[ Page 12253 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Government borrowing. Mr. Clark –– 12253

Extradition of man charged with child molestation in Chilliwack.

Mr. Dueck –– 12254

Completion of rental housing units. Mr. Blencoe –– 12254

Government forms printed in U.S. Mr. G. Janssen –– 12254

Hospital laundry services contracts. Mr. Perry –– 12255

Tabling Documents –– 12255

Budget Debate

Mr. Perry –– 12255

Mr. Peterson –– 12260

Mr. Barnes –– 12261

Mr. Smith –– 12265

Mr. Miller –– 12268

Mr. De Jong –– 12272

Mr. G. Hanson –– 12273

Point of Privilege

Fantasy Garden World Inc. sales tax. Mr. Speaker's ruling –– 12276

TUESDAY, MAY 28, 1991

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: In the gallery this afternoon we have the parents of one of our illustrious Vancouver Province reporters — but we won't hold that against them. I would ask the House to please make welcome Bill and Maud Kieran, who are visiting from Sooke. And it is Mrs. Kieran's birthday

MR. SPEAKER: Oak Bay–Gordon Head. Excuse me. Second member for Nanaimo.

MS. PULLINGER: That must have been a little déjà vu, because I'm going to make two introductions on behalf of the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head, who is not well today. First, Mrs. Christine Mathers is with us in the gallery today. It's her first time in the Legislature, and she's the grandmother of one of our interns here, so I'd like everybody to make her welcome. Also with us today in the Legislature we have a Mr. Richard Boisvert, who is a teacher at Campus View Elementary School, and a group of his students. I'd like to welcome them also to the Legislature.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: On behalf of the second member for Delta and myself, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to rise in this assembly and welcome 55 grade 11 students from Delta Secondary, their teacher Mr. Frank Sawatsky and a number of parents. Would this assembly please make them welcome.

MS. EDWARDS: It's a real pleasure today to introduce two very active and involved citizens of Cranbrook, Gary and Diana Cavers, who are enjoying a very lovely holiday in Victoria.

HON. J. JANSEN: I'd like to welcome to the precincts Mr. Fred Feistmann, a constituent from Chilliwack and the manager of one of the best highway maintenance contractors in the province, Gateway Maintenance.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: It's a rare occasion for me to have an opportunity to introduce a constituent in the Legislature. Visiting today from Dawson Creek is Joyce Torio, her daughter Loreen Way and her granddaughter Keenan Way. Would you please make them welcome.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT BORROWING

MR. CLARK: A question to the Premier. In answer to a question on Rogers Cable last week as to the excess of expenditures over revenues that the province has to borrow this year to cover the budget, the Premier answered that the province had to borrow in excess of $1 billion. Is she prepared to stand by that statement in the House today?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, I would stand by any statement that I make.

MR. CLARK: A supplementary. Will the Premier then now acknowledge that her Finance minister was incorrect when he stated that only $395 million had to be borrowed to cover the deficit this fiscal year?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I can assure the member opposite that no one in the House is more correct than our Finance minister, but I will refer the question.

MR. CLARK: How can the Premier reconcile her remarks last week that the government had to borrow over $1 billion to cover its operating deficit and the remarks by the Minister of Finance that the government only had to borrow $395 million?

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

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. There actually wasn't a question, and therefore there wasn't an answer. Those of you familiar with the popular television show "Jeopardy" might know that you must phrase your answer in the form of a question. Are you all familiar with that? It would be nice if we started doing the same thing. We'll go back to the order of business, and the member for Vancouver East has the floor.

MR. CLARK: A question to the Premier. How can she reconcile the Finance minister's remarks in this House that the government only had to borrow $395 million with her remarks on television last week that the government in f act had to borrow over $1 billion?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, as usual, we have a bit of a fruit basket....

Interjections.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I was talking about apples and oranges. Could I refer the question to the Minister of Finance?

HON. J. JANSEN: Mr. Speaker, I again want to tell the member opposite that there are distinctions between the operating deficits and the capital requirements of British Columbia. I should write it down on a little piece of paper and give it to the Page so that he doesn't have to repeat the question ad nauseam.

The situation is that there is an operating deficit in this province of $395 million, which we have to borrow. On top of that, there are borrowing requirements for capital purposes, which include Crown corporations, reserve funds and other funds with capital needs. How many times do we have to advise the members opposite that this is the situation? I would be pleased to spend some time with the members opposite and show them entirely how the matter of finances works — source and application of funds.

[ Page 12254 ]

MR. CLARK: To the Premier. When you announced you were seeking the leadership of your party, you stated that you spoke a language that British Columbians understand. Most British Columbians understand only too well that the government is spending $1.2 billion more than it's taking in. Why will you not stand up in the House today and tell your Finance minister to tell the truth — that the deficit is $1.2 billion and not $395 million?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I must ask the member for Vancouver East to stand and withdraw the allegation or imputation that the minister is not telling the truth. The member knows the rules. There were a number of other suggestions made at the same time; I'm only asking you to comply on one of them.

MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the reference to telling the truth, and I'll rephrase the question?

Will the Premier instruct the Finance minister to end the charade and come clean on the budget deficit, which she admitted on television last week was over a billion dollars? Will you instruct your Finance minister to tell the people of British Columbia the true deficit? It's over $1 billion.

[2:15]

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the member listen to the clip and understand with complete accuracy the statement that was made.

EXTRADITION OF MAN CHARGED WITH
CHILD MOLESTATION IN CHILLIWACK

MR. DUECK: My question is to the Attorney-General. Fraser Valley residents are outraged that an administrative foul-up in the federal Justice ministry has allowed Martin Bakker to be released from custody in the Philippines, instead of being extradited to face eight charges of molestation arising from incidents in the Chilliwack area. In consultation with his federal colleague, will the minister ensure that adequate procedural safeguards are in place, both federally and provincially, to prevent similar instances of negligence in cases involving such serious crimes?

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, there can't be any greater outrage than the outrage we all feel on both sides of the House when it comes to a person in a position of privilege attacking our most vulnerable members of society, the children. So I share the member's outrage, and I can assure him that my officials and I will be in touch with officials in Ottawa to see what we can do to upgrade the security with respect to extradition matters.

COMPLETION OF RENTAL HOUSING UNITS

MR. BLENCOE: I have a question for the Minister of Social Services and Housing. Can the minister confirm to the House, as B.C. Housing has confirmed to us, that by April — just a few weeks ago — the rental supply program in the province, our own program, had delivered only 1,247 completed units since 1989? Can the minister confirm those figures?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: No, I do not confirm that. I can't give you the exact number of units completed to date at this particular moment, but I would be happy to bring back that information. The number is substantially more than that. The commitment made by the province is a firm commitment. We have made available the total amount of money, which was $80 million in that program.

A lot of the units not completed at this point are being delayed because of trying to get rezoning within municipalities in order to locate those buildings, That's something that the government cannot be responsible for. I would hope that the municipalities which have responsibility for that will accept the responsibility to see that housing is provided for those in the province who need accommodation. We have done our share. We would ask for the cooperation of other levels of government to bring the project to its completion.

MR. BLENCOE: I would expect the minister to know his own statements and statistics. B.C. Housing has provided the evidence of how many units are either completed or under construction. How does the minister reconcile information provided to us by B.C. Housing that he is 4,000 units short, in terms of units either built or under construction, with the claim in the budget of 6,500 units? Mr. Minister, you need to tell the people of British Columbia the actual figures in terms of housing built in the province.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: As I said before, I can't confirm to you today the precise figure on the numbers completed.

Interjection.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: That's an interesting thing. In Social Services, for instance, we have 144,000 files with different claims to deal with. The opposition might on any one day ask me about any of those files and expect that I would know the status of each one. We have a lot of other material and issues that we deal with in the ministry, but I will be happy to bring back the details of the program.

Interjection.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Yes, okay. But the briefing I had on that particular program very recently talked about substantially more units completed than that. As I said before, however, there are a number to be completed, and they are being held up because of difficulty in getting the zoning required in order to make them happen.

GOVERNMENT FORMS PRINTED IN U.S.

MR. G. JANSSEN: A question to the minister responsible for the Queen's Printer. We've heard a lot

[ Page 12255 ]

about the loss of business and jobs because of crossborder shopping. Yet I have here five forms clearly printed in the United States and supplied by the Queen's Printer. Can the minister responsible inform the House of the dollar amount of business being farmed to the United States while B.C. businessmen suffer?

HON. MRS. GRAN: I'm having some difficulty reading the form from over here. I'm not sure what the member has in his hand — it could be his own birth certificate.

I think it's always important for us in this House — especially the opposition when they're asking questions — not to malign public servants. The Queen's Printer is in my ministry. They are very proud of everything they do, and I can tell you that they would not do anything to hurt local business people unless the contract was absolutely necessary. But in answer to your question I haven't been able to answer many questions this time, so I am going to take some time to do it. I would be happy to bring back to the House the information that the member requests, and I thank him very much for the question.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I must caution the member for Alberni and all members that exhibits are not permitted in the House. You may ask leave to table documents later, but we shouldn't show exhibits. Ministers with failing eyesight can't be expected to read that distance in any event.

MR. G. JANSSEN: Clearly the Ministry of Finance, through the Queen's Printer, is getting documents printed in the United States when that business should be remaining in British Columbia. The minister responsible can waffle, can try to say that civil servants are dutiful people in this province — including the Minister of Finance, and we've just heard what kind of a deficit he's running. Why is this business not staying in British Columbia? Why is the Ministry of Finance having forms printed outside this province?

HOSPITAL LAUNDRY SERVICES CONTRACTS

MR. PERRY: I'll avoid the temptation to be an exhibitor here. Notice that I'm choosing my words very carefully today, Mr. Speaker.

This is a question to the Minister of Health. Yesterday the Minister of Health tabled a report on the Saanich Peninsula Hospital and Mount St. Mary Hospital laundries. Will the minister now confirm that in fact the true cost to the taxpayer of the contracts agreed to — against ministry regulations and hospital bylaws — was one-quarter of a million dollars per year, or $1.25 million over a five-year period? Will he explain why that information was not included in the ministry report?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'm having trouble following the member's logic. I'll take that question on notice, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The bell terminates question period. There are a couple of reports which require tabling, I'm advised.

Hon. Mr. Chalmers tabled the 1989-90 annual report of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries.

Hon. S. Hagen tabled the annual report of the Ministry of Advanced Education, Training and Technology for the year ended March 31, 1990.

MR. CLARK: I would like at this time to give notice of my intention to pursue a privilege motion upon reading the Blues as they come out later this afternoon with respect to the answer given today by the Minister of Finance.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair is so advised.

MR. BLENCOE: I would like to ask leave to table the minister's own document relating to housing statistics.

Leave not granted.

MR. G. JANSSEN: I would like to table the forms that clearly show that the government is involved in cross-border shopping in the United States.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, when I put the question I would like there to be some silence so that if objectors wish to say no, even quietly, the Chair can actually hear them. Shall leave be granted?

Leave not granted.

Orders of the Day

Budget Debate

(continued)

MR. PERRY: I couldn't help but observe during the immediately preceding question period the request of the hon. member for Vancouver East for the government to come clean. It brought back to me an old saying that I learned in my youth: cleanliness is next to godliness. It reminded me of one of the reasons that I entered politics originally, which was the perception two years ago that this government is actually one of the dirtiest governments in British Columbia history. It needs a darned good scrubbing. We all know that there's only one place that scrubbing will come from: it will be from the people of B.C., and we all hope that scrubbing will come soon. Even the atmosphere, which is....

Interjection.

MR. PERRY: "Maybe it will even be a purging," says the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam. But even the atmosphere in this chamber might be improved if the public is given the chance to select for itself some new representatives that do have the confidence of the

[ Page 12256 ]

people and are not the lame-duck government that we have now.

I couldn't help but observe during the very interesting remarks of the preceding speaker in this budget debate, the second member for Richmond, that I wished that those thoughts had not come so lamentably late in his parliamentary career, because I agreed with much of what he said.

I agreed with his comments about the need to improve access to housing for low and middle income people. I agreed with his principle that ownership of housing is, in principle, an excellent idea. I agreed with his comments entirely, and I must say he's the first member of his side of the Legislature I have ever heard advocate modest-sized housing which is energy efficient. He didn't specifically mention the words energy efficiency, unless I missed them, but he clearly had that in mind in his remarks. I couldn't help but think that if only a few years ago he and his colleagues in Richmond had been advocating the same ideas, perhaps we would not have had the fiasco of the Terra Nova land development in which some of the finest agricultural land, not only in the province but in the country called Canada, were paved over to build monster houses.

I've flown over those houses. I've driven by them. I've even cycled and walked by them, and I've seen that those houses violate exactly the principles that the second member for Richmond was talking about. They're energy inefficient. They are monster houses. They glorify the grotesque overconsumption of space and overconsumption of energy which has got our society into so much trouble. I find it late in the game, frankly.

I have to remark also of the sudden commitment to a renewed parliamentary democracy of which that member speaks: the sudden commitment to the committee system. I find sometimes methinks he doth protest too much, because that member, the second member for Richmond, was in fact the chair of the Select Standing Committee on Health, Education and Social Services last year, and that member is the very one who declined to allow that committee to sit, despite requests, despite even a motion on the order paper requesting that the committee sit.

And somehow I find it the epitome of hypocrisy to now, in the dying days of the Legislature, argue for frankness. I see the member for Langley shaking her head. She too chaired that committee, and she too refused to lift a finger to see that that committee could sit to consider, in a non-partisan way, some of the eight issues that I requested in my motion to be put to that committee.

[2:30]

And I remind members that, for example, the British Columbia tobacco smoking strategy was one of the matters we could have considered in a non-partisan way. For example, the potential for health education to improve health and control health care costs, the reform of the Pharmacare program to ensure maximum value to the public. Those were some of the non-partisan issues that I requested in every possible way the committee consider.

And since we are discussing the budget, let us remind ourselves that we legislators have all been paid on a bi-weekly basis to serve the public year-round. We could have been doing that committee work. We could have been serving the public more creatively than we do during these debates. And it was a government, composed of the second member for Richmond and his colleague the Minister of Women's Programs — two former chairs of that committee — who declined to let it ever sit. So let the public not be fooled by this last-minute graveside commitment to openness and honesty in government. Somehow I find that less than convincing.

Listening to the budget speech and looking at this document, I couldn't help but think back to the old Social Credit budgets in the old days of the former Premier, the late W.A.C. Bennett. I was just a young stripling then, and my father was a faculty member at UBC. University faculty members used to receive those budgets unasked for in the mail. But they were fun documents. My dad used to bring them home for me to look at the beautiful colour photographs. Perhaps some members will remember those days. They were interesting documents, and they were really all the advertising the government did. It did not waste $30 million per year, as this government has done, showing us lovely pictures of the former Minister of the Environment in that nice sweater that I complimented him on last year. It didn't waste money telling us about its taxpayer protection plan, which was about to be abdicated within months by the government. It confined itself to a simple, relatively dignified budget message that was widely distributed.

There was a difference in those budgets, whether one agreed with them or not. I didn't always agree with Mr. Bennett, the former Premier. But one thing he did have was some vision of where he was going. Again, I didn't always agree with that vision. I thought his vision for the unlimited, unrestrained development of hydroelectric resources — the flooding of river valleys for the Bennett Dam and Williston reservoir without ever even clearing the trees and without letting the local native people know that the water was rising.... I didn't agree with that. But at least that Premier had some vision of where he was going.

As I look at this document, I see no vision. I see a hodgepodge of ideas and what amounts to fed-bashing, fictitious and phony humanism, and fiscal finagling. I will explain some of those points as I go through. Let's consider the fed-bashing. The speech began with a completely cowardly and unwarranted attack on the federal government. Cowardly I say because of its hypocrisy. This government has taken every possible opportunity to bash a federal government that most Canadians, whether we like it or not, still respect as the government of our country. The speech argues that transfer payments should now be cut back. This is the same government whose former Premier, the now disgraced former Premier, argued strongly to Ottawa that the transfer payments should be cut because of the burgeoning federal deficit. I happen to share the concern over that burgeoning federal deficit; it alarms me as a taxpayer, as a citizen

[ Page 12257 ]

and as a public representative. That's not the way I run my finances; that's not the way I ran my medical practice. I don't intend to engage in that kind of personal financing in the future myself, nor do I intend that for the people of British Columbia or Canada.

However, you can't have it both ways. You can't argue that transfer payments be cut and then argue for them to be restored. You can't argue that the supreme concern now is the burgeoning federal deficit and also argue for more transfer payments, because like it or not — and I hope most of us like it still — we are a rich province. We are one of those provinces that pays more to Ottawa than we get back in taxation. Most of us would like Canada to remain based on that principle of federalism — that we see something beyond the limits of our province and the Rocky Mountains. As much as we love our province, we love our country more. Therefore to argue in a rich province that transfer payments be maintained amounts to arguing for more taxes to Ottawa so we can get some of it back. In effect that is what this budget speech does.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

I happen to believe that it's appropriate that we as a rich province contribute to the maintenance of national standards in health care, social services and education. Therefore I supported the concept of transfer payments, and I still do. But it is completely logically inconsistent to argue somehow that that will promote fiscal responsibility and federal deficit reduction. It's having your cake and eating it too, and it's not a very sanitary or tasty cake.

Mr. Speaker, let me turn to the fiscal finagling in this budget. I see on page 7, for example, the headline: "Efficient Government." I wonder what that could possibly mean. One might well wonder about that. Members on this side of the House have become used to needing to look hard for examples of efficient government.

I see the Minister of Government Services sitting there. I thank her for giving me the courtesy of listening to me. I wonder if she had in mind, when she contributed her suggestions to this budget development, the $1.2 million that was wasted on government flights for cabinet ministers flying around the province in the fiscal year that ended a year ago. Was that an example of efficiency?

I see the current Minister of Health, who has now left the chamber.... I recall meeting him on the tarmac in Quesnel once during the Cariboo by-election, when I'd gone up there out of funds provided by my party. He flew in on the government jet one day all by himself. I was locked in by the fog and couldn't fly out on the commercial jet. I heard something coming in, so I stuck around to see who got off it. There were two rather embarrassed-looking pilots and one passenger, the then Minister of Environment, the member for Prince George South. He had flown in to address the chamber of commerce during an election campaign.

I remember asking him — I won't use his first name here, but I was very friendly with him in those days, as I am now, and I used his first name — "Are you the only passenger on that plane?" I couldn't believe it. I was new to government then. I was coming from a university where, contrary to some people's expectations, we worry about spending $500 for a piece of scientific equipment. We have to write hundreds of pages to justify that sometimes. I saw him flying in on that plane and he said.... He used my first name; I suppose, Mr. Speaker, even you wouldn't grant me the indulgence of mentioning it here. But he used my first name in a friendly way and said: "That's the way it is when you're in government." That was efficient government, Mr. Speaker. That's what it meant to these people who sit on the government benches. Let's not kid ourselves that they have something else in mind.

What about Pharmacare funding? One of the reasons I urge the health committee to consider, in a bipartisan, non-political way, the issue of Pharmacare is that it is in a sense a sacred cow. It's very difficult to discuss reform of Pharmacare without frightening people, particularly the elderly. It needs to be done in a nonpartisan way. It needs to pool not only the intellectual talents but the political skills of us all to achieve a rational reform.

We've had a burgeoning Pharmacare budget in this province. Are our people really that much healthier thanks to all those drugs? Some of them are. But we've got one drug to lower cholesterol that I mentioned in the estimates debate last year; we've gone from zero to $3.3 million in two years for people over 65, without any evidence that that drug is beneficial.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why do you prescribe it, then?

MR. PERRY: I don't prescribe it. The member from Terrace asks why I prescribe it. I don't prescribe it, and I teach doctors not to prescribe it in that situation.

Interjection.

MR. PERRY: The member for South Peace River asks who does prescribe it. Physicians prescribe it, Mr. Speaker. And of course, there's a challenge there. That gives rise to the issue of how we best address control over irrational prescribing and the public's anticipation that such benefits should be forthcoming to them. Of course, physicians receive a lot of pressure from patients. They even receive pressure from the media and, of course, from drug companies urging that these drugs be prescribed.

This government has been unable to ensure an efficient Pharmacare service. Appropriately enough, it appointed a Pharmacare review committee in 1990, or perhaps in 1989. That committee still has not reported. The report should have been ready months ago, perhaps a year ago, because a report never tabled, never submitted or never published is useless to the people of B.C. Yet members of that committee are drawing $250 for showing up at a meeting. Where is the report? If you call that efficient government.... Well, sorry, we can do better than that. There's somehow a myth in this chamber that we can't, but we darn well can do a better job than that.

[ Page 12258 ]

What about the Saanich laundry to which I referred in question period? Here's an example of a hospital administrator exceeding his authority and ignoring the circular sent to the hospitals by the Ministry of Health. A board, violating its own bylaws as prescribed by the Ministry of Health, has sought to save itself $25,000 or $50,000 — a noble goal on its own — but at a cost of $300,000 to the total hospital system. That leads to a net cost to the taxpayers of $250,000 per year and $1.25 million over a five-year contract. At the same time, 15 unionized jobs are lost.

That is not my idea of efficiency in government; that is my idea of complete fiscal irresponsibility. It is absolutely crazy, and this government does not have the capability to control it. When it's exposed, it doesn't even have the decency to admit it. It censors a report of the kind that I have in my hands here. There is no mention of the cost of an apparently illegal contract like that. That's not my idea of efficient government. Perhaps it's the new acting, interim Premier's idea, and perhaps it's the idea of a few members of the government benches who still adhere to their own twisted and warped philosophy. But that is not the public's idea of efficiency in government.

What about the third parameter of that budget: the fictitious and phony humanism I referred to? I see some of my colleagues smiling in amusement. Sometimes in dealing with this government, there is no refuge except in humour. Sometimes it's impossible to take them seriously.

MR. MILLER: If you can't laugh, you'd have to cry.

MR. PERRY: If you can't laugh, you'd have to cry, and we'd be drowning in our tears by now.

HON. MR. CHALMERS: The thing is, I can't take you seriously.

MR. PERRY: I hear one of the members saying, "You can't take it seriously." I think that was the second member for Okanagan South. You can't take this budget seriously. I couldn't agree more.

On page 22: "Caring for Seniors." Imagine that, Mr. Speaker. You're a senior yourself, I think.

Interjections.

MR. PERRY: I hear members calling for order. They don't realize that it's a compliment to be called a senior in this province, and it always will be.

Mr. Speaker, can you imagine that? "Caring for Seniors." I think of two specific examples. I wonder if the budget was referring to the people of Kaslo? Mr Speaker, I think that you may know where Kaslo is; I'm not sure if all government members do. Kaslo is a small town on the banks of Kootenay Lake, a bit north of Nelson, where a large fraction of the population is seniors, virtually all of whom pioneered that part of the country. They built Kaslo, and they built the prosperity that we have in British Columbia now Many of them are veterans.

[2:45]

If they fall ill or infirm and require something more than home care — a service which has been slashed under the present government.... Home care hours have actually been cut, believe it or not, by about 27 percent in that community. If they fall ill or infirm, they must be deported to Nakusp for intermediate care.

I see the member for South Peace River laughing at that expression, but perhaps he doesn't know what the road is like between Kaslo and Nakusp. I've driven that in summer. I've never had the misfortune of driving it in winter, but even in a summer snowstorm, it's pretty rough. I see the member for Boundary Similkameen commenting that he has driven that road. It's not a great exaggeration to say that for an elderly spouse to be sent to Nakusp amounts to deportation. The same situation applies in Keremeos.

The people from Kaslo have been working as hard as they know how — heart and soul — to obtain some kind of modest intermediate care facility. When I visited the hospital there, nobody was in it. It was a virtually empty hospital with an average occupancy of 2.5 beds out of ten. If efficiency is having an empty hospital, when you've got people crying for intermediate care that could be converted out of that hospital — even a few of the beds converted so that people could stay in their own town.... That's not my idea of efficiency or humanism.

People in Keremeos face the same problem. There are many towns like that. In Keremeos the ministry tells them: "Fine, go over the hill to Summerland; Summerland's got lots of beds." What's it like to drive over that road in the winter if you're 80 years old and your spouse is in Summerland? Salmo's got the same problem, says the member for Rossland-Trail.

I don't see that as evidence of caring for seniors; I see bureaucrats in Victoria who know nothing of the problems. They see Kaslo and Nakusp on a map, and they think they're a quarter of an inch apart. Maybe these days they think in millimetres; that would be two or three millimetres maybe. Keremeos and Summerland look like about five millimetres apart on the map. It doesn't seem very far, but for some people it's a lot. And this is a government that has not done very much for those people.

There are so many things that I'd like to talk about. I hope we will get to the estimates debate, because I've got a lot to say on behalf of my constituents and of people not getting adequate health care in this province. But before I turn to that field, Id like to say something about the auditor-general's report.

One of the alarming things in this report.... I think other members have spoken about the complete inability of the Forest Service to supervise the conduct of forestry and the return to the public from the resource that we all own. Many other speakers have spoken about that and about difficulties and inadequacy in supervising the Highways accounts. Of course, we all know about the Coquihalla story.

But this auditor-general's report refers to the unfunded pension liability — $3 billion of unfunded liability or additional debt — for teachers and public service workers in the public service plan whose

[ Page 12259 ]

pensions are not guaranteed by law but who, according to the auditor-general, have the reasonable expectation that their pension commitments will be honoured. Yet according to the auditor-general's report, there is a $3 billion shortfall estimated right now, and government has taken no step to correct the actuary's advice that contributions be increased.

I don't plan my pension that way. My private pension is going to be very modest at my income, but I get everything I can into it because it is going to be so modest. I do not regard this as fiscal responsibility.

Let me turn to the fictitious and phony humanism I referred to. I found it rather galling and frankly, it was hard to know whether to laugh or to cry as I listened to the Finance minister last week ringing in the pealing bells of a new era of Social Credit thought. Well, anyone who believes that would not only buy the Brooklyn Bridge; they would probably buy the Coquihalla Highway for even more than the taxpayers paid for it. Or they would buy the Expo lands for a billion dollars when they could have had it for a $50 million down payment.

There's so much misery not attended to in this province; I think some of it needs to be spoken of in our chamber. I have here a letter sent to the second member for Cariboo from a young man who is dying of AIDS in Quesnel. I met him once in Quesnel, and the town had responded to him with exceptional humanism. I must say that it impressed me how people can see through the myths when they're given a chance. It has always struck me how much contrast there is between the government's response to the AIDS epidemic and the people of British Columbia when they see what's really happening.

This young man picked up his infection because of a mistake by government in the transfusion of contaminated blood products for hemophilia. The government did not want to spend a little bit more money to buy a product which was probably of higher quality. The government did not deliberately infect these people, but because it tried to scrimp and save a little bit of money, it ended up costing many hemophiliacs their lives. Many of them are still coping with the disease.

The federal government has come to terms with this issue and offered a modest compensation. The provincial governments have promised through the provincial Health ministers to address this issue, but they are dragging their feet and stonewalling, perhaps because they know that these young people don't have very long to live. If they stonewall long enough, there will be no compensation to be paid, because they will all be dead. I don't think that's fair. I think the requests of the hemophiliacs are reasonable — to allow some measure of protection to their families and, to this young man in Quesnel, some measure of assurance that his children will be looked after when he faces the inevitable consequence of that infection, and some peace during the final phase of his life. I don't think that's too much to ask when we know that cabinet ministers have been jetting around the province as the sole occupants of jets, running up multi-thousand-dollar bills just for their personal convenience.

1 have with me a letter from a young woman in Castlegar, Cathy Lafortune, who wrote to the Premier's Advisory Council for Persons with Disabilities to describe the situation of her young son Jeff. Her son is seriously and multiply disabled; he's quadriplegic and also has a severe mental disability. I visited her in Castlegar recently and saw what she describes in her letter. I quote from the letter:

"Jeff must sleep in a very small room in our basement" — remember, he's quadriplegic; he lives in a wheelchair — "down 15 stairs which turn a corner. He must be carried downstairs like a babe in arms. This is becoming less practical and more dangerous as he grows larger and heavier. Bathing him in one narrow bathroom is also quite difficult, and nearly impossible for me to do alone as I cannot lift him, and the space is really too small to make a lifting device practical.

"Our dream is to build Jeff a main-floor room, including a fully accessible bathroom with raised tub and adapted commode, so that he could begin to have bowel movements into a toilet instead of a diaper."

It goes on in this vein. It's hard to imagine when reading it that this is a young man who weighs about 80 or 100 pounds, and I think he is 18 years old. His mother took him back home after he'd been in a group home because she wanted to look after him at home with her husband. Yet once he is 18, he comes off the at-home program and is basically on his own, with an excessively modest pension which does not allow even for routine comforts and conveniences that he would be provided in an institution.

That woman has had no satisfaction from government. It doesn't take much visiting her house to see that she's courageous, that she's dealing with a situation few of us could handle and that her requests are modest. She wanted perhaps a low-interest or an interest-free loan so that she could remodel her house to make it more commodious for her son. That's not unreasonable, but where in this budget do we see any commitment to helping people like that? If we do, I have yet to believe it.

Mr. Speaker, I look at problems like the excellent report of the review committee on the Vernon Jubilee Hospital. Perhaps it's one of the strongest external reviews of a hospital that has ever been done in this province. They found virtually nothing wrong with it, except that they'd done their job too well. The ministry had accorded them a little extra money in order to catch up with their enormous surgical waiting-list. They did such a good and efficient job of it that they have caught up a lot with the surgical waiting-list, but they've overspent their budget. The review team, a very hard-nosed group of people, could not find areas to save money, so they suggested that they cut back on that program and let the waiting-list grow again. They did such a good job that they shouldn't have done it. Let those people out there wait for their medical treatment, instead of the review team facing the reality that the hospital was doing a fiscally responsible job and allowing them what they needed. Mr. Speaker, it's completely illogical, and if I were a member of that board or that staff — medical, nursing or other staff — I would be darned mad at this government. I hope they are next time.

[ Page 12260 ]

What about alcohol and drug programs? We still haven't had the Thornton report released that the opposition member for Prince George requested last year. The government is still sitting on it. Four hundred or five hundred copies are locked away in a safe — a report, the first of its kind, suggesting the true cost of alcoholism in our hospital system and observing that perhaps 25 percent of the hospitalized patients are there because of alcohol. What have we got but the cutback of that...?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sorry, hon. member, time has expired.

MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, it certainly gives me a great deal of pleasure to stand in my place and strongly support and endorse the budget as presented by our Minister of Finance. It's a budget that deals with the realities of today and at the same time focuses on the future, so that all British Columbians can continue to enjoy the quality of life that we have been enjoying under the Social Credit governments of this province. It deals with health care, social services and education words. While we're able to deliver these outstanding programs, we remain the financial envy of all the other provinces in Canada.

Let me deal with some facts, Mr. Speaker — not rhetoric but actual facts. When I talk about our province being the financial envy of all provinces in Canada, I'd like to give you some numbers which totally support that statement. Let's look at our net direct debt as a percentage of gross domestic product. Our number in British Columbia is 7 percent. That is 100 percent less than the next-lowest province in Canada, Alberta, which sits at 14.7 percent. Quebec is at 22.3 percent; Saskatchewan, 25.2 percent; New Brunswick, 27.2 percent; and our federal government, 67.8 percent.

Let's look at the cost of debt servicing, the cost on the basis of per dollar of revenue. In British Columbia 3.8 cents out of every dollar of revenue we receive goes towards servicing the cost of our debt. These are actual facts that cannot be disputed by rhetoric, Mr. Speaker. In Alberta, the closest province to us, it is 8.3 cents on every dollar. We go to New Brunswick, and it's 12.4 cents on every dollar; Manitoba, 11.3 cents; and our federal government, 20.7 cents on every dollar. Clearly that shows that successive Social Credit administrations in this province have been fiscally responsible We will continue to be fiscally responsible after we win the next election in this province.

I've listened with, I'd guess you'd almost have to call it, forced interest to the debate of the opposition relative to this budget. At best, I can say their debate is inconsistent. They made conflicting statements. And talk about hypocrisy! One example is we have your second member from Vancouver-Point Grey talking about additional funding for health care. We have the member for New Westminster talking about additional funding for education. We have the member for Prince George North talking about additional funding for welfare services in this province.

[3:00]

This budget has addressed all that but still maintains the realities of today as understood and reflects our fiscal responsibilities. But at the same time as your members, Mr. Member from Prince Rupert, are asking for additional funds, we have their Finance critic standing up and saying: "The budget isn't balanced, but we would balance it."

How can they have both worlds? How can they do that? Even they must realize that isn't possible. At least this government will face the realities of today and plan and focus on the future so we can balance the budget over a five-year cycle.

Yesterday I listened with a lot of interest to the member from North Island. He stood up and took some shots at us for dealing with Ontario. He said: "Look, I'm going to stand and talk about British Columbia." The members opposite have to understand that Ontario's economy is 42 percent of the total Canadian economy. They are the biggest province in Canada with 9.8 million people. Whatever happens there certainly has an effect on what happens in British Columbia in terms of national inflation rates, etc. The point is that this Social Credit government has the broad view. These people opposite have a very narrow view of things. We should be looking at Ontario, because it has an effect on our abilities in this province.

It was interesting to note that yesterday the same member took a very different point of view — in fact, statements conflicting with their opposition leader. We were talking about the so-called transition team that went to Ontario to assist them in planning their government after the NDP won there last August. It seems that the opposition Whip, the member for North Island, does not take the opportunity to discuss these things much with his opposition leader, because his point of view on that transition team was not exactly the same point of view that the opposition leader had.

Let me show you why. On April 27 the opposition leader is quoted in the Vancouver Sun as saying — he's talking about this transition team, and I think we have to make note of this — that the team reported directly to the opposition leader and was made up of "three or four members of caucus and resource people." The opposition leader went on to say that he wouldn't disclose who they are because they agreed it would be a discreet committee. Fair enough. If they did that and they provided that assistance, fine. We know the results of the assistance. But at that time at least he admitted that he did it.

Yesterday in this House the opposition Whip, the member for North Island, stood up and said: "No, no, no. There were no opposition members on the transition team. None of our resource people were there. We maybe had a transition game plan in place and we mailed it to them and maybe one particular member of our party might have gone down and talked to them a bit about it." But he said: "No elected opposition members down there. No resource people down there." His leader, as I said, said that three or four members of their caucus were down there, plus resource people.

Now what I'd like to know is: who indeed did go down there? What is the truth? There seems to be a

[ Page 12261 ]

conflict of opinion within their own caucus. Maybe they could just clarify it, because if they can't even agree among themselves on what happened in the past, how on earth could they ever agree among themselves with what would happen in the future — particularly when we have something as important as the future of the province of British Columbia?

Mr. Speaker, I want to make just two other points. Again these are facts. I want to talk about our revenue dollar, where we get it from. In British Columbia, 58 cents comes from taxation. In Ontario, in the '91-92 fiscal year, 78 cents comes from taxation. That may sort of show the balance for you.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, I just thought it was important that we bring these conflicting statements up when I heard the second member for Vancouver-Point Grey talking about conflicting statements, inconsistency and hypocrisy. I really wish he'd look into his own tent before making those accusations over here. Because I think it is very misleading on their part to be proceeding in that manner. You can't have it both ways. So please, some consistency in your debate.

Since taking office five years ago this government has done a lot for British Columbians, a lot for our riding in Langley, Fort Langley, Aldergrove, Walnut Grove, Murrayville, Brookswood — tremendous communities. The whole range of provincial government programs has been generously funded. The result is more and better services benefiting more British Columbians in every region of the province as well as Langley.

In particular, there have been tremendous gains in health care, education and advanced education. I'd like to take a moment and talk about a few of those as they relate to our own riding in Langley. Just this year we had the announcement of a new site and the planning money for Kwantlen College in Langley. That will result in a new $30-35 million facility to provide advanced education to address the needs of our community.

The talk and action is towards a new university in the Fraser Valley. It is a much-needed facility that should be carefully planned and then placed in an area that meets not only the needs of today but the growth potential of tomorrow. I'm very confident that we shall move on this in the correct way. It'll be a facility that everybody in the Fraser Valley will be very proud of.

Mr. Speaker, we have made a lot of gains without going into the red to pay for them. Fiscal achievements include two balanced budgets and a reduction of the provincial debt. This year's budget builds on those achievements. Programs for people are stronger and better funded than ever before. We are building for the future, making capital investments and building schools, hospitals and highways in every region of the province.

We're paying as we go. We have introduced new fiscal controls and taxpayer protection to ensure that government spending stays in line with the taxpayer's ability to pay. That's the bottom line — the taxpayer's ability to pay. We have made it a legal requirement for the government to balance the budget over a five-year period. The '91-92 budget is year one in that cycle.

Interjection.

MR. PETERSON: We did it for two consecutive years. Never has an NDP administration been able to accomplish anything like that. This is a good budget for an uncertain economy. It is compassionate to those in need and makes investments to build for the future. It is affordable and responsible.

MR. BARNES: The member for West Vancouver Howe Sound wants me to talk a little about football. You'd have to be a football player to be able to withstand the punishment that this budget imposes. We have exposed the budget quite consistently as having been grossly deceptive and a misrepresentation of the facts. I'm not as conversant as some of my colleagues with breaking down the various entries and dealing with the various ways in which you can create fronts and covers such as the BS fund — whether you have any money in them or not, to be able to show them as part of your fiscal resources.

I'm going to try and appeal to the government once again, as I did during the throne speech debate in my remarks with respect to facing the serious responsibilities of government when it comes to people services. We are politicians, and we can have dialogue with each other and play games as far as one-upmanship and so on is concerned. But the reality is that someone has to pay for the shortfalls in terms of our wisdom and judgment in making good sense of what we're doing. The results are irrefutable, and you can see the results. It doesn't matter what we say to each other or how we try to pretend that something is what it isn't, the facts and the results are there for everyone to see. If we are negligent in terms of properly assessing the needs of social programs in the community — and they are unlimited — then those results are going to be seen by the consequences on the lives of people.

I have been spending quite a bit of time lately talking to people who work with young people. In fact, I've held meetings with youth workers right across the lower mainland for the last month or so. The reason I've done this is that although I have a background as a former social worker who has worked with drug addicts, who has worked in jails and correctional institutions, who has been a parent for many years — having raised four children myself — and whose heart is in the right place, I realize this doesn't mean that I am as informed as I need to be about the current situation on the streets today.

I could be rather condemning of the government because, let's face it, it has effectively ignored the point that I'm going to try to make with respect to services for young people. But they know that. There is a different view of what the government's role is, and we know that as well.

[3:15]

The government has been scrambling. As we know, the government is going to be bringing in $12 million

[ Page 12262 ]

or so to deal with child care programs and $4 million for violence against women, family violence. We don't quite know how they're going to use that money or whether that money has any relationship whatsoever to the needs. It's good, though. It does get their name in print to show that they are doing something. They can now associate themselves with the rhetoric. But what real effort has this government made to find out the facts and what is required?

Mr. Speaker, I suspect that what is happening and what has been happening in this chamber and what this budget is really all about is politics. Because that's how you play the game — all over the world. It's nothing unusual. What I'm saying is that it's about time we stopped and thought about the results of the politics we're playing.

Just to give you an example, last week the first member for Vancouver–Little Mountain stood in this House and asked the Solicitor-General if he would approve conducting public forums that would include parent s, professional people, community workers and the youths themselves to go around and try and find out what we can do about the violence that is happening and is being measured out by youths against themselves. She was motivated by a rather atrocious, offensive action by a youth against a young girl. This has been going on and on. There was nothing unusual about her revelation in her request.

The point is, politicians are very good at making dramatic statements that give attention to themselves, whereby they can get recognized in the community as being identified with an issue. But there has to come a time when we want to find out what we can do about it. Now those public forums that the former minister, the first member for Little Mountain, was suggesting we conduct and that the Solicitor-General suggested the opposition members and any other MLA have input into.... The point is, that's all been done. It's been done many times. It's nothing new. And to what end would you conduct these forums? This is a sad enough situation.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: There are answers, hon. member. There are definitely answers, and I'm going to try to get to some of those answers. First of all, you've got to be sincere.

I can recall when the former Attorney-General, Mr Brian Smith, went down to a forum at Britannia Community Centre three years ago — 1988 — and he stole the show. The press were there and all these sincere community workers were there trying to find solutions to a very serious problem. That was a public forum in which a politician went in and grabbed the headlines and condemned all these hoodlums, and said that we're going to get more police, we're going to start cracking down and we're going to every.... It was all negative. There was no understanding about what's happening within the lives of these young people. We don't think people are doing things for no reason. The tragedy is that we're not unique in British Columbia, and I want to make that clear.

Although I'm attacking the Social Credit government because I don't think they're doing their part, I don't think the work is being done anywhere when it comes to young people. Every day when I wake up in the morning I know I can pick up the paper and start reading about something's that's wrong with the young people: they're falling through the cracks, they're dropping out of school. We've got so many youngsters dropping out of school today that most of our programs should be special-needs programs on the streets, because young people today don't seem to be fitting into the public school system the way they should. They're not able to relate.

There's too much bombardment on the part of commercialism — enticement to get rich quick, buying lottery tickets, finding some quick way to make a buck. There is no quick way to make any money. But we're not doing the job, and we're not communicating with them. In fact, we're setting a bad example ourselves.

We've gone from a measly half a million dollars that we used to generate in lottery money to something like — what is it? — half a billion today. In total, we generate $500 million in lottery money. People buying lottery tickets are ten times less likely to win than be struck by lightning, which chance is probably one in half a million. But it gets up into the billions when it comes to trying to win some money in the lottery system that we're running in this province. And people are out there trying to make a buck.

We're not a very good role model. We're not a very good example of what should be happening in this place. I have done my homework, I've got the notes here, but when I look at the work that's been done.... We were talking about forums. There was one in North Vancouver. It was in the Speaker's riding; he recalls that. It was at the Capilano Community Services Centre about a year ago. What was the result of that forum talking about what the public's perceived needs were? Nobody there was saying we've got the money in place. No one was saying we've got the workers in place. No one was saying we've got the sensitive understanding in place.

One of the tragedies is that when it comes to youth and violence, it makes a good press. It is awfully easy for the press to report the violence of some young person. But when you go back and do the profile on that person's life — where they've come from.... Then you connect it with the things you're talking about, what you're going to do when the $4 million is reduced — violence in homes, alienation, neglect.

Not only that, we have a lot of people coming to this country who have not been properly settled — for instance, the Vietnamese community. They come from a country where some of them are rural, some urban; some of them are from the north, some from the south. Actually, they may not look upon themselves as being either Chinese or Vietnamese. They don't have an integrated community, and they may become alienated from society. There are about 18,000 in the greater Vancouver area.

But who's aware of what is needed to settle these new Canadians? It's as though we are an ad hockery operation. There is no central administration or central

[ Page 12263 ]

intelligence. There is no body...although cabinet ministers do get together to discuss social services and programs. But they have no specific mandate to do anything.

There isn't anything in this budget about youth other than the fact that you're going to get more prosecutors, enforcers and investigators to try and stop the crime, because the crime is where the emphasis is. But these youngsters don't have any options. I'm not saying that we should be bleeding hearts and just give them everything; I'm saying let's have some dialogue. If the first member for Vancouver–Little Mountain had said, "We are going to encourage meetings where we sit down with the youth themselves for a change instead of sitting down with their parents, schoolteachers and the police — all of us professionals, " I would have been more impressed, because that's what has to happen. We have got to start talking to the young people themselves.

I don't think we understand what is happening when young people rebel the way they do. We do not take time. There was no mention of anything to do with these kinds of things in this budget, and I'm sure that when we get down to detailed debate, we'll find that we have simply neglected that area.

Sure, there will be programs in Social Services and Housing to deal with certain kinds of community programs, especially with women and child care. The government is beginning to pick up on some of those programs. But I would like to see where in your budget you're going to be dealing with funds for youth leaders, the young men and women who are right on the streets — the John Turveys of the world. John Turvey happens to be paid by the city of Vancouver and Downtown Eastside social planning. He's not paid a dime by the province. As a matter of fact, I don't know of any youth workers who are paid any money by the province. The Youth Advisory Council was involved in paying for one person in Britannia Community Centre — something like $50,000 a year or so ago — but they haven't put any more money into it since then. We do not have a strategy to deal with youth, and the minister asks me: "What should be done?"

If we're seriously committed to young people.... We talk about young people as our most precious resource, and when I hear that I often wonder what we are talking about. Our resource? They're not trees; they're not renewable in the sense that when their lives are destroyed and their hearts are broken, they can be fixed up that easily. People have long memories and their pain grows deep. So when they're battered around and beaten and they become violent and start to act out, who's listening? Who cares? The first thing we want to do is condemn them and make them heel.

We don't understand. I'm not suggesting I understand, but I know the first way to understand is to begin to have dialogue to communicate with these people. If we start to do that and give them the sense that they matter and that we can listen, we would begin to get on the right track. Simply by default, we're just not dealing with it, Mr. Speaker. Like I say, it's a universal problem; it's worldwide. In some countries that we do business with, it's even worse.

Here's a headline: "Young and Violent." That headline in itself speaks; you don't need to read the text. Who ever asked the question: "Why would these young people be violent?" Are they learning it from their parents? Are they learning it from society? Can we do anything about this, or should we just turn our backs? I find it very disturbing. Here are society's angry young victims in the piece in the Vancouver Sun.

The law is deaf to the pleas of a hooker's mother. She's probably trying to save her daughter. There was a lady in North Vancouver who went out on the streets a year or two ago and desperately tried to save her daughter. All we can do is feel sorry for her. We can do a lot more than that. It's not so much the money that we're talking about. We're talking about respect for people's humanity and having the time of day for them.

There are many requests being made. I know there's one made by the First Baptist Church in my riding. They will be making an application soon to put up a transition house for young people coming onto the streets. One of their big concerns is that they have to wait so long before they can get any help. These youngsters come on the street. They say: "There's one who just got here — brand-new. If we can get him right away, and we had some way to intercede...." But they don't. There is nowhere they can go.

If a youngster suffers from a psychotic episode of some sort, forget it. We don't have the facilities or the strategy in place. We don't have the department, the ministerial responsibility or the statutory commitment to do anything. It's like: well, we'll do what we can. British Columbia spends peanuts compared to every other province.

MR. SERWA: We don't even grow peanuts.

MR. BARNES: Let me say to you that what you provide wouldn't buy a bag of peanuts in terms of the real needs in the ethnocultural community.

I say that because it's the ethnic communities that make the news. We've had gangs ever since there has been a country — people hanging out. They're not necessarily bad or violent; they're just gangs. As soon as these visible minorities are seen in a gang or anything happens, it makes a great threat because people are already fearful and feeling somewhat threatened by these new arrivals or these different looking people. We're neglecting these people, our responsibilities and our duty to the public and to these new Canadians. They're not given a very good impression about our understanding of what it is like for them to come to this country and to adjust.

[3:30]

Of all the multicultural agencies in this province, only one — I think it's Mosaic — gets about $100,000 or so from this government. The others get nothing; I mean zero. The federal government is the one that sponsors and pays. Even the federal government doesn't pay enough. I'm not talking about a big-ticket item that would go in the budget. You probably could

[ Page 12264 ]

pay for every one of the multicultural societies and service agencies in this province for maybe $5 million a year. You could take care of them in a sustaining way, not just an ad hockery, grantsmanship type of thing where people get the money after they have had to cut the program off — the money doesn't tie in with their budget. This is a real problem. It is at the Immigrant Services Society, which is a typical example. They deal with immigrant women and try to get them prepared to go into the workforce. They don't have the dollars. Or they get an approval from the government, but they don't get any money After they've waited and borrowed from the bank on their line of credit, they finally run out of credit, and they have to close down the program. Then six months later the government sends them the money. The government doesn't understand how important it is for these organizations to get their money on time.

I'll tell you, had you done this, you could have gotten my vote, at least on that one item. Had you said, "We're going to put some commitment to the rhetoric about youth being our most valuable resource, because we don't like these headlines we're seeing every day, we don't want to see any more youngsters being battered by each other...." We don't want to see situations where the learning centre in my riding is having to close down because the government is reclassifying it. It's going to put the responsibility on the Vancouver School Board, which obviously does not have enough money in its block fund to carry on with the programs they already have. The Attorney-General was saying: "Well, we can't handle it any more." This is what I mean: it's too difficult to get a handle on, but the fiscal thinking and fiscal planning are in relation to social need. They don't compute. And that has to change.

So I'm saying, Mr. Speaker: let's make a commitment to go to the source, to get the young people working for themselves and with themselves and having serious dialogue with government. If you're going to have a Youth Advisory Council, as we have, then give them some real work to do. Let them get involved in assessing the realities of what it's like to be on the streets. Deal with these young people. Let the young people themselves talk about what should happen.

You'll recall that a few years ago we had a young man, an MLA called Bob Skelly. We all tried to make jokes about him because of his nervous condition, which was something that could happen to anybody, but we thought it was cute. He had some bad luck in the election. Bob Skelly had a private member's bill, a youth guarantee act. I don't know how much it flew out there but when you go back and read it, he was saying: "Look, any government that is not in a position to make a commitment to its youth is self-destructive, because every young person.... " We're beginning to recognize it as far as child care programs are concerned, from the cradle right through to the grave, because we have to deal with senior citizens as well. Living in dignity begins from the time you are born, and we have to have a strategy that recognizes that at every phase of development.

Our public school system seems to be only for the survival of the fittest, not because the educators want it that way but because they don't have the resources or the commitment. You talk about commitment in politics — and gamesmanship.... But what's going to happen to your Year 2000? The government has this glowing report from the Sullivan commission on how we can improve the effectiveness of our public school system for young people. What's going to happen to that? It seems like the government's budget does not include the infrastructure you will need to work out those plans and programs, to cope with that transition, because we're talking about a transformation of the public school system. Your budget shows that you're cutting back instead of being prepared for that. What happened to that dream?

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

Some people have been saying some interesting things, I think. A couple of MLAs have been saying that the British parliamentary system — parliament as we know it — is going to have to grow up, because no matter how much politics we play, we do have to live with our consciences. We cannot afford to allow our irresponsible acts to impact on the lives of those people out there relying on us. I think there is a correlation between our behaviour in here and the results out on the streets, and it's getting to the point where I find it intolerable, quite frankly. I don't stomach it very well, because I know we could do a whole lot better. We are squandering money away, shovelling it out the back of a truck. This is a $16.5 billion budget, but what is its effect in terms of real services to people?

It's not just the money. It's a government being proactive and prepared to be a hands-on government — not standing up in here and making speeches, but being able to go out and know what you're talking about because you've been out relating with the people and know what the issues are. They're inspired because they know the government cares. When they do demonstrate a need, as has been demonstrated throughout these various forums that have taken place year after year right across the province, they know they don't have to go from ministry to ministry to try to find somebody with some responsibility in order for them to get some money. That shouldn't happen. That's a disgrace. It's unconscionable and irresponsible for us to have to do that.

The answer is cooperation and coexisting with respect, each and every one. We're concerned about what it would take to become a Canadian. No matter what it may take, if it doesn't start off with fundamental humanity and principles that deal with decency, then none of that other stuff is going to work, because that's the problem.

You don't have to go to a culture like ours with races and religions from all over the world, people with different viewpoints. You go to a country where it's pure white or pure black, if you can find such a place, and you'll find the same forces at play: greed, neglect and selfishness, where there is this sense of irresponsibility and disrespect for humanity.

[ Page 12265 ]

There is something fundamental that we're talking about, something more common even than the multicultural diversity that we have in this society. There is something very basic that people feel. They talk all the time about feeling alienated. Recently I've gone to native youth conferences, one in Salmon Arm, and this is what they talk about: their humanity. I was at one just recently out here at Totem Park at UBC, and they talk about the same thing. It doesn't matter where, you go; the first thing that comes out of people's mouths is: "I feel alienated. I don't feel like I'm respected. I'm not treated like I belong." So basic. That's what governments are going to have to do. In the future, that's what we have to understand. We cannot just carry on dealing with dollars and writing numbers and having academic discussions between ourselves. We're going to have to realize that there has to be a result, a product at the end of our activities.

I've just concentrated on this one point. I know there are other points with respect to this budget. A lot of them are politics as usual. I'm sure that other members have talked about the fact that it looks as though senior citizens are going to have to be pretty well off in this province, because there have been no escalator clauses in their funds such as SAFER, seniors' allowances and programs to sustain them to carry on. Those are maintained in the budget with no great increase. The point is that unless you've got some money, it's going to be tightening up. Rents are going up. Costs are going up. You've increased the deductible on their prescriptions. Things like that are all going to squeeze people a little more. We could go on and on. My colleagues have touched on most of these points.

One fundamental thing I can say in closing, which puts the cap on everything, is that the Provincial Secretary-cum-Minister of Finance and Economic Development minister, and now Provincial Secretary again, amended the Election Act a few years ago. I recall myself and the member for Surrey–Guildford Whalley fighting and trying to get him not to take away the basic right to register to vote right up to the moment the polls closed. The reason for that is fundamental. You don't play around with things like that. We did, of course, and they can no longer do that. We're probably the only province in Canada that has that. In the municipalities it's the same thing. But the point is that those are the kind of games we're playing.

We're the last province to recognize the right of 18-year-olds to vote. We haven't dealt with that yet. But we know full well that these young people — the ones I just finished talking about — might take exception to the government's thinking on what programs should be. You don't want to give them the right to vote, and you have the power not to do it. But is it the right thing to do? That's an example of what I mean.

This budget has been analyzed from just about every point, and I'm obviously not going to be supporting it. But in saying that, it's with great regret that I wouldn't have an opportunity to do something quite dramatic by standing up here and saying: "I cannot deny the fact that the government is finally recognizing a specific area of responsibility, and it has created something very...."

Mr. Speaker, this budget speaks for itself. There's no point in me carrying on. I've been talking about the youth of this province and their needs and about the way they are behaving as a result of neglect or indifference on the part of the government. I know there will be those who will argue with me and say that I don't know what I am talking about. But I will say: "Don't talk to me; I'm just the messenger." I've been out listening to young people, the people in the communities and the schools.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm sorry, hon. member, your time has expired.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I want to make reference to an article in a paper delivered to the business law subsection of the Canadian bar this past March. I wonder if, for that purpose, I might have leave to table the document I'm going to be referring to.

Leave granted.

MR. SMITH: It was with a great deal of interest that I listened to my good friend the member for Vancouver Centre. I was surprised and somewhat disappointed at the end of his speech when he indicated that he would not be voting in favour of this budget. What he had to say certainly was worth listening to because he — I think perhaps as much as anyone in this chamber — has a very fundamental understanding of some of the issues we have to deal with, particularly in relationship to young people, born of the fact that he has spent a good deal of time on the streets as a social worker assisting young people.

So I must say that, given that experience and the fact that this budget fully discloses a $1.2 billion increase in the amount of money dedicated to health, education and social services in this province — the overwhelming majority of which will be expended in and around the city of Vancouver, and much of which in turn will be expended on some of the programs that the member has advocated for a very long time.... I say again that I was surprised and somewhat disappointed. that he was not able to support that which he has advocated so often in this chamber.

Mr. Speaker, in addressing the motion before us, I want to discuss several matters that I raised or referred to in the throne speech. Among other things, I want to discuss some government initiatives, especially performance reviews and evaluation audits within the Ministry of Finance.

[3:45]

I want to further examine the work of some administrative tribunals, and I want to talk a bit about competition and concentration in our society, as well as the business of creating jobs and wealth in the future — especially as it relates to rural British Columbia.

During the decade of the 1990s the need for capital, the need for capital formation and the need for access to capital will become the field of greatest competition between nations around this world. That competition

[ Page 12266 ]

to attract capital results from changes that are now occurring in eastern Europe, the great expanding trade blocs emerging in Asia, the liberalization of trade from and within Latin America and the sea change now occurring within all sectors of industrialized economies. That competition for capital will be the root driver of our trade policies, our taxation policies, our regulatory levels and the amount of debt government will be able to impose upon its citizens.

British Columbia is historically, geographically and socially in a favoured position to be a major player in new capital formation as well as a major beneficiary of the capital formed. We are in that position because we have a history of ensuring that jobs in the resource sector of our province, typically found in rural British Columbia, are supported by capital formation vehicles typically found in urban B.C. I celebrate that historic relationship and implore this House to ensure that it continues, because our resource sector is changing rapidly, and with that rapid change are coming new, expanded capital needs for both retooling and diversification.

Our geography has positioned us well in relation to Europe, the western United States and the Pacific Rim, but most importantly we are favoured geographically by being part of a nation which is a player in world governing organizations and which is attractive to investors everywhere.

Socially we have organized ourselves so that free enterprise is the dominant public economic value. Our education system supports expanding future-oriented knowledge-based industries, and our regulatory system, in the main, has not been an impediment to growth, improvement and innovation.

It is important that we maintain these fundamental advantages. It is also important that we ensure our own administrative agencies do not compromise our natural advantages through immaturity, inconsistency or inadequacy.

During debate earlier in the session I referred to the status of the presumption of innocence in this province generally, and at that time I raised particular concern about the role of administrative tribunals. Today I want to further that discussion by apprising this House of some of the concerns now commonly being raised about the quality of activity undertaken by one of those tribunals, namely the Securities Commission, and its adjunct agency, the office of the superintendent of brokers.

The former chairman of the Financial Services Commission, Leon Getz, QC, a pre-eminent barrister and UBC law professor, on March 20, 1991, presented a paper to the business community and to the business law subsection of the CBA, which I suggest should be studied by all in this chamber who are interested in this issue. Getzs paper raises issues that must be addressed and will be addressed, and to which I'll refer later.

The accumulating evidence points squarely to a need for fundamental change in both jurisdiction and leadership personnel associated with the commission and the superintendent's office. Speaking to a Simon Fraser University class on the topic "Managing Public Companies in 1989," the present superintendent set out his fundamental administrative philosophy, should he assume a position of authority. It's a philosophy which I think spoke more to personality than to process. That was before he was appointed. Subsequent revelations indicated much about his methodology, and the speed with which he would move away from the highly respected work that had been done by his predecessors. Later in 1989 the superintendent's lawyer shed further light on this methodology — this new enforcement philosophy — when in the presence of three other lawyers, the chief investigator and a businessman, he said: "Someone has to take the blame in this Laing-Cruickshank affair, because this businessman has a high profile. My client is the securities commissioner, and the press is all over this issue." During a more recent hearing before the commission, a supposedly independent mineral-expert report was submitted by the superintendent's office. In fact, subsequent review discovered that the superintendent's investigator had made handwritten notes on the draft report, which somehow found their way into the final version of this so-called independent expert report.

These incidents are not stand-alone events. Instead, they are crisp, Morse-code signals to all who can listen. At the very time when British Columbia needs consistent, enlightened, evenhanded experience acting as the administrative tribunal supervising capital formation in our province, we instead have an organization desperately needing overhaul of its processes, its personnel and the scope of its jurisdiction. Not the least of this is the mandate in procedural issues involving the awarding of costs by a tribunal which, through our own Financial Administration Act, is permitted — if not expected — to be self-financing. That sounds like the essence of conflict.

Today there is little dialogue by commission and superintendent with the investment community. The hallmark of regulatory discretion is uncertainty by those who are regulated. The necessary balance between enforcement of policy initiatives to enhance the market and business development has been eroded. Commission hearings are presumed to be foregone conclusions because of the assumed relationship between the superintendent and commission officials. Service to the industry — especially processing of material — has declined in a relatively slow market, even as the fee structure now is higher than several competitor jurisdictions in the United States and Canada.

I raise these matters because if we are to succeed in this vital area of competition during this decade, we must move now to establish an administrative system that sensibly defines and protects the public interest while furthering the building of a vital service industry in this province.

The great competition of the nineties will be for the formation and attracting of new capital. British Columbia is positioned to be the number one North American venue for that purpose. A major factor in determining our success or failure will rest with the kind and quality of administrative practices developed with and between the commission, the public and the marketplace. To date, our system and its personnel are simply

[ Page 12267 ]

not meeting the challenge associated with the historic opportunity that is before us all. The cult of personality has inflicted itself on that particular administrative tribunal to such an extent that its processes disclose the confusion about, if not a merger of, means and ends.

In the budget documents, there is considerable discussion about performance reviews, evaluation audits and value-for-money analysis of programs to be undertaken by the Ministry of Finance. These new procedures are to be commended and encouraged because they build on our very fine tradition of public service delivery and sound administrative practice, which is frequently recognized by independent observers. Indeed, Professor Cutt of the UVic School of Public Administration, writing for the IPAC organization in 1988, pointed out that Social Credit administrations, beginning in 1976, established in this province the most advanced frameworks for public and financial administration anywhere in Canada. As we criticize and seek improvement, we should also recognize we've done well, and I urge all MLAs to begin by reading the highly important and informative analysis Professor Cutt did in that document, which is entitled "Budgeting in the Provinces."

I also wish to say that the evaluation process for programs announced by the minister ensures that audits occur within the framework of responsible parliamentary government. It does not compete with the policy work of MLAs, and it includes knowledge of the policy trades that have to be made when establishing programs. That evaluation work, in turn, will properly be subject to our auditor-general's own examination. But I say again that the audit of major public policy choices that the auditor-general is presuming to develop is not where MLAs who are seeking a greater role for themselves should be allowing an official of this chamber to be headed. It appears that the act under which the auditor-general operates does not authorize this scope of activity. It is, therefore, by some other route he has taken his authority. The question of how much is spent on this form of activity relative to other forms of audit should, at the minimum, be a line item in the auditor's annual budget proposals. Only then can MLAs properly answer the question of who audits the auditor.

[4:00]

Mr. Speaker, an important developing public policy issue involves the matter of competition and concentration. I raise it because in Canada we are now examining jurisdictional reform under our constitution. In my view, the need to deal with competition issues arises on two fronts: on the one hand, it may be that for purposes of competing in some world commodity markets, we are going to have to openly examine greater concentration of production assets; on the other hand, we must resist the concentration we see in the petroleum-refining sector, for instance.

On the service side, British Columbia must play a role in ensuring that Toronto-based multinationals like Southam Inc. cannot successfully offend the competition law, as they are trying to do through monopoly control of community newspapers in and around Vancouver. The actions of Southam's Pacific Press are not in the public interest, and I think that we have to have a stronger and faster response to that kind of behaviour. It seems to me that one way to do that is for a provincial role to be an important option to be examined during the coming constitutional talks.

As well, the budget raises and discloses some interesting choices for public expenditure. In the Kamloops constituency, we are pleased to see a continued commitment to education, health care, our new university-college of the Cariboo and the increased moneys for forestry, agriculture and native affairs. We appreciate the need to preserve programs for people and to enhance our environment, but we also recognize the need to build up our province's ability to pay for these programs and the need to create wealth, jobs and opportunity for our children. That is why we in Kamloops shudder to think that the transition team from this province's NDP was the self-admitted crack team setting the new Ontario government's fiscal track to financial tragedy

Yesterday I listened to a member chiding the government in this House by saying that this transition team, after all, is a planning team — the team that was going to demonstrate that they could plan and Social Credit could not. If this is evidence of planning, if this is evidence that what has come out of the Ontario budget is not some aberration — as these people claim Dave Barrett was — and if this is evidence of a planned, thought-out response to fiscal management, then I can well understand why the people of Kamloops, as well as Prince Rupert, shudder to think that that kind of activity and fiscal management would and could be visited upon the province of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, they've had transition teams before. I know they had one before the '83 election and before the '79 election. I don't think we should get too excited about these transition teams, because although their work may be characterized as planning, I suspect that at the end of the day it will be shown to be a little bit more about daydreaming than it is about planning.

However, he told a Vancouver newspaper when he was bragging about their prowess that this transition team — which apparently gave advice to the Ontario government to provide for the kind of budget we're now seeing saddled on the people — reported directly to him. That's what he told a Vancouver newspaper, at least. Assuming that they use the Vancouver newspaper so frequently to be quoted, I presume they believe what is in the Vancouver newspapers. He said they reported directly to him and were made up of three or four members of his caucus as well as some resource people.

I think the public has a right to know who these people are. I'm sure that as a precursor of the kind of freedom-of-information example the Leader of the Opposition would want to set, the Leader of the Opposition will now lift the veil around his so-called discreet committee and name the people who were on that transition team and helped the New Democratic government in Ontario write the most disastrous budget ever presented in Canadian history.

[ Page 12268 ]

As I listen to the NDP discuss this budget, I'm reminded of the enduring truth that this place always needs more shoes that have stepped on field muffins than have walked up escalator steps, because the NDP is never satisfied as to how far they're prepared to put their hand in your pocket. As I listen, I'm reminded of the NDP newspaper vendor who for ten years had a Socred silently go by every morning and drop a quarter into his hand but never take a paper. One morning in the eleventh year the NDP vendor stopped the man and said: "Do you mind if I ask you a question?" Startled somewhat, the Socred replied: "I suppose you're going to ask me why all these years I've given you a quarter and never taken a paper." "No, " said the NDPer, "my question to you is: do you know that newspapers now cost 50 cents?"

Listening to the NDP in here for five years has led me to conclude that their promises are as foolish as they are simplistic. It's the promise of disaster, it's hope by the hopeless, it's management by Mandrake. It's the eternal NDP position that somehow British Columbians can simultaneously have Swedish-level social services as they pay American-level taxes. Well, if the folks eventually buy that line, then Barnum finally will have been proved correct.

But they won't buy it. They won't buy it just as in 1933, 1937, 1941 and 1945, the people of Kamloops and Savona and Birch Island and Wire Cache and Avola, and indeed all British Columbians, said yes to Bob Carson, and they rejected in those years the option of socialism. And it's how Syd Smith earned the people's vote in 1949 when they said no to our friends opposite. The folks painted the slopes of Mount Paul with the words: "Go, go Gaglardi!" in 1952 and 1953 and 1956 and 1960 and '63 and 1966 and 1969. Yes, in 1972 they responded to Dave Barrett, the first socialist they'd ever met who had the deceptive appearance of a good sense of humour. They sent to this House my good friend Gerry Anderson, but even a hard worker like Gerry Anderson could not stop the people from pulling their hands out of the hot embers of statism in 1975 and restoring freedom and free enterprise to British Columbia when they said yes to Rafe Mair and did again in 1979.

On my birthday in 1981, the people said "no thanks" to our friends opposite and "you betcha" to the first member for Kamloops, whom they returned in 1983. Even though the NDP had a transition team at the ready and at work before the 1986 election, Kamloops — like the rest of British Columbia — rejected NDP socialism. The people will do so again in 1991, so that they can continue that tradition on into the election of 1995-1996, and thereafter into the century that is coming.

This is a strong budget, delivered by an outstanding Finance minister who is part of the best government team in Canada, a Finance minister who has already cleaned the opposition's clock so often in question period that they feel like they're now in a Maytag demonstration. I therefore ask all fair-minded members in this House to vote yes to the motion that's before us.

MR. MILLER: I wanted to correct the record with respect to a couple of points.

First of all, I would make the observation that the second member for Kamloops obviously has a great deal of time on his hands these days, now that he's no longer in cabinet, to craft these arcane speeches that I'm afraid have absolutely no impact on members on your own side, Mr. Member. But keep up the good work. You have kind of a nice literary turn of phrase. Who knows, there might be hope for you in another occupation yet.

I notice the members on the government benches looking on with some eagerness. Perhaps the vacuum of leadership on your own side compels you to feast your ears and eyes on the second member for Kamloops in hopes that there is indeed a Messiah who's going to lead you out of this political wilderness. But I doubt it. I'd also make the observation that newspapers cost a lot more than 50 cents. If you want to buy a daily paper in my riding, it costs you well over a buck.

MR. REYNOLDS: I'm sure, Mr. Speaker, it's not because of the member's speech, but I've noticed there are hardly any members on his side. And when I check our side, I don't find a quorum in the House. So maybe you could ring the bell so that the NDP members could come and listen to their own person speak.

MR. MILLER: Mr. Speaker, I'm sure they're going to flock back in droves once they know I'm on my feet.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm sorry, hon. member. There is a quorum at present, although the numbers are low, I must admit. Please proceed.

MR. MILLER: As I said, the second member for Kamloops has a lot of time on his hands these days as he ponders his past sins and tries to check out the price of newspapers around the province.

I want to talk very briefly about one of the issues he raised. That's the question of the auditor-general's report. The second member for Kamloops overlooked one of the fundamental points raised by the auditor general, which is that not enough information is being given to politicians to make good policy decisions. There is some question over the ability of ministries to develop that kind of information for MLAs.

Mr. Speaker, you'll give me my 30 minutes? It's awfully hard to make a speech here.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the Clerk carefully count again. I've checked this House, and I don't find a quorum here. This member certainly should have his own members in this House to listen to him speak.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I agree that the number is short at the present time because some members have left. We will be ringing the bells and will continue when here are sufficient numbers back in the House.

[4:15]

We do have sufficient numbers now. We will ask the member for Prince Rupert to please continue.

[ Page 12269 ]

MR. MILLER: I hope time is going to be added.

As I said, the second member for Kamloops, who has a lot of time on his hands these days, actually has a fairly nice literary turn of phrase. I thought some of that phraseology was kind of nice. He must be spending a lot of time reading the newspapers.

When I examine the budget and particularly when I listen to the claims made by members opposite that they are now going to balance the budget over the five-year cycle, I have to ask myself why they didn't do it in the four and a half years they've been in government. The government is now going to the people promising to balance the budget over the budget cycle, yet for the past four and a half years they haven't done that.

During the 1990 budget address, the Minister of Finance of the day, who's not the same Minister of Finance we have today, said that Socred fiscal management has allowed us to balance the budget. He said last year in the budget address that the budget was balanced, when the fact is that the budget wasn't balanced. There was a $756 million deficit last year.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Where did you get those numbers?

MR. MILLER: Mr. Speaker, we are now hearing some chomping from the member for Burnaby-Willingdon, who used to be the Finance minister. It was probably the shortest time that anybody in this province has ever been Finance minister; the record is held by the member for Burnaby-Willingdon. I saw an interview in that hectic time. I'm not even sure he knew he wasn't the Finance minister any more. He went on TV and said there would be a balanced budget. Then they switched to the former Minister of Finance, who said there would be a huge deficit.

Mr. Speaker, those statements were made within five minutes of each other, which shows you the kind of confusion that reigns on the Socred benches. If they're saying that we will now balance the budget over the business cycle, British Columbians have to ask themselves why they didn't balance the budget over the last four and a half years in the budget cycle. Their phrases ring a little hollow.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

In 1988 the Minister of Finance said: "With the budget stabilization fund, British Columbia will have money in the bank for a rainy day." He described the budget stabilization fund as money in the bank. The fact is that independent auditors have exposed the BS fund as simply a device to hide debt. They claimed in 1988 that there was a billion dollars in the BS fund, that there was a rainy-day account and that there wouldn't be a deficit. They were wrong. When they claimed that they had a balanced budget in 1990, they were wrong The deficit was $756 million. What are they doing now? In front of the people of this province and this House, they're saying the deficit is only $395 million. When the Premier, who appoints the Finance minister, went on television last week — she didn't appoint that member from Burnaby; she appointed someone else; maybe she made a mistake — she said: "We have to borrow $1.2 billion."

I don't think we should try to hoodwink the public of British Columbia. I think we have an obligation to play straight with the public of British Columbia. We have tried in the last week to get the Minister of Finance and the Premier to get their stories together, and they can't. The Premier says we have to borrow $1.2 billion; the Minister of Finance says we have to borrow $395 million.

Interjection.

MR. MILLER: Well, now we have another potential leadership candidate — who I will bet money will not be a leadership candidate — adding his voice to the confusion that reigns on the Socred benches.

This government has been the most erratic, unstable and disorganized government this province has ever seen. British Columbians are looking on in wonder and in fear; they're looking on in amazement at the bizarre antics of this government. What other government in Canadian history has, in rapid succession, announced a tax freeze in January, brought in legislation in March to implement that tax freeze and brought in a budget in May which increased taxes? Has any other government in the history of Canada ever done such a thing? No.

They promised a tax freeze. They said there would be no increase in taxation. It was a promise made by the former Premier on television. British Columbians gathered around their television sets to watch the former Premier say: "There's a tax freeze." I assume members of cabinet supported that. We debated that tax freeze in March. We debated legislation in this House, and minister after minister, Socred backbencher after Socred backbencher, stood in this House and supported that legislation which froze taxes. That incorrigible gang trots into this House in May with a budget that breaks its own legislation and imposes major tax increases. They have misled the public of British Columbia.

MR. BRUMMET: The people have a right to know how you're going to pay for your promises.

MR. MILLER: The people have a right to a stable government. They have a right to a government that doesn't make tax-freeze announcements in January, doesn't bring in legislation in March and then doesn't bring in a budget in May which completely wipes out all those promises they made in the past two months. That's what British Columbians deserve. They deserve a government that's prepared to be honest with them. And you'll find that if you're honest with the public, you'll get their support.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

This government is erratic, it doesn't know where it's going. Worst of all, throughout all of this I have not detected in any member of the government side a

[ Page 12270 ]

single shred of remorse or shame for breaking their pledge to the people of this province. Not a single member has ever expressed even the slightest bit. They don't have a tinge of remorse for their deception, for the absolute chicanery that they've practised on the people of this province.

They have committed an....

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, a modicum of decorum in language is a mark of parliamentary excellence. Some of your language is treading on the very borderline of unparliamentary language. "Chicanery" and a few other terms are not quite acceptable. If you would just watch your language.

MR. MILLER: Mr. Speaker, little did I know that "chicanery" was not in the parliamentary lexicon. Based on the advice that you've given me, if any of the members feel offended by the use of the word "chicanery," I would be more than happy to withdraw.

MR. BRUMMET: Tell us what it means so we can make a judgment.

MR. MILLER: The former Minister of Education is yelling in my left ear, he's saying he doesn't know what the word means, but he wants me to withdraw it anyway. I'll be happy to oblige.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, the Chair is asking for parliamentary debate. That is all.

Interjections.

MR. MILLER: Mr. Speaker, I'm finding it difficult to speak above the heckling. I'd be quite happy to lower my voice if the Socred members would stop their braying.

As I said, we've had a history of a very erratic government, which has essentially broken promises they made to the people of this province. You can't expect to be taken seriously when you promise a tax freeze and then break it in the budget you present. When you examine this, you're forced to draw some conclusions. The obvious one is that they either didn't know what they were doing — which is quite possible — or that they weren't being honest when they said there would be a tax freeze. In either case, when you betray the public trust, the penalty is defeat at the polls.

[4:30]

I've been appalled — and it was repeated by the second member for Kamloops who spoke before me — to listen to some of the rationale being expressed by members on the government side when they said that they felt they were going to get re-elected. It essentially came down to this one point: it has always been that way. They recited all the elections they've won and said: "That's the way it's always been in British Columbia; therefore that's the way it will always be." It seems to me that when they use that kind of argument they are portraying probably the most arrogant attitude any politician can ever have. You've taken the voter for granted. You've said: "You've always supported me in the past, therefore I know you are going to support me in the future, and therefore I don't have to be honest with you." There will be a heck of a price to pay.

Mr. Speaker, I want to deal with two areas in forestry that I think are absolutely critical to continued economic prosperity in this province. I should note that the lack of economic vision in this budget is frightening in relation to the forest industry. I've spoken before about two British Columbias: the urban lower mainland with its diversified economy more related to the service sector; and the vast areas outside the lower mainland, essentially small communities — though some are fairly large — that rely on forestry for their economic well-being. Forestry is the cornerstone of the economy of many of those small communities, and this budget was almost silent in terms of the needs of those communities. We see that the recession has not impacted the large urban centres to the degree that it has the small communities.

I see that the former Minister of Education has gone to get a dictionary. I'm not going to accuse him of chicanery; he's going to look up the word and find out for himself. I digress, Mr. Speaker.

As I said, the forest industry is vital to the economy of these small communities. I look at the budget, and it really doesn't offer them anything. On the second-last page of the budget is a passing mention of a silviculture program — a rehashed, warmed-up, leftover promise made along with the promise of a tax freeze in January. Since that promise has been broken, questions are being asked around this province about whether they're going to keep their promise on silviculture. At any rate, it's pretty thin soup: basically a rehash of promises made before and served pretty lukewarm to those people who are concerned about their future.

When I questioned the Minister of Forests last week in this House about that silviculture program, he alarmed me and, I would think, other British Columbians by standing and saying that they don't have enough seedlings and that maybe we don't have the land prepared for planting. This promise has been in existence since January of this year. The government has been working on negotiations with the federal government on a second forest resource development agreement for two years now. The former Minister of Forests talked about billion-dollar agreements. I know the government prepared a FRDA wish list. They were prepared — or gave the appearance of being prepared — to spend an additional $700 million over five years, starting in 1990. And lo and behold, the Minister of Forests stands in his place last week and says: "We don't have the seedlings to begin our planting program. Unfortunately, we're not going to spend as much this year in silviculture as we told you." People look at that and say: "There's another broken promise."

The Forest Resources Commission undertook a very important economic evaluation. It's an area in which I think there's a real vacuum of policy in this province. It's a pretty complex area. The Forest Resources Com-

[ Page 12271 ]

mission undertook to establish the value of our standing timber: what is the value of our forest resource, our asset? They used two methods of evaluation. They looked at the amount that we collect in stumpage payments, and they worked backward from there, as though that would be a return on the asset, and they came to the conclusion that under that scenario it was worth roughly $1 billion. Then they used a market valuation approach, where they took a number of factors, essentially public transactions — sales of forest companies among each other; the kinds of values that are attached to logs that are traded on the Vancouver log market — and the stumpage that is frequently bid up under the small business program. They used those private transactions, and they engaged a firm called Western Capital to do an evaluation on a market basis. That firm, using a number of interest-rate scenarios — 13.5 percent, 11.44 percent and 7.15 percent, which is the rate of a regulated utility — worked up some scenarios and came up with figures purporting to represent the value of the asset base that ranged from $4.7 billion to $8.8 billion.

I'm not suggesting that we should take these numbers as absolutes. I think there needs to be a lot more work done in terms of this question. But surely what is striking is the difference between the asset valuation using the stumpage-based method and the asset valuation using the market-based method.

The Forest Resources Commission report then goes on to say.... They do draw their own conclusions. Again, I'm not saying that they're absolutely correct, but they do draw their own conclusion that the asset base is worth between $8.3 billion and $8.5 billion. One has to ask: if it's clear that there is a difference between the valuation based on the two methods of arriving at those numbers, where does that difference flow? The Forest Resources Commission makes an absolute statement with respect to that, and it's an important one when we relate it back to the position those small communities are in and what is required to improve and stabilize their economic base. I'll quote a sentence from Page 67 of the Forest Resources Commission report: "The difference between these two values is presently being captured by private industry upon the sale of tenures, and not by the Crown." In short, Mr Speaker, the portion of the value of our standing timber asset is being captured not by the Crown but by private transactions.

MR. BRUMMET: Shut them down! Run them out!

MR. MILLER: The solution is not the kind of senseless comment that I've just heard from the former Minister of Education: "Shut them down!" I'm talking seriously about how I think we can strengthen our forest economic base.

These are serious topics; this is a serious report that I'm quoting. I know there has not been a lot of discussion on it. For the edification of government members who may not have read this report, it was a commission appointed by your own government. It contained people like Joyce Harder, the mayor of Lillooet — a community in the Minister of Labour's riding. I'm sure that she signed her name to this report with the full knowledge that she had gone through a very extensive and exhaustive process. She would wish this report to be taken seriously; she would not wish this report to be mocked by some members of the Socred side. When I see a report that has names attached to it like Jack Munro of the IWA, the Hon. Robert G. Rogers, former Lieutenant-Governor, and Cyril Shelford, a former Socred cabinet minister in this assembly, I would think it should be taken seriously and that it deserves earnest debate, which I am attempting.

As I said, the report makes a statement that stands on its own: some of the value of our standing timber assets is being captured by private companies. Now the important thing is that we should pursue this issue in terms of trying to come to grips with the amount. Is that happening and to what degree? If it is happening, I would think there is a case, as is the view of the Forest Resources Commission, that this gap in valuation should be closed. If we're losing.... If we're transferring the value of Crown resources to private companies, we have to deal with that.

What can we do? First of all, I think we have to do some more economic analyses on this point. I'll use an example of a transaction that took place where a major forest company, Canfor, purchased a smaller company, Balfour, which had some sawmills and forest tenures. I believe they paid $95 million for Balfour's assets. The economic analysis that I read, by generally eastern-based brokerage houses, claimed that the $95 million represented a far greater value than the fixed assets of the company, and in fact it represented the value of the standing timber.

Why is that important now? If the conclusions of the commission are accurate.... We are faced with a recent announcement, first of all by Fletcher Challenge, that they intend to dispose of their solid-wood processing plants and some [illegible] that Fletcher Challenge is going to dispose of their Boston Bar mill, Hammond mill, Fraser Mills, Williams Lake sawmills and two stud and plywood mills in Kelowna and Armstrong. Over 2,000 employees are affected by this move. We had the announcement by Westar just the other day that they intend to dispose of their solid-wood processing plants and their tenures. They're talking about sawmills in Hazelton, Kitwanga, Vanderhoof, Castlegar and Malakwa and a whole-log chipper in Hazelton.

These companies are putting these assets up for sale, and they're going to include Crown timber that has been allocated to them as an inducement for companies to buy the mills. Now if value is escaping the Crown and if some of the value of the standing timber is going to be transferred to private companies, should we not be looking at the situation in those communities which are faced with a great deal of uncertainty and a great deal of instability because of the gap between capacity and timber supply? Should we be not taking some of that uncaptured value? Not that the Crown should capture it all; perhaps we should make requirements of private capital or the companies that move in there to examine the economies of those small communities like Hazelton and

[ Page 12272 ]

Kitwanga, which currently sees the mill shut down even though there was a commitment by Westar to operate it. Should we not be taking some of that capital in conjunction with government and industry together and using that capital to stabilize those economies? For example, should we not look at the whole range of devices that can be used to stabilize economies between government and private industry: retraining, the whole economic diversification, topping up pension plans for early retirement for workers who might be old enough to get out of the industry, intensive silviculture applications in areas that expect to be hardest hit by the falldown in supply of timber? Should we not be using that uncaptured value in the interests of all of the citizens of this province, but particularly the people I try to represent, the people in those small communities throughout British Columbia? We could do a range of things to improve their position.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Finally, we could be moving, as Dr. Clark Binkley, the new dean of forestry at UBC, talks about, from a resource-exploitation base to a knowledge-based forest industry. Our competitive advantage in forestry is that we are harvesting old-growth trees. We are harvesting trees that we essentially did not put any capital investment into. At some point in time, we will lose that competitive advantage. The only way that I know to maintain our competitive advantage is to apply research, development and technology to our own unique British Columbia circumstance. We are faced with a host of international competitors in forestry.

MR. SPEAKER: Just before the second member for Central Fraser Valley begins his speech, the Chair would advise the member that I will be bringing a ruling down at about 20 minutes to six, to give members who wish to attend advance warning.

[4:45]

MR. DE JONG: It is indeed a pleasure for me today to speak on this budget. It's probably the highlight — not my speech, but the budget — of the legislative session. It was preceded by a throne speech which, in general terms, laid out the recognition of the needs and aspirations of British Columbians and also the improvements and continuation of the existing and some new programs. We now have a more closely, defined blueprint of that throne speech in our budget submission.

I really appreciate many things in this budget. It's a good budget. It respects the needs of British Columbians in terms of health and social needs. It reflects the current economic conditions. It follows the guiding principles that have been held by the Social Credit Party for many years to allow the vision of British Columbians to succeed and enhance economic standards and quality of life for all British Columbians. It's a blueprint that hasn't just got dotted lines on it; it's got very solid lines on it. It's not a visit by Santa Claus, as the opposition would propose to do and as they have done in Ontario. This budget recognizes the needs and the limits of resources available and what the taxpayers can afford, providing economic conditions remain stable.

The opposition's real policy, however, in contrast to ours, is to buy now and pay later; load the burden onto the next generation and renege on current responsibilities. I believe that in Ontario they've shown a pretty clear picture of that in their budget.

The member for Prince Rupert just mentioned a while ago that our government had not kept its commitment in terms of the Taxpayer Protection Act. If I recall correctly — and I'm not all that good in remembering exact numbers — when the Premier of Ontario took office, he promised that there would be a deficit, but that it would not exceed $2.5 billion. What did he come up with? Almost $10 billion. Is that responsive to the taxpayers? I do not believe so, Mr. Speaker. I believe that, even though I would have loved to have seen no tax increases, we would have stayed with the Taxpayer Protection Act to its fullest extent. However, recognizing today's situation, I can also understand that we should not go into a larger deficit than what we have undertaken this year, and that would be in the neighbourhood of $400 million.

When I had breakfast with a group of citizens in Yarrow on Saturday morning, we discussed the budget a great deal. The people who were there — and I believe they are the people I generally represent in Central Fraser Valley — believe in helping the people in need. They support a good health care program. They would, however, love to see a user fee to avoid abuse. They also expect elected people to govern on the basis of resources available to them, and that means basically a balanced budget. They have supported the rainy-day fund. They have also supported the use of the rainy-day fund as it happened in last year's budget as well as in this year's budget.

The opposition says that this is a deficit. Well, yes, in the real sense I guess we are spending more — to the tune of about $1.2 billion — than what we take in. But $800 million of that was available in the rainy-day fund, so there is not, as the opposition has said, a $1.2 billion added deficit.

Mr. Speaker, I'm very happy with the budget. As I said, the Taxpayer Protection Act has been kept pace with in many respects even though, as I said earlier, I would have loved to have seen no tax increases. But on the other hand, we've also stated that we will — and in fact we have proven over the last five years that we can — balance the budget. We have balanced the budget, so there is no problem there. I'm sure that we will do it over the next five years.

I just want to comment on a few important events that have happened in my own riding, in particular the Rick Hansen Secondary School in Abbotsford. It's a major high school required due to the fast growth in our community, and I applaud the Minister of Education for awarding the contract for that school.

I'm also very happy with the commitment that the Minister of Health of last year made to build a new hospital in Abbotsford to the tune of $75 million or more, whatever the cost may be. But the commitment

[ Page 12273 ]

was made. I'm also very pleased with the Tradex centre that was approved or initiated by the Abbotsford Air Show Society for its world-famous air show to be held in August this year and the support our government gave to that in terms of a loan assisting them to build this building before the show takes place this year. I believe that by supporting local economies and creating jobs, this budget helps those hurt by the economic slowdown and lays the foundation for recovery.

The members across the floor have for the last number of years spoken very loudly about the lack of a school lunch program. I wasn't here all the time, but a lot of the time while I was in the House and listening to the box in my office, I did not hear any member of the opposition make a positive comment about that new initiative. I'm not overly optimistic if we undertake a universal school lunch program, but certainly....

I believe last year there was a study undertaken where the cost of living was compared to social services paid in various communities to families. If I recall correctly, the highest cost was in the northern part of the province in the smaller communities, not in Vancouver. So if we indeed proceed with a school lunch program — and this applies to the universal day care program as well — I believe it should be on a voucher basis rather than handing more money to families who have not really proven that they can handle the money and do the job as many mothers and fathers would want to do it.

I think there is a certain amount of responsibility lacking in some of the parents today. I do not think that the real need is for more money for food; it has probably been spent on other things which are of a lower priority, in my opinion.

As I said before, I am very appreciative of the budget this year. It's a budget that fits economic conditions today. It does not cut back on programs. In fact, it enhances many of the programs that are directed at people's needs. It also gives a vision and security for the government and for the people of this province to continue with a certain amount of assurance that we are not only one of the number one provinces in Canada today, but will remain a number one province.

It's a budget which presents a picture of caution due to economic conditions, yet in the long term it ought to provide the vision for the future. Had it not been for the rainy-day fund, this year's deficit would have proven much different, I applaud the message of the five-year equalization towards a balanced budget or better. This government has proven it over the past five years and will prove it again.

MR. G. HANSON: When I look over the five years that this Social Credit government has been in power, it's a government that is running out of its mandate. It's clinging to power. It's a lot like Peter Pan, with the public as the crocodile with the clock in its belly looking for Captain Hook. The Social Credit government is Captain Hook. The crocodile is the electorate, and it's waiting for this government to call an election.

Never in our history, to my knowledge, has a government extended right to the five-year limit. October 22 is when the term runs out. The normal pattern was three or four years before seeking a renewed mandate. But what has happened here in British Columbia is that this government's record over a five-year period has been so discredited that leaders have had to change. Cabinet ministers have been going through turnstiles. We have had 110 changes in five years.

The in-baskets of government have been clogged for a year. Decisions are not being made. Throughout the bureaucracy decisions are not being made on important economic, environmental and health matters. People from my own community are going to Seattle for health care that once was provided here in British Columbia. We have environmental concerns that have been neglected. As soon as one cabinet minister gets a heads-up on what should occur, they're rotated around through the ministry.

One example of what has occurred in Victoria is the history of the Stena fiasco. The Stena Line acquired Crown assets at fire-sale prices — assets that were assessed by the government at $17 million were sold to Stena over a two-year period for $6 million, with certain provisions that Stena would fulfil. These never were fulfilled. There was supposed to be a $4.4 million refit of a vessel here in Victoria. It was done in Europe. Was any action taken? None. The Crown Princess Victoria arrived for the summer of 1990 and left in the fall carrying $600,000 of taxpayer-funded safety equipment that was on the Princess Marguerite. Imagine! What inept government could allow the car-ferry link between Seattle and Victoria to be cut through lack of performance by a private company based abroad acquiring Crown assets from British Columbian taxpayers and never fulfilling those obligations?

[5:00]

We are almost approaching June, and we have a situation in my own community — the riding I share with my colleague the second member for Victoria — where the small business community stands to lose up to $75 million. The sales tax on that $75 million revenue would have more than compensated for any loss that the previous runs were encountering. In addition, 200 Canadian jobs are at risk and $600,000 worth of safety equipment is lost. Further, the Marguerite was sold to Stena for $1, and now Stena wants $1.5 million for it.

We lost $8.9 million on the Vancouver Island Princess. This was the difference between Stena's price and the $11.9 million paid for her by B.C. Steamship or the public that owned here. We also lost $2.1 million on the other equipment, based on the values quoted in the proposal call and the amount Stena paid.

You know, Mr. Speaker, the business community made representation on a number of occasions to the cabinet and to various ministers responsible. The cavalier attitude with which this problem was approached.... They were absolutely stunned. The small business community of greater Victoria used to think that Social Credit was their political home. Now those small business people are telling us they can hardly

[ Page 12274 ]

wait for the election to be called to vote this government out of office.

The Social Credit government was captive to some ideology that is more akin to a Larson cartoon. I've felt over the last while that we've been living in a kind of Larson cartoon. We were thinking perhaps he could do all of his 365 cartoons based on the performance of Social Credit over the last five years.

On that basis alone, on the loss of tourist-related economy here, which is number one or two next to the administration of government here in the city of Victoria.... The performance of this government with respect to the management of our tourist-related economy has been absolutely inept.

I want to make the proposal to the government that they call an election and allow the small business community to vote on the record of Social Credit. They're saying that it's time for change.

Victoria, as you know, is going to be the host of the major multidisciplinary sporting event of Canada in the nineties. When I looked at the budget and listened carefully to what was contained therein, I didn't see any vision about what could be created by this particular event. We will be showcasing Victoria to over one billion people around the globe. At any given time there will be 300 million people watching this community through a satellite link. It's not just Victoria and British Columbia; it's representing all of Canada. Any government with courage and vision should be asking themselves what they would like to project to the world with respect to this area. What would we like to tell the world about this community? Because even though this particular event will take place in Victoria, it's an event for Canada.

Have we seen this cabinet, for example, say how the Victoria area fits into the federal government's Green Plan? In what ways can we clean up our environment to showcase our own area? What do we have instead? We have no support and participation to clean up the sewage that we discharge into the oceans in a raw form, which is now creating an impact....

Interjections.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

MR. G. HANSON: These people have been so inept, giving money to their own personal pals and insiders and ignoring the....

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order, please, hon. members. A little bit of heckling is one thing, but it may be getting slightly out of hand.

MR. G. HANSON: The fact of the matter is that this government spent so much time currying favour with its friends and insiders and not attending to the real issues of the day, such as the quality of the environment, that they have been unwilling to set the necessary funds aside to support the local level of government to provide clean maritime environments for our city. I say shame on them for that.

One billion people around the globe will be watching Victoria, and what are they going to see? Do they see a government that has anticipated a quality transportation plan for this region? No. They do it on the back of a napkin, making super-expressways through agricultural land and then backing up after the local municipal officials say no. No transportation plan.

People have to go to Seattle for open-heart operations that should be provided here. Why are they not provided here? Because there aren't sufficient technicians and nurses supported by public funds to keep those necessary surgery theatres open and functioning properly for public benefit.

That is the legacy of the Social Credit over the last five years: ineptness, servicing their own needs and servicing their pals. That's why we've had 110 ministerial changes in a short five-year mandate. Why don't you call the election? You don't have the courage to call the election. This government doesn't have the courage because you're 25 or 35 points behind and there may not be a single Social Credit member, other than a photo of this cabinet in the archives across the road. I hope you've all got your pictures in the archives.

They haven't been doing the job; they've failed miserably They failed in the business deal with Stena. They failed in adequately producing a clean maritime environment and supporting the kinds of things that occur here. They've failed to adequately support our universities so students can have decent loans and bursary programs. The public can hardly wait for the next provincial election, and I think everyone knows that's so.

I was looking earlier today at the situation with the voter list in British Columbia. I want to remind those citizens who are watching and witnessing this particular debate in the Legislature today that 600,000 people are not on the voter list. Mr. Patterson, the chief electoral officer, has said that 300,000 families have moved since voter registration was conducted in 1989.

I want to remind you that at the last election in 1986, 187,000 — through no fault of their own, moving or whatever — turned up at the polling station on election day and registered and voted on election day. To the shame of this government, they abolished that section. Now they're prepared to deny hundreds of thousands of people the right to vote. People who want to get rid of Social Credit will be off the voter list, and they know it. It's a calculated move to attempt to manipulate the next election. You don't have the courage to have people voting en masse and giving you a report card on the dismal performance of Social Credit in the last five years. Social Credit will be relegated to the archives of the province of British Columbia, and everybody knows it.

Here we have a situation where the electoral officer has to hold piecemeal voter registration drives in June to try to sweep up some of the 600,000 British Columbians not on the voter list. That's a travesty That's a banana republic story, and it shouldn't be in a democracy.

[ Page 12275 ]

Fundamental to this House is the democratic opportunity to vote and to choose the government that best represents your interests. To deny that by technical aspects and by obstructionism.... Shame on you, Mr. Member. Every member of this House should take this seriously. Every member of this House should ensure that their own constituents are on the voter list and that they have the right to make that determination. It is the most fundamental right. If you do not have the right to elect the government of your choice, what else flows from that?

My colleague who is the very competent spokesperson for youth, the second member for Vancouver Centre, said earlier today that British Columbia is one of the few places that denies the right to vote to 18-year-olds, who have the right to vote for the federal government of Canada and the opportunity to serve in the Armed Forces for their country. Mr. Speaker, that's a travesty.

There should be an amendment in this session. There should have been a line in the throne speech and the budget speech that provided for a separate voter registration for those young people who are now 18 years of age. That voter registration was done when those people were 15 years of age, and now they're 18. If a national election was called today, they could vote, but they would be denied the franchise in the province of British Columbia. Can you imagine what a banana republic Social Credit has created here? Have the courage to let citizens who have a voice federally have a voice provincially as well.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, the rules of this House and ancient usages are very clear that a member cannot propose legislation during a speech that has nothing to do with the particular legislation at hand. This member is consistently violating those rules.

MR. G. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, this government pays lip-service to open and honest government; what we get instead is closed government for friends and insiders. That's why everywhere I go, people are saying it's time for a change in the province of British Columbia. To have an open and honest government, it must be brought about that 18-year-olds have the right to vote.

There should be spending limits on elections in this province, and disclosure of where the money comes from. There should be full disclosure, and we support that. If you're going to have open and honest government, you have to know who the organ-grinder is. These are areas where this government has been inept.

[5:15]

There is reference in the budget speech to native issues, and I think a lot of credit goes to this side of the House and to the Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition not only provided the leadership within our own party but shepherded a policy through the convention in 1988 that set the course of the New Democratic Party on native land claims and the aboriginal land question in British Columbia. We on this side of the House brought that side kicking and screaming out of the eighteenth century and allowed for a dialogue about the real needs. Now in the budget speech, this government is saying that they will enter into negotiations and pay their fair share in settling British Columbia's largest piece of unfinished business. The problem is that what they say just prior to an election — heaven forbid if they ever got re-elected — and what they would do afterwards is the real question. As you can recall, the programs after the '79, '83 and '86 elections bore no resemblance at all to what they were saying prior to the elections.

The native question should be a non-partisan one. It should be a matter of fair-mindedness among all members to resolve it. From my own experience, I think there are things that must be done right away to promote the understanding that is required between the native and non-native people of this province. There should be a publicly supported public education program that raises the level of understanding and awareness among the people of the province.

The tone was set for all those 120 years when British Columbia denied native people their rights and their say. Only within the last year has the provincial position changed to indicate that, yes, aboriginal people do have rights and legitimate grievances, and we're prepared to address them, work on them and solve them.

What is required is a special public education program that would tap the goodwill and fair-mindedness which exists within the people of the province. People understand that native people have been treated unjustly and that they have rights that have not been honoured and fulfilled. More knowledge and information right through the school system, and advertisements — not the political partisan ads which have characterized this government, but real information developed in consultation with native people — would promote the kind of British Columbia we'd like to see in the future.

Another thing needs to be done. Because so many flashpoints exist in the province after 120 years of neglect, and because of plugged federal and provincial in-baskets and deaf ears to authentic problems, we need a special reflection of the task force with federal, provincial and native participation which can deal with and address matters that are building. Pressure points need to be focused upon, but unless that federal, provincial and aboriginal focus is made, the problem is not solved. It develops into something beyond the normal activity, takes on a life of its own and doesn't serve anyone well.

I'm proposing in a spirit of cooperation that there be a federal-provincial-aboriginal peoples' unit developed to look at these four or five pressure points in the province where the injustice and pressure have built and will create something that we don't want. Every member of this House is aware of it. I've spoken to staff and managers, and they agree that that must be done. I put that forward in good faith. It's certainly something we will do after you have the courage to call the election.

I have the honour of being our side's spokesperson on aboriginal issues and fisheries matters. I want to speak on fisheries matters for a moment.

[ Page 12276 ]

There has been no real leadership from this government with respect to the processing of fish. The provincial jurisdiction is the processing and buying of fish. That particular authority could provide for the same kind of situation that exists by federal statute in the United States. In the United States they have what is known as the Magnuson Act, named after the very famous Senator, Warren Magnuson. Warren Magnuson was a great supporter of the fishing industry in the United States, and he said: "We will not export unprocessed fish abroad while we have our own processing capacity underutilized." So the legislation in Washington State, our neighbour 25 miles away, is that they cannot export unprocessed fish if it is not for their own processing plants. People say: "Well, is that GATT-friendly?" I say we should have the same rules and regulations with respect to processing as our friends enjoy in Washington State. This Legislature could pass regulations on the landing and processing of fish, and stabilize the communities up and down our coast, and provide for employment for native people and for women, who traditionally work in these jobs. They are jobs that they enjoy, they are jobs that are organized and well paid, and they are jobs that are in the food area, which is so vital in our province.

It is so obvious. I've been raising it for a number of years in this House. We should be processing fish that are caught within our sovereign zone, the 200-mile limit, and if we have extra fish for other processors, and our capacity is utilized, then they are exported for processing. But why should we be providing employment all over the Pacific Rim, or in Blaine, or in Bellingham or elsewhere, and having our own people sit idle up and down this coast? We have some of the finest fish in the world in our salmon and herring, a God-given resource that has been inadequately managed. The province has shown no leadership whatsoever. That is something we will do when you have the courage to call the election.

We want to see our people working. We want to see our people managing the resources effectively, in a consultative way. Clearly the federal government and the local communities and the province are best able to bring together the expertise to ensure that our people can be employed and have the quality of life that they want and deserve.

One of my other responsibilities, Mr. Speaker, is spokesperson on cultural matters. I think this government has really ignored culture. In fact, this budget cuts back on culture. The status of the artist in British Columbia.... They're among the poorest working poor in the province. They've been treated with disdain. I can remember former members of this House referring to the B.C. art bank, a program which acquired paintings and objects from British Columbia artists, to be used in public buildings. Some of them are hung in ministers' offices; some of them are in public buildings. These Social Credit members referred to it as garbage art, junk art. That was their attitude. I have ministers that are actually embarrassed by the outbursts of some of the other ministers and are shaking their heads.

The status of the artist.... We think that artists make a solid contribution economically and socially They have a role to play in expressing who we are as Canadians and as British Columbians. The first thing that happens when the federal government wants to embellish an embassy or a public building in another country is that it engages an artist, particularly an aboriginal artist. Aboriginal art is showcased and recognized all over the world as among the finest artistic and cultural achievements anywhere. But sometimes those people have an awfully difficult time.

We believe in a new approach to the arts and culture. We believe that there should be a deputy minister in charge to coordinate all of the cultural and heritage programs of government and to work in consultation. We believe that the disbursal of funds should be at arm's length from government so it's not patronage — you know what the normal sort of Social Credit approach to the disbursal of funds is — to friends and insiders. We feel that peer review is the way to ascertain what is of merit, how grants and disbursal of compensation should be made.

Employment standards and workers' compensation pay should be extended to the arts community. They should be entitled to that as a basic right and as working people making a contribution. We feel that there should be provincial status-of-the-artist legislation such as what the federal government has brought in under Bill C-96. We feel that the arts-based industries — videos, films, and so on — could be very important and that the Knowledge Network should be supported even more fully than it is at the moment.

Public buildings and institutions in British Columbia. Artistic content and facilities by Crown corporations should say something about British Columbia. Those kinds of expressions of who we are and what we see for ourselves, our community and our society should be reflected through proper support for the arts here in British Columbia.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

We should be utilizing our B.C. talent. I don't know whose idea it was for this Music '91, but more money was expended for outside talent than was given to all of the arts grants for artists struggling within the province. Why does this government not have respect for the artists, the artistic community and the cultural community of our own area? We know that tourism is an industry that is being encouraged by governments everywhere in the world. Art, culture and heritage.... I assume my time is almost up. I have many more things to say on the subject, but....

Point of Privilege

FANTASY GARDEN WORLD INC. SALES TAX

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. Your time is up on this particular occasion.

Hon. members, on Thursday, May 23, the hon. member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound rose on a matter of privilege involving statements made by the member for Vancouver East in this House on May 14 and 22.

[ Page 12277 ]

The statements fall into two separate categories: the first being the questions asked by the member for Vancouver East of the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations relating to whether or not Fantasy Garden World Inc. had paid provincial sales tax during the preceding year; and secondly, an explanation and an apology offered by the same member at the close of his remarks during the budget debate on the same day.

I quote in their entirety the latter remarks, as they are of particular relevance to this matter of privilege. The member for Vancouver East said:

"The information provided to me in the first week of May 1991 from reliable government sources indicated a sales tax delinquency on the part of Fantasy Garden World Inc. It was on that basis that I sought confirmation from the Minister of Finance. In light of the new information provided by the first member for Richmond, I have no hesitation at this time in extending an apology."

An examination of the debates of this House on May 14 indicates that the member for Vancouver East asked two questions on this matter during question period that day. The first question was phrased in such a way which would indicate that the member had adopted as a fact the information that had been improperly disclosed to him, in that he asked the Minister of Finance for confirmation that Fantasy Garden World Inc. had paid no provincial sales tax. The supplementary question immediately following asked the minister to inform the House as to whether or not Fantasy Garden World Inc. had, in fact, paid sales tax in 1990.

While both questions apparently had their origins in the improperly disclosed information, the second question appeared to the Chair as being phrased in such a way as to be somewhat less of an accusation.

The Chair also notes that a letter was tabled in the House by the first member for Richmond stating that all social services tax payable by Fantasy Garden World Inc. to date have been fully paid.

[5:30]

The hon. member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound brings to the Chair's attention section 11 of the Social Service Tax Act, which makes it an offence for a person who has custody of or control over information or records under this act to disclose such information or records, except under certain specified circumstances. On the face of it, it would appear that an offence has been committed against the confidentiality provisions of the Social Service Tax Act, and if so, an investigation by the proper authorities may be appropriate. The question, however, with which the Chair must deal is whether or not the use by the member for Vancouver East of information illegally disclosed contrary to statute constitutes a breach of privilege or a contempt of this House. What is the duty of a member of this assembly when he is made privy to confidential information?

The Chair must emphasize that the accuracy of the information given to the House by the member for Vancouver East is not the issue here. It appears that the member erroneously believed the information to be true, and the member for Vancouver East has offered an apology. Normally that would end the matter, in accordance with the traditions observed in parliaments throughout the Commonwealth. The difficulty that arises, as the Chair sees it, is that in offering the apology, the member advised this House that the information was provided to him from "reliable government sources."

In the absence of any statement to the contrary, the Chair would have little option but to conclude that the member for Vancouver East was aware that the information he relied upon, in framing his original question to the Minister of Finance, was improperly disclosed to him. The use of such information in an adversarial atmosphere of politics is not uncommon, but the frequent use of such information is not determinative of its propriety. Indeed, the use of information illegally or improperly disclosed may well raise questions of ethics. However, the matter with which the Chair must deal is not ethics but rather breach of privilege.

One of the most important tests to apply, in determining whether or not actions complained of amount to a breach of privilege of the members of this House, is whether or not those acts impede a member or members in the performance of their duties. The allegation implicit in the questions posed to the Minister of Finance on May 14 were found to be without basis in fact. The member has apologized — which, on the face of it, was the remedy sought by the first member for Richmond. In this context the Chair has reviewed the findings of a special committee of this House on a matter of privilege in 1980. At that time the committee heard evidence on the law of privilege from the Canadian expert on the subject, Mr. Joseph Maingot, QC, and other experts in the field, at which time it was clearly stated that activities which obstruct members in the performance of their legislative duties are the basis for the offence of a breach of privilege and contempt of the House.

Mr. Maingot, at that time, went on to say that the test of such an obstruction is a subjective test. Bearing this in mind, when the member for Richmond indicated to this House that an apology was what he sought, and such an apology was indeed received, it would appear to the Chair that the obstruction criterion as described by Maingot has been overcome. While the Chair has great difficulty with the circumstances in this particular case, the rules surrounding matters of privilege are very restrictive, and one needs merely to examine the journals of this House to see that very few matters of privilege have qualified as such over the years.

I therefore find that the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound has, for the reasons above, been unable to technically establish a matter of privilege, while at the same time he has brought before the House a grievance which may be of concern to its members.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, just on a point of clarification, if I may. Your ruling is that there is not indeed a...?

MR. SPEAKER: Members are free to read the ruling in the Blues.

[ Page 12278 ]

Hon. Mr. Veitch moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Pursuant to standing order 2(2), I inform you that the House will sit tomorrow at 1400 hours. In so doing, I move the House do now adjourn.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:35 p.m.