[ Page 12279 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Point of Privilege

Government borrowing. Mr. Clark –– 12279

Hon. J. Jansen

Oral Questions

Former chairman of Hazardous Waste Management Corporation.

Mr. Sihota –– 12280

Investigation of possible breach of Social Service Tax Act confidentiality.

Mr. Reynolds –– 12281

Former chairman of Hazardous Waste Management Corporation.

Mr. Sihota –– 12281

Government forms printed in U.S. Mr. G. Janssen –– 12282

Ministerial Statement

Confidentiality of tax information. Hon. J. Jansen –– 12282

Mr. Clark

Budget Debate

Mr. Dueck –– 12284

Hon. Mrs. Johnston –– 12287

Mr. Guno –– 12289

Mr. Reynolds –– 12292

Mr. Jones –– 12297

Ms. Pullinger –– 12299

Hon. J. Jansen –– 12303

Point of Privilege

Government borrowing. Mr. Speaker's ruling –– 12305

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, we have two special guests on the floor today. Visiting from the United Kingdom is Mr. Robert Rhodes-James, member of the House of Commons representing Cambridge, and Mrs. Rhodes-James.

Mr. Rhodes-James is, among other things, a distinguished author and biographer of Lord Randolph Churchill, Prince Albert and Anthony Eden. He's also a member of that distinguished group in Westminster known as the Breakfast Club. You may have recognized them by the rather obnoxious ties they wear on Wednesday, one of which is worn by the men in black at our table –– I had the pleasure of being hosted by them last year on my visit to Westminster, so I thank members for making them welcome.

HON. MR. DIRKS: Mr. Speaker, it's my special privilege this afternoon to introduce to this House His Excellency Bruce Brown, High Commissioner for New Zealand, and his wife Mrs. Françoise Rousseau Brown. Would the House please join me in giving them a warm British Columbia welcome.

MS. PULLINGER: It's my pleasure today to introduce to the House a friend of mine and a very well-known Canadian writer of mystery stories for children, who is also a constituent of my colleague in Oak Bay. Would the House please help me welcome Eric Wilson.

MR. SERWA: On behalf of my colleague the second member for Okanagan South and myself, I would like to introduce to the House 68 grade 7 students joining us today from Westbank Elementary School. They come here with a great deal of pride, knowing they live in one of the most beautiful communities in the best constituency in the province of British Columbia. For my colleagues opposite I have to say it is a constituency that has proudly provided Premiers of British Columbia for 30 years.

They come here accompanied by His Worship Mayor George Waldo, mayor of Peachland, vice-principal of the school and a teacher there; teachers Bob Hayes and Wayne Lawrence; parents Rod Barrett, Val Fenton, Rita Whiteheat, Bette Ludwig and Pat Stoddart. Would the House please welcome them.

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Speaker, I'd like members of the House to give a warm welcome to a constituent from Vancouver Centre, which is one of the best ridings in the province and which a number of us hope will provide the next Premier in this province. I'd like you to give a very warm welcome to Mr. Donovan Kuehn.

MS. MARZARI: My colleague the second member for Vancouver–Point Grey and I would like to welcome to the precincts the grade 5 class from St. George's School in Point Grey, with their teachers Mr. Ryan and Mrs. Nutter. Would the House please join me in welcoming them.

Point of Privilege

GOVERNMENT BORROWING

MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of my rising on this occasion is threefold: first, to tender material in support of a motion of privilege; second, to outline why these materials establish a prima facie case that the Minister of Finance impeded members in the performance of their legislative duties, thereby demonstrating contempt for the rights and privileges of the members of this assembly; and third, to indicate that I am prepared to tender a motion for your consideration should you find that a prima facie case has been made.

On May 23, 1991, and again on May 28, 1991, the Minister of Finance misled this assembly regarding how much money the government must borrow to cover the operations of the provincial government for this fiscal year.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. It will be rather difficult for the Chair to determine whether there is a prima facie case if there are constant interjections. Perhaps the member for Surrey–White Rock–Cloverdale would excuse himself until he is over his interjections. Then we can proceed.

MR. CLARK: Last Thursday, May 23, 1991, I was willing to accept that the minister had made an inadvertent error, but repetition of this erroneous information yesterday — in direct contradiction of the information given outside this assembly by the Premier — left me no choice but to conclude that the Minister of Finance is deliberately attempting to mislead this assembly.

Let me review the relevant statements and show why they are incorrect. When I first asked the Minister of Finance how much money the government had to borrow this fiscal year to finance the operating costs of government, he replied: "The operating deficit for this year is $395 million. That is the amount we will borrow for operating purposes." He repeated this assertion a number of times during oral question period and finally stated, when I challenged the accuracy of his statements: "What was the debt requirement to match the operating deficit of the operating fund for this year? I told him the truth. I told him $395 million."

Yesterday, May 28, 1991, when the same question was deferred to the Minister of Finance by the Premier, the minister stated: "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."

Mr. Speaker, the minister has tried to mislead members and obstruct the business of this assembly by

[ Page 12280 ]

asserting information that his own financial accounts clearly show is incorrect. He has sought to create the false and misleading impression that the difference between the $395 million that he claims must be borrowed for the operations of government during this fiscal year and the $1.2 billion government-purpose borrowing requirement contained in the government's own budget documents — and admitted to by the Premier — is due entirely to the province's capital requirements. This assertion is simply incorrect.

The real difference between the $395 million which the minister claims as a general fund deficit and the more than $1.2 billion which the government must actually borrow for direct government purposes, is the budget stabilization or BS fund. The auditor-general and virtually every single reputable accounting organization has asserted that this fund is not even a fund at all. For example, the president of the certified general accountants has stated: "The provincial government continues to use the mythical BS fund to disguise the real nature of the deficit." There is certainly no basis in fact for implying, as the Minister of Finance has, that the BS fund somehow represents a borrowing requirement for capital purposes.

The plain facts are contained in the budget documents. For fiscal 1991-92 the government estimates it will take in, in total revenues, $15.311 billion. It also estimates that it will spend $16.545 billion to finance the operations of government for fiscal 1991-92. The difference between these two figures is $1.234 billion. This is clearly the amount which the government must borrow to ensure the continued operation of government during this fiscal year.

[2:15]

Finally, the minister's attempt on May 28, 1991, to attribute any borrowings in excess of his artificial figure of $395 million to Crown corporations and other funds with capital needs is incorrect and misleading. The budget documents clearly show that over and above the more than $1.2 billion in direct government purpose borrowing this year, the government will require an additional $1.4 billion debt to finance its Crown corporations and capital funding authorities.

The Minister of Finance, the chief financial officer of the province, has an obligation to this assembly and its members to clearly state the true bottom line of this province. By attempting to mislead this assembly regarding the true state of the province's finances, the Minister of Finance has impeded members in the performance of their legislative duties and demonstrated contempt for the rights and privileges of members of this assembly.

Mr. Speaker, I now tender my materials for your consideration and would be grateful for your ruling.

HON. J. JANSEN: I would like to reserve my right to respond to this motion, because I've responded in question period and tried to inform members about the accounting respecting government debt. I would like the opportunity to respond extensively at another time in this assembly prior to your ruling.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, on this question of privilege, I would like to remind the member opposite that he should read a very excellent book in this House...

Interjection.

MR. REYNOLDS: Every member has a right to speak on a question of privilege.

...Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia, second edition. It says: "Members use the term 'privilege' loosely to gain the floor to register complaints on various matters or to make routine announcements. Each Speaker (or Chairman) must gauge the use of this device bearing in mind the temper of the House, the frequency of its use and the spirit in which it is employed."

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that all that the member has raised today is a dispute as to facts between two members, which does not qualify as a question of privilege.

MR. SPEAKER: Are there any further members wishing to give advice to the Speaker?

Oral Questions

FORMER CHAIRMAN
OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
MANAGEMENT CORPORATION

MR. SIHOTA: On Tuesday the Minister of Environment refused to elaborate on an agreement concerning the member for Delta. My question today is: will the minister confirm that an arrangement for employment was made with the member?

HON. MR. MERCIER: This minister has made no arrangement for employment with the chairman, who was removed by order-in-council, and the answers I gave the other day apply equally today.

MR. SIHOTA: It may be that this minister hasn't, but the ministry has, and your predecessors — your government — did. To make the point the minister made the other day, no one would be making a claim for just forgone per diems. Do you not agree there was an arrangement for a period of five years?

HON. MR. MERCIER: The point I made the other day, and I'll make it again today, is a claim might have been made, but this minister is denying that a claim exists. That is the point that might be in contention. To elaborate further, before a claim has been made in an official sense, would not serve the government well.

MR. SIHOTA: The odour from this episode may not serve that political party well, but it would serve the public well to know what went on.

Mr. Minister, you can't say that there's no agreement or claim. On Tuesday you indicated that "...arrangements are presently under discussion." If there is no

[ Page 12281 ]

claim or agreement, then surely there would be no discussion.

The question to the minister is this: do you agree that the discussions concern a salary payable to that member at the deputy minister level — i.e., $80,000 a year for a period of five years? Is that not the claim, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. MERCIER: This member is a lawyer, and I understand that he should know the process of making an agreement. In this situation this minister is denying that any such agreement existed. If this member is in any doubt about that, I'll say it again: there might have been a claim to have an agreement in place. This minister is saying that there is not an agreement in place, and that is the issue that is before us. Until a formal claim is made in some fashion that can be formally responded to, then this minister is taking the position that there is no claim.

INVESTIGATION OF POSSIBLE BREACH
OF SOCIAL SERVICE TAX ACT
CONFIDENTIALITY PROVISIONS

MR. REYNOLDS: I have a two-part question for the Minister of Finance. Yesterday while ruling on a privilege motion, Mr. Speaker, supported as he is by the best legal minds in the Commonwealth, said in reference to the actions of the member for Vancouver East: "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." In light of that serious statement, will the Finance minister advise the House whether he has referred or will refer the matter for investigation by the proper authorities; and in so doing, will he assure the House that because a high-profile MLA is involved, a special prosecutor will be appointed to assist in the investigation and charging process, as suggested by the ombudsman?

HON. J. JANSEN: The answer to the first question is yes. The second question I'll defer to the Attorney-General.

HON. MR. FRASER: I will neither confirm nor deny that there's an investigation underway, in accordance with the proper operation of this ministry.

MR. REYNOLDS: One supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the Attorney-General. Would he agree that if there were to be an investigation of any member of this House, his department would go along with the recommendation of the ombudsman to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate it?

MR. SPEAKER: It is out of order, because it's future policy. Perhaps as we get back to question period, I might remind the members that the Speaker is the person through whom questions should be addressed, rather than directing them across the floor.

FORMER CHAIRMAN
OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
MANAGEMENT CORPORATION

MR. SIHOTA: British Columbians are tired of a government that cuts backroom deals with its friends and insiders. The question now to the Minister of Environment is: would he agree that there was a promise not just of salary, and not just for five years, but of all the perks that deputy ministers are entitled to, including the provision of a car?

HON. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, a claim was filed with respect to the position referred to. The response of this minister was to deny that claim. The claim was not put in any formal manner beyond that, and until such time as it might be, I have taken the position that there is no claim and that no remuneration is payable, in line with the questions that you posed.

MR. SIHOTA: The minister has indicated that a claim was filed. Your leader said that your government has nothing to hide, if I may quote her. Now we're talking about a claim with a member here — talking about what may be a secret deal with your ministry. In fact, Mr. Minister, as you've already indicated, there was a letter of understanding between the member and your ministry governing this matter. Have you reviewed that letter?

HON. MR. MERCIER: I've already answered it. The problem I have is that should the government deny and want to refute that claim, then the member opposite should realize that he might impair my ability to deal with this matter on the basis fairest for the taxpayers of the province.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Minister, you say that there was a claim. That claim was in writing. Have you reviewed that claim, which was made in writing?

HON. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, the problem I have here is that I don't want to appear to be lecturing a lawyer on law. But there is a difference between a claim being filed and a contract. My position is that as long as it's in the status of a claim, then I have taken the appropriate action to this point in time on this issue.

MR. SIHOTA: You saw the claim; you've read the claim. Are you now prepared to table the documents that you have in your possession relating to this matter?

HON. MR. MERCIER: I don't think this member could have been a very good lawyer, because I really have explained this in a number of different ways. The position taken by the former chairman is to claim for something, and this minister is saying that nothing is claimable on. So the very point that you're trying to determine is the future disposition of this matter rather than the past history of this matter.

[ Page 12282 ]

MR. SIHOTA: This is an arrogant and corrupt administration, and it thinks it only has to answer to its friends. I want that minister to understand that his arrogance will not stop us from asking questions about its corruption.

For the time being let's put aside the matter of the future claim. On Monday you said in the chamber that the former chairman was expecting additional moneys. Let me provide you with the quote: "The former chairman's position is that there might be some additional remuneration forthcoming."

My question to the minister is this: how much money has he received to date?

HON. MR. MERCIER: The question is, how much remuneration has he received to date? I would take that on notice as to the exact amount, but it was in the nature of the normal stipend for that job as set out. The normal stipend in this case would be nil, because the person was a member of the Legislature and not entitled to additional compensation. I'm not sure about things like a car expense or reimbursement.

GOVERNMENT FORMS PRINTED IN U.S.

MR. G. JANSSEN: A question to the Minister of Government Services. Yesterday the minister claimed she had sent $140,000 worth of printing across the border because the specialized bar code could not be printed in B.C. or Canada. Can the minister confirm that this particular job was simply contracted to a print broker who did the work in the United States? And can the minister inform the House what research was completed to assure her officials that no local or Canadian printers could perform this job?

[2:30]

HON. MRS. GRAN: On behalf of the staff at the Queen's Printer, before I answer this question I want to ask the member for Port Alberni for an apology to those people.

The forms in question went out to tender.

MR. PERRY: Just call the election.

HON. MRS. GRAN: Does the member for Port.... Where is that member from? Vancouver–Point Grey. Do you want me to answer the question?

Eight Finance ministry forms are in question. Five of those forms have to have special bar coding, and that printing is not available in British Columbia, nor is it in Canada. Four or five firms bid on the job. Two were from British Columbia, and the rest were from eastern Canada. The firm that won is Island Business Forms, a company here on the Island for the last 35 years. They in turn sent the printing out to the United States, because it is the only place that it can be done. But all of the other companies would have sent the forms out to be printed in the United States as well.

What really bothers me about this question is the light that it sheds on a part of government that is very proud of their operation. Today on a personal phone call to a staff member there, this is what he said to me: "I can't understand why they're asking that question when they know what kind of an attitude we have over here." I believe the attitude adjustment needs to be on that side of the House.

MR. G. JANSSEN: Supplementary to the minister. The minister is attempting to dismiss this matter by suggesting her cross-border shopping only costs us $140,000. I know this is only a few flights home on the government jet to the minister, but it's a lot of money to B.C. printers, many of whom are small business operators. There are at least two companies in Vancouver that can print sequential bar codes. What's more, the government of British Columbia — B.C. Systems Corporation — has two machines capable of doing the job. Will the minister simply admit a mistake was made and make sure that B.C. government printing jobs get done in British Columbia?

HON. MRS. GRAN: Mr. Speaker, I have no hesitation in defending the employees or the policies of the Queen's Printer. But I do have a problem with the light that is being shed by the opposition on the operation of the Queen's Printer. It would seem to me that the head of the BCGEU should be asking his members not to vote NDP.

Ministerial Statement

CONFIDENTIALITY OF TAX INFORMATION

HON. J. JANSEN: Yesterday Mr. Speaker ruled on a matter of privilege raised by the member for West Vancouver-Howe Sound respecting actions by the member for Vancouver East. Although Mr. Speaker said the privilege question had not been established for technical reasons, his ruling also indicated more substantive concerns, which in turn raise fundamental questions that this affair has caused to be directed to me from members of the public.

Mr. Speaker, our tax collection system is built on the foundation of two necessarily immovable pillars: voluntary compliance and confidentiality, supported by random audits. Citizens must be able to rely on that confidentiality Officials of the Finance ministry must also be confident they are not adversely painted by the wrongful acts of anyone among them. Members of this House must not be seen to be abusing citizens' privacy by the pattern of examples their leadership sets.

Accordingly, I want to assure our staff that all prudent steps will be examined to ensure that those who might wrongfully disclose information do not continue in a position requiring that confidence. Further, I want to assure all citizens of this province that, despite the inappropriate acts of members opposite regarding their apparent disrespect for individual privacy, tax information is confidential. We will take all proper steps....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. ROSE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I assume this is a ministerial statement, although it

[ Page 12283 ]

would be very difficult to find out from his content. It is my contention — and I can give you a citation — that the minister has strayed far beyond policy or ministerial administration and...

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Thank you, Thumper.

...taken a deliberate excursion into "general arguments or observations beyond the fair bounds of explanation or too distinct a reference to previous debates...." These are distinctly out of order, and I would invite you to remind the member of the rules as set out on page 51, having to do with statements to the assembly and reply — by that great parliamentarian, that great mind at the table, Mr. George MacMinn.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the Chair has had this difficulty for some time. When ministers rise with prepared statements, the statements are occasionally prepared by people who aren't aware of what parliamentary practice and rules are. The Opposition House Leader is quite correct in that the scope of debate.... There is no debate. The scope of the statement made during ministerial statements is to be a ministerial statement and not to be argumentative. There is ample opportunity, not only in the preceding point of business but at other times, to get into arguments. The Chair is in a difficult situation because the Chair is not given advance notice of what the statement is going to be, and in many cases it's a prepared statement. So I would ask the ministers who are going to make these ministerial statements to please have someone read Standing Orders, the rules of the House, before preparing these things, because it's awkward for the Chair to try and judge in advance.

I ask the minister to continue, in order, which means not to be argumentative but to merely state the facts.

HON. J. JANSEN: Tax information is confidential. We will take all proper steps to ensure your privacy is not abused — it's a wrongful disclosure of your own confidential information. To that end, I sincerely request that the member for Vancouver East provide the Deputy Attorney-General with the name or names of the "reliable government sources" who provided to him in the first week of May 1991 the information he made....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. ROSE: The same point of order, Mr. Speaker. The minister has again ignored the rules of the House, and now he's asking questions of the hon. member. This is neither an administrative nor a policy-oriented subject of a ministerial statement. Again he's transgressed the rules of the House. And if he does it again, we'll call him out of order again, because he's always out of order and has been ever since he stood up.

MR. SPEAKER: It is the determination of the Chair as to who is in order and who is not in order. I do appreciate this additional help that I receive from members from time to time. The difficulty is that most of what the Minister of Finance has to say is quite in order. It's when they strain for the punch line that they get out of order.

However, I didn't have an advance look at what he was going to say, so I could not pencil out the punch lines, which would have allowed the whole thing to be quite in order. The minister understands that, and he's going to conclude now. Then we'll have someone else speak.

HON. J. JANSEN: The member opposite doth protest too much. I do not want the name, nor do I want the name made public. I simply ask that member for Vancouver East to help the proper authorities clear this matter up as quickly as possible. It is within his power to help; it is the right thing for him to do and will enable him to help right a wrong. I request he commit now to do so.

MR. CLARK: This is the most corrupt administration in the history of British Columbia.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Now we're going to end up doing it all over again, and my patience is being tested. What a ministerial statement is supposed to be is very clearly laid out in Parliamentary Practice — and so is the reply. It is a statement; it is not argumentative. We have lots of time for argument. Hopefully it will be in committee, and I won't have to attend. But the vast majority of the remarks are out of order when you begin with a statement such as the member made. So if the member wishes to add something specific to the portion of the minister's statement that was in order, I'll accept it. Otherwise, I'll have to rule you out of order.

MR. CLARK: In a parliamentary democracy Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition has an obligation to raise questions regarding the conduct of the administration. This is the highest court in the land. We receive information on this side of the House. We have an obligation and a duty to root out corruption wherever we can find it. I tell the people of British Columbia that this side of the House will not be muzzled.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I didn't rise earlier on a point of order because you handled it extremely well, realizing the member was totally out of order. But for clarification it should be noted that the Minister of Finance merely asked that member to right a wrong. When you're totally wrong, you should do the honourable thing and right that wrong. There was no attempt on this side of the House to muzzle the opposition.

[2:45]

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, perhaps we are nearing the end of the session and perhaps we're nearing the end of the parliament, but perhaps not. The difficulty I have is that some of you will be here in ensuing parliaments, and I would hope that if I'm a

[ Page 12284 ]

visitor in the gallery that those of you who were here in this parliament will not plead ignorance from lack of instruction from the Chair of any of the rules that you are actually bound by.

Orders of the Day

Budget Debate
(continued)

MR. DUECK: It is a privilege and a pleasure for me to rise and speak in support of the budget. At the outset, I would like to say that no one in this House has the monopoly on caring, the monopoly on intelligence, the monopoly on new ideas or the monopoly on ethics. That goes for both sides of the House.

The people are pleased with the economy in this province. If we look at 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990 and 1991, we have a $1.2 billion deficit that averages out to $200 million a year. Can anyone point to a province in Canada that has consistently had an average deficit of a $200 million a year?

This budget, with a $395 million deficit, is the type of budget people expect from the government in a recession period. I am proud to go to an election with the budget we're putting forward this year. This budget recognizes both the fiscal responsibility and the social responsibility expected of governments today but so very rarely delivered.

All we have to do is look at Ontario. It has been asked again and again: "Why are you bringing up Ontario?" It is an example of socialist government, and just as the other side uses us as an example, we are using Ontario as an example of what the socialists have done. And the last of the story about Ontario has not yet been told; this is only the beginning. In my opinion, it's only the peak of the iceberg, and the rest, which is yet to follow, we'll see in the coming months.

Our party has delivered responsible budgets for years, and consequently has been returned to office again and again. This will continue. I am confident that the people of this province will again elect a free enterprise system, and that is the Social Credit government.

A $395 million deficit in these times is acceptable to maintain our social programs. It is a responsible budget, an honest budget and a caring budget. This is the type of budget British Columbians expect from a government that they support. We will not mortgage our future and leave a massive debt for our children. I am a father and a grandfather, and I have taught my children that one must be responsible in matters of economy. Therefore I believe the same applies to government: we must be responsible; we must not spend more than we take in. There are times when we have to borrow, and that is fair enough. But it requires responsibility.

Our party has always believed in lessening the burden of taxes on citizens, and we will continue to be frugal. Our party has always believed in providing a network of social programs to assist those in need, and the budget has done that. For example, 72 percent of our total expenditure is for social programs, which are in education, health and social services. That is a big percentage, and I think we should be commended for that.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

We spend 27 percent of our total expenditure on education. We hear so much about education, health and social services being underfunded, but when you look at the percentages spent in those areas, you will find that they are great compared to other provinces. You can compare them, but we haven't got time to go into all that today. In health alone, there's $5.4 million. I know something about the Health ministry, and I truly believe that if we don't find some method of providing those services in some other way, we will not be able to carry that burden. When we consider the percentage increase this year, it will soon be an increase of a billion, a billion and a half or two billion dollars a year. It cannot be done. The economy of British Columbia, with three million people, cannot carry that. We must find a way to deliver health services as well or better, in some other way. There are many methods and options that we have discussed in the past.

I also would like to say that 4 cents of every dollar of revenue is spent in retiring our debt. That is the lowest in all of Canada. We do not spend a lot of money to pay off debts. It's 4 cents, which is really a very low figure. Ontario spends two and a half times as much. If we continue paying a percentage greater than what we just discussed, again we're spending all our revenue on retiring our debt. It cannot be done — not in individual households; not in government. It is not just a book entry, where some people say it doesn't matter — government borrows money and you enter it on that side of the ledger. It is an actual debt that must be paid off. That money must be earned. It must be generated in this province by people. And I submit that British Columbia has done a very good job in doing that.

B.C. has the lowest net direct debt as a percentage of GDP in all of Canada. How can the opposition argue some of these beautiful statistics that I'm quoting? You should actually say: "We're proud of that, and if we ever get into government we will continue that performance." This is very good news, this is positive news, and the public is not fooled by rhetoric from the opposition. When I travel around the province, I hear that they're not fooled. They know what's going on in here and that games are being played. They know that the real result is what comes out at the end, what we pay in taxes, the dollars we spend and how we spend our money in general terms on services so much needed by the public.

For example, the Investment Dealers' Association of Canada says that B.C. sets the example for fiscal management in Canada. This is not Social Credit talking; this is not someone from our side of the House saying we're great. This is the investment dealers of Canada. Compare that to a $10 billion deficit for one year. Everyone knows where that is. I'm afraid to even mention the name, because I'd be repetitive. But that's not the end of the story. They have now actually

[ Page 12285 ]

forecast the deficit that they will carry for the next four years. It is frightening, because Ontario was in longterm debt by $35 billion. They themselves say: "In four years we will double that amount." That's not the end of the story. That's what they're saying. It will probably be far greater than that. It is really a sham. What we basically have to say is that it's really socialism. It really gives me the heebie-jeebies when I think about it.

I am convinced that the people of B.C. will ensure that Social Credit will continue to govern B.C. and will win the next election hands-down. People are tired of the negative whining from the opposition. They are fed up by members opposite opposing everything that the government has done. They have no solutions, but they have much to crow about. They have no real solutions. Have they ever come up with a solution? Just criticism. They are truly experts in the art of opposition. You know, I can understand that. Tell me, who has had more practice and experience in that role? Who has had more experience in the art of opposition? This is their expertise from years and years of being on that side of the House.

Mind you, the NDP certainly have toned down their rhetoric and their total view on the philosophy of socialism. They really are trying very hard to go down the middle of the road, and say: "No, we're not like those people. No, no, we've changed." Let's not forget. All those people that are listening in today, I want to tell them: remember socialism is socialism is socialism. They remain socialists, and you can't change that. They're trying very hard to get rid of that image. But it won't wash. It just doesn't wash. People won't be fooled. They are a lot more sophisticated than you think, and they will not be fooled. They will not elect this opposition to govern this province in the future. Social Credit believes in individual enterprise. This great country of ours was built on individual initiative, not controls on businesses, strangling them out of existence.

The second member for Victoria last year talked about a tax on speculation, like flipping property. I see Ontario has just announced they are going to do the same thing. The Ontario government had a tax on speculators flipping property, but let me tell you what happened: they spent one dollar for every 3 cents they collected. When they did an analysis of all the people in place to collect this flipping tax on property, this speculators' tax, they abandoned it. Now this government comes along — they're a lot smarter; they don't learn from history, oh no. They say: "We're going to catch those speculators." They're going to spend another buck to collect 3 cents. Do you know what? They will do exactly that. They will analyse it again, and they will abandon it after a while, because it doesn't work.

A lot of it is rhetoric from both sides of the House, I agree. But when we really come down to the basic facts of being a socialist or a free enterprise party, you have to admit that to govern, to have good management, it cannot be done in the socialist form. The example is that in this province we have had good money management for many years, and it has shown, because people have said: "Yes, we like what you're doing. Yes, this is the land of opportunity, and we will elect you again and again." We will continue to be good money-managers. The people know full well that Social Credit government has done that in the past and will do that in the future.

[3:00]

A comparison of free enterprise and socialist governments around the world reveals a consistent pattern of higher taxes in socialist countries and lower taxes under free enterprise governments. It's not Peter Dueck or the Social Credit government speaking; these are facts. These are from economists that have written this up in journals. The highest tax rates in the world are those in socialist countries. That promotes....

Interjections.

MR. DUECK: I wish the members from my side would quit. I want to talk to these people.

That promotes the underground economy. I was in Sweden, and someone at the level of deputy minister told me, when I asked him about taxes: "Well, it's very high." I think it was something like 72 percent in his particular wage bracket, and the value-added was 20-some percent. I said: "How in the world can you make ends meet?" Then it dawned on me, and I said: "What is the underground economy like?" You know what he told me? He said: "If we don't have to give a receipt, and if it's cash, it's automatically 50 percent off." That's what happens when you tax people out of existence. That's why we don't want that type of government.

People in British Columbia have a choice, and that choice will be coming up very soon. As a matter of fact, I can guarantee it within a year, perhaps less than that. People have a choice. They can elect a government that's efficient, a government that's fiscally responsible, good money-managers, government that cares. The proof is the economy of British Columbia. They can elect the most efficient government in Canada today, versus the other side of the coin: government controls, much higher taxes, Big Brother watching, no incentive, taking away personal initiative. That is the other side of the coin.

In 1990, net immigration into British Columbia was 64,000 people. Why are people coming here? They don't come because they like me or you or anyone else; they come to British Columbia because it's a land of opportunity.

Nearly half of the jobs created in Canada a year ago were created in British Columbia. Just imagine: a province of three million people creating 50 percent of all new jobs in Canada. That's British Columbia.

Interjection.

MR. DUECK: Yes, but 50 percent on the other side that were created in the other parts of Canada were the same type of jobs. This is a record that cannot be beat.

People know this; they're not dumb. They know there's a stable government in British Columbia that's fiscally responsible and that allows people to prosper

[ Page 12286 ]

— not one that puts fear of uncertainty in their current fiscal policy or worse still, the uncertainty of future policy that could be even more scary than what we see today.

The Leader of the Opposition says they will balance the books, yet all the promises made in the last few months would add another $2 billion to the expenditure side of the ledger. I believe he has some explaining to do about the tax and spending intentions of his party, because it just doesn't add up and he knows it. I think the Leader of the Opposition is not a fool. He is making political speeches. He knows that if all the promises are kept, they cannot balance the budget. They will be at least $2 billion in the red. I believe that the explaining must be done by the leader before too long, so that people know what the choices are. He skillfully evades all such questions. He talks about underfunding, but promises no tax increases and a balanced budget. Now just imagine all those promises: no tax increases and a balanced budget. It cannot be done. What the NDP say and what they would do are two different things. The myth they try to portray is moderation. The reality is uncontrolled expenditure.

I would now like to say a few things about my constituency, which is very important to me. I think I live in one of the most beautiful and decent communities in all of British Columbia. I've resided there since 1951. I used to know all the people there, but it's growing so rapidly that now I don't recognize a lot of people when I go to a shopping centre, because we now have roughly 85,000 people in the Abbotsford-Matsqui area.

Central Fraser Valley constituency is without a doubt one of the most vibrant and active constituencies in the province. This can be said not only about our business sectors, but also for the organizations: the many groups and dedicated individuals who make up our communities. I am certainly proud to represent such a uniquely community-minded constituency as Central Fraser Valley, and I will continue to work hard to bring about many more initiatives to benefit our area.

They know that Social Credit government is committed to furthering economic growth and diversification, preserving our environment and fostering an education policy committed to enhanced access to university education in our local area. Fraser Valley College is a fine educational institute that we can all be proud of, but I believe that our local students should have the opportunity to receive a university degree without having to travel great distances. I am committed to lobbying the Minister of Advanced Education very hard to get a university-college in Central Fraser Valley.

While driving around our constituency, one may see firsthand the record number of new homes, apartments and commercial buildings being built in Central Fraser Valley. Housing starts alone in the area, particularly Abbotsford-Matsqui, have increased phenomenally since 1986. In addition, many of our businesses are expanding, and new ones are being created weekly.

We don't see the pessimism that I hear from the opposite side of the House. Our community is vibrant, growing, happy with the government and successful. When I come into my community they thank me for the good job we're doing in government and how we're managing their tax dollars.

I would like to speak a little about the unsung heroes in British Columbia, particularly in my constituency. These are the volunteers. We talk so much about budget; we talk so much about staff; we talk so much about all the people we've got in the community. We seldom talk in this House about the volunteers.

After many years of government taking on more and more social responsibilities once borne by the private citizen, the churches and what have you — you can go back in history — the pendulum seems to be swinging back again where the private citizen is saying: "I'm offering my volunteer services to the community of my free will, for no pay."

Researchers at the University of Michigan recently did a study, and they found that people who do regular volunteer service are healthier and live longer. Why aren't we all involved? Most of us are, I think, in some way or another. The idea of giving back something to the community of your own free will seems to be undergoing a very great revival among people who we least expect it from, and that is the "me" generation — the young people. They are now awakening to the fact that there's much satisfaction in doing something for free, offering your services and also helping other people

Community Affairs of Canada, for example, tell us that Canadian high schools have been mobilizing students to help the disabled, entertain children and drive people to and from hospitals. They help slow learners by tutoring them, and they babysit for working mothers. All this is on a voluntary basis. This also is very evident in my constituency. I would like to say that we have more volunteers in our community than anywhere else, other than New Westminster perhaps. I spoke with the member for New Westminster on many occasions when I was Minister Responsible for Seniors, and they do have an excellent group in New Westminster that is very active, and I certainly commend them.

I spoke earlier about the bureaucrat I met in Sweden. Do you know what he told me also? He told me this with a bit of embarrassment. He said: "Do you know that we are sponsoring government classes to teach people to be volunteers?" Unheard of! Because for years they were teaching people the concept that no one should do anything without being paid. They are now saying: "Oh, my goodness, there's a great resource in seniors, and what have you, who can help, and they love to help." And they now have courses to teach them how to do it. That is the socialist government.

Karen Hill of the Canadian Council on Social Development says: "Self-help is really mutual help. By giving of ourselves we not only help someone else; we help ourselves as well." Someone was overheard at a service club — and I don't know whether this is true or not — saying: "I'd gladly volunteer if they paid me a decent wage." That's not volunteering.

The concept of mutual support is implicit in every major religious belief in the world. For example....

[ Page 12287 ]

Interjection.

MR. DUECK: Member, listen up. I've got some good stuff to tell you.

Mr. Speaker, I said every religion in the world has the same concept. For example, in Hinduism they say: he does not live in vain who employs his wealth, his thought, his speech to advance the good of others. Taoist philosophy: the way to heaven is to benefit others. The prophet Mohammed: a man's true wealth is hereafter the good he does in this world to his fellow man. In the Old Testament, the example of Job: I was eyes to the blind and feet I was to the lame; I was father to the poor; and the cause, which I knew not, I sought out. In the New Testament, the parable of the good Samaritan. Every one of them.... And we have forgotten.

A lot of people do not think that volunteers give a tremendous service to our community. A little thought and a little kindness are often worth more than a great deal of money. Volunteer service is so valuable to its beneficiaries as to be literally priceless. Who could ever count what it's worth to a crippled child to be taught how to swim or to an elderly shut-in, for example, to have someone do the shopping or drop in to chat? We could go on and on with examples.

Would you believe volunteer activities in Canada account for 3.3 percent of the Canadian GNP? Would you also believe that 374 million man-hours were spent in volunteerism in one year in Canada? It is absolutely phenomenal. Sir Wilfred Grenfell, who spent many years helping the people of Labrador....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Time, hon. member. I know it goes by quickly when you're having fun.

The second member for Boundary-Similkameen asks leave to make an introduction.

[3:15]

Leave granted.

MR. BARLEE: I would like to introduce 16 students from the Kettle River country, from the far reaches of that historic part of British Columbia — places like Bridesville, Rock Creek, Westbridge and Beaverdell. They started out about 5 o'clock this morning and are accompanied by their teachers Mrs. Louise Fossen, Mr. Lonnie Mader and Mr. Dean Corbett; and their driver, Mr. Chris Anschetz. I would ask the House to help me welcome them to the precincts of the House.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to take my place in the budget debate and to start out by saying that the most important budget figure is not in the budget. The most important budget figure is three-million-plus, and that is the number of individual budgets we have in this province.

On June 4 the federal census-takers will begin to give us a more exact number, but whatever that number is, we know it will be more than it was ten years ago. During that time our province has experienced tremendous growth in spite of two major recessions. People are attracted to British Columbia partly because of the climate and partly, too, because of the climate of opportunity we've been able to create with successive Social Credit budgets.

This year is no exception. The $11 billion that we will spend this year on health care, education and social services exceeds our entire budget when we were first elected in 1986. That's a commitment to people that's second to none in this country That's a commitment to sound management and a reflection of the strength of this government. That strength in turn reflects the dedicated, hard-working cabinet supported by an outstanding public service.

The key to our success has been our principles — values that the average British Columbian understands and believes in: the ethic of reward for work, and caring and compassionate free enterprise. These things have been said before, so why do I repeat them now? I repeat them because this simple lesson in home economics is lost on the opposition and their friends in Ontario.

People vote with their feet, and they vote by the thousands year after year for British Columbia over other parts of Canada. Why do they choose British Columbia? They come here because it's a beautiful province and because there are jobs. They choose British Columbia because taxes are low and because government services are second to none. They choose our province because they don't want their children and grandchildren saddled with the debts of reckless, irresponsible governments. They choose British Columbia because our education system is second to none. People know their children will receive the best. Most importantly, they choose British Columbia because they see a better future here than elsewhere.

Let me refer to a couple of very specific, fundamental comparisons. Let us look at British Columbia versus Ontario. Why Ontario? Because in Ontario the very same party as members opposite are basically tearing up the economic and financial fabric of Canada's largest and once most prosperous province. So what does the table on page 81 of the budget say? It says that for a single-income family of four earning $45,000, taxes and health care premiums will cost $6,028 in British Columbia this fiscal year. In Ontario that same family will pay $6,940. That's an added tax burden of $912 per family, and the NDP have been in office less than one year.

There's more. There's a hidden tax, like a hidden agenda of the members opposite if they should ever succeed in gaining the power they seek. The hidden tax is the deficit. Government deficits are a tax timebomb. The borrowing mounts, it accumulates and the interest on the debt ticks and compounds. The interest clock ticks and ticks. They don't want to listen on the opposite side of the House, but whoever is home when the creditors come knocking will have to pay the bills. They'll have to pay the debt and the accumulated and compound interest.

Let's go back to table H3 on page 81. Let's look at the line which adds the hidden taxes to the annual tax burden and compare again British Columbia under

[ Page 12288 ]

Social Credit with Ontario under the NDP The total tax and deficit obligations for our family of four in British Columbia is $6,518 per year. In Ontario the burden is $10, 807. A family of four is paying $4,289 more. That is the hidden agenda of the members opposite — $4,289 more by way of a tax bill. Next year it could be worse, and the year after that worse again. People understand these simple facts. That's why people move to British Columbia in droves. They're moving here because it's worth moving. It's worth the cost and the dislocation to go to a province with a future.

Suppose for a moment that British Columbians were faced with an Ontario-style NDP. Heaven forbid. I notice the Leader of the Opposition isn't in the room, but never mind the slick talk of my Vancouver lawyer friend, the Leader of the Opposition. The NDP fiscal penalty would be served up here as well. No one is fooled. The penalty would be billions of dollars in spending and billions of dollars in taxes and hidden taxes. Where would the money go? There are unmistakable clues. They come from the head of the B.C. Government Employees' Union, from the head of the B.C. Teachers' Federation, himself a failed NDP candidate, and from the Leader of the Opposition, who vows to tear up successful and balanced Social Credit labour legislation. Why quarrel with success? Why go back to the bad old days of nasty strikes and wide open secondary picketing — unless you're serving a special interest agenda?

MR. G. HANSON: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I know there is a certain amount of latitude with respect to notes, but it's not customary in this House to have a member rise and read verbatim a transcript of a speech. I'd ask the Chair to bring that Premier to order.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It seems that in the view of members of the opposition there should be one set of regulations for our side of the House and a different set for theirs. I think we should all be treated the same way.

The public knows that NDP policy will not mean better services for British Columbians and that taxpayers will simply pay more for the same level of service. British Columbians know that NDP policy will take from hard-working average British Columbians to meet the endless demands of special interest groups. In the long run, serving the special interest groups simply means that our children will go broke. It's really very easy to go broke. It's the lazy man's way, but it's not my way and it's not our government's way.

In spite of all we have accomplished, you will hear claims that we have not done enough. There is always good that needs to be done, but there are never enough dollars to do it all. In my view, the secret of success is balance; not just balance between expenditures and revenues, but balance between present and future needs. The balance between taxpayers' ability to pay and the taxtakers' plans to spend; balance between the highs and the lows of economic activity in a province which depends on healthy export markets for its life blood. That balance requires understanding, commitment and vision.

Interjection.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Hon. member, are you interested in listening? If you're not, possibly you would just like to leave the room.

Understanding how hard it is to earn a dollar and how easy it is to spend one, the commitment of this government is to get value for the money we're spending and the vision to invest in the services and the infrastructure that will certainly keep our economic life-blood pumping.

In the past our highways and the powerlines have been the veins and arteries of our province's economy. These investments have served us very well. But today our priorities are shifting as we look forward to a new economy and greater emphasis on higher skills, entrepreneurship and environmental balance. We look forward to diversifying our economic base, renewing our forests and securing an attractive climate for small business growth and innovative companies. These firms will increasingly add value to our products, and create the greatest portion of good-paying jobs. We all know that the greatest number of jobs are created by small business in this province.

This year we're maintaining the second-lowest overall taxes in Canada. While spending 71 cents of every tax dollar on health, education and social services, which is a record in Canada, our per capita debt is the lowest in the country, and we're spending only four cents out of every dollar to service that debt. Mr. Speaker, only four cents out of every dollar. We will not balance the budget this year on the backs of patients in our hospitals or students in our classrooms, but we'll balance the budget over the business cycle while providing major enhancement in new school construction and an increase of more than 12 percent in our provincial health care budget. This year we're increasing the supplemental grants to half of the amount by which school taxes exceed the maximum basic homeowner grant, once again confirming our commitment to home ownership as the basis for sound families and strong communities throughout this province.

[3:30]

The opposition talks about open government, but on this side of the House we're looking forward with great anticipation to the open opposition. The opposition is fond of telling us to cut the same budget 20 times, instead of finding 20 places where the budget could be cut. But even their own party's financial policy analyst, Douglas Broome, has disagreed with this political shell game. We think the public deserves to know what they would do instead of compensation fairness.

It amazes me that they won't tell us where they get their facts — we saw another example of that here today — even when their facts are clearly wrong. I'd like to say more about the opposition, but I really hate to be negative. I'd hate to be a public servant in a province that didn't have sound financial management.

[ Page 12289 ]

The most important thing about this budget is that it's good for the three million budgets of average British Columbians, who we are all here to serve — not the organized voices of protest and dissent, but the too often unheard voices of frustration and worry from the average British Columbians. These are the people who work hard to support themselves and their families to make ends meet, and who dare to hope that tomorrow may be a little brighter than today.

I believe our province has matured; our economic outlook is sound. But we recognize that the natural resource industries are not going to generate jobs at the primary and secondary level to the extent that they have in the past. I believe we have excellent prospects for higher value-added forest products, but I also recognize that we need action on the memorandum of understanding with the United States and perhaps a more flexible attitude toward exchange rates.

An artificially high dollar is equally bad for B.C.'s forest industry. On the other hand, we're delighted by the federal government's recent announcement of a major review of factors which affect Canada's competitiveness in world markets. The review is of great importance to British Columbia, which derives a large part of its prosperity from foreign trade. Our quality of life is second to none; everybody in the House knows that. That's going to be an increasingly important factor in our economic future.

New companies will increasingly seek out locations based on quality of life in all its aspects: the environmental, the economic and social. That's really why people and companies are moving here.

Over the term of this government, the number of people employed in British Columbia has increased by almost one-quarter of a million, roughly the population of greater Victoria, and that's an astounding figure. At the same time, many others have come to British Columbia to retire which has put tremendous pressures on our health care system.

While seniors account for 13 percent of our population, they use about 45 percent of health care funding. On average our population continues to age as the baby boom generation works its way through the system. As new pharmaceuticals and technology become available, health costs get higher. As we live longer, the costs of care increase. For all of these reasons it's clearly vital that we keep our competitive edge and a vibrant free enterprise economy to generate the revenues needed to sustain the quality of these services.

I would invite the opposition to join us in facing up to these realities. They would find it a refreshing change from the things they usually talk about in the House. It's neither right nor proper for us to spend the income of future generations without accountability, representation or a sound plan to ensure the long-term prosperity of the province. The public understands that. That's why they have chosen Social Credit time and time again. Even in 1972, a majority of British Columbians chose free enterprise. But then, as in Ontario last year, the forces of free enterprise were divided, with tragic results for taxpayers, average families and young people looking for expanding opportunities. We will not allow that to happen again.

We will not leave the public in the dark about the real and clear choices between this budget and the philosophy it represents on the one hand, and the opposition's patently plastic approach to the old politics — promises, promises, promises. Talk is cheap. The actions of the NDP in Ontario are far better evidence of what British Columbia's future would look like under the opposition than any plastic promises they make here today.

Our achievements as a government in building British Columbia, as evidenced once again in this very sound and responsible budget, are clear. These are the best evidence of what this government would provide three million average British Columbians over the next four years. Night and day — the choice is very clear. The budgets of three million British Columbians depend on that choice. I have confidence they will once again make the right choice.

In conclusion, I'm delighted to support this outstanding budget which reflects the excellent work done by my colleague the Minister of Finance and member for Chilliwack. It's good for the people and it's good for British Columbia.

MR. GUNO: It is with great pleasure that I take my place in this debate. I want to acknowledge for my elders, as is required in my upbringing as a Nisga'a, the fact that I have followed Sigidim Hanak', which means in Nisga'a "this lady, " and is really an acknowledgment of the office of the Premier and the person who occupies it, and to say that it is a privilege to follow her in this debate.

I want to say that I join my colleagues on this side of the House in condemning this budget as a sham and that I'll be voting against it. I do so for a number of reasons, many of which have been so clearly stated by the previous speakers on this side of the House. Indeed, I listened with a great deal of interest to the speech by the member for New Westminster yesterday, who so forcefully and eloquently laid bare the government's deception that it is both caring and a good fiscal manager. I agree with her conclusions and the conclusions of the rest of my colleagues about this budget: that it is a confusing political document and that it is unfair and certainly not caring.

I want first to talk about the budget's reference to the Ministry of Solicitor-General, an area that I am responsible for as a critic. Except for the announcement of three new correctional centres that will be replacing the Oakalla facility in 1992, there seem to be no other new initiatives in the Solicitor-General's department to deal effectively with some of the issues that need to be dealt with in that area.

For example, our correctional institutions are still disproportionately populated by native Indians. I've pointed out this fact since I was first elected in 1986. I have yet to see any response by this government about this travesty of our justice system.

Nor is there any indication of a review and upgrading of the provincial emergency program so that British

[ Page 12290 ]

Columbians can be assured that the government can deal with any type of major emergency that may arise.

There are a number of other issues within the Solicitor-General's department that have not been dealt with. I don't think there's been any new initiative in terms of training correctional institute personnel to deal more effectively with prisoners. Perhaps the Solicitor-General has been too preoccupied — or dare I say Messmerized — in his misguided notion that the poor are ripping off the government in Ontario.

Perhaps the Solicitor-General and indeed this government have missed the obvious point that youth criminality is a symptom of a larger malaise. I thought that the second member for Vancouver Centre dealt with it well yesterday by pointing out that it is the intolerable conditions of life that bring about such a rise in the crime rate. I think that the Premier's rather hysterical reaction to the reports of the rising crime rate in British Columbia can be qualified by experts pointing out that perhaps there isn't that kind of real increase but rather an increase in reporting crime. I think we have to be a little more circumspect in terms of trying to deal with this problem. We can't just build new jails and hire new prosecutors. I think we have to look at the conditions that give rise to the phenomenon. This budget will only worsen those conditions, as there are no provisions for the growing unemployment of our young people in British Columbia.

I want to move to the part that I find the most disturbing about the budget. It's not the budget in itself but the continuing effort by this government to hide the fact, so obvious to everyone, that the government has presented British Columbia with a record deficit to the tune of $1.2 billion in 1992. I think the continuing efforts by our Minister of Finance — the third one that we've had — who continues to doggedly insist that the budget deficit is just $395 million.... This is what I'd find most disturbing: the efforts of those opposite to I deceive the public about the size of the deficit.

I would describe such an effort as Orwellian doublespeak, but I think that such a crude effort to hide this is so transparent that there is no way we can use such a sophisticated level on such a pathetic attempt to skirt the truth. I would concede that there is plenty of room for debate about the advisability of having such a deficit. Politics, after all, is about working out conflicting demands on scarce resources. This is one of our duties — to deal with those conflicts — and this is the forum where that process is worked out. But for that political process to work effectively, there must be some parameters against which rhetoric replaces the truth. As political leaders, it is incumbent upon all of us to set an example — to deal with tough issues with some integrity.

[3:45]

I point this out because the Premier, in announcing her candidacy in the coming leadership convention of a her party, has said that one of her top priorities is law and order. We on this side of the House are also for law and order — but with justice and fairness. My point is that this commitment to law and order, this commitment that the Premier has so dearly attached herself to, somehow rings hollow when this government continues to refuse to come clean about the size of their own budget. It is difficult to take the Premier and our government seriously when they break their own legislation — the tax protection legislation, which just ver a month ago they so glowingly passed with enthusiasm.

I would suggest that the government has a major credibility problem. It is perceived by the public that hey will do anything and say anything to cling to power. I don't see how they can provide the moral leadership amid such ethical confusion and hypocrisy. In ordinary times such a spectacle would be serious. But these are not ordinary times. The erosion of public confidence in our politicians and our political institutions is unprecedented in this country and province. The growing public cynicism about the political process is not a phenomenon that we can continue to ignore. If we do, we do so at our peril.

For us in this House to demonstrate that we're serious about dealing with some of the more difficult economic and constitutional problems, we have to start with the basics. I would suggest that the basics are political honesty, political will and political leadership. This government has had ample opportunity to demonstrate that they can provide that kind of leadership, honesty and direction. But judging by the throne speech and this budget, I suggest they have failed pathetically.

I want to deal just briefly with some of my own riding issues. Because I will be the last member from Atlin....

AN HON. MEMBER: Historic.

MR. GUNO: Historic, yes. I take great pleasure in dealing with some of the problems that we have to face in the far north. It's ironic that when people, especially embers from the urban areas, talk about the north, they talk about Prince George, forgetting that Prince George is really central — halfway.

I want to speak about the budget and how to fix my riding. First, I must say that once again the priorities and needs of the northerners have been ignored. It is true that there have been some concessions to the needs of us northerners. I would say that the expansion of the Medical Plan to include travel allowance for patients who have to obtain specialized treatment away from home is welcome news to my constituents. But overall, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the budget does not acknowledge the fact that there really are two British Columbias: one in the lower mainland and southern Vancouver Island, wherein most of the wealth and opportunities are allocated or exist; and the second the rest of B.C., where the further north you go, the horse the conditions are in terms of unemployment and social, health and educational services. If we're going to have balanced economic growth for all British Columbians, we must move beyond this hinterland metropolis mentality, which is the hallmark of Socred economic strategy.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

[ Page 12291 ]

I want to move on now to the issue of aboriginal land claims, an issue quite dear to my heart, obviously. Ever since I was elected to this assembly in 1986 I've watched and listened with great interest to this government's struggle to grapple with this very complex and long-standing issue. They were consistent for the first four and a half years in simply sandbagging, stonewalling and making it very difficult to come to a rational way of dealing with this problem. But I must say, Mr. Speaker, that their turnabout in the last few months has been rather breathtaking and quite interesting. The obvious question arises: is this a genuine effort on the part of this government to finally accommodate the long-standing grievance of the aboriginal people, or is it a deathbed conversion? I hope it is the former. Because as my colleague the first member for Victoria commented yesterday, we really should maintain a non partisan stance on this issue. It is a long-standing human rights question that needs to be dealt with in a non-confrontational way. I think we owe it to all British Columbians to take on that kind of strategy.

It's true that this budget provides some very impressive increases in the native ministry to facilitate negotiations....

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell that to Don Ryan.

MR. GUNO: Yes, I will tell it to Don Ryan, and I think you will find that he understands that kind of strategy as well as most aboriginal leaders do. They have said so and continue to say so. It's those members over there who heat up the rhetoric.

On the other hand, the Premier, in spite of the rhetoric about this new accommodation, talks about law and order, which I think is a euphemism for clamping down on roadblocks. And what about roadblocks? I think it's a political expression by a desperate people who feel that their aspirations are simply being ignored and sandbagged.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's breaking the law.

MR. GUNO: It is not breaking the law. It's no more breaking the law than this government continuing to break the law over on their side. What I find very disturbing, Mr. Speaker, is that we surely have not learned from the lessons of Oka, and this government...

HON. J. JANSEN: Do you agree with roadblocks?

MR. GUNO: ...and especially given the Finance minister's comments right now, simply has ignored history. In fact, that myopia, I think, is prevalent throughout this government. In spite of the fact that they say that they're going to accommodate, that they're moving into a new era of relationship....

Interjections.

MR. GUNO: What about breaking the law and the aboriginal rights? What about that? That naked force....

MR. KEMPF: Do you agree with roadblocks?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. This is debate time on the motion; it is not question period. Possibly the members could hold their questions until question period and allow the member for Atlin to continue with his comments on the budget.

MR. GUNO: Actually, I don't mind the interjections; I think they're quite revealing.

I bring up the situation at Oka because I think it has some very valuable lessons to offer all of us, and I think we can avoid another hot summer if we can be a little more understanding about this issue. Naked force, stated under the guise of law and order, is the worst way to deal with an issue that is so long-standing, complex and explosive.

I listened to the comments made by the Attorney General in his debate speech a couple of days ago that aboriginal title does not exist. He referred to the McEachern decision to confirm that position. I am troubled by that, because it sends some very bad signals. In so arrogantly dismissing the legitimate claims of the aboriginal people, he invites further confrontation. That, I would suggest, is a direct contradiction of the statement of this government that they are moving into a new era of accommodation. The logical extension of the argument that aboriginal people do not have a history and that they do not have the institutions of an organized society is an ethnocentric view that would relegate aboriginal people to being only part of the flora and fauna of this land. The aboriginal people will never accept such an outrageous ethnocentric view.

An article appeared in the Times-Colonist today by Steve R. Lundin entitled: "By What Right Do We Alone Define 'Human Rights'?" This article refers to comments by Rob Angus about the fact that native American culture and land claims make clear the extent...that it simply does not exist. He states that:

"Angus reaffirms Chief justice Allan McEachern's convenient definition of cultural worth and thus perpetuates those ethnocentric attitudes that have historically justified countless crimes against humanity. As an archaeologist whose career has encompassed the study of North America's first settlers, I am dismayed to discover such attitudes still exist today."

Mr. Speaker, I've been fortunate in living in two worlds. I have been educated as an aboriginal person in my own community and have been brought up as an Nisga'a. I know the language; I know what it is to be a Nisga'a. But I've also been educated in a western way

One of the benchmarks that Mr. Angus uses to determine whether or not you have a civilized society is the existence of written language, so he dismisses our society as being uncivilized because we have an oral tradition. I have more than a passing interest in English literature; I've read Chaucer, Yeats, Wordsworth and some of the more recent English and American literary giants. I find similarities in the imagery, the human wisdom and understanding of the human psyche that are inherent in both. So I find it difficult to understand that the people on the other

[ Page 12292 ]

side would say that we have no history and no institutions.

I also studied law. I studied your law, and I actually practised it for a while. But I also was taught Nisga'a Ayuuk which means Nisga'a law. I find the similarities to be amazing: similarities in notions of presumptions of innocence, of fairness, of a fair way of settling disputes. After all, if we didn't have those, how could we have existed for ten thousand years?

[4:00]

Also, I've been part of your political system and been involved in our own political system; and, quite frankly, judging by the members opposite, they are certainly no example or record that I can send smoke signals home about.

At any rate, my point is that I don't think anyone, no matter how civilized they are, can judge and say, "You have no human rights," because to extend that argument is to extend the same kind of mentality that gives rise to the kind of situation we have in South Africa and even to the same kind of ideology that Nazi Germany operated under, and that's a dangerous notion.

I also want to quote one of the statements that Mr. Lundin made: "To state that since native Americans possessed no linguistic concept of ownership...is like saying that before the Declaration of Human Rights humans possessed no rights." Surely one would hope that those qualities which we use to define our civilization and hold it as just and moral would also, by virtue of our belief in them, extend to our treatment of other, different cultures. In the absence of this, we would make a mockery of such ideals, and that's the danger here: continuing to ignore and trying to play politics with the very fundamental human rights that we call the aboriginal land question.

That is why we must make every effort to seek ways of understanding. As aboriginal people, we have something to offer, and there is an opportunity to form a a synthesis that future generations of British Columbians can enjoy. It's kind of ironic that this House is surrounded by replicas of Indian culture; and yet inside this House we continue to say, at least on the government side, that they don't have any rights, that they, as a superior civilization, can move in, and just by edict eliminate them as human beings. We have to make that kind of effort.

I must say that there has been a new climate and in no way.... I have to acknowledge that when the member for South Peace River was Minister of Native Affairs, he did all he could to come to that kind of understanding. I'm proud to be part of this party and of our leader, who has the political fortitude to say: "Yes, when we form government we as a party will negotiate and will negotiate honourably."

I want to conclude by just saying that, as I said before, I plan to vote against this budget, because I believe it is not what the Finance minister says: that it is only a $395 million deficit, that it is caring and that it is an example of good management. I think it's the diametrical opposite of all those claims. For those reasons, Mr. Speaker, I urge the members here to vote against this budget.

MR. REYNOLDS: It's always a pleasure to speak in the throne speech and budget debate, because it's the one opportunity we get as members to discuss all the issues that take place in this House.

One of the concerns I've had, Mr. Speaker, especially in this session, is the personal attacks that are taking place in this Legislature — the ethics. We heard the member for Vancouver East this afternoon defend his wrongdoing by going on the attack and talking about the corruption in this government, instead of answering his own problem.

I'm going to break my speech into basically three parts.

I want to talk about the ethics of government and the ethics of the NDP in Ontario. People might say: why are we always talking about Ontario in a British Columbia Legislature? Well, Ontario is one of the few governments in all of Canada that's New Democrat — in fact, the only one, and probably a good reason why there aren't more. I think also we have to make sure that the people of British Columbia know what they could expect from a New Democratic government if they were to form a government in this province. They across there have their transition teams. Why aren't they telling the people of British Columbia which recommendations they've made to the government of Ontario, since they're on their transition team? Let's talk about some of the things that are happening in Ontario, and ask: who are the transition team down there? Which one of these issues are they part of?

I'll also talk about the ethics of the member for Vancouver East, the ethics of the Leader of the Opposition — all political, nothing personal.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I'll talk about the ethics of the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew, both political and business life. He likes to talk about my business, Mr. Speaker; I'll do a little talking about his.

The New Democrats in Ontario have been in power just a little over seven months. There have been eight scandals — a little over one a month — since they got into power. One MPP was jailed. Two cabinet ministers have been fired, and two more should have been. Taxpayer money has been wasted covering up a severance agreement. A police investigation has been ordered against one minister, and conflict-of-interest investigations have found another minister and a parliamentary secretary guilty.

Twenty-six of the 76 of the promises made during the election have been eliminated; they're not being done. A $2 billion deficit was promised by Bob Rae during the election campaign. What have they got? A $10 billion deficit. That's NDP ethics for you.

Toxic discharges were to be eliminated in Ontario under the NDP; now they'll be reduced over an indefinite period of time. Mr. Speaker, that's the kind of ethics that they've got in the New Democratic Party.

This is a government that has been in power seven months. My God, after five years they won't have anybody left to sit on the government benches, because they'll all be fired or in jail.

Mr. Speaker, Peter Kormos, the minister of consumer affairs, was fired after some protest groups within their own party didn't like him being the

[ Page 12293 ]

Sunshine Boy in the Toronto Sun. I don't find that all so bad, but that was considered a conflict by the Premier of Ontario. What was bad about that minister was that he hired a convicted wife-beater as his chief adviser on sexism in advertising. Where are the ethics of the NDP doing that sort of thing? Where is their common sense? But that's what they've done in Ontario.

This one, I know, will tickle my colleague behind me, because it was a big issue in this House, raised by the NDP Cabinet minister Marilyn Churley, despite her quick expansion of income to approximately $90,000 a year, has continued to live in her subsidized $850-a-month, two-bedroom co-op suite. There's a minister in an NDP government. I haven't heard our New Democratic friends talking about that. They sure liked to talk about it in this Legislature when it happened. She promised to move out and free up the space for low-income people as early as last summer, but she didn't do it, she only moved out on May 1 of this year.

The Solicitor-General, the man in charge of the police in Ontario, is under police investigation for writing to a judge. That's New Democratic Party ethics: a Solicitor-General writing to a judge. Could you imagine the headlines we'd get in this province if anybody on this side ever thought of doing that? But it's coming from that side over there. They don't care that their colleague the Solicitor-General would write to a judge.

Social Services minister Zanana Akonde continued to hold directorships in a magazine company and a condominium development company. She was found guilty by the conflict commissioner, but Premier Rae kept her in his cabinet. He said that she didn't intend to do it. He believed there was no challenge to her integrity, but she was found guilty by the conflict commissioner. That's the NDP when they're in power. The people of this province have a right to know what could happen if they had a chance here.

Mr. Speaker, I don't want to talk too much more about Ontario, but I wanted to lay that ground rule. The people of British Columbia.... That is the great thing about television. Television in the House is a promise that this government kept. If you want to go back and look at what this government promised in '86, we've kept all those promises. We've kept a balanced budget, and we're not in the hole like the NDP

It's not good enough in this province to have a Leader of the Opposition who won't answer questions to the media and won't tell them what his budget would be. That's not fair to the people of British Columbia. Let me talk about the Leader of the Opposition. I quote him from the Times-Colonist, and they're never wrong. He says: "It's not our style to get down in the muck." Here's a quote from the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew, if you can believe this: "He made it very clear to the caucus. He has set a style for us, and we're not going to get into the mud-throwing." Mr. Mud made that statement — the man from Esquimalt–Port Renfrew. I can't believe it. That statement alone should go before our conflict commissioner.

We know what we've heard from the member for Vancouver East in the past few days. We've heard him say that he got some information from a very reliable government source. We've talked about that. It will probably be dealt with in some other place.

Let me quote what the Leader of the Opposition said when he was mayor of the city of Vancouver, because people of the province should know. This is the man who's quite happy when he sees 20 of his pictures in an editorial that are all the same — to have that image of being smooth and cool and doing nothing. This man, when he was mayor, promised swift and tough action against any aldermen or staff who leaked confidential council materials to the press. "If I discover a staff person doing this, he will be disciplined or fired." The Leader of the Opposition added that if an alderman was involved, he or she would not be worthy of office. That quote comes from the Vancouver Sun, May 27.

His Finance critic has admitted that he used a leaked document in this House. I would certainly question who leaked it to him. If the information was false, maybe he's being set up; I don't know. But he got up today and said that the opposition had a right to ask questions on leaked documents. His leader has said that people who use leaked documents wouldn't have been on his council. Why is he sitting on the front benches of the NDP today? A cheap political shot at a former Premier who's already had enough problems, already faced the issues in this province. Do you kick somebody when he's down, especially with false information, and then give him a half-hearted apology? That's not acceptable in this House, and I know that members on the other side agree. I know they won't say it. They're concerned that their friend made a political mistake by saying three words he shouldn't have said. If he had just got up and apologized, there'd be no issue. They are concerned. They know that deep down they wouldn't respect any government that used leaked documents illegally.

The Leader of the Opposition has to answer that question. Why isn't that question being put to him? Why isn't he answering that question about leaked documents? When he was mayor he didn't like it; he had control there. But now that he's in opposition, it's all right? I don't agree with that; the people of British Columbia don't agree with it.

[4:15]

MR. JONES: What's illegal?

MR. REYNOLDS: The member for Burnaby asked me what's illegal. Leaking documents from the tax department is illegal. In fact, your own member said in the press scrum yesterday that he wouldn't do it again. He knows it was wrong, and just apologizing isn't enough in this House. You would be on the question floor every day if it was a member of this side. If they had something leaked about a member of the opposition, you would be on every television station and in every newspaper, demanding the resignation of anybody on this side of the House.

So wave your hands. The public is going to know. We all know there's an election coming up soon. And

[ Page 12294 ]

he's waving a book; Mr. Speaker, we can all write books. There's an election coming soon, and we're going to talk about some real facts during the election. We can talk about the good record of this government. If you want to talk about scandals, we'll talk about NDP scandals. We can go back and talk about Charlie Barber, who was a member of a previous government. We've all got skeletons in the closet. Nobody's perfect.

Let me quote from one of the members who's running....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Are you running?

MR. REYNOLDS: I'm certainly running in the next election. I've got one of the best constituencies in British Columbia. I've got lots of friends here who have asked me to come out to their ridings to make the same speech, and I'll do it a hundred times.

Let me talk about some of the candidates for the NDP in the next election.

MR. G. JANSSEN: Let's talk about your candidates.

MR. REYNOLDS: I'll talk about your candidates, and you can talk about ours.

Mr. Speaker, let me read you this quote:

"'I'm very reluctant to sit down and sign a cheque to Revenue Canada. The ball's in Revenue Canada's court as far as I am concerned, ' Hertzog said, adding that he is continuing to withhold a portion of his income tax each year. He said he withheld $482.51 in 1986 and $283.51 in 1988, amounts he estimated as the portion of his taxes that would have gone to Canada's military budget."

This is NDP Vancouver-Quilchena candidate Stuart Hertzog. He's been ordered to pay it by the courts; he refuses. He won't support the Canadian forces; he won't support what they just did in the Middle East. That's the kind of candidates they've got in the NDP; that's the kind of ethics they've got in the NDP.

Let's talk again about NDP ethics and some of the things that you don't see on the front pages of papers. I don't knock the media for that, because they're not the government. A lot of things they do just don't attract the same attention that you attract if you're government.

I remember David Poole — a big issue. Well, the Leader of the Opposition was sued by his former principal secretary James Hayes for wrongful dismissal, and he had to pay $89,200. Was that as big an issue as the Premier's principal secretary?

Bob Williams faced legal action from the city of Victoria early in 1979 for $3,200 in back taxes owed for a building he owned on Johnson Street.

John Brewin, the Member of Parliament right here in Victoria — and he's a New Democrat — owed Revenue Canada $86,000 in unpaid taxes when he declared bankruptcy, citing a total debt burden of $200,000 only months after successfully running for a seat in the House of Commons. Brewin's case went to the Supreme Court of Ontario last summer. Despite owing $80,000 to the Canadian government — you and me — in unpaid income taxes, Brewin saw fit to attend the Commonwealth Games in New Zealand at taxpayer expense.

That's the NDP ethics. If John Brewin had been a member of this assembly, he wouldn't be sitting here. You can't sit in this House if you're declared bankrupt. He would have had to resign. He's still a Member of Parliament, representing this area.

MR. MILLER: How's Mongi doing these days?

MR. REYNOLDS: I'll talk about that. You want to talk about my companies. I'll talk about them, but I'll compare them to some of yours.

Mr. Speaker, let me give you the Leader of the Opposition's comments about John Brewin, the NDP member in Victoria: "Like any businessman, he's got the option that business people have to cut their losses. Sometimes businessmen go bankrupt when their investments go down the tube, and John's choosing that option. That's business. You win some, you lose some. You make a profit sometimes, you lose money other times."

I have a business. The member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew wanted to ask questions in this House about it. It was a bad business decision by a company, but only one. All the others are good. But we're chastised. Where are the people on that side when somebody like this is ripping off the taxpayer? They hide away behind the corner.

Let me talk about the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew. I don't get upset too often, because I've got good friends on all sides of this House, but when I see that saint on television, the piousness of what they're going to do with ethics, how they wouldn't do this and how he gets up every day asking questions in here like he knows all the answers.... I don't know how he got his law degree, but anyway, he did.

About March 20, the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew complained that the former Deputy Attorney General had decided not to follow the recommendations of an RCMP officer to charge a former Provincial Secretary. His complaints were widely endorsed by the media, as they strongly criticized that decision by the former Deputy Attorney-General. The Leader of the Opposition also huffed and puffed with applause — as he does — and both of them said a charge should proceed so the accused could clear his name.

Remember, the RCMP officer recommended a charge. Guess what? The very same RCMP officer who recommended those charges also said the member for Esquimalt should face criminal charges. Further to that, as everyone knows, the Deputy Attorney-General for Alberta, who was acting exactly in the capacity of a special prosecutor, said that if the evidence he had seen was fairly put before a judge, the member for Esquimalt would likely be convicted of his crime.

Mr. Speaker, I can understand....

Interjection.

MR. REYNOLDS: I don't knock the media, because I'm saying here that they cover government more than opposition.

[ Page 12295 ]

But I would also say to the Leader of the Opposition, who demands the strictest of ethics on this side of the House, that he should do the same on his side of the House, and that that man should not be his justice critic.

It's amazing to me that the member for Esquimalt wouldn't have asked for the same justice for himself that he demanded for members on this side of the House. Why wouldn't he do that? Why wouldn't the Leader of the Opposition have those same ethics and ask for the investigation to flow through? That's all we ask: that everybody be treated fairly in this business. But you stand up there on that side of the House pontificating about your piousness and how wonderful you'll be. You don't like to remember your friends in Ontario; who have been in power for only seven months and have made more mistakes in seven months.... As I said earlier, at the end of five years there won't be any of them left.

The member for Prince Rupert said: "What about your company?" Yes, I've taken some flak from the other side, but I can live with that. That's politics. But I also think that if you're going to look at people's private businesses and want to bring them up on the floor of this chamber, we should have a right to look at their businesses. We should have a right to talk about the member for Esquimalt and his family business. My business is a family business.

Mr. Speaker, I'm going to say that everything I'm going to mention here has not been received from any secret sources. It's all available to the public by just searching for it. I asked a source to research S&S Stores Ltd. I'll read you the report. This is not in my words, but in the words of the person who did the thing.

MR. JONES: Is this at government expense?

MR. REYNOLDS: You ask if it's at government expense. In fact, it's not. I paid for it personally.

It says:

"Bachittar Sihota, father of the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew, incorporated a company in B.C. named S&S Stores Ltd. This company was dissolved on January 4, 1983, and restored on January 9, 1987.

"There is a connection between this company and the company which operated in Montreal in the 1977-78 period and which was involved in tax return discounting. The connection is that they are one and the same company, having a B.C. office at 4179 Salish Drive, Vancouver, British Columbia. The Montreal firm, operating as a division of S&S Stores Ltd., was investigated by the consumer protection office of the province as part of an investigation which resulted from suggested abuse under consumer protection legislation. A second office of S&S operating in Hull, Quebec, was raided in March of 1978. The Montreal Gazette reported on March 20, 1978, that 'staff at the Vancouver-based S&S tax discount centre were apparently alerted about the raid and had left the store with their files when investigators arrived.' After the raid, S&S closed all three of their offices in Quebec.

"There is evidence of financial difficulties as early as 1976 for Bachittar Sihota, while operating as Algard Investments Ltd. Actions were also taken against S&S during the following years and judgments obtained against [the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew] as guarantor of the obligations of Furniture and Carpet City, also known as Interior Liquidators and Furniture City, operated by Bachittar Singh Sihota.

"Personal properties owned by [the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew] in Prince George and Williams Lake were subject to numerous actions, culminating in foreclosure proceedings on both these properties. There were more than 13 actions taken by lenders or others against the interest of [the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew] in these two properties and a third owned by him in the Musqueam reserve area of Vancouver. They included actions to recover legal fees for services provided, a garnishee action for the recovery of a business debt and numerous actions resulting from default under mortgages. The Musqueam property was not lost in the foreclosure actions. Attached you will find a copy of a list of actions taken and the dates of their initiation."

The first action against him was a Royal Bank foreclosure on a house in Musqueam; the second action, an Afro-Canadian Mortgage suit to recover brokerage fees; a CIBC foreclosure action on Williams Lake property; a Canpar Ltd. default judgment; Paramount Furniture — proceedings dismissed; a CIBC default judgment against M.S. as guarantor of father's business loan; Cavco Carpets, garnishee against his wages from law firm re business debt; Eaton-Bay Trust, foreclosure on Musquearn house; Prospect Mortgage, foreclosure on Musqueam house; Central Financial, foreclosure on property in Prince George; an interesting one here — Swinton and Co., default judgment for unpaid legal fees; Commerce Capital, foreclosure on Musqueam house; Central Financial, foreclosure on Musqueam house.

Actions taken against S&S Stores, while the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew was president: Employment Standards writ of seizure and sale for unpaid wages — for a man who's the Labour critic on the other side; Her Majesty, unpaid sales tax; Hankin Furniture, an unpaid account.

When did the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew take the vow of sanctity? He gets up in this House — Mr. Clean. I look at that record, and I don't know any free enterprise business that is that bad. I don't like to have to put that on the record, but I'm tired of taking the nonsense from that side. It's time they started to look at their own house, and it's time the people of British Columbia started to look at that side of the House in detail. He's the justice critic and the labour critic, and he had to be sued for legal fees. The NDP love to ask questions about our contacts in business and what we do.

Bob Williams was a good, hard-working member of this House. Some over here didn't like him as much as others, but I always liked his ability to raise some hair over here. I thought he was a great opposition member. He was chairman of the largest credit union in British Columbia, and you give him credit for that. The member for Vancouver–Point Grey was on the board also. It's a good company, but it probably had a lot of bad loans. Do we get a list of those all the time, so we can criticize their management capabilities? No, we don't. If they were on this side of the House, and if anybody here was the chairman of a credit union or a

[ Page 12296 ]

bank, you can imagine the ~pressure we would go through.

This has to go both ways. We should be debating what the budget is doing for this province, and what might happen in the next election. We should be asking those questions in question period. The question periods over the last few days, with the exception of one member whose questions I like, was rather dull. You're not doing your research, and I think that's what you should be doing.

You should also be telling the people of this province what you're going to do if you become the government of British Columbia. They have a right to know that. If you don't like the budget the way it is now and you think we've got too much, what would it be like if we got all your promises? The member for Vancouver–Point Grey wants to double welfare rates. What would it be like in this province? Would it be like Ontario? We have a right to know as people in British Columbia if you're going to be like Bob Rae, who indicated he might change the rules in the Ontario legislature because he doesn't like the filibuster against his budget by the Conservatives. Even his own Speaker ruled against him. I give him credit. Speakers are always pretty good that way; they're pretty fair. He ruled against his own government and tried to stop the filibuster.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

We've got to know that. What kind of rules will we have in this House under a New Democratic government? Will they cut down the estimates to a small number like they did before? It was this government, if you remember.... A lot of the voters will forget, because in 1972 half the voters weren't born. They should remember that your government cut down the size of the estimates. We won an election on that. We went back and said: "We'll open it up. You can debate the estimates all you want." Your government cut it down to a very small amount of time. We couldn't even debate them. Remember? No dollar without a debate or something.

[4:30]

AN HON. MEMBER: Not a dime without debate.

MR. REYNOLDS: That was it. What are you going to do? What is your party going to be? You're afraid to tell the people of British Columbia what you socialists will do. My God, if we could just get a little more coverage of what's happening in Ontario.... I would imagine that we won't have an election until September or October. There's going to be a lot more coming out. Every day the little clippings are in the paper.

We will remind the people at election time, because they still remember Expo. We wouldn't have had Expo if your leader had been leader of this province. We wouldn't have Tumbler Ridge if it was up to the Leader of the Opposition. We wouldn't have the Trade and Convention Centre in B.C. Place if it was up to the Leader of the Opposition. We wouldn't have the Alex Fraser Bridge or the LRT — the best one in all of North America — if it was up to the Leader of the Opposition. More importantly, we wouldn't have the Coquihalla if it was up to those people over there. All they could talk about was how much it cost and that it was an overrun.

Listen, if you think we have overruns.... We still balance a budget. Look at Ontario — $10 billion over. Give me a break! The best highway, one of the best in North America.... The member for Penticton drives it all the time, I'm sure.

Mr. Speaker, what about the other big issue? It's the one that's good for the environment: the Vancouver Island natural gas pipeline. We wouldn't have that if it was up to the Leader of the Opposition, but we've got it because this government is in power. That's going to stop a lot.... I remember the member for Burnaby talking about oil tankers and what we are going to do about them — not that we ever had a wreck. But their Ouija board said there is going to be an accident some day. We put in the natural gas pipeline. We eliminated 200 to 300 shiploads of oil going back and forth in the harbour all the time. It's a fabulous thing. We're going to eliminate all that soot in the air on the Island. All the pulp mills are going to burn natural gas instead of hog fuel. They opposed it over there, because a few of their little left-wing environmental idiots — I'll call them that because they are — get them to support them. They use that in the mailer; I love it. Anybody who is opposed to that gas pipeline doesn't know what they're talking about. It never ceases to amaze me how upset they get when you bring a few facts to them.

This government, Mr. Speaker, has the best environmental record of any in Canada, and we've done more innovative things than any other government in Canada. There are things we can be proud of at election time. This government has the best financial record of any government in all of Canada. This government has got the best education record, and compared to Ontario it's unbelievable. We have the best health care in all of Canada here in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to social services we get beat out a little bit by Ontario, because they doubled their welfare rates. They are paying them more money now than the average wage-earner in Canada makes. That's because they are irresponsible. The socialists are irresponsible, Mr. Speaker: they give money away.

They talk about our different bills. I love it every time I see their BCGEU leader and others talk about: "Hey, we're going to get out and get our people to vote NDP." I hope he keeps on saying that, because we don't get elected in this province, as Socreds, unless we get a lot of labour votes — and they like us, because we make sure there's construction going on in the province, so they can get jobs. All your labour leaders who've got their big, fat salaries and their homes in West Vancouver.... They live in West Vancouver: John Laxton, a lawyer, a $4 million house on the water; Jack Munro, up on a mountain, his wife running somewhere in Vancouver. I thought that was pretty neat: lives in West Vancouver, runs in Vancouver for the NDP. Big, fat salaries. They'll all support you guys in the paper, but they probably go in and mark their X next to the Socred, because they want to keep their

[ Page 12297 ]

jobs. Those socialist union leaders, they won't have much to spend if these guys get into power, because they can't run a chicken farm.

I could go on and on, but I see my time is up. I just want to say I'm proud of this government, proud of the budget, and I'm going to vote for it.

MR. JONES: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for recognizing me, because unlike the previous speaker, I do have a few comments to make on the budget before us.

I'd very much like to talk about a small aspect of this budget, but a very important one. It's part of the budget that affects unemployment in the province of British Columbia. But before I do that, I would also like to make a few general comments.

After the thoughtful and high-road speech of the previous speaker, I thought, for a few minutes there, we were in Queen's Park. Some members on this side suggest that the members opposite want to talk about Queen's Park continually because they want to deflect attention away from their own budget. I don't believe that for a minute, Mr. Speaker. What the members opposite are really doing is getting practice. They're getting ready to criticize the government's budget, because they're getting ready for opposition, which is where they'll be after the next election.

The question I'd like to address is the question of credibility. Credibility in terms of this budget is something that all members in this House know about. We know what a budget is. Members in this chamber know that a budget is a political document. It's part of the process of image-making; it's part of the process of optics; it's trying to create an impression out there in the public. We have to wonder, on this side, what sort of impression was created. What sort of message was sent to British Columbians by this budget? Was it one of stability? Was it one of consistency? Was it one of honesty and straightforwardness?

Mr. Speaker, the Times-Colonist had an article on May 22 that quoted one of the economic authorities in this province, Mr. Al Kerfoot, president of the Certified General Accountants' Association of B.C. He said: "The provincial government continues to use the mythical BS fund to disguise the real nature of the deficit. It's more smoke and mirrors." This budget before us is not one of trying to create an image of straightforwardness and honesty; it is another smoke-and-mirrors budget.

What did the editorial of the Times-Colonist say on that same day, Mr. Speaker? "No matter what [the Finance minister] or any other Socred says, the actual deficit...is $1.23 billion." The former Minister of Health, who is at this moment being sworn in as the Minister of Advanced Education, Job Training and Technology, still tried to perpetuate this afternoon that same myth of $385 million. The editorial goes on to say: "To argue otherwise is simply dishonest."

Brian Kieran said on the same date: "Anyone stupid enough to swallow that load of fiscal rubbish should have no trouble believing the Socreds have discovered compassion and caring in their final budget before an election reckoning."

Mr. Speaker, that's the message being sent by this budget. It's not one of caring and compassion, or stability and consistency It's one of deceit, dishonesty and confusion. This government has operated for five years on that ethic: the ethic of deceit. It is so endemic, so systemic, so ingrained in Social Credit thinking that even when the budget before us probably would not have been that highly criticized in the province, they could not come forward and talk about the bottom line openly and honestly. They could not come clean. They could not 'fess up to the reality. They wanted to create some sort of image that just didn't wash. Everybody but the Finance minister and the former Minister of Health is out of step.

The member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound spoke a few minutes ago about promises. He talked about that government keeping promises. Well, Mr. Speaker, a very short time ago in this chamber we debated a bill, Bill 92. It was called the tax freeze act. The government was talking about freezing taxes. What did members say at the time? The Finance minister of the time, who is now the Provincial Secretary, said: "As well, the act prevents the provincial government from introducing any new taxes whatsoever." There was an interjection at that point. I assume that somebody asked: "Are you sure that's what this act says?" The former Finance minister said: "That's right, no new taxes."

So what happened a very short time later? What happened some two months later? My colleague the member for Vancouver East has a line. He says: "This government didn't even wait until the next election to break their election promises." That's not an accurate quote; it's not an accurate statement that the member for Vancouver East made. That was not an election promise; that was legislation. That was a bill that was approved in this chamber unanimously Two months later, this government turns around and increases taxes in violation of that unanimously passed legislation. Everybody is out of step except those people.

In this House the other day, the Minister of Government Services had the temerity to criticize the former Premier for his defence of that legislation that we all voted for. She had the temerity to criticize the former leader for standing up, for being consistent, for believing in something that the former Premier stood for and saw approved in this House and is now being criticized for — for being consistent. It's typical of a Social Credit government to criticize one of their members when they stand up to be counted for something that stands for consistency, openness and honesty.

What happened to Bill 92? What happened to freezing the taxes? Did we see another bill that overrides or contradicts that bill? In this session, clearly what we see in this chamber is a contempt of parliament. Everybody in this House voted for legislation that is now being trashed by the Social Credit government.

The image this government is trying to create in this budget is one of caring and concern for people. Over and over again in the budget speech, the Finance minister talked about people: people first, people programs, people-oriented, people are number one.

[ Page 12298 ]

According to the Finance minister, we are going to move to a kinder and gentler British Columbia. We are going to try and move away from the hard and callous image that the government has had for the last five years and, in a deathbed repentance, try and change that image.

[4:45]

Well, that is a farce. It's a farce because of one particular aspect of this budget that was totally ignored. There was no mention in this budget of the serious problem we face: unemployment. The budget speech ignored some 167,000 British Columbians who are out of work at this time. The member opposite for Columbia River, the member for Kamloops, the member from Prince George and the member for Nelson Creston did not have any input into this budget, or any mention or measure of dealing with the serious problem of unemployment, which was ignored.

A significant event happened in between the time of the tax freeze of Bill 92 and the bringing down of this budget. In that short period of time, in those short few weeks, we moved to double-digit unemployment numbers: 7.7 percent in January 1990 and 10.2 percent last month. To try and put that in perspective, we must consider that something like 10 percent of the workforce is unemployed. If we try to put that in terms of constituencies, an additional 35,000 people were thrown out of work last year. Thirty-five thousand people is a whole constituency. If that was in one constituency, we would have a member representing a whole constituency of newly unemployed persons. I realize that not everybody in the province is capable of entering the workforce, but a 10 percent unemployment figure might suggest that something like five members out of 69 in this chamber would represent unemployed families.

Perhaps then, if we looked at it in those terms, we would see a budget that at least had some mention of unemployment, if not some serious measures to address that serious problem. But what we saw from this callous Social Credit government was no mention of it, no programs, no effort — from a government that purports to care about people, in the words of the budget.

What you want to do, Mr. Speaker and members opposite, if you want to learn about unemployment, is talk to my friend from Port Alberni. If members opposite availed themselves of that opportunity, clearly they would learn about the hardship of a community where many of the members have been thrown out of work in the forest industry, and about the tremendous toll that that takes in human terms. The member for Alberni is always eloquent, but I've never heard him more so when he speaks on behalf of those unemployed forest workers.

I have sat waiting for almost five years on this side of the House. I've been waiting for a labour market strategy. All we hear from that side is the rosy picture of British Columbia. They have rose-coloured glasses. They are avoiding the reality of unemployment in this province. And what did we see in this budget in terms of trying to address that?

Mr. Speaker, one part of the budget that I have a responsibility for looking at is the job training, apprenticeship, labour market and policy programs part.

Guess what happened to that part of the budget. Has it been increased along with the overall 8.1 percent increase? No, the part of the budget that held out some hope for those unemployed British Columbians is down $1.3 million. It's down 4 percent, and when we consider inflation and other factors, it's down over 10 percent, dashing the hopes for British Columbians that there might be some programs. That part of the budget is at the same level as four years ago. It has not increased. The timing of this government — the government that fires its Finance minister on throne speech day — is incredible. There could not be a worse time for a cutback in that budget.

Mr. Speaker, what we know in this province is that the labour market has undergone incredible structural change. We've gone from a goods-producing economy to a service economy. Between 1981 and 1989 some 25 percent of the employment in the goods-producing sector was eliminated, and between 1975 and 1989 in metropolitan Vancouver 96 percent of the new jobs were in the service sector. Now that's not such a bad thing. When we think of the service sector we think of low-paying, low-skilled jobs, and that's not necessarily the case. Many of those jobs are in the sophisticated knowledge-based and information-based sector. Such jobs as research and development, marketing and business services are part of that expansion.

We know what happened in Port Alberni. That industry retooled, and in that retooling many formerly employed skilled people were thrown on the unemployment rolls. Skilled workers were left to fend for themselves. This part of the budget that held out some hope for those workers in terms of addressing the unemployment problem and providing programs that could retrain them has gone down in the order of 10 percent.

The point is that in the unskilled area we have some 92,000 people unemployed, and in the middle management area we have some 30,000 people unemployed. Training must be in place for those workers; training must be in place for those that have been idled by the shift from a goods-producing economy to a service economy.

What's been needed — and this government has never understood — is a countercyclical approach. When the economy slows down, it is appropriate and it is necessary. It's at that point when the economy slows down that training should be put in place for workers so that when the economy picks up again and when the economic engine starts moving again, we have skilled and trained workers to take those positions that are newly created by an improved economy. They never understood the countercyclical approach to training.

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business recently did a survey. A quarter of the respondents were small businesses, and they indicated on that survey that they would still hire people if the skills were out there and available. There is a tremendous mismatch between the need and the demand. There's

[ Page 12299 ]

no question that the approach that must be taken by this government that's been ignored in this budget is a countercyclical approach. This government chooses this time, the absolutely worst time, to cut back in job training and labour market policy programs. In this part of the budget, it was absolutely essential to take a countercyclical approach.

What we saw on Monday of this week in Nelson was a protest by vocational students against cutbacks and programs at Selkirk College. What we saw yesterday on the King Edward campus at Vancouver Community College was ESL pre-employment students who were protesting the layoff of some 70 instructors on that campus, with a waiting-list of some 2,000 new immigrants wanting language training, opportunity and employment. To deny these people who come to this country and have a fundamental right to language skills so that they can take their place as employed citizens and can contribute to their prosperity and to the prosperity of this province and this country is an absolute disaster. Laying off 70 instructors at Vancouver Community College — typical.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

What's happening at the B.C. Institute of Technology? What we see is an institute that is cutting back and scrapping its natural resource management program. I guess our natural resources are being managed so well by the Social Credit government that we can afford to cut off the major program dealing with natural resource management in the province of British Columbia.

We are cutting back in marketing and management service, in computer systems, in electronics, in welding and plumbing. I guess we don't need those skills. I guess we have an overabundance of those skills in the province. We do not, Mr. Speaker. Those skills are needed. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business says that if those skills are out there, they will hire people. We have a skill shortage in this province.

Mr. Speaker, we've seen cutbacks in the college system, whose funding formula already conspires against vocational programs. There was also a cutback in the program responsible for apprenticeships. Prior to 1982 British Columbia had an apprenticeship system that was hailed across North America as one of the leaders, one to be emulated. In 1981 we had 20,000 apprentices in British Columbia. Guess how many we have today. You don't understand that we need apprentices training in the economic downtimes. Today we don't have 20,000; we probably have something in the order of half of that number. Ten years later we have half the number of apprentices.

You might be surprised, Mr. Speaker, to hear that apprenticeship skills are in the highest-demand category of the skill hierarchy in this province. We need those apprentices. Don't listen to me, Mr. Speaker. Maybe even the former Minister of Education will listen to the Deputy Minister of Advanced Education, who says:

"The apprenticeship system has a long, rich tradition, and has served our needs well. There are emerging skill shortages in the apprenticeable trades, and there is broad recognition that there are now insufficient apprentices to meet those looming shortages. The program of apprenticeship, although long-standing, is not well known to large numbers of employers and employees who could benefit significantly from a contract of apprenticeship. It is also not well known to high-school graduates or to existing workforce members.... There is a clear need to increase apprentice numbers not only in current apprenticeable trades but in other trades and occupation areas, with employers not now engaging apprentices....

"Finally, the program of apprenticeship has been adversely affected by business cycles" — listen up, members opposite — "resulting in the layoff of apprentices. Layoff effectively terminates an apprenticeship contract, yet there is agreement between employers, employees and government that all would be better served by an apprentice successfully achieving journeyman status."

The Deputy Minister of Advanced Education understands that need. The problem is that this side of the House has been calling for an increased role for business and an increase in apprenticeship for five years now, and that cry has fallen on deaf ears.

This government has not responded to the demand for more industry training. It has ignored the need for more apprenticeship in the province. We need those skills. This government has ignored and caused cutbacks in vocational and apprenticeship programs, and to instructors in programs for new Canadians. It has avoided adopting a countercyclical approach to providing job training. It has denied the opportunity for thousands of British Columbians to fulfil their potential. It has made no effort in this dishonest budget to address the serious and tragic problem of unemployment in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, a government that cannot do better than this does not deserve to sit on your right side. It really is time for a change.

MS. PULLINGER: I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise and speak in opposition to this budget, but as I do so, I have a sense that we're making history in this Legislature this year in British Columbia. I find that of particular interest, because before I decided to run for election a few years ago I was working towards a master's degree in B.C. political history. So I have the opportunity to view the proceedings in two ways: one as a politician and one as a political historian. It's increasingly clear to me that we're making history in these last few months and years of this government's mandate.

[5:00]

We're making history, for instance, in that this is probably the longest parliament in the history of this province. There have been some wartime governments that have carried on, perhaps of necessity, for more than the usual three years, but this government has made it for almost four and a half years without calling an election. Of course, we have had at least three run-ups to elections, with the accompanying spending, but clearly this government is afraid to go to the people. It's afraid to take its record to the people in an

[ Page 12300 ]

election, and I think that that's a record-setting event in this province.

I think we're also making history in that this government has the absolutely worst record of scandal, resignations, conflicts of interest and political interference. We've had 12 ministers resign in the last four years over conflicts, scandals and interference. It's really interesting to note that these people on the other side of the House elected 47 members initially, and now they're down to 42, and all but five or six have been in cabinet. It's a revolving-door cabinet like no other in the history of this province. I would argue that it's somewhat of a sordid soap opera.

I think, too, that we're making history in that this parliament has seen the only Premier whose own party has worked very hard for a couple of years to depose him. Finally the Premier was forced to step aside in the midst of scandal and now sits on the back of the back bench in the Socred Hall of Shame.

I can see very clearly that we're also making history with this budget. We have the largest single deficit in the history of British Columbia. This government has brought in a $1.2 billion deficit. Of course, they say it's $395 million, but we know that it's $1.2 billion. The government has yet to come clean on that. We get different stories from the Minister of Finance and the Premier: one says $1.2 billion, and the other says $395 million. It's the biggest single deficit in the history of this province, brought in under Social Credit. It's also the third deficit budget in a row, if you ignore the BS fund and its loan. You get rid of the BS fund, and then you bring it back when it's necessary to make it appear as though you have balanced the budget, when in fact you haven't.

We've got the biggest deficit, and we now have the biggest direct debt that we've had in the province of British Columbia. It's $9 billion. It has doubled in the last four and a half years under Social Credit.

Mr. Speaker, we're making history. We've made history with scandals; we've made history with economic unfairness; we've made history with the largest deficit, with the largest direct debt, with the resignation of a sitting Premier in the midst of scandal. I don't think that's the kind of history that the people of British Columbia want to see made any longer. This government has lost its credibility. This government has lost its right to govern in British Columbia.

I want to make a few comments about the budget, which is being sold to the people as a caring budget. A little warmer, more human face is the new style since we've changed leaders. The interim Premier is obviously trying to cover the sins of the past, the withdrawal of moneys to

HON. MR. FRASER: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier is the Premier is the Premier. There's no such thing as interim Premier. From a technical point of view it's impossible. Either you are or you are not, and she is. That's the point of order. You're wrong again.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, that's all very interesting, but it's not a point of order. It's just a dispute between members as to fact.

MS. PULLINGER: It just seems to me that when the cabinet has appointed someone to lead the party, it's not quite the same as someone who is elected to be the Premier of the province.

In any case, I'd like to comment about the so-called more caring, more compassionate budget. I think it's interesting that Brian Kieran said in the paper.... As we all know, he's a political watcher; he's watched almost five years of this government. He says: "After almost five years of generally callous and cynical management" — or mismanagement perhaps — "of the public trust," Social Credit has decided its eleventh hour redemption and political salvation lies in showing a "kinder, gentler" face. That's what this government is trying to do after five years of callous and cynical management.

We also hear that this budget is "a triumph of hyperbole over reason." I think that's a very good statement. There is no evidence to show that Social Credit has done one thing — not one single fiscal brainwave, as Kieran said — to soften the impact of the recession.

It also doesn't deal with the debt. We have a budget which the Minister of Finance tells us is $395 million in deficit. We know, and the interim Premier has confirmed, that it's in fact $1.2 billion in debt. They've borrowed money to make their operating funds this year. It's the third deficit budget in three years. It's a big-lie budget with a $1.2 billion deficit. We now have approximately $9 billion of debt.

As Tommy Douglas used to say: "If they fool you once, shame on them. If they fool you twice, shame on you." I don't think the people of British Columbia are going to be fooled again.

I want to highlight just a few of the issues that are important to the people of B.C. In the context of this budget. One of the issues that's of obvious prime importance to all of us in British Columbia is land and resource use, and in particular forestry and the management or mismanagement of our forests under this government.

I think there are two things that have happened recently that highlight what this government is all about — the kind of attitude it has with respect to forest management in British Columbia. The first, of course, is the report from the Forest Resources Commission, chaired by Sandy Peel. That was a two-year study of the Forest Service and the forest industry. I think it's worth noting that when this report came down the government was very quiet. There was no fanfare, no noise, when the report was released. That's not surprising, because that report shows very clearly the record of this government's incompetence and its lack of political will — the kind of political will that's needed to deal with the very serious problems facing us in the forest today.

The Attorney-General laughs, but the 8,000 people who have been put out of work on Vancouver Island think it's a very serious issue. According to the chair of he commission, Sandy Peel, one consistent theme in all the submissions over the two-year period was that he status quo in our forests is not good enough. Peel said the way our forests and their many values are

[ Page 12301 ]

currently managed by government and industry is out of step with what the public expects. This government is out of step; it's out of touch; and it's simply not managing our forests the way the people want them to be managed.

This report points to the fact that, in this government's wisdom over the last decade — this administration and the previous administration — the Forest Service has been eroded to the point that it is relatively ineffective. This is not because those good people who work for the Forest Service are not good, caring and sound people. They're talented and skilled, but there are just not enough of them. Some 2,000 public servants have lost their jobs over the last few years, and now we're left with a Forest Service that, because of a lack of numbers, is ineffective.

It also points to the fact that funding for forestry, in spite of the rhetoric we continue to hear in this chamber and in press releases around the province, is routinely diverted to other programs. Last year, for instance, we argued that there was over $200 million taken out of the Ministry of Forests and put into a sustainable environment fund that doesn't have the same kind of accountability.

Interjection.

MS. PULLINGER: We just don't want more political slush funds. The member across is heckling. We've got lots of political slush funds.

Sandy Peel's report also points to the government's fiscal incompetence, and we've seen lots of that in this chamber. Of course, the fact that this big-lie budget and the enormous deficit that we're running in this province, along with the Expo land sales and a number of other things we've seen happen — the Coquihalla scandal.... There's a lot of evidence that this government lacks the kind of fiscal competence needed to direct British Columbia in the 1990s.

This government has an inability, or perhaps it's an unwillingness, to manage our forest resources in the interests of the people of British Columbia. The worth of our forest resources has been consistently undervalued by approximately $6 billion a year — that's one third of our budget. We have in this province under Social Credit a disgraceful record of neglect and mismanagement of our primary resource.

We can do a lot better with it, but this government refuses to put the resources into silviculture. They've refused to put the resources into diversifying the economy. Just south of us we have three and a half jobs for every 1,000 cubic metres logged. In Sweden that figure is two and a half; in British Columbia that figure is one — just one job. So there's lots of room. We could be getting an awful lot more jobs out of our forests if we had a government with the political will. Instead we have a government that's in the back pockets of its corporate friends. It's fiscally incompetent and ought not to be attempting to manage our resources.

The auditor-general's report echoed much of Peel's criticism. The auditor-general, for the tenth year in a row.... It's been a decade; it's not a new problem. We have been hearing about the slack and the waste and the problems in the forests. Again the auditor-general is telling us about the problems in forest management. He castigates the government for not effectively monitoring logging practices, reforestation and road building. He's made it very clear that this government doesn't know what's going on in our forests. It simply doesn't know.

It cut down the Forest Service to such a degree that it's ineffective. The consequence is that the government doesn't know what's going on with our largest resource, a resource that thousands of people depend on for their income and that we need to keep intact for future generations. It's not a new problem. The government knows the problems; they're aware. They've been repeatedly condemned by the auditor-general. It's the number one subject of discussion and the number one subject of confrontation around this province.

We hear some members on the opposite side speaking about the issues as if they are aware of the problems and have some genuine concern, but we don't see any action. They continue to vote against doing the inventory. They continue to refuse to take an inventory, which is the cornerstone of forest and resource management in this province. Not just the government, but the Social Credit party votes against doing a forest inventory. But they vote for accepting the major forest companies' plans. They just accept them the way the companies put them out.

We've also seen the government change its regulations, slacken them off, with a phone call from the forest companies. It's very clear to us that this government is not operating on the priorities of the people of British Columbia. It's not dealing with the serious conflicts we have or making the tough decisions that we need to make. I think that's a shame. It's our number one resource. We have no end of rhetoric, of promises, yet the people who depend on the jobs and the future of our forests for generations to come, and the forest communities which depend on our forests, are all having problems.

We on this side of the House have introduced numerous pieces of legislation, and we're forever hearing about the fact that backbenchers need to have the right to speak up more in this Legislature. Certainly no one would disagree that there's always room for reform. However, of the backbenchers — notably the former Premier, the member for Omineca, the member for Vancouver–Little Mountain — there are a number who do speak up. We also have private member's day on Fridays.

We have introduced bills and motions, but the problem is not that there isn't lots of opportunity for input other than from the cabinet. There is lots of opportunity under the present system. The problem is not the system; it is with the people who are running the system and have been for some time.

We've introduced legislation. We introduced the Forest Resource Inventory Act, for instance, and the Forest Waste Reduction Act — a badly needed act. It's an act to ensure sound forest practices on private land. A lot of the problems are on private land. There was the Community Reforestation Act, where communities can get involved in reforestation and silviculture. We

[ Page 12302 ]

introduced an Incremental Silviculture Act — Bill M238, a private member's bill. We introduced a Forestry Value Added Act that will work to diversify our economy and get more jobs out of our forest resources.

As well, to assist in resolving the land and resource disputes around the province, we introduced Bill M239, An Act to Establish an Environment and Land Use Secretariat. That would create an environment and land use secretariat such as we created in 1972 to 1975. What a shame that this government chose to do away with that. Had we continued to have the environment and land use secretariat, we might not be in the serious problems we're in today. As with other very essential programs we are discovering were badly needed and still are badly needed, this government chose to get rid of the environment and land use secretariat and has refused to reintroduce it.

[5:15]

We hear a lot of rhetoric coming from the government side, but we haven't seen any action so far, and we're in the dying hours of this Legislature. I frankly don't think rhetoric about eleventh-hour redemption and about a kinder, more human face on government is going to wash with the electorate.

The budget is primarily a recycling of old promises. The best we can get for recycling from this government is a recycling of old promises. We see a reannouncement, for instance, of the reforestation program, but the reality is that there are cuts to the total reforestation budget. At a time when we should be putting more resources into silviculture, reforestation and diversification, we're seeing cuts.

This government has done no better with the environment. Like the Ministry of Forests, we hear no end of rhetoric from the other side of the House about the environment. Just today the former Minister of Environment, the member for West Vancouver—Howe Sound, called people who are out there working for change — working for a cleaner environment — left-wing environmental idiots. That's the attitude we have towards the environmental people who care about the environment, which I might add includes native peoples and people who work in the forest. The IWA forest policy, for instance, is one of the soundest environmental policies I've seen. All of those people the government is calling left-wing environmental idiots.... I don't think that's appropriate coming from the government side of the House, but I do think it's a very clear indication of just where they stand on these issues.

We've also had six Environment ministers in four and a half years — a revolving-door government. They can't keep themselves out of problems long enough to keep anybody in the Environment portfolio long enough to actually do something — not that that would necessarily make a difference. Six ministers in four years: it's a revolving-door cabinet. There are only four or five members out of 47 that haven't been in cabinet — a disgraceful record.

In terms of the environment, the latest Ministry of Environment report shows that there are still nine pulp and paper mills in British Columbia that are badly out of compliance with their permits. Of course, the government has moved to weaken the regulations to make the forest companies comply — to clean up their act — rather than tighten them up. They've gone the wrong way. It just takes a phone call to this cabinet and you can get some mightily loosened-up environmental legislation, it seems. So they haven't moved to clean up the environment; instead they've loosened the regulations.

Environmental standards still aren't enforced. On Vancouver Island there are all sorts of shellfish areas that are closed, and obviously that's causing all sorts of hardship and other damage.

Last year we saw a promise to develop a comprehensive waste-management system in this province. In fact, it was a recycled promise last year. We need a Hazardous Waste Management Corporation, Mr. Speaker, but we've seen no action whatsoever from the government side of the House. There's nothing in the budget to deal with this. There is no effective plan. The government is simply in chaos, and we don't have any kind of plan to deal with the hazardous waste after four and a half years. The recent government flip-flopping over pulp-mill pollution, I think, really tells us where they stand. They end up lowering the standards, making it easier for corporations to pollute the environment, rather than tightening it up.

On environmental issues, as on forestry issues, this government has simply lost credibility. It has no credibility on either of those issues. I think the kind of importance that this government places on those issues can be seen from where they come in the budget speech. Not only are there cuts, but there is no effective or creative or imaginative action to deal with the crisis in our forests or the growing crisis in the environment. Environment and forestry were simply tacked on the end of the budget and glossed over. There is no action in the budget to deal in any effective way with the problems we're faced with.

The Social Credit Party may have changed its leader and appointed another interim leader; however, this budget has not changed, the party hasn't changed and the policies haven't changed. It's the same old gang with the same old worn-out, recycled, tired promises.

I think it's worth pointing out that in the very brief sitting in March the government made a lot of noise about its taxpayer protection plan — how it was going to freeze taxes and protect the taxpayer in this time of recession. We all know, of course, that that froze the tax unfairness we've seen under this government since 1986. Every family now pays about $3,000 more a year. There have been 784 fee increases — over 200 of them new fees — as well as a shifting of taxes from corporations to middle- and low-income earners. It's $3,000 more a year for the average family; on the other hand, corporations are receiving a $2 million tax break. That's regressive and it's unfair. That's what this government said they would freeze.

However, it appears they didn't freeze taxes. This budget shows there are a number of tax increases. Like so many pieces of legislation and so many policies, it's "now you see 'em, now you don't." They introduce them in the Legislature and find that they're ineffective because they're badly thought out, so this government simply gets rid of them. That's what we saw with the

[ Page 12303 ]

taxpayer protection plan: they brought it in, and a few weeks later we've got tax increases.

What we see in the budget is a $58 million tax grab on medicare premiums. That tax grab obviously hits low- and middle-income earners. The average family will pay about $100 a year more. As this government's policies work to spiral down wages, at the same time they're spiralling up taxes and fees for the average family. So taxpayer protection is a myth and it's rhetoric. We're in fact seeing another tax grab.

In last night's news, I thought it was quite interesting to note that some 33,000 British Columbians can't afford to have a medicare plan. To continue to increase medicare premiums is a foolish and regressive policy. This government had fee-for-service until that was knocked down by the courts. It just simply doesn't seem to understand that that is regressive and it doesn't work, other than to pay for some of the government's political advertising, which seems to be a budget item with no constraints.

There are some cuts in this budget, all right; it's not all increases. For instance, nearly $700,000 was cut from drug and alcohol services. We have a government that says it's going to fight drug and alcohol abuse and that we've got problems in British Columbia — and, indeed, we have — and at the same time we're seeing massive cuts. We had advertising for three years for the TRY program. We never really had the resources to deal with it, and now those resources are being cut further. Drug and alcohol prevention programs are being cut in this budget as well by some $600,000. Again, we've got the rhetoric and the advertising, with the minister's face in the picture and with Social Credit, but the resources are not only minimal but they are now being withdrawn.

The at-home program is for children with disabilities so they can live at home, which is not only much better for the family and for the children but is also easier on our health system and institutional system. It costs less. That program is not being bolstered as a less expensive way to provide support to families and children with special needs; instead, it's being cut by $1 million in this budget.

Community projects are cut by $1.3 million.

Education. Two years ago we saw the Year 2000 introduced after the Sullivan report. That's a good report. We agree with the essence of the Sullivan report, and we're quite happy to see it introduced However, in its wisdom, the government jumped right into it without providing the necessary funding to provide more classrooms for smaller classes, and more teaching staff, aides, facilities and resources, which are required when you make a major shift like this in education policy.

Obviously it's a major disruption to the system. We've got dual entry, and we've got a new way of coming at education. There's no question that it's a good system. However, the government has gone about it helter-skelter, in an ad hoc way, and has created chaos in our schools and created a lot of resentment and concern among parents, students, teachers and administrators. This year we see an 8.5 percent cutback in operation funding. We don't see any mention of the Year 2000 in the budget; it's simply not there. There are rumours that the government is going to make an announcement, and that it's taking another look. The minister said he's taking another look at the Year 2000.

Mr. Speaker, I think that's simply not good enough. You don't introduce it and then cut it. Our children suffer and our system suffers. It's a waste of resources and another example of this government's incompetence. I would argue that this kind of management — some of the things I've just pointed out — come from the yo-yo theory of government, which this government obviously ascribes to.

I'd like to mention women's programs in the context of this budget. There is a $4 million allocation in this budget for programs for violence against women. So far we've seen $500,000 allocated to government advertising about violence; at the same time the budgets for sexual assault centres are being cut for two years in a row.

On the one hand, we have advertising which creates more of a demand on the resources; on the other hand, we have a cut in the resources. I certainly hope that this government will put some of this funding into actual resources to help the people who work so hard to provide sexual assault centres for women. It's a serious problem in our society, Mr. Speaker. In 1972 to 1975 we had the first core funding in North America for women's safe houses — transition houses for battered women. This government, in its wisdom, cut them.

We also saw reference to homemakers' pensions earlier for women who stay at home. It was to be funded out of the privatization benefits fund. In this budget there is no mention of that, and we don't see any allocation for it. However, the privatization benefits fund is now going to fund social housing. One wonders just precisely what they're going to do.

MR. SPEAKER: Pursuant to standing orders, the House is advised that the Minister of Finance will close the debate on this motion.

[5:30]

HON. J. JANSEN: Mr. Speaker, as I close debate on the budget, I would like to make a little observation at the outset. This budget debate has enabled a wide range of observations and discussion, and it enables members of this assembly to focus and outline their views on the fiscal direction and philosophy of the province.

This being my first budget presentation, I sincerely looked forward to hearing the views of members opposite and responding to them. Taxpayers expect — and rightly so — their elected representatives to provide honest, forthright and responsive representation. They really would like their members to be diligent in debate and to honestly reflect their views. They want to know where their members stand.

Sadly, if the NDP opposition debate on this budget has done anything, it has positioned the whole rag-tag bunch. Firstly, they're positioned behind their faceless leader, and secondly, they're positioned squarely on the fence. This jellyfish type of response is, in a word,

[ Page 12304 ]

embarrassing: no leadership, no platform, no comment, no opinion, no direction and no vision — for all intents and purposes, devoid of life. It must really cause the people of this province to shake their heads.

I went through the response of the "Finance critic, " who regrettably has placed himself in a serious conflict situation by his lack of understanding respecting the confidentiality of tax information. His response was clearly written several weeks before the budget document was drawn up. I searched in vain for at least a statement, a commitment, some ideology or philosophy, but sadly I found none. But the question remains.

Then the Leader of the Opposition gave the answer: the transition team — the T-team. It helped put together the budget for Ontario — the yet-unnamed B.C. NDP MLAs who assisted in the vision of the Ontario budget, the opposition members that their leader said assisted in creating the debacle that developed in Ontario. The vision of economic salvation of the B.C. NDP way was clearly revealed: a deficit the size of Lake Ontario, and the jobs and the economy are sinking fast.

I'm sure that the people of Ontario can't be thankful enough for the able assistance of the British Columbia NDP caucus transition team. If it wasn't so sad, it would be a cruel joke. The NDP treasurer of Ontario made a philosophical statement. I quote: "We made a choice in this budget to fight the recession, not the deficit."

Given their lack of concern about the deficit, how did they fight the recession? The answer is very simple: spend more. Yes, you heard it correctly That's the NDP economic philosophy: when you can't make ends meet, move them further apart. Don't create jobs, protect jobs, protect pay cheques or support business. No, none of those. Spend more money. They did not fight the deficit. It will be nurtured to grow an additional $35 billion in four short years. But no, they're not concerned. In fact, when the bond-rating agencies lowered their ratings, the NDP treasurer showed his understanding of the impact. He said: "It's not really the end of the world." No, it wasn't. But that little step alone will cost the taxpayers of Ontario $200 million this year in extra interest. That's a quote from Burns Fry.

Surely the B.C. NDP transition team, yet unnamed, commanded by Premier Rae, must have taken some economic initiatives. Yes, they have. They had a very desperate housing market. What was their solution? They levied an additional tax. Can you imagine that? They have a corporate sector moving away in droves, coming to British Columbia, and they are taking jobs with them. What did they do? What was their solution? They taxed harder, and added minimum tax. They eliminated the small business reduction tax. Their taxpayers are concerned about their future. All the taxpayers of Ontario are concerned about their future. And what was their solution? Tax them even more — twice the burden of taxpayers British Columbia — reduce their health care coverage and discourage further industry.

The NDP budget in Ontario is so bad that they determined they needed a public hearing process to explain it. Can you believe that? The Ontario budget is the vision of the NDP party, a vision that is simply out of touch. The people of the province of British Columbia have a vision too. I'll tell you what they call it. They call it Rae-ban vision. They are simply saying: "We don't want a transition team from Ontario coming to British Columbia, thank you very much. We know we have the best government in Canada, and we intend to keep it."

The public sees our Social Credit budget as a prudent budget, a responsible budget and a budget that has its priorities right. They see that this government is concentrating spending where people need it the most. They see a $1.2 billion increase in funding for health, education and social services. They see a budget that protects families and children in British Columbia. They see a budget that is strong on justice. They see a budget that will have a positive impact on the environment. They see a budget that will help make British Columbia an even better place to live not just over the coming year but over the coming decade.

This budget takes a long-term view and makes long-term commitments and investments for people. It builds hospitals and health centres. It builds new schools and a new university for the north. It makes social capital investments worth $1.3 billion in all regions in the province. It stimulates the creation of jobs and builds foundations for prosperity. The people of British Columbia are pleased that the cost of today's programs will not be passed on as a burden to tomorrow's taxpayers.

You can't please everyone, Mr. Speaker. For some people, no matter how much you spend, it's never enough. No matter what you do, they'll say it's a mistake. The opposition has shot its arrows and thrown its spears at the budget — broken arrows and thin spears; brick bats and boomerangs. On their left hand they say we aren't spending enough; on their right hand they accuse us of spending too much. Standing on their left foot they accuse us of neglecting social programs; standing on their right foot they attack us on our fiscal record. They don't have a leg to stand on, Mr. Speaker.

Over the past five years we've made tremendous gains in health, education and social programs, and we have the best fiscal record in Canada. The people of British Columbia have seen our numbers. They know that our debt as a percentage of GDP is the lowest in Canada. They know that our debt per revenue dollar is the lowest in Canada. Only four cents of each tax dollar goes to service provincial government debt. Compare that with the next best province, Alberta, where 15 cents of every tax dollar goes to service provincial debt. Compare that with the federal government, where 34 cents of every tax dollar we send is eaten up by debt-servicing. Taxpayers in B.C. get a lot better value on their tax dollar.

There are many other indicators of our good fiscal and economic health. We have benchmarks that are accepted by the most respected financial organizations and rating services in North America. That isn't good enough for the opposition, Mr. Speaker. They took their batteries out of their hearing-aids and put them back

[ Page 12305 ]

into their pocket calculators. They've come up with some numbers of their own. There are lies and worse lies, and there are statistics. We should examine some of the opposition's statistics.

The budget contains the largest deficit in British Columbia history — over $1.2 billion. How many times have I had to explain the financial statements to the "Finance critic?" The deficit, as outlined in the budget statement and as highlighted in table H4, is $395 million. Write it down, members opposite, so you'll remember it in your next speech.

It was said: "They have neglected health care. They have neglected education. They have failed to protect jobs and paycheques. They have failed to ensure equality for women. They have neglected families." They must be reading Ontario's budget, because I don't find that in this document; I find quite the contrary. I find that we're spending almost 14 percent on an education increase. Have we neglected education? We have spent almost an additional $560 million on health care. Are we neglecting health care? How would you assess us neglecting health care with a 10.5 percent increase. Social services and families has a 9 percent increase. How have we neglected them? Take out your little pocket calculators once again and put new batteries in them. They're not working.

I've heard the budget stabilization fund criticized continually from the other side. They say that the auditor-general criticized it. Let me read a letter from the auditor-general. I'll just read a paragraph from it, and I hope that the opposition Finance critic will have a look at it and understand it. In fact, maybe I'll give him a copy, so he can read it. The auditor-general says: "I have on no occasion criticized either the establishment of the fund or its purposes. Neither have I criticized the accounting for this fund. I emphasized that my auditor's opinion on all sets of financial statements of the province has been issued without reservation."

[5:45]

Mr. Speaker, the opposition critic has said that the government continues the misleading bookkeeping contrary to the recommendations of the auditor-general — obviously an incorrect statement. And every reputable financial analyst in Canada.... Let me tell you what they said. In February 1990 the Investment Dealers' Association noted that British Columbia sets the example in fiscal management. I don't understand the statement he made. In 1989 all four of the credit rating agencies raised the government's rating — not lowered it, members, like Ontario. There were additional costs of $200 million per year, and they raised it. They were again confirmed in 1990.

Moody's said: "While signs of Canada's economic slowdown are already affecting British Columbia, the province is well poised from the point of view of its current debt and financial position to weather this downturn."

Mr. Speaker, the opposition has gone to great lengths to discredit this budget, but behind the rhetoric and hyperbole of the opposition debate, what really bothers them about this budget is that they know this is a good budget for British Columbia. It is prudent and responsible. It concentrates on key programs for people. It builds for the future. Furthermore, it continues the tradition of excellent fiscal management that this government is known for throughout Canada.

British Columbians recognize the strength of this budget, and they are aware of our fiscal performance. They are the ones who count; it's the opposition who can't count.

MR. SPEAKER: The question is that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the House to go into Committee of Supply.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 31

NAYS — 17

Point of Privilege

GOVERNMENT BORROWING

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, earlier today the member for Vancouver East sought to rise on a matter of privilege in regard to comments made by the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations during the budget debate. I have now had an opportunity to review the Hansard transcripts, and it is readily apparent that this matter falls into the category which has been described on numerous occasions in this House, namely a situation where two members disagree as to facts.

Numerous Speakers' decisions may be found in the Journals and in the second edition of Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia ruling that such disputes are not the foundation of a breach of privilege but rather the subject matter of debate, such as the budget debate upon which the House has been embarked for the last six days.

Accordingly, I cannot find that there is a matter of privilege.

[ Page 12306 ]

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Just before we adjourn for the evening I would ask the House — all members — to join me in welcoming the new Minister of Advanced Education, Training and Technology, the first member for Central Fraser Valley (Hon. Mr. Dueck).

MR. ROSE: On behalf of the opposition, I'd like to join the government in welcoming the new minister. I know he's had a very difficult year, and it hasn't been easy for him. We wish him well in his new endeavours.

While I'm on my feet, I wonder if I could ask the government House Leader to confirm the business of the House for tomorrow, which is the second reading of Bill 8, Supply Act (No. 1), 1991.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I did confirm that informally across the way, so I can inform all of the members that tomorrow at 10 a.m., we will debate the interim supply bill, and the Minister of Finance will be asking us to observe section 81 of the Standing Orders. Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I wish you all a pleasant good evening.

Hon. Mr. Richmond moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:56 p.m.