1983 Legislative Session: 1st 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 )

TUESDAY, AUGUST 23, 1983

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

995 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Petition

Okanagan Bible institute. Mr. Campbell –– 995

Oral Questions

Government advertising campaign. Mr. Hanson –– 995

McKim Advertising. Mr. Cocke –– 995

Termination of community involvement program. Mr. Barnes –– 996

Province's credit rating. Mr. Lea –– 996

Budget Debate

On the amendment

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 997

Mr. Lauk –– 1000

Mr. Parks –– 1002

Mr. Lea –– 1004

Mr. Campbell –– 1009

Mr. Stupich –– 1011

Division –– 1018

On the main motion

Mr. Ree –– 1018

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, present today in our galleries

is the better half of one of our most well respected members of the

press gallery: none other than Mrs. Josephine Stanton, the wife of Mr.

John Stanton, and their daughter Jocelyn. I'd ask all members to bid

them a warm and gracious welcome.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today we have about

eight volunteers from our community office, shared with the second

member for Victoria. They work handling the constituency problems in

our community of Victoria. I'd like you to join us in welcoming them.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Would the members join me in welcoming a former member for Vancouver South, Mr. Gerry Strongman.

MR. CAMPBELL: In the gallery today are two people from that

great riding of Okanagan North, Carol Holweg and Harold Thorlakson.

Harold Thorlakson is an ex-member of Vernon city council who did a

tremendous job there. I'd like you to give them a welcome here today.

MR. PARKS: I'd ask the House to join with me this afternoon

and welcome a long-time friend of my wife and I, a lady who resides in

the Speaker's constituency. I know he's sorry that he's not here today

to welcome her also. Please join with me in welcoming Mrs. Barb

Philbrook.

MR. LAUK: May I introduce some friends from Vancouver who are

in the members' gallery: Leonard Lauk Jr. and his friends, Murray and

Bob Cameron.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today are a

group of young people who have spent part of their summer working in a

constituency office and doing yeoman work. I'd like to introduce, from

Oak Bay-Gordon Head, Scott Andrew, Rob Thomas, the inimitable Mario

Erlic, Alex McLean, Brian Miller and my constituency executive

assistant, Lynda Dickie.

MR. BLENCOE: I'd be pleased if the House would welcome my father, Rev. Charles Blencoe. Perhaps the House would give him a warm welcome.

Presenting Petitions

MR. CAMPBELL: I beg leave to present a petition.

Leave granted.

MR. CAMPBELL: The petition of the Okanagan Bible Institute

prays for the passing of

an act intituled

An Act Respecting Okanagan

Bible College. I move that the rules be suspended and this petition of

the Okanagan Bible Institute be received.

Motion approved.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING CAMPAIGN

MR. HANSON: I have a question for the Provincial Secretary

regarding the provincewide advertising and media blitz announced by the

Premier last weekend. Has the government or his ministry authorized any

expenditure of public funds leading to the production of ads to be

shown throughout the province?

HON. MR. CHABOT: To be precise on that question, I'd have to

take the question as notice and bring information back to the member at

the earliest opportunity.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I have a new question. The

production agency that did the province reports and has done previous

work for the government is Jem Productions Ltd.

AN HON. MEMBER: What's the name?

MR. HANSON: Jem as in David Brown. Jem Productions is headed

by Doug Heal's predecessor, Mr. David Brown. Will Mr. Brown be doing

the production work on the series of ads?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, that's supplementary to a

question I've taken on notice. Under those circumstances, I have no

alternative but to take that question on notice, and bring the

information back as early as possible for the member. I'm not aware of

Jem Productions being involved at this time; however, I'll seek out

that information. I know the member is very anxious to find out whether

it's Jem Productions or Jim Productions. I'll do my best to get the

information for him.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, a new question. Has the government

decided to go to tender on this advertising blitz, or to stick with the

tried and true?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Is that the Trident II? Oh, tried and true. Okay.

Mr. Speaker, I know the member really wants this information, so

once again I'll take that question as notice and bring the information

back as quickly as possible.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I hope the first member for Victoria

doesn't hold his breath, with the track record that minister has for

bringing back answers.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Don't be facetious now.

McKIM ADVERTISING

MR. COCKE: I'm going to ask him a question anyway just to show that I'm in good humour.

Records at the chief electoral office in Ottawa show that McKim

Advertising donated $5,400 to the Progressive Conservative Party during

the period that it was employed as advertising agent for the B.C.

government. Has the minister decided to investigate to determine

whether any of these funds came from secret bank accounts containing

British Columbia taxpayer dollars'?

[ Page 996 ]

[2:15]

HON. MR. HEWITT: What sort of a silly question is that?

HON. MR. CHABOT: That's a fairly facetious question. Really,

if the member wants to ask that kind of a question.... I can't start

delving into private corporations in this province. If he wants to ask

that question he'd better phone, write, telegraph or telex McKim

Advertising and find out where the funds came from that they made

available to the Progressive Conservative Party, if that is the party

you're saying they made funds available to at the national level. Get

in touch with McKim Advertising and stop wasting question period time.

I'm sure your members across the way might have some urgent and

pressing questions to ask the ministers of government.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I think the answer is now

sufficient and I'll ask the minister to discontinue. I would remind the

House that our question period guidelines advise us that a question

must be within the administrative competence of the government.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, we've been asking many questions, and

a major one is, of course, why the company that is now under police

investigation is the agent of record for this government. So I have to

ask the other questions that make us wonder about the relationships.

For instance, can the minister provide us with assurance that McKim's

continuing relationship with the Socred government is not being used to

finance the Progressive Conservative campaign in Mission-Port Moody?

Interjections.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, the answer to that question is

no, not directly. If McKim Advertising — incorporated, limited, or

whatever they are — make a profit out of any contractual arrangements

they have with the provincial government, as a Minister of the Crown

I'm not prepared to tell them what they should do with that profit;

that should be left entirely up to them. Whether they made a

contribution to the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada is their

business, not mine. As I said earlier, if you have a question of that

nature you should ask it of McKim Advertising, not of me. Stop wasting

question period time.

TERMINATION OF

COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister

of Human Resources. On August 9 I asked the minister under what

authority she was unilaterally cancelling the employment contracts

signed in good faith by employees of the community involvement program.

She took the question on notice, and I'm wondering if she is now in a

position to advise the House of the status of those contracts.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I'm very close to getting an answer for the hon. member, and I think I can bring that information back to the House this week.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, I hope that the minister realizes that some of those....

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: What seems to be the problem? I'm trying to

advise the minister of the urgency of the information, keeping in mind

that August 31 is the date the minister indicated the contracts would

be ended. Unless we have information.... What's going to happen to

those people? They would like to know, I'm sure, within the next week.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, question period allows us to ask questions and not enter into debate. Does the member have a question?

MR. BARNES: I was asking the minister if she would be bringing information back within the week.

It is unfortunate that on a matter which requires urgent action the

minister doesn't seem to be prepared to advise us when we'll have the

information.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Could we have a question, hon. member.

MR. BARNES: The city of Vancouver council has requested that

the minister review her plans to withdraw the CIPs under the city's

responsibility, and they have requested an opportunity to meet with the

minister. I would like to ask if the minister intends to honour that

request.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I'll respond to the city of Vancouver when I get a request from the city of Vancouver.

PROVINCE'S CREDIT RATING

MR. LEA: I have a question for the Minister of Finance.

Earlier this month Standard and Poor of New York announced that there

would be a downgrading of our credit rating from triple-A to double-A.

Did Standard and Poor of New York communicate with the government at

the time that was happening, and if so, what was the form of the

communication? Was it by letter or telex?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Standard and Poor, as the member for Prince

Rupert knows, and as members of the House will know, is one of two

firms which rate governmental or corporate institutional bonds, of one

kind or another, and related investments. Standard and Poor were in

British Columbia as part of a very careful review of the province's

finances, and they also met at that time with representatives of a

series of Crown corporations. They dealt with some ministries, not the

least of which was the Ministry of Finance, but not exclusively with

that ministry.

If the member's question is — and I will seek clarification from him

if I've missed the point, or perhaps he could clarify it — whether the

decision to alter the rating of British Columbia Hydro was communicated

to us after that decision was made.... A series of meetings occurred in

British Columbia, the review team returned to New York and then the

decision, after some considerable review on their part, was

communicated to us through the Dow Jones wire in the usual way.

MR. LEA: Did Standard and Poor outline to the government or to the minister the reasons for the downgrading?

[ Page

997 ]

HON. MR. CURTIS: I think the member would have access to that

information as easily as anyone else. The reasons were not communicated

to the government as such when one appreciates — I am sure the member

does — that the purpose of a firm such as Standard and Poor is to

communicate to the investors who subscribe to its service reasons for

confirming a rating or increasing a rating or lowering a rating.

Therefore those reasons were made public through the usual

publications: Standard and Poor's credit watch and Standard and Poor's

documents which go to their investors. They are dealing with the rating

of a particular jurisdiction, in this case British Columbia. We learned

of it, not surprisingly — and I make no critical comment — through news

wires and subsequently through a document which was distributed to

their investors.

MR. LEA: Would the minister be willing to table in the House

or make available to the House the information that Standard and Poor's

made available to him in regard to the downgrading.

HON. MR. CURTIS: It is public information released by

Standard and Poor. There is nothing additional that I could bring to

this House or to the table that is not already public information in

terms of Standard and Poor's views of the province of British Columbia

and its Crown agencies. There is nothing in addition.

MR. LEA: Standard and Poor has said publicly that the primary

reason for downgrading our credit rating was the lack of diversity of

our economy in British Columbia. Can the minister tell us what he has

done or what his government has done to allay the fears of Standard and

Poor and others who are watching British Columbia? What has this

government done out of the 1983 budget that would indicate that the

government is indeed serious about diversifying our economy?

HON. MR. CURTIS: It would take longer than the few minutes

remaining in question period to outline for that member the initiative

taken by this government, particularly over the last four or five

years, with respect to diversification. The member and this House

should know that while the credit rating was downgraded by Standard and

Poor, we did not return to the rating we had prior to the upward

movement to triple-A, but rather to the next available notch below

tripleA. I am still extremely proud of the credit rating of the

province of British Columbia.

MR. LEA: This topic that we're discussing — and I'm sure the

minister will agree that our credit rating is a very important topic

for British Columbians.... Has the minister decided to speak in the

debate on our amendment, to outline to the people of British Columbia

the position we're in . the fears that the moneylenders have about

British Columbia now, and the consequent downgrading? In speaking to

the amendment before the House, will the minister go into detail on the

reasons for Standard and Poor — along with Moody's — downgrading the

credit rating?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Let me advise the minister and the member that Beauchesne

advises that questions should not anticipate a debate scheduled for the day

but should be reserved for that debate. That citation from question period rules

is clear.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I will follow your guidance in that regard.

It is important for the members of this House and for the people of

the province of British Columbia to know that the member has referred

to the fears — I paraphrase slightly, but the Blues will show it —

which investors have with respect to British Columbia. Just last week

we moved to the United States market in the amount of $250 million

(U.S.) for British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority. I want the House

to know that that was an extremely successful issue. It was probably

one of the best in terms of pricing off U.S. Treasuries that has been

recorded in Canada in recent times. That speaks more for confidence in

the province of British Columbia than the doom and gloom peddled by

that side.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The House will come to order.

Orders of the Day

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Before lunch I was speaking to the

ridiculous amendment to the motion that was brought forward by the

opposition members, in which they said that the Minister of Finance has

in effect failed to make sufficient provision for diversification of

the economy, and thereby to protect the citizens from extreme economic

fluctuations and increasing hardship. I was pointing out to the members

in the Legislature that everything we are doing in the legislative

package now before this House, and in the budget, is completely

oriented towards resolving those problems.

I was saying that the single most important factor we have to look

at in diversifying our economy is to make sure that we as a society are

cost-competitive and dependable suppliers of the highest quality

products and services that we deliver to both the domestic and export

markets in which we trade. In order to accomplish this, we have to make

sure that we have a regulatory climate in which the private sector can

operate and manoeuvre so as not to be tied up by red tape and

regulation emanating from all levels of government. The private sector

has to have room to move so they can take

part in a diversification of

our economy, and a diversification of the markets in which we trade. In

addition to a proper regulatory climate, we have to have a proper tax

climate in which the people of British Columbia, in which investors,

entrepreneurs and doers can operate without having any profit they may

make taxed away by governments. In order both to accomplish the

deregulation and to provide the proper regulatory and tax climate, we

must downsize government. We must bring government to a size that

doesn't restrict the private sector but, rather, will help them to

accomplish the things that have to be accomplished.

Both of these things are absolutely essential to ensure that we can

diversify our economy in British Columbia, and in order to be sure the

people will not suffer the hardships that are brought around by extreme

fluctuations in our basic resource industries.

[ Page 998 ]

[2:30]

An equally important fact that we have to consider — and one I

mentioned this morning as well — is the fact that we must improve the

labour climate in this province. In my rather extensive travels to our

international trading partners over the last few years — I'm sure the

experience is shared by many of my colleagues who have been trying to

deal in the international marketplace — wherever we go we are accused

of having a very volatile labour climate in this province, and accused

of being unreliable suppliers of goods. Whether or not that is a fact, it is the impression that exists out there in the world marketplaces in which we trade. We have to overcome that image.

The Minister of Labour, as I mentioned this morning, has indicated

that he will be bringing forward changes to our labour legislation in

British Columbia; changes that will foster the cooperative approach

between labour and management, rather than the confrontative approach

that is almost dictated by some of the provisions in the current Labour

Code. It's time that people in the private sector had the opportunity

of speaking to and talking with their employees, of finding out

directly what it is their employees want to do, rather than having to

deal through the union bosses, and rather than being accused of unfair

labour practices should they talk about certain things to their

employees. That type of confrontative approach has to be eliminated,

and that is one of the things we are trying to do.

The second member for Victoria.... Or the first member; it doesn't

matter. One of the members for Victoria kept saying this morning the

government doesn't have "the jam" to stand up to big companies in

British Columbia, or to any of the companies that wish to go out there

and create activity. I guess he's referring to the type of jam that Bob

Williams, the former Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources had

when he in effect scared right out of the province every entrepreneur

and investor who wished to come to British Columbia and invest, whether

they were in the forest industry, the mining industry, or any other

industry. They were scared to death of the jam that that guy had,

because every time anyone moved, the big arm of government would come

in and help itself to whatever someone in the private sector had put

together.

Mr. Speaker, we must improve these three things in British Columbia

— the tax climate, the regulatory climate and the labour relations

climate — if we are to diversify our economy to the extent that we

should. In spite of the drawbacks that we've had over the years, and

particularly the labour and regulatory climate, we've had a lot of

things happen in this province. All the things that have happened have

been opposed by the opposition, the party that cries so much about

creating opportunities for people in British Columbia and says we have

to create jobs and provide opportunities for large and small business.

Every time something comes along that creates such opportunities, they

somehow seem to be against it. I guess the one that they've been most

continuously against over the last few years has been the tremendous

development in the northeastern part of this province, a resource

development that has inspired the construction of a new community, new

rail service, hydro lines and highways into that northeastern part of

B.C., but also the upgrading of our major railway across northern

British Columbia, and the establishment of a world-class seaport at

Prince Rupert. All of these things, as they were developed and brought

to the attention of the people in the opposition and the people of

British Columbia, were all somehow negative in the view of those people

who sit opposite. And yet they're for employment.

They're talking about a diversified economy in which we can have a

manufacturing and a smelting sector, secondary and tertiary industry,

and yet every time a proposal for power development comes along they're

against it. Yet it's this very power that is needed to develop the

secondary and tertiary industries in the province. How can you be for

diversification and for expanding the economy of British Columbia, and

against every power development and resource development that comes

along, and still be in favour of what the people of British Columbia

need in the way of jobs and opportunities?

The members opposite said that we somehow didn't level with the

people of British Columbia as we led up to the election held just a

couple of months ago. I would point out, as I did this morning, that it

was on February 18, 1982, that the Premier addressed the people of this

province advising of the very serious economic times we were in at that

time — times which, as a matter of fact, for the next year got

continually worse. The revenues for the province of British Columbia

over that year were about $100 million a month less than had been

anticipated, and yet the members opposite say that government should

continue to borrow money to spend their way into prosperity. You can't

borrow your way into prosperity. They're saying that we should hire

more civil servants and keep all the civil servants we have in order to

make sure that the economy doesn't falter. Well, government employees —

those working directly for government, hospitals, schools and so on —

are consumers of wealth, not providers of wealth.

Most of the services provided by government are necessary, but it is

also necessary, as we provide these services, that we provide them in

the most efficient, cost-effective manner possible. That is what we as

a government are attempting to do. A year or two or three from now we

will look back and think — all those members, even those in the

opposition, if we still have an opposition, Mr. Speaker.... All those

people will be saying yes, the government was right.

I travel around this province a great deal, as do most of my

colleagues, and it's strange that the message I get from the

rank-and-file British Columbian out there is not the same as the

message I get here in the House from the opposition. It's not the same

as the message we get via the daily newspapers in Vancouver and the

television and radio stations emanating from those centres. When I go

around the province I have people coming to me endlessly saying: "Tom,

we know it's tough, but hang in there; you've got to continue on the

program, the course and the direction that you as a government have set

out." They realize that we have allowed the services of government to

get too expensive over the years, that the the taxpayers in British

Columbia can't afford it, that there's a need to pull back, and that

it's going to be tough. Even most of the civil servants whom I run into

in my daily work say: "Tom, look, we know it's tough. We know that

there's been too much overlapping of government involvement in various

sectors of the economy. We know it can be done better, and we're

willing to play our part." They say to me: "If a service is not

required at all, then no one should do it, least of all a government

employee, because if a service is not needed, those people are better

released to find employment in a productive sector of society. If the

service is needed and is done by the government but can better be done

by the

[ Page 999 ]

private sector, then the private sector could do

it. And if we are displaced as employees of the government, and the

private sector takes on the function, then we have the opportunity of

working in the private sector performing that very function we used to

perform as government." As a matter of fact, they say to me: "You know,

maybe there's an opportunity out there for me as an individual

entrepreneur to take up and deliver that service that the government

has been providing all these years." Some of the moves that we are

planning on making in privatization and downsizing government are

looked upon by many government servants as an opportunity to get out

there on their own and provide those services to the private sector,

industry, individuals or government, if the government really does need

that service.

Starting on February 18, 1982, this government has been on a path of

government restraint which was forced upon us by the state of the

international economy in which we deal. We have seen the private sector

tighten its belt, trim its fat and get down to a lean operating

condition. Because we had so many years of continuing better times, the

private sector has allowed itself to get top-heavy. But the recession

that we've just come through has forced a tightening-down and a

streamlining of most corporations in the private sector. The people in

the private sector are saying to us, "As government you must do the

same thing, " and we are. We went to the people and told them before

the election and going into the election that we have to reduce the

size of the public service by at least 25 percent in British Columbia.

There is no secret about that. It was common knowledge and a major part

of our election platform. But all of a sudden, once we are elected, it

seemed to come as a great surprise to the labour bosses and their

lackeys over here, the opposition, that in fact we are moving toward

reduction of the civil service in this province by 25 percent. I

suppose they thought that suddenly there was going to be a magic wand

waved and with no pain, dislocation or disruption we were magically

going to have far fewer public servants.

It is painful. It does provide disruptions to personal lives, and it

does provide reductions in services in some cases. In some cases it

provides the elimination of services which, although they may be nice,

are not necessary. We have been working toward these objectives, which

we still have, for well over a year now. I don't see why it should come

as any surprise to members of the opposition, Operation Solidarity or

to the union bosses, whether they be in the public or private sector,

because we are doing what we set out to do. We are doing what we said

we were going to do when we won the election in May of this year.

All we have to do is look at some of the things that have taken place in British

Columbia over the last few years. I mention the northeast coal development and

the thousands of British Columbians who are employed there. We will be providing

an increasing percentage of the total Japanese steel industry's metallurgical

coal requirements over the years. We'll have a new sea port in Prince Rupert

that will not only provide the infrastructure to ship that coal to world markets

but also to ship many other products. They won't only be shipped from British

Columbia but from this entire nation. We in Canada will finally have two real

world-class sea ports serving the Pacific Rim rather than one overcrowded port

and one restricted overland transportation system. This northeast coal has been

only one of the things that has been happening. We have a small wheel manufacturing

plant being put in by Toyota, which is a first tentative step into perhaps the

automobile manufacturing or assembly business in British Columbia.

The expansion of our tourist industry is a result of Expo, which

we're working toward now, and the whole B.C. Place concept with our new

stadium and the downtown revitalization that's taking place there. The

tens of thousands of people who will be continuously employed between

now and Expo, and those thousands and thousands who'll be employed

during Expo, are people who would not be employed had this government

not had the foresight to seek out that exposition and make it possible

for it to happen.

[2:45]

Remember our friend Mikey, and how much he was in favour of Expo?

When we went to Paris to try to talk the people responsible for

expositions into having that exposition in British Columbia, what did

Mikey do, even though he wasn't the mayor at the time? He sent a

telegram off to them saying: "We don't want that; it's going to provide

too many opportunities for the people of British Columbia." Well, Mr.

Speaker, this is the case with most of the socialists here in the

chamber. As long as I've been involved in politics — and I'm sure for

long before that — they have been against every development that comes

along, except for the one very brief period of time when British

Columbia was unhappy enough to have that bunch as government, Then all

of a sudden the Revelstoke Dam was a positive thing, even though it

wasn't leading up to that point. As soon as we became the government

again it was no longer positive, but during that very brief, dismal

three-year period, all of a sudden that Revelstoke Dam was okay because

they were the government.

The same party came forward just before they called the election in

1975 and said: "We're going to develop the northeast coal in British

Columbia, although we have not explored markets, costs or

infrastructure." Their pre-1975 election announcement was that they

were going to see that the northeast coal was developed. They were very

positive during that brief period they were government, but they've

been very negative ever since we've been the government with the guts

to go ahead and promote that development, and provide those tremendous

opportunities for people in B.C. They say: "But you only have a basic

resource industry in this province."

The first member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) this morning talked about

the fishing industry. I don't know how he allowed himself to wander

into this, Mr. Speaker, but he started talking about all the tremendous

service industries supplying the fishing industry. He talked about

boatbuilding, electronics and all those other services that go to

support the fishing industry in British Columbia. Yet somehow he

doesn't seem to think there's a need for service and supply industries

to provide that type of service backup for the mining, forest or

tourist industries. These are basic industries in British Columbia.

The thousands and thousands of people who are working in small

manufacturing plants all over this province today because of the

northeast coal development could not be even thought of by the members

opposite. They seem to think that if you're in the mining, forestry or

tourist business, that is something that doesn't count and doesn't

require services to those industries, when in fact they know the

multiplier effect is roughly three to one. For every person involved in

these industries, there are another three in British Columbia servicing

those industries. That is why we continue to support our

[ Page 1000 ]

basic resource industries; the service, supply and

secondary industries will of course expand as well. That's not to deny

the fact, Mr. Speaker, that we must continue to develop other unrelated

industries in British Columbia.

We've had many companies come to look at British Columbia, including

those in various parts of high-technology areas of endeavour. They look

at the labour and regulatory climate in British Columbia, and they say:

"No, it's too risky to come to British Columbia. We can't even talk to

our employees in British Columbia because somehow that's against the

Labour Code." Mr. Speaker, we have to make sure that employees and

employers can talk together, that we can provide a cooperate labour

climate in British Columbia, that we can untangle some of the red tape

which has bound entrepreneurs for so many years. We can gradually,

through reductions in government over time, reduce the tax burden that

both employees and employers have to pay and thereby provide real

opportunities for British Columbians.

It's going to be a difficult period of time — nobody said it was

going to be easy. We told the people of British Columbia exactly what

was coming. For more than a year leading up to the election we've just

had.... The people of British Columbia, I don't think, really focused

on some of the pain that was going to be a part of the problem, but

they did recognize that we have to do that. The things we have to do

are going to be painful. Sure, there's going to be some screaming and

hollering; in fact, I guess there is. In my travels and our members'

travels — I'm sure if the opposition party were to be completely honest

with itself, they would have to admit it too — many people are saying:

"Look, it's tough and it's painful, but we have to do it; otherwise

we're going to destroy even those jobs and opportunities that exist

today."

Mr. Speaker, the motion before us is a ridiculous motion. I am

opposing this motion. I am fully and wholeheartedly supporting the

budget — a very difficult budget brought down by the Minister of

Finance. Only through doing the things set out in our legislative and

economic package can British Columbia look forward to maintaining its

preferred place in the Canadian fabric; indeed, in the fabric of the

entire free world. I must oppose the motion.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I stand in favour of the amendment to the budget debate.

The member who just took his seat said that it was a ridiculous

motion. Let me reiterate to the House what the motion is: it's an

amendment based on the fact that the raters of our credit in the

financial capitals of the world have decided that our credit rating in

British Columbia is poorer in the last year or so than it has been

previously. They did not just reduce the credit rating from triple-A to

double-A. They said why. They said that it was specifically because the

government of British Columbia — and I can see how seriously the

Minister of Forests takes his own remarks; he doesn't want to hear the

reply — has not taken its responsibilities seriously enough and taken

economic and fiscal moves to diversify the British Columbia economy.

It's very simple. That's what they said. You read it yourself. Did

someone read it to you?

MR. R. FRASER: I say the government is serious.

MR. LAUK: So they have seriously not taken their responsibility to diversify the economy? As you wish.

The Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) has said that we on

this side of the House advocate borrowing to create prosperity. We've

heard that from a number of members of the Social Credit Party. But it

should also be pointed out that in the last ten months this government

has borrowed an average of $60 million a week just to pay for the

groceries — $60 million a week on treasury bills. Never before in the

history of this province have we had to borrow money to pay for

operating costs, except under this administration. They have quadrupled

the debt since 1976. Five thousand dollars per man, woman and child is

now owed by the government of British Columbia. They talk about

borrowing ourselves into prosperity. What utter nonsense!

The most serious part of the minister's speech was when he stated:

"....if we still have an opposition." In the face of the legislation

that is now before this chamber, it won't be because of the ballot box

that we won't have an opposition; it'll be because of the legislation

of this province. I fully expect that that minister's sombre warning to

the New Democratic Party is that they're going to bring an electoral

reform act before this chamber which will have the effect of

eliminating any opposition. Let's have that for a sober reflection for

the afternoon, at least.

They talk about privatization. On the one hand they want to

privatize some aspects of hospital care, the education system, Human

Resources and community workers, and the rentalsman. On the other hand,

where the private sector can do best — in commercial office space,

mining, forestry and so on — they're heavily involved. Where it is

expected in a free and democratic society that the government should be

involved — which is education, hospital care, the rentalsman and human

rights — they're getting out; in that sense, privatizing. Where the

private sector should be involved, they're heavily involved. The BCR is

subsidizing the development of the northeast coal project. Tumbler

Ridge is not privatizing; that's government investment. B.C. Place in

the great city of Vancouver. The very thing.... If the private sector

can do anything, it can build an office block. Why are we heavily

involved, through the Crown, in subsidizing an established commercial

office space in B.C. Place? I don't understand it. Yet they call for

the privatization of all the rest of the traditional areas where the

government should be involved.

This motion is a motion to bring to the attention of the House and

the people of British Columbia that the restraint package of this

government has not worked. It had the general good will of this party

prior to May 5 and shortly afterwards. However....

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: You can chuckle all you like. I don't know what

battles the hon. members chuckling went through, but the idea of

restraint has never been opposed. The idea of restraint is a wise

thing. The idea of an incomes policy, if it's even-handed, fair and

just in a society as pluralistic and diversified as ours, is not bad.

As a matter of fact, it's the kind of thing we've been talking about.

However, the restraint package proposed is based upon this thirteenth

century idea — almost feudal economics; well, it is feudal economics

which states that when times are bad, make them worse. It's

Calvinistic: make the people suffer more. Somehow, through that kind of

restraint package, we're going to have a recovery in the province of

British Columbia. Well, it has failed here. The economists with

Statistics Canada — and I seldom like

[ Page 1001 ]

to quote economists, as you have heard me say in the past have indicated that it's a failure.

The problem with a recession in 1982-83 is the question of interest

rates and the competition for capital. That is not the time for a

government — particularly in a provincial jurisdiction — to withdraw

from its traditional role of providing services, education and health

care to its people. If they need to cut back at all, they should be

cutting back on the megaprojects. Michael Walker of the Fraser

Institute — or at least someone in the Fraser Institute, rather early

on — criticized the megaprojects as being ineffectual.

MR. LEA: The Fraser Institute fired him for doing it.

MR. LAUK: Is that what happened? Was he fired with or without cause?

It seems to me that even when the right-wing economists criticized

the megaprojects in the way they did, we were justified too, from our

point of view to criticize them as well. What we are making here is a

judgment on the goals and values an economy should pursue. That is the

essential difference between this side and that side of the House.

[3:00]

If you want to look at a planned situation, a very careful

situation, over two years ago the city council of Vancouver began to go

on a pay-as-you-go basis in the city of Vancouver. They had an

all-party finance committee under the leadership of Mayor Mike Harcourt

and other members of council and obtained a triple-A rating for the

city of Vancouver. While the province has been reduced to a double-A,

the city of Vancouver has maintained its triple-A rating.

That's why we have this motion on the paper today. What is the

difference between this government and the city of Vancouver? A New

Democratic Party mayor is there with a progressive council

predominating. One should also point out that an all-party finance

committee on the city council planned the finances of the city. It was,

if you like, the politics of conciliation. In this time of extremism,

when the government of the day is moving towards the extreme right and

calling for radical right solutions to our economic problems, one

should take a look at the city of Vancouver and at the degree of

cooperation between the council people on that city council.

I see it disturbs some people on the other side of the House. Not

very many, but there aren't many there. But it is true. Vancouver had

its credit rating increased to triple-A in the latter part of 1981, and

the rating has been maintained throughout 1982 and 1983 despite the

downgrading of the British Columbia rate. What is the answer for that?

Don't take my word for it — call New York; they will tell you. They

will say. "The city of Vancouver is well managed, it is on a

pay-as-you-go basis; the province of B.C. has had to borrow $60 million

a week, putting us further in debt, and they have failed to diversify

the economy to give some future confidence to investors in this

province." That is the reason Vancouver has a triple-A rating.

I will tell you how the government of British Columbia can get

another triple-A rating. It is not through mindless unjustified

restraint; not through firing people without cause; not through

abolishing the rentalsman; it is not through doing away with rent

controls and human rights legislation in this province; not through

raising hospital user fees; it is by sitting down in a spirit of

cooperation, by understanding the politics of conciliation and working

out some kind of social contract between the major parties in our

economic system. Instead of sitting down with the major parties in our

economic system, they are bludgeoning them. Not only bludgeoning them;

you saw draft 34 of the Labour Code. I heard it is not getting any

better; draft 35 is worse, and draft 36 may be still worse.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: It's draft 37 you are on now. The hon. member for Maillardville-Coquitlam is a right-to-worker.

I will tell you something; we are not going to solve the economic

problems of British Columbia until the politics of moderation take over

in this province. The extremism of this government has to be rejected

and thrown out of public office. What is the New Democratic Party's

answer to Social Credit? The New Democratic Party calls for a new

social contract between government, labour and business; the NDP calls

for a planned economy based on a fair and equitable incomes policy; the

NDP calls for stabilization of prices and incomes, as well as for full

employment. Remember full employment? Otherwise, the goals of your

economic system are fraud. The goals of your economic system are to

enrich the few at the expense of the many.

It is through this amendment that we say your triple-A rating can be

increased. We can plan an economy that will be more diversified and

will rival other economies in the world. It is not through a total

laissez-faire economic system in Japan that they've maintained a fairly

high standard of production and standard of living throughout this

recession. It is through a planned economy. It is through long-term

contracts. It is a social contract — yes, in their own cultural and

historical context — that has enabled them....

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: That's right. Technical advancement. Thank you.

I'll defer to the hon. member. He's saying it better than I am.

Technical advancement through cooperation with the worker. That's an

excellent proposal. That's what we propose, and we've proposed it for

some time. The hon. member says that's what he proposes. Well, I admire

his courage, because to stand up in that neo-simian background of the

Social Credit Party for something other than thirteenth century thought

is refreshing indeed. The hon. member for Dewdney (Mr. Pelton) agrees.

MR. LEA: But they won't vote for it.

MR. LAUK: No, they won't vote for it, nor will he speak for

it. I would say, Mr. Speaker, that if the Social Credit Party adopted

any one of these proposals it would be a good thing, but they won't,

because they are lock-step in their inflexible ideological belief that

their views must prevail, They are inflexible and doctrinaire when it

comes to any degree of cooperation with labour, and they are

patronizing and ignorant in dealing with industry and business leaders

in this province. Business leaders in this province hold their noses

and vote Social Credit. But they cannot cooperate with this government

from day to day. How many business leaders have come to you day after

day after day: "I can't reach that minister. I can't talk to that

minister. We didn't know about this policy. What are we going to do?"

They were happier than clams that the Social Credit Party was returned

to office

[ Page 1002 ]

on May 5, but when the budget came down they stood

in the back and wrung their hands and worried about what was going to

happen to the labour-management situation. Finally some of the business

leaders had to speak out; not as individuals, but under cover of the

Employers' Council.

But I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, this budget is a serious threat to

the social and economic stability of this province. It's a much more

serious threat than.... Still the government does not understand it.

What about the programs that the NDP are proposing? Can they be

achieved? The answer is yes, they can be achieved. It's not going to be

easy. But I want you to look at the social democratic experiences in

other countries. I've quoted Japan, which is not social democratic, but

it's planned, it has a social contract. More in keeping with our

cultural and historical backgrounds, what about the examples of Sweden,

Germany, Austria and Norway? Throughout this recession unemployment has

been very low, comparatively speaking. Their standard of living is very

high, and social programs are maintained. They have a civilized society

that will not scapegoat and savage sectors of its own community for

political reasons under the guise of economic reasons. Can it be

achieved? The answer, of course, is yes. But not through extremism and

not through this kind of polarization that's deliberately fuelled by

these regressive steps taken by the current administration.

I was deeply wounded when the Minister of Forests described the

amendment as silly. We propose it as a constructive suggestion. We had

hoped that the government would respond. But because of this

doctrinaire, inflexible, ideological right-wing stand of the government

they cannot be reached. They are marching to the beat of a different

drummer. They cannot hear the people; they can only hear themselves. So

I would urge everyone to support the amendment.

Hot off the press. The Conference Board of Canada, the most

distinguished and independent group of economists in the country,

unlike the right-wing doctrinaire, inflexible Fraser Institute, has

said:

"The producer-led recovery the Conference Board of Canada predicted

for B.C. Is fading fast in the face of high interest rates.... Gilles

Rheaume, in an interview Monday from his Ottawa office, said the board

predicted in May the lumber industry would pull B.C.'s economy out of

the recession. But... the forecast was based on a continued surge in

U.S. housing starts."

This surge has lagged behind. No matter what restraint package this

government brings into play, you're not going to sell any more lumber

to the United States.

Your priorities are just as bad as Reagan's priorities. It's the

same economics. Somehow providing an egalitarian society in the United

States is less of a priority than spending over 40 percent of the

national budget on armaments. Somehow it's okay to spend trillions and

trillions of dollars on new atomic missiles, but God will strike you

dead with a lightning bolt if you raise the incomes of single parents

on welfare or if you try to desegregate a school in the south or see to

some other priority. That kind of sickness, that kind of isolationism,

that kind of divisive, poisonous attitude in the United States is, I

charge, available right here in the bosom of Social Credit.

As I said, and I'll conclude, I urge all hon. members to carefully

consider our amendment. To adopt it, of course, means to withdraw the

27 bills that are so offensive to us, but it would be a tremendous step

forward, and the first step of the Social Credit Party's recovery, in

the eyes of the public.

MR. PARKS: Mr. Speaker, it is my task this afternoon to rise

and speak in opposition to the amendment before this House. In so

doing, I wish to speak clearly in favour of the budget and of the

package put before this House by our government.

I find some difficulty in understanding the actual amendment put

forth by the hon. first member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson), in that it

suggests that the Minister of Finance and, of course, through him the

government has not provided an economic plan for the recovery of this

province. I think it's fair to say that this province saw a plan for

economic recovery introduced for the first time in its first phase in

February 1982. It was called the restraint program, the compensation

stabilization program, and was introduced by Premier Bennett and this

government. Clearly, it showed the first steps of a government of a

jurisdiction in North America that it was time to re-evaluate the role

of government in our society. For the past few decades — probably for

the last 30 years — we have seen an almost insidious creeping of

government into our personal lives, constantly eroding the personal

freedoms that this western society was based upon. That trend seemed

unstoppable. In fact, in some jurisdictions it still is taking its

insidious route towards total elimination of personal freedoms. Yet,

without anyone else leading the way, it was this Social Credit

government that showed tenacity and boldness, and in February 1982 it

brought about CSP-1, as it's now called: the compensation stabilization

program. This government said: "Stop. Look at what we've got." Clearly

we've got a society where government is being asked to provide far too

many services, where government is constantly eroding our personal

freedoms, and where government is doing things it should not be doing.

It's doing things that are not required. Ten, twenty, thirty years ago

governments weren't doing the types of things that many of us take for

granted today. We shouldn't be taking them for granted.

[3:15]

The hon. first member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson), in attempting to

support his amendment, drew reference to a number of industries that

have left Victoria. He drew reference this morning to the fact that

Labatt closed down a plant here in lower Vancouver Island and have

consolidated their operation in New Westminster — I believe that's what

he said. He also referred to the fact that E division has consolidated

its operations in Vancouver. He also referred to the fact that CN had

consolidated its operations in the lower mainland, but he said that as

if there were some great harm there. What we saw there was a terrible

kind of secular, parochial socialism. My understanding is that we

represent all of the people of British Columbia. I think it's

unfortunate when the opposition fails to recognize what in fact those

types of consolidation moves mean. When private industry and, for that

matter, Crown corporations in the form of the Mounties or CN see fit to

consolidate their operations in another centre in this province, they

are at least finally beginning to see the necessity for making their

operations efficient — not as efficient as I personally would like to

see them grow, but a lot more efficient than they were when they were

spread out over a number of geographic locations. But I do think it's

very wrong to have a member of this House, particularly a member of the

opposition, suggest that because a company is

[ Page 1003 ]

attempting to make its operation more efficient it

should be condemned. I think it's fair to conclude that when an

operation takes the step of consolidating operations in one of the

major metropolitan areas in this part of the continent, it's meant to

be an efficiency-motivated move. There's nothing wrong with that. It's

part of the downsizing of the public sector that this government sees

must be done at this time.

The fundamental tenets of this downsizing program are going to be

(

a) the ability to pay, and (

b) productivity. No, it's not

laissez-faire in its purest and, at times, most difficult form. It's

not laissez-faire at all, because if you look at the budget of this

government, well over one-third is being spent on health care,

education and social services. These areas have all increased in this

budget. Let's not forget that the budget itself will increase some 12.7

percent, I believe — just under 13 percent. Yes, the restraint program

and the measures being cut back are going to save us some money, but

the fact remains that we will be left wit a $1.6 billion deficit.

Almost one in every five dollars that we spend in the upcoming fiscal

year will be funds for which we do not have the offsetting revenue — a

clear one-fifth. That's not something we can be terribly proud of;

rather, it's a sign of the times that in order to maintain the

necessary and essential levels of social services we have to make that

difficult decision once again to go further into debt. We all know how

much this government abhors the thought of going into debt, but it is a

political reality in 1983. It was a political reality in 1982, and it

may well have to be a political reality in 1984. I hope to goodness it

will not be a political reality in the years thereafter.

Unless this government continues to show leadership and to encourage

the downsizing of government, encouraging the private sector as well as

the public sector to look at those fundamental tenets of ability to pay

and productivity, the economy will not recover.

MR. LEA: What does productivity mean?

MR. PARKS: Productivity, and an increased productivity in

particular.... To me, increased productivity means that management is

utilizing high technology, working with its employees and bringing

about a greater efficiency, a greater productivity. Productivity does

not mean the reduction of jobs. Productivity should mean and can mean,

and I expect will mean, increased efficiency.

The difficulty in many instances with trade unions today is again

reflected in something like the Labatt's shutdown here. Clearly there

are technological changes in industry, including the brewery industry,

and if the unions don't agree to work with management, management will

have two simple choices: (1) they will maintain their operations and

lose money, or (2) they will shut down the operation. It's pure folly

to expect management to continue to pour money into non-efficient,

non-profit-making ventures, and unfortunately that is what happened at

Labatt's here in lower Vancouver Island. They could produce the

product, bottle or can it, as the case may be, and deliver it more

efficiently by consolidating their operations in Vancouver — more

particularly, in New Westminster. That's not something to complain

about; that's the way our economy must move. If we do not move in that

direction we're going to have continued difficult economic times, and

this depression that we hopefully are taking those few fragile steps

away from, away from the brink.... We will slip back and fall back into

total depression.

We just heard the hon. second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk)

say that the Conference Board of Canada suggests there's some

difficulty with the demand for our forest industry. Anyone who thinks

that economic recovery is a simple problem with simple solutions surely

can be considered nothing but a fool. Economic recovery has stumped

more brilliant economists and even more brilliant politicians, and to

this date surely has not been resolved. But the path that this

government took its first step on last year, and is taking its second

step on this year, I would suggest conclusively has been shown to be

the correct path. There is clearly an increased consumer confidence

that what the government is doing is what is necessary. In numerous

critical letters we see in letters to the editor columns in various

newspapers, almost without exception the initial paragraph reads:

"Although I am able to be totally understanding about the need for

restraint, I'm not able to agree with this or that program, or how the

government is implementing this or that program." But almost without

exception. there is very strong support in our province for restraint

and for downsizing of government.

That's not the economic plan that this government has in its simple

form; there are many other components to a strong dynamic economic plan

for recovery. Probably the most significant one is what we call the

megaprojects. We heard again this afternoon some of the hon. members of

the opposition suggest that the northeast coal project is not

contributing to economic recovery. May I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that

also is folly. In the northeast coal development project alone we have

almost 13,000 man-years of employment.

MR. LEA: It's good for Alberta.

MR. PARKS: The hon. member suggests that's good for Alberta.

It so happens that it's very good for British Columbia, because that

means that there are 13,000 man-years of work. And that means that

those employees, whether they come from Ontario, Newfoundland, Alberta

or British Columbia— wherever they come from — those individuals will

be paying taxes. Those individuals will be contributing to that new

infrastructure called Tumbler Ridge, literally a new instant town.

Those individuals will be buying their groceries, and purchasing their

gas, liquor and all the other things that take place at a typical

infrastructure that is created by a project like northeast coal. Those

are positive jobs; there's nothing negative about that.

I think of even greater importance than the development of an

instant town like Tumbler Ridge is what the northeast coal project is

going to do for the north of British Columbia. You have the

infrastructure being put in place, not with B.C. government funds but

with federal funds.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair I

The infrastructure in particular that I'm referring to is the

extension and expansion of the railway. Without the railway into that

area. development and opening up of B.C.'s northern two-thirds is next

to impossible. We are now going to have that, and at this moment have

part of that infrastructure already in place. Part of the funds are

from incentive programs of this government, and part are from the

federal government. and a great amount of money being injected by

[ Page 1004 ]

private industry is bringing about a dawning of development in the north of British Columbia.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: You've never even been there.

MR. PARKS: The hon. member for Mackenzie suggests that

because someone hasn't walked up and down every square foot of this

province, he or she cannot have an understanding of what's going on in

this province. The problem is so simple that one really doesn't have to

walk over that area of this province, or even fly over it. All one has

to do is pick up a map and look at it, and look at how very few of the

square miles of this province are actually being either inhabited or

worked. The vast majority of the so-called hinterland has been up there

since day one and would continue to be up there in its virginal state

unless we have programs such as a megaproject of the nature of

northeast coal. I'm surprised that someone who comes from Mackenzie,

Mr. Speaker, could have anything but great things to say about the

northeast coal project. It is equally amazing when I hear the hon.

member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) make derisive comments about what's

happening to Ridley Island, the phenomenal development that is taking

place in his constituency with megaprojects and government funding and

incentives. Yet it's the type of project that keeps that particular

city viable at a time when there's no doubt that we have come through,

and we probably still are, in some very tough economic times.

There are specific programs that this government has seen fit to

instigate, and I would like to remind the House of three in particular

that I think should certainly be reiterated for the benefit of the

House. First of all, I refer to the small manufacturers' assistance

program. What is particularly good about that program is that it is

being aimed specifically to assist high-technology firms. The first

member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) condemned the government's economic

program because it didn't foresee how to diversify from the essential

and primary industries that this province has grown with to this moment

in time. They still are, and hopefully always will be, an integral part

of our viable economy. We do see from day to day and from month to

month, almost with alarm, the amount of technological change coming

into our society. It's frightening to one who doesn't come from a

technological background; but even more so, it's exciting. High

technology is certainly no longer the future; it is today. This

government has a program to assist firms. To date, there has been

somewhere in the vicinity of 150 to 175 loans approved and in place to

assist high-technology firms. There are over 300 applications before

the ministry at this time. It's something we can be proud of and which

will bring about strong, positive, new industry and jobs to our

province.

The discovery enterprise program is something that the Minister of

Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) is obviously

very proud of and something we all can be very proud of. It is also is

going to enhance the development of high technology in our province and

create incentives for the so-called sunrise industries, not the primary

resource industries.

AN HON. MEMBER: Sunrise?

[3:30]

MR. PARKS: Do you like that term? You may use it.

The small manufacturers' development assistance is only one of three parts in the government's Low Interest Funding

Today program, or the LIFT program as its commonly referred to.

There are two other parts, Mr. Speaker, and I would like to draw the

House's attention to them. First is the low interest loans assistance

program; the other is the B.C. small business development program. Both

of these are administered by the B.C. Development Corporation and are

proving to be extremely successful. The small business development fund

alone — a sum of $170 million — is being funded through the proceeds of

this year's sale of B.C. development bonds, a series of development

bonds that were sold with great ease and at a relatively low cost.

There is little doubt in my mind — in fact, there's no doubt in my

mind — that the only path for recovery for this province is the path

that this government charted, first of all, in 1982 with the CSP

program and, secondly, this year with the second stage of the CSP

program. We must downsize government; we must remove government from an

active role in society. If we don't do that, Mr. Speaker, we're not

going to have economic recovery.

I urge the hon. members of the opposition to reconsider their

position. I don't do it facetiously, because I think that if they did

stand back and look at the program without trying to be purely

negative, without trying to be fearmongers and without trying to bring

out the bogeyman in the various pieces of the legislative program that

this government's bringing about, they may well be able to see the

benefits of the program. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, if the program

were not to go forward, I'd hate to think of the cost of not having an

immediate recovery — not just to the current citizens of British

Columbia but to future generations. We've all heard the expression: "We

don't wish to mortgage our children and our grandchildren." I certainly

don't wish to do that, and I don't think it's realistic or fair when we

have members from the opposition actually smirk at the thought of

mortgaging our children's and grandchildren's stake in this economy. It

wasn't done to you and me, and I don't think any of us should feel we

have the right to do that to them.

Interjection.

MR. PARKS: That's true. I am reminded by the hon. first

member for Surrey that, thank goodness, the opposition only had three

years to attempt to go the wrong way on the path of economic

development.

Be that as it was, Mr. Speaker, I will conclude by saying

unequivocally that I don't see how the amendment has any merit. Also, I

don't see how anyone who thinks through the economics of where we are

can do anything but endorse and support this budget.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, times are changing, and those who don't

change with the times are probably doomed to remain behind. We in this

House are not only members of political parties with that difference,

but beyond that we are all citizens, all for the most part raised in

the same era, give or take a decade, so we are essentially the same in

many ways. Many of our values and many of our shared experiences are

the same, and it is easy for us to make mistakes together as well as

making our own apart.

I would like to begin my speech by just reading a short paragraph from an

article from the Atlantic Monthly entitled

[ Page 1005 ]

"The Declining Middle." It is really what we are talking about today,

Mr. Speaker.

"The industrial west as a whole is coming under heavy

pressure, both from technology and from trade, to lower its wages. If

machines are available to replace most human production jobs and if

unemployed women in the orient are eager to take the remaining jobs

producing for western markets at 90 cents an hour, then the postwar

social contract that developed in western Europe and North America is

in severe jeopardy. That social contract included high wages, job

security and a costly welfare state. It enabled the west to defy Karl

Marx's prediction that under capitalism the labour force could only

become worse off. Now, paradoxically, one hears that in order to

maintain our standard of living we much first lower it.

"To remain competitive the west must jettison the very

social baggage that has assured a comfortable passage. This conclusion

somehow defies common sense. From the viewpoint of the entrepreneur,

wages are an unfortunate cost of production, but from the perspective

of the entire economy, however, they are the stuff of social stability."

This article, Mr. Speaker, deals mainly with some of the things that

are happening in the world around us that those of us in this chamber

have very little, if any, control over. Basically the only control we

have here is setting our provincial budget, doing a bit of spending,

but even the controls that our nation has are not available to us in

this province. We can't control interest rates, which is a big lever in

controlling your own economy. We can't control much of the economic

slippage from our economy, federal taxes....

MR. HANSON: Point of order. Mr. Speaker, there appears not to be a quorum in the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is correct. It is common practice to ring the bells and summon the members.

MR. LEA: I draw them like flies to honey.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. member for Prince Rupert will proceed; we have satisfied the standing order.

MR. LEA: What this

article is saying is that we cannot

compete in some areas that we have traditionally been the leaders in,

namely the manufacturing of goods for western society. There are now

competing geopolitical spheres in the orient and other places that can

get away with paying 90 cents per hour or $1 per hour, and there is no

way that anyone in this House, on either side, wants to compete in that

kind of a wage downturn. None of us wants our workers to work for $1

per hour in this province. We would very much like to maintain the

standard of living that we have become accustomed to.

MRS. JOHNSTON: What is the point you are raising?

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, this budget does not begin to take us

in the direction of diversification of our economy that we should be

going. Not one budget can take us to any panacea, but this doesn't

begin to take us on the first initial step towards some of the problems

we face.

The member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Parks) spoke about

productivity, the Premier speaks about productivity, and they are

putting forward the notion by inference that if we had better

productivity, then everything would be better in this province. Mr.

Speaker, it is possible in the changing world of today to increase our

productivity twofold and yet have higher unemployment and more

destitution than we had before. Higher productivity and the furtherance

of wealth creation does not necessarily mean that the products and the

wages will be distributed equally, or near equally; it doesn't mean

that the new wealth that we derive from this new productivity is going

to be a wealth that is going to help the citizens of any jurisdiction.

As a matter of fact, there is ample evidence now to prove that the new

technologies we apply, for instance, to our forest industry do put

people out of work.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: It's been going on for a long time. That's right, Mr. Member.

The microelectronics industry that the minister of technology talks

about so often is an industry that has a few highly paid people in it

and a great many people at very low wages. That's the history of the

microelectronics industry. I'm not saying that for that reason it's

necessarily bad. A job's better than no job. But the fact of the matter

is that the kinds of jobs we have become accustomed to in our

industrial era, in the 1900s — those middle jobs — are disappearing

quickly. The kinds of jobs that are needed to run our industrial

complex are just not going to be there. The middle class is

disappearing. The jobs are disappearing.

MR. KEMPF: What's the reason for it?

MR. LEA: The reason for it, my friend, is that times are

changing, and we are leaving the industrial era, as we have known it,

and we don't know exactly where we're going; but we suspect that this

new world is going to be made up of being able to produce the goods in

society with automation, with robots, with new technology, with

computerization, and that we won't need the kinds of people we've

needed in the past. And the jobs that pay the middle amount of income

are very quickly disappearing out of our economy and out of our society.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: No, that's exactly why we want to vote against this

budget. We do not want to go backwards. But the thing is, if we would

candidly admit to each other in this House that we are not sure of the

answers, that we don't exactly know even what the problems are at this

point.... But we sure do — I think, all of us — want to go forward. We

want life to be better, even better than it's been in the past. But I

get the feeling that those on the other side of the House are, as my

friend from Vancouver Centre said, absolutely sure of what they're

doing, that they are more ideological, more rigid — of necessity, out

of an ideology — that they honestly believe that the way to get

economic recovery in the province of British Columbia is to go in the

direction this budget is taking us. I believe that.

Interjection,

[ Page 1006 ]

MR. LEA: I don't say you're badly motivated, Madam Member. I believe that you believe that.

Mr. Speaker, almost all of the economists today, except for a small

conclave of ideological people like the Fraser Institute, are telling

us that those problems are existing today. They are quite candidly

admitting that they don't really know how to get out of the problems

were in. For the last three or four decades what we've done is adopt a

mixture of classical economics and Keynesian economics. We've used

monetarism to curb inflation and we've used Keynesianism to pull us out

of the troughs. That's what we've done — one and then the other. And

we've gone up and down, up and down. But for he most

part it's been

more stable than previously, in the 1920s and before. So when members

look at the nineteenth century with some sort of nostalgia, and look at

laissez-faire capitalism in Great Britain, believe me, it wasn't a

nostalgic time for those who went through it — if they could look back

at it. My uncle is old enough to look back at some of that. It isn't

the time they look back at with nostalgia.

[3:45]

What happened when we went from about 1750 to about 1950, the

Industrial Revolution as we've known it? Before that we lived in the

agrarian society. As we went into the Industrial Revolution with

mechanisms, with steam, we found out that we also had problems. We had

problems of unemployment. Before that everybody worked from age 6 to

100 just to make a subsistence living in the feudal agricultural

system. Then we went into the Industrial Revolution. The beginning of

that Industrial Revolution is not like the end of it. In the early

1800s, people who worked in the factories of Great Britain didn't have

any safety standards. They didn't have good wages. There were no

hospitals. There wasn't a public education system. How did those come

about? They came about through trade unions, and also through

progressive politicians of a number of different stripes. But the real

reason that they came about was the efforts of those people extending

the franchise, so that more and more people had the right to vote and

had a say in how their country was going to be run. The actual enemy of

laissez-faire economics was democracy. Democracy became the enemy of

laissez-faire capitalism, and democracy will again become the enemy of

the laissez-faire capitalism being put forward by this budget. People

will not put up with it. They will say: "Well, it seems good. If

restraint will cure economic problems, then I'm for restraint." That's

what they say, and I don't blame them. If they think restraint is going

to bring about economic recovery, why wouldn't they be for it? They'd

be stupid not to be, right?

The only thing is that restraint is not going to be the ticket that

gets us to economic recovery. As a matter of fact, we can see now

reports coming out from the Conference Board of Canada and Statistics

Canada. Statistics Canada, by the way, in my opinion have probably been

closer on than most other organizations in the country, even when they

had to take on their own government, and they've done that a number of

times. Even when they've taken on the federal government, I think

they've come out with a closer analysis of the problems and some of the

solutions than many of the other economic bodies around.

Statistics Canada is telling us that the restraint programs of both

the federal and provincial governments may be an impediment to economic

recovery if carried to extremes. In this province I think there's no

doubt that we're seeing it being carried to extremes. For instance, it

appears that we have two problems. We have a problem of our short-term

economy, and we have a much bigger problem in the long term of how

we're going to diversify and what we're going to produce that we can

compete with in the international marketplace. Can we produce and be

cost-effective and competitive? But if we're talking about full

employment out of the production side of the economy, we're talking

through our hats. It just isn't going to happen, because the production

side of the economy is going to be needing fewer and fewer people as it

becomes more automated. As high technology is applied to extraction and

manufacturing there are going to be fewer and fewer jobs with greater

and greater wealth — we hope. The problem is, are we going to let that

wealth escape? Are we going to let it run across our borders and go

somewhere else? Are we going to allow the wealth of this province to be

generated by new technology, automation and robots, and have it go

somewhere else, or are we going to keep that money here to produce jobs

in the non-production side of the economy to bring around a better and

more civilized British Columbia? Those are our choices, really.

The Premier himself said that consumer recovery is not what this

government wants. The Premier says that the only kind of economy that

is going to count here is resource development. But that's in the long

term. Whether those resources are developed in the usual manner that

we've developed them over the past 50 years, or whether we develop

those resources utilizing new technology and automation, the fact of

the matter is that is that not going to be here tomorrow or next year.

It's going to take research and planning, and it's going to take a long

time to turn our economy around and get it on the long-term economic

road to recovery through diversity of our economy. We're looking down

the tube a long way.

What are we going to do in the immediate sense? In the immediate

sense almost every politician, every jurisdiction and every economist

is calling for a consumer-led economy. On the other side of the House

they themselves even talk about consumer confidence being an important

factor in economic recovery. We all agree with that. But you cannot get

consumer confidence when you take money out of the consumers' pockets,

and that's what this budget does. How in the world....

HON. MR. GARDOM: You want to borrow it and put it in there.

MR. LEA: Garde, I'm talking with these other people about economics, and maybe later we'll all explain it to you.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Oh, clever response!

MR. LEA: Well, it's an accurate one. You have never, in my 12 years here, made a speech on economics.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. LEA: Nor does he intend to. I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker, I

shouldn't have done that, but it is the truth. The member for Point

Grey, in all the years that I have been in this House, has never taken

his place to talk about economics. Not once.

Interjections.

[ Page 1007 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I'll ask the minister and the

Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith), not to interject, and I'll ask the

hon. member to return to his speech.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, what this government is asking us to do

is to support a budget that takes money out of the consumers' pockets,

raises taxes, raises the sales tax, takes away from any sort of

consumer spending, and raises the tax on food in restaurants, which

takes away from the tourist industry and from the average British

Columbia family going out to eat on a Saturday night. It takes away

from all of that. On the one hand they talk about consumer confidence

being needed to get economic recovery, but on the other hand the steps

they take in their budget are directly attributable to an impediment to

a consumer-led recovery of the economy. They can't have it both ways.

On the rhetoric side they talk about consumer confidence, but the real

side is their budget, which taxes consumers more and more and takes

away from consumer spending.

To get back to what the Premier said in reaction to the Statistics

Canada report that the restraint program of government is actually

hurting economic recovery, the Premier said: "In this province we don't

need consumer-led economic recovery; what we want is

resource-development economic recovery." Out of one side of his mouth

the Premier said that this government — and I think this budget gives

truth to the Premier's statement — doesn't really care about a consumer

led economic recovery. That can only be because they have not looked at

the statistics on where the wealth is being generated in this province

in 1983.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Most people in this province work in the service industries. By far

the largest workforce in this province are people who work in the

service industries — in retail and wholesale, in the tourist industry,

in the financial centres, in real estate. That sector of the economy

hires the most people and pays the most wages. B.C. Is no longer the

resource-based province we once had. At this point it seems to make

sense to stimulate that part of the economy. Obviously most people in

the western democracies agree with us that that seems to be where

economic recovery in the short term should take place. But this

government has gone exactly the opposite way.

Across the aisle, the minister of whatever said: "Where are you

going to get the money? Are you going to borrow the money in order to

give consumer spending a little shot in the arm?" We're talking about

priorities in spending; that's what we're really talking about. The

kind of money that's going to be raised by these tax increases in this

budget is what these people are spending in three weeks through

treasury bill borrowings. Three weeks of treasury bill borrowings would

pay for the tax increases — about $170 million in sales tax. The

increase in the sales tax from 6 percent to 7 percent will raise about

$170 million; that's equivalent to three weeks' borrowing of treasury

bills. But the fact of the matter is that you don't lose it all. You

have to look at how quickly a dollar turns around in the economy, and

how much of it comes back to the provincial treasury.

Even more than that, we have to look at the kinds of people we're trying

to defend in this House — the indigenous small and intermediate businesses of

British Columbia, a great many of which the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Richmond)

is responsible for in his portfolio. The Minister of Industry and Small Business

Development (Hon. ML Phillips) is responsible for a great many more. The Minister

of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland is responsible for some of them. In fact, it's

hard to find a minister over there who isn't in some way responsible for

the small and intermediate business sector of this province. If they're

doing their job — and I think they probably are, going around and getting information

— they know that that sector of the economy is in real trouble. The minister

agrees that it's in real trouble. It is the biggest sector of our economy,

and it is in trouble. I think it behooves us as legislators and as government

to give them some help when they need it. If we don't help these very experienced

business people in British Columbia to remain afloat, a great many more of them

are going to be gone. A lot of them are gone now. If we lose many more, we will

lose the entrepreneurial and managerial skills of our small business sector,

which are almost impossible to replace. Is it worth a little investment to make

sure that these people are in place, with their experience, skills and knowledge,

to help bring about economic recovery and make sure that it is maintained once

it arrives?

The short-term economic recovery of this province is short indeed.

It is almost entirely dependent upon the housing market in the United

States. If housing starts in the States rise dramatically, our economy

is going to get better; but even that is short-term. Through automation

and new sawmill technology in the forest industry, even to supply the

lumber that will give us more wealth in this province will not get us

the jobs. I refer back to this

article from the Atlantic Monthly. It

says: "From the viewpoint of the entrepreneur"- that's the forest

industry — " wages are an unfortunate cost of production." I'm not

saying that there's anything evil in that; it's true though that wages

are an unfortunate part of production. If you can put a machine in that

will take the place of ten people and do it more economically, you're a

pretty stupid business person if you don't put it in. But at the same

time, the government and this Legislature are not only responsible for

those citizens while they're working in the forest industry; we are

responsible for them when they're out of work. We are responsible for

the economy of this province whether we like it or not. We make the

rules. We do the budgeting, and we are responsible. I cannot see this

government, through this budget or through the rhetoric, moving

anywhere near a direction that's taking into consideration some of the

real problems that we're facing in the economy. It's not a matter of

government spending a bit less money, and everything is going to be a

panacea and wonderful and we're going to have economic recovery. We

have some structural problems in our economy in this province that are

going to be devastating to us unless we deal with them.

[4:00]

I am not hearing one speech from the other

side of the House talking about the problems of modern technology and

automation and what it's going to do to our society. With it can come

good. I'm not saying "Stop it." We would be stupid to stop, because if

we did that it would be like people in days gone by saying not to bring

on the wheel, steam or gasoline engines. I'm asking how we are going to

make this new technology work for all of us and not just the few. How

are we going to make sure that the new wealth coming from this new

technology remains in our jurisdiction, in British Columbia, and is

reinvested back into our province, both in the service sector and in

more production jobs?

[ Page 1008 ]

If we as legislators think that we're going to get full employment

out of the production side of the economy in the foreseeable future,

we're whistling in the wind. That is not, as I see it, going to be the

case. The only way we're going to reach full employment is by having an

automated, highly technical production sector of the economy. But the

proceeds from that are going to have to be brought through transfer

payments into the service side of the economy in some cases and, in

others, a service sector in the private sector growing up to meet the

demands of the people and the industries that are bringing us that new

technology and that new wealth.

History is repeating itself as the people in nineteenth century

Great Britain had to fight politically and through trade unionism to

get a civilized society and some of the money from that Industrial

Revolution to come into the social side for education, hospitals,

safety in the plant and all the things that make life civilized. Just

as they had to fight to get those social services during the Industrial

Revolution, as we go into the information and high-tech revolution we

are going to have to fight to maintain them. The people who supply the

capital from the private sector do not see it as their responsibility.

If they can keep all that wealth that they make from high-tech and from

automation, they are going to keep it. They are not, through charity,

going to share that with the rest of the citizens. It is the role of

government to bring equity economically and socially to our society. It

is not the role of government to stand by passively and watch people

hurt socially. It is not the role of government to stand by and watch

people hurt economically; the role of government is to take the

extremes out of life. We don't want people acting in a socially extreme

way, and we don't want a socially or economically extreme citizenry and

life. We do not want people to have absolutely nothing, while some

people have too much.

We're not naive on this side of the House. We are not shooting for

everybody getting the same money. We believe that there is an incentive

program that can be used and different skills that are going to be paid

differently in society. We don't believe that people all want to live

in the same coloured houses. Those on the other side honestly believe

that on this side of the House our ultimate goal is that we would have

grey people living in grey houses on grey streets, listening to grey

music coming out of grey speakers on grey walls. They really believe

that, in some cases. Any thinking person knows that's not true. All we

would like to do is to make sure that there is a more equitable

distribution of wealth.

We are, in my opinion, heading out of the industrial era as we've

known it and heading into another era that for want of a better term

I'll call the informational technical revolution. I do know one thing,

though: that unless we are vigilant as legislators, the people who

invest capital in that new technology will not share it with us

voluntarily. That's true. In other words, we will have to tax those

profits. We will have to. Hopefully those profits will come.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: That's right, and I see nothing in this budget to stimulate the private sector in that direction.

Mr. Speaker, if we are going to take

part in the international

marketplace, we first of all have to find out how to apply high

technology to produce the goods that we can sell there competitively.

Does anything in this budget talk about research? There isn't a thing.

Do you know the last amount spent in this province per year to look

into what new products we could produce, what new technology we could

use to help us create wealth and productivity? Ten million dollars.

That was it.

Another problem is that when you give tax incentives to bring around

research for development, you end up giving it to the big companies,

who are just as bureaucratic as government itself. If you want to get

that money out where it's going to do some good, then get it to the

small operator, the small entrepreneur, the middle-level entrepreneur.

You're not going to get innovation out of the private bureaucracy any

more than you're going to get it out of the government bureaucracy.

Both are bureaucratic, both are big and inefficient, and you're not

going to get it. This government would make W.A.C. Bennett turn around

in shame, because this government has climbed into bed with the private

bureaucracy. They are the friends of the big corporations, not the

friend of the small. They have taken their campaign funds from the

biggies and they've got to pay it back, and the way they pay it back is

to bring in legislation and budgets that satisfy the big private

bureaucracies.

MR. REID: You take yours from the unions.

MR. LEA: You want to talk about the unions? I'll tell you something: the unions have got a surprise coming for them too.

MR. REID: You better believe it!

MR. LEA: The unions are no better or worse than the rest of

us in society. They are another vested interest in society, one that

has done good, that has done bad. Who do the big corporations hire? The

people who work for the big corporations are the trade unionists, and

both of them are afraid, They can see new technology coming along

that's not going to call for big, it's going to call for small, and the

trade unions are wondering: "Where do we stand in this new world of

small and efficiency?" And because they don't know where they stand,

they're afraid. But the big corporations are in the same boat. In many

instances I see the big corporations and the big unions together in

their fear of not knowing where things are going. Anybody is as afraid

of the unknown as they are of the known that they know will hurt them.

I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that maybe we're all just a little

bit afraid. We are charting new seas. We don't know where we're going.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: As a matter of fact — and I'm not going to say this

facetiously — as an individual I would trust the first member for

Surrey (Mrs. Johnston). I don't believe she wants a different outcome

than I do for this province. What we are talking about is how we're

going to achieve it. I think probably we differ there. But I would be

very much surprised if all British Columbians don't really have the

same goals. They want an adequate income. They want to be able to go

out to a dance on Saturday night. They'd like to take a holiday. They

do want their camper. They want their lot at the lake. Maybe we want

too much, but why don't we look for ways to try to maintain our

standard of living, as opposed to taking the negative attitude and

saying, "There's no answer. Government cannot be involved."

[ Page 1009 ]

That's basically what this government has said. They have said they

have no answers; that all the answers are going to come from the

private sector, and as a government we have to tighten our belts, use

restraint, downsize government and just wait and hope that the private

sector does something to bail us out. Basically that's the story. What

we are saying on this side of the House — and the hon. second member

for Vancouver Centre pointed it out very ably, I think — is that maybe

there are some answers, but the only way we're going to find them is

through a spirit of cooperation and consultation. We do have to get

working people, business people — notice that I didn't say the trade

union movement, I said the working people; I didn't say the big

corporations, I said business people — and all levels of government to

work cooperatively to try to find our way through the maze. We are in

trouble. I don't think we have to be pessimistic about it, because life

goes on. But, Mr. Speaker, if we don't first of all decide that we want

to find an answer together, then that answer will be forever elusive.

We will never find it.

I find myself in rather a strange spot. On my left I have the

rigidity of the communists; in this House I find myself with the

rigidity of the right. I find that ideologies and rigidity many times

preclude common sense. I believe that this government, even if they

knew a government action could help everybody, might not take it,

because they are philosophically and ideologically opposed to the

government doing it. That was not the government of W.A.C. Bennett. The

government of W.A. C. Bennett gave us our ferry service in this

province. He saw something he felt government could do more

efficiently, better, and he did it. He wasn't hung up. W.A.C. Bennett

was a populist. This government is not a populist government; it is a

very doctrinaire, neo-conservative group. They are going to have the

fate of being hoisted by their rigidity. They cannot see on either side

of them. They have blinders on and they believe that they are

absolutely right. The first mistake they made was believing in

absolutes. We have people believing in absolutes on our left; we have

people who believe in absolutes on our right. I believe both of those

ideologies preclude the use of common sense and using shared

experiences to try to solve our problems.

Mr. Speaker, if we don't start dealing with those kinds of problems

in British Columbia — of how we apply new technologies and, even more

important, after they're applied, after there is wealth being

generated, of how we share the products of that new wealth with our

citizens.... In conclusion, I would like to leave the members with this

thought: if it were possible through modern technology to have

productivity boiled down to all machinery, all technology, and possible

to run it with one person in the private sector, would that one person

be the only person who shared in the wealth of that industrial complex?

Or would we all? Those resources belong to us all.

AN HON. MEMBER: He should share a little bit more than those who don't.

MR. LEA: He should get a fair profit, a fair return. But at

the same time, the people of this province should get a fair return for

the resources they own.

Mr. Speaker, our big problem in the future, should we succeed in bringing about

wealth through modern technology and automation, will be: how do we share that

wealth? That is going to be one of the bigger problems we're going to have

to face. I don't see this budget doing that. I see our amendment for diversification

of the economy being very timely.

[4:15]

MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased to be able to

rise and speak about this budget for the second time because of the

amendment to it. I'm glad there are so many people sitting in the

gallery today to listen to this; I'm glad there are people who come

down here every day to listen to the debate on this budget, so that

they will really know what's going on in this House. They will know

this House keeps going day after day after day, with the opposition

filibustering. It costs the taxpayers in excess of $20,000 a day, over

and above the ordinary cost to run this House, because they feel it's

advantageous to them. They can buy those $20,000 headlines in the news

media and they say that that makes it worthwhile sitting here.

Mr. Speaker, with a budget increase of 12.3 percent this year over

the previous year, and with an operating revenue increase of only 4.6

percent, there is an anticipated deficit of $1.6 billion. We're trying

to trim the costs of government, trying to downsize government so that

we don't have to borrow funds or go to our citizens and raise taxes —

ever raising taxes higher than the taxpayer can afford. The opposition

sits here day after day and obstructs........ Certainly the opposition

are entitled to put their philosophy forward; in fact, it is their

duty. But after they have put their position forward and forward and

forward, it then becomes a filibuster that accomplishes nothing for

this House and costs the taxpayers many hundreds of thousands of

dollars.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Taxpayer's money.

MR. CAMPBELL: That's right, it's taxpayers' money. As the

revenue drops.... For instance in forestry, the revenue in 1982 over

1981 dropped 51.2 percent, but they say: "Don't cut down those

services; just go out and borrow the money." That's their answer: keep

on borrowing. That's the socialist philosophy. The natural resource tax

is down 24.5 percent, but that doesn't mean anything. Just keep on

borrowing the money and spend it. When you talk about cutting down,

it's never here, it's there. It's like quicksilver; every time you

reach for it, it's gone.

I am glad the hon. member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) is

sitting here. He is the only one left sitting here, and I am very

pleased. He has seen fit to stay here this afternoon. I would like to

quote from the Hansard Blues; page 817:

As I pointed out earlier, there is no economic plan.

So we just lost the fish processing capacity and the fishing fleet

because of a lack of plan, we lost the brewery because of a lack of

plan and we lost the RCMP headquarters. We lost the CN Express, a

relatively small operation of 40 to 45 jobs. It made money on the link

between Vancouver and Victoria, but do you think the provincial

government made any kind of representation to the federal agencies to

maintain that service? They just handed it off to the CPR. We lost the

CN Express, which was a major service to be provided the capital city.

There we are. So the RCMP headquarters, the CN Express....

That is a quote from the hon. member for North Island.

MR. GABELMANN: It was the first member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson).

MR. CAMPBELL: For Victoria? My apologies, sir.

[ Page 1010 ]

I would think that the opposition would put more time into research

before they make these irresponsible statements. These are the kinds of

statements that frighten the people out there. These are the kinds of

statements that frighten investment away and frighten business away.

After this was said this morning I took the effort to contact CNR

through our research department. I want to give you the answer that

came out of CNR this morning, and I quote:

"According to CN's public affairs officer, CN

freight express operations had been losing about $50 million annually

nationwide."

Unfortunately the people at CN don't understand it when they hear about all the money they have made.

This has meant contracting out to other carriers in areas where

freight volumes were low, such as Victoria. The Victoria freight

express office was gradually phased out from a staff of about 12, and

the remaining one position was eliminated two years ago February."

MR. REE: Not 40 or 50?

MR. CAMPBELL: No, not 40 to 45, as stated by the hon. member this morning; it was one.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: OH, oh!

MR. CAMPBELL: These are the types of irresponsible statements that frighten people out there.

AN. HON. MEMBER: It's just slightly wrong.

MR. CAMPBELL: Yes, one in 45 is just slightly wrong. I would like to go on quoting from the CNR report:

"The Victoria freight express office was gradually

phased down from a staff of about 12, and the one remaining position

eliminated two years ago February. Some employees went into the rail

operation, while others were offered jobs in Vancouver. The LTL service

— less than trailer load — was contracted out to Sidney Freight.... . "

It wasn't the CPR, Mr. Speaker. They not only don't know how many

people they are talking about, but they don't even know the outfit that

took over the service — wrong again.

"... an existing local carrier who now acts as the CN

agent locally. They took one of the CN operations employees, but the continuing

low volume of freight was such that he was not kept on permanently."

That is the thriving operation with the 45 people they were talking about.

After they took on the one remaining employee, there wasn't enough to keep

him going so they had to lay him off after a while. I continue to quote:

"In essence, the reduction of jobs in freight-handling

locally is a matter of straight economics reflecting the general

recession and its impact on demand for these services."

The NDP alternative appears to be to continue to employ people

regardless of any demand for their services. They'd keep the

hypothetical 45 when they didn't need the one. "CN is still losing

money on its freight express service, and as of September I will be

amalgamating this division with its trucking division to save on

accounting and other administrative overhead, and to share facilities."

I think it's very irresponsible for the opposition to come out and make

these statements trying to frighten people, with no research; they just

come out and shoot from the hip. I'm glad there are people here in the

gallery to hear this. This is the type of filibuster we get, which is

costing us $20,000 a day. These are the types of facts being put

forward. That's the price of these facts today.

The health of this province is the number one priority of this

government. I want to quote some further facts. In 1955 the daily

hospital costs were $14.08. That was the average daily cost of the ten

largest hospitals in the province. Out of that $14.08, the co-insurance

charge was $1, which made the co-insurance charge, as a percentage of

the daily cost, 7.1 percent. That was 1955. In 1965 the daily hospital

cost was $25.83; the co-insurance charge was still $1, which brought it

down to 3.9 percent of the daily charge. In 1976 the daily hospital

cost was $118.92; the co-insurance charge had gone to $4, which was

still 3.4 percent of the daily cost. In 1980 the daily hospital cost

was $182.00, from $118.00. It had gone up about $60 dollars per bed in

that five years. The coinsurance charge went up 50 cents to $5.50; it

was now 3 percent of the daily cost. In 1982 the daily hospital cost

was $294.54; the co-insurance charge was $7.50, 2.5 percent of the

daily cost. In 1983 the daily hospital cost is $328.52; the

co-insurance charge, including the extra dollar this government added

on that this opposition has felt to be so evil, is 2.6 percent.

This opposition has complained bitterly about this, talking about

how the poor people of this province can't afford the health care costs

and how the average people out there are suffering because of these

user fees. When you think that the taxpayers of this province are

paying $328 a day hospital costs, and the co-insurance charge is

$8.50........ I ask you, is this unreasonable? Is that not a bargain

that the people of B.C. are getting? It is a bargain, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: And those who can't pay get it free.

MR. CAMPBELL: That's right. If the people can't pay for it,

they'll get it for free, and the people who can afford to pay are

paying $8.50 out of $328 a day in costs.

AN HON. MEMBER: Unbelievable.

MR. CAMPBELL: It is unbelievable, but the most unbelievable

part that I see about it is that the opposition keeps hollering and

saying: "This government doesn't care for the poor. This government

doesn't care for the sick. This government is trying to pick on the

people who are sick." How can this opposition, in all good conscience,

take up days and days talking like this, costing this House hundreds of

thousands of dollars, when the people are being treated like this —

when the people are paying $8.50 out of $328 a day?

AN HON. MEMBER: What percentage is that?

MR. CAMPBELL: It's 2.6 percent. That's what they're paying.

The school budget, where the opposition says that this government's trying to take over the school system....

The school budget is increased in 1983-84 by 7 percent over

[ Page 1011 ]

1982-83. Here we are — we came through a recession

and we're trying to trim costs, but we realize that health care,

education and human resources are essential services to the people.

This government has compassion. It's trying to provide these human

services to the people, and what do we get from the opposition? Fear

tactics. They're trying to drive fear into the working people of this

province. The working people of this province are the people who are

paying the taxes out there. They're the people who are paying the $320

a day, over and above the cost, for the health care. That's coming from

the taxpayers of the province. Those people working on the pipelines,

on the ferries, in the civil service, in the municipal service, in

small business and in all various segments of this province are the

people who are paying for this, and they have paid and paid. The

taxpayers of this province are hurting. They are sick of paying. On May

5 they said: "We agree with this government on downsizing."

[4:30]

It is essential that this government downsize. This government is

committed to downsizing and cutting the costs. After I've said that,

you may ask where the government is cutting costs with a $1.6 billion

deficit. Obviously we haven't cut it enough. Because this government

has compassion we've decided to borrow, and that's no credit to us, I

say it's a shame that we can't balance the budget. It's a shame that we

do have to borrow the money, because as the opposition have said so

many times, next year there will be roughly $160 million interest on

that deficit. And they're absolutely correct: it will cost us $160

million on that deficit that we're not able to balance this year, but

if we didn't have a downsizing of government....

HON. MR. GARDOM: Then what?

MR. CAMPBELL: Then what? Then it would probably be $320

million that the taxpayers who are sitting here, the taxpayers all over

the province....

Interjection.

MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, one percentage point of sales tax

equals $200 million. That is right. If we had a deficit of $2 billion,

we'd need 16 percent sales tax to balance it.

It is essential that this government take measures to downsize and

restrict costs so that they are affordable to the taxpayers out there

who are paying for it. This government has to instil confidence in the

people out there who are paying the taxes, in the people who are

working and in the people who are using the social services that are

being paid for by these people. They want to know that health services

and education are going to be provided, and that Human Resources will

have funds to support the people who are less fortunate than those of

us who are working. But while they're entitled to this, the government

must also look at the costs of some of the various projects that are

great but are perhaps not essential in these times, unless we're

prepared to go out and borrow more money, like the federal government

has. This year the federal government will have a $31 billion deficit.

The opposition think that there is nothing the matter with this. They

say it's fine to borrow to keep on providing these services.

In the education system with that 7 percent increase and with a

decrease in pupils, the only change in the budget is that they'll not

be allowed to put money in the administration.

You'll be able to move money out of the administration

section but

not put it in. Then the opposition says the school system is being

treated unjustly. To reduce that pupil-teacher ratio to 1976 levels

during these times of restraint is just a sign of responsible

government. It's time the opposition took a look at this, reconsidered

their position and said, listen....

Interjection.

MR. CAMPBELL: No, not resign, Mr. Speaker, because these

people, I'm sure, in the next three or four days, or a week, are going

to realize that they've made a mistake, and they're going to say: "Yes,

I have confidence in them." I have every confidence that the

opposition, after they have reconsidered their position, will say: "It

was wrong; we should have gone for that budget; those are good bills;

this government is putting forward good legislation." I believe they

will agree, because I know that once they've reconsidered their

position they'll realize that the government has no alternative but to

embark on this program.

This government is trying to promote confidence in the economy. We

have to promote confidence so that the private investors will invest:

the people with the pension funds, the union people who have invested

in their pension funds and who are investing in new housing for

citizens and in shares, stocks and bonds for companies which wish to

invest in B.C. and in the rest of Canada. That's where their funds are

being put, and they would be very well advised to provide confidence in

that economy, not fear, Mr. Speaker.

In closing, I would like to say that I am opposed to the amendment

of this budget. I believe the budget is right the way it is presented.

I would ask the opposition to reconsider their position, withdraw their

amendment and support the budget.

MR. STUPICH: I have a point I'd like to make, and I'm pleased

the Minister of Finance is with us at the moment. I certainly don't

mean to suggest that he should be sitting here all the time during this

debate, by any means. But there is a matter that I raised once on a

previous occasion when I believe he was not in his chair. It had to do

with garbage, cheques and mail found therein. At the time I raised that

matter, it was as a result of something that had been going on for a

number of years. It was something that had been brought to the

attention of the Ministry of Finance several times. It was something

that had been brought to the attention of the Ministry of Finance by

the auditor-general in every one of her reports, with specific

reference not to the garbage and the cheques found therein, but to the

breakdown, or at least the absence of any reasonable degree of internal

control within the Ministry of Finance. It has nothing to do with the

amendment. I don't want to belabour it now. But I do have a point to

make. Since I raised that matter, it has come to my attention that the

attitude of the Ministry of Finance would seem to be that they must

find the person who delivered those cheques to my attention rather than

try to deal with the problem itself, and that is internal control.

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to hear the Minister of Finance tell me

that that is not the case. I would ask him to check with the people who

are doing the investigating, because I have had staff members come to

me and ask for some help in trying to persuade someone that they —

individually — were not the people who had anything to do with bringing

that material to

[ Page 1012 ]

my attention, because to the best of my

information, certain individuals have been grilled unmercifully for

several days in an attempt to identify the messenger rather than to

deal with the problem.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Minister of

Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) is raising the same

question: who is the messenger? Mr. Speaker, the problem is not who the

messenger is, but what the Ministry of Finance is doing about the real

problem. May I simply say that the messenger and other people who knew

of this tried for years to persuade the Ministry of Finance to tighten

up its internal control. They tried unsuccessfully, and finally chose

this method of bringing it to public attention in the hope that

internal control would be tightened up. Apparently, rather than

embarking on a program of tightening up control....

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I intended this as a serious appeal to the Minister of Finance.

Rather than attempt to tighten up internal control, there would seem

to have been something of a witch-hunt to identify the messenger. To me

that's distressing. The messenger did what that particular messenger

thought was a public service after years of exasperation.

Interjection.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I'm being asked what they did.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'll ask the hon. members to come to order.

MR. STUPICH: I'll tell something of this. Supposedly empty

envelopes were being delivered to people who were removing the stamps

and sending them to the cancer society. One of the people doing this

has a sister who very recently underwent a cancer operation. They have

been doing what they thought was a public service in removing stamps

and sending them to the cancer society in order to raise funds for the

work of that society. For several years they have found items in

supposedly empty envelopes and have returned them to the Ministry of

Finance without any publicity at all. But this had been going on for

several years. They had not been able to persuade the Ministry of

Finance to tighten up their procedures. They finally decided they had

to do something to bring it to public attention so there would be

better control in the Ministry of Finance. The auditor-general tried

for several years through the Minister of Finance — not just Mr.

Curtis, but through several Ministers of Finance....

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I'll ask all hon. members to come to

order, and remind the hon. member for Nanaimo, as he's already

correctly observed, this might be a matter better dealt with under the

estimates of the Minister of Finance.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I accept your advice. At the moment

I'm simply asking the Minister of Finance to please check with the

people who are doing the investigating and call off what I can only

call a witch-hunt, from the way it was described to me. I'll talk about

this further with the minister privately, but I do wish something could

be done to take the heat off.

To get to the amendment presented today: "But this House regrets

that in the opinion of the House, the hon. Minister of Finance has

failed to make sufficient provision for diversification of the economy

and thereby protect the citizens from extreme economic fluctuations and

increasing hardship." There can be no question but that that amendment

is deserving of the support of everyone in the House. I'm not

suggesting it's going to get that support, but privately I would think

that all 57 members of the House would agree that the Minister of

Finance has not provided for sufficient diversification in the budget

presented to us. As a matter of fact, it's very hard to find any

provision for diversification in the budget.

I listened with care to the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland)

when he spoke on this amendment. I took note of something he said after

lunch: "We should not be surprised that we" — meaning the government —

"are doing what we said we were going to do, and we won the election."

We shouldn't be surprised that the Social Credit Party — as has been

their habit for some years; certainly during the last three elections —

lied itself successfully back into office, There's no question about

that. During the election campaign that party promised that there would

be no tax increases; that tax increases at this particular point in our

economic position were no way to get diversification of the economy.

They made that promise, and we should not be surprised that they broke

that promise.

During the election campaign the Social Credit Party promised that there would be no increase in user fees for health services.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. McClelland)

said: "That's a lie." I'm not going ask him to withdraw that. I saw the

Premier and the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) on TV when they

said that the memos that were turned over to our Health critic at the

time were simply meant for discussion within the Ministry of Health,

and that the government had no plan for increasing user fees for health

services. During the campaign it certainly was a lie for the Social

Credit Party to say they had no plans to increase user fees for health

services. That was a lie.

[4:45]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, let me interject at this point.

I find the comments made by the Minister of Labour and the member for

Nanaimo to be unparliamentary, in the sense of the language being used.

No withdrawal is required, but perhaps the Chair should caution members

to remember that we should at all times use parliamentary and courteous

language in our debate.

MR. STUPICH: During the election campaign the Social Credit

Party promised there would be no mass layoff of staff. It should be of

no surprise to anyone in the province that they were not telling the

truth when they made that promise, even though that promise was written

into a collective bargaining

[ Page 1013 ]

agreement with the B.C. Government Employees'

Union, and even though the Premier himself intervened in the

negotiations and was one of the instrumental parties for getting that

agreement with the B.C. Government Employees' Union that there would be

no s