, the member for Vancouver East rose in this House during the question period and implicitly alleged that a private business, Fantasy Garden World Inc., paid no provincial sales tax last year. Yesterday the first member for Richmond factu-

[ Page 12168 ]

ally refuted that allegation and asked for an apology for the serious harm done to himself by the member's question and the media's subsequent stories.

After considerable reluctance, the member for Vancouver East conceded an apology, which was the only recourse requested by the offended party. It was during this apology that the member for Vancouver East defended his actions with the following words: "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."

Note that the member states that information was provided to him in the first week of May. Note also that he received this information from "reliable government sources" and that the information indicated a "sales tax delinquency on the part of Fantasy Garden World Inc." — a private company whose tax records are a most confidential matter, as every person in British Columbia knows.

I am mindful that the first member for Richmond sought no further redress than an apology for the defamatory question put by the member for Vancouver East. Whether a simple apology should suffice is irrelevant to my point, which is simply this: confidentiality is a central tenet of our tax system, which depends on voluntary compliance based on a trust that private tax information will not be shared with anyone other than those specifically authorized by law to be in receipt of such information.

[2:15]

The member for Vancouver East knows that, and so does his leader. Indeed, it was the Leader of the Opposition who, as mayor of Vancouver, acknowledged the importance of keeping confidential information confidential. In this regard it is worth recalling the following report in the Vancouver Sun for May 27, 1981:

"Mayor..." — now Leader of the Opposition — "is promising swift and tough action against any alderman or staff who leak confidential council materials to the press.... 'If I discover a staff person doing this, he will be disciplined or fired.' He added that if an alderman was involved, 'he or she is not worthy of office'."

We know from past experience that these are hollow words, but they may be relevant to this House at some point in the future in connection with the privileges that I contend have been breached here by the member for Vancouver East. What could be more confidential than government tax records? Again I remind the House that the member clearly stated that he based his earlier question on information that he had in his possession that was given to him by "reliable government sources."

I wish to draw this assembly's attention to section 11 of the Social Service Tax Act, which states clearly: "A person who has custody of or control over information or records under this act shall not disclose the information or records to any other person" than those specifically authorized under the act.

Mr. Speaker, it is crystal-clear that the member for Vancouver East has sought to denigrate the reputation of one member on this side of the House and, with it, the party he used to lead. But more importantly, his gestapo tactics raise serious questions for all British Columbians as to the confidentiality of their private tax information. How can they ever feel secure about the system if they have to fear that confidential information relating to them or their personal affairs can be used by a member of this assembly, without fear of reprisal, for purely political reasons?

Mr. Speaker, we must have the power to adequately regulate our own proceedings in this Legislative Assembly to ensure that such confidential information is never abused for partisan purposes or in any other manner. We must also ensure that contempt for the House and the laws of this province does not go unrecognized or unpunished.

I submit that the member in question has severely compromised the privileges of all members and has further abused the right he enjoys to speak freely in this House. For the privilege of freedom of speech is a most sacred right, but so is the right of privacy, protected by law. The integrity of our tax system depends on confidentiality, and the integrity of this Legislature depends on the sworn duty of all members to uphold it and to uphold the law.

I submit that the member's implicit admission that he was provided confidential information by "reliable government sources," which he elected to use to discredit another member of this House, constitutes a breach of privilege. It is gross contempt to use such information for cheap political gain and an affront to the integrity of all members and the provincial tax system. It may well be contrary to federal acts as well, including the Criminal Code.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I ask that you seriously consider the gravity of the matter I have raised. I tender to you at this time a motion which I would be prepared to move, should you find that a prima facie case exists.

MR. SPEAKER: The member for Vancouver East wishes to add some information for the Chair's consideration?

MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, I received information that I believe to be correct. On that basis, I asked for confirmation from the minister responsible, the Minister of Finance. Subsequently, the first member for Richmond provided material which clarifies the matter. I believe I responded appropriately yesterday in this chamber, and I believe the former Premier — at least as he was quoted — in saying that he is satisfied. I can only suggest that this member and the motion that he proposes.... It's nothing more than pure politics.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I leave it in your capable hands.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. As is normally the case in situations such as this, the Chair will take the matter under consideration and bring back a decision at the earliest possible opportunity.

[ Page 12169 ]

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT BORROWING

MR. CLARK: A question to the Premier. Can the Premier advise the House how much money the government must borrow this year to cover its operating costs?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I would suggest that question would be better put to the Minister of Finance.

MR. CLARK: To the Minister of Finance. Can the minister advise the House how much money the government must borrow this fiscal year to cover its operating costs?

HON. J. JANSEN: I would ask that the member give me his follow-up questions as well, because sometimes the follow-up questions relate to the total problem, and the questioner doesn't understand the answer to the first question. Maybe if I had a broader context I could answer properly.

But the answer is very simply found in table H4 of the budget document. I can go through it very quickly — or as long as the Speaker will allow me to — and explain the differences in that particular table respecting the operating account, the stabilization account and other capital accounts at your pleasure.

MR. CLARK: I wonder if the minister could just give us a straight answer. How much money do we have to borrow this fiscal year to cover our operating costs this fiscal year?

HON. J. JANSEN: Mr. Speaker, that's why I gave the preamble, because obviously the follow-up question was the same as the first question. The question asked — and I'll read it so the member has some opportunity to refer to it in a documented way.... According to the financial requirements on table H4 on page 82, the financing plan which shows the general fund and special funds.... The operating deficit of this year is $395 million. That is the amount we will borrow for operating purposes.

MR. CLARK: I asked the minister — and I'll ask it in a little different way: what is the total borrowing required for the province of British Columbia to cover our operating costs? That's not for capital costs or the debt. How much do we have to borrow this year just to cover the operating costs in your budget?

HON. J. JANSEN: It's very difficult to respond to the question, because I think the member for Vancouver East doesn't know what question he's asking. If the member would be clear and would ask whether the amount of money borrowed for both capital and operating.... If he could distinguish for this House his understanding of the difference in those two items, I could answer in a better fashion. But the correct answer in terms of the operating fund is that for operating purposes, the government of the province of British Columbia must borrow $395 million.

MR. CLARK: The certified general accountants, the Fraser Institute today and every other credible financial expert has indicated that the real deficit in British Columbia this year is $1.2 billion, and that's how much you have to borrow to cover your operating costs. Mr. Speaker, will the minister explain why he continues to pretend that the deficit is $395 million, when the certified general accountants, the chartered accountants, the Fraser Institute and the auditor-general's own figures would show that it's $1.2 billion?

HON. J. JANSEN: Mr. Speaker, this may take a little time, because I think I have to explain the difference between operating and capital funds. I'm very pleased to hear the member for Vancouver East use the Fraser Institute as a reference — it's the first time that has ever happened in the House.

The funding requirements of a government are predicated on two provisos: one is an operating account and the other is a capital account. Capital requirements are usually in a business environment — and I understand their lack of knowledge, because that side has never been involved in business, so they don't understand the difference. But in a business sense we would say that there is a source and application of funds which deal with the capital and cash outflows and inflows; when that happens, you identify the capital requirements of the entity on a global basis. The deficit requirements — which is the operating side; a deficit is an operating deficit — require borrowing the amount of $395 million.

Interjection.

HON. J. JANSEN: Even the Leader of the Opposition is mumbling that he doesn't understand what anyone is talking about, because he doesn't have any sense of this whole concept of accounting.

There are two types of reserve funds: a statutory reserve fund and a reserve fund within the balance sheet of consolidated revenue and expenditure. A statutory reserve fund is allocated to dedicated balances of cash and liabilities, and so on. A consolidated balance sheet — the reserve funds — doesn't have specific allocations of cash or liabilities. So what we do when we set up a reserve fund in those situations.... We transfer the money into a reserve account, and we either (a) create an asset or (b) reduce a liability. In this case, we reduce a liability, and the $395 million he refers to....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Question period does not afford the time and place for the Minister of Finance or his critic to debate the budget. There will be a number of opportunities in the House when the Minister of Finance will have an opportunity to clarify some misconceptions that perhaps took place — when he closes the budget debate later next week, or there

[ Page 12170 ]

will be another opportunity during the estimates of the Minister of Finance to go into these rather detailed questions. These really should be short, brief, sharp questions.

CHILD SAFETY

MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor-General. I'm going to ask him to give me a very short "yes" answer, and in so doing, he may never become Minister of Finance.

I want to say to the Solicitor-General that in the whole province — not just in the lower mainland around Vancouver — there is a dramatic increase in threats to the safety of young people both in and out of schools. I'm going to ask the minister if he would initiate a series of community symposiums, bringing together parents, young people, educators, police, social service representatives and other concerned citizens, to develop effective community-based responses to what threatens to become a problem of epidemic proportions.

HON. MR. MESSMER: I would like to thank the first member for Vancouver–Little Mountain for her question and her concern. I think it's a concern that affects all of us in this House and throughout the province. Any time the situation involves schools and schoolchildren, as well as parents, and what's going on in our society today.... When we don't have an answer, it creates a problem. I can tell you that the....

Interjection.

HON. MR. MESSMER: You may not take this seriously, Mr. Member, but I think most people in British Columbia do.

I can tell you that the police are doing as much as they can. They are working with the schools, the schoolchildren and parents within the communities. They have increased exposure within the school grounds and have increased school patrols, which I think is very necessary, and they have asked the parents to become involved in Neighbourhood Watch.

[2:30]

In answer to the member's question, I would say that I certainly will take that under consideration, and I would ask for any input from members in this House who have ideas on how we can solve this very difficult problem.

GOVERNMENT BORROWING

MR. CLARK: Listening to the Minister of Finance, I thought that Monty Python was alive and well, only this time it's the minister of silly talks rather than silly walks.

I want to ask a very simple question, Mr. Speaker. On table H4 it says the net direct borrowing is $1.262 billion. Can the minister advise the House whether this is correct, and will he acknowledge, in the face of the overwhelming evidence, that this is in fact a true statement of the deficit picture in the province of British Columbia?

HON. J. JANSEN: Who was the scribe that said: "A little learning is a dangerous thing"? The member — supposedly the Finance critic — put the question to me: what was the debt requirement to match the operating deficit of the operating fund for this year? I told him the truth. I told him $395 million. What he failed to ask, and what he's pointing to — because he doesn't understand the concept of finance — is that in fact there are other borrowing requirements. They're called capital borrowing requirements; they are not the operating deficit. Mr. Member, I'll say it one more time, and I'll write it down for you later. I'll offer my office environment for you to sit down with me so I can give you a little lesson in terms of how this statement works. The answer is: the government is borrowing $395 million to meet the deficit.

SEEDLINGS FOR REFORESTATION

MR. MILLER: To the Minister of Forests. Despite the major announcement of the forest renewal plan in January of this year, you advised the House yesterday that there were not enough seedlings to put in the ground. Could the minister explain why those seedlings are not available, given that — in your own words — this program has been in the works since February 1990?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: As I tried to explain to the member yesterday, we have made a firm commitment to the people of British Columbia regarding the forests that we will invest $1.4 billion in the forest renewal program over the next five years.

That program entails a lot of things. One of the things it entails is the hiring of some 200 — and I don't know the exact number — new employees in the ministry to fulfil the contracts that have to be let. It's a very complex issue of site identification, site preparation, the planting of the correct species of seedlings, making sure that they're there on time to deliver and then letting the contracts, supervising the contracts and monitoring those contracts to make sure the taxpayers get value for money.

If perchance we cannot spend all that has been allocated for this year because of the things I've just mentioned — the training of staff, etc. — then those dollars will be spent in the ensuing years. I commit to this Legislature and to the people of British Columbia that $1.4 billion will be invested in our primary resource.

MR. MILLER: The issue is: why aren't the seedlings available now, when you promised us and have been working on this program since February 1990? In 1989 you said that you were planning extra seedlings. Last year you said you were planting extra seedlings. Now you're saying the seedlings aren't available. Mr. Minister, are the seedlings available to plant or not? You clearly indicated yesterday in the House that the seedlings were not available.

[ Page 12171 ]

HON. MR. RICHMOND: This government even went so far that when we could not reach an agreement with the federal government on forest resources development agreement No. 2, we kept the planting program in place with our own funds and with our own seedlings. I point that out just to point out to the member and to the people of the province that our commitment to the forest is genuine. We intend to do exactly what we set out to do: the not sufficiently restocked land will all be replanted by the year 2000, and the commitment is there for more money than has ever been committed to the forest, to my knowledge, in North America.

MR. MILLER: First of all, the minister announced in previous years that they were planning extra seedlings. Yesterday he said there aren't enough seedlings. In January 1990 he said fewer seedlings would need to be planted. What's the true story, Mr. Minister? You've changed your story three times in the last two years. What is the true story in terms of the required number of seedlings in the planting program for 1991?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Maybe the member for Prince Rupert didn't hear a bell, but I distinctly heard one. And I know it's not because I've been in this place too long, I can tell you that.

I think the member for Prince Rupert wants to get into semantics here in exactly how many seedlings were planted, etc. Last year, Mr. Member, we planted approximately 292 million seedlings in this province. The number of seedlings will come down from year to year as the NSR land is replanted and we catch up with the backlog. So naturally each year from now to the end of the agreement the number of seedlings required is going to be smaller as we catch up with the backlog and start planting on a harvested basis, which is the law. By law, companies must replant everything they harvest as of 1987, and I'm sure the member knows that.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: On behalf of the Speaker and the first member for Vancouver South, I would ask this House to please welcome 55 grade 7 students and a number of adults from Walter Moberly Elementary School. Would this House please make them welcome.

CRIMINAL INJURY COMPENSATION
FOR SEXUAL ABUSE VICTIMS

HON. MR. MESSMER: A question was put yesterday by the first member for Vancouver–Point Grey to the Minister of Women's Programs and Government Services, and the question was taken on notice. It so happens that the question comes under my ministry, and I would like to give the reply.

We have an excellent program, the most generous in Canada. We spent $12.1 million in the 1990-91 fiscal year to provide awards and counselling to victims. Even though $7.6 million is listed in my ministry's proposed budget for 1991-92, this amount is not frozen. The program is statutory, and money will be provided to meet all the valid claims received in the coming year.

Consideration has been given to making the act applicable to incidents before July 1, 1972, and my officials are continuing to work on this matter. In the meantime, counselling services for adult survivors of sexual abuse are available through the Ministry of Health programs, and community support is available through victims' programs delivered by my ministry and through the Attorney-General's ministry.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair appreciates it when ministers answer questions taken on notice after question period.

Motions on Notice

APPOINTMENT OF
CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST COMMISSIONER

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I call government Motion 19 on the order paper in the name of the Premier.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I move Motion 19 standing in my name on the order paper, which states: "Be it resolved that this House recommends to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council that the Hon. E.N. (Ted) Hughes, QC, be appointed commissioner, pursuant to section 10(2) of the Members' Conflict of Interest Act."

The cornerstone of the Members' Conflict of Interest Act, which this House passed in July of last year, is the office of the commissioner. The mandate of the conflict-of-interest commissioner is to advise, investigate, educate and administer an ethical code of conduct for all members of the Legislature. The establishment of the office may be viewed as a significant step in reassuring the electorate of the integrity of the Legislature and of the government, and an effort to improve and maintain public confidence in our system of government.

The commissioner, like the ombudsman and auditor-general, is an officer of the Legislative Assembly. It is essential that the individual appointed to this position be a non-partisan and independent adviser. The Hon. E.N. (Ted) Hughes, QC, is eminently qualified to assume the tasks and responsibilities of commissioner of conflict of interest.

Mr. Hughes has considerable judicial experience, first for 12 years as a judge of the District and Surrogate Courts of Saskatchewan, and for seven years as a justice of the Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan. In addition, Mr. Hughes has served the province of British Columbia in senior public servant capacities as a legal specialist in the constitutional and administrative law division, Ministry of Attorney-General, and latterly for the past seven years as Deputy Attorney-General.

In the role of Deputy Attorney-General, Mr. Hughes chaired the Justice Reform Committee established by the Attorney-General to make recommendations that

[ Page 12172 ]

would cause the justice system of the province to be more relevant, accessible, understandable and efficient for those it seeks to serve. Many of the recommendations of that committee have now been implemented by government.

Mr. Hughes assumed the role of conflict-of-interest commissioner on an acting basis on October 1, 1990. In this capacity, he oversaw the implementation of the new public disclosure requirements and has provided sound and valuable advice to members of this House respecting their obligations under the act. Mr. Hughes has served as conflict-of-interest commissioner on a gratuitous basis until now and has also taken on the role of complaints commissioner with the Police Commission. Concurrent with his permanent appointment as conflict commissioner, Mr. Hughes will be resigning from the Police Commission.

As a result of his recent experience with the operation of the Members' Conflict of Interest Act, Mr. Hughes has made recommendations for changes to the act. The proposed amendments include a requirement for members to provide ongoing disclosure respecting the acquisition or disposition of material financial interests and the ability of ministers to delegate their responsibilities in a matter to another minister where they believe they may have a conflict of interest.

In addition, Mr. Hughes has proposed that consideration be given to providing a linkage between the Members' Conflict of Interest Act and the Premier's guidelines on conflict of interest for cabinet ministers and parliamentary secretaries, which would enable the commissioner to undertake investigations into an alleged breach of the guidelines.

All three proposed amendments have considerable merit and will be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Ethical Conduct and Conflict of Interest for its consideration and report to the House.

Mr. Speaker, this motion requires two-thirds of the members present to vote in favour of the nomination. I therefore request that the vote be conducted by division, and I now move the motion.

MR. HARCOURT: The motion put forward by the Premier deals with the permanent appointment of Mr. Ted Hughes as the commissioner in regard to the conflict legislation. We have made very clear that the New Democrats on this side of the House opposed the legislation. It is inadequate; it is not the tough legislation that is required. What I have also said on behalf of the opposition is that Mr. Hughes is a person in whom we have the greatest of confidence. We feel that it is unfortunate that he has to deal with this totally inadequate act.

The reality is that we think Mr. Hughes can do the job that is required of the commissioner. We made it very clear that we support him personally. We will be voting for Mr. Hughes's appointment. But what we are....

Interjections.

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the Premier, and this side of the House gave her the courtesy of hearing what she had to say on this very important matter. It's unfortunate that the government doesn't even take its own legislation and appointment seriously; I think that's a shame. I think they show a great deal of disrespect to Mr. Hughes for the tremendous job he has carried out in investigating the misuse of the Premier's office by the previous leader of this Social Credit government. I think he is a man of great integrity and is certainly the person we could support for this position.

The changes the Premier has put forward aren't changes; they are a referral to the committee. These are exactly the sort of changes we brought up when the bill was brought forward last year. These are the changes that....

[2:45]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The difficulty is that we're not in second reading. We're in a somewhat unusual procedure in the House, but we're discussing a motion. It's fairly narrow in its context. It really has to do with whether or not members wish to discuss the relative merits of the appointee for this position and not the legislation that the appointee may be or will be dealing with. I'd ask the Leader of the Opposition to confine his comments to the relative merits of the case for Mr. Hughes to hold this position.

MR. HARCOURT: Thank you for that guidance, Mr. Speaker. I am keeping within the confines of the statement made by the Premier, who brought forward some of the changes that were recommended by Mr. Hughes. I am commenting on what the Premier has stated and on the changes that should be referred, as she has suggested, to the select standing committee. There are a number of other changes that we will be proposing when it gets to the committee. The argument has been put forward already by the Premier. I think that if she is prepared to put forward these recommendations, then it's totally proper for me to comment on what she just talked about. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that we will be making further changes so that Mr. Hughes can do his job properly and deal with this government and its conflict.

MR. SPEAKER: There being no further speakers to the motion, I propose to put the question.

Motion approved unanimously on a division.

Orders of the Day

Budget Debate

(continued)

MR. SPEAKER: Debate was adjourned by the second member for Boundary-Similkameen. [Applause.]

MR. BARLEE: Mr. Speaker, it's nice to hear applause from the opposite side.

After examining the budget estimates, we should really take a hard look at the priorities of this government. I question the priorities of the government. I

[ Page 12173 ]

think this budget really reveals some deep-seated flaws. I will be discussing some of these flaws as we go along today.

The first member for Saanich and the Islands, the former Minister of Finance — one of the four — talked about the misrepresentations from our side of the House. I think that misrepresentation.... There are two sides of that coin, and I think we should examine it very closely. The present government says the total direct debt of the province of British Columbia is $6 billion. They expect the public to believe that.

On the other hand, every expert and professional in British Columbia, the auditor-general, who is a highly respected and competent civil servant, the actuaries, the newspapers, TV and everyone else says our direct debt is $9 billion. There happens to be a difference of only $3 billion.

This government also states that their deficit will be $395 million in 1991-92. Anyone who has read the papers — the Times-Colonist, the Vancouver Sun, the Province.... Listen to the experts, who say the debt is $1.2 billion. Quite a difference. This government really reminds me of an old show I used to watch when I was much younger. It was called the Edgar Bergen Show.

AN HON. MEMBER: Charlie McCarthy.

MR. BARLEE: Yes, he had a dummy there who was called Charlie McCarthy. He had a real dummy there, and he was called Mortimer Snerd. I think Mortimer Snerd is really in charge on that side of the House.

This government is concerned about Ontario's budget. We hear about Ontario's budget ad nauseam, and I do mean ad nauseam. They pluck it out of the air.

Interjection.

MR. BARLEE: I like history too. If you like history, you should do a much wider overview. A wider perspective is this: there is only one provincial government in Canada that has balanced the budget for 20 years in a row. I know that the Minister of Finance doesn't want to hear this. That government, by the way, is not the government of British Columbia, which has come down with successive deficits, almost without interruption, for the last 15 years. The government with 20 years of balanced budgets — a record in Canada — was the government of Saskatchewan. That was a CCF and NDP government. It's rather strange that the opposite side never mentions that record, which is an unblemished record in all of Canada.

And then they mention the budget stabilization fund, the so-called BS fund, which is very appropriately named. What about the BS fund? When the former Minister of Finance was asked by this side of the House where the BS fund was kept and which bank it was in, he couldn't answer. We then asked him which numbered account it was. He couldn't answer. Finally, when pressed, the former minister said: "Well, it was really just a paper transaction." Now I call that misrepresentation. That's real misrepresentation.

I come from a historic riding: Boundary-Similkameen. It happens to be a very scenic riding, and I'm fond of it.

AN HON. MEMBER: You and your carpetbagging. You move around quite a bit.

MR. BARLEE: My family has only been in the riding for a hundred years, probably much longer than yours. My family has been a ranching and mining family for the last ten decades in this province.

Like many of the constituencies in this province, it is hurting economically. There are a lot of the interior constituencies.... The member for Cariboo is quite aware of this: we are hurting economically. The unemployment rate in my riding runs between 15 and 16 percent continuously.

Let's look at unemployment. Let's look at misrepresentation. Over the last 20 years.... I would suggest to the members on the opposite side that they read pages 41, 42 and 43 of last year's budget, and get a little lesson in misrepresentation. But they made a mistake: they included the last 20 years of government. In the last 20 years of government, there was only one that had a lower unemployment rate, the lowest of any three years in that 20 years. That government was the government of 1972 to 1975, the NDP government of British Columbia. The average unemployment rate was 7.4 percent. Compare that to my riding, which is between 15 and 16 percent. By the way, they set a record too: they had the lowest unemployment rate in British Columbia since 1970; it was 5.7 percent.

Interjection.

MR. BARLEE: This government made records, all right. They made records of 16 percent. In some places in British Columbia that 16 percent went to 24 percent. That's quite a record.

Interjections.

MR. BARLEE: Okay, let's talk about 1974-75.

Where did I obtain these figures? Not from our researchers — certainly not. And not from independents outside of the House. I obtained it from government sources. So I won't question the government sources.

Interjections.

MR. BARLEE: If you want to listen, listen carefully to this one then. What else did I find out? I found out several other figures in that very interesting book. I found out that the unemployment figures were exceptionally high, and I found out — while we're talking about misrepresentation — that the government also had an average interest rate higher than anybody in the province since 1970. Their interest rates topped 20 percent in 1983 and 1984. That's an extremely high interest rate. It hurt all of the small businesses in the province. It certainly hurt the businesses in my particular area, as well as the wage-earners in my area.

[ Page 12174 ]

The interest rates were higher. Unemployment was higher under this government. And the other thing.... Everybody has heard this story. Gosh, I've heard it from all sorts of sources all over the province. The old myth is like this: when the NDP were in power in British Columbia, everyone fled British Columbia; there was a steady drove of people leaving the province. Well, actually, that's incorrect. There wasn't a steady drove of people leaving the province. The greatest growth years in the province of British Columbia between 1970 and 1990 were 1972, '73, '74 and '75. So the absolute opposite was true. When they left the province.... They started leaving in late 1975, '76, '77, '78 and '79. I would suggest that those members check the figures on that, because it's really quite revealing. The greatest growth was under the NDP government, the lowest unemployment was under the NDP government. Very interesting indeed. Talk about misrepresentation — that's really misrepresentation.

[3:00]

It's strange: when I look at that side of the House, it's like watching a revolving door. We've had four Ministers of Finance, three Ministers of Forests, three Ministers of Agriculture, two Premiers and six Ministers of Environment. It's absolutely astonishing. Something like 110 changes of ministers. They are really out of control. In fact, you would feel out of place on that side of the House if you hadn't been a minister or weren't a minister. It's like watching a merry-go-round of incompetence, with each of these guys trying to hang on to the horse. Around and around they go, and where they land nobody knows.

I perused last year's budget quite closely, and I found that this government is not very good at many things. But they are excellent at myth-making, and some people actually believe those old myths, which absolutely astonishes me.

Let's continue with the misrepresentation theme. It's a good theme. By the way, that was brought up by the first member for Saanich and the Islands, the former Minister of Finance. Let's get away from interest rates, growth and unemployment. We should examine the omissions in this budget, and there were very definite omissions.

I come from the interior of British Columbia. What really affects us most? A number of things affect us most. Agriculture wasn't mentioned in the budget. In seventy-five minutes of reading the budget, there wasn't one word about agriculture. Agriculture provides $1.2 billion for the economy of British Columbia per annum. It's a steady industry. It's our third- or fourth-largest industry; it's extremely important. This government did not see fit to mention agriculture in the budget. And when you examine the record, agriculture gets 0.6 percent of the budget — 0.6 for the farmers and the producers of British Columbia, 0.6 for the individuals who are keeping the agricultural land reserve, the greenbelts of this province, intact.

What did this government do last year? They had a budget of about $91 million. And in their great wisdom they left $14 million of that on the table. They didn't spend $14 million of the $91 million. Now that's clever accounting. That's a smart move if the ministry doesn't need it. But this ministry needed it. If you don't think the ministry needed it, you'd better ask the wheat producers of the Peace River country, or the berry producers of the Fraser Valley, or the orchardists of the Okanagan-Similkameen and Creston areas. These people have their backs to the wall, and that $14 million was not spent. I believe in judicious accounting, but not where it's foolish. If we are to preserve the farmers of British Columbia, the greenbelts and our quality of life, then let's take a very analytical look at it.

I know individuals on their last mortgage. They can't even hold their farms together. And this government sees fit to leave that $14 million unspent. That goes back into general revenue. And what does it do in general revenue? You make some dubious loans to some very questionable companies — about $40 million. I think part of that $40 million would be better spent in agriculture, but it wasn't spent in agriculture. There's no strategic plan for this government. They really are going from day to day. They don't understand.

The second thing that wasn't included in the budget address was tourism. Tourism is the fastest growing business in the world. It didn't get one word. We sat here for an hour and a quarter. We listened to the Finance minister. He didn't even realize that tourism was important. Tourism is extremely important. It is a growth industry, and it isn't all $5-an-hour jobs, which this government produces all the time — short-term six-week jobs at $5 an hour and usually part-time.

Tourism is the wave of the future, but again, if you examine tourism, you will see that there is no strategy at all. There is no long-term plan. They don't know what they're doing. Other jurisdictions all over the world are concentrating on tourism. The English do an excellent job. They set aside certain areas — areas of outstanding natural beauty, they call them. We haven't got a clue. We destroy our greenbelts. We take them out of the ALR. We use ELUC to withdraw some of these valuable lands, and once they are lost, they are lost forever, The government doesn't listen, of course; I don't expect them to.

The one thing that really amazes me is that they didn't mention the impact of the free trade agreement. We all know that this government was 100 percent behind the free trade agreement. There wasn't an exception on the government benches. They thought it was a marvellous deal. They thought it was a level playing-field. Well, they make me laugh. I'll tell you about the level playing-field. They said we had to compete. How can the Canadian farmer compete? He pays more for land and more taxes. Washington State doesn't have an individual income tax; we do. He pays more for fuel — about double. He pays more for wages and more for equipment. If the government calls that a level playing-field, I am astonished. But really, I'm not astonished. I accept it now.

What has this free trade deal done for British Columbia? Last year that free trade deal cost us $800 million, and this year it will probably cost us $1.5 billion. Those are one-way dollars going out of British Columbia into Washington State, and when they go into Washington State, that costs us jobs. It's cost us

[ Page 12175 ]

thousands of jobs so far, and will continue to cost us thousands of jobs. That shows the seriousness with which the government members consider these various points. It's really quite astonishing. I guess they don't think that agriculture is important. I guess they don't think that the free trade agreement is important, or that it has had a devastating effect upon not only our small businessmen but the country at large — and our outflow of natural gas as well as tourism.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

What else did they do in this budget? They barely touched on forestry. This government has a record of almost 40 years of mismanagement in forestry. Forestry is grossly mismanaged. Their own auditor-general pointed this out. They are now trying to catch up on the planting, but they're 40 years too late. What is the result? I'll tell you. I drove down the Similkameen valley about two days ago, and I watched the river very closely. The Similkameen is one of the larger rivers in my riding. It was flooding and the floodplain was about a mile across. I thought that was rather unusual, but the Similkameen has been flooding pretty consistently for the last ten years. Why, Mr. Speaker, does a river flood consistently over the last ten years when in the previous 80 years it hasn't flooded very much? I started thinking about it. I came to the conclusion, and got some backup evidence from the U.S. Forest Service — not from our Forest Service, because we don't have that information — and they stated that....

Interjection.

MR. BARLEE: They haven't been given that mandate.

MR. KEMPF: What happened in 1948?

MR. BARLEE: Yes, if you want to go right back, there were two major floods in British Columbia: one was 1894 and one was 1948. But I think the member probably knows that I'm talking about the clearcutting of the watersheds. What happens when you clearcut a watershed? I'll tell you. It means that all those trees in those clearcuts are no longer there, and then what happens to that winter snowfall? It all comes down at once. That's what is happening. That's what the records of the U.S. Forest Service indicate as well. Rivers like the Kettle, Okanagan, Fraser and Similkameen don't have as many trees up there to provide the shade to keep that snow up there in the higher levels in the watersheds. When the trees are gone, there's no root system to hold that water in. What happens? Well, it's logical. We get the floods, and we'll continue to get the floods over the next decade until we finally catch up to this miasma in the forest industry.

MR. KEMPF: Remember 1948, my friend.

MR. BARLEE: Yes, we get a flood every 50 years — '48 and '94. I'm quite aware of it.

I have a couple of other things. This government really didn't do much about mining. They underspent their budget, of course. Mining is our second major industry, and they underspent that by about 40 percent. Why is mining so important? It provides a lot of jobs in the interior. The natural process of the mining industry is that a mine only lasts as long as the metal lasts. But it's difficult for a small miner. I'm a miner; I have a mining background.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're a placer miner.

MR. BARLEE: Yes, and I'm also a lode-miner. I used to get my free miner's certificate, as the member for Cariboo is well aware. We used to pay $5 for this free miner's certificate. This government saw fit to put it up to $25. That's only a 500 percent increase. By the way, that $5 had been there for well over 100 years.

I went to the mapping section the other day. We used to pay 25 cents for a topographical map. This was a service to the public provided by the province of British Columbia. That same map now doesn't cost 25 cents, $1, $2, $3 or $5; it costs $8 plus taxes. A few years ago you could get a dozen maps for $3; that same dozen maps costs you $108 today. That's only about a 3,600 percent increase. These are the insidious taxes people don't really know about.

When we're talking about insidious taxes, let's look at another one. This is one I like to hit you on because you're very vulnerable. This is the gas tax. We all say: "Oh yes, the price of gas is high because the provincial government takes too much and the federal government takes too much and the provincial government has its hands in our pockets and the federal government has its hands in our pockets." Guess who else has their hands in our pockets? The oil companies.

Interjections.

MR. BARLEE: You may find this facetious. I have individuals in my riding who find it very difficult to pay those high gas taxes. If you go outside this House today and travel throughout Victoria, as I have done, you'll find that the average price is 54.9 cents per litre. The average price in the state of Washington is 30 cents — there's a difference of almost 25 cents. Our total taxes are just over 22 cents, so that means the oil companies are making about 33 cents a litre.

Shell, Imperial Oil, Texaco and Chevron in British Columbia are all averaging, for the low-grade gas, 33 cents a litre in straight profit. In the United States of America, you take off their 10 cents of federal and state taxes and they make 20 cents a litre. So the companies in British Columbia are making 65 percent more per litre. Why? I think there's a conspiracy, and I've done about three months' work on it. Perhaps you should read up on it.

[3:15]

I think there's a conspiracy between the oil companies — heaven forbid! — and the government of British Columbia, because do you know something? When the price was 69.9 there wasn't one government member on the far side who said anything about it. That price

[ Page 12176 ]

could have gone to 79.9 or 99.9 cents. Why didn't they say anything about it? I'll tell you why. I was in the House, and not a member mentioned it. Because there's a floating tax rate as well — 22.5 percent. So what does this government like? They like the gas price to go up. They love it to go up, because they make more on their floating gas rate, which is 22.5 percent, as well as a base rate.

What does that mean to the average consumer? Do you know what it means to the average driver in British Columbia? Every time he stops at a pump to get 40 litres of gas, he's paying the oil company not their ordinary profit — he pays that willingly, I think — but an extra black profit of $5. And how does that add up? I'll tell you how. It means that the government of British Columbia is allowing the oil companies of British Columbia to collect every year an extra $438 million — we'll call it $440 million — in an unconscionable increase in their gas price.

There's a deal made there somewhere, and who's paying the shot? I'll tell you who: the consumer. And by how much is he paying the shot? Well, every member of this House averages over $200 a year extra to the gas companies. Every driver in British Columbia averages just over $200 a year in extra profit, a black profit, to the oil companies.

Now you may think that that's great; I don't. I think the price of gas should not be higher than 39.9 cents. They should get their 20 cents a litre that they get in the States, and the government should not charge more than 19.9 cents between both of them. But unfortunately, both governments — including your friends the Conservative Party — are taxing the people to the hilt. You've got your hand in the right pocket, the Conservatives have theirs in the left pocket, and the oil companies have theirs in both back pockets.

You know something, it's just astonishing — and this is a government that says it's the government for the people. Okay, they're taxing people who are making over $80,000 a year a whole $100. Big deal. I'm deeply impressed. That's about one-tenth of 1 percent. Now who else are they taxing, really? Well, they're taxing the little guy, the guy who's trying to grind to make a living, the guy who is working for maybe $6 or $7 an hour — and there are lots of them. And you know how they got him? Well, they took about $58 million out of the pockets of those individuals, and what did they do it on? On the medical services premium. Now you don't call that a tax — it's a premium, so it isn't a tax. But do you know something?

Interjection.

MR. BARLEE: Do you know, Madam Minister, how many provincial governments in Canada even have a medical services premium? Try two out of ten. This government is first and foremost. And what do you do? You add insult to injury. You tack another $58 million on people who really can't afford it. It astonishes me.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

What else did you do? You're raising the taxes by $208 million in a year of severe recession. I have in my riding businesses with their backs to the door — and what are you doing? You're adding another $208 million. And where else do they put it? They put another $16 million on the various new fees and increases and admissions, and it goes on and on. You'd think they'd be satisfied.

This government has set a provincial record in Canada since Confederation — that's 1867, if you want to get back to dates. Only one government in Canada has had 784 increases in taxes in four years, and this is the one. On top of that they introduced 229 new taxes, fees and admissions — it goes on and on. It's never-ending.

This government really didn't plan for the downturn. Do you know who has to take the downturn? The taxpayer. You should have set something aside in the good years. You didn't put enough aside in the good years. When the economy slipped, an astute government would have been ready. You're never ready. You're always overbudget. You talk about your great Coquihalla Highway, but that highway was $500 million over budget. SkyTrain was more than $700 million over budget. Northeast coal was more than $1 billion over budget.

What else? We're $375 million over on Expo. What did they do to compound that? They virtually gave the Expo lands away. Li Ka-shing will make $1 billion dollars. You guys would not only lose the cookies, you'd lose the cookie jar. It's astonishing. They talk about a lame-duck government. You guys are not a lame-duck government, you're a dead-duck government.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, this government would have preferred a balanced budget with no deficit. However, this would have required cuts in essential health, education and social programs. Instead we've achieved a balance between our fiscal and social responsibilities. We've managed the downturn so that the integrity of those programs is maintained for people in B.C.

The total expenditures for 1991-92 will be $16,550,000,000. Total revenues have increased by only 5.5 percent this year, down significantly from the high growth rates of the past few years. The total revenues for 1991-1992 are projected to be $16,015,000,000. The net result is a relatively small deficit of $395 million.

Compare that with Ontario, whose deficit this year s $10 billion. The interest alone on that is $1 billion over the coming year, which is three times the total deficit projected for British Columbia. The biggest provincial debt in Canadian history has been generated by Ontario. The NDP's first budget in Ontario came in nearly $10 billion in the red, and as they readily admit, this shortfall is not a product of lower revenues; it is the direct result of a 13.4 percent increase in public spending. Their treasurer has projected budgets of a similar size in each of the next three years, bringing Ontario's accumulated debt from $35 billion to over $70 billion within four years. That is socialism; that is leadership by a socialist government.

[ Page 12177 ]

On September 6, 1990, when Ontario elected an NDP government — and we have some cautions on that — it had the lowest unemployment rate in Canada, and the government was committed to a goal of a balanced budget. The NDP promised to exercise moderation and control if they gained power. Eight months later the results are dramatically different.

Further, just last Friday, the bond-rating agencies in North America reduced Ontario's credit rating by two points. It's just absolutely astounding and fantastic what's happening in Ontario, which has a short-term NDP government — for sure.

But it's comforting to know that we only have a small deficit in our difficult year and that this deficit will be eliminated in five years under the balanced budget requirements of the Taxpayer Protection Act. British Columbia is in excellent fiscal health. Our provincial debt per person is still the lowest in Canada, and we've introduced new fiscal controls and taxpayer protections to ensure that government spending stays in line with the taxpayers' ability to pay.

We've made it a legal requirement for the government to balance its budget over five years. The 1991-92 budget is year one. This is a good budget for an uncertain economy, and is compassionate to those in need. It makes investments to build for the future, and it's affordable and responsible. Our guiding principle is to govern with fiscal responsibility, and we can provide that according to what the taxpayers can afford to pay.

Expenditures for health, education and social programs will increase this year by $1.2 billion to a total of $11.9 billion. The big three — health, education and social services — use up over 70 percent of our total provincial budget. Total spending on health care this year will increase by $591 million to a total of $5.4 billion. Mr. Speaker, $591 million is higher than the total projected deficit for the province of British Columbia in the coming year. We enjoy one of the world's best health care systems with universal coverage and quality care.

Education. There is a great deal of evidence that higher quality of education means better jobs and a better quality of life. Our kids will have to compete in a fast-changing and increasingly competitive economy. We must provide quality education, and we must provide it now. Over the past five years we've made massive investments in our school system in British Columbia. Funding for schools this year will total $3.3 billion; it's a $232 million increase over last year.

There are some facts about education costs which are quite important. Over the last four years annual increases to education funding have been running from 8 to 10 percent. Even for the 1991 school year, during the time of economic downturn, overall increases will amount to almost 8 percent. Additional money is being spent on English-as-a-second-language training and special education students. Since this government came to office in 1986, spending per pupil has risen almost 40 percent, while the British Columbia consumer price index has risen only 17.6 percent. The number was 40 percent versus 17.6 percent in the consumer price index.

Class sizes are continuing to be reduced. In 1990-91, the pupil-teacher ratio is 16 to 1. That has been steadily decreasing over the years. In 1985-86 the ratio was 18 to 1. Each reduction of one student in the pupil-teacher ratio amounts to $125 million for additional instruction salaries and increased classroom space.

B.C. teachers are well paid. In 1989-90, prior to the current round of bargaining, the average teacher's salary in British Columbia, including benefits, was $51,000. Future increases must be based on the taxpayers' ability to pay. The current economic downturn means that government revenues are reduced. To avoid tax increases which would only hurt British Columbians, this government is asking teachers to seek wage settlements that are in line with the overall growth of the province's economy. All settlements have been seen in the context of the taxpayers' ability to pay. In these uncertain economic times when many people are losing their jobs, teachers who are seeking a fair wage settlement must ask themselves how much is really enough.

[3:30]

The annual cost of recent settlements, including wages and reductions in pupil-teacher education ratios, is approximately 10 percent. Making reference to that, I want to read one more time from the Times-Colonist of Monday, February 11, 1991. This was an offer rejected by the teachers in British Columbia. From the Greater Victoria Board of School Trustees to the teachers' association.... They rejected an increase of 15 percent over two years. They rejected an increase in professional development funding from $66 per teacher to $106 per teacher for the year. They rejected an increase in elementary teacher preparation time from 60 minutes per week to 80 minutes per week. They rejected recognition of support needed for classroom teachers with regard to integration of special needs students. They rejected teachers' relief of supervision duties before school, during recess, at lunch hour and after school. A total cost increase over two years of 18 percent and a total dollar value over two years of more than $11 million — they rejected that.

I make reference to that because it's a Victoria situation. But I can probably speak more effectively.... Remember this about my constituency of Surrey–White Rock–Cloverdale: our budget prior to 1991, because of the increase in enrolment there, was just $198 million, and they were offered, as a result of the current block funding, a total of $19 million incremental increase for 1991. The Teachers' Federation in Surrey was demanding an additional $11 million, and $11 million was advanced by the school board in hoping that they could reach that. Fortunately the school board were able to put their heads together, and over a period of 14 days they found $11.3 million in order to balance their budget for 1990-91.

I want to make reference again to last year's request by the Surrey School Board for the ombudsman to deal with the question of block funding. They challenged the provincial government's Ministry of Education allocation. The Ministry of Education didn't decide on a whim how to fund the schools in the future; it was as a result of the Sullivan commission, the Royal Com-

[ Page 12178 ]

mission on Education. The facts and the results and the recommendations and policy guidelines were as a result of a royal commission conducted in every community across the province of British Columbia, dealing with every community, all factions of the community, including parents, students, educators, administrators, business persons — everybody who had an interest in education. That was a very effective document.

As a result of that, block funding was one of the references in how to fund education in the coming years. This government implemented it. They were challenged by the Surrey School Board, which referred the block funding question to the ombudsman. It's a two-page response, but in effect the ombudsman said: "We believe that the block funding delivery system is applied fairly and consistently across all school districts in British Columbia."

So you see, the question of funding for education continues to be a choice between issues such as the Abbotsford School District.... The teachers in Abbotsford School District decided to strike in their own way. They decided to create a little strike that would put some pressure not on the school board or on the parents but on the students. They withheld the marks generated by the students through the course of the year. I quote Stuart Bell, Abbotsford schoolteacher: "Sit on the marks." It talks about how the teachers, by deliberately sitting on the marks, by forcing the students to make a special case to the school board to deal with that question about funding.... They were looking for more money, so they picked on the students.

You see, the question of education is not only British Columbian; it's universal. The cost of education is a universal question. We, as I indicated earlier, have put significant moneys into education over the last six to seven years — a 40 percent increase since 1985.

Mr. Speaker, there are other areas of North America where.... For instance, in San Pablo, California, the school district went bankrupt, had to shut down because they had no system of going.... They didn't have a referendum process in order to go to the taxpayers for more money. So when the demands went out by the teachers for more money, they had to close down the schools. The same thing happened in New York. New York put it to the teachers: 3,100 teachers were going to be laid off unless the teacher component in the state of New York agreed to some concessions in order to continue the employment of those teachers — which they agreed to do.

These are economic times that have to be dealt with in every community in North America. I cite those examples only because there are more difficult times in other jurisdictions than in British Columbia. So when our teaching force demands 8 percent one year and 16 percent over two years when the economy is growing at 3.5 or 4 percent, we have a very serious problem — and it's the taxpayers' ability to pay.

When we're dealing with that, we're dealing with compensation fairness in the province of British Columbia. This government respects the taxpayers' ability to pay, and to do so government must continue to improve efficiency and control costs. The wages of public sector workers account for 53 percent of the total operations of the government of the province — about 53 percent of the total cost of government. In this category we must include teachers, health care professionals and others whose earnings are paid by the province either directly or indirectly.

Even though job security is greater in the public sector, 1990 marked the fifth straight year in which public sector wage increases exceeded the settlements in the private sector.

I'll repeat that, Mr. Speaker, because it's important. Even though job security is greater in the public sector, 1990 marked the fifth straight year in which the public sector wage increases exceeded settlements in the private sector.

We chose to ensure that collective bargaining would continue, but in a fair way, and that it would respect, by virtue of collective bargaining, the taxpayers' ability to pay. We did this through the Compensation Fairness Act. It will help to control the costs of wage components of government spending.

Other governments have had to resort to harsher methods in order to cope with their rising costs. For example, Newfoundland has eliminated 2,500 public service jobs and frozen public sector wages for a minimum of one year. New Brunswick has frozen public sector salaries for a year. Manitoba expects to cut over 900 positions from its service this year, and Alberta plans to cut more than 800 jobs from its public payroll to spend less this year. The federal government has placed a 3 percent ceiling on wage increases in each of the years 1991, 1992 and 1993.

Mr. Speaker, we're talking about affordable government, Government must become more efficient in order to maintain the quality and extent of its programs. The goal is to get more value for taxpayers' dollars. The first member for Richmond this morning talked at great length about value for dollars. To achieve this we are working with public servants to find new and better ways to provide and manage government services. They are responding to the call. Over the past four years suggestions by government employees have saved the people of B.C. in excess of $5 million.

This year we are introducing several measures to make the B.C. public sector more efficient, more accountable and more affordable. Later this year we will be establishing a toll-free line for people to call with recommendations on how we in government could do things better and more cheaply.

Mr. Speaker, the economic slowdown is double trouble for government. Revenues decline while expenditure pressures go up due to increased demands for social programs, and nobody knows it better than we do in the province of British Columbia. As a result of those demands we are asked to do more with less. We are making major capital investments in all regions of the province, as a result of regionalization, to lay the foundation for a prosperous future with good jobs for British Columbians.

There are many examples of what we are doing in that regard. I cite the most recent example in my school district, Surrey. The Minister of Education has

[ Page 12179 ]

just announced $123 million worth of capital expenditures in Surrey School District. That means jobs. That means B.C. purchases. That means schoolrooms for schoolchildren. We have delivered a budget that is caring, responsible and affordable.

Mr. Speaker, the supplemental homeowner grant which we introduced last year is being increased to 50 percent of the amount by which school taxes exceed the maximum homeowner grant. As a result, many homeowners will pay lower property taxes this year.

This year we are looking for new ways to increase the supply of housing stock and to help families buy their first home. Young families should have an opportunity to buy houses in their own communities. We have earmarked from the privatization benefits fund.... Mr. Speaker, let me refer to that for just a moment. There is a piggy bank held by the province of British Columbia, generated in the last four years, called the privatization fund. It's actual cash in the bank from very effective privatization initiatives instituted by this government. As of March 31 of this year it totals $477 million. Had I been the Minister of Finance, I would have made one further recommendation in this year's budget: I would have recommended that we lend $395 million of that cash in the bank and balance the budget, because we could have balanced the budget by using the piggy bank money called privatization.

In any event, the public has a little concern out there about a $395 million deficit. We have offsetting cash in the bank as a result of privatization of the highway system, which has been the most effective privatization ever implemented by any government. As the first member for Richmond this morning so eloquently related to everybody, the highway improvements.... I want to talk about the highway improvement in my constituency alone, which starts at the U.S. border and goes almost to the tunnel on 499, and the Pacific Highway. Both of those in the last four years, as a result of privatization, have seen a dramatic increase in maintenance. Litter is removed entirely from that section of the highway, which is the first major tourist entrance to British Columbia. It really reflects upon the province and that maintenance program. We did that. We saved money and we put money in the bank by doing it.

We also see the privatization fund as a potential source of funding for assistance to homeowners. The government will consult the housing industry and interested groups to determine the best way to achieve these goals in the coming year.

This is one I really want everybody to pay attention to, because it's so important. Proceeds from the sale of the property of Riverview and Woodlands, both of them in Coquitlam, will be used to develop community-based housing for the mentally ill. I can tell you that the sale of that land for the benefit of the mentally ill in British Columbia is a very high plus in my mind, and I compliment all the ministry staff involved with making that initiative.

Mr. Speaker, protecting our environment remains a key priority. This year Ministry of Environment sustainable environment spending will be $184 million. The B.C. government will work with the Pacific Northwest states, something initiated last year, and I compliment all those involved: the former Premier and the former Minister of Environment and others who drew together the northwest states to talk about protecting the coastline from environmental disasters and improving the air and water quality of this region. I emphasize water quality, and I wish the second member for Victoria was here, because that is one significant area where water quality must be a concern to everybody. That's one thing that we've given a priority to in 1991.

B.C. will continue to play a leading role in attacking the overlap, the duplication and inefficiency of government programs in Canada. Earlier today the member from South Okanagan mentioned that this budget had nothing in it for tourism. The fact is that the money for tourism has been committed, as he well knows, to one of the most major tourism initiatives ever implemented in British Columbia — the Year of Music 1991. The Year of Music 1991 is designed to create community pride through performances by local artists, drawing tourists within British Columbia to see products of our own community. The tourism increase into the province since 1986 has continued to rise to the point that it's now over four million visitors per year.

[3:45]

The important part of this is that the second-largest component for the economy of British Columbia is the generation of tourism dollars. And it isn't the $5-popcorn-salesman job which that famous bigmouth Munro talks about. He talks about service jobs all being worth $5 an hour. British Columbia is built on tourism, pride and morale, but it's also built on other people's money.

The economy of British Columbia generates in excess of $300 million annually with dollars from other sources, because people are drawn to the attractions of British Columbia. The budget of British Columbia for tourism this year has been allocated to local development rather than external. Visitors are coming back because they came here during '86 and saw what we had to offer as a province. They saw that it was the best, safest, cleanest and friendliest place in the world to visit.

As a result of all these things, they're here in large numbers. So we are spending money internally within other ministries this year to draw British Columbians into this product that everybody else in the world has found. The success of Music '91 will be in the 100 communities across British Columbia where the small artist in each community works together with a major Canadian artist. Most of the artists coming to British Columbia — the headline artists — are major Canadian artists: Rita MacNeil, Paul Anka, Anne Murray....

AN HON. MEMBER: Harry Belafonte.

MR. REID: Harry Belafonte is an external, but he's coming. Paul Anka's Canadian.

So that you understand the program — because the NDP doesn't understand anything positive — let me tell you what they do. They send a headliner into a little community like Williams Lake, Nelson, Cranbrook, Fernie, Chilliwack, Cloverdale, Kimberley.... I

[ Page 12180 ]

use Cloverdale because we've had the most recent example. The Cloverdale Rodeo was held just last weekend, and the headliner entertainer, along with some local entertainers, was Tammy Wynette. The highest attendance at the Cloverdale Fair in its history was this weekend. That points out to anybody who had any doubt about the success of Music '91 as it equates to tourism and drawing people in.... I would guess that 70 percent of the people who attended in Cloverdale this past weekend to hear Tammy Wynette and some of our local artists perform were not from the community surrounding Cloverdale. They were from the United States, the interior of British Columbia and Vancouver Island.

That's what the economy is built around. That's called tourism. All those people came to Cloverdale, found the neatest community in British Columbia and were happy to visit where the best MLA is working. They found out what an attractive community we have and what it has to offer. Music '91 provides the component called RoadShow B.C., and it'll happen across British Columbia. Every community will have an opportunity to host headliners, and their local artists will be highlighted.

The important thing for local artists is that British Columbians will have some pride in what they're doing. The government of British Columbia is encouraging this to happen, and we will be enthused about what they're doing. But the pride in each community will be tremendous. The pride in British Columbia will be tremendous, as will the pride in visitors seeing what British Columbia has to offer — as we did in '86 and as we'll do this year. We'll continue to show that British Columbia has the best fiscally managed province in Canada and is the leader in economic management. Tourism is a big part of that. The economy is built on natural resources, and the other natural resource is tourism.

I say to anybody who has any criticism of this province's goal: look at what's happening out there. And you, Mr. Minister, I commend you for Music 191 and all of your people who are putting together these tremendous programs. Since it worked in my community called Cloverdale, I know for a fact it's going to work in all the other 110. When this year is through, all British Columbians are going to be proud of what we have, not only as taxpayers but because of the qualified talent we have within the bounds of British Columbia in the artists' community.

As we do all these things and make them happen.... This government has the fiscal management foresight to do all of these innovative things which have been criticized by the opposition: "We shouldn't have put money into Music '91 because it's...." I don't know what's wrong with it, but anyway.... The fact of the matter is that tremendous numbers will come to British Columbia as a result of that.

MS. EDWARDS: It's always a pleasure to follow the modest member for Surrey–White Rock–Cloverdale and to address the budget this time. It's a common document, but you might think it weren't if you didn't know that it was.

I want to address this budget document today by talking about the neglect by the government that is felt in the interior and in the northern parts of this province. That is a basic feeling that is spreading and increasing. The people at the corners of empires always feel as though they're not treated the same way as the people at the centre; but the feeling that is happening in my riding in particular is expanding exponentially. The people feel not only that they're neglected but that sometimes they are insulted. This comes out in such programs considered to be as magnificent as the Music '91 program. When the children's festival in our area was promised and promised an artist who never appeared in the community, the children's festival had to go ahead, waiting and wondering whether they could advertise a headliner they were promised. Eventually they didn't get one, so they got their own headliners and ended up without any part of what they were promised in the Music '91 program. That's an example of the kind of thing that is considered beyond even neglect into insult.

This kind of feeling leads to all sorts of colourful behaviour, including threats of secession and other things. These are very amusing. It keeps all of us amused for a while when we say in the southeastern corner of British Columbia: "Let's join Alberta." Or: "Let's take over Alberta." Or: "Let's add on the northwestern U.S." The member for Columbia River understands this very well: "Let's take over the Idaho panhandle." If the Speaker had been here we would have done that.

It's all very colourful and magnificent, but underneath it is a very serious vein. The very serious fact is that the people in the interior do feel seriously neglected.

Broadly speaking, what the budget does is give us a whole lot of measures that have a much greater impact on the areas outside the lower mainland and lower Island than they do inside the lower mainland and lower Island. In general, there are all sorts of resource issues. What is happening to inventory and land use planning? There are a number of examples which I will go into in more detail later to show that, despite all the promises of detailed resource inventory.... And please, let's get to a specific land use strategy for this province. But the budget doesn't show us one single thing more than budgets did in the last four years that it's going to happen. That is probably the number one need for the interior of this province.

Educational issues, particularly post-secondary educational issues, indicate this government is much more interested in serving the needs of the highly populated centre of this province than in addressing the meeds that are very different and exist in the parts that are not so close to the lower mainland.

In health and social services, there are no alcohol and drug abuse measures for the interior of the province in such issues as the way they are treated in home care versus institutional care. The programs that are there are not meeting the needs of the interior or the north.

On the environment, the issues seem to be absolutely different. It may be more costly to deal with the

[ Page 12181 ]

environment when you're looking at the other parts of the province rather than the centre, but it's nevertheless necessary. There are issues that need to be specifically addressed and in a way that answers the needs, I not broadly across the province but area to area.

One of the better examples of the kind of neglect I'm talking about is the absolute elimination of the power and gas extension program. That program wasn't very big. It was a $2 million program introduced with great fanfare in the budget speech of 1990. One year ago the budget said, for the Minister of Energy: "More people in the north and the interior will be able to enjoy the full benefits of our energy resources. Assistance will be provided to extend power and gas lines to rural areas in these parts of the province. This government responds to the aspirations of every region of this province." Well, Mr. Speaker, this government did respond to the extent of putting $2 million in the program last year. What has happened this year?

Nothing; it's wiped out.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Is there any indication that nobody demanded it? No way. In fact, this year there were proposals put forward for more than 100 projects just for the installation of natural gas. They would have served 3,300 customers or more in the first year, and double that in six years. It would have replaced — if crude oil had to be used to replace the heating that would come out of that natural gas — 610,000 barrels of crude oil. It might not have been crude oil. It may very well have been electricity, which we are trying to replace with natural gas as the space heater in this province; it might have been wood for wood heaters. They are creating a number of air pollution problems throughout our communities. But for the more than 100 communities that applied for assistance under this program, there will be nothing.

Mr. Speaker, I know that projects for the more than 100 communities could not be served unless the budget had been expanded. But even if the $2 million had been repeated, anywhere up to 50 projects could have been completed with the assistance of the provincial government. That kind of thing is a shame.

Here we have a list of applications; these are communities that have asked for natural gas. There is going to be no assistance from this government, and therefore there will be no natural gas for these communities, because they themselves cannot afford to pay the extra cost to extend the gas line. Does this mean that the provincial government doesn't care about improving the environment? Does it mean that they don't care about doing it just because it's in the interior? What does it mean?

There are a lot of other things. It's difficult to pick all the things that indicate the reasons we have the feelings we do about being discriminated against, Mr. Speaker. But it may be a good idea to sort of leaf through some of the ministries and the estimates that have come out for them.

It's nice to start with the first A: the Advanced Education, Training and Technology ministry. In this ministry, interestingly, the operating cost for institutions went up by only 4.5 percent. Now that's very interesting, because attendance at our post-secondary institutions is on the increase, and with inflation, 4.5 percent will barely cover the general costs. And at the same time we're keeping the expense of post-secondary education down to about inflation level, student financial assistance decreased by 1 percent.

[4:00]

Mr. Speaker, you may wonder why I think this affects our area more than others. You know that the figures show that students in the interior of British Columbia attend post-secondary institutions at a rate that is far less — somewhere between half and 60 percent — than the rate at which students in the cities, the lower mainland and the lower Island, where the universities exist, attend. Put that together with the fact that we're not having the kind of increase that's going to get past inflation at all, and you know that the needs of the young people and the older people who want to improve their education in the interior of British Columbia are not going to be answered.

There is a reduction this year in the budget for job training apprenticeship, labour market policy and skills development. This is basically the area that should be increasing, because we are looking at skill shortages coming up. When we get out of this slowing of growth that we're in, there is no doubt that there will be a need for trained people. This government frequently talks about the need for trained apprentices and other people with skills; they talk about importing them, when in fact we have the young people in the interior of the province, where the resources are, who want to stay in the interior and be educated there so that they can stay and make a living there. At this time, that area of post-secondary education is losing 4 percent of its budget compared to last year.

In the Ministry of Development, Trade and Tourism, the budget is down by $4 million. This is a matter of some concern, and we will be investigating that more during the estimates. But basically, when we're talking bout an industry as important to our area as tourism, it is of great concern when we see that the overall budget is down by $4 million.

We have an increase in education overall. But when you look more closely at the budget, you find that operating costs for educational programs have declined by 23 percent, and that's a huge percentage. That's under the educational programs subvote which, interestingly enough, deals with developing the content of educational programs and managing public instruction through curriculum developments. It deals with special education programs. It deals with policy liaison between the ministry and school districts — an area where perhaps there should be some more talks. It deals with native language and culture initiatives, gender equity and governance initiatives and teaching profession programs. It deals with support for textbooks and media materials for public and independent schools. It deals with policy direction resulting from the Royal Commission on Education, including development and implementation of a four-year ungraded primary program, development of a common interme-

[ Page 12182 ]

diate curriculum for years four through ten and a revised graduation program. That area is supposed to deal with education 2000. What's happened to it? It's been in decline by 23 percent. That's a lot of decline.

Now I mentioned before the major problem in energy being the loss of power- and gas-line extensions. We will examine it more closely during estimates, but we are wondering how the Vancouver Island natural gas pipeline budget is going to survive, considering the overrun in costs that it looks like the project is going to have.

We also see no indication of a roads-to-resources budget — if you want to call it that. There was a promise last year of the Iskut road, and it has been announced that the Iskut road is going to go ahead. But is that the only road that's going to be done by this government? The question is a good one and one that is not answered by close reading of the budget and the estimate documents that went with it.

We're on to the Ministry of Environment. There are 14 more full-time positions in the Ministry of Environment this year. It always pleases us when we see that there might be.... Maybe that includes conservation officers. We might just get the number of conservation officers that we demand. That's excluding all the other demands that we have, but conservation officers are always at the centre of the needs of the Kootenay constituency. It would be nice if we thought that was there. But the interesting part about these 14 FTEs is that if you put this year together with last year, you know that there was a loss last year of 12. So the net gain is only two FTEs in the Ministry of Environment over the past two years. I'll tell you that we in our riding are getting a little worried about what's going to happen again.

The Solicitor-General would like to interrupt my speech, and certainly he's welcome if he promises me a conservation officer.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you for your forbearance. The Solicitor-General seeks leave to make an introduction. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. MESSMER: Id like to thank the member for Kootenay for allowing me to make this introduction on behalf of the MLA for Skeena, the Minister of Lands and Parks.

Visiting us today in the gallery are 29 grades 6 and 7 students from Kispiox Elementary School in Hazelton, along with six adults and their teacher, Miss Lynn Goetting. They are visiting Victoria, and I hope you will join me in welcoming them.

MS. EDWARDS: It's always a pleasure to welcome school students, and I hope they enjoy their visit. I'm a looking forward to getting that conservation officer.

Mr. Speaker, one of the major concerns we have with the environment budget is that we see that we may still be so short of personnel in the Ministry of Environment that the resource problems we see happening cannot yet be addressed. The inspection of plans by people in the Ministry of Environment — forest plans, mining plans and all sorts of plans — has created a real bottleneck for a lot of projects that could otherwise be going ahead much more quickly. That is affected very strongly by the number of personnel that we have in the Ministry of Environment. So it's very discouraging to know that there's only a net gain of two FTEs over the last two years. Although that's a very broad figure and in the broad sense it has to be examined, it is discouraging to look at it, and that's what we have.

It's a matter of happiness — I should say I hope — to note that the Fish and Wildlife management budget is up 7 percent, but there is only a negligible increase in regional operations and enforcement. Again, it's back to the same situation I was talking about before. That is an area where we frequently see the results of the shortage, and it looks like there's not going to be any increase in regional operations and enforcement. Certainly it isn't there in the budget. So despite all the promises of environmental friendliness from this government, they just aren't willing to put the bodies in the field.

There's a reduction in the forest renewal budget, and we go over this time and time again. It's a matter of concern to those of us who live in a forest resource area. There is a significant cut in intensive silviculture pending within the sustainable environment fund, and budget for the preservation of natural areas is down by 46 percent. This is very interesting, and it will show up again when we look at Lands and Parks. The budget is down, and we are wondering, after the beginning the government made in Parks Plan '90, which included not only proposals for parks but proposals from the Ministry of Forests. Now we have absolutely no funding for that whatsoever.

Mr. Speaker, my community wants to know why we went through these very painful meetings if we're going to have to do it all over again, because there isn't any money to do what should be done when — after going through these meetings — we are going to perhaps come to some conclusions. That's what you hope at these meetings; they are very difficult meetings. After they're through, you work your way to a conclusion. If we don't have any money, and we have to put this off again and start again, it creates nothing but disruption in the communities.

In Health, Mr. Speaker, I can only say what is very general to the whole province, but it affects my riding every bit as much as anybody else's. I think that what happens in the Health budget, where the MSP premiums are increased, says it all about this budget in general. If a family of four is making — I don't know — an average.... If you're at the level where you have to pay your premium for MSP, you're making $30,000, I would guess. You are going to have an increase of $100 year, in order to pay your premiums.

That's in B.C., which is one of two provinces that still has MSP premiums; the other is Alberta. B.C.'s premiums are higher than Alberta's. The Finance minister says he doesn't like the premiums. But here we are: the lower-income working people are going to make the brunt of this by paying $100 a year more —

[ Page 12183 ]

$96, if you count at $8 a month. But it amounts to approximately $100 more that they're going to have to pay just to have medical services coverage.

To offset that, says the Minister of Finance, we are going to tax those with high incomes. So if you happen to be a family of four, you are going to be taxed by a surcharge. At what point of income does this surcharge kick in? It kicks in at $100,000, Mr. Speaker. Now that's not equitable in the least. What are these people going to pay in a surcharge? Somewhere between $100 and $300, says the Minister of Finance. Well, $100 for somebody who is making $100,000 a year versus $100 for somebody who's making $30,000 a year is a huge discrepancy and a huge inequity. That kind of thing is going to hit everybody right across the province and the people who can least afford it.

The interesting part when you compare somebody who makes $30,000 to somebody who makes $100,000 — and it's pretty basic, but it sounds as though I maybe should explain it — is that it doesn't matter who you are, you've got to start off by paying for food and shelter. Once you've paid that — and it comes to approximately $30,000 — it's a discretionary income.

But if you don't have anything above $30,000, you don't I have it. That's what happens to people at that level, and they're the ones who are being hit by this, as well as seniors who have a fixed income — most of them.

The services for seniors are almost exactly the same as last year, despite the fact that this government is predicting there will be a large influx of people into the province — a large number of them seniors. One wonders if you think that all the old people who come here are not going to need any of those services at all.... So what are we going to do when we begin to have all these retirement communities developed?

In the Labour estimates — strange place for it, but that's where it is — alcohol and drug programs are said to be at $50 million. Interestingly, that is down from last year by $680,000, and this happens at the same time that alcohol and drug counsellors are being cut out of hospitals. That is a problem that affects my community as much as any other community in this province, and it's a serious place to cut the budget.

In Lands and Parks, there is a 9 percent falldown on the survey and resource mapping budget. What's survey and resource mapping? That's the inventory that the Forest Resources Commission reported we need; everybody says that we need it. Instead of dealing with that and at least leaving it at the same level, we have a 9 percent cut. That's severe.

This is the ministry that came forward with the Parks '90 plan. And what's the budget in Lands and Parks? It's down by 0.5 percent. Not a lot, but it's down.

The British Columbia Cultural Fund is another area where my riding frequently feels the impact of living in the southeast corner of the province. There's a reduction from 1988-89 through to 1991-92 of $58,000 in cultural grants. The operating costs have tripled, but the cultural grants themselves are down by $58,000.

Considering that the level of cultural grants has been fairly tight — that's about the most generous word I could use for it — it is a disgrace and a matter of sincere regret for us in our part of the province that the cultural grants are going to go down when they should be going up, and when they should be supporting one of the best spinoff industries that you can name, the cultural industry.

[4:15]

Native Affairs. That's an interesting one, because there's a major increase there. The Minister of Finance said that there would be an increase to deal with the land claims negotiations. That's interesting too, because going along with it is a huge increase from $58,000 to $730,000 for publications and advertising. This is going to be spent by the land claims negotiation division, not by the programs area. One wonders where that's going to go. We know in our area that it's crucial that the native land claims issue be settled. We are wondering whether it's going to be settled and if this government expects to settle it by advertising.

Another concern — and I've mentioned it before in his House — is the First Citizens' Fund. My discussions before were not to do with the fact that it was frozen, but that it wasn't adequate. The native people in this province who want to be self-sufficient and independent have too many restrictions and too little money in the First Citizens' Fund. That is fairly straightforward, but the fact that it's frozen right now and they can't get any funds out of it is another issue. It's a matter that doesn't seem to have any answers so far.

We move on to Social Services and Housing and the at-home program. This is the same sort of thing when we are talking about home care. If people can live and be cared for adequately in their own homes, and not have to be institutionalized for any number of reasons, we are going to save money. Everybody is going to save money. The public purse will save money. If the family can afford it they will be happier, and the patient will be happier. The people who are former patients, or people who for other reasons...without ever being so-called patients, will be much better off.

This at-home program, which is an extremely important program and has served a number of people in my constituency, has been cut by $1 million. In my constituency, if people can't stay in their own homes they may not even have the option of staying in an institution in their own community. This is more important in the rural communities than it is in the centres where the institutions that they might have to attend would be at least within driving distance — within a day or so.

Another thing that happens here is that the community projects funding has been slashed by $1.3 million. How in the world, when the situation is as severe as it is and when people are suffering unemployment, can the community projects funding, which goes to service agencies promoting programs for families...? How could this government — which claims to be concerned with issues of the family, which in fact put the family into the name of a new ministry — cut the community projects funding by $1.3 million and expect to be believed that it matters to them about the programs for families, low-income groups, youth and the handicapped?

[ Page 12184 ]

I find all of these things to be matters of great concern in our area, but perhaps the most amazing is the new discovery that if you get a phone line you're in business. When I heard the Minister of Finance say we were going to have a 1-800 number and that it was going to be for waistlines, I wasn't sure whether he meant a 28-inch waistline or a 42-inch waistline, and whether people were going to order some garments by that particular tag. Then I thought, no, he doesn't mean waistline at all. People would get all mixed up by that. He means the wasteland. When people phone in to 1-800 and say, "Is this the wasteland? April is the cruellest month, " and they will only be talking about federal income tax, the provincial government is going to cut out right away.

If the best that we can offer is a 1-800 number which probably has nothing more at the end of it than a machine, and occasionally during short working hours somebody to answer it, we're not any further ahead than we were when we started.

MR. CRANDALL: It's interesting that the other half of the East Kootenay representation would follow the member for Kootenay, and I just want to make a couple of comments about some things that surprise me.

The colleague of mine on the opposite side started out her speech on the budget by saying that her riding of Kootenay had been neglected. I want to tell you that if that riding has been neglected it hasn't always been that way and it won't always be that way in the future. That riding was represented very well from 1976 to 1986, and I expect that some day soon that representation will change again, and we will not be concerned about neglect in the Kootenay riding.

However, I am not so sure that the riding has been neglected, because many good things have happened there. I think it may be that we have been looking for bad news for so long that we forget to see the good news. Just yesterday a $4 million expansion was announced for the East Kootenay College in Cranbrook, an expansion that will serve students from both the Kootenay and Columbia River constituencies and perhaps Nelson-Creston as well. There's good in that riding — we just have to look for it.

There was also an access centre built in the Kootenay riding in the last couple of years. It is accessible and is serving the people in that riding well.

The admission that it has been neglected though, I guess, has some bearing when some of the residents in that constituency are talking about secession. I want to say here that the citizens in the Columbia River constituency are not talking about secession. There is no concern there that we should become part of Alberta or Idaho or make those jurisdictions part of British Columbia. I think we need to be aware of the good news.

Mr. Speaker, in relation to the comments made by the previous speaker from the opposition side of the House, I am reminded of some of the thoughts that I had when I spoke for the first time in this House on March 24, 1987. These thoughts are highlighted on page 233 of Hansard. I thought of those also when the second member for Boundary-Similkameen said that an astute government would have been ready. In 1987 I mentioned that I didn't know what was really going to happen when the budget was brought down that year. I didn't know how the opposition would react, and I was concerned that they may not present a shadow budget but may instead just criticize. Well, not only was that true for 1987, it was also true for 1988, 1989 and 1990, and now I see it's true again for 1991. I think it would have given the opposition much to shout about had they presented shadow budgets in each of those years and been able to go back now and tell us how things would have been different in this province had their budgets been in place. But they didn't choose that route. They have instead chosen to criticize small issues through those years, and now we have some of their ridings talking about seceding from the province.

I believe that this budget, like the four previous ones that this government has introduced, is a responsible one. I feel that it's so responsible that we should perhaps even call an election on it. Now the opposition will chirp up and say: "Yes, let's call an election." But it's interesting that the reason is different. Since the first four budgets were introduced by this government we have had a government of their political stripe elected in Ontario, and the opposition here would be very anxious to see an election called now before any more problems are created in Ontario.

This is a responsible budget, because the priorities are straight. When this country was new and our pioneers were developing British Columbia and the other provinces of western Canada, they asked for some very simple services from government. They asked for things like schools and roads. They didn't have a long list like we do today. It's interesting that our priorities are health, number one, and education, number two. Just as our pioneers asked for and received the small country schools, so today this government is recognizing the priority of education. Our priorities are straight: health, number one; education, number two; and services for those less fortunate, number three — for the handicapped, for those who need some income assistance, across the entire spectrum of citizenry in this province.

Our priorities are not only straight for the highly populated parts of our province, they're also straight for the remote areas — the corners of the province that the previous speaker talked about as being neglected. These priorities are straight for those parts of the province. I know that the constituency of Columbia River, which I represent, has been well served by this government over the past four and a half years in health, education and social services. I'll talk about those in a bit more detail in a minute.

The important thing is that we are elected to serve the people of this province, and we have put the people programs at the top of our priority list. It's not important to be in power; it's important that when you are in power you serve the people of the province well. We have done that by putting the people programs high on our priority list.

I am also pleased to see in this budget that even though we have had to introduce a deficit budget, the deficit is small. I am also pleased to see that over the

[ Page 12185 ]

next five years we have a plan to balance the budget — over the five-year business cycle. That's a sign that this government recognizes the necessity of good planning and the importance of balanced budgets.

One of the worst forms of political immorality is over the long term to have deficits that our children, like these here today from the great constituency of Skeena.... These young people will have to pay our bills. Deficit financing is to be avoided at all costs, and in this year of business downturn it is important that our deficit be as small as possible.

This budget represents a very small deficit compared to the budget that was brought down in the province of Ontario, a province the two members from the opposition benches who are here at the present moment should be crowing about from the street corners of our province. But instead they are distancing themselves at every opportunity from the government of Ontario, just as they now bury their faces in their desks, just as they tend to their work and do not talk about Ontario with its huge, huge deficit budget.

I am pleased that this government and the future Social Credit government in this province, the day after the next election, will work towards balancing our budget over the next five years.

The previous speaker talked about neglect in the southeast corner of British Columbia. I'm proud to stand here today and tell you that the southeast corner of British Columbia has not been neglected. In Kimberley, in the southern part of my constituency, we have seen roads constructed. We have seen roads constructed that were talked about prior to the 1972-75 government that was administered by the opposition. The road from Kimberley to Kootenay Lake has been constructed. It provided jobs for the contractors in southeastern British Columbia. We see a new 18-hole golf course under construction in the city of Kimberley. We have seen many improvements to the ski hill in Kimberley.

We have seen significant expenditures made to reduce the conflicts between agriculture and wildlife in southeastern British Columbia, a conflict that has existed for over a dozen years, including the period of time when the opposition was in power. That agriculture-wildlife conflict will be reduced, and both of those industries will be able to move forward with less conflict than we've had in the past.

[4:30]

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

In the southern part of my constituency we've also reactivated the secondary school at Canal Flats so that students there can go to school in their hometown without being bused a long distance. Also, while the previous speaker from the Kootenay constituency talks about neglect in the southeast, we have built a new $6.2 million high school in the community of Invermere to serve the Windermere Valley. We also will soon build a new high school for $9 million or $10 million to serve the students of the valley. When the present hospital has been moved to the new hospital, we will also provide a long-term-care facility for our citizens there so they too do not have to leave their community.

We've seen road construction there. We've seen restructuring assistance for the new municipality of Radium Hot Springs, which I believe is still the newest municipality in the province. We've seen assistance for the Columbia Valley airport at Fairmont Hot Springs. We see a new bridge being put across Toby Creek to the Panorama ski hill at a total expenditure of $1.3 million.

It doesn't sound to me like neglect in southeastern British Columbia. It sounds to me like significant expenditures being put into that exciting and interesting part of British Columbia. We also have a new Hydro office being built to serve the residents of the Windermere Valley at Invermere. Each of these expenditures have been providing jobs and services for local people in my constituency.

In the Golden part of the constituency — still a remote community, still outside the lower mainland, still in southeastern British Columbia, where the previous opposition speaker spoke of neglect — we have a new $9 million high school which I expect will be opened in the early fall by the Minister of Education. A $9 million high school being opened to serve the students in the community of Golden: that doesn't sound to me like neglect in southeastern British Columbia.

We also have a new Forest Service building and a new ambulance station. We will soon build a new courthouse. Golden has been provided with airport funding. We also have a new $3 million four-lane strip of the Trans-Canada Highway being started soon in the commercial area within the town of Golden. That doesn't sound like neglect. As well, a new Hydro building is being constructed in Golden, so we have two Hydro buildings being put up in Invermere and Golden.

Interjection.

MR. CRANDALL: The opposition bleats a little bit about the former mayor of Golden, and let them. I want you to know that the upcoming election will be an interesting one, because it will be a contest between the former mayor of Golden and the former regional district chairman and MLA, who will be pleased to debate the issues and who will be pleased to take the record of this four and a half years of provincial government service into the community of Golden. I would be very happy if the Premier would call the election today so we could start on that debate right now.

I want to tell you that in that part of southeastern British Columbia where the previous speaker, the representative, the MLA for Kootenay, complained about neglect.... I've left the last item, the best item, for last. We've had some difficulty because of slow housing starts in the American market. We've had some difficulty in the forest industry, and because of that difficulty and because of the steepness of terrain in the Golden area, we've had some difficulty in the forest industry there. But let me ask you: was the forest industry in Golden neglected by this government? The NDP MLA for Kootenay just talked about the neglected part of southeastern British Columbia. I want you to

[ Page 12186 ]

know that this government has been responsive in dealing with the difficulties we've had in the forest industry in the Columbia River constituency.

In the Golden area, 800 people are employed in the forest industry. That industry and those 700 to 800 employees, including the woodspeople, with their livelihood at stake.... That issue was brought to the MLA. The MLA took that issue to cabinet and to the Premier of the day — today the first member for Richmond — and in that corner of southeastern British Columbia this government provided some necessary and important assistance for the forest industry. We now have buildings going up in the community of Donald in Golden which will house equipment that will be used to provide products at a more efficient cost. That will guarantee the long-term viability of the forest industry in that community.

The forest industry has not been neglected in southeastern British Columbia. Health has not been neglected in southeastern British Columbia. Education has not been neglected in southeastern British Columbia. I would suggest that if the member for Kootenay would not strive and look with microscopes to find the trouble spots in her constituency, there would perhaps be more things done there and there would be no citizens in Kootenay wanting to secede from there to the province of Alberta.

Mr. Speaker, not only have we made significant expenditures in Columbia River but we will continue to make significant expenditures. I'm concerned — and I tell my constituents that we need to be concerned — about the provincial taxpayers' ability to pay. We need to have funds here in Victoria, because when there are funds here in Victoria, the MLA for Columbia River can come here and get funds to build the necessary infrastructure that we need in Columbia River. We are continuing that process today, and along with the new high schools and hospitals being built, we will continue to build the infrastructure in Columbia River.

The history in British Columbia has not all been written yet. We've got new roads to build and new facilities to put in. One of the most important facilities that needs to be built in Columbia River over the next few years is one that's already on the drawing board: rebuilding the highway through the dangerous Kicking Horse canyon. This government has already started public meetings and the engineering process to build a new highway through the Kicking Horse canyon. That highway, many members will recall, brought some significant vehicle accidents last year. We responded as quickly as possible and will continue to. The result will be a brand-new four-lane highway through the very difficult Kicking Horse canyon. The canyon contains the ten most difficult miles to build a highway in on the Trans-Canada Highway — from coast to coast. It will take $300 million or $400 million. Those expenditures will be committed by the next Social Credit government to build that highway.

The previous speaker, the MLA for Kootenay, came here today and talked about neglect of southeastern British Columbia. I do not see neglect in southeastern British Columbia. I see positive building — building and writing the history pages that need to be written, that have been written over the last four and a half years and will continue to be written over the next four years.

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to see that those of us in the rural parts of British Columbia have been remembered on the property tax side in the budget. I'm glad to see that my rural taxpayers will not pay increased taxes to any great extent this year. Action has been taken by this budget to protect those taxpayers. I'm also pleased to see that the supplemental homeowner's grant has been increased.

While we might talk about the toll-free telephone line for waste being an insignificant facility, I'm pleased to see an attitude put in place by this government where we will work to reduce waste as it exists out there today and as it may creep in in the future. It's important that not only taxpayers and citizens of this province recognize and work to assist in identifying possible waste, but also all of those who work for government and who may well be in the best possible positions to identify waste. I would ask not only our citizens but especially our civil servants who provide valuable services to government to assist in that regard as well.

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased that the member for Surrey–White Rock–Cloverdale talked about some of the initiatives that have been taken over the past few years. That great initiative, Expo '86, was in large part brought to us by some of the MLAs still with us in this House today. That great initiative has been followed now by Music '91. It will continue to be followed in the future by other initiatives. I know that when the next government is re-elected — the party that's in power today — there will be initiatives of a similar nature brought forth in those years by the party that's in power today.

[4:45]

I also want to mention one that was brought forward by a government in the past. The government of W.A.C. Bennett brought in the Columbia River Treaty, which in 1996-97 will bring us the resale of the downstream benefits of something like $700 million to $800 million.

We've seen initiatives in this province over the fifties, sixties, seventies, and eighties, and we'll see initiatives on into the nineties and around the corner of the century which benefit the province as a whole and which, contrary to what the speaker from the Kootenay said, benefit all parts of this province, including southeastern British Columbia. I've been proud to outline some of things we've done in the great constituency of Columbia River, where we have recognized priorities. We've recognized the importance of providing good health facilities, good education facilities at the secondary level and at the post-secondary level, and good road facilities — all kinds of facilities that improve the quality of life in southeastern British Columbia.

There is no need for the citizens of southeastern British Columbia to want to join the province of Alberta. I'm a bit disappointed, frankly, that it has come up in our part of the province. I believe that in the future, when we have another Social Credit MLA

[ Page 12187 ]

from that constituency, we will no longer have people wanting to secede. This government has served southeastern British Columbia well. It will continue to do so through the remainder of its mandate and in the next one.

MR. LOVICK: You'll bear with me I hope, Mr. Speaker, in that I am just assembling my notes. I had assumed that the previous speaker would go on rather longer than he did. Given the fact that the budget is difficult to defend even for the most zealous of members opposite, I can understand why he didn't use all the time available to him.

I don't intend to engage in any kind of elaborate rebuttal or refutation of the previous speaker's comments; indeed, he did so himself. What he said emphatically, you recall, was that deficit financing is to be avoided at all costs. I was surprised that others across the way didn't break into applause at that point. But he then went on to say: "Of course, this deficit financing is okay. And after all, it's not that big anyway." How can you have it both ways? If it's to be avoided at all costs, how can you then embrace the fact that you do indeed have a deficit budget?

It's customary, as we all know in this chamber, to approach a budget debate by assailing the government for all of its sins, both of omission and commission. I'm certainly eager to participate in that particular exercise. I always enjoy it, and I haven't lost my enthusiasm for it. But I want to say, just as I did with regard to the throne speech, that it's a little bit difficult this time around to jump into the debate in quite the same way.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I'd like to reiterate here the point I made when I spoke to the throne speech. The reason is essentially that it's hard to convince yourself that this debate is really relevant or important in the minds of the citizens of this province. I wonder, for example, how many people in the galleries here really are paying much attention to this budget. The reason is that what we're looking at is action on the part of a government that is pro forma, to put it delicately, they're doing what they must do. But in this instance it's a budget that nobody is taking seriously, just as nobody took the throne speech seriously; that's the problem.

Let me remind the members opposite, if I may, of the point I made. When I spoke last I chose my words very carefully indeed, because I know the attention span is limited, and I know I get difficulties the moment I use more than your average monosyllabic grunt. I know I have to be careful about that, so I choose my words carefully. I want to do so again here, so you can understand just the point I'm making.

I said last time that the overwhelming majority of the people in the province today don't think that the fundamental question before this Legislature or before them has anything to do with what the government is proposing to do, what the government has done, or even what the government is doing. The fundamental question in the minds of the people in this province today is whether this government any longer has the ability to govern; that's the question. I think it's probably also true to say that what people really want this government to do is not to declare that they have a budget, that they even have a deficit budget, that they even have a budget that increases our provincial debt — not any of that stuff — but to say: "We have been in long enough. Therefore we are going to go to the people and ask for their support." I wish this government would call an election and be done with it. I suspect that's the only message the people in the gallery would like to hear from the government — and people out there watching this debate and paying attention to what goes on in the capital. It seems to me that's the only question.

My comments are bound to generate some disagreement from the other side. That is predictable. But you know, it is difficult to take this budget debate very seriously for another reason too. The other reason is simply that this budget is built on what my colleague for Vancouver East referred to as "the big lie" of the deficit actually being $1.2 billion versus $395 million. Everybody knows it. Everybody with any expertise — except for the Minister of Finance — who has looked at this budget has concluded very clearly that the real deficit is $1.2 billion.

We have a brand-new Premier. We've got a brand-new Minister of Finance. Both have the opportunity to say: "We're going to change the rules of the game. We're going to finally acknowledge that the BS fund is indeed b.s. Let's get rid of it. Let's take our lumps. Let's acknowledge that we're going to run a deficit budget." And probably the majority of people out there would say: "All right. Show us your justification for taking that position, show us your reasons for presenting that deficit budget, and we won't kick you around."

But this government is not honest or forthright enough — or perhaps smart enough — to do that. Instead we get the same old games. This afternoon we heard the Finance minister tell us again and again that the deficit is only $395 million. Everybody else is saying $1.2 billion.

Interjection.

MR. LOVICK: Everybody else is out of step but our John, as my colleague here passes on to me.

Interjection.

MR. LOVICK: I know, Mr. Speaker, that what happens....

That wasn't the whole name. Surely the Christian name is allowed. If not, I certainly apologize if I've offended the rules of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. You've offended the rules of the House by accepting counsel from a member who is not sitting in his proper seat.

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Speaker, the real question is: who should be punished?

I want to draw members' attention to a couple of those observations, a couple of those analyses that

[ Page 12188 ]

make the point that what's missing here and what's missing from this government is some courage and some fundamental honesty.

Let me quote a couple of editorials. The headline for this particular editorial says it rather succinctly and effectively: "Doubletalk on the Deficit." That's pretty clear. It goes on:

"If B.C. really does have the best fiscal management in the country, why must we suffer with this irritating hide-the-deficit shell game.

The former Finance minister "declared the budget stabilization fund dead, drained and irrelevant on March 19. Yet his successor" — the new Finance minister — "still felt comfortable Tuesday about including $839 million in BS money in the budget. The new minister insisted that although his government must borrow $1.3 billion, its deficit is only $395 million. Apparently, we" — the people — "don't understand the distinction...."

Point made rather emphatically.

Here's a new wrinkle to it, though. I've been talking about the absence of honesty and the fact that this government can't be forthright and suggesting that if the government were, then they might be taken seriously and might have a chance. At what? I'm not sure about regaining the confidence, but at least being listened to, at least being given a serious hearing, which they aren't now.

The second passage I'd like to refer to very briefly is this one. I'm going to quote it directly, even though it would seem to give the other side some ammunition. The headline says: "Reasonable Budget" — you may applaud now — "Shrouded in Deception." Now some of us argue this isn't a reasonable budget; some argue the converse, and clearly that's what debate should be about. But the issue here that everybody is now focusing on has to do with the second line: "Shrouded in Deception." The point made in this particular editorial, as in other articles that have been written on this particular budget, is: why was this government so colossally dumb? Why did it make a mess of what could have been a defensible position to present in this Legislature? I offer the government that particular bit of advice free, gratis, for nothing, as a way to make themselves look at least a little smarter, if not more honest.

I little more on credibility. That is the issue ultimately: it's about credibility. It's whether this government any longer has the ear of the people or whether they have been dismissed as essentially irrelevant.

A further point to illustrate that loss of credibility is the very simple fact that only two months ago we had these wonderful statements from that side of the House from the then Minister of Finance sticking to the mast a principle — a firmly held principle on the part of this government — about no tax increases. I remember sitting in the chamber at the time. I remember watching the debate and watching the Minister of Finance. On first reading he said: "This act" — it was called the Taxpayer Protection Act, you recall — "...places the rights of the taxpayers first and foremost in the province of British Columbia.... The act regulates a freeze on provincial tax rates in British Columbia" — then he added gratuitously, and you stopped him, Mr. Speaker — "unlike the policies of the opposition."

The day following, that selfsame Minister of Finance stated it in even more passionate, stentorian, magisterial terms by saying:

"Taxpayers throughout Canada are complaining of the excessive burden of taxes. Increased taxes and new taxes, especially at the federal level, have pushed taxpayers' tolerance to the absolute limit. Our government intends to relieve the burden on taxpayers and give them the assurance that their taxes in British Columbia will not rise."

Pretty clear.

He went on a paragraph later and said:

"...although this bill prevents the government from increasing tax rates, it does not prevent us from lowering them as our budget situation permits. As well, the act prevents the provincial government from introducing any new taxes whatsoever."

That was on March 21. On May 21 we suddenly discover that the rules have changed, because this budget that was introduced introduces several new taxes. Two months ago the line is that there is a guarantee, a passionate commitment: no new taxes. Two months later we introduce them.

What does that say about credibility? How can you do that and still go to the people and say: "We have been honest, we have been forthright, we have been credible"? How can you do that? I don't think you can.

It isn't as if this action is the only aberration, the only time we've had contradiction by their actions of what they have said shortly before. Bill 79 comes to mind — sunshine legislation that was going to make public sector bargaining more efficient and more effective. We on the opposition at the time said this was wacko legislation, didn't make sense, was going to get in the way of harmonious and efficient labour relations. The government said proudly that this was good stuff and they meant it seriously and sincerely. Less than six months later, that particular measure is also pulled off the statute books. What about credibility? I think their predicament is that the government's lack of credibility is indeed showing.

[5:00]

I've been saying thus far that we have a problem with perceived dishonesty on the part of this government. We have a problem with a perceived, and legitimately perceived, lack of credibility on the part of this government. With regard to this budget we also have another problem, perhaps even more serious, certainly for those who are suffering out there. What I think this budget also demonstrates is a real insensitivity to the real world. I'm talking about the real world of plant closures, recession, shutdown and unemployment.

Mr. Speaker, do you know that the word unemployment isn't even mentioned in that budget? Moreover, there is nothing that I can discover, or that my colleagues I have spoken with have discovered, that talks about addressing that problem — that talks about addressing the recession that is now clearly affecting all of us and will affect us more seriously in months to come.

[ Page 12189 ]

It's worth mentioning, isn't it, that not too many months ago we had the Minister of Finance and the then Premier debating about whether the B.C. economy was recession-proof. We had different announcements coming out from different cabinet ministers. The point, of course, is that we are not recession-proof; we all know that. Whatever we do in this economy, given the nature of an export-based economy using primary products, clearly we're going to be vulnerable to world markets and commodity prices — no question. We try to improve, but we'll never be recession-proof. What scares me is that in this budget I don't see any recognition that the recession has indeed arrived insofar as the government is taking steps to deal with it. It seems that is not happening at all.

I'd like to turn briefly to my particular critic areas and just offer some brief comments. It's interesting to note that Transportation and Highways is not referred to in this particular budget. I pause to reflect on that for just a moment. The absence of highways in a Social Credit budget speech is analogous to the absence of health care in a New Democrat budget speech. The reputation of your government, the reputation of Social Credit — deservedly and for a very long time — has been that you are the builders of the province: you built highways. You were going on to bigger and better and Freedom to Move, and all this stuff. But do you know what has happened?

Interjections.

MR. LOVICK: It's interesting, isn't it. All I have to do is push a couple of buttons. By goodness, they're all up and going at it. I love it: they're so predictable. It's a sort of Pavlovian response, but it really is nice to watch. Salivate again, friends, salivate again. How I love it.

The notion I'm suggesting is that what this budget doesn't do is talk about highways. And the obvious question is: why not? Clearly, that's your principal claim to fame. Let me have a look at that budget. Let me just put a little pressure on and look at some figures. The transfer to the Freedom to Move account is — hang on to your hats — down by a figure of some $8.7 million.

I heard somebody ask me a question about the Vancouver Island Highway. The real story on the Vancouver Island Highway is in the budget. Last year the government budgeted — get this — $100 million for the Vancouver Island Highway and we all cheered. But this year the amount budgeted for the Vancouver Island Highway is $64 million — $36 million less.

Why is this? What happened? You may pause to think about it and suddenly start putting three and seven together, and you recognize that there was an announcement made by the Ministry of Transportation and Highways yesterday with the headline: "Province Agrees to Regional Transportation Plan." The burden of this release is that some of the work on the southern end of the Vancouver Island Highway project is going to be suspended. They're not going to do the work, because they need to consult with people and they need to set up a plan.

Doesn't that sound good? We all would say, I am sure: "Consultation, you bet! Planning, you bet!" But let me just remind my friends opposite that the former Minister of Transportation and Highways — the now Premier of the Province, albeit for a short period — is the one who has bragged and passionately defended her government's commitment to planning and consultation and has told us: "We have a plan."

And isn't it wonderful that members opposite are applauding. Then tell me, members opposite: how can you say, last year, "We have a plan; we've consulted, " and then today say: "We're stopping the project because we need a plan, and we need to consult"? You've got a problem with credibility.

Interjection.

MR. LOVICK: That is the whole story, my friend; believe me, it's the whole story.

We look at the budget and we look for indications that government has indeed learned from the errors of the past. We look at the Highways budget to see what is happening. And what do we discover is the big increase? The big increase in the Ministry of Highways budget this time is STOB 40. For all those people out there who don't know about government terminology, STOB is a standard object of expenditure. STOB 40 is "Informational Advertising and Publications." It's public relations — propaganda, glossy pamphlets. That's what STOB 40 is all about. And that, Mr. Speaker, is the biggest single increase in the Highways budget. That's where the action is. They aren't doing the work, but they're sure spending a lot of money telling us about what they might do and what they think ought to be done. That's the predicament, which I again suggest is credibility.

I remember listening to the Premier being interviewed on the radio after the budget was announced. Her line at the time was: "This is a budget that we would like to go to the people with. This is a budget we would like to have an election with." I remember thinking at the time: I hope so. I would love to see this government find its courage to go to the people, take this budget and use it as a basis for their campaign. In fact, I'd go one further and suggest to this government that it might like to produce a video — we can get them from here, of course, we have everything on tape now. Let's take a video of the Minister of Finance and the member for Vancouver East, our Finance critic, and juxtapose the two. For those who don't want to watch video but would rather read, let's provide copies of their respective speeches, one introducing a budget and the other criticizing a budget.

It seems clear to me that if this government had the courage to do that and the people were given an opportunity to focus on the real issue in their minds — namely, whether this government should continue governing — then I think the conclusion will overwhelmingly be that it is time for a change. It is time you folks over there in Social Credit spent some time in opposition.

[ Page 12190 ]

HON. S. HAGEN: I rise to address this House by way of adding a voice of strong support for the provincial budget tabled this week by the Minister of Finance. In a few minutes I'll be addressing some of the comments made by the first member for Nanaimo about local issues that are obviously of interest to me with regard to the Island Highway and other issues.

First of all, I want to make some comments on the budget. This budget, I believe, is made in British Columbia, by British Columbians, for British Columbians, and the benefits will accrue to all British Columbians. It's not made in Ontario by a mystery transition team spirited down from the NDP in British Columbia to assist Ontario in coming up with a multibillion-dollar deficit with expenditures in the incorrect areas.

As one of the three cabinet ministers responsible for the heaviest government spending and investing in the interest of our citizens — the other two being Health and Social Services — I want to say categorically that I am proud of the performance of the Ministry of Education and of the Ministry of Advanced Education, Training and Technology, particularly in their pursuit of excellence for all students of British Columbia and all citizens.

Mr. Speaker, a great deal of hard work and conscientious effort went into my two ministries' contributions to the preparation of the Finance minister's budget. I want to pay tribute at this time to my colleague the past Minister of Education, who for four years delivered solid educational programs to the students of this province. The best education system in this country was set up by my colleague the member for North Peace River. He deserves the thanks and appreciation of all British Columbians and certainly of all members of this House.

As a result of our system of elementary, secondary and post-secondary education, the students are the real winners of education in this province. Consider that the Ministry of Education has a projected expenditure this coming year of $3.3 billion. That represents five incremental increases, to nearly double the 1987-88 education budget. That is a phenomenal 83 percent increase, in keeping with the burgeoning provincial population, a net increase of about 80,000 new British Columbians annually now for two years. British Columbia has faced the heaviest immigration in Canada, with Ontario being the biggest single contributor of immigrants. It's not hard to understand why. As a matter of fact, I have just met a couple from Ontario who had escaped from that province a couple of weeks ago.

[5:15]

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

This has also caused a demand for capital expansion that has imposed additional burdens on those resources allocated to education. Of course, other ministries are affected as well. Nevertheless, my ministry's projected capital expenditures for this upcoming fiscal year total $650 million, which I believe is the largest capital expenditure ever seen by a ministry in this government. This shows our commitment to providing the best possible education in Canada.

A couple of years ago the capital budget was $250 million. Last year it was $350 million. This year it's $650 million. If the planning hadn't been done last year for the projects being constructed this year, we would not be able to commit that kind of capital expenditure. That capital is spent on new school construction, renovations, earthquake protection and new property acquisitions for future schools, not only to keep pace with present demands but to meet the future needs of our schools. In the three-year period between 1989 and 1992 we will have spent $1.25 billion on school construction in British Columbia, thereby underscoring again the tremendous commitment that this province has made to education.

There is of course a tremendous spinoff to the construction industry and to the economy of those communities where schools will be constructed — a tremendous opportunity for job creation for construction companies, carpenters, plumbers, and everyone involved in the construction industry. It's just this sort of well-ordered planning, matched by fiscal responsibility and accountability, that has made our education system in this province the envy of similar jurisdictions from one end of Canada to the other.

I want to talk a bit about the commitment to education. The percentage of dollars spent on education compared to the total budget in this province is higher than for any other province in this country; 27.5 percent of the budget in British Columbia is committed to education. That's an investment, and it's an investment that I am proud of; and I know that all members from our party are proud of it, because it shows that we are committed to the young people and to the future of the province of British Columbia.

Let's just talk about the other jurisdictions. In 1987 the percentage of the total budget in B.C. committed to education was about 24 percent. That has increased to 27 percent.

AN HON. MEMBER: What's Ontario?

HON. S. HAGEN: Interesting. In 1987 the percentage of the Ontario budget committed to education was 23 percent, just 1 percent lower than B.C. That has decreased this year to 18.4 percent. For the first time in the history of that province more money is being spent on the social welfare budget than on the education budget.

That is not a good message to the rest of the country. When you look at the incredibly huge deficit in Ontario, almost $10 billion — $9.7 billion to be accurate.... I know that the members on the other side of the House don't want to recognize this or don't want to discuss it. As a matter of fact, I've heard them agree with the deficit in Ontario. But I'll tell you, that's not a good sign for Canada, because all of the rest of us across this country are going to have to pay for that. It's going to be reflected in interest rates. As you know, their credit rating has been downgraded two points. It s a very sad state of affairs.

[ Page 12191 ]

The commitment to education in the province of British Columbia is second to none. But it's important to recognize that our responsibility is not only to the students in the province but also to the parents and guardians of those students. I know it's very difficult for the members on the opposite side of the House to understand this, but our responsibility is also to the taxpayers, because it is the taxpayers who provide the money. As my colleague from Peace River has said so often, government has no money of its own. We only have the money that the taxpayers send to us in their taxes and allow us to spend — and indeed, expect us to spend — correctly.

Let's just talk about taxes, because I know that the taxpayers are interested in this. Taxpayers will largely be spared from residential school tax increases this year. Most homeowners will see no increase in school taxes, while many will share the happy experience of a tax reduction from last year. This year the homeowner grant will be further supplemented with an increased grant of 50 percent of school property taxes in excess of the basic grant up to a maximum of $1,000.

Let me touch on some of the achievements of our education system. The members from the other side of the House are whining and sniveling and talking about things that aren't really relevant. Let's talk about some of the success stories we have in this province. Let's talk about the students and the success of these students. Our students are achieving world-class success in their academic studies.

In the most recent international study, a sampling of 13-year-old British Columbians participating in the International Assessment of Mathematics and Science achieved the highest overall science score, while ranking third in mathematics. These students are competing with students from all over the world. British Columbians show the highest adult literacy rate in Canada: 83 percent compared to the Canadian average of 76 percent.

Let me tell you that we are not satisfied with that; we have the best standing in Canada, but we are not satisfied with that. Two primary objectives we have are to increase the literacy rate and to reduce the dropout rate, because in British Columbia one of the other challenges we face is a 30 percent dropout rate. That means that 30 percent of students who enter the system in kindergarten do not finish grade 12. That's a very serious issue. It happens to be the Canadian average as well. It's a serious issue, and it must be addressed not only for the people who will be helped but for what it means to economic growth.

Let's talk about the jobs that are generated in the system. The province's 1,600 public schools provide jobs for 31,000 teachers. We have a current pupil teacher ratio of 16 to 1 in our schools, and average class sizes of 22.7 to 1 in elementary schools and 24 to 1 in secondary schools.

Let's talk about block funding, a very fair method of funding the school system on a per-pupil basis to ensure equality in educational programs throughout the entire province. The block funding contribution from the provincial government — which, by the way, funds almost 100 percent of the cost of education.... Just so you're aware, in Ontario they fund 43.6 percent. After an election promise of 60 percent, they're still at 43 percent, while we're at almost 100 percent.

In addition to the block fund of $5,500 per student, this year we're providing $28 per student extra for special-needs students as well as for English-as-a-second-language students.

Independent schools, a very important part of the system, will receive grants totalling $91.9 million. That was recommended by the Royal Commission on Education. That figure represents an increase of nearly 126 percent over the past five-year period. These are but a few of the accomplishments of our school system and of those who manage it.

Mr. Speaker, I want to give credit where credit is due. Certainly credit is due to the teachers in the school system out there who teach our children and who in fact probably spend more time with our kids than many of us do. I take my hat off to them, and I appreciate what they do.

With the indulgence of the House, let me touch upon some of the initiatives and projects that will have far-reaching benefits on the system and for who benefit from it. In response to the Royal Commission on Education, which placed our province in the lead across North America in planning for the future, the Year 2000 education initiative is now well underway, and I want to state just exactly where that is.

The K to 3 part of it has been implemented and is moving along very well. Credit goes there to the teachers as well. The documents have been circulated for the intermediate part. We are now getting public response from groups of teachers and educators from around the province — from administrators, students, parents, the BCTF, the BCSTA, the B.C. Federation of Labour, the Business Council of B.C. and all interested individuals. We are assessing that input. I'm sure there will be some recommended changes. I will be taking a report to cabinet with some of those recommendations. We are committed to educational reform in British Columbia.

I should emphasize here that this major undertaking was commenced by my predecessor. A great deal of work has gone into it; a great deal of work has yet to go into it. We will continue to make sure that the students in British Columbia are getting the best possible education we can provide them.

There's a lot of talk about computers in our schools. As I visit schools around the province, I'm always impressed by the computer labs and computer rooms in the schools. It's important for you to know today that more than 40,000 computers are being placed in classrooms throughout the province, which provides the students of British Columbia with the best computer-to-student ratio of any province in Canada.

[5:30]

I would now like to move my focus to my other ministry — the fine work done in the Ministry of Advanced Education, Training and Technology. I want to pay tribute here to my predecessor the member for Prince George South. He did an outstanding job in that ministry, particularly in the expansion of the Access for All program. I'll talk a bit about the University of

[ Page 12192 ]

Northern B.C. which is going to be so important and so significant to the continued growth and development of the whole northern half of the province centred around Prince George. No one would deny that investment in advanced education, training and technology pays dividends for many years to come, or that this investment helps enhance and renew our most valuable resource — the people of this great province.

My ministry is creating a culture of lifelong learning here in British Columbia that supports our vision for the future of this province: a province with well-educated, healthy people who are productively employed; a strong, globally competitive economy that provides the highest standard of living for our people; a clean, safe environment; and a tolerant, pluralistic society where all people have the opportunity and confidence to achieve their potential. This vision is not simply an unrealistic ideal; it is a reality which we are supporting through sympathetic, responsive programs and policies in the Ministry of Advanced Education, Training and Technology.

In the past two years we have focused special attention on the needs of post-secondary education in the Fraser Valley, which is the fastest growing region of British Columbia. In 1989 we requested a committee of Fraser Valley college presidents and the president of Simon Fraser University to study the region's demands for advanced education programs. We are now studying the establishment of a degree-granting institution in the upper Fraser Valley.

The demand for higher education is growing quickly in this area of the province. To deal with the immediate need, I am happy to report that we have been able to respond to the Fraser Valley's needs to meet the enrolment demands. We added 1,164 student spaces in Simon Fraser University, Kwantlen College, Fraser Valley College and Douglas College through the 1989-89 Access for All program, and in 1990-91 we created an additional 1,243 spaces.

British Columbia, like the rest of our country, faces a shortage of nurses. My ministry, along with the Ministry of Health, introduced a joint five-year plan to increase the supply of nurses. Our ministry is funding additional training spaces in a number of important programs. During 1990-91, the first year of the five year plan, my ministry funded 221 new training spaces at Camosun, Cariboo, Douglas, Fraser Valley, Kwantlen, Malaspina and Vancouver Community Colleges and the British Columbia Institute of Technology.These steps will significantly reduce the province's nursing shortage.

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to report on the continuing success of the Access for All program. The government's program, initiated in 1989, will increase the number of university seats in this province by 15,000, more spaces than we presently have at Simon Fraser University. It's really just like another university in the province.

Access for All commits $480 million to new operating funds for post-secondary education institutions and $210 million for new facilities. During the program's second year, my ministry granted $69 million to post-secondary institutions to create another 4,065 student spaces. These spaces include openings for literacy training and for career, technical and vocational training at colleges and universities. Other new student spaces boosted academic education opportunities at the universities and colleges.

My ministry responded to the need for new teacher training by opening more spaces to train these professionals. Responding to the workplace needs, the colleges and institutes created new programs in career-related fields. My ministry expanded degree-granting programs. Next month, Mr. Speaker, the first graduates from Cariboo College, Okanagan College and Malaspina College will graduate, but their degrees will come from the three existing British Columbia universities. So the students graduating in Kelowna will have degrees from UBC, SFU and UVic — a tremendous opportunity for the regions of the province.

To make advanced education more accessible to the physically challenged we increased funds to improve access to buildings. We increased our investment in the provision of library facilities for the visually impaired. To create room for growth in post-secondary institutions we committed $218 million in 1991 for capital works programs, including the creation of new campuses and buildings for many of our colleges. All of these are a testimony to our continued commitment to increasing access for students in all regions of the province.

British Columbians will soon enjoy the benefits of another high-quality post-secondary institution. On July 23, 1990, my predecessor brought in the University of Northern British Columbia Act to create an autonomous, degree-granting university to serve the residents of central and northern British Columbia. What an opportunity! That is a credit to the previous minister; it's a credit to the entire government. What a difference it will make for the students in that part of the province! Hopefully it will draw students from all parts of the province and give them the opportunity of living in the great central part of British Columbia.

Through another initiative, the university matching grant program — a capital matching program — my ministry gives the universities up to $20 million a year to match donations. It started out as a small idea, with a $10 million fund. It very quickly grew to a $110 million fund and has now grown to a $150 million fund. Can you imagine what that has meant to the three universities, who have gone out to the private sector and raised money — money that used to go to eastern and central Canadian universities? Now that money is staying right here in this province. As you travel through the campuses of Simon Fraser University, the University of British Columbia and the University of Victoria, you can see the construction activity, the cranes, the buildings that are going up. What a great testimony to the future of this province!

In January of this year my ministry announced the formation of the Private Post-Secondary Education Commission. This group has the important job of being responsible for the mandatory registration and voluntary accreditation of the more than 500 private sector post-secondary educational institutions in this province. The work of this commission will improve educa-

[ Page 12193 ]

tional opportunities for students and provide institutions with the means to demonstrate their academic excellence.

I hardly need to tell you that British Columbia's ability to compete in the global marketplace depends heavily on our investment in science and technology. I would love to give a two-hour speech on the TRIUMF-KAON project, but I know that I'm running out of time. What an opportunity that will be for the scientists and students from our province. For too long we have been exporting these brightest and best people to other countries. It's time to keep those Canadians in Canada. It's time to keep them in British Columbia at the TRIUMF-KAON facility.

I want to very quickly respond to some of the comments made by the member for Nanaimo. The benefits of this budget to the area north of Nanaimo in my region — Parksville-Qualicum, Comox Valley and Campbell River — is phenomenal. As you know, we are under construction with a new $12 million North Island campus in the great city of Courtenay in the Comox Valley. What a difference that's going to make to the students who graduate from Highland Secondary School and George P. Vanier Secondary School. Those students will now be able to stay and attend classes in the community.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Speaker, I move that the debate be adjourned to the next sitting of the House after today.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Strachan moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:40 p.m.