1984 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 33rd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 1984

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

3391 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Ombudsman's report on log-scaling. Mr. Macdonald –– 3391

Mr. Barrett

Mr. Skelly

Income assistance cheque surcharge. Hon. Mrs. McCarthy replies –– 3392

Budget debate

Mrs. Dailly –– 3394

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 3396

Mr. Nicolson –– 3399

Mr. Kempf –– 3403

Mr. Rose –– 3405

Mr. Reynolds –– 3409

Presenting Reports

Addendum to ombudsman's Special Report No. 7. Mr. Speaker –– 3414

Ministerial statement

Ombudsman's Special Report No. 7. Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 3415

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 1984

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. MOWAT: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the members to welcome to

the House today Mr. Graeme Roberts, who is the president of the B.C.

Motor Dealers' Association of B.C., a director of Air B.C. and

president of Nanaimo Motor Cars.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today are two

ladies visiting us from Cold Lake, Alberta. They are Mrs. Claire

Norton, my son's mother-in-law, and her daughter Michelle. I would ask

the House to make them welcome.

MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to make welcome two guests from my constituency today, Mr. and Mrs. Don McLeod.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, I am told that Miss Erin Berger,

daughter of Mr. Justice Thomas Berger, a former member of this chamber,

is in the House today. She is now working for the NDP caucus in Ottawa,

and I would appreciate it if the members would welcome Erin.

Oral Questions

OMBUDSMAN'S REPORT ON LOG-SCALING

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, to the Attorney-General. If the

matter of possible criminal charges was so important, why did he delay

until Tuesday — yesterday — to make his statement that there shouldn't

be comment on this matter because of the possibility that someone

somewhere might someday be charged? I know the minister was away on

Friday, but nobody made it then or on Monday. Was it really all that

serious?

HON. MR. SMITH: The allegation of criminal charges is always

serious, Mr. Speaker, but the reason it was February 15 that the

warning was given was that it was only on February 13 that my staff

learned that the ombudsman intended to publish his report. Having

learned that on February 13 in a conversation the cabinet secretary had

with the ombudsman's officials, it was then that the letter by the

Deputy Attorney-General was written to him. Until that was published,

the fact that the criminal investigation was already undertaken is not

something that we would announce. You do not announce criminal

investigations, as you know; you allow the police to do their work. But

it became necessary to make that announcement and give that warning

when the publication of the report was imminent. I think that's

standard practice.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Attorney-General for

completely dodging my question, which was why he didn't make his

statement on Monday. It wasn't an answer to that question at all.

I have another question.

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: How they flare up on the way out.

The Attorney-General says that on February 15 he warned the

ombudsman: "Don't go ahead with this important report." He sent a copy

to the minister, and then he uses words in his statement like "not

appropriate for the government to respond to the report," and "the

impropriety of responding to the Shoal Island allegations." The

minister gave an interview which was reported on Monday, February 21,

challenging the scale findings and allegations in that report. Have you

scolded or rebuked the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland)?

MR. BARRETT: For doing what you told the ombudsman he shouldn't do.

MR. MACDONALD: Yes.

HON. MR. SMITH: No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, to the Attorney-General. Don't

you find that he broke the injunctions, in your statement, that you

said were so serious? Don't you know that?

[2:15]

HON. MR. SMITH: I am not aware of the interview, Mr. Speaker,

but I think the publication of this report was a very different

situation. The publication of this report catapulted into the arena of

public debate the conduct of people who are being investigated in a

criminal matter. It was the purpose of the Deputy Attorney-General to

not have those matters discussed in public at a time when the criminal

investigation was underway. I would have thought that the member for

Vancouver East, who keeps taking this line of attack, would have done

precisely the same thing had he been Attorney-General. He would have

tried to stop public discussion of conduct that was under criminal

investigation.

MR. MACDONALD: Supplementary to the Attorney-General. I'll

send him this if he is in ignorance of what his colleague is doing.

Scale claims questioned. Wouldn't that, in your reasoning, prejudice a

possible Crown case against somebody questioning in detail whether

these scale figures and the discrepancies are correct? Do you not care

whether the Crown's case is prejudiced? Are you being that partial? Mr.

Attorney-General, don't you care that the minister is supposedly

impairing the Crown's case, if there is to be a case?

I have one other question to the Attorney-General. The statements of

the Attorney-General are that the ombudsman had no business going on

the media. Obviously the Minister of Forests, your colleague, gave an

interview to the media questioning in detail the scale allegations in

the ombudsman's report. Will you take him to the woodshed and say: "I’m

going to be as firm with you as I am going to be in blocking the

ombudsman for making a report that ought to be public."

HON. MR. SMITH: It has to be apparent that the publication of

that report and the discussion of it that ensued produced reactions on

both sides. My criticism of the ombudsman was very limited and

specific: that is, that he ought not to have published that report and

catapulted this matter into public debate during a criminal

investigation. By publishing that report and by commenting on it

himself he

[ Page 3392 ]

certainly generated public debate. He has generated

public debate in this arena as well, and members of this House have

questioned and raised the subject. All that arose from that initial

publication.

MR. MACDONALD: A final question to the Attorney-General. What

you're saying is that you don't mind the minister's comments, but you

were determined to block publication of that report at all costs.

HON. MR. SMITH: It's a preposterous suggestion, and so

characteristic of that member to see either blockings or cover-ups in

every action of law enforcement. He knows very well, from reading the

documents that I filed yesterday, that the decision to investigate the

allegation was a decision made by a responsible official in response to

a letter received from Mr. Mahood. That was a law enforcement decision,

not a political decision, and he knows that.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, in light of his answers today, can

the minister explain the

interpretation we are expected to put on his

statement yesterday? I'll quote from the Blues .

In reference to the letter sent on the 15th to the ombudsman, the

minister said: "Those ministers of the Crown holding responsibility in

matters relating to the investigation have been advised by me through

concurrent mail that they should, for the indicated reason, govern

themselves within the spirit of the content of this paragraph." Can the

minister explain why, in light of the fact that he is critical of the

ombudsman for speaking, he told this House yesterday that he advised

the ministers not to speak in that 15th letter, and the minister still

has spoken...? Why has the Attorney-General not taken any action on a

violation of his own admonition?

HON. MR. SMITH: In response to this ingenious line of

questioning, Mr. Speaker, surely the whole point is that everyone was

warned, prior to publication of the ombudsman's report, not to discuss

the matter. Once the ombudsman had published his report, everybody was

talking about it. You've been talking about it, and other members have

been talking about it. We were trying to have the matter....

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: On August 23, 1982, the Minister of Forests (Hon.

Mr. Waterland) wrote to one of the complainants and said that as a

result of a review by his ministry there was no evidence to support the

filing of charges. I am wondering if the Attorney-General would explain

why the government found it convenient to open this investigation now,

when the only apparent purpose is to block publication of the

ombudsman's report.

HON. MR. SMITH: Apparently Mr. Mahood, who made the

allegations in writing and was at one time of the opinion that there

was no criminal activity, was on January 11 of the opinion that there

was, and is now of the opinion that there isn't.

MR. SKELLY: That's the government's opinion.

HON. MR. SMITH: Hon. member, what you and the first member

for Vancouver East (Mr. Barrett) are doing is impugning the integrity

of the Deputy Minister of Finance and the assistant deputy minister of

criminal justice. It was the decision of the assistant deputy minister

of criminal justice to turn this over to the RCMP, and he made the

right decision. He didn't go and ask a politician whether he should

make that decision. He made that decision, and you know that. You are

trying to rake muck down to the level of officials now.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, is the minister aware of a letter

sent by the minister, Mr. Waterland, to Mr. Mahood on August 22, 1982,

in which it was suggested that a criminal investigation should take

place at the instigation of Mr. Mahood, not the government?

HON. MR. SMITH: I am not specifically aware of the letter,

but I am aware of the fact that Mr. Mahood approached Mr. Waterland on

such matters. It is my understanding that Mr. Waterland advised Mr.

Mahood that if he had evidence of criminal activity, he should take

that evidence to the RCMP.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I will file this letter for the

information of the minister. But I think the appropriate paragraph

should be read. I want the minister to answer the question I will frame

after I read this paragraph.

"The ministry is certainly not aware of any continuing

problems, and your allegations that the Forest Act is not being

complied with and that the operator may be manipulating scaling results

add a whole new dimension to this matter. While the ministry's early

review did confirm the need for change, there was no evidence to

support the filing of charges. I am sure that you are aware that it is

your responsibility to report to either the RCMP or the Crown

prosecutor any evidence you may have on the commission of an offence."

Today you have suggested that it was the Deputy Attorney-General who

made the decision. Did Mr. Mahood come to the Deputy Attorney-General

on the advice of Mr. Waterland and say on Mr. Waterland's letter: "I am

now asking for a criminal investigation"?

HON. MR. SMITH: To my knowledge, no, he did not, but whether

he approached a regional Crown counsel or a prosecutor I could not tell

you. The difference was, of course, hon. member, that on January 11 Mr.

Mahood wrote to the Deputy Minister of Finance making specific

allegations, and it was those allegations that were turned over to my

official, who then turned them over to the police.

INCOME ASSISTANCE CHEQUE SURCHARGE

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I took as notice two

questions. I'd like to respond to one from the member from Vancouver

Centre which was asked yesterday. It was regarding clients of the

Ministry of Human Resources vis-à-vis income assistance cheques and the

manner in which those cheques are cashed. The Ministry of Human

Resources does not direct clients to any particular bank or institution

to cash income assistance cheques. That responsibility remains with the

client, and solely with the client. Banks require the same

identification for cashing cheques from a recipient of income

[ Page

3393 ]

assistance as they do from all members of the general public. In these situations

where a client may not have the identification which would be suitable for a

bank, we have an agreement to provide a letter of identification for the client.

We have done that, and we do it for the particular cheque issued; we don't

do it as a blanket policy that carries on for several years. It's just for

the one cheque, and is usually in cases where someone is granted a crisis situation

and hasn't identification in order; therefore by the time they need more

money, their identification and so on is put in order. I am unable to comment

on the other part of the question with reference to the Money Mart — the organization

that charges a fee for cheque cashing — but I would suggest that you perhaps

would like to ask the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hewitt),

because that would be more in his area of responsibility.

SAFETY INSPECTIONS OF BUSES

Mr. Speaker, if I may, I would like to also respond to a question taken on

notice to the member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell). The member asked the question

of me in my capacity as minister responsible for transit. To remind the members,

the question was: following the government's decision to close the Burnaby

testing station on March 9, 1984, what provision has the minister made for regular

safety inspections of transit buses after this date?

I am pleased to tell the member and members of this House that B.C.

Transit, as part of the annual operating agreement with its service

contractors, requires that revenue vehicles be kept in safe, clean and

reliable condition, in compliance with the requirements of the Motor

Vehicle Act and its safety regulations. The vehicle condition is

monitored and maintained through a series of safety inspections carried

out by the operator's mechanics, and reports are made out daily by the

drivers. The inspections take the form of certain tasks being completed

at regular distance intervals. These are periodic inspections. They are

scheduled to take place every 5,000 kilometers, 25,000 kilometers and

75,000 kilometers. In addition, at every 1,500 kilometer point a safety

inspection is made to check brakes, lighting and door systems. In the

small communities where we have bus service, B.C. Transit inspects each

vehicle approximately twice per year to ensure that the operator is

maintaining the required standards, which is of course a condition of

our agreement with them. In Victoria and Vancouver the Metro Transit

Operating Company undertakes these inspections.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order pursuant to

standing order 25, relating to the orderly proceeding of business in

the House, we would be quite prepared to give unanimous consent to the

Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. McClelland) to make a statement to the

House today, if he so desires, concerning the situation in the pulp and

paper industry.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, on another point of order, the Minister of

Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) abused the time available for question

period. This side of the House always grants leave for ministerial statements

or responses to questions. She deliberately ran interference on a sensitive

matter before this House.

[2:30]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. When a member is being disorderly in making a point of order, there can be no excuse for that.

On the first subject that the member raised, as members will

remember, the rule about giving answers inside question period was made

in this House just a few days ago, and I would commend that to members.

It might also be a subject of discussion, hon. members, for any

proposed rule changes that the House may wish to entertain at some time

in the future.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order,

it's interesting that the members opposite are very reluctant to have

questions answered in question period. That's the place where those

questions should be answered, because they were asked in question

period.

On the other point of order, I'd be happy to ask leave, except for

the fact that a ministerial statement doesn't require leave. I'll be

happy to make a statement at the appropriate time.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, on the member for Victoria's

suggestion that there was an abuse by the minister in responding to

questions, I can't see that as much of an abuse because of the fact

that there were only 47 seconds left in question period. The minister

occupied most of time outside of question period to answer the question.

MR. SPEAKER: A valid point, hon. member.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer to the

point of order that was queried. I want you to know that I purposely

waited until there was no one on their feet, very much to the end of

question period, before I made my statement.

MR. MACDONALD: There is no reason for the minister not to be

recognized if it's a short reply. The Speaker himself has said in the

past — and we're still under the existing rules — that when ministers

have a long reply to deliver, they should not consume the time of

question period. I hope the Speaker will enforce that admonition.

MR. SPEAKER: On the same point, hon. members, while we're

discussing question period, the Chair would remind members that reading

telegrams, letters or extracts from newspapers is an abuse of the rules

of the House for question period as well. However, hon. members, that

was not brought to the member's attention. If question period were to

be enforced strictly as the rules indicate, the question period would

not only be short, it would be very unexciting.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I'm very pleased to see in the today a

friend and constituent from the city of Vancouver. I ask the House to

welcome a very fine British

Columbia citizen, Mr. George Wilkinson — and all the rest of our fine British Columbia citizens and visitors, I should add.

[ Page 3394 ]

Orders of the Day

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

MRS. DAILLY: I'm going to continue my scintillating

discussion, which seemed to meet with such approval last night from the

members of the Social Credit.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

When I was interrupted by the dinner bell last night, I was

attempting to put across to the Social Credit government the great

importance of appreciating the fact that there is a definite link

between the economy and social programs. Whenever the opposition takes

to their feet in this House to react to cutbacks in social programs by

the Social Credit government, we are usually greeted by sounds almost

like catcalls and putdowns for the very fact that we think social

programs are important. I know that Social Credit members pay lip

service to this, and they say that they are not actually cutting back

anything seriously. This is a tremendous show of ignorance on their

side. They cannot understand that when you cut back seriously, as they

are doing on social programs in Health, Education and Human Resources,

this will have a very negative effect on the economy of our province.

This is something that we cannot seem to get through to the Social

Credit government. They continue to bring in budgets which are not

going to improve the economy.

Interjection.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, I'm used to listening to the

laughter when I am trying to discuss the importance of this budget, so

it doesn't bother me.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I'm not....

MRS. DAILLY: But it does bother some people in British Columbia.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Could all hon. members please come to order and extend some courtesy to the member for Burnaby North.

MRS. DAILLY: As you know, I enjoy humour in the House, but

after reading some of the articles in this morning's paper and

listening to some of the news broadcasts on some of the things

happening in our province today, I really am not in very much of a mood

for humour, as many of the people in this province aren't.

When I speak about the fact that there is a definite linkage between

cutbacks, social programs and the economy, I hope that someone on the

government's side will at least listen to my arguments on behalf of

this premise.

I don't intend to dwell on a tragic case at this time because I quite frankly

only read what was in the paper and other facts may come out. This morning we

heard of the very bad case of a baby who was seriously abused by the child's

parents. I want to put this in the context generally. I do not know — none of

us know at this time — what caused this tragedy. We know there is something

wrong with young parents to begin with who can do this to their children. That

is an area that must be looked at from the side of prevention. People who have

a tendency to abuse their children are obviously showing signs of that far earlier

than the time they become parents. I accuse this government of cutting out prevention

programs in the schools that will help the teacher to diagnose people who have

serious emotional problems. I'm not saying that this is what caused this

particular child abuse case, but it is possible that these parents obviously

had some problems that may not have been diagnosed when they were at an earlier

age. It also points out the fact that Human Resources may — and I say "may"

advisedly — be so obsessed with these cutbacks in their staffing that we are

now ending up with cases of child abuse. Child-care workers don't have time

to go back and check on these children because of caseloads. If a government

wishes to have those kinds of things going on with the citizens of this province,

it can be on your head. The problem is that you aren't going to suffer directly;

the citizens of British Columbia are suffering.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Make up your mind.

MRS. DAILLY: It isn't a question of making up minds. I get

tired of hearing "you've got to have money and you've got to get rid of

the debt" or "if you want to just give everything to Human

Resources...." It isn't either-or. When it comes to money, a government

that can borrow $470 million to pay off another debt.... Then I'm told

to make up my mind where I am going to get the money from. There is

$470 million that I would rather see borrowed to prevent the kinds of

things that are going on in this province today, but you are obsessed

with showing the public in the next election year that your so-called

books are balanced. Balanced on what? It's on the heads and the

suffering of the people of this province, and you and future

generations are going to have to live with it. That's the tragedy. The

tragic effects of many of the things being done by this government

today will not be shown for a number of years when, hopefully, they are

long gone over there. A government with compassion can be brought back,

with their heads in the right place, and it'll also know how to handle

money, which I accuse the Social Credit government of being absolutely

incompetent in.

Mr. Speaker, let me give you an example of what is happening because

of this government's premeditated policies of cutbacks. We have an

example of the major cutbacks that are now taking place in the

Vancouver School Board, although Burnaby faces the same. They are going

to lose 15 child-care workers. I guess they are superfluous. "Oh, we've

got to cut back. What do we need these child-care workers for?" At the

same time that these child-care workers are being fired, those people

who go around and help the teacher with the child who is diagnosed as

having serious problems, the classes are becoming larger. So the

average classroom teacher simply doesn't have the time to deal with

these children with serious problems. They can't even turn to a

child-care worker now, in most cases.

It has been stated by one of the child-care workers: "School is

where the action is. Without the workers in the schools, many kids

would be in potentially dangerous situations." So what this government

is doing with their shortsighted and callous policies is creating

potential problems which future governments and future citizens are

going to have to deal with.

[ Page 3395 ]

Mr. Speaker, Stan French of the Vancouver School Administrators'

Association, talking about the provincial government, said this: "They

say they are doing this in the name of restraint." My God, what would

you do without that word restraint? "We ask the government to rescind

its decision in the name of genuine restraint and compassion." And

that's what I'm asking that government to do — to look at what you are

actually doing to this province and ask yourselves: is it really

restraint? What about compassion? I ask you about compassion. Has it

gone? Are you so obsessed with this business of showing the electorate

that your books balance? We all know it's just a shell game anyway. You

talk to anyone out there who has been reading this nonsense in the

budget speech, and they're all scratching their heads. The money's been

moved from here to there. But the laugh of it is, Mr. Speaker, that

nothing's improving in this province. The only thing that is improving

is the ability of that government in their handling of rhetoric and

words: restraint, downsizing, privatization. They think if they keep

saying those words over and over again they'll lull the public into the

apathy of thinking that those words are improving their living

conditions. Mr. Speaker, it's been proved that this obsession with

privatization, in many cases, is going to cost the taxpayer more money.

I say to you: you're going to find that out. Unfortunately it will be

too late for the public.

You know, Mr. Speaker, there are cases upon cases of this stupidity

of bringing about cutbacks in programs and eroding them...that are

going to cost more money in the future. Many of these young people

unfortunately could end up in institutions, and the rest of the

taxpayers will have to finance their upkeep because the Social Credit

government didn't have enough foresight to spend their money on

prevention first.

The same thing certainly applies to education. This government

doesn't seem to see the connection between education and the economy.

They don't seem to understand that as public education degenerates, so

our economic base erodes also, and even more quickly. The education

system may be far from perfect, but if you keep bringing in policies

that discourage people from having the opportunity to continue in

school and become educated, in time that will affect the economic

development of our province. When times improve we are going to end up

with a whole group of work-illiterate students. Right now many students

are just coming out of high school, or not even finishing. They are

sitting there at home. Some of them, if their parents can't look after

them, are going on welfare. Would it not be better to take some of that

$470 million that's borrowed to remove the B.C. Rail debt and do

something positive with it for our young people? That's what the NDP

recommends.

Let me give you an example of what a Labour government is doing in

New Zealand. They accept the fact that they do not want to see their

young people sitting around on the dole, as they call it in New Zealand

— welfare here — tragic, demoralized, doing nothing. Everywhere you go

in B.C. today we see these under-25-year-olds. It's tragic. This

government is doing nothing about it. Anyway, you know what they do in

New Zealand? This is something that they are starting as part of their

new policy — the Labour Party, rather. Labour's economic program is

primarily aimed at getting New Zealanders back to work again. I see

nothing in the Social Credit policy here that even talks about

unemployment.

[2:45]

Interjection.

MRS. DAILLY: I have read it.

To this end the party has proposed to guarantee employment for

school-leavers, to abolish the dole in favour of training programs,

search allowance and work schemes, and to implement a far-reaching

program of investment in industries that will both capitalize on the

country's established strengths in primary production and provide a

more immediate payoff in job creation. In other words, the Labour

policy — and it would be the policy of the democratic socialists of

B.C., Mr. Speaker — is that instead of letting these kids out and

putting them on welfare, take some of that money, which you have but

have misplaced in things such as borrowing for the B.C. Railway, and

put these young people into some training jobs. Some of you may say:

"Typical of the NDP — short-term programs." Those short-term programs

can be created so they become a transition to learning a skill, because

in the future we hope this province will come to its senses with a

government that will realize that we have to diversify our skills and

our industries, and that we can no longer depend just on the primary

industries. We should be thinking now of training those young people

with some of those skills now.

Another area that bothers me considerably about the Social Credit

government is their lack of planning. As far as I can see, they are not

doing anything about looking at the skills that will be needed for the

future and preparing our children for them. If we are doing that, I

have yet to hear anyone specifically tell me what Social Credit is

doing about it. It becomes very demoralizing, as we all know, to sit at

home when you want to learn something and you don't have the

opportunity. I heard a young man under 25 speaking on a show this

morning; I don't think it could fail to touch any of us. He said: "I've

been hunting for work. It isn't that I don't want to work. Yes, I'm one

who's going to be cut back in my welfare, but I'm not a welfare bum."

The implication is that if young people get out and move, they can find

work. He said:

"I've been all over this province. There is no work.

I want to work, or at least give me training."

I know. Mr. Speaker, that my light is on, and I regret that because

I have quite a bit more material. I know my listeners regret it also. I

wonder if I could conclude with a paragraph which I find expresses the

way I and many others on this side of the House personally feel about

the present situation. It is from Robert Reich, an economist who is the

opposite of Milton Friedman. It's called The Next American Frontier ,

and I would recommend it to the members of the Social Credit Party

particularly. You seem to have been brought up on the bible of

Friedman; may I suggest you try this one. I'd like to conclude with

this paragraph. Robert Reich says:

"We will be able to conquer unemployment and inflation

and enjoy enduring economic growth only to the extent that we harness

the energy and the ideals of all our citizens to the process, spreading

the burdens and benefits equitably, making good the losses attendant

upon economic change, and striving for justice and decency. A social

organization based on greed and fear will fail, because it cannot

enlist the commitment of its citizens. The notion that social justice

must be sacrificed for the sake of economic growth is simply wrong.

Social justice is not a luxury bought at the expense of national

economic health. It's the means for achieving and maintaining

prosperity."

[ Page 3396 ]

HON. MR. HEWITT: I'm pleased to speak to this gathering this

afternoon. I have a clear field of vision; I can see everyone here. I'm

pleased to stand and support the budget, and I compliment the Minister

of Finance, whom we refer to in a friendly way as Dr. No, as chairman

of the Treasury Board. He's a man who works hard at his job and has a

difficult task, and I think the budget he put before this House on

Monday of this week indicates the amount of effort, time and dedication

he has put forth to assuring a good, sound future for the people of

British Columbia.

We all read with interest headlines in the newspaper, or watch TV,

or listen to the radio, and after the minister's speech some of us on

this side began to wonder whether or not those who reported the budget

speech were in the same room, the same city, the same province or the

same country. In my opinion, the headlines after the speech was made

should have been positive headlines. There should have been a headline

that said: "British Columbia Leads the Way. The Cost of Government Has

Been Reduced." That would have been a positive headline to indicate to

the people of British Columbia that this government addressed the

question of ever-increasing cost of government and reduced it. Wouldn't

it be nice to see a headline that said: "First Time in 31 Years

Provincial Government Has Been Reduced From the Previous Year's

Expense"? Wouldn't that be a good headline for the consumers of this

province to read or to see on the television? It would give them some

indication that the government of this province recognizes that it must

show leadership in controlling its costs so that those in other parts

of Canada or in the private sector can follow our lead. Wouldn't it be

nice, Mr. Speaker, if the headline had said: "Government Ensures Social

Services Maintained While Reducing the Cost of Government." That would

have indicated to the senior citizens, the handicapped, the disabled,

people on fixed incomes and the unemployed that we were ensuring that

we maintain those social programs — the people programs — that are

needed, while at the same time controlling the cost of government and

eliminating some of those programs which, for some reason, once

introduced and operative, everybody seems to think should go on

forever. It is unfortunate that the coverage that was evident after the

budget speech was in the negative.

We have a number of people here, Mr. Speaker....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I don't believe we have enough.

MR. NICOLSON: I feel kind of lonely. I don't think there's a quorum in this House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Pursuant to our custom, I will ring the bells and see if we can summon more members.

Hon. members, the quorum is satisfied. Please continue.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, I know that the members are

rushing back into the House to hear my comments, because they're very

positive comments.

We hear the doom and gloom from across the way, but I think if they

were to look at the budget figures, instead of just attacking for the

sake of attacking the government's actions over the past year, and not

looking to the future, they would see on page 59 some of the

improvement in revenues that are anticipated in this budget, and

they'll move from our figures of 1983-84 from $7.1 billion to $7.7

billion, a substantial increase in personal income tax, corporation tax

and the social services tax. Social services tax must mean that more

product will be sold. As a result it means that inventories have to be

renewed and that product has to be manufactured.

Personal income tax increases — and I think the figure is something

like 11.9 percent — must mean, if the members opposite can figure it

out, that more people are working and our income tax revenue to the

province of British Columbia has increased. That's a positive report to

give to the people of British Columbia, as opposed to saying that

everything is doom and gloom.

On the expense side, a positive report to the people of British

Columbia: expenditures are down from $8.4 billion to $7.9 billion,

which is lean, efficient and good government for the province of

British Columbia. The deficit that accumulates, and which we know is a

problem in all governments, is a manageable deficit and one which can

be paid off as the economy further improves. That is the plan that this

government has had since February 1982, when the Premier came out with

his program of restraint, reassurance to the public of British Columbia

and recovery. We're on that road to recovery, Mr. Speaker. The budget

figures indicate revenues up, but it also indicates that this

government is going to be a lean, efficient government and will not add

additional costs to the consumer and the taxpayer of British Columbia.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I hear a noise across: "Take a look at

royalties." Yes, I can look at royalties, and I can look at other

things on that same page which should indicate to you that those

products we trade on the world marketplace are the ones that impact on

us the heaviest — the forest industry, the mining industry. Where those

industries are not moving — which it would indicate to you, if you took

a moment — when those revenues drop, we must cut our cloth to fit those

revenues, which is what this government has been doing since 1982.

[3:00]

Mr. Speaker, if you saw the news on TV last night that the federal

budget was up 10 percent over 1983-84 — and they anticipate a $30

billion operating deficit for this coming fiscal year; $30 billion and

It went on to say last night — and it's in the Times

as well — that 20 cents out of every dollar spent by the federal

government will go to interest on debt. That's interest paid on

something you've already used. They have no plan in Ottawa. They just

keep going down that slippery road to ever-increasing deficits. The

question has to be asked: "Is that the kind of legacy you want to leave

for your children?" It's not the one I want to leave for mine.

The load at the federal and provincial levels will become so great,

if there isn't a plan put into place to see recovery happening and to

take advantage of an upturn in the economy, as this budget.... Mr.

Member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson), you're a former school

teacher. If you read those figures — you're good at math — you can

identify those areas where revenues are down in some cases but

improvements are indicated, which means more people are going back to

work. But at the same time, as good managers — not of our money; it's

not our money we're managing; it's the people's money — we've attempted

to keep costs down wherever possible. Essential services have been

maintained,

[ Page 3397 ]

and I think it's quite evident, when you look at the figures with regard to health, what we've attempted to do there.

British Columbia is leading the way out of the recession, and it's

fair to say that politicians in other provinces and in the federal

government had better forget about being nice guys, because most

politicians like to be nice guys. They like to say: "Sure you can have

that deal. Yes, we'll build this. Yes, we'll pay for that service. Yes,

you can have an increase in benefits, etc. No, there won't be any user

fees." You can say all those things. But I'll tell you, the time is

over for being a nice guy in government, because what the people put

you in this office for is to ensure that there is a future for their

children in this province. We'd better — when I say "we" I mean the

federal government and other governments — follow the lead of British

Columbia and start saying no to some of those special interest minority

groups who keep wanting more, more, more. There isn't any more, Mr.

Speaker.

We've done that from 1982, and we went to the polls in 1983 and got

an increased mandate — on what basis? On the basis that we said that we

were going to control this monster called government and were going to

control spending and were going to try to cut down the cost of

government. We came back with an increased mandate. Those opposite who

survived are still saying that we aren't doing it right, but the people

of this province, as late as the Vancouver Sun

poll in December indicated.... Our popularity, which was 29.6 percent

in September.... When the public was asked the question by the Vancouver Sun

poll in December, 41 percent said: "Yes, we would vote for the Social

Credit Party." Interestingly enough, Mr. Speaker, in September, when we

were 29.6 percent, I believe the NDP was 29 percent. They were pretty

close to us. But by December their popularity had dropped, even after

all the organized reaction from Solidarity, the union movement and the

leaders — the Keuhns, the Kubes, the Kramers. All those people, all

their actions — the public didn't buy it. They didn't buy it at all

because they recognize that we have to manage their money in a

responsible manner.

One tax increase we introduced — the health care maintenance act

that was introduced here budget day — results in a surcharge of

provincial taxes, and that's been deemed as a joke by a federal

minister. It's no joke. If we're going to have a health care system in

Canada that's fair, then the feds better quit playing politics with

health care in this country. If they met their commitment of 50 percent

of health care costs at the provincial level, then that provincial

income tax surcharge would not be needed. The health care maintenance

tax is not penalizing the B.C. citizen; the political rhetoric at the

federal level is. I think more people should be aware of the reasons

for the surcharge: the fact that there isn't that sharing arrangement

that there's supposed to be with regard to health care costs.

Talking about user fees, the vast majority of people have no

objection to user fees. The $10 or $20 — whatever that figure might be

— for a room in a hospital per day, related to the approximately $300

per day to operate that room.... I don't think there are very many

patients who would say that that was too much or excessive for the best

hospital care in the world. For those who cannot pay, there are social

programs by the Ministry of Human Resources to assist them. Nobody gets

left out in the street because they don't have the fee for a hospital

bed. If they are sick or injured, they are able to find entrance to the

hospital.

Mme. Begin, the federal minister, said: "It's a joke. The whole

thing's a joke." Unfortunately the thing she refers to is the federal

government. That's the joke, Mr. Speaker, and something should be done

about it — in the very near future, I hope. But I do believe. as the

Minister of Finance said, that there should be a Health and Finance

ministers' conference as soon as possible to iron out those issues that

we seem to be debating in the press, as opposed to sitting down around

the conference table to resolve them between the two levels of

government.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, discussion of health as it

appears in the budget speech is quite in order. Discussion of a

specific bill which is before the House is anticipation. I know it is a

difficult line to draw during this type of budget debate, but I am sure

all members can realize what the difference is.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was trying to be on that fine line.

I have one last comment in regard to the concern about deficits. In

Washington a number of analysts were surveyed by the business community

to see whether or not there was acceptance of a restraint program or

less government spending. We often talk about Milton Friedman, among

others, but w are talking about analysts, those people who work in the

field of economics and money management, the ones who provide the

financing for governments, industry and business. The result of the

survey was that 97 percent said the President and the Congress should

take deficit-reduction action this year. I raise that point because, as

the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) knows, you can have two

economists and they won't agree. But when they do that kind of a survey

and come up with that kind of a percentage, I begin to think that maybe

political rhetoric is what we are dealing with half the time when we

talk about restraint, no restraint; deficits. no deficits. There are a

large percentage of professionals who say it is time to restrain

government spending in the United States.

I want to talk on some of the specifics in the budget. I am pleased

to see the tax exemption on safety equipment — such things as

child-restraint devices, oxygen containers, etc., for those who need

them. That's prevention. It encourages prevention, and enables people

to buy, at less cost, a product that may save a life or reduce

accidents. As minister responsible for the Insurance Corporation, I am

very pleased to see the Minister of Finance eliminate the sales tax on

child-restraint devices for automobiles.

In other areas, there is the continued restraint on public sector

wages. I think the Minister of Finance, continuing with the

compensation stabilization program, recognizes that the public sector

is paid out of the economic activity of the private sector. All public

servants get paid primarily from activity in the community. In the

workplace, by those businessmen — large and small — who create jobs,

generate revenue and pay the tax that of course pays our wages. So we

have to be followers when it comes to settlements, etc., as opposed to

being leaders. We know — and we stated this a year ago — that the

private sector has that thing they call restraint, and that's shutdown,

bankruptcy, loss of sales, layoff, etc. Government has to recognize

that although we can carry on by raising taxes, that's not the answer.

We have to respond and cut our cloth to fit the ability of the private

sector to pay, and we have done that. Look at the reductions

[ Page 3398 ]

on page 26 of the budget — all the expenses in the

ministries. The member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell), who's

going to look it up now for the first time, will see that the only

ministry with an increase in budget is Health. All the others have been

reduced, for two reasons: one, we're looking at more productivity; the

other is the ability to pay. Maybe four employees will have to do the

job that five used to do in the good times. Maybe three will have to do

the job of four. If we can keep that government machine lean, we'll

assist the recovery in this province. If we can address redundant

programs, those which, once instituted, become evergreen, and say

they're no longer needed or we can't afford them, then that will be of

great assistance to us — and that's what we've done in this budget.

I want to touch on one item in the budget which deals with the

payment to B.C. Rail. We've had a lot of comment about that. I think

the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) called it a shell game,

moving money from here to there. I'm going to go back to that quotation

in a minute. I'm sure she'll have an explanation at some time as to

whether or not she's contradicting herself. The royal commission — I

believe it was in 1978 — made a report on BCR, which stated:

"We recommend that the present total debt of close to

$700 million be removed from BCR's account and assumed directly by the

province. Such refinancing will result in a more realistic statement of

the province's financial position and oblige the province to retire the

debt in an orderly manner. It will also relieve the personnel of the

railway of the discouraging prospect of everlasting increasing

indebtedness and place an achievable goal of profitability within their

reach."

We move to the report of the auditor-general of March 31, 1979:

"I recommend that such an accounting policy be established

for the accounts of the province. Application of this policy would result in

the net debt of the British Columbia Railway Company being recorded as a direct

debt of the province, unless other financial arrangements were made to service

this debt."

This recommendation was from the auditor-general — the watchdog of

government, as the member reminds us so often — who was appointed by

this government. I was pleased to be the chairman of the committee that

recommended her to the Legislature.

We move to the report of the British Columbia Railway board of directors. They said:

"This debt has no prospect of being repaid out of BCR

revenues, and the assets it represents cannot be turned to account. We

believe that, assuming no significant downturn in the provincial

economy, if BCR were to receive the financial restructuring and the

relatively modest operating subsidies recommended by us and the royal

commission, BCR would be in a break-even position and would likely

generate the bulk of funds required for capital expenditures over the

next five years, except for new construction. We believe that the

opportunity and challenge to achieve financial self-sufficiency is

important to the morale of BCR, and strongly urge that these

recommendations be adopted."

I have another report from the auditor-general in 1982, which basically says the same thing.

[3:15]

Then I move to the Committee on Crown Corporations:

"The committee concluded that this positive result

continues to be overshadowed by long-term debt burden, which the

railway cannot hope to service or repay even from efficient operation.

It was the committee's major recommendation that, in light of the

improvements in the railway's operating and financial position, the

government should financially reorganize B.C. Rail, closing the door on

the past and providing management with the incentive to follow through

on the positive achievements of the past five years."

That was their fourth annual review of the corporation. Then we come

to their April 1982 inquiry into the B.C. Railway, which basically says

the same thing. The committee believed that the government should

assume the railway's net outstanding long-term debt, which stood at

some $662 million as of December 1980. In return, the railway should

issue the government common shares of equal value. I believe that at

that time the government took over the shares of the railway. The

interesting part, after hearing the dialogue from across the way....

The Crown Corporations Committee is a legislative committee, made up of

members from both sides of the House. The member for Burnaby North, who

said it was "a shell game, moving money from here to there" in her

comments a few minutes ago, was a member of the committee that

recommended the cancellation of the BCR debt. You can't have it both

ways. The member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), who gets up and makes great

speeches with regard to how we're running this province, was also on

that committee.

MR. R. FRASER: It's called selective amnesia.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Selective amnesia, selective quotations,

call it what you will, but the House Leader for the opposition, the

member for Skeena, was also on that committee. Unfortunately two other

members on that committee aren't here: one was defeated in the

campaign; the other didn't run.

The second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald), former

Attorney-General of this province, who prides himself on accurate

statements, was on that committee. He must support that. As a matter of

fact, I assume he will get up and commend this government for its

actions in following the recommendations of the committee.

And last, but not least, my good friend the member for

Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) also was on that committee, and I know

he's an astute mathematician. He has some problems with nuclear power,

but he's a good member and a good mathematician, and I know he would

feel the same. He endorses that and will speak in the positive when he

makes his comments.

Mr. Speaker, I think it's fair to say that in moving those dollars

across to BCR there is the flexibility of saving dollars, because once

paid to the sinking fund of BCR to retire that debt, there is the

opportunity for government to retire its debt, if you will. In assuming

the $470 million it will have the flexibility to repay that as the

economy improves and as the marketplace is right for such a

transaction. It's better control over our finances, Mr. Speaker. I

don't think there should be any negative comment about that issue at

all. As a matter of fact, the Minister of Finance should be

complimented on

[ Page 3399 ]

addressing that question and having control over the payment of that debt.

Mr. Speaker, there is another item in the budget which may be

considered negative by some, but I think it is positive. Student aid

grants are being scrapped and replaced by loans. There's an old adage.

In my opinion, if something is given to you it tends to have less value

than if you've earned it. I suggest to you that those who are striving

for academic excellence in this province, knowing that they have a

loan, make a commitment investing in their future and are pleased and

proud, when it's all over, to pay back the government who gave them

that assistance so that somebody else's son or daughter can make the

same use of those dollars. That's a positive step. It's an investment

in the future. I'd like to see if we could possibly build up a loan

fund that would be self-sustaining at some point in the future. In the

throne speech there was comment about a student venture program, an

exciting program which I'm sure the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr.

McClelland) will go into in detail later in this session, along with

his 1984 jobs for youth program, which again puts in the hands of the

young person the opportunity to go out and sell himself. That's far

better than going out and handing them something. It makes far better

citizens in the future.

I'm not sure how much time I've got, but I want to touch briefly on

the Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and the fact that we are

turning over to the private sector the licensing of real estate agents,

insurance salesmen, investment dealers, etc. We've turned over the

regulation and licensing to those associations. Mr. Speaker, the

legislation and the regulations as far as government is concerned are

still in place. But the testing and examination and the conduct of

members of any society should be judged by the members of that society.

I belong to a society of accountants. We don't have somebody sitting in

government telling us whether we're doing it right or wrong. But we

certainly do have a society that ensures that our conduct is correct.

The lawyers have their own association; the doctors have theirs. So

what's so wrong about turning over to the Real Estate Council, if you

will, or to the travel agents' association, the real estate agents'

association, or the Insurance Council the ability to monitor the

expertise and the quality of their own members of that association? The

regulations and legislation are still in place should there be a

problem with any one individual. But at least we get that bureaucrat,

the government, out of the regulation, if you will, or determining

whether somebody has capability or not before they start. I don't think

we need that. I think governments are elected to govern, but leave the

freedom out there in the marketplace for those people to prove

themselves.

The Finance critic, the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich), touched on

a few things, particularly in the news media, where I read these

comments. He stated that the Toyota plant was a terrible thing. I can't

understand that, because the Toyota plant being built in British

Columbia, employs people in British Columbia. I'm not sure whether in

his comments he meant he'd rather see people on welfare than working

and earning a wage. I don't understand what his rationale is in that

regard. He would rather have people on welfare, I guess.

The other was the 8 percent surcharge on provincial tax. He stated

that it was unfair. I think he said that the government should have

looked to high earners and the banking institutions for more money.

Well, if it is an income tax, it does identify with high earners. If

you have a low or fixed income, or no taxable income. there is no

surcharge. But the more you earn and the more taxable income you

pay.... The surcharge then impacts on those of us who make better than

the low-wage earner or the person on fixed income. So we have

identified the high earners: those who earn more will pay more in that

surcharge on provincial tax.

In winding up, I would say that I realize that the role of the

opposition is to oppose. I guess if we were on the other side of the

House we would probably be quick to find fault with budgets coming

in....

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEWITT: No, I've never been on the other side. and I don't intend to be, Mr. Member,

At the same time. I think their credibility comes under question. When you look at previous years' Hansards ,

you find that they, said to the government: "You've spent too much" or

"You haven't given enough attention to this area or that area." I can

remember the former member for Victoria with his great displays in the

House, which he finally had to take out. But now we've reduced the

budget and we're accused of not spending enough. You can't have it both

ways.

The people of the province indicated very clearly at the polls — not

only at the polls where they vote, but also in polls taken by outside

parties, not the government — that they want the government to continue

restraint and reduce spending. they want the government to downsize

itself, to get out of the private sector and the marketplace as much as

possible. They want less regulation, and they want the ability of

self-regulation. I think that we as a government should give them that

opportunity. I strongly believe that this budget addresses those

issues. It recognize today's realities, and it provides a solid

foundation for future economic growth. I'm very pleased to support it.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, in listening to the Minister of Consumer

and Corporate Affairs, speaking about the Crown Corporations Committee and its

recommendation, I was reminded of the statement made by Marlowe: "But that

was in another country, and besides, the wench is dead."

Another thing that the minister brought up in his speech was the

$181 billion federal deficit, which works out to $6,000 per capita. I

would remind the minister of the provincial deficit, which is $15.3

billion, and that works out to $5,400 per capita. There is not a great

deal to pick between the two: it's tweedledum and tweedledee. I don't

know how the pot can call the kettle by another name.

This government is continuing its unrelenting war on prosperity,

taking away opportunity and drying up consumer confidence. By the

admission of the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), we may very

well never come out of this recession before we enter the next one.

That is one thing I do agree with in the budget speech, and it is

because we have treated the recent recessions in a much different way

from the rest of the country. I don't see Alberta or any other province

killing themselves to follow the so-called leadership of this

particular province. This government is waging a war on prosperity, and

as in most wars, it is being waged at the expense of the lives of the

young. In this province we have about 13 percent unemployment, but

we've got over 25 percent unemployment among the young people, who have

never had the opportunity to take

part in the economy, have a

[ Page 3400 ]

meaningful job, a meaningful career; indeed, many young people have left high school or university and seen no jobs.

Last evening I met a young lady who graduated in education. As a

matter of fact, she taught in your riding for one-half of a semester,

and that is the total work experience she has been able to have since

graduation — no tenure, of course, and going no further in her chosen

profession at the present time. That waste is almost as tragic, and in

some ways even more tragic, than what happened in the last Great War.

This is not the work of some dictator or politician run mad in some

foreign country; this is the work of politicians who have become very

doctrinaire and very much taken up with their own rhetoric and their

own ideas, and who can see no fault in themselves. These politicians in

our own country are waging this war against prosperity in British

Columbia, which should be a prosperous province. As in the tradition of

all wars, it is at the expense of the young, the lost generation.

[3:30]

I find that very unfortunate, because most of us here grew up at a

time where we did not have to worry about student summer employment

programs from government, because there were enough student employment

programs available through the private sector to absorb all of us who

wanted to work. But that isn't the case today. There is a failure by

this government to recognize the total change in the nature of work,

the rate at which jobs are being created and the rate at which jobs are

being lost. There is a fundamental revolution that is going on in this

province, and we will have to continue to say this until it becomes

well understood. A fundamental change has taken place in these last two

decades of this century which will see more change than happened from

the beginning of the industrial revolution right through to the middle

of the 1950s. We will see more change in this short compressed period

of time than we have ever dreamed of seeing before.

Budgets have certainly changed since I first sat in opposition in

this House. The first four budgets of the Social Credit government,

starting in the fiscal year of 1976-77, racked up fairly impressive

surpluses. I suppose Mr. Evan Wolfe was Minister of Finance through

most of those years, if not all of them. We saw surpluses: the first

year, $96.6 million; the next year, $204.5 million; the next year,

$179.9 million; and the next year, $446.9 million, for a total of

almost $1 billion. At the same time there were assets that had been

acquired by the previous NDP government and by the previous Social

Credit government of W.A.C. Bennett, and there was also a cash balance

on hand. The revenues tended to come in ahead of expenditures. That

took a very sorry turn after the fiscal year 1979-80 when we changed

from a cash to an accrual system of accounting. But that wasn't the

fault of the current Minister of Finance; it just happened to coincide

with his appointment.

If you take the surplus that was available at that time and add it to the cash

balance that would have been on hand at the end of a fiscal year, in 1979-80

there was $1.961 billion, almost $2 billion, available in terms of surplus cash,

either in the form of special purpose funds or actual liquid cash in the bank.

In his first fiscal year, the present Minister of Finance actually spent $256.7

million more than he collected in revenue — in the fiscal year 1980-81. The

next year he spent more than he collected in revenue by $184 million. Those

were good economic years. The next year saw a serious downturn in the economy,

and he overspent by $978.2 million, which had reduced that cash balance from

almost $2 billion down to almost half a billion dollars. Then we saw the budget

of seven and a half months ago, and now we see the budget projections for this

year. By the end of this fiscal ear we will spend $1.3 billion more than is

collected in revenue, and for the fiscal year that we are now starting to debate

there is a projection of $671 million more, leaving us in debt $1.4359 billion.

Since 1979-80 there has been an excess of expenditure over revenue of $3.396

billion.

This government comes in here as if they have suddenly seen the

light, when we have told them many many times in the past that they

were being reckless, that they should be more cautious, that the good

times would not go on forever and that if they were going to use any

kind of Keynesian economics they would have to put money aside. They

should have been building up more special purpose funds rather than

spending it in good fiscal times. We have seen the day of reckoning. We

have seen a time when, due to the policies of this government, which

concentrates solely on export of raw resources — unfinished resources

and unfinished materials — and has made us totally dependent on the

export of unfinished goods for the mainstay of our economy.... They

have seen us the victims of worldwide recession. They even indicate in

the budget speech that we are more affected than other areas of the

country because we are less diversified. Whose fault is that? Who has

been government for over 30 of the past 34 years but Social Credit? It

is because Social Credit has been government that we have not seen any

diversification in the economy, and for that reason we are exposed to

the vagaries of worldwide recession and experience it much more deeply

than other parts of this country. Even some of the maritime provinces

are better equipped to ride out these kinds of downturns.

We are in bad economic times now because we have had a government

that has been very arrogant, self-satisfied and complacent — a

government that would not listen to the opposition.

In 1978 I put out a monograph dated January 31. I asked the question

with regard to B.C. Hydro: "Is supply outstripping demand?" I reached

conclusions which led to headlines: "NDP Urges Inquiry — Ten-Year Pause

in Hydro Projects." I said at that time: "Currently planned projects

will produce 70 percent more energy by 1987 than the province will

require. If we overbuild our system and they then try to export energy

when they know we have an energy surplus, we're not going to get a very

good price for it." Mr. Speaker, I said that we could postpone the

construction of the Revelstoke Dam, the Hat Creek thermal coal

generating plant, the Vancouver Island thermal generating plant and

also some....

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: What Vancouver Island thermal plant?

MR. NICOLSON: Oh, you've forgotten so soon? You've been a

Minister of Energy. I should think that you would have known about it,

because it was certainly in the prospectus of B.C. Hydro to the

American bond market in 1977.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: No, no. You're wrong again.

MR. NICOLSON: Do you want to resign if I can dig that project out of government documents?

[ Page 3401 ]

Mr. Speaker, I was not listened to, and that just shows how stupid

that government can be. I was not going to name any particular member

of that government — perish the thought.

Because of the stubbornness of the government, they went ahead.

Eventually some reason sunk in. They eventually cancelled the Hat Creek

thermal plant and the Vancouver Island thermal plant. Now, having gone

ahead with the Revelstoke Dam, we even have from B.C. Hydro the

admission that there is enough surplus energy for a ten-year

moratorium. I predicted that the government would have to go to the

export market, and I predicted that they were going to go to the export

market in a buyer's market. That is in the Vancouver Sun

of February 7, 1978. Failure to listen to the opposition is the reason

that we have to take such drastic measures which are leading to the

question of whether government measures are perhaps complicit in the

death of two school children, whether or not the government might be

complicit in the abuse and death of a child, reported in the paper this

morning. It is in this atmosphere, where we have this cold-blooded

approach towards all kinds of cuts, that people have to question, every

time a tragedy occurs, whether this might not have been avoided. Mr.

Speaker, it could have been avoided if this and other things were

listened to.

This isn't the only thing that has concerned me in the past. It

isn't the only kind of decision that has led us into the problems that

we are in today. The northeast coal project, for instance, has cost us

in other ways that I don't think are even promulgated in any of the

press articles. We used to collect royalties on coal. Then there was a

change in formula to a profit type of revenue. Back in 1975 the royalty

on coal was about $1.50 a tonne. When the Alberta government had a

sliding system of royalties up to $9 per tonne, depending on

site-specific costs, we had announced a $2.50 royalty. Even though just

about everybody in that 1975 election was taking pot shots at us, I

must say that Edgar Kaiser did not. Kaiser coal did not. Kaiser and

Fording were the main companies paying that royalty at that time. There

was no objection to it, but the current government went ahead and

ignored that obvious source of revenue, which could have increased very

shortly thereafter to $5 or even $10 a tonne, had it been indexed and

had the royalty stayed in place. Had it just increased, by about the

year 1981 we would have realized about $102.7 million in increased

revenues. Had we increased it and tested the market on that a little

bit more, we probably could have realized as much as $500 million in

increased revenues. We could have done this, it's quite obvious,

because Kaiser turned around and sold BCRIC the resources of Kaiser

coal. He did it at a very good price, a very good deal to Kaiser. One

of the things he sold was the very low rent that the government was

collecting for the privilege of harvesting a non-renewable resource and

exporting it out of this country. For that privilege we could have been

asking a great deal more. So we've probably lost about a half a billion

dollars and would not be faced with some of the problems we see today.

[3:45]

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

So we can ask ourselves: why did we allow that to happen? Well, we

allowed it to happen because we wanted to give every chance to a

project in the north which was really premature, which was

uneconomical, which flew in the face of the predictions of the world

coal study, and which, even today.... I read an

article — I think it

was in the Vancouver Sun

— the other day by someone who was actually defending the northeast

coal project. But he defended it by saying that we don't have to worry

about the Japanese cutting back on the volume of coal from the

northeast, because that isn't where they'll cut back. It's important to

them to keep that project going. What they will do is cut back their

volume from one of the projects in the southeast, which have already

been amortized and paid up. Of course, we've seen lots of evidence of

fields being shut down and contracts being negotiated downwards in the

southeast. We have placed millions of dollars into the northeast coal

project at the expense of economic activity in the southeast, and now

we see this shifting of $471 million. Even people like Ken Bell are

asking the question: "Is BCR heading for the auction block?" I don't

think Ken Bell is looking at the politics of this. He certainly is

questioning, though: "Why now?" He says that what perplexes him is

Curtis's timing of the move.

In the face of nearly the worst unemployment in any state, province

or territory of Canada and the United States combined. Curtis finds

nearly half a billion dollars for a railway, and while he is doing this

he is cutting government services further and raising taxes even

higher. It hasn't taken long for the vocal minority to question why the

railway company got $470 million while the unemployed got nothing. No

doubt there will be other variations on the theme in the next few

weeks, but the basic refrain will remain the same: why the BCR? He

comes up with the logical reason and that is privatization. The

government is going to reduce the debtload of BCR in order to pave the

way to privatization.

There's another interesting thing about the mistakes we have been

making and the price we are having to pay today with this war on

prosperity being waged by the government. We see that the South Koreans

have discovered coal, and they are spreading their net even wider to

ensure long-term supplies of coal to drive their energy plants in a

fast-growing economy. Energy-poor South Koreans are also finding their

own supply in a wide-ranging exploration program. While they have

long-term contracts to buy B.C. coal, each new discovery reduces the

chances of them increasing their import volume significantly. The

Korean mining promotion group has announced that Korean explorers have

discovered a big coal deposit on Kalimantan Island in Indonesia — the

biggest discovery so far for the Koreans, who are newcomers to the coal

exploration game. The initial value placed on the reserve so far is

identified as $14 billion.

We see more and more coal being discovered. Going back to the days

when Deputy Minister Sandy Peel cautioned the government against

signing the contract — told them to wait at least another six months —

we see that the government went ahead. The government has not listened

to the opposition. They have not listened to some of their top-level

advisers. They have gone ahead in spite of the best information and

have put us into a huge debt, both direct debt against the province and

indirect contingent liabilities against the many Crown corporations.

The government also went ahead against a lot of good advice — I

certainly gave them advice — when they created the B.C. Systems

Corporation. They had advice warning them of the change that was taking

place in the nature of computers. The government went ahead, and they

based a whole white elephant out on Blanshard Street around a

centralized mainframe computer. They built a huge building costing

almost $40 million, which is about one-third

[ Page 3402 ]

of the price of the B.C. Place Stadium. That is a

megaproject — one that doesn't get heard about too much by our

constituents up in Nelson-Creston or constituents up in places like

Vanderhoof and Fort St. James.

The province should be a darned sight more annoyed and angry than

they are about even the B.C. Place Stadium. There can be some defence

for the B.C. Place Stadium, rapid transit or building a new convention

centre in Vancouver, and all the other things that seem to be being

built in Vancouver and don't seem to be being built outside the lower

mainland. That is a project that was completed last summer, and within

three months it was put on the auction block. I don't know who the

takers are so far, Mr. Speaker, but I know who got took. This

government is going ahead in spite of warnings.

There are other wastes in the B.C. Buildings Corporation and in the

reorganization of the Ministry of Forests. Their building occupancy

costs are rising in three successive budgets from $3.5 million to $10.5

million to $19.5 million, which is symptomatic of the kinds of

reorganizations that have gone on where government has gone top heavy.

What is happening with the downsizing? You are not downsizing the

top-heavy; you are getting rid of the foot soldiers — the people who do

the work. You're getting rid of them when, in fact, in many places we

need even more.

You're getting rid of conservation officers. I don't know if there

is going to be any game to protect from wolves, hunters or anyone else

when the poachers get finished in the next couple of years. It's open

season in British Columbia. Letting go of conservation officers! There

won't be a fish to catch or an animal to show to your children. There

won't be any wolves, because the wolves who don't get shot are going to

starve to death. This is because the government did not look at this

Legislature as a whole. It didn't even look at its back bench in most

cases; it just looked at the little inner circle called cabinet. The

cabinet has even lost control. They are now saying: "I don't know, I

just take orders. I am going to hear about it." Some students listened

to the budget speech just the other day and then went down to ask the

Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer)

about the details of this new student entrepreneurial program, and he

said: "When I hear about it, I'll tell you." He doesn't know what's

going on. Who knows what's going on? Is Mr. Spector the only one who

knows what's going on?

This government has a very sad record when it comes to educating

professionals in this province. I guess we can import professionals. We

can even import a government from Ontario. All of the experts from

Ontario, and, in fact, even the cabinet, no longer really have a great

deal of power. They're just as much rubber stamps as our back-benchers

who stand up and vote in the House, whether they speak for or against a

particular motion.

I recall budget speeches that I've listened to since before I was

ever elected, and I can remember Premier W.A.C. Bennett getting in the

news reports and on TV clips talking about creating 26,000 new jobs in

the past year and 40,000 new jobs in another year. Through the NDP

government and those early Social Credit governments, jobs.... Mr.

Speaker, in this province today, there's not a mention from the

Minister of Finance about record unemployment or about the fact that we

have eliminated 7,000 jobs from the public service.

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: Isn't 7,000 the figure you're using right now?

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: It will be.

We have eliminated 63,000 jobs in British Columbia. We're not

downsizing government; we're downsizing British Columbia. A 15.2

percent unemployment rate in British Columbia for January is higher

even than Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia or Quebec. That is the

record of this government. Anybody can govern in good times. It's what

you do in the tough times that counts, and in these tough times you're

not doing enough.

I suppose the government members could be replaced. We could have

automatic computerized voting. All you'd have to do is get your friend,

Mr. Goldfarb, to make all the decisions for you, without having to go

through the inconvenience of an open and free debate in the

Legislature. People could just vote on any particular issue, because

that's about what's happening right now. There was a big rush to have

that recent Goldfarb poll finished at the very beginning of last month,

and then, of course, you came out from that with that marvellous little

innovation, the 8 percent surcharge, supposedly for the removal of

hospital and other user fees.

If we look at this budget we'll see one part of it that's increased,

and that's the budget for paid consultants — so-called professional

services. That's up. Get rid of people who are independent public

servants and hire more people who can be fired immediately, with no

muss, fuss or bother, if they dare to question any decision and offer

any experience or informed advice. This government has increased the

maximum consulting contract which can be entered into without Treasury

Board approval. That's one of the things it's increased. Now, without

going to Treasury Board, a cabinet minister can hire somebody on a

contract up to $50,000,

whereas before he was limited to $25,000. That

doesn't sound like downsizing to me.

But of course it's a pretty selective kind of downsizing that's

going on. You downsize people on welfare. They now get, what? Five

dollars a day? That must look after food, clothing, bus fares. I don't

know if there are too many Third World countries where people would

have to provide for some of the necessities you have to provide for in

a country in which climate is a very extreme factor.... From what I

have seen of people in Third World countries, they might be more able

to get along than our poor can get along on $5 a day.

[4:00]

The government has been parachuting people into certain positions. I

know of one former civil servant who was supposedly let go and now is

getting $290 a day to go through a few files in the Ministry of Lands,

Parks and Housing. The work is normally done by a clerk 5 who gets

about $80 a day. Why is that taking place, Mr. Speaker? Does that

individual have something on this government? How does that come about?

That's not downsizing.

As I said earlier, the youth unemployment rate is now at 24.2

percent. Almost one young person in four is unemployed in this

province. That is a war against prosperity, and the troops being

sacrificed — the cannon-fodder in this war — are our youth, as it is

always our youth. That, I think, is absolutely unforgivable and

lamentable.

[ Page 3403 ]

The budget provides for the removal of user fees. What is in dispute

between the federal and provincial governments is something like $30

million or $33 million. What is actually raised by hospital user fees

in a year in this province is about $40 million. The 8 percent

surcharge is estimated to raise $166 million a year. I say that that is

an absolute sham. It is absolutely unacceptable. I think that the

people of this province are going to see through that. If the

government wanted to meet force with force.... Certainly there's been

some sabre-rattling on both sides in this issue. We're not opposed to

removal of user fees, but a 3 percent surcharge would be absolutely all

that's needed to accomplish the very same end. We know that when that

money goes into consolidated revenue it can be spent for anything. It

can be spent for northeast coal as easily as it can be spent for

hospitals. We know that it will go into that fund, and that fund will

be deposited into the general fund, which is the law of this land.

I note that the minister said in his speech: "We may be forced to

undergo another painful recession without ever having fully recovered

from the last one." In 1982 I made the prediction in this House, to the

scorn and derision of some of the cabinet benches, that our economic

difficulties could last until 1986. It is another prediction which I

made by listening to people much more informed than myself, and

something that this closed government has failed to recognize. Now,

almost too late, it is recognized. When I made those predictions,

government was still spending money very wilfully.

Mr. Speaker, I find it incredible that the government has brought

back provincial government exams, which, as a person who used to teach

science and mathematics, I am not totally against. They brought them

back, though, with the idea that we would give all students an equal

chance to enter university; they would be graded on the same criteria.

At the same time, less than 7 percent of rural students will have the

opportunity to enter university. So we've introduced this very

expensive device in order to create some fairness for an ever

universities. We stand probably the worst in the country in every

conceivable indicator that you can look at for measuring post-secondary

or even K-to- 12 education. There is no need to downsize an education

system on which we spend less of our gross provincial product, less per

capita, than any other province in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, this is a budget that I cannot accept. This is a budget

that is not in the best interests of British Columbia and that should

be rejected. There is still time. We aren't even into the next fiscal

year. It should be taken back to the drawing board, and there should be

total input from the public. We should get on with governing this

province instead of punishing it.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, as always, it is indeed a pleasure

for me to stand in my place and once again speak in the budget debate

on behalf of the people I represent in this chamber — the people of

Omineca. So far in this budget debate we've had a far-reaching and

involved number of debates, debates which have ranged beyond the

borders of British Columbia and Canada, and in fact across most of this

world as I listened to members on both sides of the House voice their

views. My remarks will be more local, and they'll not be lengthy.

At the outset I wish to say that I will be supporting this budget,

but not unlike my seatmate, the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr.

Davis), I have some concerns as well. I will voice some of those

concerns in the next few minutes. I have concerns particularly as a

rural and north central representative in this chamber. I represent a

riding which provides more than its share of the dollars that go into

the provincial coffers of the province of British Columbia, and little

by little it's an area of this province that is getting less and less

in the form of returned revenue.

If anything, I can call this the good news, bad news address. First,

the good news. This budget indicates two very important things to the

people whom I represent: (1) the restraint program is working; (2) it

is working well, and the very serious financial situation that we and

other jurisdictions in the world are in is becoming a lessening

problem. The restraint program is working, and it continues in a very

real way down a path long forgotten by governments in, I think I can

say, all other jurisdictions: that is, the path of reducing bureaucracy

and not allowing it to increase unchecked to a point where our

taxpaying citizens can no longer afford the bill.

Mr. Speaker, the downsizing of government in this province was long overdue. I think that if you will read Hansard

for the last eight years you'll find that that's what I was saying in

some of the addresses that I've given in this chamber as far back as

1977. The downsizing of government was long overdue, it's continuing in

this budget and it's not yet complete. I respect the government for

taking that firm direction in respect to a very real problem for those

who pay the taxes in British Columbia. Reducing the size of government

is the only way to reduce the cost of government. I must commend the

government for holding firmly to our course of creating a smaller

government in this province, and in so doing, creating greater

productivity in a smaller civil service.

The budget speaks of a yet greater role for the private sector in

the affairs of British Columbia. That, too, I most heartily support. It

was individual initiative and hard work which brought this great

province to what it is today, and it is initiative and hard work that

will keep it on that very sound foundation.

For a number of years we have leaned toward the mentality which

suggested that government could do it better and, of all things,

cheaper. That's not so at all. I think that's been proven not only in

this jurisdiction but also in many other jurisdictions of the world. I

think you only have to look at some of our own dismal failures to

understand that, and certainly the dismal failures of other

jurisdictions, too numerous to list here today. We've got a long way to

go yet in the area of privatization in order to undo the wrongs that

have been done in the past to the taxpayers of this province. I could

name a great number of Crown corporations — and I've heard others name

some in this chamber just this afternoon — and government departments

which could and should be turned back to the private sector.

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF: I will name many, Mr. Member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann), and you'll even agree with me on some.

Mr. Speaker, it is for those reasons that I support this budget. That's the good news; now for the bad.

As a rural and northern member of this assembly, I believe that it's

incumbent upon me, in light of the government's second restraint budget

— which, again I say, we in the north philosophically agree with....

It's not only

[ Page 3404 ]

incumbent upon me, Mr. Speaker, but I would be

derelict in my duty to my constituents not to speak of those areas of

this budget which I think to be a problem for the rural and northern

part of British Columbia. I would be derelict in my duty not to voice

my concern for the direction in which some of the restraint moves are

taking us.

[4:15]

In this budget we are paying off a $471 million historic debt of the

British Columbia Railway. On the surface that's not all bad. I would

most certainly agree that in so doing we give the board of directors of

that Crown corporation a new lease on life — the initiative in having

that heavy burden lifted from their shoulders, to get on and improve

upon the very commendable job they have done in the past three or four

years. I would do as well to agree with that move on the basis of a

report tabled in this Legislature on April 7, 1982, which made that

recommendation as well as many other valid recommendations in regard to

that Crown corporation.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I must ask — through you, through

this assembly and through the government, which has taken action to

eliminate this debt — when they, as a railroad, are going to live up to

a commitment made when laying the track in my constituency, to and

beyond the community of Fort St. James, and assume the responsibility

to the people along that track north of Fort St. James, the people of

Tachic, Leo Creek and Takla Landing, for upgrading that stretch of

track, in order that two things take place. One is resumption of

logging operations in an area which is badly in need of employment and,

I might add, badly in need of logging, for many reasons. It's an area

that has been ignored by those presently holding the cutting rights

along that stretch of track, because they say there's a lack of

transportation facilities. If that's not true, I would call upon the

Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) to make the necessary changes

to ensure that that logging continues. Number two, so the people of

that area — who are totally cut off from the outside world, who became

totally reliant on the British Columbia Railway because of the

commitment made by that railroad when the line was built — can once

again enjoy something we take for granted, fresh groceries at least

twice a week, and a transportation facility to the outside world.

We hear an awful lot said in this chamber about ALRT and

multimillion-dollar bridge projects across the lower Fraser River. I

support those kinds of projects because they're needed. I've supported

those kinds of projects when speaking in my own north-central

constituency. I support those projects because they too are needed. As

a northerner, I'm not oblivious of the problems of others. But when I

see a situation — and I've fought this situation for the eight years

I've sat in this chamber — of a Crown corporation now being bailed out

in this budget, to the tune of $470 million, I look for that Crown

corporation to live up to its commitment. When I look at the way that

that Crown corporation has shirked its responsibility over the years to

those of my constituents who live along that railroad, I really begin

to wonder.

Another concern that I see in this budget, as a northern representative — and

while on the subject of the BCR — is the total disappearance of the airport

assistance program, a program that was not very large but was of the utmost

importance to those of us in the north. For those who don't know, the airport

assistance program was initiated by my colleague, my seatmate, the member for

North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis), in response to a concern voiced by me and

others when construction of the Dease Lake extension of the BCR was cancelled.

It was a way in which some compensation could be paid to the north in a very

logical way for the loss of that very large project, a project which — and rightly

so — was deemed unnecessary. But little by little that program has been whittled

away until today, here in this budget, it has completely disappeared. As a northerner

that concerns me and my constituents.

I have other concerns related to transportation in regard to this

budget. Certainly I fully realize, as do my constituents, that in times

of restraint we all have to tighten our belts. I also understand that

acceptable levels of service must be maintained in the three main areas

in this budget: health, human resources and education. But in the

north, highways and roads are lifelines and are not extravagances, are

not programs which can be cut. I see in this budget that the dollars

for highways construction and development are down drastically. Mr.

Speaker, although I don't know now — and only time will tell — how this

will eventually affect the north, I'm sure we'll find out in the days

ahead. I'm concerned that they will impact, as other cutbacks have, on

the northern part of this province.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I would respect that if the reasons for not being able to provide

the dollars necessary for very vital projects related to highways in my

constituency were in fact evened out throughout the province. But I

suspect that it is the north again that will take the short end of the

stick. I would today caution the government — even though we are

solidly behind the restraint program....

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF: You laugh, Mr. Member for New Westminster (Mr.

Cocke), but it's a very serious concern to the people in the northern

half of this province.

I would caution the government to watch very closely how restraint

is attained in British Columbia. We in the rural areas of this province

get precious little enough in good times, let alone bad, and we will

not stand idly by and watch what we have worked hard to obtain taken

away in bad times and given, as we have always seen, to the south.

I have touched on only a few areas where my concerns lie in regard

to this budget. I will revisit some of these areas, and touch on many

others which I fully intend to address during future debate in this

chamber, particularly on individual ministers' estimates. I will touch

on the very serious matter of reforestation in the north-central part

of British Columbia. I will touch upon the monumental problem faced by

a number of my constituents, and others in the north, in the

agricultural industry, regarding Crown land plans and the way they are

being crammed down the throats of those in the agricultural industry.

I'll speak, as did the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson), about

the serious lack of conservation officers in the field, and what effect

that is having on our northern wildlife reserves. I will voice concern

as well for the erosion of the very meagre services that we already

enjoy in the north, which in good times didn't come anywhere near

reaching the level of those enjoyed in the southern part of this

province.

[4:30]

I will be touching as well on the need for moving some ministry offices, moves which I don't regard as restraint but

[ Page 3405 ]

which are being made under the guise of restraint.

I would suspect, and in fact I have evidence to prove, that some of

these moves are due to the high lease rates being charged by the

British Columbia Buildings Corporation to the ministries utilizing that

space. If there is any bureaucracy in this government that we should be

getting rid of, it's that Crown corporation.

We in the north are sick and tired of always being the fall guy. We

understand the need, during these times, for restraint — because we've

always practised it, whether in good times or bad, in the area that I

represent. But we will no longer, in the name of restraint or anything

else, see our position eroded while all of those scarce dollars are

spent in the lower mainland of this province. We will not stand idly by

and see that. We are proud British Columbians, probably more so than

anyone else in this province, but we expect a return of our fair share

of the pie, however small that pie may be.

Mr. Speaker, as I said previously, because I believe philosophically

in this restraint budget, as do the majority of my constituents, I'll

vote for it; but I fully intend in the weeks ahead to voice these and

other concerns of northerners about the inequities of this particular

budget.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, that's certainly going to be a tough

act to follow. If you consider how severely the government is hurting

their friends, especially those up north in Omineca, you wonder how

much they're prepared to hurt their enemies.

I would suggest that the government has embarked on a kind of

economic evangelism, a kind of economic born-again fundamentalism. As a

matter of fact, they remind me more of Ayatollah Khomeini than any

thing else I can think of, because they've got this sect of true

believers. That's one of the dangerous things about them, you know.

They're the kind of people who would probably put themselves into a

bomb-laden truck and drive it into the American embassy. They're true

believers. No matter what happens, they're going to be right. So

they're not concerned about anything like that. They're the kind who

feel that being in debt is a sin. It's obscene. However, unemployment

is really not so serious after all, especially if you have a job. It

doesn't even get a mention in the budget speech. Not a mention, and I'm

really sorry about that.

They hurt their friends in other ways too. There's a line in the

budget speech that has to do with the boasting by the minister....

First of all, the Socred friends from Red China will be here, so that's

going to guarantee success. They're boasting that this big venture,

Expo 86 — which the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) would like to have

in Grassy Plains or someplace like that — is going to create 60,000

person-years as employment. I think that's fine. I believe in certain

projects to create employment. I don't think anybody in this party has

ever been opposed to employment-creating projects. But I'll tell you

one thing: if you can have positive spinoffs, you can also have

negative ones. If you get rid of 10,000 public servants and 4,000

school teachers, plus assorted numbers of aides and all the rest of it,

then according to the negative multiplier effect that operated in

Qualicum you've probably got a negative multiplier of 21,000 more jobs,

for a total of 35,000. So all you've done by creating Expo 86 is create

double the number of jobs that you've lost through your policies. And

those people....

HON. MR. CURTIS: You don't want Expo to happen?

MR. ROSE: I didn't say that. What I'm saying is that you

can't boast that you're creating 60,000 jobs and ignore that you've

uncreated or abolished 35,000. If you want to hear the plus side, you

also have to be prepared to hear the negative side. The negative

multiplier.

AN HON. MEMBER: Subtract the negative from the positive, and you end up with a positive.

MR. ROSE: Yes, and you're still way down in terms of

unemployment. You probably lead the rest of Canada. So much for your

success on that.

What concerns me more than anything else is the fact that as a

party, Social Credit started in the Depression, like the CCF and the

NDP, because they protested the kind of economic policies or economic

order of the time that was pauperizing people, taking their homes and

throwing them out of work. However, within 30 years after he became a

senator the champion Socred of them all, Premier Manning, became a

member of the board of directors of the Royal Bank. That's how they've

lost their roots. Their roots are gone. What they are, really, is a

neo-conservative party — the same thing the Socreds professed to

replace in the thirties. They're gone. They believe now only in

property. They don't believe in people. They're prepared to give all

the money and tax benefits they can to property holders. Giveaways,

hoping to get certain kinds of support....

When you look at it, the minister over there shouldn't get a gold

star for his budget; he should get the golden loophole award. It's not

that there shouldn' t be incentives. I think there certainly should be

incentives in terms of creating jobs. But that isn't what happened with

the federal experience. The federal experience has been that when you

give incentives for governments to produce more work at times of

recession, they don't produce more work at all. What they do is spend

their money on corporate mergers, which have doubled over the last ten

years — that's what they do with their profits — or spend it abroad.

From 1960 to 1982 investment abroad has gone from $132 million per year

to $3 billion a year. That's what happens. We're not opposed to that.

This party believes that if you're going to give money to corporations,

you should get equity or at least tie them to some kind of a deal so

that when they get the money, they create the jobs — not get the money

and then invest it somewhere else abroad. That's exactly what has

happened to the investment incentives of the federal government — not

just millions of dollars but billions of dollars.

So what we're concerned about is that the strategy of the government

is to turn the province into a province of peons. They want to destroy

the kinds of structures that we have. They want to back out of the

social contract and turn it into a province of peons. War on poverty —

take dead aim at the poor. That's what this budget did. It took dead

aim at the poor and the people who are unemployed and the people who

are on welfare.

I don't know if the lobbyist from the independent schools is still

up in the gallery, but I want to reassure him that I don't intend to

talk very much about education today — certainly not elementary and

secondary education. So if he had to go somewhere, he is free to leave.

He is excused. I'm not going to say anything good about them or bad

about them today or talk very much about education, even though it is

my critic area, because I feel that I've had an opportunity, and will

again, to deal with that subject. I had an opportunity two

[ Page 3406 ]

weeks ago in the estimates and again last week in

the throne speech debate. I've spoken at length about the cuts in

education. I don't know whether it bears repeating here but I would

suggest to you that when the minister tells us that he has some small

cuts to give the various educational institutions, he really ignores

the inflation factor. If school budgets are going to be down 2 percent,

that doesn't sound like very much. But if you have an inflation of 6

percent in the same year, that's an 8 percent cut. If you multiply that

by three years and allow them no raises, you've cut the public schools

by 25 percent. If you cut the colleges, as you have this year, by 3.5

percent and you add that to the inflation factor, you've cut the

colleges 9.5 percent. If you cut the universities by 5 percent in one

year, you've really cut them by 11 percent. Those are pretty savage

cuts in educational spending. I don't know how you justify it,

especially on every major count. Whether you're talking about

percentage of provincial budgets, percentage of the GNP, percentage of

personal income, or whatever you want to do, B.C. ranks dead last in

its investment in education. At a time when 25 percent of our young

people are out of work, we're dead last among all the provinces. In

post-secondary education we're dead last with one exception — Prince

Edward Island. I don't know how you can defend that kind of thing. But

we're apparently still going to proceed with this kind of hatchet job,

led by the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon.

Mr. McGeer) or the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich), who will

henceforth be known as Jack the Ripper, because we have headed right

into a tremendous battle for educational survival — certainly the

quality of education. I am particularly concerned about it.

In addition to that, we've diverted funds that have come from the

federal government away from post-secondary education — away from the

universities. I have it reliably reported that our funding from the

federal government under the EPF grants is up 8 percent this year. What

did the Minister of Finance do? He cut the universities by 5 percent

and said they were lucky; they should have been cut by 6 percent.

Universities now are 70 percent funded, in terms of their operating

costs, by the federal government. What's the province doing? Where it

is taking that money? What is it spending it on? Where does it go?

Where does the 30 percent go? If 70 percent of the operating costs are

funded by the feds and 10 percent by the students, that only leaves 20

percent by the provinces. I don't weep any real tears for them when

they cry about medicare.

[4:45]

Beyond the funding, I was talking to a university professor today,

and he said the morale is terrible out there because they don't know

where it's going to hit next. They're not very happy about things.

They're concerned about declining enrolment. I know some people are

going to say: "Why should you worry about them? They're fat cats. Why

should we worry about those fat cats? They've had it terrific for

years." To some extent they have been a protected group in society, and

I don't think anybody will deny that. But we can't say that we have

overspent and overbuilt on education, especially when we have been

diverting funds — last year, $84 million — away from the colleges.

There is a lot of uncertainty and it's bad morale.

Another thing that has happened in the colleges is that instead of

making them community colleges, they have tried to turn them into

job-creation centres. Manpower-planning models is what they are after.

They are suggesting to themselves, I think — or trying to kid

themselves — that this is going to be the better future direction. A

lot of people will question that. The manpower model has not worked

out, because it's virtually impossible to predict the kinds of skills

we're going to need 15 and 20 years down the road. The skill-specific

training, which has been imposed on the colleges by the minister, I

think, is at a dead end. We don't need an anachronism — skill-specific

training — but we need to equip our students with broad general skills

so that they can adapt and be flexible.

What is the future? The future is the marriage between

telecommunications and the computer. This is what is going to happen in

the world as we see it coming and unfolding. Any of you who feel that

computer jobs or high-tech jobs are going to be tremendous employment

stimulants are going to be disappointed. The whole computer industry in

the United States — and it's reached a tremendously complex and

sophisticated level there — has created fewer than one million jobs.

The jobs that are occurring in our society are at both ends of the

scale, and the middle is disappearing. The union jobs, the decent jobs

and the high-paying manufacturing jobs are disappearing. They are being

replaced by automated equipment where the clerical, the service work

and the low-paying jobs — such as the fast-food places — are where the

employment opportunities are, but they're all poor jobs. I think the

minister's policy is dead wrong. They are embarking on narrow,

occupational training and ignoring the fact that the new illiteracy

will be computer illiteracy. It won't be verbal illiteracy; it will be

computer illiteracy. We are letting our young people down.

Another thing is the funding. The colleges don't know what their

funding is going to be. They were told they were going to be cut, but

they don't know what funds each one of them is able to anticipate.

Therefore they can't plan. The funding formula of the kind that we

tried has been tried in Ontario and found wanting. It seems to me that

virtually every direction in which the ministry of Education seems to

be going is in reverse of where it should be. Community colleges should

be there to serve the needs of their own communities and not, in my

view, become an arm of government.

In addition to the problems that I've just outlined, there is the

for post-secondary education won't be able to get any grants. The

provincial government will not support them in terms of their grants

anymore. Two years ago we spent $21 million in the province on a

mixture of loans and grants. The grant portion was cut to $14 million

this year, and in this next budget it is going to be cut to zero. That

means that many students will not be able receive a university

education. It will be reserved for those people who live in Point Grey,

can live at home and can go out and back to school every day. It won't

be for the kids from Prince George, because their costs are going to be

at least $2,000 or $3,000 a year higher than those affluent members

from West Point Grey. That is a situation that is unacceptable in a

society that is supposed to be committed to equal opportunities. So the

grants are gone and the funding is going to be cut — and it can be cut.

Dr. Pedersen of UBC said in a speech recently:

"Certainly we can reduce services, eliminate programs and

refuse to admit students because of budgetary constraints. We can be tough-minded

and efficiency conscious. We can do many of the things that

[ Page 3407 ]

appear to be fashionable at the moment. However, the problem

is this: if we do such things, are we really serving the public interest? It's

true that we can at least in the short term increase our political capital by

making dramatic cutbacks. But is this the right thing to do when we know that

some of the programs we will eliminate will be of fundamental importance to

our economic survival in the near future? It seems to me that this is the critical

question."

So this is the question that Dr. Pedersen of UBC asks us, and I think it behooves us to think about that just a little bit.

Mr. Speaker, I'll leave the educational side of it now, because I

want to talk about what the minister had to say about medicare. I think

the minister called the federal government's behaviour on the medicare

issue "mischievous." He described the federal government's activities

and posture as mischievous. I'd like to give you a little history of

medicare as I know it in this country, First, we know where it started;

I won't go through that again. We found that one of the poorest

have-not provinces in Canada, namely Saskatchewan, was able to make it

go, when the rich provinces weren't able to. Finally they embarrassed

the rest of the provinces into doing just that — ultimately the federal

government and later the rest of the provinces; B.C. was second. I

think the previous Premier deserves great credit for being alive to the

political reality of what that meant if he didn't get into it.

The Minister of Finance spent a good deal of time dumping all over

the federal government for medicare funds which were supposedly held

back. There's no question that medicare funds were reduced; no one's

questioning that. If we go back to when this started, we would find

that the health act required a dollar-for-dollar province-fed

commitment. For every dollar given to the provinces, they must have

spent a dollar, and what's more they had to account for this. That was

in 1977. There was really no check on that in terms of the amount: any

amount could be spent. The provinces, because they were getting really

cheap dollars — 50-cent dollars — spent lots of money on medicare, as

did this province. There's no question about that.

Then they felt that they really didn't want to have to account for

every dollar they spent. They said: "Why should we have to account to

the federal government in a field that is really ours

constitutionally?" After a lot of palaver and a lot of conferences we

got EPF, the established programs financing act. No longer did the

provinces have to be accountable for the money they spent, and

everybody was happy. The Social Credit government supported that move;

so did nearly all the provinces; so did both the Liberal and

Conservative Parties. The NDP didn't, because they were afraid that the

poor provinces would divert funds from medicare into other provincial

priorities, ending up charging user fees, which would threaten the

whole system. It didn't happen that way. The poor provinces didn't do

it, but the rich provinces did: Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia

raised their user fees. When that happened, along about the same time,

in 1972, the feds capped the money that they would spend. Why did they

cap it? Because every time they did anything, they were dumped all over

by the provinces that had all the surpluses, and the feds had all the

debts at that time. The rich provinces were charging — as I just said —

and the poor provinces weren't. As we know, some provinces were

spending money on roads. Anyway, that's what we had, and that's why we

got to this point. The feds then started cutting back, and that's what

the minister is unhappy about. The feds started cutting back on their

EPE Sensing a hot political issue, Monique Begin decided that if they

carried on with that, she'd cut off their funding even more under the

health act.

I quote from a paper by Bill Blaikie, MP, who talks about this. He says it perhaps better than I could, and more quickly:

"The removal of this money in April of '82 was at first glance a clever move."

He means, by the federal government.

"Most provinces had argued that the money attributable

to compensation for the termination of revenue guarantees was not

earmarked at all and that it was unfair for the federal government to

regard it as such. Indeed, many provinces had argued that up to half of

the EPF funds were not earmarked — that is, money transferred via tax

point transfers. So when the tables were turned on the provinces in the

fall of '81, their own arguments were used against them to claim that

health care funds as such were not being cut. One could hardly resist

the temptation to conclude that the provinces had got what they

deserved. Sophistry abounded. To know who played sophist first, one

would have to be at the table in 1977 when the deal was first struck."

There's a little bit of the history of what happened.

I wonder what the minister wants to do now. He doesn't like what the

feds are doing. He wants more money. I think he deserves more money

from the feds. But would he like to destroy all the EPF funding and the

block funding, the non-tied funding, going back to dollar-for-dollar

accountability? I'll bet he wouldn't. If he did that, it would mean he

couldn't divert $84 million a year from university or post-secondary

funding. He'd have to make certain that he spent all the money he had,

without user fees on medicare. That's what I think will happen.

I don't know what the answer is to the medicare funding. You talk

about overutilization. Who is it by — patients or doctors? Do we need a

new model for medicare? Should we have a model that stresses prevention

and lifestyle? Do we need paramedics? We have people who are

overqualified for doing a lot of medical things. I think we should do

it. One of the big problems is that most right-wingers don't really

like medicare. They like the entrepreneurial style of medicare where

the physician has a stethoscope in one hand and a cash register in the

other. That is what I think they want to preserve. Consequently, I

don't think that we are going to move into alternative models unless we

are forced into it by financing. I could give you another long

quotation, Mr. Speaker, but I will spare you. I do want you to know

that although the present Minister of Finance was once a well-known —

and probably still is, federally — Conservative, both the NDP and the

Conservatives, perhaps forced into it, have come out four-square for

the new national health act which forbids deterrent fees.

About the question of taxes. Questions have been brought up about

how we can pay if we haven't got enough money. A lot of people are a

little concerned about the taxes that have been added to pay for

certain extra costs or missing funds. I am not particularly concerned

about that, provided the taxes are based progressively on ability to

pay and don't stop at say $20,000 a year, but the 8 percent tax goes

right up the incomes of $20,000, $30,000, $40,000, $50,000 and S60,000

and is not capped so that the poor pay more than their proportional

share. For those people who don't pay taxes,

[ Page 3408 ]

they can't afford it anyway, but they will still

get this system. If we let our medicare system erode, we are going to

have a two-tiered system, because those people who can afford it will

require supplementary private insurance to cover what medicare doesn't.

Once we have done that, we have let the private insurance companies

back into the health industry, and we will have more of the same — we

will be right back where we were 15 years ago. Nobody wants to go

there, least of all me.

[5:00]

One brief remark about the Eagle Ridge Hospital in my riding. We are

very disappointed that we are not going to have our emergency ward

system. We are very disappointed that we are going to be part of

another board, the Royal Columbian. We'd like to know: when they turn

the key over on April 7, who will get the key? Who is going to be the

new owner? Will it be the rightful owners, the people who organized and

lobbied for and worked for the hospital in the first place, or will it

be somebody else? We recognize the need to rationalize. We recognize

the need to save money on health care, but we also recognize that the

medicine and hospital industry is full of competition and jealousy, and

we are afraid that our community lost out on a very important thing

when it had a complete medical and emergency ward there and now has not

been allowed to open it. We regret that, and we protest it.

Since this is the year 1984, and George Orwell had a particularly interesting little fable called Animal Farm , I thought I would write my own little fable called "The Same Old Gang Ranch." It goes something like this.

Once upon a time there was a wealthy rancher who owned thousands of

acres of land. The farm was inherited from the farmer's father and

contained vast amounts of timber, coal and cattle and produced billions

of dollars of produce each year. It even had its own factories where

many things needed on the farm were produced. Why, the farm was so big

it employed hundreds of hired hands who lived on their farms with their

families in houses that were, while not as nice as the farmer's house,

which was a mansion, still good enough. While the mothers tended the

young children or worked outside the home, the fathers tilled the soil,

cut the trees, herded the cattle or worked in the mines or on the many

roads that were built to service the activities and enterprises which

took place on the ranch.

This was a happy place. The grownups all had jobs. They were

well-housed and well-fed. The children went to school during the day

and frolicked on the playgrounds after school or practised painting or

played music if they liked.

Most everyone on the Same Old Gang Ranch liked the owner — I'll call

him Ezra — although they liked his father better. When times were good

their places were kept in great shape. There were hampers at Christmas

time, and each spring the hundreds who worked around the spread were

invited to a huge garden party where they disported themselves on the

lawn to gossip and to drink tea and nibble cake and cute little cookies

which the owner provided free.

Things went on like this for