Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, APRIL 2, 1992

Volume 1, Number 19

[ Page 481 ]

The House met at 2:04 p.m.

J. MacPhail: It gives me very great pleasure to introduce 73 students from Vancouver Technical high school in Vancouver. They are joining us today for the first time in the Legislature. I want to bring to the attention of the hon. members an anti-racism program they've instituted that says: "Van Tech Says 'No' to Racism." They deserve a very warm welcome and a great deal of credit for their program.

Hon. A. Petter: I'm pleased to inform the House that in the member's gallery today we have a very well-known Coast Salish artist, Susan Point, who also happens to be having an exhibition opening this evening in the Open Space gallery. Accompanying her is Gordon Hanson, who of course is well-known to you and served this House and the aboriginal peoples of this province very well for many years, through his participation in this House. I would like all members to make them welcome.

R. Neufeld: I would like to introduce two people in the gallery who are very near and dear to me, my daughter Chantel and my wife LaVerne. Would the House make them truly welcome.

Hon. E. Cull: I just noticed in the gallery today two of my constituents, Joe Surich and his son Jackson. I ask the House to make them welcome.

Hon. M. Sihota: I am pleased to introduce in the gallery today hon. Marcel Danis, federal Minister of Labour, who is out here in Victoria. I certainly like to welcome him to the beautiful climes of Victoria. And Mr. Gerald Capello, the Deputy Minister of Labour, together with Michael Allen, the Chief of Staff from the office of the federal minister and, of course, Mr. Claude Heywood, the Deputy Minister of Labour and Consumer Affairs in British Columbia. Joining them is Michelin Racette, communications officer with the federal government. Would all members please give them a warm welcome.

Hon. M. Sihota tabled the 1991 annual report of B.C. Hydro; the annual report of the Ministry of Labour and Consumer Services; the annual report of the Industrial Relations Council; the nineteenth annual report of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia; and the 1991 annual report of the Workers' Compensation Board of British Columbia.

Oral Questions

REACTIONS TO BUDGET

G. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance. Yesterday, during his address to the board of trade, the minister said: "We have maintained a competitive tax position and ensured a stable environment for investment." However, the chairman of the Vancouver Board of Trade, a man who has extensive business experience, said that for some businesses: "...this budget will be the straw that breaks their backs, and for others, this will be the trigger that moves them across the border." Does this minister expect us to believe that he is right and that the chairman of the Vancouver Board of Trade is wrong?

Hon. G. Clark: We've been fair on the taxing side. First of all, we have cut the rate of growth in spending in half from last year. It's the lowest rate of growth in spending in the last five years. Unfortunately we did have to raise taxes in order to deal with the financial mess left behind by the previous administration. In fact, the province is in a fiscal crisis.

We raised half the amount of revenue from individuals and half from business. In addition, 80 percent of business does not pay the corporation capital tax. We could have raised the sales tax, which would have been more onerous on businesses. We've been fair. It's our view -- and we campaigned on this during the election -- that business has to pay their fair share to protect the central health and education programs and social services in this province. We believe we've been fair and responsible.

G. Wilson: On March 30, in reference to the homeowner's grant, the minister said: "The majority of British Columbians are unaffected by this policy." Yet municipal leaders from all over the province agree that that's not so. Indeed, municipalities from Prince Rupert through to Richmond will see taxation increases on residential property of anywhere from 9.3 to 24.7 percent. The president of the Union of B.C. Municipalities says that municipal councils are scrambling to find ways to ease the tax burden on their residents. Does the minister expect us to believe that he is right and all of these municipal officers are wrong?

Hon. G. Clark: I notice that the Leader of the Opposition requested a tax reduction for MacMillan Bloedel in Powell River.

Let me just be clear for everybody. Forty percent of British Columbians are renters. They are unaffected by the supplemental homeowner grant. Of the 60 percent who are....

Interjections.

Hon. G. Clark: No, they're not passed on, because you only receive the supplemental homeowner grant if you're an owner-occupied residence. If you're an investor, you never received the supplemental homeowner grant. So those 40 percent are unaffected.

Of the 60 percent who are homeowners, slightly less than half are actually better off as a result of increasing the basic homeowner grant. A minority of British Columbians will have some increase as a result of this policy. In addition, it's a disproportionate benefit on the value of affluent homes. The wealthiest individuals with the largest homes got the biggest benefit. Our changes, while not particularly popular -- no taxes are -- are fair and responsible and based on the ability to pay.

In fairness, some municipal leaders are trying to play politics, and some might even be looking for the job of Leader of the Opposition.

[ Page 482 ]

G. Wilson: Once again I find that the minister is incorrect. If he checks the record, he'll find that I didn't ask for any kind of tax reduction for Powell River. I was simply suggesting that something needs to be done for single-industry towns.

With reference to those who may be seeking the job of Leader of the Opposition, having looked at this Finance minister and this budget, I imagine there are a number of people who will be coveting my job, because I'll be in the Premier's chair after the next election.

To the question, I would say that even the secretary of the Hospital Employees' Union wrote to this Finance minister about the Peat Marwick figures that his budget was based on, and that union leader said that the figures contained in this report are a serious distortion of the truth. Is the minister saying that the top business leaders of British Columbia, the elected municipal officers of British Columbia and even union leaders are all wrong and only he is right?

Hon. G. Clark: It's an absolutely clear demonstration to all British Columbians that this government plays no favourites. The reality is that we were left with a fiscal crisis created by the previous administration. It is true that the deficit in British Columbia, if calculated the same way as Ontario, would be in the $12 billion range if you used an Ontario base. It is absolutely clear that we have to come to grips with this.

We've been tough on the spending side; we cut the rate of growth of spending in half; we had to move on the tax side. We have been fair to individuals and to business, and I think fair to municipalities.

If I could, just for the record, because I know there's some confusion about this with the Leader of the Opposition, the unconditional grants have gone from.... In '82-83 they were $99 million, the next year $100 million, then $90, then $90, then $95, then $100, $100, $110, then just before the election they went to $130, and we have put them to $120, which is higher than virtually any other year in the past. I think the opposition from the mayor of Vancouver is clearly a political one designed to undermine the Leader of the Opposition.

SUPPLEMENTARY HOMEOWNER GRANT

D. Schreck: My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. I read some media reports with some concern on April 1 of an 82-year-old Vancouver pensioner who thinks she may have to sell her home of 34 years because she cannot afford to pay the property taxes. What does the minister plan to do to assist this person and other people in similar circumstances?

[2:15]

Hon. R. Blencoe: This government is concerned about those on fixed incomes and those facing rapidly increasing property assessments. A recent report outlined the difficulties faced by an individual, which is not uncommon for seniors who own their own homes throughout this province. A basic problem is that her assessments have increased 77 percent in a one-year period. I have attempted over the past day and a half to contact that person to talk over her concerns to see where we can help. This government has numerous programs to help and to protect seniors. We have a homeowner grant that is 60 percent higher than the basic grant. We have introduced budget measures that will mean that seniors in Vancouver in the lowest 40 percent of property values will pay no more. And we have indicated in the throne speech that we will bring in legislation to tackle the problem of escalating property assessments. This government is concerned and will be taking action.

GRANTS TO MUNICIPALITIES

L. Hanson: The question is to the same minister. This government has reduced the unconditional grants to the municipalities by 11 percent. They've also restricted access to the stabilization account that was there to balance those years that were a little less. The municipalities were so concerned about this that they even called an emergency meeting last night. Does the hon. minister recognize that this action leaves the municipalities with no choice but to either reduce services or increase taxation?

Hon. R. Blencoe: I would remind the member that if he takes a look at the blue book, this government is increasing revenue-sharing from $305 million to $335 million -- a 10 percent increase in a very difficult time. Also in a very difficult time, in support of local government, we have increased the basic grant by 9 percent to ensure that small communities are protected. The biggest issues facing local government today are health and environment -- sewer and water. I'm pleased to say, on behalf of this government, that we have raised sewer and water grants and health and environment grants to the highest this province has ever seen, from $97 million to $128 million -- a record amount for local government.

That's how we deal with local government, by raising their amounts, and we will continue to do that.

L. Hanson: Supplemental to the same minister. The minister is obviously either unaware or afraid to tell us that the increase in the grants to sewer and water also create an increased burden on the municipality to increase taxation to their homeowners. Will the minister commit now that he will do as pleaded for by UBCM and restore the municipalities' access to the stabilization account, which is, in fact, their own money?

Hon. R. Blencoe: Does this member want us to reduce the $128 million from revenue sharing to environment and health? Does he want us to reduce it -- the record amount in the history of this province to the local government? Let me give you the facts about when this member was in government. We have increased the grants for environment and health from $97 million to $128 million. In the previous year, when I think that member was minister, it was only $63 million. And in such a short period, we have increased it to $128 million for health and environment. We are committed to local government.

L. Hanson: What the minister is failing to say is that every time a grant is made under the sewer or 

[ Page 483 ]

water program, it requires either 75-cent dollars or 50-cent dollars from the municipality to put the project together -- increased taxation. If the minister would answer yes or no -- will he commit to restoring the municipalities' access to their own money?

Hon. R. Blencoe: This government does consult with local government. I have met dozens of people from UBCM and other local governments. We are committed to doing that. Under difficult times, when the former government ran this province into debt, we are still increasing money for health and environment. We are committed to local government.

CORPORATE CAPITAL TAX

W. Hurd: This must be a day for tabling reports in the House. I have with me a number of reports from resource corporations and other corporations of this province -- audited financial statements. My question to the Minister of Finance is this: does he actually read these statements that cross his desk on an annual basis? If he does, he'd know that the numbers in brackets refer to losses in this province -- audited financial statements, not the Peat Marwick Thorne report. My question to the minister is this: how does he expect these companies to pay a corporate capital tax on their earnings when none exists?

Hon. G. Clark: I wonder how the member of the Liberal Party expects working people and poor people to pay the flat tax that they would have us enforce on individuals.

When a working person is laid off, he or she still has to pay taxes. They still have to pay sales taxes and income taxes. Those companies made record profits for years in this province and weren't paying their fair share. We have imposed a modest tax on them, which is less of a tax burden than existed under Bill Bennett a few years ago. I don't think very many people accused Bill Bennett of being a socialist.

W. Hurd: Supplementary, again to the Minister of Finance. I can say it's better to have a flat tax than a government that's flat broke. Again, my question of the minister: how are these corporations, which have lost hundreds of millions of dollars in the last year of their fiscal operations, going to pay his corporation capital tax?

Hon. G. Clark: I might say that the government.... He's mentioned the government is flat broke. If we followed the prescriptions of the opposition party, I'm sure our deficit would be significantly higher than it is today. When you deal with taxes, hon. Speaker, you have to make a choice; it's very true. We chose not to punish low-income individuals and not to raise taxes as you would have on working people, but rather to make large corporations pay their fair share in this province.

Ministerial Statement

GYPSY MOTH SPRAY PROGRAM

Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Speaker, I rise to make a ministerial statement. This is further information as a follow-up to an issue that was raised yesterday with regard to aerial spraying of bacterial product to deal with the gypsy moths.

Pesticide labelling is strictly a federal matter regulated under the Pest Control Products Act by Agriculture Canada. It is an offence to use a pesticide contrary to label specifications. Yesterday the Liberal Environment critic asked me a question that relates to the legal uses of the product that Dr. Ron Kobylnyk in my ministry approved for the proposed gypsy moth spray program in the Vancouver area. The product that has been approved for use in the proposed aerial spray program in the Vancouver area is Foray 48B.

The label of this product states that permitted uses are forest, woodlands, ornamental trees and shrubs and urban areas. I emphasize that: and urban areas. Clearly the proposed used of Foray 48B in the Vancouver area is legal. The active ingredient, the bacteria known as BTK, is used in a variety of pest-control products, including those formulated specifically for orchard and vegetable crops. Given the seriousness of this issue and the need to approach it in the most objective way possible, it is unfortunate that the Liberal Environment critic would imply that this is not a legal product.

In addition, it's my understanding that a fax has been received stating that an appeal will be filed. I continue to prefer keeping the due process as thorough as is possible, recognizing the urgency of the situation. We've already stated that there could be circumstances where we might have to consider accelerating the process, given the time in which these caterpillars could be vulnerable to a spray -- which could have to be brought forward in order to make it effective.

Agriculture Canada is in touch with our ministry with regard to their desire to see the spray go forward at the earliest possible date. It continues to be my preference that due process be followed and that we have as thorough a hearing as possible. I would invite the members of the opposition, in recognizing the gravity of this issue, to participate in the most careful and appropriate way.

G. Wilson: I would say at the outset it would have been nice if this government had extended the courtesy of notice of this ministerial statement, as is the custom. Once again, we find a minister rising to make a statement without any notice given to the opposition, a statement that is erroneous in terms of its presentation and attempts to repudiate the opposition Environment critic in terms of what was said in the oral question to the minister.

Our concern was with respect to the licensing, with particular regard to agricultural products; and in particular our concern was with respect to the aerial application of spray in terms of its ability to hit the intended target. Given the amount of time it takes to leave the aircraft that is spraying widespread -- it can be dispersed by air and wind and what have you -- it 

[ Page 484 ]

can hit a number of unintended targets including playgrounds, schools, parks, drinking water systems, as well as home and vegetable gardens which are now currently being planted, given the nice spring weather we're enjoying.

Furthermore, I would suggest that the intent of the question was to take a look at whether or not this minister was prepared to take full and absolute responsibility for the licensing of this particular program. While in fact the labelling may be a federal matter, the provision for its application -- the licence to proceed -- is something that his ministry has control over. Given that there is a great deal of public concern, our question was whether or not this minister would be prepared to take responsibility for any liabilities that may occur through the application of this herbicide.

I would say, with respect to Agriculture Canada, that this minister might want to go back through history and take a look at Agriculture Canada's recommendations with respect to herbicide application and use in Canada. Canada is replete with examples of Agriculture Canada approving substances for the expediency of application in both agriculture as well as other commercial uses that, in years future, proved to have a devastating impact on the environment, and are now banned not only in Canada but worldwide.

C. Serwa: I too am disturbed by the minister not giving us advance notice, as is a common courtesy. I'm frankly very distressed with that breach in precedent and procedure. The matter is, of course, very controversial, and the Ministry of Environment, through this minister and through government, has failed miserably in its communications with the people of the province. Frankly, on that tack, I asked the Minister of Health over a week and a half ago for the substance behind the Ministry of Health reports on the safety of this aerial spray program.

[2:30]

To date I have not received any substance to support the Minister of Health's comment that the Ministry of Health of British Columbia has made that independent assessment. What we see here, again, is typical of this autocratic government, where they are imposing their will on the people of the province. There are no public relations, no communications and no effort to support. I can see from the colour on the minister's face that he is very embarrassed, because he spoke long and loud when he was the Minister of Environment critic on this side. This government is taking the attitude that what's good for General Bullmoose is, in fact, good for the nation. I take violent exception to that. Presenting Reports

J. MacPhail: Hon. Speaker, I and the member for Nanaimo have the honour to present the report of the Special Committee on Constitutional Matters, and I move that the report be read and received.

Motion approved.

J. Weisgerber: I'd ask leave of the House to table a copy of a letter to the auditor general.

Leave granted.

J. Weisgerber: The purpose of the letter I have tabled is essentially threefold: first, to request the auditor general to fully investigate allegations made by the Minister of Finance in this assembly on March 31 that there was political interference by the former government in regard to certain ad hoc loans; second, to....

Interjection.

J. Weisgerber: Yes, indeed I do.

The Speaker: Order, please. If the member would take his seat. It is my understanding that leave was granted to table the document, which does not normally include a statement.

C. Serwa: Point of order, Madam Speaker. Several days ago the government House Leader asked leave and then he proceeded to read from the letter which he tendered and submitted as the official documents. That had to do with B.C. Ferries and involved the leader of the official opposition. So the precedent has been created in this House, Madam Speaker, and on that basis I believe that our party leader should have the opportunity to inform the House briefly about the tabled document.

The Speaker: On that point of order, hon. member, the statement that you referred to the other day was a ministerial statement, which, of course, is allowed at any time from the minister. If the leader of the third party wishes to make a statement, he can certainly ask leave to make that statement.

J. Weisgerber: Thank you, hon. Speaker. As you indicate, I ask leave to make a statement.

Leave granted.

J. Weisgerber: Just to set the record straight, the Minister of Finance rose the other day, asked leave to table a document, and then proceeded to make a statement, which you kindly ruled for him as being a ministerial statement.

In any event, let me start again. The purpose of the letter I have tabled is essentially threefold: first, to request the auditor general to fully investigate allegations made by the Minister of Finance in this assembly on March 31 that there was political interference by the former government with regard to certain ad hoc loans; secondly, to request the auditor general to perform a complete and thorough audit of all loans issued by the previous government to determine whether the taxpayers' interests have been properly respected; and finally, to request the auditor general to table for all members a copy of his budget submission, to ascertain whether the current budget provides sufficient funding for him to properly conduct his legislative mandate.

The Speaker: This is on another matter?

Hon. M. Sihota: I'm not too sure if the other matter has been concluded.

[ Page 485 ]

The Speaker: There is no reply to that kind of statement unless leave was again granted. Are you rising on another matter?

Hon. M. Sihota: Two other matters. If I may have the indulgence of the Speaker and the House on this matter, I noted a minute ago that the.... On the tabling of the report of the Special Committee on Constitutional Matters, if I may have the indulgence of the House for just a brief....

An Hon. Member: Is this a debate?

Hon. M. Sihota: No, just a brief statement. If members of the Liberal Party are prepared to have us thank....

G. Wilson: Can we make a reply?

Hon. M. Sihota: I encourage the leader opposite to reply. It's just a short statement. If the member wants it, I can describe it as a ministerial statement, but it's just a short comment.

The Speaker: Minister, I only need to know on what basis you are rising.

Hon. M. Sihota: We'll present it as a ministerial statement then, hon. Speaker.

Ministerial Statement

REPORT OF THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE
ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS

Hon. M. Sihota: I simply want to take the opportunity to thank the members of the Special Committee on Constitutional Matters for the work they've done. They've done an enormous amount of work in the past few months. They've travelled all over British Columbia and have consulted literally thousands of British Columbians and pored over literally hundreds of reports in arriving at the conclusions that they've presented to the House, which I'm sure all members of the House still haven't had an opportunity to read in their entirety, including myself.

May I say that I note in the report that has been presented that it has the consent of representatives from all of the parties, and in that regard I think the work of the co-chairs and the work of the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove in his capacity as Deputy Chair is much appreciated. I think, if I may say this, that it is welcomed that this report is a consensual document in its tone. It will certainly go a long way towards assisting this government in arriving at a final constitutional position.

For members opposite, the matter will now be reviewed by the executive council and a further statement will be made by myself in terms of the position we will be taking in upcoming constitutional discussions which will continue as of next week.

Again, on behalf of this side of the House, my congratulations to all members of the committee who worked on this unanimous report.

G. Wilson: I too would like to offer my congratulations to the Special Committee on Constitutional Matters, that has indeed travelled far and wide in this province and I understand has heard from many British Columbians with respect to the concerns they have on the question of the Canadian constitution. I'm told that not only have there been oral submissions, but there has been a wealth of written submissions, which perhaps puts a lie to those who would argue that Canadians are not interested in this subject or their constitution.

I would point out that the Liberal members have informed the caucus that this report was to be tabled today. We have not had an opportunity to review it in detail. I would also point out, for the record, that there is no possibility for minority reports with the standing committees in the Legislature. As a result, the proposition for this report was to put forward what could be the best possibility in terms of the work of those members, for the Liberal caucus is going to review, with some concern, the matters that are raised in this document, because it is, after all, the fundamental law of the land. We will be anxiously awaiting the opportunity to have a full and exhaustive debate on this subject within this chamber. We hope the notice just presented by the minister does not mean this document will now only rise to a question of edict by cabinet, but that all members of this House should have an opportunity to fully debate the contents of the report.

The Speaker: Before I recognize the next hon. member for a reply, this was a ministerial statement of fairly narrow range. I would just caution that it's not the intention that we reply to the content of the report.

C. Serwa: Having had the honour to serve for this past two or three weeks, I'm most appreciative of the kind remarks of the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services. I can say with all sincerity that the work and the submission by the constitutional committee has been the result of a concerted effort over a long period of time. Having been involved only for the past two or three weeks, I can say that in the compiling of the information, the public support and input of the information and, finally, in the preparation of this report, there has been good cooperation from all members of that particular committee -- from all party members.

I would like to say that if this type of cooperation can continue in the standing legislative committees of this Legislature, we will be able to deliver superior government to the people of British Columbia.

Presenting Petitions

Hon. M. Sihota: I'd like to take this opportunity to table a petition entitled "Better Income for Better Lives," wherein the petitioners request an increase in the minimum wage to the sum of $8.26 per hour.

[ Page 486 ]

Orders of the Day

Budget Debate

(continued)

On the amendment.

The Speaker: Debate was adjourned by the member for Vancouver-Langara.

V. Anderson: It's my pleasure to continue with the reply to the presentation of the budget. I might acknowledge as minister critic for multiculturalism the pin that I'm now wearing from Van Tech in their "Say 'No' to Racism" campaign, and say that I appreciate very much the activity of the youth in giving us leadership, not only in this area but in many others as well.

Just before our adjournment this morning, I was acknowledging the principles that the NDP party and government display in their words, and I was acknowledging the difficulty of the implementation of those principles. I was interested, when I presented my reply to the throne speech, that a number of the members from the opposite side of the House beckoned me over and welcomed me to come and join them. I was interested that after the adjournment, two members from the other side of the House came over to invite me in person. I promised them that I would reply afterwards as to why I was here and not there.

This I will do, because it is very relevant. Indeed I had already prepared that part of it, so I appreciated the invitation and the common concern that we have in this regard. I also hope that we can work it out in common action, because it is my intention to cooperate with the other side, even though it is not my intention to join them.

My background is in Saskatchewan. In the thirties my family were forced to leave Saskatoon because of the Depression. We left our home behind for taxes. It's still standing, but it's no longer our home. My father was a barber, and when we moved to Nipawin in northern Saskatchewan, a small town at that point, things were not easy for anyone. These were the formative years in which I grew up. At 11 I began to work after school and on the weekends, as did all of the others in the community at that time. The stores were open in the evenings and until midnight on Saturday night, which left Sunday to clean up and get ready for the following week.

This was an excellent preparation, as we participated in cooperative community activities, trying to make our own responses, because funds were not available from any other source. I grew up politically in that era under the influence -- you might be interested to know -- of the CCF movement, with many opportunities in family and community to be inspired by the principles of the CCF movement under the leadership of T.C. Douglas, who was and still is a respected leader. However, when we moved to British Columbia from Saskatchewan, we attended the meetings of the NDP and had to reflect upon the difference we found in what we had known as CCF on the Prairies and NDP in British Columbia.

[2:45]

I reflected back upon this as we looked at it and remembered the lectures of Professor Norman Ward in the political science department of the University of Saskatchewan -- one of the foremost of those who understood Canadian constitutional and political history. His discussion of the CCF was liberal. When I looked at the NDP in contrast to that, I discovered they had moved away from that position. They had become not a party for all of the people, but they had become unbalanced in that one particular movement, namely labour, had an undue influence as against others. This is not anything against labour, because I was on the Solidarity platform during one of the largest displays of solidarity against government action that took place here a few years ago.

It is for this reason....

The Speaker: I regret, hon. member, that your time has expired.

V. Anderson: In finishing my presentation, I would second the motion for the amendment.

R. Kasper: Hon. Speaker, I would like to join the other members of the House in congratulating you and the Deputy Speaker on your positions here today and your deliberations on our proceedings. I agree with all the other members that you and the Deputy Speaker will do an incredible and memorable job for this House.

My area, Malahat-Juan de Fuca, was formed from the old riding of Esquimalt-Port Renfrew and Cowichan-Malahat. It's a unique community, as are other communities throughout this great province. I'd like to take this time to recognize the individuals who have served those constituencies: Jim Gorst from my party; Frank Mitchell, again from my party, representing the old Esquimalt-Port Renfrew boundary; Barbara Wallace; and the late hon. Bob Strachan, former leader of our party representing the Cowichan-Malahat areas.

I would also like to recognize the hon. Minister of Labour and thank him for all the promises I now have to keep in this House. But on the serious side, he has shown me the encouragement and the vision that our party and this Legislature stand for in servicing all people throughout British Columbia.

I would also like to thank the hon. Dave Barrett, Member of Parliament. While he is in the freezing weather of Ottawa, he's there looking after all our interests and pointing out the flaws and the benefits of free trade, which is affecting all of us as we go through each day.

I would be remiss if I didn't recognize members from the opposite side of the House: Lyle Kahl, who served in the area of Esquimalt-Port Renfrew, and the hon. Graham Bruce, from the Cowichan-Malahat area. Both individuals did a considerable amount of work on behalf of their constituents, and it should be noted.

Malahat-Juan de Fuca has a population of approximately 34,000 people. It consists of the communities of Langford, Sooke, Jordan River, Port Renfrew, Shawn-

[ Page 487 ]

igan Lake, Mill Bay, Cobble Hill and Cowichan Bay. All those communities are distinct in the sense that they are all unorganized territories. There are no municipal jurisdictions within the area that I represent. It is unique because, with a population of that size, one would think that those jurisdictions would attain municipal status.

I had the opportunity of representing the Langford area for nine years on the Capital Regional District board -- a community that has a population of approximately 17,000 people. The other districts also have considerable population sizes, but none as large as the Langford area.

I'd like to talk about the resources contained within the Malahat-Juan de Fuca constituency. Many of us watched television sets last year and saw the confrontation within our forests. The Walbran and Carmanah forests are contained within the Malahat-Juan de Fuca riding. We all benefit from the timber and the lumber products harvested from those forests.

I'd also like to point out to members here that we have a considerable farming community in the Cobble Hill area. Much of the dairy products that each and every one of us consumes within the greater Victoria area are supplied by the Island co-op.

I'd also like to note that fish, crabs, shrimps, oysters and clams come from the waters near the communities of Sooke, Port Renfrew, Cowichan and Mill Bay.

The community is distinct, but it is also rich in tradition. It is something that I feel strongly about. Most of the communities have been single-resource communities that have supplied the products that we all consume throughout this province.

I take a drink of the water that each and every one of us enjoys. It also comes from the Malahat-Juan de Fuca area, through the greater Victoria watershed. If you're tired of water, in Malahat-Juan de Fuca we have B.C.'s only licensed cidery -- Merridale Cider.

My community is also distinct in the fact it has federal, provincial and regional parks that are second to none. We have the West Coast Trail, which starts in the community of Port Renfrew, and Goldstream and Botanical Beach provincial parks. We also have a number of regional parks, one of which is East Sooke Regional Park. It has been the destination point for many visitors within the Capital Regional District.

My community also represents another valuable resource, and that is land -- land that is undeveloped and that will accommodate growth and development for the people within the Capital Regional District and those who don't live within our area yet. It will also accommodate badly needed housing, which is a need this government has recognized and is going to fulfil during its term of office. It's a community that needs water -- clean water. It's a community that also needs sewer services to accommodate that growth and development.

One resource I'd also like to recognize is our first-nations community -- the Pacheenaht band, the Malahat nations and the Sooke band. We have to recognize that our government is going to deal the aboriginal community in, not out. We have to recognize that this government is going to work with them to create jobs and wealth within their community.

The other people within my community are a strong, willing and very able workforce. We also have those who are the risk-takers and the entrepreneurs, who are imaginative and who see a challenge and run with it. I have that background. I'm proud to say that I was a small business person for 12 years. I grew up in a small business family that was in business for 35 years. I recognize that resource, and I'll do what I can to support and fight for their cause. They create the majority of the jobs within this community, this province and this country.

One of the issues affecting my community is forestry. I mentioned earlier that we noted the confrontation that occurred on our television sets. I applaud the government's move in establishing the Commission on Resources and Environment. It's a move that I feel will prove invaluable and will set a standard for how we, as a government and as servants of the public, can deal with confrontation and with ensuring that our resources are utilized to an extent that is both fair and balanced and also to ensure that people from all sides of the issue are heard fairly. Stephen Owen has a proven background. He's both fair and balanced in his views.

In my community we've been faced with issues not too dissimilar from other jurisdictions throughout British Columbia. And of those issues caused by growth and development within our communities, one is transportation. It's time that Malahat-Juan de Fuca received its fair share of transit and highway improvements. As the member of this House for Malahat-Juan de Fuca, I will endeavour to ensure that we get our fair share, and that we aren't left out of the decision-making on receiving those valuable services.

Tourism, so close to the Capital Regional District, is important not only from a historical perspective. People who come to the capital area want to see other things and do other things during their visits here. I'm proud to say that the Sooke area -- though perhaps some may not agree -- is probably the best fishing area in British Columbia. We have record-size salmon. I would gladly invite all members of this House to go and seek and try to catch them. Some are in the 50- and 60-pound range. It's a resource that through proper management will enhance tourism within our community.

Other aspects of tourism include ecology tours, which have started within the Walbran and parts of the Carmanah area. Those tours will afford people an opportunity to see the rich resource that others, and I hope this House, will hope to see saved, but in a fair and balanced approach. On the other side, tourism should also look at our working forests as an education process, to show people who come from urban communities that working forests are also forests that are fair to the environment, and that working forests do create the wealth that each and every one of us is so accustomed to.

I mentioned hiking trails earlier. We have the West Coast Trail. There have been suggestions that the trail be extended between the Jordan River and Port Renfrew communities. I've endorsed that position. I've passed the information on to my hon. colleague the 

[ Page 488 ]

Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks. With that type of vision, tourism will play a bigger role within my riding.

There is also the parks plan, which is soon to be approved by the Ministry of Environment. It deals with the Botanical Beach area. Botanical Beach Park was established by the previous government, but it wasn't established without a lot of fight, and also a lot of lobbying by a former representative here, Frank Mitchell, and also Moe Sihota. Perhaps I'm a little out of line there, but he was my member for the Esquimalt-Port Renfrew area.

[3:00]

Another aspect of tourism is to encourage bus tours throughout the communities of Port Renfrew and Lake Cowichan, by way of a valley link. I'm pleased to report that I was part of a group that recommended that type of study and that that type of route be established. It was a committee that was established by the previous government, but I, as a community representative, felt that it was important for all of us to work together, and strive for the benefits that affect all communities.

Another area that I'd like to touch on is the question of housing. We have to make sure that we supply clean, potable water to those developments springing up throughout our regions; and that we supply a sewer system that both is environmentally friendly and has a cost benefit to the user. Serviced land is important in all jurisdictions, but within my community, within the Malahat-Juan de Fuca area, there is only one -- and in some way, I say this with some sadness -- community sewer service system that is run by a local government authority, and it services some 150 people. We have 34,000 people who live within my jurisdiction that do not have community sewers. It's an issue that I feel the government has to address. I will lobby my colleagues, to ensure that funding is available, and that the burden for people who want to have a sewer system is not onerous. We're going to have to look at creative funding in order to achieve that goal. If we do not have a sewer system that is both affordable and environmentally friendly before the growth and development take place, we'll be in a situation where the community will have sewers by default and not by choice, which I feel would not be healthy for my community or its taxpayers. But it will take cooperation with both the public sector and the private sector. The private sector has been a driving force in the housing market. This government recognizes that. I'm proud of my involvement in the local government setting. I worked with and assisted those in the housing development business, in both the private end and the public end.

Another group of citizens lives in the manufactured homes that are dotted throughout my riding. I'll carry on the fight for those who are in manufactured-home parks, both those owned by the residents on a cooperative basis and those owned by absentee landlords, to ensure that they are treated fairly and equitably and given the same rights as other property owners who pay taxes and other tenants throughout British Columbia.

I have two school districts -- 62 and 65 -- and because of the growth and development that has taken place within my community over the past 20 years, we have 43 portables within that area. It's not a healthy situation for those in the teaching profession or for those who are learning. I'm pleased by the government's commitment to eliminate those portables during our term of office. It can't be done overnight; we know that. I'm pleased to note that there is a good working relationship between the school boards and our elected members on all sides of the House in order to achieve that goal.

As I mentioned earlier, in our community we have an abundant level of both agricultural activity and fishing activity. It's about time that agriculture took a front seat and not a back seat. It's about time that those in the agricultural industry were treated more fairly than they have been in the past. They have suffered because of trade that's beyond their control. The government has recognized that and has given them assistance where needed.

I'm also pleased that the government has recognized that our fishing industry should play a greater role. This is something dear to me, as it's one of my favourite hobbies. I would be pleased to see the government proceed on that matter so that we can have greater control over our west coast fishery, which is so important to the economy, both commercial and recreational activities.

My support of this government's budget is because the Ministry of Transportation and Highways has recognized the concerns that have been raised by those who have written me over improvements that should be done within their communities -- residents who live on Gillespie Road, Otter Point Road, Fisher Road, Sooke Road. The government has recognized that now is the time for their share of improvements. I'm supportive of this budget, because this budget has dealt the residents in. They're assured that we will get five new bridge construction projects in our riding, and there will be improvements and resurfacing on those major arterial roads that I've just mentioned. The figures for those improvements are approximately $3.5 million. It shows that this government listens and will act responsibly on the concerns raised by those affected by those issues.

I'm also pleased to see the recognition that the Trans-Canada Highway needs improvements. Planning and design work will be completed on the section of highway that runs through my riding. I'm supportive of that. When I was a locally-elected member of the community, I requested, as I'm sure others have, that the Ministry of Transportation and Highways recognize the traffic congestion and problems on the Trans-Canada Highway. I'm pleased that the government also recognizes that now and is taking the steps necessary to see that project through to completion. It has to start with the planning and design work that is so badly needed.

I'm also pleased to see that this government recognized the need for a new tourism act, an act that affords communities such as I have mentioned -- the Port Renfrew, Sooke and Cowichan areas -- the opportunity to take stock of the assets within their jurisdictions. This will enable them to protect and promote the assets that people come here to appreciate and that we also 

[ Page 489 ]

cherish. It will give them tools to promote those assets that come close to their hearts.

I'm also pleased to support this budget because it recognizes the education of our young people. An increase of approximately $300 million in that ministry will give us the opportunity to reduce the number of portables within all our jurisdictions. It also affords school districts protection from inflation and increased enrolment, something that my area has suffered because of past mistakes from past governments.

I'm also pleased that the government has recognized the need for servicing land that will supply housing, hopefully within my jurisdiction. It's been said many times that we've had the highest increase in grant amounts for water and sewer services, from $97 million to $128 million. This is something that each and every one of us needs in order to accommodate growth and development so that it doesn't have environmental impacts that future generations would have to pay for.

I'm also pleased to note that in health care -- an area that I have some familiarity with, as a member of a regional hospital board, a health board and health committees for nine years -- funding is up. The direction that the government is taking is both for prevention and access. The emphasis for community health services is greatly enhanced. I know this from my own involvement and my own activity within the Capital Regional District. The model has been established, a model that this government has recognized and is going to build on.

Within the Ministry of Social Services, we are going to continue the safety net that each and every one of us hope to ensure is maintained for everybody. A safety net for those who have endured things that happened to them through no fault of their own and that I wouldn't want to wish on anyone. The funding has been increased to recognize the increase of those who are seeking assistance and make use of the safety net. We have to make sure that those who do receive these services are given meaningful employment, jobs that are not a vicious circle and that will be both long-term and productive for them and their community.

This government has recognized the important role that forestry, environment and economic development can play when they put their resources together for those single-resource community towns that are throughout my jurisdiction. These resource towns have suffered because of poor practices from previous governments and downturns in the economy throughout the world. This government has made sure that those who are within these communities are going to be assisted when the help is needed.

[3:15]

Hon. Speaker, when I came here as an elected member of this House, I felt it was important that I take a standard I had learned and become accustomed to while I served in local government: to work for, to work with and to help those of all political stripes, of all walks of life, to ensure that we as a community have a better place to live, a better place to work, and that we as legislators can come to appreciate our differences in views, in ideology, and perhaps learn from each other so that we can make our job a better one.

Hon. D. Miller: Before I take my place in the budget debate, I would ask leave of the House to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Hon. D. Miller: In the gallery today is a very good friend of mine, a person I've worked closely with for 11 or 12 years now, the MP for Skeena, my area, Mr. Jim Fulton.

I believe, hon. Speaker, that another member wishes to ask leave for an introduction.

Leave granted.

D. Schreck: Hon. Speaker, I ask the House to join me in welcoming Roy Johnson, the chair of my constituency environment committee.

Hon. D. Miller: I'm pleased to take my place in this budget debate. I've been quite busy in the last little while and have not had the opportunity to spend the time in this House that I would normally have liked to spend -- apart from a very long evening the other night, which was perhaps a bit too long. This is the sixth budget debate that I've engaged in. I must say I'm much happier doing it from this side of the floor, and I must say that in terms of those six budgets, this is indeed the best one of the six. I want to touch on some aspects of the budget that I think are worthy of being highlighted, and then to talk about the impact in areas that I have an interest in as the Minister of Forests.

When I was home last weekend, I canvassed, as I normally do, a range of opinions in my home community of Prince Rupert. Those of us who come from small towns perhaps have a unique advantage in that we tend to know a lot of people. If you walk downtown in a small town where you've lived for a long time, you know a lot of people. And people aren't reluctant to come up to you and express their opinion about what's going on. What impressed me about the reaction to this budget was that people considered it fair. There was a real maturity displayed not just in my constituency but right around the province.

G. Wilson: There was no maturity last night.

Hon. D. Miller: The opposition House Leader talks about last night. Maybe he could send me a note about what he's talking about and we could talk about that if I have some time left. We've got about half an hour here.

But what impressed me was a level of maturity and an understanding that when you're faced with a large deficit, you have to take action. Governments have a responsibility to act in the face of that kind of deficit. And people were saying that they understood the need to raise taxes in a range of areas. What they applauded in this budget was the fairness in application of that range of increases.

K. Jones: You probably didn't show them the budget.

[ Page 490 ]

Hon. D. Miller: No, hon. member. The hon. member opposite says we didn't show them the budget. He's new to politics; he will learn that you should never abuse the electorate. You should give the electorate full credit for understanding what governments do, for being aware of the contents of things like budgets, and for following what is happening in politics. You abuse the electorate at your own peril, hon. member.

What impressed me to a large degree, whether it's the ordinary person in the street or people from industry, is the recognition that this budget is fundamentally fair and that it's coming to grips with an issue that we have to come to grips with -- the deficit.

Too many politicians like to have it both ways. They like to criticize when there are shortcomings in programs. They like to criticize when taxes are raised. They like to criticize when the deficit is too high. But, hon. Speaker, do you know what I also see? They don't like to take action; they don't like to take positions. They simply like to criticize, and fair enough, I guess, if your job is to be the critic. As I said the other night, you should try to be as good as you possibly can.

I want to deal with some of the social service aspects of the budget, because it's important. I have a very strong fundamental belief in governments providing for people. I am always struck when I travel outside British Columbia and outside Canada that we are fortunate and that others -- in areas very close to us -- are not so fortunate. One only has to look at the problems with the inner cities in some of the large American cities to see our social system is vastly superior and, I would submit, more cost-effective.

Interjection.

Hon. D. Miller: Hon. member, nothing is beyond reproach or criticism and one hopes that the criticism is constructive.

When you look at the thrust on the expenditure side in this budget and its devotion to areas such as health care and education -- and on the social service side in terms of pay equity, child care and programs for women and children who are subject to violence -- there is a benefit there that has not been talked about. It goes far beyond the simple program, whatever it might be, under all of those jurisdictions; it goes to the heart of how we develop people as individuals in our society. It has been my observation throughout my life, and it's indisputable, that children who grow up in poverty tend, when they become adults, to have all of the social and other problems that poverty engenders. The children subject to deprivation and violence grow up with those problems, and children who grow up without adequate access to education have those problems. The trend in this budget is to start to deal with them in a realistic way, so that when we institute programs to protect women against violence, we are benefiting not only those women but also those children. When we improve our access to education -- improve educational facilities -- we're benefiting those children.

When we look at the thrust in health expenditures in terms of gradual transition into the recommendations of the Seaton report, and more community care -- and I represent a region of this province with many small communities where people generally don't have the kind of access to programs that's available in the larger urban areas -- we're helping children. The benefit there pays off. I guess it's very difficult to quantify, but when we improve the situation for children in our society we create better adults. We give more opportunities and eventually we cut down on the need to have very large expenditures on remedial programs so that hopefully, over time, we can reduce expenditures for law enforcement, assistance for addiction or alcohol abuse -- a full range.

I'm not being utopian in talking about this. I genuinely believe that we need to consider not just the immediate benefit of any particular program, but what the long-term benefit is. I don't want to overstate the rather modest increase in expenditures in these areas, but there is a genuine attempt to deal with the issues. I want to bring that recognition, if you like, that the benefits are many.

I think all due credit goes to the Minister of Finance for having produced a budget under very difficult circumstances. No document is beyond reproach or criticism, but, given the conditions, I think the Finance minister has done a masterful job in containing the growth of the deficit. In other words, we've kind of thrown the anchor out. I think there's a classic way -- in my view, the best way -- to start to come to grips with deficits, and that is to throw the anchor out on the spending side and deal realistically with the need to raise additional revenue to reduce the deficit. It's a very simple process, and that's exactly what has taken place with this budget.

I was quite frankly appalled to reflect on some of the previous budgets, and appalled at the lack of economic understanding of the previous administration, who knew the rhetoric. They were very good at mouthing the rhetoric about what should be done, but very bad at putting it into practice. One example was to cut taxes to business at a time when revenues were very high -- at the very time, if you're looking at balancing budgets over a business cycle.... It's completely wrong-headed.

I think our Minister of Finance and this government have come to grips with that issue. We've put ourselves on the road to recovery. I'm sure that, given some of the other initiatives on the revenue side -- not just the immediate areas of revenue increase but some of the programs -- this will lead to a more stable economy. In the future a better revenue picture and a lower deficit picture need to be talked about as well.

Very important is the balance that we have not, as my hon. friend the Minister of Finance said today in response to the Leader of the Opposition, who seemed to want to criticize without understanding.... The very fact that there have been complaints from a range of quarters -- from the corporate side and the labour side -- indicates that the government has not played favourites in terms of revenue generation, but has indeed been fair. I think that that, fundamentally, is why this budget has been very widely supported, not only in my constituency but right around the province.

[E. Barnes in the chair.]

[ Page 491 ]

When I have the time, I'm quite prepared to venture into the home constituencies of members of the opposition to test my theory -- without hesitation. I'd like to visit my old hometown of North Vancouver and talk to some of my friends over there. In fact, I think I'll probably phone some and just check to make sure that the member for -- I've got to get the members' list out here....

D. Mitchell: Point of order. I think the Minister of Forests is threatening members of this House with abuse. I wonder if he could refrain from issuing these kinds of threats.

[3:30]

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, hon. opposition House Leader. I have just taken the chair, and I noticed there were quite a few of what I presume to be friendly exchanges taking place. However, the member should keep in mind that when a member is on his feet the best practice is to remain quiet during that period. I would ask, if there was any imputing of unparliamentary motives by the speaker which is of concern to the opposition, that the member withdraw.

Hon. D. Miller: Hon. Speaker, I see that I have brought a smile to all the faces of the members of the opposition. I suspect that's because in their hearts they really support this budget, but are reluctant to say so publicly.

Interjections.

Hon. D. Miller: I appreciate that. I know their job is to be critics, and I say that their obligation is to try to get a little better. But I'm quite prepared....

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order, hon. members.

Hon. D. Miller: I'm quite prepared, as I said, to go to constituencies held by members of the opposition and talk about this budget. I suspect that I'm right that there's general widespread support for what we have done.

The implications for my ministry in the budget.... I should say that there was not a significant increase in the Forests budget. It was very modest. Like any Minister of Forests, I would like to have had more. But I understand and the people in my ministry understand the situation we're in financially, so we're pleased to have held our own and to look at some of the areas where we have received some additional revenue for some programs that we think are very important.

For example, the funding for the CORE program and the $4.5 million that has been allocated to fund the Commission on Resources and Environment, I believe will ultimately lead to a greater stability in this province and therefore greater certainty in terms of planning for the economy. Certainly we have been wracked with uncertainty and conflict.

W. Hurd: Job losses.

Hon. D. Miller: I want to deal with job losses, my hon. friend. The member for Surrey-White Rock talks about job losses, Mr. Speaker. I intend to raise the issue of jobs, because I'm a bit mystified by some of the statements made by my hon. friend.

For example, when he called for an end to logging in watersheds, which would have the impact of reducing harvesting in this province by 70 percent, quite frankly, I was appalled. I thought that was an irresponsible statement by the Liberal Forests critic to call for an end to logging in watersheds. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that we have absolutely no intention of doing that. We think it's possible -- in fact, it has been possible to log in watersheds in this province for many years -- to do that responsibly and to provide for jobs in a sustainable economy in this province.

The member talks about clearcutting. We think it's possible to engage in clearcutting. There have been reductions put in place in terms of the size. I would urge the member to talk to anybody who has any knowledge about forestry. Perhaps he could talk to his hon. House Leader, who used to work for Westar. Perhaps he could explain to his colleague how forestry is carried out in British Columbia.

But I don't mind standing here in my place and defending the system of logging and the use of clearcutting. It's quite acceptable, and I'd be quite prepared, as I said previously, to have some very highly qualified senior people in my staff explain how clearcutting is a very satisfactory and, in fact, absolutely essential harvesting technique if we are to conduct proper forestry in some areas. In other areas, more selective systems can be used, but clearcutting is an effective and useful tool in forestry harvesting.

When it comes to some of the other programs, the Commission on Resources and Environment will, I believe, define a process that will allow British Columbians to come to grips with the need for planning across our broad land base, will bring some confidence to the planning process, and will engage our citizens with the full range of opinions in developing land use plans that ultimately will be stronger because they have that kind of support. This provides certainty. It's a better climate in which to engage in economic activities, and I would hope the members opposite would support it.

In this budget we have provided for the placement of 25 biologists in selected Ministry of Forests offices in the 43 districts across this province. We think that provides us with a stronger planning team to do things better. We're always striving to do a better job when it comes to planning the activities on our forest land base. Even though it's a relatively modest amount of money, I think a very positive impact will be felt. I would expect the members opposite to support that initiative.

We have allocated additional revenue of some $10 million, which will be jointly administered by me and the Minister of Environment, to improve and do extensive work in terms of our inventory. That's an area -- there are probably other areas -- where there are deficiencies in our ability to plan. There's no question that my Ministry of Forests was severely hamstrung in 

[ Page 492 ]

the early eighties, the period of downsizing. We lost a lot of employees. To our credit, we have been able to work harder and smarter. I certainly applaud the people in my ministry who are out in the field trying to do a good job for the citizens of this province in planning that land base. The addition of the biologists and the $10 million to improve our inventories will aid us in our ability to plan.

We have a modest amount in the budget to continue our fight on the countervail. I want to spend just a little bit of time on that, because when you talk about jobs in the economy, the countervail action launched by the United States potentially could have a devastating impact on our forest industry.

W. Hurd: It already has.

Hon. D. Miller: The member says it already has, and perhaps that's so. It's a preliminary ruling. Given the political nature of this harassment by the United States, it may be that facts really won't matter. Despite the fact that our case is ironclad, at the end of the day it really won't matter, because this countervail is politically driven. I have some thoughts on why it is, but....

An Hon. Member: Let's hear them.

Hon. D. Miller: Okay. Essentially, the countervail is being driven by corporate greed, corporate self-interest. The main driver of this countervail is a very large company called Georgia-Pacific, which has extensive private landholdings in the U.S. south. Very simply put, if the price of lumber goes up as a result of this countervail -- which it has done -- the benefit for Georgia-Pacific is that their prices go up as well and the value of their private lands increases. They reap a windfall profit. It's not that they've worked for it, it's not that they've done anything real. They haven't applied capital and labour and done anything real and produced products to reap that windfall profit; they've manipulated it. They have successfully manipulated it, and when it comes to the issue of corporation capital tax, corporations sometimes have their own way of reaping benefits that's, quite frankly, not entirely aboveboard. Governments at least have to do it in the full face of the public.

The issue is being driven by corporate self-interest and corporate greed in a climate of political instability, because it's an election year in the United States. Despite the facts, the British Columbia and Canadian softwood lumber industry has been determined to have engaged in a subsidy. Why have we been so determined? What factor has been used to calculate that subsidy? Why, it's the log export restrictions that we have in B.C., which are the very same as exist in Washington State and Oregon. These have somehow been found by the United States administration to constitute a subsidy.

An Hon. Member: Are there any log exports in Prince Rupert?

Hon. D. Miller: Yes, there are.

An Hon. Member: No.

Hon. D. Miller: I'd be happy to talk to the hon. members about the log export policy, as soon as I finish this little section.

So the consequence of that countervail, if ultimately applied to our softwood lumber industry, could have a devastating impact, particularly on the remanufacturing industry, which has really received a double whammy. We're fighting that. The budget item allows us to continue to carry on that fight, both in Washington, D.C., and in any other venue that we think will be useful.

I have already tabled in the House some documents indicating that some of our work has started to pay off with respect to building alliances in the Pacific Northwest states. We've got two Governors now who have publicly said, "We don't think that export issue should be part of it," and we are working at trying to get more. The countervail, if we can beat it in the planning process that I think we can implement over time, will ultimately lead to a strengthened British Columbia forest industry.

I think some of the other programs in terms of the marketing side need to be talked about as well. Historically, we have developed a forest industry that was based on a rather cheap supply and with markets readily available. As we progress and as we recognize the impact of this global nation in terms of trading patterns, we have to be a lot tougher and a lot smarter in trying to find out where markets exist for forest products and what our future markets are.

Interjection.

Hon. D. Miller: Well, I think the pollution laws actually have a bearing on markets, and very simply, British Columbia may have an opportunity to get out ahead. We do have some highly efficient mills in this province, and some that are very clean. I think we should use that as a selling point. As we move to implement the regulations introduced by my colleague the Minister of Environment, we're saying to the world markets that British Columbia produces a high-quality, clean pulp. We should try to drive the market with that kind of theme. I think it makes a lot of sense. There's no question that there's a need to have cleaner pulp. The indications are there in the European markets on the pulp side and in the requirements in the U.S. in terms of recycling.

I think it's generally true of any commodity or product that it's knowing where the markets are going to be, knowing what the market requirements are and being able to satisfy them -- indeed, being able to drive those markets -- that gives us our competitive advantage. Our competitive advantage historically has been our fibre base, but that's changing. The annual allowable cuts in British Columbia are being reduced, and they will continue to come down. That process has been accelerated because we were not prepared to deal with some of the emerging environmental issues. We were caught off guard, another reason why CORE makes a lot of sense for us, to come to grips with that. The trend 

[ Page 493 ]

clearly is to reduce the annual allowable harvest; that, I think, intensifies the pressure to deal realistically and smartly with the market requirements.

[3:45]

When I was in Japan we identified three or four other areas, not the same markets, where we think there are real market opportunities. But we've got to be smarter in terms of identifying those trends, not just in the short term but in the long term. As a result of my trip over there, I think there are more opportunities. Virtually all of the representatives from the broad spectrum of the forest industry -- large corporations like MacMillan Bloedel and very small companies like Bryan Reid's log-home company from Williams Lake -- came away feeling, as I do, that there are more opportunities there. All appreciated the opportunity to look at Japan and talk to people in Japan.

Through B.C. Trade, we will be engaging in programs to assist the very small manufacturers, who often lack the resources to explore those world markets, to actually spend the money to go out there and spend time on the ground in some of those foreign markets and identify those opportunities. That's where government can play a real role in assisting entrepreneurs. They've got the skill. We don't have to do anything there. There are lots of entrepreneurs in this province. They've got the skill and the ingenuity to do the manufacturing. We think there are some problems on the capital side, and we've made some provisions in this budget, and other announcements. As those members or anybody engaged in business know, it's not always easy for the new entrepreneur to access capital. Banks tend to be fairly staid, so the availability of risk capital is not always the best. We think the initiative with the development fund, the $100 million that's being put into higher-risk ventures and the program with the labour movement in terms of capital availability, can all be used. It all fits together. We can do some work in terms of the market side.

Mr. Speaker, you're looking at me as though I'm coming to the end of my time.

Deputy Speaker: I just wanted to let you know that your time was close, hon. member, but it's not up yet. Continue.

Hon. D. Miller: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I've had a wide-ranging discussion here today. I have a bit of a failing in that I always fall into the trap of listening to heckles and then trying to respond. I'm a fairly easy guy to divert -- you know what I mean? But it's based on a genuine attempt to try to answer all of the questions that are put to me.

Deputy Speaker: I must advise the hon. minister that his time has now expired.

D. Schreck: It gives me considerable pride to rise in support of our budget and to talk about the motion, highly critical of that budget, that the opposition benches have put forward.

I find it useful to start this discussion by asking the question: why are we really here? I know why I'm here: I'm here to contribute to better government, and I'm proud of the record that my government has already established in just six months. But the question has to be asked in a broader sense. Those of us who are not members of the executive council or who are on the opposition benches -- hopefully for a very long time -- have to ask why we are here and what we are doing in this process.

Those who sit in the gallery, especially students, can get the wrong impression of this institution. As students look down at the desk-thumping, the heckling and speeches that are sometimes rather hollow, they might ask what this institution really stands for. What is it we're really doing? It's important that those who view the shallower parts of this institution realize that even those moments of levity serve a very important function -- apart from providing a little bit of humorous relief for the 75 members in this chamber -- and that is to help maintain some of the traditions of this chamber and draw attention to the fact that this is more than a college debating chamber. This is the centre of where key decisions are made which take this province forward or not. When we heckle or ask hard questions or do a bit of jeering, we are trying to force members to let their hair down so that instead of standing, as some members have done, and reading precisely what their researchers have prepared for them, we speak sincerely from our gut and let people know where we really stand and where we really want to take this province.

Many of us may not have the oratorical skills of Tommy Douglas or the member from Nelson-Creston to do that, but all of us have sincere beliefs that we brought to this chamber and intend to reflect. I have to say that I'm a little bit disappointed because, while I am lending my talents to contribute to better government and while we are learning the ways of this chamber -- both the serious, intense debate and those lighter moments -- I hoped to get a clear definition out of those exchanges of where the members opposite stand.

Shortly after the election campaign I had a very interesting experience. I went to the credit union. After standing in line for some time, I got to the teller and the teller said to me: "You're the fellow who just won the election, aren't you? Where does your party stand? Why should I vote for you?" I suddenly realized the election was over. It was no longer necessary to give in a 15- or 30-second clip every reason why that particular person must make up their mind on the spot. I had the comfort of saying: "You'll have three or four years to look at what we do as government and judge us on the basis of our accomplishments." I'm proud to say I have no trouble dealing with my constituents at any time now on the basis of our accomplishments of just six months. Had our accomplishments of just six months been the accomplishments of four years, I would be equally proud for a full term of government. I'm really looking forward to what we're going to be able to accomplish over a further three or four years.

The opposition benches don't have that advantage. The opposition benches can't say: "Look at what we do and you will know who we are." The opposition benches have to tell people who they are and try to establish some credibility. Well, to date, I'm sorry to say, 

[ Page 494 ]

we -- on this side at least -- can't figure out where that opposition is at. We see internal debates, contradictions and shallow filibustering. I'd like to go through some of the statements in the context of the motion that the opposition has put forward and in the context of some of the debate that has taken place so far and just oppose those hollow statements to our very proud record of six months of solid accomplishment.

We have the members opposite jeering, cheering and going in all which ways over a policy to eliminate unfair wages. Yet we find the member for Surrey-Cloverdale, who we applaud, congratulating this side on its fair wage policy. I'm looking forward to finding out from the hon. opposition House Leader and the hon. Leader of the Opposition whether they are onside with their member for Surrey-Cloverdale in endorsing this government on our steps to eliminate unfair, discriminatory wages, to eliminate the destruction of the apprenticeship program and to rebuild competence levels in the building trades. Are they all onside, or is this another internal debate within that opposition party?

I can turn to the member for Okanagan East, who has made some very interesting statements about how a constituent of hers -- a physician, she says -- supports the move of my government in capping physicians' incomes. Just what is the position of that party with respect to the budget announcements my government has made to preserve health care? My government is committed to preserving the fundamental principles of health care throughout the world -- not just in British Columbia or in Canada. We can turn to Japan, to Europe and to Third World nations. Throughout the world, countries are coping with increasing health care costs. If we as a government fail to deal with those increasing health care costs, we will fall prey to a U.S. type of health care system, where individuals face bankruptcy if they don't have private health insurance and are denied access to hospitals. My government has laid out a program that will allow us to control health care costs, while at the same time improving the quality and extending the accessibility of health care to the community. We are delighted that the member for Okanagan East has endorsed at least one part of that program. We're waiting to hear further clarity from the opposition as to where they really stand on the principles of health care.

I'll turn to the member for Vancouver-Langara, who has endorsed the historical commitment of my party to the principles of providing an adequate safety net. And we say to that hon. member: where have you been? Is this another example of the difference between small-l liberal principles that we all uphold and large-L Liberal politics?

I will remind the members opposite that it was the Trudeau Liberals that began the systematic attack on the provinces to end federal participation in health and education. It was the Trudeau Liberals in 1977 that imposed block funding for health and education and eliminated fifty-fifty cost-sharing for health and education. It was the Trudeau Liberals that attempted, that same year, to impose block funding to end fifty-fifty cost-sharing for social services as well.

Since the time of those Trudeau Liberals, we have had a systematic attack by the federal government on the provinces: first the move to the established programs financing act, then the removal of the revenue guarantee, then the unilateral change in the established programs financing act. Under the Tory government, we now see the unilateral, unnegotiated capping of social service payments to Alberta, Ontario and British Columbia and the twice-in-succession attack on established program transfers.

What does that do? Hon. member, I'll have you know that the systematic attack on health, social services and education, begun under the Trudeau Liberals and completed under the Mulroney government, in this year alone has dumped a deficit in excess of $1 billion on this province. That's the record of that large-L Liberal Party: the denial of small-l liberalism. Shame!

The pressure that systematic attack by the federal government -- first Liberal, then Tory -- has put on Alberta, Ontario and British Columbia with respect to social services, and on all of the provinces with respect to health and education, fundamentally threatens the existence of medicare. With the transfer that is taking place, by the years 2000-2005 -- and I'm sorry to say, as some of us are well into middle age, that's not very many years away now -- there will be no federal participation in health care or education in this country.

If we as a province do not show the imagination to overcome that vicious Liberal and Tory attack, through the federal government, on our health and education programs, we will lose the medicare and secondary education programs that we treasure. In the context of the remarks by the member for Vancouver-Langara, we have already lost our ability to take new initiatives in social services, unless -- as we have shown we are willing to do, within the ability of taxpayers to pay -- we bear 100 percent of the cost of those initiatives, because no longer does the federal government participate in any initiatives in social services in Alberta, Ontario or British Columbia.

I'm in the position where I will say that I'm proud of what my government has accomplished, but I am not as enthusiastic towards the budget as I would be if we weren't dealing with such incredibly difficult times. I have to say that it would be lot more fun to govern in boom times, in good times. But somebody has to govern in tough times as well, and I'm proud of my government in striking the appropriate balance in governing in these tough times.

[4:00]

We have maintained our priorities. We have maintained the priorities that British Columbians have told us are their priorities. We have maintained the importance of health, education and social services, while delaying other discretionary spending until we have the engine of growth that will give us the dollars we need. At the same time, we've balanced those priorities with balanced and fair tax adjustments.

Hon. Speaker, I turn to the remarks of the member for Langley, who said: "You just haven't cut enough." Since we can show the public what we are doing, you must try to establish some credibility and tell the public just what services you are going to cut.

[ Page 495 ]

Interjection.

D. Schreck: We have the member calling for further cuts. I say to the member that if that Liberal Party were to eliminate every school and every teacher in this province -- lay them all off and completely destroy the secondary and primary education systems -- it would not balance our budget. I tell that hon. member, if we eliminated the entire Pharmacare program five times over, it would not balance our budget. I tell that member, if not a physician, general practitioner or specialist in this province billed the province for an entire year, we would still have a budget deficit of half a billion dollars.

We find, hon. member, that the opposition benches have not quite understood the process of government. The opposition benches, who have never had to lay a platform before the public, who have never attempted to establish credibility, who occupy their seats as the result of a protest vote, must soon learn that through debate in this chamber, through meetings in the community, through serious discussion -- not the flippant questions that were asked through endless, meaningless hours of filibustering which they inflicted on the staff and members of this House -- we must know at some point where those members stand.

We are going to have considerable time -- three or four years. As we talk about the positive steps our government is taking, let everyone be clear we are also going to hold those opposition benches accountable. We intend to be proud of what we do, and we are proud of what we do. At the same time, we do not intend to let the shallower moments of this institution, the petty heckling, the desk-thumping, the empty benches, the totally meaningless filibuster, obscure the opposition's obligation to the people of this province to sincerely state where they stand, to tell us the difference between small-l liberalism, which all British Columbians support, and large-L Liberal politics, which appear to be contradictory, shallow, empty and confused.

My government has set spending priorities straight. My government has reached a fair and balanced approach between tax adjustments and spending priorities. We have set clear high priorities for our social safety net, for health, education and social services.

We have taken health care and made a major commitment to mental health, which has been desperately ignored in this province. All of us -- anybody running a community office, from the local dry cleaner and corner store to constituency offices -- know the problems of how former governments abandoned people in need of mental health services. I'm proud of our Minister of Health and my cabinet colleagues for making a major commitment to dealing with the neglect of the past and reaching out and putting more health care services in the community where they are needed.

I am proud of the record of my government in maintaining social services in a very difficult time, when the difficult economic conditions inflicted on us by an artificially high dollar and interest rate and a deficit dumped by the federal government onto this province have made our welfare rolls grow far faster than any of us would like to see. Yet my government has shown a commitment to maintaining the safety net for those unfortunate people.

I'm particularly proud of the early steps my government has taken for equality for women. For the first time in the history of this country, there is a stand-alone ministry responsible for women's equality. It's not an empty ministry that on International Women's Day hands out medals and then says: "If you're battered, tough luck. Look for your own resources." We have a government that for the first time has provided core funding for women's centres throughout this province. That's a real commitment in dollars and cents to the problems that women face through systemic discrimination, family violence, and ages of lip-service but no action. We have a government that doesn't hand out medals made of tin that crack tomorrow. We have a government that puts its priorities through the budget to core funding where it is necessary.

There is another thing which I am particularly proud of: the Commission on Resources and Environment. No longer do we have to have extreme conflict valley by valley. My government has taken the initiative and changed the process. It has put our priorities straight so that all interest groups can appear before the Owen commission and come up with a land use policy that will properly balance resources and the environment, and give us sustainability.

We have a government that is committed to a fair and balanced process. Everybody is not always going to be happy with the outcome. We hear -- and we've heard too much already from the opposition benches -- cheap shots where no responsibility has to be taken. But somebody has to govern, make difficult decisions and be held accountable for the consequences. And I am proud of the record of my colleagues, in just six months, of making difficult but fair and balanced decisions and of being prepared to stand accountable for the consequences. I ask those opposition benches just how accountable they are for the shallow rhetoric that is recorded in Hansard for the last 40 or 50 hours of debate in this chamber. Where have we seen an opposition that puts forward a positive alternative to the people of British Columbia? Where do we see a contribution to policy development and better government in this province? It's lacking, and I call on them to help better the lives of British Columbians, not just fight the internal politics and disorder of that surprise opposition party.

My government is committed to new investment for jobs now and in the future. Through the Crown corporations, my government has committed $1 billion to new projects over the next year. This will create jobs and the necessary social infrastructure throughout this province. Earlier today we heard the Minister of Municipal Affairs say how we have the highest commitment to sewage and water construction projects that government has ever made in this province. Our commitment to clean water and safe sewage disposal, to rebuilding the social infrastructure, is evidenced through our budget and our hard, concrete action. We don't need empty rhetoric. We have the programs and actions to show where our government stands, and it would be of benefit to the province if we had some 

[ Page 496 ]

positive contributions from the other side -- or at least a clear definition of difference so that the men and women of British Columbia can know where everyone stands.

I am particularly proud of the initiatives my government has taken to cut waste within government. It is easy to turn a blind eye and continually add new programs without cleaning up the debris of the past. But programs need to be reevaluated from ground zero to see if they are adding value for the dollars British Columbians are putting into them, to see if they are making a positive contribution.

My government eliminated in this budget speech the Hazardous Waste Management Corporation, which has travelled the province for years and done nothing. That's an example of where we need to go through this vast government program by program and measure whether taxpayers are getting value for their dollars. The greatest thing we can do for business confidence, to stimulate the engine of growth, is to get on top of that horrible deficit situation to show that we are setting priorities right, and to manage smarter and better.

We cannot and would never engage in the shallow rhetoric that comes from the opposite side of cut more and cut more, without pointing to where those cuts could take place. We have the difficulty of living with that Liberal and Tory legacy of massive off-loading from the federal government onto the provinces. We have the difficulty of maintaining the priority of health, education and social services, and we will do that by getting our priorities right. We have already taken major positive steps to do this in eliminating waste and unnecessary programs, as we systematically review every aspect of this government inherited from that past administration.

My government is committed to advancing trade and business. Business people throughout North Vancouver tell me that they are encouraged by what my government has done. They respect the balance between getting spending priorities right and implementing fair and honest taxation. They respect the serious efforts my government is making to control the deficit.

I have to tell you that as an economist I've given many a talk on how governments can engage in deficits from time to time. Once upon a time in this province, deficits that were manageable were run through the business cycle. But I have to say that I have never heard anyone say that this province is capable of systematically maintaining and incurring deficits of the range that we have inherited in the last year -- the mess left behind by that former government which tried to buy its way back into power, asking people to ignore its moral bankruptcy. Never did I dream that this province would be saddled with a debt-servicing charge of $800 million a year. My government, my caucus and my constituents understand that if we don't control that debt-servicing charge, we will lose the ability to govern. It is a priority of my government to have the ability to govern, and we will not have that ability if we do not control the deficit. We know that. That is why we have struck a balance of fair taxation with correct spending priorities.

I call on those opposition benches to try to make some serious contribution to this very serious problem.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Mr. Speaker, may I say at the outset how delighted I am to see you in particular in that chair. Members will know, no doubt, that you and I are the only legacy of 1972 remaining in this chamber and, I think, the only legacy of the seventies still remaining here. That may say something about our future activities, but nonetheless I must congratulate you and express my absolute delight that you, Mr. Speaker, are Deputy Speaker for this parliament.

[4:15]

Deputy Speaker: I'd just like to interject and thank you, hon. Attorney General. Carry on.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Mr. Speaker, I'm sure you won't deduct that from my time, will you? I don't intend, however, to take the full 30 minutes that is available. I wanted in my comments this afternoon to talk about legal aid, to talk a little bit about where we are and why we are in this situation in the province.

But before I do, I think it's important to acknowledge the excellent work that members of this House did in preparing a report on the constitution. Some members may know I was the Deputy Chair of the constitution committee in the previous parliament, and as a result of the preliminary work we did last year, I sure have a sense of how difficult the task was for members of that committee. I read the report yesterday. I thought it was an absolutely outstanding report and one that I think will go a long way towards making sure British Columbia has a position on the constitution that is both supportable by the public and reasonable in terms of negotiating with the rest of this country. I was thoroughly delighted to see the work that the members of the committee did.

The other thing I would like to say is that while we've had a few rocky moments, I have a sense that there's a real determination on the part of members of this House to reform the way it's worked. The Deputy Speaker and I have gone through many tumultuous years in this Legislature, years that I know he and I do not ever want to see happen again in this place in terms of the bitterness and the lack of cooperation and the lack of the ability of all members of the House to work together. I for one, having lived through many of those terrible years, have a very real commitment to do what I can to ensure that we do work hard for reformation of this institution.

I think we've made some good progress in terms of the initial all-party agreement to move some of the estimates to committee. There have been other obvious areas of cooperation between the parties. We will no doubt have our partisan differences. We should have those and we should debate them thoroughly and fully. But there is much that we have in common. There is much that we can do working together on behalf of British Columbians, and I sense that all members of this House want to move in that direction, and I'm delighted about that. I hope we never again, Mr. Speaker, have to live through the years that we lived through, 

[ Page 497 ]

and particularly the early eighties, which were a terrible time in the history of this House.

C. Tanner: It's not really a point of order, Mr. Speaker, but I can't really hear the Attorney General. If you could just speak up a little....

Deputy Speaker: The member was questioning his ability to hear?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: No, it wasn't his ability to hear; it was my ability to speak loudly and clearly that the member was concerned about. I must say I've noticed in this session that the acoustics in this chamber are much less effective than they used to be, and I don't know why that is. It may be because people don't shout at each other so much anymore, or it may be that there has been some change in the sound system as a result of the new microphone system that we have in place. I also have noticed, if I've gone to the corner over there to converse with colleagues, that I sometimes can't hear members that were speaking from this end of the chamber. It used to be we could whisper without microphones in this chamber and all of us would hear. So something has changed. But I hope we don't try to fix that problem by yelling at each other. I will try to speak more clearly. I trust my words will be heard.

I wanted to speak for just a few minutes this afternoon, as I indicated earlier, on the subject of legal aid, and first just a very brief recapitulation of the history. As members know, for many years legal aid in British Columbia was provided by the Legal Aid Society, which was basically operated by the legal profession itself. Then the previous NDP government, about 18 years ago now, established the Legal Services Commission, whose function was primarily public legal education. So we had the bar operating legal aid, and we had the commission operating legal education services. In 1979, the Legislature, during Bill Bennett's era as Premier, passed the Legal Services Society Act, which amalgamated the two bodies into the Legal Services Society, which has since been responsible for both areas of activity.

Members should know that the provincial government is the source of between 80 and 90 percent of the Legal Services Society's revenues. Those figures change from time to time depending on the contribution of the Law Foundation, but these days about 80 to 90 percent of the revenue that the Legal Services Society receives is paid from consolidated revenue by this government. Over the last ten years, provincial government expenditure on legal aid has increased quite dramatically from $13.9 million in '83-84 to $32.3 million in '90-91 -- an increase of about 132 percent or about 19 percent per year.

During that period, the number of applications for legal aid approved each year rose from roughly 32,500 in 1983-84 to just over 57,000 in '90-91 -- an increase of about 76 percent or just under 11 percent per year. So numbers of approved clients increased by 11 percent. Costs increased about 19 percent, which I think is reasonable in terms of the way inflation worked in those years.

There's been a similar percentage increase in caseload during the past two years, and this is an important point. However, as a result of a decision by the previous government to double the tariff paid for legal aid cases, the estimated cost to the provincial government increased from $32.3 million in '90-91 to an estimated $50.7 million in '91-92, the year we finished a couple of days ago. In the course of one year, costs went from just over $32 million well over $50 million. For this coming fiscal year, the one we've just started, it's an estimated $84.5 million. The increase between 1990-91 and 1991-92 was about 57 percent, and the increase in this coming year over this past year is estimated to be about 66 percent. Let me emphasize that important point: whereas for the last ten years the annual increase in legal aid expenditures has been about 11 percent, it has now soared to 57 percent for last year and 66 percent for the coming year.

In view of these dramatic escalations, members should not be surprised that my ministry and the government has demonstrated some concern about the cost of delivering legal aid services in our province. But these escalating costs are not the only problem, not the only concern. Many communities in British Columbia do not have adequate access to family legal aid services. The government believes that quality family legal aid services must be accessible throughout the province. There's also an urgent need to ensure that low-income British Columbians, wherever they live, have better access to legal information, summary advice and representation on various civil and administrative matters, such as appeals under the GAIN Act.

Because of our concern over escalating costs and the inadequacies in delivery, to which I have referred, I have initiated a review of legal aid services in the province. I have asked Mr. Tim Agg to conduct the review. Mr. Agg is on leave of absence from his position as executive director of a non-profit society which specializes in work with young offenders. Previously Mr. Agg worked in the ministry's court services branch. He was also for several years a volunteer member of the board of Westminster Community Legal Services Society, and has sat regularly as a member of tribunals under the GAIN Act. I believe this combined experience makes Mr. Agg well suited to conduct this review.

The review will include consultations in a variety of communities throughout our province, and it will involve members of the bar, those involved in providing legal services to the poor, interested community groups and the general public. I hope to have an interim report from Mr. Agg next month.

Included in the review will be an evaluation of the leadership and management of the Legal Services Society. In January the report of an independent management consultant was submitted to the society. That report criticized the leadership provided by the board of directors and the effectiveness of its management.

The government wishes to encourage and support measures to ensure the society is capably managed and the public funds entrusted to it are well spent. As the minister responsible, I will do everything I can to assist the society to make necessary changes and improve-

[ Page 498 ]

ments. Already I have heard concerns -- as I think other members may have -- expressed about the tariff referral process, interim billing rules, monitoring of tariff accounts, procedures for eliminating ineligible applications for services, as well as some dispute between lawyers and the society over the promptness of payments of accounts. Naturally all of these concerns, as well as others which may arise, will be thoroughly explored and, where necessary, new procedures introduced.

In addition to the question of ensuring that adequate services throughout the province are provided, my ministry will be looking at a proposal from the native programs branch of the society that it be reconstituted as a separate society.

Pursuant to the report, the government will be examining service delivery models. The government respects the right of a client to choice in legal representation and the independence of counsel in providing legal services. We do not believe these principles are inconsistent with our obligation to ensure that public moneys for legal aid are spent in an efficient, effective manner. Cost-effectiveness means maintaining and in some cases improving the quality of service, not in any way reducing the quality of service.

We do not support any imposition of a single service-delivery model on the entire province. For at least the last 15 years B.C. has provided a mix of tariff-based and staff-based legal services utilizing a mix of lawyers, paralegals and community-based programs. What we are examining is the suitability of the present mix to determine where improvements can be made. Studies by my ministry officials, as well as the experience of other jurisdictions, has indicated that increased use of staffed clinical services can provide some services more efficiently without sacrificing quality.

I certainly recognize and the government recognizes the valuable contribution made by the organized bar and by a great many individual lawyers in the development of legal aid services over the years. We look forward to the continuance of that important contribution by the profession. At the same time, we believe that other significant community voices also need to be added in setting policy and providing direction with respect to legal aid. The current review will examine ways to advance this objective.

In establishing the mandate for Mr. Agg's review, I have emphasized the necessity of extensive consultation with all affected and interested parties. The full cooperation of all of the parties is essential if we are to succeed in identifying possible means of improvement in the delivery of legal services. I want to assure all members of the House that consultation and cooperation have been, and will continue to be, the watchwords throughout this process.

Meeting both goals of legal aid services and their delivery -- maintenance and, when necessary, improvement -- in the most cost-effective way possible is of primary importance to all British Columbians. For that reason I anticipate full cooperation by all parties and look forward to reporting to the House as soon as the review is completed and assessed by my ministry. In the interim, I would, of course, welcome suggestions from any member in respect of this matter.

[4:30]

G. Janssen: I rise to debate the first throne speech by this government, and I'm proud to stand here as a member of this government.

I'd like to familiarize members of this Legislature and the public with the history of my riding and the particular economic problems that we are facing there at this particular time. I think it could be classified as a microcosm of what is happening in many areas of British Columbia -- in those single-industry, resource-based communities that are facing the challenge of change.

Before I do that, as I said, I'd like to familiarize other members of the House with the constituency of Alberni, which is named after Don Pedro de Alberni, the highest-ranking military officer on the west coast at the time. Don Pedro was the government of Nootka from 1790 to 1792. During his tour of duty he taught the natives cultivation and recorded 633 Nootkan words and provided their Spanish definitions. It's surprising that the only reference made to Don Pedro, despite his illustrious career, is the city of Port Alberni and the Alberni Canal, which was later changed by the Canadian Hydrographic Service in 1931 to the Alberni Inlet. Don Pedro died in Monterey, California, in 1802.

The Alberni riding is made up of many diverse ethnic groups. Its original inhabitants, the natives, consisted of 14 bands: the Opetchesaht, Ahousaht, Ohiaht, Tla-o-qui-aht, Diditdaht, Ehattesaht, Hesquiaht, Kyuquot, Nuchatlaht, Sheshaht, Uchucklesaht and Ucluelet -- which operate under the Nuu'chah'nulth Tribal Council. I don't think I want to repeat the pronunciations of those tribes too often; they're tongue-tiers.

Also there are Italians, Croatians, East Indians, Germans, Ukrainians and, of course, members of my own Dutch community. Among the many ethnic groups, the first Europeans who appeared in Alberni were English, with Adam Horne, whom Horne Lake was named after. Although he was the first white man to walk into Alberni, he never stayed there. The first known settlers were families like the Merrifields, Grandys, McKenzies, Hills, Taylors and Drinkwaters, who settled in the Alberni Valley primarily to take advantage of its excellent farmland. Forestry, logging and production plants sprang up. Over the years, fishing and whaling augmented the original settlers.

The constituency that I represent not only consists of Alberni but stretches down the Alberni Canal to the Pacific Ocean. It includes Nitinat, Bamfield, Ucluelet, Tofino, Ahousaht, Ceepeecee and Kildonan.

I would also like to pay tribute to past members who served the Alberni riding in this House. John Squire represented the riding from 1952 to '66. As a teenager, I helped to erect campaign signs for John Squire. Little did I know that I would take his place in this House. Interestingly enough, the desk I sit at has John Squire's name scribbled in the drawer.

Howard McDiarmid was a Social Credit member in Alberni. Yes, Alberni did elect a Socred at one time -- 

[ Page 499 ]

very briefly. It only took one Socred for the electorate of Alberni to realize the drastic mistake they had made. He was elected from 1966 to 1972. At that time the road to Long Beach was paved, but without the ability to openly criticize the government he was handcuffed in trying to provide major initiatives for the Alberni area.

In 1972, along with you, hon. Speaker, the most recent and longest-serving and probably most notable MLA for Alberni was elected. I speak, of course, of Bob Skelly. Bob represented the riding from 1972 to 1988. During those 16 years he was part of a government that in three years did more for the Alberni riding than the previous government had done in the preceding 20 years.

Today's cities of Alberni, Ucluelet and Tofino, as well as some of the smaller communities that make up my riding, are involved in the same harvesting and manufacturing industries set up by the original inhabitants. We are quickly becoming leaders in agriculture, value-added lumber products and paper products. MacMillan Bloedel's plants in the Alberni Valley are among the most modern in the world. The fishing industry has also contributed greatly to its economic well-being. With a large fleet harvesting salmon, cod, halibut, tuna, herring, crab, geoducks and shellfish, processing plants in Ucluelet and Tofino are continually expanding.

But this rosy picture I have just painted for the members does have its downside. I would like to point out some disturbing facts facing the community of Alberni. In the fifties, sixties and seventies, MacMillan Bloedel, the primary employer in the Alberni Valley, employed some 6,300 workers at the highest income in Canada at that time. Between Sudbury, Oshawa and Alberni, it was always a battle of who had the highest-paid wage-earners in Canada. The reality now is that 3,100 people are working at those same plants. We have seen the closure of the Alberni plywood mill, with some 350 employees losing their jobs. We have seen the Somass A mill closure, with some hundred workers losing their jobs. And we have generally seen modernization in the existing plants displacing workers.

Those jobs will never come back. Alberni is quickly realizing that they must move away from the primary resource industry they have relied on for so many years. It's fortunate that during those very good years, the inhabitants and the elected leaders of Alberni recognized that it was the time to build one of the most modern communities in British Columbia, if not in Canada, with recreation facilities that are second to none.

I remind the members that Port Alberni is hosting the Summer Games this July, and of course you're all invited. I'd like to pay tribute to the Ministers of Municipal Affairs and Government Services for providing those Summer Games to Alberni and for providing $1.3 million in grants to upgrade the facilities we now have and to create new facilities so we can attract those tourists to our community, and we ourselves can use those facilities to enjoy the lifestyle that all British Columbians should be enjoying.

But we have to move away, as I said earlier, from those primary resource jobs. We are doing that. The first national historic site in Canada, McLean's mill, is the last complete workable steam-operated sawmill left in Canada. If you go back, you will remember that thousands of those facilities existed in Canada at one time. It's quite remarkable that it's still there and intact. It's being restored by the museum and the Industrial Heritage Society, which have restored trains, logging trucks and logging equipment. Some of you may have seen some of that equipment at Expo. Alberni is moving away from the industrial base with the help of this government, so that we can turn to other industries and keep Alberni in a viable economic position.

Also, the new age technology: a rubber plant will be in production in a number of weeks in Alberni, recycling tires and turning them into bricks that you could use. I'm sure you have walked in the streets of Victoria on those fancy paving bricks.

I'd like to thank the Minister of Forests for providing $25,000 so that the wood report initiated by the job commissioner's office can be analyzed by local people for local people in Port Alberni. As hon. members know, too often in the past we have seen commissions, reports and studies done in various communities, particularly those resource-based communities in our province that are facing difficulties; the reports end up on the ministers' desks here in Victoria, and edicts are handed out as to what is good for the local community. This time the members of the Alberni community will be making those decisions for themselves, rather than a bureaucracy in Victoria.

We are looking forward to the federal government announcing the hake allocation, which should create some 300 or 400 jobs in the Ucluelet-Tofino area when they start the production of serranid. If some members don't recognize what serranid is, it's the phony crab you buy in the supermarket. To a large extent it's imported right now, but we'll be making it not only for residents of British Columbia but for the export market.

We're also quickly developing a community forest initiative, so that we can get away from the multinational corporations such as MacMillan Bloedel, which sometimes make decisions without taking into consideration the social aspects of local communities. They make decisions simply on behalf of their shareholders. The community forest initiative will have representatives of local communities on the board, so that when decisions are made on the allocations of resources, they can be made not only with the economic bottom line in mind but with the social conditions and the individuals employed in those industries.

I''m also happy to say that we are planning a new college in Alberni. I'll be looking forward to the Minister of Advanced Education's estimates to see that the funding for that college is included, so that Alberni can retrain those workers who are coming out of those primary resource industries for the new industries that are appearing in Alberni.

I'd like to talk about the impact this budget will have on my particular riding, the Albernis. We are, of course, reading the Peat Marwick report, which forecasts a deficit not of $1.7 billion, as we have today, but $2.46 billion, far above the $495 million that I believe was forecast by the previous administration. I hope some of 

[ Page 500 ]

the recommendations in that report will be taken seriously, not only by this administration but by future administrations, so that we have honest accounting and the Ministry of Finance is no longer used as an election tool to return a government to office. We have had enough of that chicanery, both in B.C. and in Ottawa.

I'm surprised to see some of the opposition members attack not only that report but the accountants who served British Columbia so well by producing it. Some members of the opposition suggested that perhaps those people were hired to bring in a report that looked favourably on the new administration and not so favourably on the last administration. As all members should know, accountants belong to an association and take an oath. I find it surprising that that oath is being questioned by some members of this Legislature.

[4:45]

The federal government is off-loading its financial problems onto the province. They could afford to give us a 1 percent cut in income tax because they weren't paying us hundreds of millions of dollars that they owed us. They repeatedly cut back on their share of health, education and social assistance, and they arbitrarily capped their contributions under the Canada Assistance Plan to B.C., Alberta and Ontario. Despite those cutbacks and the massive deficit that we are facing, we were able in this budget to increase health expenditures by $409 million. West Coast General Hospital in Alberni -- where, incidentally, my wife works -- is now rebuilding its intensive care unit. I can tell you, from the reports that she gives me when she comes home -- the occasional time that I do see her -- how important that hospital is. Some major upgradings will be done to the lab, and perhaps some of the beds that were closed by the former administration will be opened.

Medical services premiums will be frozen, despite the fact that we have a comprehensive medical plan in British Columbia. Unlike the United States, British Columbians and Canadians are guaranteed health services. There are thousands of people in B.C., the working poor, who are not covered by the Medical Services Plan because they cannot support those payments. I look forward to the day when we can eliminate premiums and cover all British Columbians by a taxation policy rather than by a contribution policy.

We eliminated the doctors' pension plan, the only pension plan that was totally funded by the taxpayer. Despite what some residents of British Columbia may think, even our pensions are not totally funded by the taxpayer. That deal, as members of the Legislature will remember, was one that was negotiated ongoing by the Health minister, ongoing by the Finance minister, but it took that guru of financial wizardry, the former Premier of this House, Bill Vander Zalm, only a couple of hours to cut it with the doctors. If he had offered us such a deal it wouldn't have taken a couple of hours, I can tell you. It was a giveaway.

We are capping the growth of physicians' billings. I know that doctors will want to join with other residents of British Columbia to continue to provide the best health care possible in this province under these very difficult circumstances. I am sure that they will come and say: "We recognize the economic problems that British Columbia faces, and we want to share in rectifying those problems."

An additional $64 million is being provided to put more emphasis on prevention and on developing innovative community-based alternatives. That was recommended by the royal commission on health. We will be seeing that residents of British Columbia, residents of our communities such as Port Alberni, can remain in their homes rather than going to health facilities or hospitals.

Despite the hard economic situation that we're faced with, the annual Pharmacare deductible is being increased by $25 to $400 a month. I know that for many members in this House that $25 is not a lot of money. For many residents of British Columbia it's not a lot of money. But for people -- the working poor in particular who are trying to live on $600 or $700 -- a family sometimes on less than $900 a month -- $25 is a lot of money.

Education spending will rise by almost $300 million this year, and I know that members of this Legislature -- particularly the opposition -- and other people in the province are saying that that's not enough. But it's all we can afford, and unless we want to end up like the federal government with a deficit so out of control, a deficit that free enterprise parties created.... I want to remind the members, particularly the opposition, that when the former administration was in power they said that the New Democrats couldn't run a peanut stand. We inherited a $2.79 billion deficit. I doubt if many people could do worse than that.

The Liberal government in Ottawa in the seventies spent money like it was going out of style and created a deficit that was inherited by the Conservatives. The Finance minister at the time, Mr. Wilson, repeated year after year when he presented his budget: "We're going to bring it down, we're going to bring it down, we're going to bring it down." It's bigger than ever.

I say to you, hon. Speaker and members of this House, that those days of free spending, those days of creative financing, such as the BS fund, are over. This government will provide services to British Columbians, not to wealthy corporations, not loans to their friends. We will provide services to British Columbians, and we will ensure that our children do not inherit the debt we create. That takes careful spending and thoughtfulness.

There has been criticism, as I said earlier, but there have been no alternatives. It is very easy to be critical, and I can tell you that the toughest thing I do in my constituency is to say no. It's very easy to say yes. It's very easy to promise. It's very easy to borrow money from the bank. It's paying it back that is difficult. It is difficult for me to say no to my constituents, to say: "We have to get the finances under control first. We will attempt to provide dollars for those services -- perhaps in the next few months if the economy picks up, perhaps in the next year." That's why it is so enlightening and I'm so proud to stand and support this budget with the increases in programs.

There's $32 million allocated this year to cover year two of a pay equity program. We found that money 

[ Page 501 ]

because we knew it was important. There's $29 million for an initiative aimed at achieving wage parity for public employees in the lowest-paid categories. There is $4.5 million to improve environmental protection. We have invested $1 billion in new social capital through the province for schools, hospitals, universities and other facilities. That will create jobs. That will initiate economic activity. Also, Crown corporations such as B.C. Hydro will invest $550 million for new transmission lines; B.C. Ferries will invest another $130 million for new ferries. I haven't heard the opposition be critical of those two.

Public sector capital projects will provide 16,000 jobs in British Columbia this year. The B.C. Endowment Fund, seeded with the assets of the old privatization benefits fund, will provide an initial $100 million for investments in British Columbia, including venture capital. Many of the new facilities that are looking at locating in Alberni, discussions we are having with the hake producers and with perhaps a textile plant that is planned for Alberni.... They will be able to take advantage of that to initiate some new jobs for those workers who are presently laid off.

The Commission on Resources and Environment will get $4 million. The Ministries of Forests and Environment will get $15 million to undertake planning and inventory.

We were also able to provide some dollars for those people who are not as fortunate as ourselves. GAIN earnings exemptions will be doubled from $100 to $200 for people with dependents and from $50 to $100 for those who are single, to recognize today's reality, to recognize that it's no longer 1970. We also recognized this when we increased the minimum wage. In fact, if the minimum wage had kept pace with the cost of inflation from 1975 on, it would be $7.83 an hour today. So for those people who say the minimum wage going too high will actually reduce employment in British Columbia, I say to them that we have been robbing, we have been stealing, we have been using those people who have been working on minimum wage, particularly women with children.

We in British Columbia have to recognize the reality that we're in a new age and can no longer rely on resource extraction to provide jobs. We can no longer continue to close down plants and have people move from communities where they grew up to centres such as Vancouver and Victoria where one has to have an income -- in the lower mainland -- of $88,000 in order to apply for a mortgage. Don't even bother going and looking at a house if you're not making $88,000, because the bank will never give you the money. Those people deserve to stay in their own communities -- communities like Alberni where they feel comfortable, where the climate for living is much better than it is in Vancouver.

M. Farnworth: It's a great day to rise and speak in this great province of ours and support a truly great budget. It's a budget that is fair, that is tough, that is balanced and that charts a course for British Columbia. It gets us away from the trap that other provincial jurisdictions have found themselves in when they refuse to deal with the financial problems that face them. We have some of the toughest financial problems that any government could hope to try and deal with -- a $2.79 billion deficit left behind by a discredited administration -- and we're addressing the issue.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

It's a budget that addresses the important issues of the province and deals with the issues that are important in my riding. In education, a 9.2 percent increase in spending is going to see the creation of new schools, which will provide employment for tradespeople and teachers and will accommodate the growing population moving here to British Columbia -- which is going to contribute wealth to this province. We can therefore continue to provide the services that the residents of this province require and expect, done within a fiscal framework that is going to make us the envy of every other province in Canada and every other jurisdiction in Canada.

[5:00]

It's a budget that's strong on economic development not only for the province as a whole, where we'll see the creation of some 16,000 new jobs, but also in my own riding of Port Coquitlam. It's going to see the creation of a courthouse, which I alluded to in my inaugural speech as something we've been waiting for for a long time and was an example of temporary government fairness. This is now a permanent facility, a facility that will stimulate and boost the economy of downtown Port Coquitlam, which for years has not been able, because they didn't know whether they were going to get that courthouse.... The lawyers and the accountants who wanted to build there didn't know if they could, because they wanted to go where the courthouse is. Now they know. Now the decision's been made. Now the jobs will start. Now the wealth will generate, and my community has something to plan its long-term future around. That to me is an example of how this budget is going to help my constituency.

It's going to help the province, this budget. As I said before, it's creating wealth and it's balanced. For too long in this province we've had budgets that favour one group over another -- usually the wealthy or those who can afford to pay a little more, never helping but rather penalizing those truly in need. That was what former governments did in this province. Well, not anymore. We said at the beginning of the election campaign that we would have a budget, a financial plan, that's fair to everybody; that business would pay its fair share, that local governments would pay their fair share; that the middle class would pay its fair share; that everyone would pay their fair share. Everyone contributes; everyone benefits; everyone shoulders part of the load. That's what this budget does.

We had tough choices, and when we made those choices we had to look at what the effect was going to be on all British Columbians, all sectors of the economy and all regions. There were those who said we have to increase spending, we have to tackle the deficit. We consulted. The member for Alberni before me said: "It's tough to say no." Yes, it is tough to say no, and this government's prepared to take that tough decision. It 

[ Page 502 ]

was tough to implement some of the revenue-raising measures that we did, but they were necessary if we were to bring the deficit under control. We've lopped $1 billion off, but there's much more to be done. We will continue to seek ways of improving the finances of this province.

Tough decisions involving revenue-raising measures involve looking at taxes. Do we institute a sales tax? We didn't. Probably the best thing we did in this budget was not introducing a sales tax. That would have had an effect everywhere. It would have affected the shaky economies in the interior and in the Kootenays. It would have taken money out of small business. That was their biggest concern: no increase in the sales tax that would put people further across the border. That's an example of a government that thinks things through.

No restaurant tax. Tourism is a major growing industry in this province. We listened to those people and said: "Look, we can't have a restaurant tax, because with the GST and the other taxes in our industry it scares people away. It's one more thing." When you go out for dinner, you want to enjoy yourself. After you've added up the food bill, you don't want to look down and see, gee, they've added another tax, and I've got to pay more tax and a tip on the tax.

So we didn't do that, but what we did do was measures that made everyone feel that they're shouldering part of the burden -- part of the burden that was created by that discredited administration that sits across the aisle from us. It's unfortunate they're not here, because they should be here. They should be reminded of why they're sitting there and why they have been reduced to six members, why they're the third party in this province -- because British Columbians are having to pay for their idea of budgeting.

Their idea of budgeting was to disguise a $1.7-billion deficit, add in a Finance minister, add in an election date and arrive at $493 million. Voodoo economics isn't the word for it; terror economics springs to mind. They had no understanding about the directions this province should be going in or what their arrogance and conceit -- having been in power for 40 years and having lost touch with people -- were doing to the province. Everybody is now paying for that arrogance.

Social Credit's philosophy and economic policies were bankrupt. They were in the best tradition of Bible Bill Aberhart in the thirties. Bible Bill Vander Zalm led this province to the place that it's in today.

We have a budget that looks at issues such as the environment and recognizes the importance of tackling the environment and making a better environment for all British Columbians.

One of the biggest complaints that was heard during the election campaign -- and in fact it came out during the '83 restraint program -- was the decision by the Socreds to axe conservation officers; they were expensive and a waste of the taxpayers' money. They took the conservation officer from Port Coquitlam and sent that person out to Surrey. There's nothing wrong with a conservation officer in Surrey, because there's lots of streams and areas of forest there. But there's an awful lot of mountains and forest in my riding with an awful lot of wildlife as well, such as bears. I don't hear of too many complaints in Surrey about bears wandering down the King George Highway, but they sure like to come into our riding. It's very upsetting to people when they find out there's no conservation officer who can trap a bear or a cougar. Unfortunately, the RCMP have to deal with it by shooting the animal -- all for the sake of a few dollars. Misplaced priorities.

This budget addresses that issue. I don't know if Port Coquitlam will get a conservation officer, but other areas of this province are going to get 20 conservation officers. That's going to help substantially in addressing such problems as poaching, which affects tourism, and the illegal traffic in wild animal parts, which contributes to British Columbia's bad image. We're renowned as the only jurisdiction -- until this government -- in North America or in Canada that allowed the traffic in wild animal parts; they would be funnelled from the States up to B.C. and shipped over to Asia. That's wrong, and that's not going to happen anymore, because this budget addresses priorities that people are concerned about. That's what's important: addressing peoples' priorities, whether it's education, economic development, health or social services.

We resisted the temptation to go the old Socred route of blame the poor and those on welfare: if only they would pull themselves up by their bootstraps, and if only those single mothers would go out and get a job instead of worrying about their kids, this province would be a lot better off. Well, it doesn't work that way; it never has and it never will. And that's why they're sitting over there: because they couldn't realize that.

We have a budget that's helping to contain the deficit. Comments that I've had from my constituents have been: "Sure, it's tough. I understand some of the things you're doing, and we're prepared to accept it because we saw that you tried to be fair and balanced in your approach to everybody." Everybody has to pay a little bit more. That's important, because if we are to create a province where everybody shares and participates, they must feel that they participate in the good times and bad times and that everyone is contributing and can enjoy the benefits.

Over the last few days, we've discussed the budget and the direction the province should be going. We've laid out our plan and our proposals, and we're showing the direction that we think B.C. needs to take. The opposition has been providing its thoughts as well. I'm puzzled by some of the comments and ideas that have been flowing from the opposition benches. I'm concerned about their lack of understanding in the budget process. I think it's time that I take the opportunity to explain to them some of the things involved in the budget process. It's time they went back to school. So I invite my colleagues on the opposition benches to sit up and take notice. You might learn a little something, so that at the end of your 60-year plan, you too might be able to handle budget finances -- maybe not of this province, but at least of your own party.

Let's look at basic budgeting. Budgeting 101 -- revenues and expenses. The government has programs it's got to fund. What we'd like to do is everybody's wish list, but we can't do that. So we have to make 

[ Page 503 ]

tough choices, and, as I've said before, we've done that. But the opposition parties want to promise everything to everyone. That's nice if you've got money to give to everyone or to spend on all these programs.

The Liberals don't see it this way -- it's spend, spend, spend; tax cut, tax cut, tax cut. That creates problems, because you can't do it and expect to get the deficit under control. That's like expecting the hon. member for Saanich North and the Islands to ask leave to make an introduction. It ain't gonna happen.

The opposition's idea is tax holidays. There are people who argue we need more statutory holidays in this country and in this province, but do we really need a statutory tax holiday for businesses? That's not a way to make everybody feel that they're participating in getting the financial problems of this province under control. A tax holiday -- amazing!

[5:15]

You really have to go back and study what it's all about. Revenues and expenditures -- you've got to achieve some sort of balance. You've got to get your deficits under control. What you've been advocating isn't going to do it.

The other important thing you've got to learn -- call it budget fairness or Budget Fairness 100 -- is the importance of being fair so that everybody participates and feels involved. The Liberal ideas of fairness are again to redistribute wealth to the wealthy and to take it from the poor. How do they want to do this, you may ask. Well, they want to do it through the three-F solution -- the flat tax. It's Murray Pezim's dream come true. Murray couldn't believe his luck. He couldn't get his mother Rita J. to buy this line of flat tax, so he dumped her and went to his grandmother Grace McCarthy and said: "I'll support you if you'll buy a flat tax." But no, Grace wouldn't buy it either. Poor old Murray thought he was out of luck, until along came the Leader of the Opposition.

An Hon. Member: And saved Murray.

M. Farnworth: And old Murray found Uncle.... I'm not allowed to use the last name of the Leader of the Opposition. The flat tax is a flat-headed, flat-footed, flatter policy of the flat tax party, sometimes known as the Liberal Party. They just don't understand. They've got to study a little bit more. Maybe that's why they got themselves that 60-year plan.

Fairness involves not playing favourites. It involves ensuring that the money is spent fairly, unlike that discredited group over there, who doled out on the basis of what political party you were in. They had the minister who liked to launder funds -- recycle money, that's right. He was from Surrey-Cloverdale if I recall. That was his approach: what's your politics? That's where the money goes.

It can't be like that. You have to distribute money equitably and fairly. That's why on this side we make tough decisions that are fair to everybody. That's why we resisted the political temptations of putting a cancer clinic in Kamloops when the right decision was in Kelowna, a riding held by the Liberals. That's the difference between the two approaches. That's the difference between the government approach and the opposition approach.

We believe that what we're doing is right. If only you would learn, if only you would apply yourselves a little harder, you too might get yourselves on the road to understanding the budget process. As I said before, fairness, fairness, fairness; that's what it's all about. I heard someone talk about fair wages. That's one area where I think the opposition has a really good understanding. They don't need to study that much more. In case there are any on the opposition benches who feel a little shaky, I suggest they talk to the leader of their class, the hon. member for Surrey-Cloverdale, who can tell them all about the fair wage policy.

But there's one thing that really does concern me. This particular lesson, Budget Psychology 103, is something that I think the Leader of the Opposition needs to apply himself to. We've all learned to live with the budget allocations that we've got. Ministers want more and more money, but they have to learn to make do. The leader of the third party has not complained about the size of his budget and what he has to work with. He recognizes that he has to sit down and think about his objectives, what he wants to accomplish and where he's going to spend his money in the next few years.

But the Leader of the Opposition does not seem to fathom this. He cries about the budget. He whines about the budget. He's not happy with the size of his budget: his budget isn't big enough; our budget is too big. He seems to be suffering from what Freud called the classic symptoms of budget envy. These symptoms are excessive whining, excessive examination of ministry budgets to see whether some have increased over last year or others have been cut back. And he's wondering what he's going to do with his own budget. He can't understand why the leader of the third party is happy with his budget, the leader of the government is happy with his budget and the ministers are happy with their budgets. Is he the only one in this House who is not happy with the size of his budget? I think he has to realize that it's not the size of your budget that counts; it's how you spend it that matters.

I hope that the opposition members will study the lessons and some of the information I've shared with them today, that they'll apply themselves and that they'll throw away their liberal vision and take off their party-policy decoder rings. As I've said before, maybe if they follow their 60-year plan, in 60 years they can manage finances too.

J. MacPhail: Before I commence my remarks concerning our government's budget, I'd like to recognize the astute lessons that the member for Port Coquitlam gave us. I'm sure his mother would be pleased about how much he learned in university, and I commend him for those lessons.

I want to rise today to address some of the issues contained in our budget, which we presented to the people of British Columbia last week. I begin by saying that I think it's a good start. I have been monitoring the views of the people in my constituency who have been calling my office, and I've been talking to people daily since the introduction of the budget. I have to say that 

[ Page 504 ]

the overwhelming view that's brought forward -- at least from the people from east Vancouver -- is one of relief, and there's an attitude of pleasure toward the budget.

I will say that some at first were disappointed. They were disappointed that the deficit was going to continue to be as large as it was, and that we didn't manage to wipe out the deficit completely. But also they said to me that that is exactly why they voted for change, and they felt better knowing that there was a new government in place. They realize that we have begun to clean up the financial mess left by the previous government.

It's interesting on these budget debates that the members of the third party don't feel it necessary to be in the House. They're probably ashamed just as much about hearing the debate on this budget as they were about the throne speech, and all the programs that are absolutely essential in this province now to undo the damage of the last 15 years. But it is certainly the view of my constituents that the budget we brought in provides the foundations for a sustained economic recovery, and in east Vancouver we are waiting for that sustained recovery.

Let me address some of the initiatives that to me are of particular importance in this budget. I was pleased to see that our education funding will increase by 9 percent. In areas where other ministries were being cut back in real terms, I think it's fair to give recognition to those ministers who have to live with cutbacks in real terms. They weren't given moneys even to cope with the rate of inflation. Our government has seen it as a priority to maintain and enhance funding in areas of great importance to working people, and education is one of those areas, with a 9 percent increase. It's essential that we make sure that our young people can get a good, solid education in this province.

I introduced the students from Vancouver Tech. today and from Templeton Secondary School. I was quizzed very closely by many of them about what the budget means for them; 14-, 15-, 16-year-olds are concerned about their education. They wanted me to reassure them that there was going to be enough money left for them to get a good education and be able to compete in the job market. I was pleased to be able to say to them that yes, there is not only a good solid base for your education, but it's going to be enhanced because of the increased funding that we brought forward in this budget.

You know, in Vancouver we do have special needs. Our population in Vancouver has special needs in the area of education. One of those areas is, of course, that we are a multicultural community with many first-generation Canadians arriving, the vast majority of whom speak a different language. So funding for English as a second language is essential for all the communities and neighbourhoods within British Columbia, but particularly in my neighbourhood.

Our minister responsible for education, who also has the portfolio for multiculturalism, has seen it as a priority and has already given funding in that area. But it is important at this time to point out the lack of commitment by our federal government towards English as a second language. Their record is reprehensible in funding programs that are so essential to making sure that immigrants feel comfortable and fit in well into our community. I would like to take this opportunity to say that the federal government must now assume its full responsibility toward proper and full funding for English as a second language. I also know that new Canadians in my riding will be deciding their vote on the basis of those services in the next election, and I encourage them to do so.

[5:30]

The other area that is important for people of East Vancouver in education funding is for those families with children who have high health risks or special needs in the area of health care provision. Because the larger hospitals and the more specialized health care services are located in Vancouver, many families choose to live there so that they can have easy access to those services. That means that the children in our schools who have those special needs require special educational services as well. I must commend our Vancouver School Board for doing a very good job in paying close attention to and meeting the needs of those children with high health care needs. I know that our Minister of Education is taking all of those considerations into account when she puts forward her detailed funding proposals for education.

The other area that I was pleased to see major changes taking place in the outline of our budget is health care. There is a clear direction being taken by our government that we want to make sure as many health care dollars as possible get directly into the community for good, solid delivery of health care services at the community level. I am very pleased to see that take place.

The former government did manage in the twilight days of its reign in British Columbia to see fit to actually finally address the health care crisis that existed in our province. They brought in the Royal Commission on Health Care and Costs and gave Justice Peter Seaton a mandate to look at all aspects. I must commend the Justice for bringing forward a full and comprehensive blueprint for changes to our health care plan. I support many of his recommendations. Let me highlight just a few of the changes he recommended, which our government is now addressing in the new budget.

The first area that is of particular importance to me is the area of mental health services. It is a fact that those in our community who have suffered from mental illness and have been the victims of deinstitutionalization by the previous government now live in and around my riding. We tend to be an area where there's lower-cost housing available, and housing is such a crucial issue for the mentally ill. Our government has brought in funding to take care of the needs of the mentally ill.

First of all, we've brought in the mental health services for children. Some $5 million in services will be provided to approximately 3,000 children, young adults and their families who are suffering from severe mental health problems. The funding will cover services such as suicide intervention, treatment for eating disorders and the consequences of family violence. I think that in terms of cost benefit analysis for investing in social 

[ Page 505 ]

dollars, this will pay off in the long run in terms of lesser costs down the road for incarceration and hospitalization.

We have for the very first time in one and a half decades put in what is approaching enough dollars to take care of the mental health needs for the people of British Columbia. Let me just outline for the members of the House what some of those services are. I will also note that when our budget was announced, the deliverers of mental health services applauded our government and commended us for finally bringing in enough funding for the deliverers of mental health services.

We are going to spend $11.3 million to provide 375 semi-independent living units in the form of rental accommodation, and offer the appropriate support services such as rehabilitation programs, transportation services, nurses and care aides to the mentally ill in the community. For this the residents of east Vancouver will literally sleep better at night, and I applaud our government for that.

Dr. John Blatherwick, who is the chief medical officer for the city of Vancouver and a renowned expert in the area of public health care delivery, said, when asked about the solution to easing the burden of the mentally ill, that there are three resolutions: housing, housing and housing. Finally we have a government that is going to deliver on those solutions.

We are going to provide emergency response teams to provide services to an additional 2,000 people experiencing mental health problems. This initiative will reduce the use of psychiatric units in our acute-care hospitals, where most of these patients now end up. That, in terms of a cost-benefit analysis, will pay off greatly for all British Columbians.

We've got acute and preventive services worth $4 million. We're giving support to our seniors in crisis -- $5 million -- which will establish elderly outreach teams addressing seniors with mental health problems such as Alzheimer's and depression. We have consumer and family involvement services worth $3.4 million, and we're providing transition funding worth $3 million for parallel community services for the 100 patients who will transfer out of Riverview Hospital to the community.

I might add that deinstitutionalization was the area in which the previous government was totally irresponsible. When they severely limited the beds available in Riverview Hospital and Tranquille, everyone said: "Oh, great. The mentally ill no longer have to live in those horrendous institutions." But what that previous government did was say: "You don't have a bed here anymore, Jill, but you also don't have a bed out in the community. That's your problem."

As an economist with a background in labour market policy, the other area that I was absolutely thrilled to see addressed in our budget with excellent funding was the area of training and investment. It is interesting to note that those business people who travel to the Pacific Rim economies, and particularly to the hyperactive economy of Japan, come back with the message from the business community in those countries saying: "Look, if you want us to invest, you have to have a trained, skilled workforce, and when you provide that, you have all of the other benefits going. You're a coastal transportation province. You have good resources, but you've got to have a trained and skilled workforce." Our government addressed that issue in this budget.

We're going to tackle not only the training of our youth, but also the issue of training those who are in areas of the economy that may be changing because of structural changes to the economy. This budget tackles the immediate job of protecting essential services. But in the longer term, we want to create a bigger economic pie that will create more and better jobs for British Columbians, and that's why we're concentrating on our training.

We're going to go forward with a public sector capital project that will sustain 16,000 jobs in this fiscal year. We've got $100 million earmarked for business investment with the focus on creating jobs and enhancing value-added production and increasing exports. I just might want to take a second here to commend our Minister of Economic Development for the Working Opportunity Fund that his ministry introduced earlier on this year. Finally working people have an opportunity to take their savings.... The member for Richmond-Steveston was so vehement and exact and correct in saying that we must encourage savings in this province, but if working people have savings they can't do anything with, what's the sense of saving. Now our government has provided a good, solid avenue for investing those savings that will get a good return for working people and will also create investment and jobs in British Columbia.

Interjection.

J. MacPhail: It certainly is better than BRIC. I thank the member for lending that support to our program.

But you must also couple our investment and training program with the initiative that our Minister of Labour announced two days ago, and that's our fair wage policy. There's a very important element to that fair wage policy that I hope this House has taken full note of, one that I hope the business community has taken note of as well, and that's our commitment to enhancing and expanding the apprenticeship program in this province. The 1972-75 government expanded the apprenticeship program through a huge commitment in public sector employment. Since that time, though, the apprenticeship program has been greatly eroded, to the point where we now have fewer apprentices in training in B.C. than we did in the late seventies. That trend would have continued but for the intervention of our government, and we would not be getting any offshore investment. They would not have come to British Columbia because there would have been a dearth of skilled workers in this province.

I had the pleasure, prior to my election in the fall of last year, to sit on the province's apprenticeship board, and I was astounded to learn of the crisis that our province is facing in lack of trained, skilled trades people available for increasing our value-added industries. But I think we have caught it in time with this fair wage policy and the requirement that if you want the 

[ Page 506 ]

opportunity to make a profit from public money, you have to return something to the province. What those companies will have to return is a commitment to invest in good training. I am very pleased about that.

In my initial speech in the House I alluded to the fact that when we have a strong apprenticeship program, the trends in employment in our particular province and in the country mean that the increased opportunities will go not only to youth but to women. As a government we will now be able to ensure that women have equal access to apprenticeship programs and equal opportunity, and I'm delighted about that.

The last issue I wish to applaud our government for before I sit down is, as my colleagues know, a personal issue with me, but I know that hundreds of thousands of women join with me in praising our commitment to an increase of $17 million towards day care programs. We have a federal government that promised us, in 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989 and 1990, a day care program. We have yet to see it. And then they announce to us in 1992: "Oops, sorry, we made a mistake in all of those years." I'm here to tell you that our government has a firm commitment to day care, and there isn't any mistake about that.

I will end on the note of encouragement that it's time for a day care facility within the precincts -- not for the members themselves. We have a lot of young children whose parents work in the precincts, and it's time for us to be able to perform our duties fully and also take care of the needs of our children. Anyway, that's just food for thought.

[5:45]

I conclude by saying to all of the members within this House and to my government that I will work with you to implement in the smoothest and most efficient way possible all of the programs outlined in our budget.

I move adjournment of this debate hon. Speaker.

Motion approved.

Hon. J. Smallwood moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:46 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1992, 2001: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada