[ Page 12241 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Budget Debate

Hon. L. Hanson –– 12241

Ms. Smallwood –– 12242

Mr. Michael –– 12244

Ms. A. Hagen –– 12246

Mr. Loenen –– 12249

TUESDAY, MAY 28, 1991

The House met at 10:06 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. HUBERTS: In Saanich and the Islands we of course have some tremendous schools, and one of those is St. Joseph's School. Today we have with us Mrs. Buckler and 24 grade 5 students from St. Joseph's, near the Burnside area of Saanich South. Please help me welcome them to this wonderful place.

Orders of the Day

Budget Debate
(continued)

HON. MR. STRACHAN: On the motion that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the House to go into Committee of Supply, which was adjourned last evening by the government, the Minister of Transportation and Highways will continue the budget debate.

HON. L. HANSON: It is my privilege to rise today and speak in support of the budget that was recently tabled.

I believe we in the Social Credit Party recognize the economic reality that is facing us in this province. The economy is softening. There is more difficulty on the revenue side of the budget in our ability as a province to fund ~ery necessary services such as health, education and social services, which are accepted as those that must be in place not only for the assistance of people who have difficulties with their health but for the preparation of our young people to face the future that will become more complicated in the years to come as our society becomes more sophisticated and more aware of the need for technical advances and so on. So education is a very important part of our mandate as government.

In the social services area, there are people who have less or are in circumstances that create difficulties for them. There is a very great need and a very accepted need that government and society must help these people.

I believe we have responded to those three areas in this budget. It is a responsibility of society as a whole to assist in those particular areas.

It is interesting to hear the debate that goes on as we listen to the members opposite criticizing the amount of the deficit. We keep discussing whether the deficit is in fact $400 million or $1.2 billion, which by the way is exactly the amount that we have allocated for increases to those three major ministries that I mentioned earlier. But in order to accept the opposition members' claims that the actual budget deficit is $1.2 billion, then I think that in fairness — and I'm sure they are fair individuals — they must give us credit for the famous budget stabilization fund, which they say is fictitious, and for the surplus that was created in those years. My friends in opposition can't have it both ways. They can't suggest that this budget has a $1.2 billion deficit and yet suggest that the budget stabilization fund established some time ago is a nonentity. I believe that demonstrates a lack of fairness in the criticism that comes from the members opposite. But we're used to that, Mr. Speaker.

I'd like to spend a moment on the NDP budget from Ontario, I understand that yesterday the member for North Island was very busy trying to distance himself and his members from any suggestion that they had anything to do with the transition from the Conservative government to the NDP government in Ontario. While I wasn't here yesterday, I did have the opportunity to look at some of those remarks.

I would like to quote from the Vancouver Sun of April 27. Obviously if it's in the Vancouver Sun it must be correct. It says: "...New Democrats won a surprise victory last fall. Rae also seconded some of the B.C. transition team to help out in the early weeks of his government." It goes on to say: "The team reported directly to Harcourt and was made up of 'three or four members of caucus and resource people.' Harcourt won't say who they are...."

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Here we are at the end of the fifth year. When referring to a current member of the House, please refer to them either by their title in the House or their constituency In this case, it's the Leader of the Opposition.

HON. L. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, my apologies. I was reading from an article. In any case, I will translate that. The Leader of the Opposition won't say who they are because, he says: "We agreed it would be a discreet committee." With the opposition members' desire to have open government and freedom of information, I would call on the Leader of the Opposition to tell this House how much advice he gave to Pink Floyd and his budgeting in Ontario.

I know that the people of British Columbia are going to make a decision shortly as to who is going to govern this province. If by some remote chance and quirk of fate the members of the opposition should be elected to lead this province in the next few years, I certainly hope that Premier Rae does not send a transition team to British Columbia to assist us in our budgeting process.

Speaking of Ontario again, the economic difficulties that Ontario is experiencing at the moment are probably beneficial to British Columbia, because we are seeing signs now. We are inviting those people who see the difficulties in the economy there with this sort of a deficit budget to come to British Columbia. They are the free-enterprisers who see an opportunity in British Columbia that they feel has been cut off from them in Ontario, with its financial policies.

[10:15]

Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that British Columbians are going to accept the fact that the opposition members call for additional spending. When they are speaking to the electorate they call for additional spending in all the areas I mentioned earlier, yet when we table a budget reflective of the priorities in this province for those services, they suggest that it's no

[ Page 12242 ]

good, not a good idea. As I said earlier about the $400-million-deficit or $1.2-billion-deficit argument, you can't have it both ways. You must adopt one or the other.

Mr. Speaker, we of the Social Credit Party in British Columbia are.delivering the best government in Canada. Anyone who cares to analyze the record will see that it is a fact. If the voters of British Columbia would like to have a quick education on what is happening in Ontario and with the economy of Ontario, they should simply pick up a copy of the Globe and Mail and read for themselves the analysis of that government's performance. Over the past five years we have created in excess of 200,000 jobs. B.C. has the highest average hourly wage in Canada. The wages and salaries in our province rose by a higher percentage than in any other province in Canada last year, and we have the second-highest level of disposable income. Now I ask you: does that not suggest that this province has been well run in the past five years? We have a good budget. The members opposite will do everything they can possibly think of to put a negative light on this budget. At the end of the day, British Columbians have to ask themselves how their lifestyle has been over the last five years. It's a fairly good bet that most of the people would say it's been pretty darn good.

There are so many things in the Highways ministry budget I would like to dwell on in detail, but I know I will have that opportunity during estimates. The budget of the Ministry of Highways was increased by 4 percent. If all my wishes could be, I would like to have a budget that was increased 50 percent. As a responsible government and Finance ministry — and being a responsible individual — saw it was necessary to increase some of those other areas I mentioned earlier at the cost of some of the other ministries — certainly at the cost of the Ministry of Highways. That is responsible management of our funds. The people of British Columbia will see that as responsible management of the funds for British Columbia. When they look at the five years past and look at the record of this government and the things we have accomplished, I know the election will be positive for the free enterprise system. I speak in favour of the budget.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Unfortunately, I can't say that I welcome this opportunity to speak to this budget. The more time I spent in preparation for this time in the House, the more I became angry at what is really happening in this province.

The previous speaker, the Minister of Transportation, again reinforced that this government is more interested in running from B.C.'s reality than in actually facing it and doing the people's business. When we deal with this budget and the taxpayers and the services rendered by this government, we see again and again that this government has neglected its responsibility and that it has been more involved with its own infighting and serving its friends than with doing the business of the people of this province. This budget talks repeatedly about caring and compassion, but in reality, when it gets right down to talking about the nuts and bolts — the programs taxpayers pay for — this government changes the subject and begins to talk about the record of other governments in Canada.

I'd like to refer to this government's record, to this budget and to the reality of the people in this province. That's what I was elected to do — not to talk about the records of other governments, but to deal with the taxpayers in this province and this government's record. This government's record is abysmal. It's hard to find the real picture, because all we get is manipulation of numbers and smoke and mirrors. The real budget talks about a $1.2 billion deficit, and again and again we hear cabinet ministers on that side referring to a much smaller deficit, mixing and matching numbers. But outside this House, expert after expert reveals the true facts about this budget deficit: $1.2 billion. This budget reveals the province's largest direct debt in its history. It's now about $9 billion. This budget reflects a $746 million deficit last year that was portrayed as a $15 million surplus. This year's record deficit is $1.2 billion, and it is stated as a $395 million deficit. It's obviously hard for this government to face the reality, and that's why they constantly retreat to talking about other governments' records.

Mr. Speaker, this side is committed to doing the business of the taxpayers and the families of British Columbia. We want to talk about British Columbia, about this government's record and about serving the people of British Columbia. That's what we were elected to do.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

After successive Social Credit administrations, the National Council of Welfare finds that family poverty in British Columbia grew faster during the 1980s than anywhere else in Canada. That's the reality here, and that's why they retreat from their budget and talk about other provinces in Canada. There are now 127,000 children in British Columbia living in poverty. That is why they retreat and talk about other provinces.

The fact of the matter is that this budget projects an increase of 24 percent in welfare caseloads. That is the reality of this administration and of this government's record. That is why they retreat; that is why they talk about the record of other governments in Canada.

The fact is that — including a massive and historic deficit in British Columbia — they have shifted the burden of taxes onto the backs of taxpayers and families. In the last four years of this government's administration there has been an extra $3,000 in increased taxes and fees. That is the reality of this budget and this government's record. That is why they retreat and talk about other provinces rather than dealing with the people's business here in British Columbia.

The fact is that personal income taxes increased from 44 to 51.5 percent of basic federal tax payable. The new property purchase tax now generates an additional $200 million a year. There has been an increase of $200 million a year in medical services premiums. A total of 784 fee increases and 229 new fees since this government took office. That's the reality of this budget; that's the reality of this government's

[ Page 12243 ]

administration over the last four to five years; that is why this government constantly retreats to talk about other provinces.

I was elected to do the business of the people of British Columbia. I want to talk about their reality. In this budget this government talks about caring and compassion. I want to talk about the reality that families face in this province and the real numbers in this budget that reflect this government's lack of commitment to these families.

At the same time that this government is trying to hide their deficit, the increase in taxes and the cuts to services, they engage in doublespeak. They talk about numbers that don't have relevance to the debt load that this province carries. They talk about caring and compassion and at the same time slash $1 million from the at-home program for kids who are handicapped and wanting to live with their families. They slash $1.3 million in community projects funding. Those are community projects that are particularly targeted to families, to low-income groups, to young people and to the handicapped. At the same time that they are talking about caring and compassion they slash dental care to people on income assistance by $1.4 million. No wonder they retreat. No wonder they don't want to talk about their budget or about the people's business here in British Columbia. No wonder they want to talk about other provinces' records.

Mr. Speaker, I think it's about time that this government faced the music and faced the reality of the people that they were elected to serve. It's very clear to me that this government is confused — that for the last four and a half to five years that we've seen of this government's record they've been more interested in infighting and serving their friends than doing the job they were elected to do for the taxpayers, for the people of this province.

[10:30]

This government talks about a priority for fighting violence, again for serving families. The reality is that when they cut community projects, they are cutting the funding to programs like Life Line. They are cutting the funding to programs on sexual abuse and to programs like crisis intervention or counselling. They are cutting resources in communities that help people deal with violence and with the reality of poverty in this province. There is no caring or compassion from this government in this budget. All we see again and again is doublespeak and retreat to the record of other provinces.

We demand that the cabinet and this interim Premier deal with the needs of the people of this province They are cutting community projects funding, services to native people, resources, crisis referral, volunteer services, youth activity services and on and on and on.

Projects all around this province are cut by $1.3 million. Where is the caring and compassion? More doublespeak. This government talks about an increase in its budget for education, health care and social services. In their increase in social services they are doing nothing more than acknowledging the fact that we are seeing an increase in poverty and in the number of unemployed, and a total lack of commitment to deal with the real needs or to provide real alternatives to support families in British Columbia.

They talk about their commitment to education, yet in the fourth year of this government's administration, they have only begun to speak of the reality that 20 percent of families in this province have to face: they are unable to feed their children nourishing meals, so that those kids don't have a chance. They get sick more often, drop out of school earlier and are unable to compete in the education system, and we see nothing concrete from this government.

They talk about a study, yet the reality of their funding for education to the school boards that they are talking to is such that the first minister of this government — the interim Premier — sees her own school district in Surrey with the lowest funding of all school districts in British Columbia. In Surrey we are now seventy-fifth out of 75 school districts. Where is the money coming from to provide a school lunch program for the children who are hungry in Surrey? It is certainly not coming from the very lowest funding in all of British Columbia.

Where is their commitment to the taxpayers of British Columbia, when they do nothing more than retreat from the business of this province and talk about the record of another province in Canada? Where is this government's commitment to the people, the families and the children?

The reality of this government is that their record on social services and commitment to children is abysmal. The people in the community, the teachers and the school trustees are now beginning to talk about the mainstreaming that this government initiated and the possibility of a really positive program to bring disabled children back into the community to go to school with their brothers and sisters. The people in British Columbia now are beginning to talk about it as park-and-run mainstreaming. That's the reality of this government's record. No wonder they're running, and no wonder they're trying to hide from their record. The fact is that, having got those children into those schools and into their communities, they are now pulling back the support. They are cutting the support to the home programs for those children, and they have not even recognized the need of the education system to support them in their schools. That's the reality of the budget and this government's record. It's no wonder they want to run and hide.

The interim Premier talks in her budget about caring and compassion. The reality in Surrey, the municipality that she served for some 20 years as an elected member, is that services from health care to education to social services are eons behind other communities in this province, and we have never heard a word from that member.

In Surrey the RCMP tell us they have files showing 166 reported cases of sexual abuse in 1989. The reality now is that in 1990 — and it has gone up this year — it escalated to 384 reported cases. That's a 131 percent increase in reported cases of sexual abuse in our municipality. In three months in 1991 the number of sexual assaults is already 82. We are going to break last year's record increase.

[ Page 12244 ]

Mr. Speaker, you might ask what kinds of services this government has brought in to a huge municipality like Surrey to deal with problems such as sexual abuse — a problem that no family, no child, should ever have to face. What has this government done? It has done nothing for the municipality of Surrey for sexual abuse programs. We do not have any resources to treat these 384 children. We have nothing.

The reality of having the interim Premier sit there and support a budget that talks about caring and compassion — and the Premier served the municipality for 20 years.... We have absolutely no resources to help the families facing such a crisis. What does this government do? It talks about caring and compassion in the budget, but cuts the funding for these very programs. Over a million dollars was cut from that budget. At a time when they are talking about violence against women and children, the very tools in the communities to help those families that have been victimized are being cut.

This government brings down a budget that talks about caring and compassion, and in reality there is no caring and compassion. So no wonder they retreat. No wonder they would rather talk about the record of another government. I think that it's time for this government to face the music and let people who care get on with the job of serving the people in British Columbia. Fabricated records, smoke and mirrors doublespeak and food banks — that's the reality an the record of this government.

You can't go a day in this province without some story in the press about the number of people who rely on food banks, the legacy that this government brought to this province. Who would have thought that here in British Columbia — a rich, beautiful province — we would ever see not only food banks, Mr. Speaker — people lining up as if it was the thirties Depression — but now specialized food banks for women and children.

We have an Attorney-General in this province who would rather talk about another government's record — a record, I might add, that he didn't even get right. More deception, more manipulation. The fact is that we have specialized food banks in this province for women and children. That's the reality of this government. No wonder they're running. No wonder they're hiding behind another province's record. If that was the record I had to put up in front of the electorate, I'd be ashamed too. They have all the reason in the world to be ashamed.

Mr. Speaker, this budget is not one that I would want to speak about, if I were them. This government's record over the last four and a half years is one of neglect, of deceit and of clearly not dealing with the needs of the people of British Columbia. I do not support this budget, and I call on this government to face the music: to call the election, stand on their record and stop running and hiding behind another government's record.

MR. MICHAEL: It's indeed a pleasure for me to rise today and take part in this budget debate. We've heard much about the amount of the deficit and the amount of borrowing that will take place this year, and there is no question whatsoever that the government of British Columbia will indeed be borrowing $1.2 billion in the current fiscal year. However, I would like to make reference to the budget book, Budget 1991, and ask you, Mr. Speaker, and the members opposite and my colleagues to pay attention to four particular pages in it.

I'm going to attempt to show the fiscal responsibility that this government has proven over the years, a record of fiscal responsibility, and I'm also going to attempt to lay out the vision, foresight and wisdom of the things that are happening in this current fiscal year and relate that with the fact that we are in somewhat of an economic downturn in 1991.

The first page I would refer to is page 60 of the budget book. The paragraph reads: "The provincial government's net direct debt as a percentage of the GDP is projected at 7 percent at March 31, 1992 — the lowest in Canada. The improvement in the provincial government's debt profile and fiscal position has been acknowledged by every major bond rating agency in North America." That, to me, tells the story about the fiscal responsibility of the government of British Columbia, and in my view puts the opposition's arguments at rest as to what points they're trying to make.

On page 64, Mr. Speaker, there's a sentence that I again find very informative. It sets the stage for the debate that's taking place. It reads: "At March 31, 1986, direct and guaranteed net debt peaked at over 30 percent of provincial GDP. Its estimated level of 23.5 percent of GDP at March 31, 1992, reflects the subsequent improvement in the province's fiscal position" — another illustration of the tremendous job that has been done by this administration during the last four years.

[10:45]

Despite all the dialogue and the arguments put forward by the opposition, the graph on page 70 of the budget book — chart F1 headed "Direct Debt for Government Purposes (Per Person)" — clearly illustrates and proves with absolutely irrefutable evidence that British Columbia leads all the provinces in Canada in relationship to our debt position and has proven to be the most fiscally responsible government in all of Canada.

We're going to be borrowing a significant amount of money this year. Not nearly as much as Ontario and other provinces, but we're going to be borrowing $1.2 billion. What are we going to be doing with that additional sum of money over and above our general revenue? I refer the members to page 86 of the budget book and ask them to look at the amount of borrowing to be conducted this year by the British Columbia Ferry Corporation. The B.C. Ferry Corporation will be borrowing $181.8 million more in the current fiscal year than they borrowed last year. Why, Mr. Speaker? They are going to be borrowing that money to build additional capacity, additional vessels to serve the tourists and residents of British Columbia, to create jobs in British Columbia shipyards in this time of need and during this time where we have a fairly weak economy.

[ Page 12245 ]

If you look to the British Columbia Transit authority, you will see that they will be borrowing $120.7 million more this year than they did last year. Again, good, paying jobs are being created during an economic downturn.

If you look at the British Columbia Buildings Corporation, you will see that they will be spending $45.3 million more this year than they did last year, to build additional buildings to house our government employees and various ministries.

If you look at the colleges and universities, you will see that this will be the greatest construction year in the history of British Columbia, with $209.6 million more being spent than the previous year on new construction.

The British Columbia Regional Hospital Districts Financing Authority will be borrowing $171.7 million more in the current fiscal year than last year.

Let's have a look at the British Columbia School Districts Capital Financing Authority, with the greatest amount of construction ever built in the province — an additional $345.5 million in new construction.

If you look at the facts, you will see that in the last fiscal year we borrowed approximately $250 million more for new construction. In this year, because of the economic situation and the backlog that was built up, this government, in its wisdom, decided to borrow in excess of $1 billion — $1,050,000 in additional money — which is four times greater than in 1990. Why? Because we are in a soft year. Our contractors, workers and trades need that employment. It's the wisdom of this government to show leadership and to be fiscally responsible, but to borrow some money and make things happen in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I must reflect back and compare what has happened in this province to what has happened in other jurisdictions in Canada. I can't help but think back to the great years when the NDP was in power in Manitoba and its record during its last year of power. I reflect back to the fact that in their last year of power they had the poorest record in the area of job creation of any province in western Canada. They were receiving the largest federal equalization payments of any province in western Canada and had received $780 million in addition to the equalization payments as a result of Lloyd Axworthy's involvement in bringing additional dollars into Manitoba. In the last year of the NDP government, Manitoba had the poorest rating in the small business community of any province in Canada and the least number of new businesses incorporated of any province in western Canada. They were the only province in western Canada not to participate in Expo 86. Along with that, Manitoba had the highest property taxes of any province in western Canada, the highest commercial debt, the highest total per capita debt, the lowest net growth, the lowest credit rating and the highest personal income tax, and it was the only province in western Canada at that time to have a payroll tax. That's the legacy of NDP government in the province of Manitoba.

After a few years of no NDP governments in Canada, another province has decided to experiment in socialism. Winston Churchill once said that there are only two places in the world for socialism: one is in heaven where they don't need it, and the other is in hell where they've already got it. If you look at where we are today in Ontario, this is just the tip of the iceberg. They have a $10 billion deficit in 1991 and are projected to double their entire debt over a five-year planning period. I predict that by the time the people in Ontario have had four or five years of NDP rule, you will see them do exactly what the people in Manitoba did. In the next provincial election in Ontario, the NDP will not finish in first or second place. What will happen in Ontario will be exactly what happened in Manitoba: they will be relegated to third position, because the people of Ontario will have had enough of socialist philosophy and government.

However, Mr. Speaker, waste not fresh tears over old griefs. We must look to the future in British Columbia. We must continue to act with fiscal restraint and use our budget to fill in the peaks and valleys as the economy progresses.

It's my view that the Minister of Finance made one slight error. But I'm convinced that he is listening right now, and that he and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources will be getting together to correct a very slight omission in this year's budget — which is the only real criticism I have — and that was the failure to have a gas-line extension program for the areas of the province other than Vancouver Island.

I compliment the minister on the tremendous initiatives, the things that are happening on Vancouver Island, and I reflect back to the fact that this government, the British Columbia Social Credit government, worked hand in hand with the federal government, without any NDP cooperation whatsoever, in bringing the Vancouver Island gas line and making it a reality. I think back to the void, the lack of support, from the members opposite. I read Hansard from Ottawa and see not one ounce of support from the federal MPs representing the NDP — representing people from the province of British Columbia and not giving that pipeline any support whatsoever, I think of the great benefits that the natural gas line will bring to this Island. It will result in cheaper fuel, a cleaner fuel, a B.C. resource and fewer oil tankers going up and down our coasts. It will result in the consumers and industry on Vancouver Island having a lower-cost fuel.

I congratulate the Minister of Finance for setting aside $25 million for gas-line extension programs on Vancouver Island. But I do have to say, being an interior representative in this chamber, that we needed about a $3 million program in 1991; we need another $3 million in 1992, and another $3 million in 1993, and we could really eliminate the backlog of those much needed extensions in this province.

I had the opportunity to speak last Friday and give a member's statement regarding the concept of the elimination of fuel tax. I would just like to reinforce that thought; I think it indeed has a lot of merit, I have since found out, after doing some further research, that Washington State has a sales tax higher than British Columbia's. We have a sales tax of 6 percent; Washington State has a sales tax of 7.8 percent. I bring that to your attention, Mr. Speaker, and to that of the Minister

[ Page 12246 ]

of Finance, because I think it's important for British Columbia to use its provincial taxes to level the playing-field to the best of our ability, to give the private sector — the retailers, the wholesalers and those gas stations — the equal opportunity to compete head-on with the Americans. I stand by what I said last week: if we could eliminate fuel tax we could meet the Americans head-on in selling gasoline competitively. If we eliminated the provincial fuel tax, the total taxes south of the border as compared to north of the border.... Our taxes would be around 2 cents a litre less than what the state and the national government in the United States charge for fuel tax. If we could eliminate the coupons and provide a discount for cash, we would have an opportunity to really meet the Americans head-on, to lower the cost of commerce, to make our businesses more competitive. That is very much needed in meeting the Americans head-on with the free trade agreement and the things that will be happening over the next seven or eight years. I just wanted to make that point once more to the Minister of Finance: yes, we have a sales tax in British Columbia at 6 percent, but the Americans have one directly south of the line at 7.8. I would like the Minister of Finance to give that very serious consideration.

When I think of all of the exciting things that will be happening in the province of British Columbia, the thousands upon thousands of jobs that will be created with the new construction that will be taking place in our colleges and our universities and our hospitals and our buildings, I see a budget with some vision. I compare that to the Leader of the Opposition. When thinking about the Leader of the Opposition, the most interesting thing I can recall is his great vision back on June 6, 1980, when he sent a telegram to Mr. Reid and fellow committee members of the Bureau of International Exhibitions regarding Expo 86, which was being decided on that day. The telegram reads as follows:

"Please stop plans for Expo 86 on the north side of False Creek in downtown Vancouver. Most Vancouver citizens do not want Expo 86 to proceed on this site. Instead, five out of ten aldermen, 26 out of 57 Members of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia, significant numbers of concerned Vancouverites and members of the media feel that housing, public amenities and transportation should receive greater priority.

"A letter dated June 5 is on its way to you with backup material. Do not make a decision until you have read that material and have investigated further."

It is signed by the current Leader of the Opposition and former mayor of Vancouver. That was his vision for British Columbia, Mr. Speaker.

If you think of the effects of Expo 86 on the province.... Tourism grew from a $2.5-billion-a-year industry to a $3.5 billion one in one year. In 1991 it is forecast to exceed $5 billion. That is largely a result of the vision of this government in bringing about Expo 86. I think of the telegram dated June 6, 1980, signed by the current Leader of the Opposition. It is a shameful display of vision and foresight for the people of British Columbia.

Indeed, when I talk about Expo 86, I'm not just talking about tourism; I'm talking about industry and commerce. Expo 86 brought people into British Columbia who had never seen the province before and who had never heard of Vancouver. They came here with their investment capital, they invested and they made things happen. They created jobs by the tens of thousands. That is a result of Expo 86.

I don't know what would have happened if the current Leader of the Opposition had been Premier of this province when those plans were underway. It would have been a sad day for British Columbia and for all of Canada, because that was probably one of the most historic and significant economic events ever to take place in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity of addressing the assembly today, and I take my seat. I've enjoyed the opportunity to address the people present here today.

[11:00]

MS. A. HAGEN: Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about this time and about this province. That is the task that we, as legislators, have before us. I have been despairing of the speeches I've been listening to from the other side of the House, where a government, elected in 1986 and now in the twilight zone of its administration following 16 years of administration by Social Credit governments, is not prepared to talk about this time and this place. They are fearful of being accountable for their record and for their budget. It's our task in this budget debate to call this government to account and to look at the real record and at what this budget has to tell us about what a government going into an election plans for the future. Looking back and looking forward is enough to tell the British Columbia people that what they are saying and feeling is indeed demonstrated now by this budget. It's time for a change in government, and we cannot afford another five years of Social Credit administration.

I want to look very concretely at the budget presented by the Social Credit government in its twilight zone. They are schmoozing their way through other jurisdictions and other history, rather than dealing with the here and now and what people understand about their lives — what we often call their reality.

It is important to reiterate that this government has again tried to foist on British Columbia a deceptive budget in respect to the true state of our financial affairs. It is incredible that the third Minister of Finance, the member for Chilliwack, continues with his obfuscation. Somebody asked me the other day what that means. It means that this Minister of Finance tries to bemuse, confuse and insult the people of British Columbia by continuing to say that we have a deficit of $395 million. The Premier herself acknowledges that the deficit is $1.2 billion. She acknowledges that we are going to have to borrow that amount of money in order to have this budget delivered. We know that this budget is in fact just a sham, that it won't ever be delivered. Nonetheless, it is the record of this government, and we are looking at a $1.2 billion deficit.

I think we need to put that in context. That fact has now become known. It has been stated by the Premier; it has been acknowledged by the previous speaker; it

[ Page 12247 ]

has been defined by the auditor-general, a non-partisan servant of the people; it has been acknowledged by senior members of the accounting and economic community, including the Fraser Institute; and it has been demonstrated in the government's own documents. But we need to put that in the context of something else this government has been hiding: over its 16 years of administration it has increased the indebtedness of British Columbians by a phenomenal amount. We have had stated, and I want to state again, that in 104 years of this province's history — from the time it became a member first of the Dominion of Canada and now of this great country of Canada, from 1871 to the end of the New Democrat administration of 1972-1975 — the total debt of this province was $3 billion. It is now $20 billion — $1 billion for every year that this province has been governed by the Social Credit government. So the $1.2 billion this year is simply more of the same, and the shame of it is that this government has done everything possible to pretend it has a different kind of record than that. It's that deception, the failure to be open and honest about our affairs, that offends the people of British Columbia. It is something that people are saying they've had enough of.

This is the government that gave us the Expo land sale at a huge loss to us as a people. This is the government that without any kind of authorization gave us the overrun on the Coquihalla Highway. This is the government that allowed its Provincial Secretary to give lottery funds to his campaign manager without any kind of documentation. Those funds are still outstanding. After two years they still haven't been reclaimed by the province — something in excess of a quarter of a million dollars. This is the government that in all of its transactions has worked with friends and insiders to hide the true state of affairs and failed to get good value for the tax dollars of the people of British Columbia.

In that context we have a government that now says it has developed a kinder, more compassionate face and that its priorities are education, social services and health. It is trying to convince us in the twilight zone of its administration that we can rely on it to provide a steady hand, vision and a predictable, defensible and appropriate level of services for the people of British Columbia.

That is not what we find when we look at this budget. I want to take a look at just a couple of areas where the government's kinder, more stable and more predictable face is made a sham by the reality of the budget that we are debating at this time.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Let me look first of all to the domain of education. I have said of the former Education minister — a person who sometimes is a little acerbic and crotchety — that he is perhaps the first minister in the 16 years of Social Credit administration who has been guided by a vision that was crafted by the people of the province, coming out of the Royal Commission on Education. I believe that former minister — the member for North Peace River — indeed had a commitment to the only long-term plan that this government has had in the four and a half years I have sat in this House — a plan to work with parents, educators, trustees and those who are advocates for challenged citizens of our province to craft an education system that is more appropriate, contemporary and relevant to our changing society.

Mr. Speaker, no one knows better than you, our senior senator, how much our society is changing, how much it has altered over the years that we have watched families, communities, schooling and societal influences play their interlocking roles. That minister and this government made a commitment that they would provide a consultative process and resources over a ten-year period so that people could feel that the tremendous investment of energy, ideas, vision and resources could flourish in a stable and predictable climate.

In the twilight zone of its administration, this government has abandoned the only long-term plan that it crafted in any way, shape or form. It has abandoned the implementation of the Royal Commission on Education. Let me demonstrate that abandonment, the leaving of that route that we were travelling together, by comment about the budget.

When the royal commission implementation program was being proposed, the Minister of Education — now the member for North Peace River — stood in this House and over and over again commented about a commitment of $1.4 billion over ten years. To be very precise, we quickly realized that is wasn't quite that commitment. It was only $1.1 billion, but let's not argue about two or three hundred million. Let's look at the commitment at this stage of the game.

As processes were put into place, a very intense, spirited and dynamic dialogue began in the province about education, one of the most spirited and intense I've known in my 40 years of being involved in some way or other with the education system. There was a very significant amount of money committed. Last year there was $140 million, not always easily trackable and accounted for, but nonetheless it was there. It was in the budget, and it made a very significant statement that we were moving along a path where all parties were prepared to work through differences, conflicts and issues that needed to be resolved in developing and implementing this long-term plan.

In the budget we are debating at this time, there is not a dime or a line about the Royal Commission on Education. It has simply vanished into thin air. The message out there is an amorphous message, because the vanishing of those dollars has been accompanied by some bafflegab that leaves those people who have invested in the royal commission implementation, have worked on change, have developed new programs, have planned within their districts and were looking ahead to ongoing planning, in a state of complete uncertainty about what this government's intentions are. This is the government that says its priority is education. This is the government that says it is providing for and giving direction. Right now, this is a government who, in the only long-term plan they have ever had, have left the world of education completely baffled by where it is going.

[ Page 12248 ]

There is not a dime or a line in dollars in the budget. Let me quote from the Minister of Finance's statement about the Year 2000: "The Year 2000 initiative in education puts B.C. In the lead across North America in providing quality opportunities for our young people. The success of this initiative depends on the dedication of teachers, school boards and parents alike" — a very true and important statement — "but changes as sweeping as these can bring uncertainty." Also true — uncertainty, questioning and working through are important parts of any productive change. "The Minister of Education will be meeting with those affected to ensure that their concerns are addressed and we achieve the goals of this important blueprint for the future." That commitment was made last April I or 2 when the interim Premier was appointed, when a new cabinet was put into place and some new charges and tasks were afforded to that cabinet. The present Minister of Education has done nothing to this date in the domain of teachers, parents and trustees to carry through on any kind of consultation around the future of the royal commission. We have not a dime or a line in the budget to suggest that there's any financial commitment to its ongoing, very important work.

[11:15]

I've spent a bit of time on that issue because what it does is represent to us the ad hockery of this government. Let me just make one other reference to that ad hockery in respect to another touted initiative referred to a moment ago by the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke, the fact that there is a very large pool of money available for capital construction of schools. Beside me today is the member for Surrey-Guildford Whalley who has in her community 329 portables which have been expanding at the rate of dozens per year over the life of this administration, and over the life of the previous administration through an earlier downturn when we sent thousands of workers out of the province to Ontario because this government was not prepared to invest in quality facilities for students. Now in the fifth year of a mandate, all of a sudden there is a huge influx of dollars — a much-needed influx of dollars. But the quality of education and the increased cost in the production of those facilities are a direct cost in dollars that could have gone into operation and services. I won't have time today — I hope to in the estimates — to talk about the staffing of those schools and the providing of the resources once the schools are built. And that's often the story of hospitals and other facilities as well.

Mr. Speaker, as you know, I feel passionately about education, because it is so important to our future. It is not something that this government should tamper with, and I think that the education community — and that's everybody in this province — knows that the lack of direction, commitment and any kind of due process that we can rely on says that we cannot afford another five years of this government. We cannot afford another five years of them playing with blockbusters or tinkering with our education system at the expense of the future of our children.

Let me turn now to another aspect of this government's record, the violation of its own commitments. I've just talked about that in respect to the Education ministry. In our short session in March it made a commitment not to increase taxes. But it said: "We are not going to include in taxes increases in fees." And we all knew at that time that whichever Minister of Finance we were dealing with — the Minister of Finance from Burnaby-Willingdon who had his fling for a short time like a Gilbert and Sullivan character, or the longer-term Minister of Finance, the first member for Saanich and the Islands, who is now a leadership candidate, or the current accountant from Chilliwack, who says he has put his stamp on it — all of them bear some responsibility.

I don't know who we blame for this particular issue that I'm going to speak about now, but the most significant tax increase in this budget is the one to medical services premiums. It is an increase felt by working families, single parents, seniors — people of modest income. And it is a very significant increase. If we look at the cost of medical services premiums at this time, we will find that they are one of the most significant costs that people have to bear. If you're a family you now pay $840 a year for medical services premiums, up $100 this year alone, well in excess of any cost-of-living increase. If you're a senior couple you now pay $744 a year, up $7 from last year. If you are a single working person getting started, you are now paying $420 a year, up $50 from what you were paying in the past.

Those taxes are regressive, because they apply across the board to most working people and people of average income in our province. Contrast that with the fact that the minister did impose a surtax on people whose incomes are in the range of $80,000-plus a year for a single person or $93,000 a year for a family of four. Most of us don't know very many people in our ridings with those kinds of incomes. But you know, Mr. Speaker, it's not more than the MSP tax increase for ordinary working people. It's $100 a year. It's a night out on the town for people going out for dinner. If they're going to see The Phantom of the Opera, it might be the $300 that it's going to cost them. They have the money to afford that night on the town or the $300 evening that they might choose for a special event.

Not so for seniors, working families and single parents trying to make a go. In many instances their dollars are worth 60 cents. These are the people this caring and compassionate government has chosen to pay almost 50 percent of the extra burden. That's the kind of government we have, and it makes a great to-do about the fact that everybody has to pay their share. This government has put burdens on working people, with over 700 fees in the past four years to the tune of about $3,000 a family, and it keeps adding to that burden. That's the kind of violation of public trust and regressive approach that this government has incrementally placed on the people of British Columbia. That is a reason we can no longer tolerate this group as government.

Mr. Speaker, it's amazing, when you're looking at a record that has been growing for years, how easy it is for time to pass. I want to spend the last few moments on a couple of issues in my own riding.

[ Page 12249 ]

One of them involves a population of people who have resided in my riding for almost a century and have been associated with Woodlands school, which is now being phased out as a residence for people with special handicaps. Because that institution is a part of my community's life, with its sharing of roles and responsibilities for the people who have lived there, in New Westminster we have a profound interest in that very large and prominent piece of land. I was absolutely astounded to read and to hear in the budget speech a reference to the fact that this government, without so much as a by-your-leave, a phone call to my city or a public statement, is now proposing to dispose of the Woodlands property and to use some of those dollars for a legacy fund for housing mentally ill people.

First of all, let me address the issue of housing for the mentally ill, which is a very real need. But that's so far in the future in terms of any dollars coming from that proposal, that it's like asking us to look at what is going to happen in the year 2000. It's a hollow promise. This budget is full of hollow promises about feeding hungry children, about providing services for women who are the victims of violence and about pensions. This is simply another hollow promise, which is one of the characteristics of the budget.

The disposition of that land is not something for a government to simply, in a cavalier way, announce without any discussion or consultation with the community. I want to put this government on notice and make a commitment that, on behalf of the government of which I hope to be a part after the next election, that kind of approach is gone and will not be a part of this New Democrat government's approach to how we use lands.

We need to find very good ways to look at those community assets for the long-term benefit of our communities. That is not achieved by a cavalier announcement that we are going to sell off the property. Heavens, we've had property sold off: the Expo lands at a cost of $500 million lost to us; the Westwood lands without a covenant for a park, school or community facility in the sale of those lands; and downtown lands in New Westminster that, both publicly and with items that haven't come to the public, have gone to friends and insiders at fire-sale prices.

We do not trust this government to even think about what they might do in respect to that property. They are on notice, at this stage, that the property is a community asset, and that the community will have a good, productive, long-range discussion around how it can best be used to enhance New Westminster and hopefully some broader agendas consistent with its very worthwhile history in serving people within the community.

One other decision that has been of great import in my city is that of the justice Institute, which is presently located in the Vancouver–Point Grey riding and is going to be moving to a new permanent location. The building of a new post-secondary institution is an exciting prospect. We need more institutions in many parts of the province to meet the needs of people for lifelong learning, and for our communities. The users of the Justice Institute are police, firefighters, ambulance workers and about 25,000 people who come to the justice Institute every year for specific training programs, sometimes on a daily basis and sometimes on a live-in basis for several weeks. The board of the justice Institute and its users did a thorough investigation on where the justice Institute could be located to best serve the needs of its very important constituency I might note that its users come from all over the province because of the nature of this institution. It's unique in North America.

A recommendation went forward to cabinet that was completely ignored; it was not addressed. The cabinet made a political decision that it would seek a location in the most eastern region of the GVRD, in Langley, for the building of the Justice Institute. There is no question in my mind that we need new post-secondary institutions south of the river, and there are some exciting initiatives going on with people in those communities — defining their needs and looking at what might best serve the long-term post-secondary needs of a very large population that is increasing by leaps and bounds. I support those initiatives and support the fact that institutions must and will be built on the south side of the river to meet that increasing need.

[11:30]

But this decision around the Justice Institute must serve the needs of that institute and the population it serves. In New Westminster there is a site which was and is the preferred site for the Justice Institute and its users, This government must make long-term educational decisions, not political decisions. It has not done so. It has not done so in so many ways that we can't count the ways, and that is the reason that the people in British Columbia know we cannot trust them to tell the truth. We cannot trust them to plan wisely and stay with the plan. We cannot trust them to make decisions that are in the interest of people rather than their desperate attempts to get re-elected. And when a government has come to that state in its life and its history, then it surely is time for them to have a rest, to reflect on how they have failed, to reflect on ways in which they might, in the time in opposition, become revitalized and have a newer vision. It's time for us to form a government, and I look forward to an election that gives us that opportunity.

MR. LOENEN: I almost get depressed listening to all that.

I want to support our budget; I think it's a budget for our times. It balances the needs that we see in terms of the recession, addressing those needs as well as our commitment to maintain those very essential services in education, in health and in our social services sector.

I was particularly pleased when the budget made mention of home-ownership and the particular steps that this government seeks to undertake to promote home-ownership. I represent a suburb of Vancouver which certainly is a healthy, wealthy, prosperous place. But we've seen, over the last number of years, that the dream of home-ownership for our young people is increasingly distant. It is increasingly difficult for our

[ Page 12250 ]

young people to look forward to owning their own home, to enjoy the security and the safety that is so essential and that contributes so much to the quality of life that we all want to experience. For a government that wants to strengthen families and family life, I believe that the commitment to promoting home-ownership is essential.

I want to just note that particularly in the lower mainland, and perhaps in the capital region here, this need for us to look at the possibilities of people owning their own home is very acute. We have seen that becoming more of a problem over the last few years. There are many reasons. Some of them have to do with the fact that we see a lot of people moving to British Columbia, because we know that a recent international study indicated that Canada is the second-most desirable place on the face of the earth to live, and within Canada there is no place like British Columbia.

This is a very desirable place to live, but that also creates its own problems. In 1989 we saw some 39,000 people added to our population through migration and some 20,000 through immigration. Those numbers are going to increase, particularly migration, because of what is happening in Ontario. In 1989 alone, those figures represent 160 persons for each day on the calendar; 160 persons each day who come here and must find accommodation.

Interjection.

MR. LOENEN: Well, Mr. Speaker, perhaps the member likes to get out his calculator. I do not believe that those numbers are wrong.

Interjection.

MR. LOENEN: The member will have an opportunity in due time to do some mathematics of his own.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

There is no doubt that the needs of the community that I represent, but certainly throughout the greater Vancouver region.... The need for home-ownership is one that we need to address. We have noticed a decline in home-ownership. Statistics Canada, for 1990, indicates that in the Greater Vancouver Regional District,56 percent of the people owned their own homes or condominiums. That is a declining percentage. As I started out by saying, increasingly for our young people the dream of owning their home is fading because of the affordability, because of the upward pressures in land values, because of the increased demand that increased population brings about.

As I said, for many people it is difficult to understand that in a country and a province that have such an enormous land base, and that are so richly blessed with resources of all kinds, seemingly we are unable to address that very basic need for shelter — and shelter that is owned by the people that occupy those homes.

We have four children. They are grown and gone. Two of them are married. They were born and raised in Richmond. I do not believe that they can afford to live in our own municipality. That's a sad and dismal prospect. When we talk about the quality of life, we need to address that, because surely shelter — basic accommodation — is a very necessary component and not merely a luxury. It's been a hallmark of Social Credit over the years to promote home-ownership. We can do more than we're doing currently to build on that and to recognize that it is an exemplary way of strengthening families.

If we put our best ideas forward and pool our resources, it is possible for us to rekindle that dream for our young people of eventually owning their own home. I want to make a number of suggestions, but before I do, I want to say that we need a very comprehensive policy, because it is very easy to put in place one policy or another or this initiative or that without looking at all the complexities surrounding this issue.

For instance, in the past it has been proven that when some of our initiatives are put in place federally or provincially, it is very easy to increase demand. For instance, by subsidizing the interest rates, you increase demand dramatically, but at the same time, unless you have an increase in the supply of housing, all you do is drive up the price. It's a very delicate balance, and you cannot just do one thing. You cannot just make it more affordable or more easy for more people to get into the market without also looking at how you are going to increase the supply. Otherwise, all you do is drive up the price and defeat the purpose which you set out to accomplish: namely, to make home-ownership affordable.

I know this from experience. I used to be a homebuilder. We note that increasingly it is more difficult and more cumbersome for the builders, the developers and the people in construction to get their permits and all their requirements through the local municipalities. In fact, our son who's home for summer holidays from university and is working in construction only worked one day last week. This week he will probably work one or two days. Why? Because they are waiting for permits.

You know, 25 years ago when I was in building, it used to take one day to get your building permit through. You'd bring it in the morning, and you'd pick it up on your way home at night. Today when they have a multitude of people in these departments — in fact you look at that and you see desks as far as the eye can see — it takes six weeks, if you're lucky, to get a permit for a single-family home. We need to look at what that does in terms of undermining the productivity of our home-building industry. We need to look at how we can streamline the approval processes that the local municipalities have put in place. We need to look at the impact of, for instance, the development cost charges which keep rising. Currently development costs in Richmond for a single-family home are $13,000. These are for off-site services. We want to talk about affordability. We want to talk about making the industry productive. We need to address some of these very basic things, so we need a comprehensive policy.

I have six suggestions. But I want to say at the outset that if we're going to address this problem of

[ Page 12251 ]

how we can promote home-ownership and make home-ownership affordable, we need to not pick away at one or two aspects but to think very carefully how all the different components need to be put in balance. Otherwise our efforts will be wasted.

In the first place, I would like to suggest that local governments can do a great deal more than they are doing today by using their zoning powers to make home-ownership more affordable. Over the last number of years we have seen that the zoning powers of local governments have increased. We not only now use zoning powers to dictate setbacks, floor ratios, etc., but we also talk about exterior finish, the number of parking spaces to be provided, as well as landscaping, etc.

If we can do all those sorts of things through zoning powers, why can we not also use zoning powers to describe or prescribe a certain price range so that within a particular zone or a certain municipality you would zone certain areas which must be within an affordable price range? It perhaps sounds a little dramatic at first, but I believe it makes good sense to do that. For instance, if you take our community in Richmond, you'll find that all the housing there — whether it's single-family or multiple-family, apartments or condominiums — is in the upper price range. They all push the very upper limits. So you get monstrous houses with four or five bathrooms and two or three garages with overhead doors which nobody can afford, except people who have the means.

We need to create a housing mix that will address the needs of all our residents so that there is variety within the housing being put on the market. I believe it is possible to do that. If you created such a zone, you would at least immediately put a damper on the upward price of the land. Land by itself has very little value; the value is determined by what you are allowed to do on that land. If you use the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation's definition of affordability where you take the medium income of people who live in that community, derive from that what those people can afford and build that into your zoning powers so that you at least have a mix — a certain percentage of those houses are going to be affordable housing — that will itself put a damper on the upward spiral of land prices.

I believe that it is possible for us to set the parameters. I don't think government should necessarily be in the business of delivering housing, but we should use our regulatory powers to set the parameters within which private industry will meet the needs. But what we need to do is promote a housing mix, and I believe it's possible for local governments to use their zoning powers to achieve that.

[11:45]

Secondly, we have seen some exciting developments, on an experimental basis at least, in terms of looking at how we can build housing that will meet the needs of young couples and perhaps seniors — for those who are starting out. Last year or the year before there was a very exciting experimental program in Montreal, which has been referred to as the growhome concept. I want to just quote briefly from the Atlantic Monthly of February 1991, where one of the architects, Mr. Witold Rybczynski, writes:

"In May of 1990 my colleagues and I built a demonstration house on the campus of McGill University, in downtown Montreal, to test a thesis of ours: if people thinking of changing houses could experience the advantages of high-quality, smaller, more flexible and more adaptable houses, they might actually choose smaller rather than larger quarters. The Grow Home was small — 1,000 square feet. It included unpartitioned space. It was adaptable to different households. It used good-quality finishes and materials. And it was a row house, only 14 feet wide. The construction cost was about $35,000, which meant that the selling price in Montreal, including land and all development costs, would have been less than $60,000 — about half the price of an average single-family house in Montreal at the time."

That particular experiment has shown that it is possible for us to develop an affordable home that people can grow into. There are some real advantages to this, because we know that the size of our families has declined. We also know that there is a strong necessity for us to conserve energy and resources. It is possible for us to do that. This particular experiment showed that it can be done, that it can be attractive and that it can meet a genuine need. But we have to ask ourselves why it is not happening. That is related in part to what I mentioned earlier. The free market always pushes the upper limits, unless we provide the incentives to do otherwise through our zoning and regulatory powers.

Smaller houses have fewer bathrooms and small kitchens. They use less materials and are less expensive to heat, cool and maintain. They require less housework. It's a good deal all around. When the Canadian Home Builders' Association looked at this experiment of the "Grow Home, " they estimated that some 500,000 Canadians could afford this type of a house — half a million Canadians currently unable to purchase their own home.

There are some problems that stand in the way. The municipalities do not particularly care to attract a lot of people into these small homes, because they contribute very little to the tax base. That problem needs to be addressed. In Great Britain, under a cloud of controversy, this issue was addressed through the poll tax. Now I'm not advocating that we do what they attempted to do there in terms of the poll tax. But the idea behind it is very sound, because increasingly we raise revenues through property taxes to pay for services to people. That throws things out of balance. We need to look at our property tax system to bring about a more direct relationship between services to people and the taxes — or the fees or whatever — we collect.

So I would suggest that one of the ways in which we can overcome this hesitancy to go towards some of these new, innovative housing concepts has to do with our property tax structure. In fact, the Fraser Institute recently came out in favour of that and made the same points.

Fourthly, again we have seen that in Great Britain they experimented with the idea that people who live in social housing units and rental units that are owned

[ Page 12252 ]

by the government should be given the opportunity to lease to own. They should, over time, have the right to buy into those units.

We have some 61,500 units in this province which are either directly or indirectly controlled by the government in order to provide rental accommodation for a wide range of people. Some of those units perhaps ought to be converted into lease-to-own units. The pride that comes from ownership is indispensable. The feeling that this is a place that is mine, the pride of maintaining such a place, the security that it offers to families and the social benefits that accrue from home ownership are things that we ought to promote, because the benefits will be immense.

So I would suggest that our government should at least take a hard look at that and see whether we can reverse that trend. The trend currently is that we are increasingly becoming a province or a nation of renters, and I think that is wrong. We ought to be able to do better.

Fifthly, I would suggest that our Minister of Finance and our Minister Responsible for Multiculturalism and Immigration look at the immigrants investment program. We know that with the federal government we have this program, and it makes eminent sense. If we would ask these investor immigrants, as a condition of moving here, to invest in our economy, we should direct those dollars into providing affordable housing. It makes eminent sense. We know from the statistics that as a group, a greater percentage of immigrants are homeowners than the rest of the population. Immigrants like the idea of home ownership, and we should build on that. In addition to that, it also carries an element of justice because of the fact that we see these pressures on increased population in upward pricing — some of which is driven by the immigrants who come to our province. It seems eminently just that they would then be asked to help us give relief to the upward pressures in the housing market. So that is another element that I believe should be incorporated.

Finally, I would like to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we look very carefully at subsidizing the interest rates on mortgages. There is no more efficient, quick, clean way of making more people eligible for home ownership than to bring down the interest rates. We have seen recently that interest rates have come down, and as a result there is more activity in terms of home purchasing. But less than a year ago, interest rates were in excess of 14 percent, and these fluctuate all the time. I believe that there should be a mechanism in place where some people, particularly first-time homebuyers, would have the advantage of a subsidy on those interest rates, because the minute you bring the interest rates down, you increase the number of people eligible for home-ownership.

We spend a phenomenal amount of money subsidizing rental units. I have nothing against that; I think it was necessary and continues to be necessary. But at the same time we should recognize that if we want to promote home-ownership, perhaps some of that money should be directed to providing subsidies that will bring down the interest rates, certainly for first time homeowners.

It's my understanding that Quebec has such a system in place. I believe they subsidize anything in excess of 8.5 percent. Again, I would recommend it to our Minister of Finance. It is very important that we look at all avenues of improving the possibility for our young people in particular to become homeowners.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Interjection.

MR. LOENEN: The member is asking about the property purchase tax. We made modifications to it last year. There is a sliding scale depending on your level of income. The suggestion has often been made that the property purchase tax should be removed entirely for first-time homebuyers. I would have no problem with that; I would support it. I think, too, that it would send out the right signal — namely, that this government wants to promote home-ownership, particularly so that our young people can dream their dreams and have a vision for building a future and contributing....

Interjection.

MR. LOENEN: We're simply making excellent provisions a little better yet. That's not a change; that's an improvement.

I believe it is possible for us to address this whole question of making housing more affordable. It is certainly possible if we look at the fact that we are rich in land. We have an enormous quantity of land in this province. We are rich in resources, and, above all, we have some of the best minds, both in and out of government. If we pool those resources, we will be able to address this question of providing home-ownership to more people. I hope we can work on it. There is a promise of it in the budget and we will deliver on that promise.

Mr. Perry moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Strachan moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:58 a.m.