[ Page 12195 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Pension Benefits Standards Act (Bill 6). Hon. Mr. Rabbitt

Introduction and first reading –– 12195

Ministerial Statement

Canada's Fitweek '91. Hon. Mr. Strachan –– 12195

Mr. Perry

Private Members' Statements

Cross-border shopping. Mr. Michael –– 12195

Mr. Clark

Bowen Island–Sunshine Coast fast ferry. Mr. Lovick –– 12197

Hon. L. Hanson

Forest Resources Commission report. Mr. Kempf –– 12199

Mrs. Boone

Medical interpretation for deaf British Columbians: a basic human right.

Mr. Perry –– 12201

Hon. Mr. Strachan

Budget Debate

Mr. Cashore –– 12203

Mr. Brummet –– 12207

Mr. Sihota –– 12210

FRIDAY, MAY 24, 1991

The House met at 10:07 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. PERRY: I would like to introduce one of my constituents, Mr. Kevin Braun, president of the Greater Vancouver Association of the Deaf, who has come over for the day to observe the proceedings; and also Miss Julie Lampitt from Vancouver, a member of the Greater Vancouver Association of the Deaf.

With your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, I'm sure many of the members of the House will join me in wishing a happy fiftieth birthday to Bob Dylan, whom many of us grew up with. I feel as if I ought to be singing one of his songs, "The times they are a-changing", but I'll leave that to the memories of the members.

HON. MR. FRASER: So anxious was I to advise the House that not only did Bob Dylan have a fiftieth birthday...our friend the Minister of Labour recent had a fiftieth birthday. Would the House please join me in recognizing that.

MR. SPEAKER: Fortunately, statutory requirement for an election will preclude the Speaker being wished a happy fiftieth birthday — not by much, but it will happen.

Introduction of Bills

PENSION BENEFITS STANDARDS ACT

Hon. Mr. Rabbitt presented a message a from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Pension Benefits Standards Act.

HON. MR. RABBITT: Bill 6 follows Bill 89 of March of this year, which in turn was a follow-up to exposure Bill 44, which was received for the first time last June. The exposure bill was modelled on Alberta's pension standards legislation. Many provisions of the bill are equal or similar to provisions in most other jurisdictions.

Thanks to the thoughtful and constructive suggestions received by many throughout the community, we have made both wording and substance improvements to the exposure bill. The new legislation will require employees to have five years' continuous service before they acquire vesting rights. In 1998, plan members will receive vesting rights in two years, based on plan membership. Bill 6 improves survivor benefits. It makes pensions more portable. It improves supervision of pension plans. The bill imposes a moratorium on contribution holidays or withdrawal of surpluses from B.C. pension plans, with specified exceptions until a new arbitration provision comes into force. That moratorium becomes effective today.

Draft regulations will be released to the public for comment later this year.

Bill 6 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Ministerial Statement

CANADA'S FITWEEK '91

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I rise to make a brief ministerial announcement, and I have advised the member opposite from Point Grey that I'm about to do this. I'd like to bring to the attention of the House that over eight million Canadians will celebrate Canada's Fitweek '91 by participating in a variety of physical activities. The B.C. government employees fitness' Health Best program is gearing up in a fun-filled ten-day interministry challenge celebration. All B.C. government employees are invited to participate in the Fitweek interministry point-count by earning points in FTPs or FiTiPs accumulated.

To give the House some examples of what's happening, we have Sneaker Day, the Blanshard Building Bebop, the Heritage Walk on Monday, May 27, Blood Pressure Day — which for the Socreds includes two hours with Bob Williams — and many more fun-filled events.

Let me conclude by saying that as Minister of Health I want to urge all British Columbians, all government employees and everyone in Canada to take part in Canada's Fitweek '91, and remind everyone that exercise is one of the most important factors in maintaining good health.

MR. PERRY: I thank the minister for his courtesy of advanced notice, and I'm delighted to respond. I celebrated the final week of my thirty-ninth year by attempting to get around a 10K run in Pacific Spirit Park, and I'm delighted to inform the House that I managed to complete that in 54 minutes. Therefore I'm in a position to offer a challenge to my own side of the Legislature and the members opposite, which I propose to negotiate with the minister. We will challenge other members to run with us on an appropriate morning next week, either around the Legislature — to the amusement of the public — or, perhaps to show a little more discretion, in Beacon Hill Park. With the minister's consent, I will negotiate with him for a suitable morning to propose to hon. members.

Private Members' Statements

CROSS-BORDER SHOPPING

MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, my topic today is cross-border shopping. It's my view that the primary reason residents of British Columbia go south of the border is clearly the differential and the savings on gasoline. One can stand at the border at any hour of the day and watch British Columbia residents travelling south, spending no more than 20 to 30 minutes fuelling up their vehicle and coming back north of the border. As a result of lower gasoline prices, while residents are

[ Page 12196 ]

in the United States they naturally pick up the lower priced milk, cheese, cigarettes and other items.

It's my suggestion that the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources give serious consideration to the elimination of the fuel tax as a source of revenue in British Columbia. If one looks at the revenue brought in by the fuel tax, the British Columbia portion of the tax is 10.74 cents. If one adds the 7 percent GST on top of the 10.74 cents, one comes up with a figure of 11.49 cents per litre.

[10:15]

If you look at all the taxes in the United States.... As a matter of information, the United States federal tax is 5.25 cents a litre and the Washington State tax is 6.07 cents. If you add the two of those, it comes to 11.32 cents. I'm submitting that the elimination of the tax in British Columbia would total 11.49 cents, which would more than neutralize the 11.3 cents levied by all levels of tax in the United States.

I believe further that if the British Columbia government were to sit down with the private sector stations and encourage them to match the American system of selling gasoline, and forget and abolish these ridiculous coupons which one packs around in one's pocket and which are very costly to administer, giving discounts up to 6 cents a litre.... If they were to eliminate that charade and bring about a system like they have in the United States whereby you receive a significant discount, upwards of 45 cents a gallon in some states, for paying cash rather than using credit cards, we in British Columbia, the private sector and the government working in partnership, could meet the Americans head-on, equal the playing-fields, lower the cost of production, lower the cost of commerce — resulting in fewer British Columbians going south of the border to buy their gasoline and other products, keeping approximately 350 million British Columbia dollars here at home. We would also increase the flow of traffic coming from the south into the north, because a one of the greatest deterrents to tourists travelling in the hinterlands, the north lands and the interior of British Columbia is the cost of gasoline.

I think the positive aspects of the elimination of fuel tax are profound. One will immediately want to say: "Well, Mr. Member, how could we make up that $500 a million-plus shortfall by eliminating all fuel tax?" Well, if you look at the public accounts you will see that the a fuel tax last year in total brought in $500 million; it's projected to bring in about $542 million this year. A 1 percent increase in sales tax, as one example — and I'm sure there are all kinds of examples one could look at — would provide for the complete elimination of the tax on unleaded fuel, and a 1 1/2 percent increase in sales tax would be equal to the elimination of all fuel taxes across the board — resulting in trucking, resulting in commerce, resulting in industry, resulting in tourists, resulting in all kinds of pluses for the province. We would receive much more in taxes through wages, through income tax, through sales tax and all kinds of other areas of taxation as a result of this initiative.

Mr. Speaker, that's the suggestion. I further want to say before taking my seat that the current system is grossly unfair to more than half the residents of British Columbia. There are a significant number of people living on the lower mainland who are five, ten and 30 miles from the border and can travel with ease south of the border, fill up their car on Sunday afternoon and save $10 or $15. The rest of us can't do that. Those on Vancouver Island and in Powell River, Williams Lake, Prince George, Quesnel, Salmon Arm, Revelstoke and Merritt People in all those areas of the province are not being treated equitably, because of the advantage to residents in the lower mainland. This means that the rest of us in the province are paying more taxes, because those in the lower mainland have the privilege and the opportunity to go south of the border.

My suggestion is that the Minister of Finance and he Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources — and I see now that they're talking together over there — will perhaps see fit to appoint a task force in a very short time parameter in order to see if we can't attack and address this unfairness sometime within the next six weeks. This would be a great opportunity for the citizens of the province of British Columbia.

MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, I'll be brief. There are many reasons for the increase in cross-border shopping; the member who spoke listed one of them, and that's the price of gas. There's no question that it has had an impact, particularly in the lower mainland.

I see the member for Surrey–White Rock–Cloverdale applauding. Of course, it's a little bit ironic that the member, who was a member of the executive council, would bring this forward here, because this very administration in the last few years raised the tax gasoline. They raised the rate of tax and the ad valorem tax....

The member for Boundary-Similkameen has spoken very eloquently in this chamber about the price of gas and the fact that oil companies have made higher profits in Canada as well.

There are two other main reasons for the increase in cross-border shopping which I think are of greater significance in terms of the increase in the last little while. One of them is the impact of the free trade agreement — and of course, this administration was most supportive of free trade with the United States and supported free trade with Mexico. We are seeing the implications of that, at least in part, in the increase in cross-border shopping.

So it's a bit ironic that we would have complaints now from the other side about cross-border shopping, when they knew that this was going to be one of the implications as we saw tariffs decline. It's easier for people to buy and bring in cheaper goods from the United States, and that's a direct implication of the free trade agreement. Everybody knew that. This government supported that, and now they are complaining about problems with respect to increased cross-border shopping.

The second reason, however, is even more significant in terms of the dramatic increase in recent months: the impact of the GST. Of course, the member's solution to dropping fuel tax.... He suggests as

[ Page 12197 ]

one solution an increase in our retail sales tax, when already British Columbians are paying 13 percent at the retail sales counter — 13 percent that Americans don't pay, or certainly nowhere near that rate. That dramatic increase that people see every time they buy goods in British Columbia has been the single biggest reason for the dramatic increase in cross-border shopping in the last couple of months.

I can't help but say, Mr. Speaker, that it's ironic as well that when on this side of the House we raised concerns about the GST and asked the government to oppose the GST some two years prior to its implementation, they refused to do so. We repeatedly raised the GST in this chamber, and they repeatedly took no action. It wasn't until the very end of the day, just before it was a fait accompli, that they then suddenly, belatedly, said they were concerned about the GST. All of those members on the other side of the House, all of their Conservative friends — all of them voted Conservative in the last election, except possibly a Liberal over there; maybe one or two. All of these people that voted Conservative and voted in favour of the GST, and were so reluctant to criticize it in this chamber.... Now we're seeing the consequences of this unfair tax. We're seeing the consequences in terms of the dramatic increase in the last two or three months in cross-border shopping.

When you combine them, the GST and the free trade agreement are, I think, the two principal reasons for the dramatic increase. It's true as well, however, that the differential on the gas tax is also a contributing factor — certainly in terms of Point Roberts and some of the quick trips from White Rock and Surrey. There's no question it's had an impact. But there's no question that the major impact, in terms of the dramatic increase in recent months, was the free trade agreement and, more importantly, the dramatic impact on the cost of living that the GST has caused — inflicted by the federal Tories, this government's friends, on the consumers in British Columbia.

MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, I'm surprised that the member didn't address the idea a bit more objectively, rather than making negative comments and rehashing the problems. From my point of view, I am looking for solutions to cross-border shopping. All that member chose to talk about were the problems.

But it doesn't surprise me to hear that type of attitude from the members opposite. Their leader, Mr. Speaker — just to remind you — was against Expo 86; in fact, he went so far as to send a telegram to the committee asking for its cancellation. They were against SkyTrain. They were against the homeowner grants. They were against the development of the Columbia River dam and the Columbia River Treaty. They were against the development of B.C. Rail. They were against the opening up of the north country in British Columbia. They were against the building of the B.C. Place Stadium. They've never had a good word to say about the Coquihalla Highway or any of the other great initiatives brought about by this great government, but to try to tie in free trade with cross-border shopping is stretching it a bit, I think. I have heard other, more objective arguments, but that to me takes the cake.

If you look at the pluses, at the opportunity to equal the playing-field, to reduce the infrastructure costs of which gasoline is a very important fibre and part of everything we produce, manufacture and transport, it would indeed bring about a lower cost of living. It would make British Columbia more competitive. We could raise that tax in some other way, whether it be sales tax, income tax, corporate tax or whatever. It is not an impossibility. It is about one thirty-fourth of our budget, and I'm sure that with a little ingenuity and creativity we could raise an equal amount of money and come out of this thing net, which would result in more jobs and more economic activity in British Columbia. I see it as a very positive measure, and I would ask the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources to please give the matter serious consideration.

BOWEN ISLAND–SUNSHINE COAST
FAST FERRY

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about transportation issues this morning, specifically about ferry service and even more specifically about the Bowen Island–Sunshine Coast fast ferry service.

This government's stated commitment to transportation planning is well known. We've all heard of Freedom to Move; indeed, we've heard of it ad nauseam. We've also heard about this government's stated commitment to consultation with the public. Indeed, they've even produced a glossy pamphlet on the subject. Unfortunately the reality is that there is a considerable discrepancy between the stated commitments and the practice and actions of government. A glaring example of this, I submit, is ferry service in this province. We've had lots of promises, but we haven't had much performance about either planning or consultation.

The chief executive officer of the B.C. Ferry Corporation, Mr. Frank Rhodes, recently addressed a convention of the Association of Vancouver Island Municipalities in my constituency of Nanaimo. He made an excellent speech about the corporation's commitment to planning and consultation. Sadly, however, I suspect that CEO Mr. Rhodes must have been profoundly embarrassed when in the wake of his very good, cogent and effective statements, we suddenly had the announcement about the shift of the Powell River ferry, about its move from the Courtenay-Comox side to the Powell River side. This was an absolute antithesis of planning, an antithesis of consultation with the public, because the people of Courtenay and Comox, the workers and their families, had no idea of what was going on. Instead what we saw in that particular venture was the most glaring example of the crassest kind of partisan politics.

Another sad story, of course, is the ferry I've referred to, the fast ferry service between Bowen Island and the Sunshine Coast from Vancouver — again the antithesis of planning and a glaring example of the absence of consultation. We all know that the news on

[ Page 12198 ]

May 15 was that the fast ferry service was going to be cancelled. Indeed, we learned that the fast-ferry agreement would be cancelled because the corporation — the proposer whose bid had been accepted — had not met the terms set out. The minister quotes: "The proponent is in default of the terms of the agreement insofar as the commencement of the service is concerned."

[10:30]

I go on. The minister noted: "The first vessel is not yet in place, and arrangements for docking facilities have not been concluded either." Well, the obvious question, Mr. Speaker, and the one I raised publicly after the announcement, the one I expressed in a letter to the minister, is simply: what were the terms of the contract that existed between the government and the proposer? If they didn't have the boat, the docking facilities and an operating agreement, what the heck did they submit to the government that was accepted? One can surely ask those questions.

In the letter of acceptance of the Island Development Group proposal from the minister — I can quote that, but I don't think I need to — it simply says that they accept the proposal and these are the basic rules. But it gives us no information about what IDG put on the table. What were they going to do? What was it the ministry accepted, except for some vague commitment to run a service by a particular day? How did this company get chosen in preference to the other bidders? What did they put on the table? That's the first question and the most fundamental one.

The next, of course, has to do with the process. It was a process that began in secrecy, continued in secrecy and ended in confusion and ignominy. It was an example of a good idea gone bad. Fast ferry service, an alternative technology, doing something to open up that economy, to provide a stimulus, to encourage tourism — all of those are good ideas. In fact, some of us have been talking about them long before this government decided to get on the bandwagon and accept the validity of fast-ferry technology.

The problem, though, is that the process was so totally screwed up — to coin a phrase, Mr. Speaker. Where did the idea come from? Where did we first hear about it? We heard about it not from the Minister of Transportation and Highways, not even from the Premier, but rather from the Minister of Finance, who was apparently thinking out loud.

The confusion continues. On September 4, 1990, the Premier said that the B.C. Ferry Corporation had done a detailed feasibility study into establishing a highspeed, passenger-only catamaran ferry service, and went on to say that start-up could be achieved very quickly. She also said that she was confident the B.C. Ferry Corporation could do the job very comfortably if called upon.

The obvious question is: if you're saying the feasibility study has been done by B.C. Ferries and that, indeed, the corporation can do it, why did we call upon the private sector? Were we in fact giving them a fair opportunity, or was there, as many critics have suggested, a done deal? Did the private sector have an opportunity? Many of the proponents don't think they did.

There's also the question about whether the B.C. Ferry Corporation got preferential treatment. In other words, they saw the other proponents' bids, but apparently were also bidding against the other proponents.

We also had the awkward position in which the private sector made its proposals at considerable expense. Five companies put together proposals costing between $50,000 and $100,000 apiece. Then, after submitting their proposals on what the ministry had said was required, the ministry said: "No, that's not what we meant at all. Sorry guys, go back and do it again."

HON L. HANSON: It's interesting to hear the remarks of the critic from the opposition. The issue of the Powell River–Comox.... Obviously he hasn't been in the riding very long, because as I understand it, that discussion between those two communities has gone on for about 20 years at this point. Maybe the member could research some of those discussions and find that, in fact, consultation was done.

He also suggested that the fast ferry was cancelled. In the agreement — not a contract — between IDG and the provincial government, the only concessions the provincial government was giving to that proponent were the fact that the government would not compete and, secondly, that they would have access to the Seabus terminal in the inner Vancouver harbour.

The fast ferry was not cancelled, as the member suggests, but the agreement that the provincial government had with IDG to provide the no-competition clause and to provide access to the ferry terminal was cancelled. It is my understanding that the proponent of IDG is still attempting to put the fast ferry service in place. I believe they are negotiating with the Bowen Island people and talking with the Gibsons people about docking facilities.

Again I want to emphasize that there was not a contract. We in the provincial government, contrary to what the members opposite may have as a philosophy, believe that private enterprise is a much more efficient deliverer of services under some circumstances.

There was a study done by Sandwell Swan Wooster Inc. in 1990 that indicated a good demand for a fast ferry service between the Gulf Islands. When that study was originally committed, it was based on a report by the Vancouver transit authority that there was a possibility a fast ferry link between Vancouver and Port Moody made some good common sense. As a result of that study being commissioned, it was expanded eventually into fast ferry service between some other points: Gibsons, Bowen Island — and I believe Nanaimo was also included.

As a result, the government asked for proposals in an attempt to encourage the private sector to look seriously at the provision of that service. It's unfortunate the first proposals that came back all required a provincial government subsidy. As a result, the proposals were asked for again, but not to include any provincial government subsidy.

[ Page 12199 ]

As a result of that and as a result of using a private sector consultant to weigh the merits of the various proposals, IDG was rated highest in the five proposals received and was given the opportunity, with the agreement in place that we would not compete, to attempt to put the service in place.

During early May, and very early in my term as Minister of Transportation, I was asked to extend the deadlines in that letter of agreement. It was obvious from those requests and other information we got as a result of meeting with the proponents that they would not have any opportunity or at least any chance of providing the service during this summer. That seemed like a good opportunity for the various proponents who may want to institute a private service to do some consulting with the various people involved. At that time it was brought to my attention for the first time that there was some concern by people from Bowen Island, as well as from the Gibsons area.

All of that results in an opportunity for some consultation that the member is looking for. Let's hope that private enterprise does, as we believe in, provide a service.

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Speaker, the thesis of my remarks is that there are so many questions surrounding this particular service and the cancellation of it, I'm calling upon the minister to conduct some kind of investigation to answer the questions. I think the validity of that thesis is borne out by the minister's answers. I accept the sincerity of what he says; however, what he says raises as many questions as it answers.

We are told that the original study that was done by B.C. Ferries was a detailed feasibility study. Your predecessor, now the Premier of the province, said: "It is feasible. We've done the work, and we know it can be done." Why then did we have to go again?

Similarly, we heard the talk about subsidies. From the beginning, we were told the rules were that no subsidy would be required. That's the line we're getting from the private sector proponents, and now there's some confusion about whether that was the case.

At the end of the minister's remarks he said that the good news is that we will now have consultation. Well, sorry, but it seems to me that's an admission that the original process was flawed. It's also an admission that the whole thing was botched badly. It's a wonderful idea and a marvellous concept, but a sad illustration once again of this government's apparent inability to operate and function effectively.

There are so many questions about this — some of which are pretty scary. There are people like the Faye Leungs of the world making allegations that the decision was made in secret, that the former Premier was involved and that it's a matter of land speculation. That's a question I think has to be answered.

There are questions about why the announcement was not made by B.C. Ferries, B.C. Transit or the Minister of Transportation and Highways; rather the announcement was made in the media two full weeks before the decision was made and the other private sector proposers found out that they didn't get the contract. There are lots of those kinds of questions,

I'm sorry to say that all I get from listening patiently and carefully to the minister is evidence that leads me to conclude that we deserve an opportunity to find out exactly what happened from start to finish. It's time to clear the air; it's time for an inquiry.

MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. DUECK: I just got word that a friend of mine from the great Central Fraser Valley is in the gallery today. It is Dick Weibelzahl, who's a consultant and is well known throughout the area in his work. I would like the House to please make him welcome.

FOREST RESOURCES COMMISSION REPORT

MR. KEMPF: On April 27, 1991 — not quite a month ago — a report written by the Forest Resources Commission of this province entitled The Future of Our Forests was released by the Minister of Forests of British Columbia. I want to go on record as having said in this House that this is the most significant document ever to be released in this jurisdiction with respect to our primary resource industry.

The chairman of the committee, Mr. Sandy Peel, his vice-chairman, Mr. Peter Burns, and all of the commissioners are to be commended. I believe they are due a great deal of gratitude from all British Columbians on whose behalf these views were presented.

[10:45]

This report not only confirms what I and others have been saying for years about forest management in British Columbia, but through their investigations the commissioners declare the crisis to loom much larger than anyone had ever imagined. This authoritative report tells how a handful of corporations — mostly foreign-owned — today control 86 percent of our public forest tenure. The report tells how these companies exploit our forests for short-term timber profits and through their stranglehold prevent us, as British Columbians, from protecting other forest values and from accommodating our own broader interests in our own forests.

There are 108 recommendations in the report, each one an integral part of a package by which the commission proposes to deliberately dismantle the existing forest industry structure, because it no longer serves the public interest in British Columbia. The one theme, the report suggests, underlying virtually everything we heard was that the status quo is no longer good enough. Public confidence in our stewardship of the forests has been lost, Mr. Speaker. We have in this report a package to restore that confidence and the credibility so necessary to maintain proper timber-harvesting practices and to produce the jobs on all forest land-based industries required by the people of British Columbia.

[ Page 12200 ]

This report is a serious indictment of many aspects of our forest practices in British Columbia. What I find most serious — and this strikes directly at the very heart of reforestation and silviculture problems — is the return of revenue dollars to the government and to the people of this province from their resource.

I read from the report: "Clearly the asset base generated through private transactions is markedly higher than the asset base generated through provincial stumpage." No matter which of the three private valuations or three discount or interest rates used, in fact the private transactions produce an asset value more than four times higher than that found in stumpage.

I have long maintained that there was an inequity in the return to this province from its forest resource. When I was the minister responsible, I used a figure of $1 billion a year in shortfall. I was incorrect, Mr. Speaker; it's four times that amount. For several decades the people of this province have been taken to the cleaners respecting a fair return from our forests. It has got to stop now. I urge the minister to move swiftly in implementing the measures recommended by this report.

MRS. BOONE: As the member well knows, I'm sure, he and I share many common beliefs about this. There is no doubt that there are severe problems in the management of our forest industry and our forest resources. We must see some changes if our industry is to survive. People want a greater say in how our resources are managed. They want to see some land use planning. They want to see some action taken to prevent the concentration of the industry that is taking place, which is of grave concern to many of us. We've seen independents folding, and they are folding rapidly throughout the central interior. That's a concern to us because many of those independents have grown up there and have formed the basis of our communities.

However, the member who just spoke must bear some responsibility for that. When he was minister, it was he and his loose lips that brought about this 15 percent tariff that took place, which brought us into the MOU — the memorandum of understanding, for those who aren't in the interior and don't know what that is doing to us. It is devastating our industry and our communities. We are no longer able to manage our forest industry, and we have to go to the U.S.A. for permission to make any changes. That's hurting us, because within the structure that we have we can't make any changes to assist people when they get into a downturn such as the one we're in now.

Mr. Speaker, this government has sadly neglected the management of our resources over the years. That's become clear by the auditor-general's report. For two years the auditor-general has severely criticized the management of our forest resources by this government. The member is quite correct when he states that we're not getting the value out of it. The member has talked many times about the lack of value being attained and about the overcutting that is taking place and the problems that we're having with sustaining our levels of cut and the problems that mills in his area and my area are having in getting enough timber to keep their mills in operation.

In a previous life, when this member had the common sense to divorce himself from this government, he stated some pretty good things. He stated at that time:

"It is quite apparent that the government doesn't intend to change the direction of this industry, as governments in the past haven't. Surely, unless something is done, unless the people of this province stand up for what's necessary and unless there is some real fairness and equity in the forest industry in British Columbia, that industry is doomed."

In March 1989 he also stated:

"You keep your phony promises; we'll keep our resources. You keep your dangling carrot seen only when leading up to and during election campaigns."

It's quite clear to me that this government has no intention of ever introducing any changes to the forest management of our province. They have never done so in the past, in previous legislation or in the current administration. The resources that we see right now have been mismanaged severely, and it's my view that we will never see any changes taking place in the management of our forests from this government here. You must have a change of government if you want to see any management of our forests come about, and that will only take place with an election.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, my colleague from the north misses the point completely. I just related that the B.C. Forest Resources Commission said to the people that there should be four times the return to the coffers of the province of British Columbia than is now being collected — and she says we should do away with the memorandum of agreement.

The memorandum of agreement is the only reason that we're receiving $650 million extra and have been since 1986. Had it not been for the memorandum of agreement and had it not been for the negotiations that took place in Washington, D.C., that money would have been lost to the province. In fact, if it was not for the memorandum of agreement, that money would be going into the coffers of the United States of America rather than into the coffers of the province of British Columbia. And that member wants to do away with the memorandum of agreement. Shame! Shame on the member from the north. The member doesn't know what she's talking about.

For two long years the commission, under the terms of reference laid down by the minister — understand, it was this government that commissioned this report, not those over there — has sought and acquired the views and concerns of British Columbia. That member ought to listen to those concerns as to the state of our forest industry, what must be done to restore economic viability — and what's even more important, what must be done to restore the people's confidence in our stewardship of their forest resources. In restoration of their confidence, they want this government.... This government will act on this report. Understand again that it's this government that commissioned the report. They want to see the province carry out its legislated mandate to do what is necessary on our forest lands.

[ Page 12201 ]

This report does represent the considered views of the people of British Columbia respecting these matters. They have placed their trust not only in the commission, but in this government. We will now take action to rectify long-standing wrongs. Yes, they have been wrong, and they need changing. And yes, they are changing.

MS. PULLINGER: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave of the House to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MS. PULLINGER: It is my pleasure this morning to introduce Ms. Jan Simmons and a group of individuals from the Nanaimo branch of the Vancouver Island Association for the Deaf who are here today to observe the proceedings and to be part of a lobby for interpreters for deaf persons requiring medical treatment. I would ask the House to join with me in giving a very warm welcome today to Ms. Jan Simmons and the people who are with her.

MEDICAL INTERPRETATION FOR
DEAF BRITISH COLUMBIANS:
A BASIC HUMAN RIGHT

MR. PERRY: My statement today is entitled: "Medical Interpretation for Deaf British Columbians: A Basic Human Right." I know that we hear a lot of sound and fury in this chamber, sometimes signifying nothing. I hope that you will find my remarks interesting.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to begin by thanking you for your graciousness in facilitating the presence in the chamber for the first time of an official interpreter for deaf people. It's a milestone in British Columbia. I would like the record to show that the Speaker has made this possible for us today.

I'd like to introduce also our sign-language interpreter, who is a volunteer: Susan Masters, coordinator of interpretation services for the Western Institute for the Deaf and one of the experts in British Columbia. I'd like also to acknowledge my colleague, the member for Burnaby North, who had hoped to join me in this statement. I gather that the technical rules of the House prevent him from doing so, but he certainly joins me in spirit and in his concern over this issue.

The Western Institute for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing has been providing sign language interpreting services to the medical community on the lower mainland since 1967, at no charge to health care providers or to deaf people. Since 1984 numerous requests have been made without success to the Medical Services Plan and to the Ministry of Health for financial assistance.

As of September 30, 1990, the institute withdrew the interpretation service, as it was no longer able to continue to provide an unfunded service. The result has been that a basic right, that of equal health care, has been denied to those people unable to pay for interpreters on a private basis. The majority of people who are profoundly deaf use American Sign Language to communicate, and they consider American Sign Language to be their native language. Written English is a second language, and serious misunderstandings can and do arise when this method of communication is used to convey complex medical information.

The use of a well-trained and professional sign-language interpreter is critical in many medical situations. It is imperative to satisfy the requirement of informed consent. A patient about to undergo medical treatment or surgery has to be given information about what is going to be done, the likelihood of success, and the risks involved in the procedure. If effective communication has not taken place and the patient has not fully comprehended his or her medical condition, then medical and health personnel are failing in their duty to obtain informed consent.

[11:00]

For this reason, the B.C. Medical Association wrote to the Western Institute for the Deaf in November 1988, indicating its support for the application to the Ministry of Health for funding of the service provided on behalf of deaf patients seeking health care. In this regard the board of the B.C. Medical Association passed the following motion: "That the BCMA supports the Western Institute for the Deaf in its application to the Ministry of Health for permanent funding."

The response from the Ministry of Health is evidence that the ministry does not understand the unique barriers faced by people with a severe hearing disability and attendant communication difficulties. The ministry suggested that deaf patients who are unable to communicate with primary health care providers must now rely on other support mechanisms, such as the informal network of family and friends. This is not a satisfactory option for several reasons.

First, families of deaf persons seldom have more than a rudimentary grasp of sign language. You can see, Mr. Speaker, that the interpreter is keeping up with my speed and providing a very complex interpretation — I hope.

Second, privacy is sacrificed if, as an adult, the patient must have a parent, sibling or child interpreting. In contrast, the professional sign interpreter is bound by a code of ethics to respect patient confidentiality scrupulously and to ensure accurate and neutral translation.

Third, deaf people do pay the same MSP premiums and taxes as others, but they do not, in reality, have equal access to our so-called "universal" health care system. Costs of providing interpreting services should therefore be covered by some arrangement, perhaps a fee-for-service arrangement with the Medical Services Plan.

There are several associations concerned with this issue, representing consumers, interpreters and health service providers. It is vital to consult with the relevant community groups to develop a system which will serve the needs of the consumer, ensure qualified interpreters are used and guarantee regional needs are met equitably. I might add, Mr. Speaker, that the provincewide cost as estimated by the Western Institute for the Deaf is modest: on the order of $100,000 per year in 1991.

[ Page 12202 ]

Mr. Speaker, I have here letters from Dr. lain Begg, a prominent ophthalmologist who treats people with diabetes affecting the eye, pointing out the difficulty that he has experienced from the withdrawal of interpretation services for one of his patients confronting a frightening and difficult procedure of laser therapy, which can prevent blindness.

I have a letter from Dr. Sandi Witherspoon of the Reach Community Health Centre in Vancouver, signed by four other family doctors and two nurse practitioners, pointing out:

"As you can imagine, trying to take a medical history and then discuss your opinion with a patient by several pages of notes is exceedingly cumbersome. We also believe sign language interpretation to give a more accurate history, in that patients are more willing to tell the interpreter they don't understand a question or response, and to have things rephrased, than they are to put 'I don't understand' in writing."

Imagine, Mr. Speaker and members, if we tried to communicate exclusively by notes. Mr. Speaker, you might prefer that, but those of us trying to argue rationally in the chamber would find it difficult.

Let me give you some examples that the member for Burnaby North and I heard at a public forum in Vancouver two nights ago, from Maureen Donald of Vancouver, who described a hip operation at age nine. She refused to tell us her age, but she told us she has been waiting 60 years for the provision of adequate services. At her hip operation her school principal translated for her. At her second operation, for a thyroid nodule....

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member, for your remarks.

We'll now have a brief recess so that the volunteer translator can make the transition across the floor to assist the person responding on the other side.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I as well as the member for Vancouver-Point Grey would like to welcome Susan Masters, the interpreter, this morning. And I thank you, sir, for your indulgence in this issue.

It is recognized that the work which such organizations as the Western Institute for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing are involved in is valuable in assisting individuals with hearing disabilities. As a matter of fact, the Ministry of Health does provide a grant to the Western Institute for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing for purposes that include audiologic testing, provision of hearing aids and follow-up services for persons fitted with amplification devices.

However, regrettably — and it is regrettable, because this information is known to the member, as it appeared in this morning's edition of the Vancouver Sun — I have to inform the House that on November 22, 1990, a suit was filed by a Vancouver deaf couple in the British Columbia Supreme Court against the British Columbia Medical Services Commission and the federal and provincial Attorneys-General. The suit claims that the Medical Services Commission policy violates the equality provision under section 15 of the Charter of Rights, which guarantees equality under the law regardless of disability. In fact, as much as I would like to respond to this issue, comments made by me now could prejudice the case against those bringing the suit, as in this House — as, Mr. Speaker, you will appreciate — I represent the Medical Services Commission. As I said, the suit has today been mentioned in the Vancouver Sun, so it is clear knowledge to all of us. Any discussion on the issue of interpretive services could be sub judice.

It is too bad that the member for Vancouver–Point Grey did not raise this issue earlier. I can find no letters from the member for Vancouver–Point Grey on this issue, so obviously it has only recently come to his attention. Had the member brought this issue to the House prior to November 22, 1990, then we could have entered into a meaningful and productive debate. But at this point I must take my place, advising the House that the matter is before the courts and that I can offer no more information to this assembly.

MR. SPEAKER: Our standing orders are fairly clear on page 58 of MacMinn.

Before the member for Point Grey continues, I must remind him that under our standing orders, where a matter is sub judice and therefore before the courts, it is inappropriate to comment on it in any manner which may affect the decision of the court on the matter. All the other privileges we have in this chamber are founded on that one premise. So I'd ask the member to continue if his remarks are in order; otherwise he should conclude.

MR. PERRY: Before proceeding I will table for the minister my letter dated October 26, 1990, to the former Minister of Health, the member for Chilliwack. I'd be pleased to provide the Minister of Health later with a copy of the former minister's letter to me dated November 30 dealing with this issue. The member for Burnaby North points out that he raised this matter in a private statement last year in this assembly as well. I'll table that if the Clerk can bring that to the minister's attention.

Mr. Speaker, this matter is before the courts not because....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Again we'll have to ask assistance, but leave is required to table documents.

Leave granted.

MR. PERRY: This matter is before the courts not because the deaf have chosen that route but because they had no option. The Ministry of Health has steadfastly ignored the problem for as many as seven years, if not longer. I will continue my remarks by simply describing to you what deaf people have said in British Columbia, which in no way is interference with the decisions of the courts.

Mrs. Donald, whom I referred to a moment ago, asked what would happen if she were to outlive her sister. What will happen on the third time in her life that she needs to enter the hospital? She pointed out: "I hope this matter is worked out by the time I next have

[ Page 12203 ]

to go to hospital, after waiting for 60 years for a resolution."

Mr. Richard Martell pointed out that deaf people infected with the human immunodeficiency virus "don't seem to grasp the implications of infection with HIV." He pointed out how important it is for interpreters to be involved when doctors are dealing with patients with AIDS. I point out parenthetically that sometimes I feel as if we've needed interpreters for politicians dealing with AIDS in this province.

We were told by another interpreter of the case of a young child from the minister's own riding of Prince George, who required kidney transplantation at the Children's Hospital and for whom, unfortunately, the Western Institute for the Deaf had to deny initial interpretation services. Imagine, if you will, members, a child undergoing kidney transplantation who cannot understand what is happening to her and what the implications are for the rest of her life.

We were asked by a child care counsellor at Jericho Hill School: "How can one provide counselling for physical and sexual abuse victims if they don't understand how to communicate?" We were told by a young man named Richie, a student at Jericho Hill School whose interpretation for medical visits is provided by uncertified, untrained interpreters: "The interpreter talks with the doctor and nurse, but I don't know what they are talking about." I don't think that's good enough in this province.

Let me finish with the words of a nurse, Cheryl Gaudet of Delta Hospital, who is studying American Sign Language now because of her experiences in difficulty providing service to patients. She described a 21-year-old man undergoing a tonsillectomy at high anaesthetic risk, where the anaesthetist had not slept the night before for concern about what might happen to that patient. As she put it: "The young man had pretty much no idea what was happening to him." She described her ability to communicate with him in rudimentary sign language as: "That would be one of the best nursing days of my career. I'll remember it when I retire. Please tell that in the Legislature." I thought it important that members of this House be aware of that problem.

MR. SPEAKER: Unfortunately, as our standing orders are agreed to by all members, we must proceed to the next order of business.

Orders of the Day

Budget Debate

(continued)

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Speaker, this is the budget that wasn't supposed to be. This is the budget that was reluctantly given because the house of cards came crashing down. Last year this government brought in what was to be a good-news budget, an election budget, a budget to take to the people. But internal problems prevailed. The government continued to be mired in conflict, infighting and controversy to the point that it became a ship without a rudder. As a result, public confidence continued to decline. The government timetable to fulfil its budget was superseded by a soap opera, and instead of dealing with important and substantive issues in the news, the public of British Columbia has been subjected to the internal problems and conflicts of a government that simply cannot get its act together.

So here we are again: trying to make sense of a document that wasn't planned for and that was prepared in a haphazard, last-minute way. As a result, what we got for a budget was a platitudinous introduction, a deceptive presentation of the financial picture of this province and a dubious conclusion.

[11:15]

What this budget lacks in imagination, it makes up for in obfuscation. Imagination and creativity would mean at least some new programs to address pressing needs in this province, such as the issue of burgeoning unemployment. People in the province are losing jobs, and I don't see this issue addressed in this budget. People are seeing their livelihood go south of the border. They are worried about paying the mortgage, paying for their kids' university education and paying the bills. Where are these people in this document?

Imagination and creativity would address in specific and substantial ways the need to address the conditions of the deteriorating air quality in this province, which is not a minor environmental concern. What we get is lip-service and yet another amount of verbiage suggesting that at some point something's going to be done to address this issue, but nothing substantive to indicate that the announcements made year in and year out throughout the time of this government will ever bear fruit.

Yet as the air quality in the lower mainland deteriorates, respiratory illness increases. The number of people going to emergency wards of hospitals throughout the lower mainland increases at the time of inversions, and health care costs increase as a result. Therefore, if this government fails to address issues such as water and air pollution, this ends up being a cost to the taxpayers. It is not simply a matter of throwing money away; it's a matter of investing money in the environment so that we may save dollars in the future. That's a sound and fiscally responsible approach that this government fails to take.

If this government was imaginative and creative, we would be finding exciting programs in this budget to deal with the appalling problems that result from alcohol and other substance abuse. That would be addressed in a way where we would see that the profits from the alcohol industry would go into addressing that very pressing issue which affects virtually every level of our society, and which is a difficult issue for so many families.

Mr. Speaker, even where you find that the budget might have some minor redeeming factors or some acceptance, this government insists on destroying its own credibility by failing to tell the truth. That is one of the deepest causes for the malaise, the unease and the uncertainty that exists in the province at this time.

[ Page 12204 ]

When we have conditions of uncertainty, investment capital takes flight, we become a laughing-stock and the ship of state simply fails to operate on an acceptable course.

This government has succeeded in destroying its own credibility. It fails to tell the truth. It says that there is a $375 million deficit....

HON. J. JANSEN: Three hundred and ninety five.

MR. CASHORE: I stand corrected, and I appreciate the Minister of Finance correcting me. It says that there is a $395 million deficit, yet this minister will not accept the fact that it's a $1.2 billion deficit. This minister is going through the same sad and tragic experience that the second-last Finance minister — the member for Saanich and the Islands — went through when he had to try to explain away the BS fund. That has gone on for four years. For four years in this province, Ministers of Finance have tried to rationalize their way through the BS fund, when they themselves have known that what they are saying really does not bear scrutiny. In doing that, we know that the former Minister of Finance was under a great deal of difficulty when he tried to explain it away after last year's budget. It hurt his credibility and he knows it. It's one of the things that got him and this government a great deal of bad publicity in the province.

The minister at this time, who came into this position as one of the few cabinet ministers relatively unscathed, now finds himself in the position of having to carry on this tradition of digging a hole with his teeth simply because he has not been given the clearance by the cabinet or by the acting Premier to tell the truth. I find that very interesting in view of the fact that very recently...

HON. MR. STRACHAN: On a point of order, the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam has been here for some years, Mr. Speaker, and he knows that you don't imply that another member has said something untruthful. That remark recently emanating from his lips must be censured and he must withdraw it. It's unacceptable in the extreme.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sure the member is aware that the Chair was assuming he was referring to the government, as opposed to a member of the government. If he was referring to a member, I would ask for his apology, please — his withdrawal.

MR. CASHORE: That is correct, Mr. Speaker. If I have offended any member, I do apologize. I was referring to the budget, which we have stated many times is a dishonest budget. I was not saying that the minister himself is a dishonest person. In fact, I did say that this minister, when he came to this job, was relatively unscathed.

MR. COUVELIER: I apologize to the hon. member for the interruption, but I wondered if I might have the leave of the House to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. COUVELIER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and hon. member, for that concession.

We've just had 30 grade 3 students enter the chamber. Because their stay is necessarily limited and the member still has much time left to speak, I wanted the opportunity to acquaint the House with the fact that these students from Brentwood Elementary in my constituency, accompanied by their teacher Mrs. Judith Howard and some other chaperones, have joined us. I would ask all members of the House to conduct themselves appropriately and to welcome the children to the legislative chamber.

MR. CASHORE: The point is that it's a dishonest budget. I find it very interesting in terms of cabinet solidarity that the Premier has not given clearance to the minister to clarify this matter and state the facts as they really are: that the deficit is $1.2 billion. The Premier herself stated on "Voice of the Province" — I believe it was last night or the night before; and I saw it on the news last night — that the deficit, the amount that people of this province will have to pay interest on, is $1.2 billion.

It's an indication of the disarray in this cabinet. Were there solidarity and communication, the embarrassment that this minister has had to go through would have been spared simply by the acting Premier having informed him that she was about to make a statement on "Voice of the Province," admitting and recognizing that the deficit in this province which the taxpayers are going to have to pay interest on is indeed $1.2 billion.

I think there's been a lot of discussion about what the deficit is in this province. We've had the different types of discussion coming out of the Fraser Institute which support the position that we have taken. The certified general accountants and now the Premier support the position that we have taken. But what's really important in all of this is the taxpayer of the province. The taxpayer wants to know, when he or she receives that monthly bank statement, if there is a loan on that statement, what the cost is per month and per year for servicing the debt that individual has. That's what the individual needs to know, what the individual understands, and that's why the taxpayers of this province are absolutely perplexed that this government refuses to come forward with a straightforward and appropriate answer to this issue.

What we have in this province is a debt that is being pushed, as a result of the deficit, to $9 billion — doubling the direct debt of this province in five years. The debt that has accumulated over the entire life of this province has been doubled in a mere five years. What we have seen is an erosion of the credibility of two cabinet ministers as they have had to carry on with this obfuscation. They have simply succeeded in digging with their teeth an ever-deeper hole for themselves and this government.

I would like to turn now to some of the specific issues that have come to my attention in going through the budget. The first has to do with the ombudsman.

[ Page 12205 ]

The budget reports that the ombudsman's office has 38 full-time employees. This is the same as this office had in 1986. We also know from the ombudsman's report that the number of complaints coming into that office during the last fiscal year has increased by 12.7 percent.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not surprising.

MR. CASHORE: As my colleague says, it's not surprising, in view of the disarray going on in this rudderless government. So there's a 12.7 percent increase in the last fiscal year, and yet there has been no staff increase since 1986. During that time the complaints coming into the ombudsman have increased by one-third.

My colleague from Oak Bay has brought a bill into this House asking that the unproclaimed sections of the Ombudsman Act be proclaimed so that many of these pressing issues can be addressed. Yet we get no imaginative response from this government. If there's ever been a time in this province when the people needed the support of the ombudsman, who stands for fairness, it is now. Yet there's nothing coming forward from this government to deal with that.

The ship of state is out there and is not being captained in a way that would indicate that the rudder is directing it in the right way.

AN HON. MEMBER: A rudder without a ship.

MR. CASHORE: A rudder without a ship — perhaps that's a better way of putting it.

Mr. Speaker, I turn now to the environment. I'm glad the Minister of Finance is in the House, because it was interesting to look at his document. I have said for years that when it comes to the environment, this government manages the environment by press release and public relations but not by substance. This government, having realized this year that perhaps the issue has lost some of its saliency in the polls, has indicated its true feelings about the environment.

Interjection.

MR. CASHORE: This minister, who is interrupting this House with all the noise he's making over there — and contrary to the minister last year — made the environment the very last item in the budget. It was an afterthought, an asterisk; it was almost left out. And when the former Minister of Finance brought in his budget, it was the number one issue, the flagship of last year's government. Last year this government said that the environment was going to be its key program, recognizing that if we failed to protect the environment, then all the other things we seek to use to have jobs in this province would be in jeopardy. They've completely reversed their position on that. Mr. Speaker, I search this budget high and low to find an imaginative program to deal with the environment.

MR. BRUMMET: You wouldn't recognize one.

MR. CASHORE: That is correct. I wouldn't recognize one, because there wasn't one there. The member for North Peace River is right.

[11:30]

But I thought I'd found it when I came to the 1-800 WasteLine. I thought, here is an environmental program. Yet when I read it carefully, I realized that it was to deal with the environmental problems within the government. That program was put there to deal with pollution within the government, not to deal with pollution throughout the province. It recognized the pollution that exists in government and that has been such a problem for this government.

It's appalling that the importance of the environment for this government has gone in one short year from being the number one issue to the dead-last issue. This government obviously did not put any imagination or planning into dealing with the environment in this budget.

We've had six Ministers of Environment during the term of this government in four and a half years — four ministers in the last two years. This present minister during his first interview said that he's not an advocate for the environment. He was quoted after the budget speech in the Vancouver Sun as saying that he didn't seek any new programs in cabinet. Can you imagine that? This minister, by his own admission — quoted in the Vancouver Sun — did not seek any new programs. No, his role is trying to consolidate what was already there. I want that minister to know that there isn't very much left there, given the way successive Socred governments have decimated the Ministry of Environment.

Let's take a look at one of their efforts to try to indicate they're doing something about the environment. What about the Hazardous Waste Management Corporation? At the time that legislation was brought in, we said that it was not going to deliver what it said it was going to deliver. That corporation has been mired in conflict and difficulty, and it just cannot get its act together. It's not delivering what this ministry said it was going to deliver.

Another thing. A year ago in the throne speech we heard that the Minister of Environment was bringing forth Vision 2001, which was going to be this government's answer to the federal Green Plan. It was not mentioned in the budget. Yet it was announced, in the tradition of managing the environment through public relations and press releases, as one of the real things that was going to be the hallmark of the new style of leadership within this government. We know from talking to people who work within the Environment ministry that they did work on it. They made some plans for an environmental ombudsman and environmental auditor. All of those things went the way of the dodo, because this government decided it wasn't important, they weren't going to do it and the environment was expendable — and that's shameful. The fact is that in this budget the environment has moved from centre stage out into the wings.

We all know that there are some areas where they have indicated a slight increase in the environmental budget, but barely one that will keep up with inflation.

[ Page 12206 ]

One of the items that has quite a significant increase — and I'll admit that — is environmental protection. But when you really look at it, there's no increase for conservation officers and the area of government that deals with monitoring and enforcement. No matter how much money you put into an area of the budget, it's not going to be effective if you don't have the people out in the field to monitor the programs and make sure the enforcement is there with regard to fish and wildlife or pollution offences, for instance. We know that in his scathing denunciation of the Forests ministry, the auditor-general pointed out that monitoring and enforcement are absolutely essential to making any such program work. And they are lacking.

Mr. Speaker, I mentioned the need for imaginative programs to deal with air quality. The same thing can be said about programs to deal with water quality. Nothing in this budget really comes to terms with the issue of water exports; nothing deals significantly or substantively with the protection of groundwater.

Then we come to pulp pollution. We know that this cabinet, as was reported in the news, had agreed to the 1.5 AOX organochlorine standards that the former Minister of Environment had brought forward, only to see them terminated by a phone call from the forest industry to the former Premier. Now we have that cabinet — with that former Premier gone — in a position to reinstate what it had agreed to at one time at a lengthy cabinet meeting and still refusing to do so, still refusing to bring in even the watered-down protection against pulp pollution that had been promised before. I'm reminded of the words of my colleague: "We will not be deterred by corporate phone calls."

With regard to hazardous waste, we have in this budget announcements for the umpteenth time of programs to deal with tires, for instance. We've had levies put on tires and announcements ad nauseam from the Ministry of Environment about what's going to be done about them. But what do we get? We get a program that is going to end up with tires going into cement kilns — a very questionable technology in terms of the lack of pollution control standards on cement kilns. They don't even have the standards of the Burnaby incinerator, which is constantly having problems.

Interjection.

MR., CASHORE: Mr. Speaker, that is correct. I'm glad that the hon. member mentioned Coquitlam, because this government announced that it was going to require a waste management permit for the toxic ash going from the Burnaby incinerator to the Coquitlam landfill, and they've never followed through on that promise in two years.

They announced vehicle emissions testing again in this budget. They announce that over and over again, but air quality continues to deteriorate. The fact is that there's really no good news in this budget that is good news for the environment.

All we have to do is take a look at the conservation officer service in this province and talk to some of the people working in the field and trying to do an impossible job, such as one conservation officer dealing with fish and wildlife issues covering hundreds of thousands of hectares of this province. Nothing is being done to deal with that.

The budget speech talks about our precious coastline. What hypocrisy! Nothing is being done that can indicate that our coastline is any better off now than it was prior to the Nestucca oil spill. David Anderson has said that again and again. It's really sad that the environment has gone from being front and centre in the government's rhetoric to an afterthought.

What about parks? We have parks now in the Ministry of Lands and Parks. I have no problem with it being there, but I do have a problem with the person who happens to be the Minister of Lands and Parks. As I said when he was appointed, if he found himself in an old-growth forest and somebody told him it was his job as Parks minister to preserve it, he would become confused and disoriented.

The fact is that the survey and resource mapping budget in the ministry is down by 9 percent. That simply is not acceptable. And what about Parks Plan '90? Parks Plan '90 travelled around this province and held 109 hearings in a period of six weeks. Where is the mention of it in the budget to allow follow-up on what was learned during that consultative process? I have said many times that I was glad that Parks Plan '90 took place. I thought it was a tribute to the people who work in the Ministry of Parks that they were able to convince the former Minister of Parks — two ministers back — to have that consultative process. And even though there were problems with it, what's happening with it now, Mr. Speaker? Where are this province's plans with regard to parks and wilderness areas in this province? There is no mention about it in this budget. It's as though Parks Plan '90 was really a public relations process and nothing more.

I turn now to the issue of mental health. The Riverview Hospital is mentioned in this budget. Riverview Hospital is in the constituency that has been added to the area where I am seeking re-election.

Interjection.

MR. CASHORE: As for the comment made by the Minister of Finance that maybe I should visit Riverview Hospital, I put that in the league of totally inappropriate comments to be made in this House. It was made in a way that I think denigrates people who are receiving the services of that facility. It's a perfectly inappropriate and shameful comment for the Minister of Finance to make in this House.

The budget talks about the proceeds of the sale of Riverview Hospital being used to purchase community housing for the mentally ill. That idea could have some merit if we had any reason to have confidence in this government's willingness to follow through on its announcements about the mentally ill. If this government had any willingness to follow through, for instance, on its mental health care plan.... That was announced by the former Minister of Health three years ago, yet nothing has happened to follow through with it. So while we have the deinstitutionalization

[ Page 12207 ]

taking place — people being dumped out into the community, mostly in the downtown east side — and while every member of this House knows that is happening, the fact is that the mentally ill are being treated as an afterthought in this province.

The other point I wish to make with regard to the selling of Riverview Hospital is that there should be consultation with the citizens of Coquitlam, since that is where the structure exists.

I wish to quote T.S. Eliot: "This is the way the world ends, not with a bang but a whimper." We've had five budgets from this government, and this one stands head and shoulders below all the others. This is the way the government ends; it's a sad last gasp. This government is ending with simply a whimper.

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Speaker, I really wish the opposition would make up its mind. We've just heard a perfect example of the litany of places where that member says the government is not spending enough money. We were castigated earlier for how much we've increased the budget spending. If we went with all of the things that the member from Coquitlam just talked about, it would be more than the total deficit in the budget — just for his items alone, never mind all of the other things. So as I say, it would be nice if they made up their minds.

This budget is honest, realistic, reasonable and responsible. It shows a caring by the government for those with particular needs that can only be served by government, and it also has some respect for the taxpayers. It creates jobs, income tax, etc. Perhaps I could elaborate a bit on that, Mr. Speaker.

We have heard a great deal of criticism of our persistence in maintaining the budget stabilization fund. We're not. By legislation it has been eliminated. By bookkeeping in this budget it is done away with. In other words, I think the intent of the budget stabilization plan was good, but it certainly did not impress the public, who probably have a bookkeeping system much like my own: so much comes in, so much comes out and the third column is left over or short. That is the bookkeeping system I understand and most of the public understands. It is not the bookkeeping system that is used in business.

I tried to take a bookkeeping course once, and I gave up. I think somebody referred to it as double entry bookkeeping, and when the debits became credits and the credits became debits, depending on which page you put them on, I was thoroughly confused However, it is a standard practice in bookkeeping, but my in-out-leftover system is what appeals to me, and I think the government is going to move towards that.

[11:45]

We've been criticized about the bookkeeping and about the deficit. Even the auditor-general has said the figures are accurate, but I don't like the way they are arranged. I would arrange them differently.

There seems to be quite a discussion among bookkeepers and economists about how these items should be arranged. As a friend of mine once said, if you lined up all the economists end-to-end they would still point in different directions. I don't know if that's true of bookkeepers. But because this bookkeeping — which is a legitimate and accepted form of bookkeeping — does not agree with what some in the opposition choose to see, they say it is dishonest. That is incorrect. What we need to recognize is that throughout this budget there are footnotes and explanations to say: this is why these figures are this way.

We've had the opposition's standard tactic: deflect attention from the facts in the budget by playing political games and by attacking it. I don't know how you deal with that. It's always easier to get more attention as a critic than it is for someone in government or someone who has to do something about it. For instance, it is quite easy for the critics to say that you should be spending more money in every department and at the same time saying that you should hold the line on spending. A government has to bring those two together and make a compromise, and I think this Finance minister has made an excellent compromise. Philosophically, I am sure he and every member on our side of the House agree that we would like to spend only what we take in. It is the best financial practice in a family situation, in business and in government. But there would have been a price for that.

Some of you may recall — and I was here — when we took restraint measures as a government during the mid-eighties to avoid getting into a $12 billion or $15 billion debt, which we easily could have done had we not taken those measures. We said: "The economy is producing less; we must spend less." Oh man, did we get lambasted by the opposition for that measure! But we did not get lambasted by the voters in '83; we got a bigger majority than ever. I think the voters understand what happens.

We have these generalized criticisms, and hardly a member of the opposition refers to an item in the budget. So I'm going to refer to the budget as they do, but perhaps not to the facts, because they don't seem to be under debate. I would encourage members of the public to read the budget document for themselves, and I think they will see that.

For instance, we are accused of larger deficits. I think a case can be made that the $395 million is an accurate deficit figure, and with another form of bookkeeping, a case can be made that the $1.2 billion is. But the opposition is very carefully focusing on that to deflect attention from the other information in the budget, which is given not just by the Finance ministry but by outside authorities and lending people in New York, where they call the shots. In the charts, in Statistics Canada — never mind just their own Finance ministry statistics.... Everyone in the economic world agrees that British Columbia has the best financial record and the lowest debt of any province or jurisdiction in North America. The true picture is the last thing the opposition wants to get out to the public. So we have all of this "deceit," "less than honest," etc., and no discussion about the actual facts and figures in the budget.

For instance, I did read one press headline that said: "Government Projections Out by a Country Mile —

[ Page 12208 ]

$227 Million." Now when you take that $227 million, which is a lot of money, out of the $15.3 billion budget, that projection, despite all of the volatility in our economy, is within 1.5 percent. In any business that would be considered excellent forecasting, yet we're told in a headline that we're out by a country mile. So I think we have to put it in relative terms.

What we have from the NDP is the standard tactics: deflect attention from the facts by staying on this political agenda, these innuendoes, these insinuations. Then they get the headlines.

I think the public may be interested to know this. I don't know whether they read this, but the Leader of the Opposition and his ragtag band of socialists have repeatedly said that the rich aren't paying enough tax. They say: "We would get the money from the corporations and off the backs of the people." Now let me tell you what the Leader of the Opposition has to say about this budget. He said: "Here you are bringing in tax increases on corporations when they are losing money..." He neglects the fact that the tax only kicks in on the profits.

AN HON. MEMBER: He doesn't understand that.

MR. BRUMMET: No, he wouldn't; he doesn't choose to.

And he goes on: "...and on high-income-earners when they are fearing for their jobs." Tell me if any member of the public is going to be that sympathetic to somebody making over $80,000 or $100,000 a year who may have to pay from $5 to $300 extra in taxes. They have said the rich are getting a free ride on the backs of the poor. The only tax increases on people are on the people making over $80,000 a year, and the Leader of the Opposition said: "How dare you hurt these poor people?"

I'll tell you, we've heard a lot about the public having the right to know, and I agree. I think the public has a right to know where the socialists stand. Where would they get all the extra money that every one of them talks about? "You're not spending enough money on health; you're not spending enough on education, not spending enough on social services; you're not spending enough on the environment." Where would they get all that extra money?

The Leader of the Opposition is best characterized as a chameleon — you know, the animal that changes colour to suit its circumstances. When he talks to the unions he talks one line; when he talks to the industry he talks another line. This man is setting himself up as a moderate. He has changed colours so often, and you know what happens when you mix a lot of colours: you end up with grey. I think this Leader of the Opposition has tried to take on so many hues to fit each situation that he has become a drab grey.

We have him coming on as a moderate, a gentle person. Yet we have a situation where we have never seen an opposition that has abandoned general ethics and principles for the sake of political expediency. The member for Esquimalt scoffs at that comment. Let me use an example. They're using the same tactics in this budget to try to discredit people. That member from Esquimalt should remember that it used to be the case that private conversations were considered and treated as private. It used to be the case in this province — there used to be enough ethics — that information illicitly obtained was not used. We had a situation with that member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew where the press managed to get some juicy information illicitly obtained by taped conversation. When the media looked at it, they were not prepared to release it — and remember, the media is never reluctant to release a juicy scandal item. So I guess they said: "We've got to find someone whose principles are low enough to allow him to release it, so that we can report it." They didn't have to look far. Look at that member. They had to find an individual or a group whose ethics were low enough that they would use that information so that they could then just report it. And of course it grew.

You find case after case of this. The other day we had an example, and I know I was exhorted by some people for being upset. We had the member for Vancouver East say to the former Minister of Health: "I am so glad that you've recovered from your injury." Yet when you look back, he was the one that led the attack, that put out all the allegations and insinuations to try and destroy that member personally And then he says: "I'm glad you recovered from your injury."

I'm going to use a sports analogy. I've played a lot of team sports and body contact sports. At any time I always got a lot of excitement out of a good body check — given or taken. I can remember times when I was flattened when I was trying to go in on goal. That was their job: to stop me from scoring. When that body check was fair, I had no objection to it. I also ran into a situation where one year I and one of the other members on a team were leading the league in hitting and we were creating a lot of the wins. The coach of that other team said: "We can't win unless we injure Brummet and this other guy. Get them out of the game." It happened to be a baseball game, and I was torn at the waist from spikes coming at me and so was my friend. They didn't win; we still won. I'll tell you, I had a lot of respect for people who would try to knock me out of the baseline to shake the ball loose, but I had absolutely no respect for people who went for personal injury.

That has been the tactic. If you look at what's happened in this session of parliament, I guess the members of the opposition pulled together their strategy team and said: "Look, for year after year we have not been able to win by the rules. Our policy has been rejected by the people in this province. Our philosophy has been rejected. Our methods have been rejected." They said: "There is only one way. You've got to injure them personally." So their whole research department was set on going back to every speech on every trip, on everything that anyone in the government did, to see if they could cripple members individually. That's the tactic that's been approved and led by the Leader of the Opposition.

[12:00]

Some of you may remember when that Leader of the Opposition said, in this case I referred to of the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew: "The member

[ Page 12209 ]

had to make a tough decision. We left it to him." The member stood up in this House and said: "It was a tough decision. We discussed it in caucus for two weeks before we decided to do it." They talk about honesty.

That same member, with the same tactics that they're using in the budget here, tried to destroy the people one after another individually. They know we are not perfect; no one is perfect. So you try and injure them individually. Then they use the tactic of saying: "How can they possible contest the game with so many cripples on their team?" As I said, I never minded a fair body check, but I'll tell you, I cannot be hypocrite enough to accept an apology from someone who has gone after my groin. That's basically the tactics that these people have been using. They have gone out to destroy people individually.

The member for Central Fraser Valley has more principles, more truth, more honesty in his little finger than that whole ragtag band has in the whole bunch of them. For almost a year, on the basis of insinuations and allegations, that member and his family have anguished. Then a simple: "I didn't mean it."

The member for Vancouver East used information, again from a confidential report. Repeatedly we get from confidential reports. As far as I'm concerned, Mr. Speaker, I would say that 99 percent or more of the public servants in this province are honest and will honour their oath of allegiance. The only reason some of them don't is that they're encouraged by the members of the opposition to use these dirty tactics. I have to wonder: do they pay them for these reports? Do they pay them in cash or do they pay them in promises of special favours in the future? Why would a person break his oath when most of the people are there...? I think those members who do break their oath do a great disservice to the many honest members of the public service — and certainly the people who would use confidential reports.

We have a confidential tax report which should never have been out, and even if out should never have been used. The member for Vancouver East goes after the groin by trying to destroy a person because of it. Then he stands up in this House and says: "Now that I'm corrected, sorry, I didn't mean to hurt you. I hope you have no hard feelings." What garbage!

The same member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew, knowing the legal system very well, well versed in it, laid a charge against the member for Surrey because it would get in the papers and the charge.... Throwing mud. When it came, the day before that member had the right to go into court, he dropped the charge, knowing full well that once the charge was dropped the member had no way of bringing it before the courts to clear his name or be accounted guilty. I would rather he had had that opportunity. What a tactic! In other words, milk it politically for all the personal damage you can inflict on a person and then don't give him a chance to have a fair hearing. That is the kind of tactic we have learned to expect.

I don't know how far they're prepared to go. That is the member who will use confidential documents, who will attack people personally, who will try to destroy them, try to milk the legal system to throw all the mud he can and then not give the person a hearing. That sad member is trying to say to the public: "Vote NDP so I can be Attorney-General of this province." Mr. Speaker, God help us if that ever occurs. Anyone who has no more principles or ethics than to play that game, in that way... The end justifies the means: that's his whole strategy. Yet he wants to be the person in charge of the justice system in this province.

The member for Vancouver East, who is prepared to use confidential tax information for what political gain he might milk out of it, says: "Vote NDP so I can be Finance minister of this province." Can you imagine the fear the people would have to live in under that Finance minister? Again, God help us, Mr. Speaker, if that ever came to be.

I don't think the people of this province are going to accept all the junk that's being handed to them. I think they are going to look at this budget, Mr. Speaker, and they're going to say: "They've done the best they can." Philosophically, yes, we'd like to balance the budget. Philosophically, we don't like debt. But I tell you, we like closed hospital beds or hurt school children a lot less than straying from that philosophic principle. But we still are planning to even it out, and I think that has to be recognized and will be recognized by the people of this province.

I guess I should mention the member for Boundary-Similkameen. Look at all the promises that are being made. The fruit industry. This government looked at it very carefully, discussed it and offered them 2.2 cents a pound. That member, in a newsletter, to get the vote of the orchardists at any price, said: "We would honour the promises made by the Leader of the Opposition." In other words, if you elect us, we'll give you another 7.8 cents a pound, based on the average number of pounds produced in '87, '88 and '89. Again, not one word about what it totals. In other words: "Vote for me. I'll give you 7.8 cents a pound more than that — 10 cents a pound. And further, we would extend some help to the soft-fruit growers at the same time." I know when we discussed it in cabinet, when I was there, and when you started adding up the number of pounds times a few cents a pound, it runs into millions and millions of dollars. As a matter of fact, it seems to me one figure — not cabinet confidential; it's been bandied about in public — is that over the last ten years the government has provided over $350 million to the fruit growers in the Okanagan.

Because we say, "We're not going to give you 10 cents a pound," the opposition uses it and says we don't care about the fruit growers. Nonsense! But you cannot.... I guess I go back to years ago in Canada, when the federal government had a subsidy program for the butter producers. Some of you may recall that. A couple of years later everybody was getting more money to produce butter, no matter whether it was selling or not. So within a few years we had a mountain of butter, which we then had to give away and go to the taxpayers to pay the bill. They're doing some of these things in other jurisdictions.

I have no problem with temporary subsidies. I have the problem that often they don't remain temporary

[ Page 12210 ]

subsidies; they often get extended. I have no problem helping people when they need it. But I don't know how you can say to the taxpayers: "Elect us. We would hold the line on taxes, but we would triple or quadruple the amount that you would get."

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased at some of the things in the budget. I guess I've gotten distracted by their game plan: forget the budget and talk politics. That's all that they've done. I think people should read the budget. I think they should look at it for themselves, and I think they will find it very good. I know the people in my constituency are very pleased.

I've been an advocate for travel assistance to the people in my area. For instance, from Fort St. John to Vancouver it's now $624 return.

Interjection.

MR. BRUMMET: I would rather wait years to accomplish something in an honest fashion than to use the tactics that the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew does to try and get into power and become Attorney-General. I'll tell you, I would look in the mirror any time. I guess he must have one of those "mirror, mirror on the wall" deals, programmed to tell him he's great.

Yes, I'm glad that some of that assistance.... From Fort Nelson it's almost $900 return, and if someone has to be accompanied, you can see what it costs the family. I'm looking forward anxiously in the hope that, even though it's not a great deal in the total budget, it will be a considerable portion of that travel cost for those people, so that they get the health care.

I'm also pleased with the fact that in the budget was confirmed a health centre replacement that we've been planning for some time in Fort St. John, because that is necessary. The old one was built many years ago — by the private sector, incidentally. People from the Rotary Club got together and got some help from government, but basically built the health centre at the time. The people up north still do like to help themselves a bit — not totally dependent.

Talk about totally dependent! I guess I have some trouble with the fact that here we have this ragtag bunch wanting this province to go socialist, when everywhere else in the world socialism is in disrepute. For example, Russia is asking for $100 billion to bail them out of where their socialist system has gotten them. Guess who they're asking for it — the United States; not another socialist country that has done well, because they've all bombed out. So we have the situation of them asking for $100 billion and expecting it from a free enterprise country because socialism did not work out.

I am really pleased with what has been done. In conclusion, we've had a capital program announcement of $650 million for the schools. Again, partisanship came into it very much. The first comment by the president of the B.C. Teachers' Federation was: "It's a political ploy. Why would they give it in a lump sum?" That member was apprised last fall, when I was Minister of Education, that we were going to be getting a lot more capital money, because a lot of the money in the previous budget was planning money, and you have to plan one year and do it the next, and there's a commitment. We said it would be there and the first reaction is that.

The other thing is the lump sum reference. I hope the president of B.C. School Trustees' Association is not speaking on behalf of all the trustees in this province. I don't think she is. But she had to be partisan first and then say: "We'd rather have had it than in a lump sum." Capital does not come in a lump sum. But $650 million is for the projects that are approved. Some of the bookkeepers tell me that in the first year, because of construction and so on, it costs about $2 million per $100 million in mortgage payments, in the second year probably about $9 million per $100 million and in the third year about $13 million. We would get more than that back from the income tax of the employees who work on all those projects in education, from the sales tax on equipment and a lot of the items, and from what it does for the economy. And they say there's no job creation in this economy. I'll tell you, that $650 million is a very good investment in this economy.

I guess I was disappointed, because the member of the B.C. Teachers' Federation, who I suppose takes partisanship first, was well apprised of the plan that this was going to happen. This was not a budget announcement or an election ploy: it was a planned escalation of capital programs to deal with the earthquake problems, the needs in the school system and to do away with portables.

MR. SIHOTA: I guess because it's Friday afternoon and I'm the last speaker today, the member for North Peace River had to make a number of points. Let me just dismiss right off the bat a couple of the points he made.

[12:15]

If he thinks that there was nothing wrong in what the former Attorney-General did, I would have to ask him why that person is not occupying the chair of the Attorney-General anymore. If there's nothing wrong with what the Premier did in his conflict of interest in Fantasy Gardens, why isn't he sitting in the Premier's office now? If the Provincial Secretary — who gave money to his own friends through a lottery fund without even so much as asking them to fill out the application form — did nothing wrong, why is he still not Provincial Secretary?

All I can say is that it has been well noted that this is a government which favours its friends and insiders. It's a government that has an ethical and moral blind spot. For the member to come in here and defend the disgraced former Attorney-General, Premier and Provincial Secretary indicates the extent to which that ethical and moral blind spot is found within himself.

Now that the members opposite have ceased to heckle a bit, I want to turn to dealing with the budget and some of the issues that arise from it, and to make a number of points. I want to start off, first of all, by putting to the House the thesis that this budget lacks vision. It's a budget which really is coming from a government that is tired and stale, from a party that has grown arrogant in power. I think some of the

[ Page 12211 ]

comments we just heard are reflective of that. It is a party that desperately needs time in opposition to sort itself and its affairs out. It's a party that seems to be caught up in its own internal political strife, in its own battles as to who is going to be leader and who is going to be doing in whom. All that kind of stuff seems to occupy the minds of ministers and takes them away from the responsibilities of their regular duties to look after the good administration of the province. What we've got from this administration is a tired old budget without any vision, new ideas or innovation, and no real plan for British Columbia in the future.

Let me give you a number of examples of where this budget lacks vision. The Minister of Finance should well understand, as he heckles there, that there's a good reason why we have two ears and one mouth. If he just listens to what I've got to say, he may learn something about some of the needs and wants of this province.

As I said, the budget lacks vision. As I listened to the speech from the Minister of Finance in introducing the budget, I listened with care to try to see what was in the budget that attends to the needs of people in my constituency. It was frustrating to listen to the budget and not hear the government in any fashion — let alone adequately — address the concerns of people in my own riding.

I would venture to say that the most significant social and economic issue in my riding today is the absence of affordable housing. Seldom a day goes by when someone doesn't come into our constituency office looking for housing. They can't afford the housing that's on the market, and they see no vacancies in terms of what they may be able to afford.

Just this morning I was working on behalf of a single mother in my riding who has been living in a trailer and paying $500 a month without even having any running water or toilet facilities. She's been living in that environment with her child for the last four and a half months. It's terrible that people in this province should have to live in those types of conditions. One of the reasons she was in touch with us this morning was to see whether she could accelerate the process of getting into affordable housing.

The need for affordable housing is a common occurrence within our constituency office and in terms of the phone calls I get here at the Legislature. Yet this budget offers literally nothing new, constructive or visionary in dealing with this significant problem of the absence of affordable housing.

It's not as if the problem of the absence of affordable housing is something new to this administration. We know that the vacancy rates are such that there's very little housing on the market. We know that there's a tremendous demand for affordable housing and that this demand is not being met. One would expect, given the fact that this is a salient social need, that the budget would address this and that the government would introduce programs to deal with the crisis in affordable housing. Yet nothing in the budget offers British Columbians any hope that this problem will be addressed.

We've had remarkably few construction starts, and we haven't had anything in terms of the availability of Crown land to assist in the provision of affordable housing. What's frustrating is that there are so many solutions to what can be done to make sure that there's a supply of affordable housing on the market. We've raised them in the House before, and I don't intend to recite them all. We've put them out in terms of a private member's bill to say to the government: "Here's the alternative; here's how you can do it." We've introduced them in this House and said: "Look you can even claim authorship to them, but implement them, for God's sake, because there's a real problem."

As for the utilization of Crown land to make more land available, let me give you a very simple example, I have constituents who live on the Old Island Highway in mobile-home pads. Two years ago they were told that their tenancies would be cancelled, because the mobile-home units were going to be converted into other uses. Most of the people in that area — and I met with them — were seniors, and they were shocked to think that they would have to leave the units they had been living in for up to 40 years. We encouraged the provincial government, because Crown land was available just around the corner, to make Crown land available in order to allow for the construction of new units, particularly for these seniors. It has been frustrating in the extreme to see that the provincial government, through the Minister of Lands, has not been agreeable to releasing the Crown land available just around the corner for this very purpose. It's terrible.

Now the only good thing I can say about that — and I think it should be said — is that there is a very good landlord there, who recognizes the dimension of the social problem and is not prepared to just evict seniors onto the streets. He has delayed his plans for rezoning his property or utilizing it in a different fashion, because he appreciates that there is a social need not being met by government. But it's frustrating to think that this administration will not make available some of the Crown lands that could be used for the construction of seniors' housing in that area. It's terrible to think that that could happen.

There are a number of other options. We've laid out in this House a whole program for how we can begin to construct new homes for young families at reasonable prices by looking at the size of lots and building homes of a smaller size — 1,200-square-foot bungalows. The Leader of the Opposition has outlined this program, and it has won the hearty approval and applause of the real estate industry, which has said this is the way to go. Yet it's astonishing to see that this government does not embrace that concept in its throne speech.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's municipal.

MR. SIHOTA: The member says it's municipal. It is not municipal in its entirety. There is a need to provide some leadership at the provincial level to start moving in this regard. It can be done, and it would only be the weak and the negative who would suggest that because

[ Page 12212 ]

the problem is municipal, we can't do it. It is only those who lack vision and ingenuity who would slough it off in the fashion that the former Minister of Housing and the current Minister of Finance have just done in this House by saying: "Well, it's municipal. We can't do anything about it." Where's the leadership in this province? That leadership should have been embodied in the budget around that type of program.

Let me go on. I guess it is hard to have leadership when there's been a revolving door of ministers here in this government — one every two weeks. Maybe that explains part of the problem, but more about that a little later on when I talk about another issue.

We've said: make some changes to the B.C. second mortgage program so that young families wanting to buy a home for the first time get greater provincial assistance in terms of a second mortgage. It is money paid back to the province at interest, so it's not a loss to the taxpayer. But increase the quantum of money that you're eligible for under that program so that you can actually begin to qualify for a new home. One would have looked to this budget to provide that type of financial stimulus. But again it's lacking, because this government is tired and stale.

Let me go on in terms of other examples of the kinds of things that we could have done. This budget should have made a commitment to change the property purchase tax so that first-time homebuyers are not paying that tax. It's a deterrent to young families to get into the market. Again, there's nothing in the budget.

There's nothing in the budget in terms of the construction of more co-op housing. Silence. It's frustrating when you juxtapose that silence with the voice that you hear today from a constituent who, with a child, is living in a trailer without any running water or a toilet and who is trying to get into the co-op housing system. To say to her: "Look, I'm sorry, but this administration just hasn't accorded a priority to housing, to shelter." Affordable housing is a significant concern in my riding, and yet not a word in the budget. A government with some vision and a government in touch with the needs of British Columbians would have tended to that very salient need.

There are all sorts of other things that can be done about housing, and I'm not going to get into them at this point. Suffice it to say that there are a number of good, innovative ideas out there, and the government should have captured at least some of them in terms of providing some hope in this budget.

Mr. Speaker, another very salient concern in my riding is the matter of sewage treatment. My riding, like a lot of others in this area or in the province, is a high-growth riding. The bulk of the land in my riding is not what you would call prime agricultural land; it's rock. In my view, it is the area in greater Victoria where we should have growth, as opposed to the Saanich Peninsula, for example, which is prime agricultural land.

Municipalities in my riding have been coming to the provincial government for five years, since I've been elected, asking for some assistance in terms of sewage treatment. The Boydell report was commissioned by the Capital Regional District, and it recommended that there be sewage treatment in the Western Communities. It made a contrary recommendation for the greater Victoria area, but it made that recommendation for the Western Communities.

I'm sorry to see the Minister of Municipal Affairs is not in the House today. Not only has this government not chosen to provide assistance to the tune that's required in terms of sewage treatment, but now the new Minister of Municipal Affairs is not even prepared to meet with Colwood council to discuss this issue. When I last checked with members of council they had not heard a reply from the minister in terms of a meeting to discuss the matter of sewage treatment.

It seems to me that if this government had some sense of vision, if it had some sense of recognizing that there are problems associated with growth, it would have made some attempt. The problems with sewage treatment are not unique to my riding; it's right across the province. There should have been some willingness on the part of the province to announce an appropriate funding formula to make sewage treatment a reality. It's terrible to think that we have to dump some of this stuff into the ocean or have it go through creeks in our region.

The budget made no comment about transportation, again a significant problem in a riding like mine. I think that a government that was in touch with what's going on out there in the community would have made some commitments with respect to the greater Victoria area.

I know the Minister of Transportation and Highways, who is in the House, has announced a recent moratorium on regional planning, and I have some frustration with that. It seems to me that a two-year moratorium is not needed in terms of new transportation plans for the area. But what was needed was a commitment from this administration to move towards light rapid transit in the Western Communities. Again, something that is visionary that's lacking is the move towards a system of the provision of better transit services in the area — and the remedy of some of the obvious highway problems in the region. A government with some vision would have recognized that there are significant transportation problems in the greater Victoria area and would have laid out a plan to get us there. Again, there is nothing mentioned in the budget.

I want to talk briefly about one other issue, because I see that it's almost time for adjournment, and that is the matter of defence cutbacks in my riding. I want to touch on it very quickly. It is an issue that I know affects the Minister of Finance, because there are cutbacks in his riding as well, in terms of the threat to the base in Chilliwack.

I find the reaction of the Premier around this whole issue to be very disturbing. The Premier of this province, when asked over the weekend about the federal government making a decision to cut back funding to defence bases in Chilliwack and Esquimalt, said: "Well, I cannot find it within myself to criticize the federal government for taking this move, because I as a Premier believe in restraint. Therefore I am not

[ Page 12213 ]

going to criticize another government that is exercising restraint, so they can go ahead and cut back."

[12:30]

I ask if it is the new policy of the provincial government, with respect to federal-provincial relations, that when the federal government makes decisions to cut back funding for federal projects in British Columbia, the province will be saying: "That's fine, go ahead and cut it back, because we agree with that kind of cutback mentality." Does that argument apply to the kaon factory? Will you now be saying, Mr. Minister of Finance: "Now we don't need the money for the kaon factory; the feds should cut back; we believe in that kind of philosophy, therefore no funding for the kaon factory?" Will you be saying the same thing about shipbuilding programs in British Columbia? Will you be saying: "Yes, we recognize that for 100 years British Columbia has never got its fair share of those contracts, but we're not going to take issue with you anymore because we believe in the same type of economic philosophy that you're articulating"? Does the same apply for defence spending? Does it apply for forest renewal agreements now? Does the provincial government now take the view that it's okay for the federal government to make those kinds of cutbacks, because it would not be consistent for it to criticize a government that's involved in a restraint mode? I think there are some serious questions that arise with respect to what the Premier had to say around those issues.

Mr. Speaker, if I look at the issues that come into my constituency office from day to day, I would venture to say that about 80 percent of the problems are in one way or another wedded to poverty. Yet this budget says nothing. In fact, the word "poverty" doesn't even find itself in the budget; there's no recognition that we have a problem with poverty in British Columbia.

I want to pick up that theme on Monday when we continue and talk about poverty and the steps this government should have announced in its budget in order to attend to that need. Yet it chose not even to recognize that we have a problem in that regard in this province.

Mr. Sihota moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Richmond moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:33 p.m.