1984 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 33rd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 1984

Morning Sitting

[ Page

3349 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Budget Debate

Mr. Stupich –– 3349

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 1984

The House met at 10:06 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, once again it's my extreme pleasure

to ask the House to join me in appreciating the fact that a former

constituent of mine, the Reverend Father Keith Young, led us in prayer

again this morning. We're pleased to see him once more.

MR. STUPICH: I have three constituents who came down today to

keep a critical eye on their MLA: Betty Marlow, Betty Kennedy and John

Bradley. I think there are others on the way. They are probably looking

for a parking place. I ask the House to greet them.

Orders of the Day

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker. I'd like to say a word of thanks to

some very dedicated government employees. It has been the habit of the

government in office over the past few years to attack government

employees generally, to try to leave the impression abroad that they

really aren't doing their jobs and we'd be better off without them; we

should get rid of as many as we can and the public service will

improve. I'd like to mention by name my own secretary Gloria Cox, Karen

Caesar, Beth MacDonald and our director of research, John McInnis.

These four people arrived at work yesterday morning at the usual time

and are still here, still trying to complete the work of helping me

prepare my response to the budget. It used to be, in ancient times,

that a weekend was provided to the opposition to prepare its response.

We're now down to a matter of hours, and while I don't mind for

myself.... In my total career as an MLA I have always found government

employees generally, and the ones I mentioned in particular, to be very

helpful and very anxious to serve the public in every way they can.

While there may be individuals who are not pulling their weight, as

there are in every sphere of employment, in general I've always found

them to be doing their job in the best way possible. I do want to

recognize all of them — in particular the four who stayed up with me

all night.

Part of the problem — and associated with that I want to apologize

to the MLAs, Mr. Speaker.... The relatively short time allowed, as has

been the case in the last few years, means that I didn't have time to

prepare a short speech. The Minister of Finance asked me how long it

would be and I really haven't had time to find that out, either. Had I

had more time, it would have been shorter, more concise, more hitting,

more to the point. But together we'll find out just how long it takes.

To say that the Social Credit government of B.C. has been taken over by the

pollsters, the propagandists and the advertisers has become a truism. Yesterday's

budget was described by one of my colleagues as one put out by public relations

artists, rather than by a Ministry of Finance. Every old concept now has a new

name. Every such name is predetermined to be a virtue according to the latest

public opinion surveys. Every government policy statement is predetermined to

contain virtuous properties as a result of the language employed. Obviously

the current budget is no exception. The budget says we are pioneers. Of course.

the budget promises economic recovery. The language of the budget is full of

virtuous words such as initiative, responsibility, realistic, modest, etc, etc.

These words are all part of the Social Credit newspeak, behind which lurk important

changes in public policy, which I propose to unravel in my remarks this morning.

Not the least of these is the concept of recovery.

Economic recovery is the most important political issue in B.C.

today. The approach of this budget and of this government is that

somehow recovery will follow from the redistribution of advantages in

this budget. The concept of recovery we in the New Democratic Party

have involves a future that is worth having. It offers jobs and careers

and incomes — not the unemployment and the underemployment promised and

threatened in this budget. Our concept of recovery involves shared

goals and dialogues about the means of achieving them. This budget

offers a redistribution of advantages in favour of those who already

have them. It involves a vague promise that we shall one day look back

and see that something has been forged through our suffering. The

premise and the reckless gamble of this budget was made explicit by the

Finance minister. I quote from page 8: "The current phase of the

business cycle is the best time for government expenditure

reductions.... Private sector activity is picking up and will absorb

resources released by the reduction of public spending." The Minister

of Finance gambles with the future of the province that a major

reduction of spending will have no effect on the economy. He does so

despite readily available and obvious evidence that his latest budget —

more modest in scope — had severe economic effects.

[10:15]

Last year I suggested that the government may have been heeding

Machiavelli's favourite dictum when it composed its budget. I wish

hereby to withdraw any imputation that the government opposite

understands history.

There is an even more basic lesson in Machiavelli which the

government has missed completely and which bears quoting on this

occasion. He wrote: "There are three classes of intellects: one which

comprehends by itself; another which appreciates what others

comprehend; and a third which neither comprehends by itself nor by the

showing of others. The first is most excellent, the second is good, the

third is useless." That's from The Prince ,

chapter 22. A new direction was launched July 7 last year. If the

government does not comprehend of its intellect the saddening effect of

its budget policy and its budget process on our society it has plenty

of others to whom it can turn. If it does not appreciate from all its

available sources, then it has failed in the exercise of power.

In my remarks today, I will first examine the underpinnings of the

last budget and then of this one. I will then turn to the important

lessons of the 1983 budget. This is by way of a prelude to the third

section, which is an analysis of the budget introduced yesterday.

Finally, I intend to conclude with some remarks in a positive vein

about policies which can and ought to be pursued toward a real economic

recovery.

First to review the 1983-84 budget, major trends and developments.

It has been easy for many commentators to be wrong about the Finance

minister's budget tabled in this House on July 7, 1983 –– I admit to

being one of those who

[ Page 3350 ]

were wrong about the 1983-84 budget. At that time I

said the net effect of B.C.'s fourth consecutive deficit budget would

be a recovery without jobs. In fact, the minister's budget of last July

left the province of B.C. not only without jobs but also without

recovery.

It is important that we in this Legislature clearly understand the

nature of the policies of this government and their effect on our

economy, our people and our society in British Columbia. Since the

1984-85 budget so clearly carries on with the philosophy and program

the government launched in the style of the Japanese bombing of Pearl

Harbour, we must examine these policies and their underpinnings very

clearly. The place to begin this process is with a straightforward

inventory of the July 7, 1983, provincial budget.

Downsizing government, it is fair to say, was and is a cornerstone

of the Pearl Harbour attack on British Columbia society. Downsizing

must be understood with its own specialized Social Credit meaning.

Downsizing means firing civil servants. The Social Credit theory has it

that if you hang civil servants by the yardarm on a regular basis, then

international investment capital will arrive carrying bags packed with

investment dollars; or, put another way, this purely sadistic spectacle

of families without incomes and dedicated employees without reward will

drive investment capital into a frenzy of British Columbia development.

In this spirit the government claims to have eliminated some 7,000

jobs in the past year. Of course, they haven't fired quite that many.

Many of them are simply vacant positions which were not refilled and

were declared redundant by the government over the past 12 months. So

if you have the bad luck to be a government FTE — full-time equivalent

— you obviously move into a higher risk occupational capacity. On this

basis banks are reluctant to lend mortgages to FTEs, as are others

reluctant to enter into long-term contracts with such marked beings. On

the other hand, if one has the good fortune to be performing a

government function under contract or through a funded agency, one does

not experience the same risk. This is the superficiality and

shallowness of the government's policy.

This is one of the many goal displacements inherent in the budget;

that is, the goal of efficient, sound management of the public sector

has been displaced by another goal. Firing FTEs, however, is the

consequence of this goal displacement. It's not so humorous. It is

referred to as the FTE fetish. In this regard I would like to quote a

study by Professors Rosenbluth and Schworm of the UBC economics

faculty, published in February 1984, which states: "The proposed

downsizing amounts to a large reduction of the province's provision of

government services, with the resulting increase in unemployment and no

assurance of an offsetting increase in privately produced goods and

services." Under Social Credit, all of this is supposed to be good for

the province.

"Privatization. The second — and clearly related — aspect of last year's

budget is the notion of transferring jobs from the public sector to the private

sector. A related development is the renaming of the private sector as the productive

sector, as was done in the throne speech. This piece of propaganda is designed

to fool people into believing that work completed by overpaid Socred hacks provided

with government contracts is productive, while work performed by qualified public

servants is not.

Privatization began last July with a list of commercial operations

on the part of the government which were to be sold to the private

sector. This I call privatization, phase one.Phase one is off to a good start with the sale of Beautiful British Columbia

magazine to Jim Pattison of the Social Credit cheering

section in

Vancouver. This contract is a reward to the friend of government. The

government may choose to argue that the Pattison award was based on

competitive bidding and therefore could not be subject to any degree of

favouritism. This argument is a lie, and a pernicious lie at that. This

government has no comprehensive policy for contracting out, a subject I

will deal with further later in my remarks. The bidders are invited to

submit proposals; not every bidder is necessarily bidding on the same

thing. Then follows a period of negotiation with the parties, and with

the successful party in particular, and a deal is struck, potentially

on a different basis than any other bid submitted. It is a clever ruse,

and masks the bequest of public assets for private gain well enough

that the government is getting away with it.

Some smaller publications were also sold last year, along with some

key facilities and the livestock of Colony Farm. The big ones, of

course, are still on the block. Pacific Coach Lines provides necessary

bus transportation on Vancouver Island, across Georgia Strait and in

the Fraser Valley. The government's hand-picked liquidator has on his

desk proposals from such luminary operators as Conmac Stages of

Victoria and a variety of asset strippers from eastern Canada. While

all British Columbians value any jobs that can be created during the

recession, we clearly need jobs with a long-term economic viability.

The minister responsible, of course, pretends to know nothing of this.

All the cleverly coached ministers over there pretend to know nothing

of the consequences of their actions. They simply fall back on the

clichés and the buzzwords, the abstract images which the manipulators

and the posters have sold to the unsuspecting public.

B.C. Systems Corporation is also on the block. Here we have an interesting

case. The government-built service utility, which has the government itself

as its sole client, is to become part of the private sector. Of course, the

authors of Social Credit newspeak would have us believe that it will become

productive in private hands when moved outside the unproductive and, to quote

a previous throne speech, "intrusive weight of the public sector."

The minister responsible — in this case the Finance minister — pretends to know

nothing of the serious public concern over the most confidential information

in existence in the hands of the private sector operators, who may have other

interests than the government account at stake. More seriously in this case,

what is the Minister of Finance going to do with the millions of Canada Pension

dollars he has ploughed into that great mausoleum on Blanshard Street? I am

told there is well in excess of $40 million of working people's Canada Pension

Plan money invested in the spanking new corporate headquarters of the soon-to-be-sold

operation. I guess the taxpayers will be stuck owing themselves their own pension

dollars as the minister transfers this white elephant to the government and

sells the cream of the Systems Corporation operation. This package of fun and

games is called privatization.

Assault on wage bargaining. The government's new program is in many

ways built around, and may even be considered an excuse for, reducing

the ability of wage employees to bargain for salaries and working

conditions. Even a Social Credit government realizes that it cannot

accomplish the end of collective bargaining and the development of a

low-wage policy for B.C. overnight. For this reason the government is

[ Page

3351 ]

proceeding in stages. Doubtless this Legislature will be dealing with the next

small steps in this direction during the present session.

Concentration of power. The 1983 budget concentrates power several

ways. First, it concentrates power within government in the hands of

the Premier's office and Treasury Board. This has a rather pathetic

aspect, as cabinet ministers scurry to explain the most horrifying

failures in their administrations with the claim: "I'm just following

government policy." In many ways it is paradoxical to hear this sort of

evasion of responsibility from a party which had a once proud tradition

of individual responsibility and accountability. We are producing a

whole generation of cabinet ministers and senior officials who know

nothing and say nothing, except "I am just following orders." Secondly,

power is being shifted from local government to the provincial

government. It is particularly true of regional districts,

municipalities, hospital boards and school trustees. Again, these

agencies have no choice but to follow government orders.

Finally and most seriously, power over citizens is being

concentrated in the hands of government and those who control

government. There is no other way to interpret smashing the human

rights enforcement apparatus. There is no other way to describe

Ministry of Health proposals to greater control the practice of

medicine by physicians. There is no other way to describe the

surreptitious and secret information gathering by the office of the

Premier through highly political survey research. This is particularly

true of B.C. today, when such survey results are used to manipulate

voters through partisan political advertising, paid for with millions

of precious and hard-earned tax dollars. There is no other way to

describe the failure of government to develop any serious proposals on

freedom of information and protection of individual privacy.

Downgrading education. The steady erosion of provincial educational

opportunities has taken a sharp turn for the worse in the last year.

This will be a critical theme of my remarks today. Suffice it to say at

this juncture that downgrading of educational opportunity appears to be

an essential component in the low-wage strategy of this government. The

government clearly does not want a population which is educated to the

point of questioning government policies which stifle economic growth,

promote low wages and achieve only stagnation. Education and training

at all levels are under attack in a way which has not been experienced

in this province before. This is a critical factor, in understanding

the budget of last year and of this year as well.

Deregulation. Actions of the government in deregulating automobile

inspections, human rights and consumer protection present dangers to

the public which the government has failed to acknowledge, let alone

deal with. It is regrettable that it took the death of two young people

on a highway at Mount Washington to bring to the public, through the

media, the consequences of ending motor vehicle inspection. The

government may protest that it only intends to privatize this service;

but the fact is that a grave danger exists to the public today because

of this action by the government, and the government refuses to deal

with it.

As for the proposition that people should take care of their own human rights,

would the government have all citizens police all transgressions on their own?

Are they really prepared for vigilante justice?

The 1984-85 budget reviews the state of government finances. The

government, of course, refuses to deal with the seven pillars of its

budget policy before the public. Instead, it lies awash in the

comfortable backwater rhetoric of reducing government spending,

reducing the burden of government costs on the economy, etc. This side

of the House has repeatedly put the lie to Socred claims of parsimony

in relation to the public purse. The record needs reviewing and I shall

do so quickly. I fear that, as in past years, not many on that side are

listening in any event. But I would like to remind hon. members that

this government came to office early in 1976 with a bank account in

excess of $552 million in special purpose funds. In its first four

years in office it was able to enjoy tremendous increases in public

spending, which it was all too willing to indulge in. It did so and

racked up continuous budget surpluses. On a public accounts basis, the

consolidated surpluses were impressive: in 1976-77, $96.6 million;

1977-78, $204.5 million: 1978-79, $179.9 million; 1979-80, $466.9

million: for a total in that period of $947.9 million — an impressive

total. Practically $1 billion in surpluses were racked up in their

first four years in office. At this point the province had cash

reserves of $1.5 billion and a robust economy.

[10:30]

Then the member for Saanich and the Islands (Hon. Mr. Curtis) was

appointed Minister of Finance. Suddenly the accounts of the province

started to seep red ink. In his first fiscal year as Minister of

Finance, 1980-81, despite claims to the contrary, the province racked

up a deficit of $313 million. Then there was 1981-82, the year in which

the minister loaded $625.2 million of tax increases on an economy

teetering on the brink of recession. The result was economic disaster

and a further deficit of $184 million. The minister's third budget, he

thought, was a pre-election budget, so he deliberately overestimated

revenue by almost $1 billion. It was supposed to be a balanced budget.

I said at that time that revenues were grossly overstated. In

particular, the clue was the increased revenue expected from forest

exploitation. It was so obvious, and revenues indeed proved to be

almost $1 billion overstated. When the smoke cleared and the minister's

manipulations were exposed. there was a deficit of $978.2 million, made

up entirely of overstated revenue. There was the minister's July 1983

budget. This social engineering budget forecast a deficit of $1.6

billion. At the time that budget was presented, within hours I said

that the deficit was grossly overstated. During the past eight months

one columnist after another, one analyst after another and one

economist after another has come to the conclusion entirely on his or

her own. None of them heard me, none of them read my remarks, but they

came to the conclusion during the course of eight months that what I

said within eight hours of the budget speech was correct: the deficit

was overstated. The minister himself confirmed it yesterday by saying

that the deficit was overstated by some $300 million. Mr. Speaker, he's

wrong again. It's still overstated, I made the forecast last July, and

I made it the previous year when the budget came out; I was proven

right on both occasions. I'm going to try once more. I'm saying that

he's overstating the deficit for the year ending March 31, 1984, by

some $200 million. It will come in very close to $1 billion when we see

the final figures.

I recall.... The Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr.

Gardom) isn't here, but I'll let that go for now; I'll have another

opportunity.

[ Page 3352 ]

So we see that this Finance minister has managed to date, in the

space of four short years, to rack up nearly $3 billion in budgetary

deficits. The $1.5 billion that was left when the Social Credit resumed

office — the $1 billion that was piled up by his predecessor in that

post, a total of $1.5 billion — twice that amount in deficits within a

period of four years. It's a record to be proud of, Mr. Speaker. It

took some doing to accomplish that in such a short period. This, of

course, has been more than enough to wipe out the savings of 108 years

of successive B.C. administrations since our entry into Confederation.

Many people were shocked by the minister's press release last July

saying that his budget would increase 12.3 percent, despite the hatchet

jobs proposed for the public sector. The increase was really in excess

of 16 percent, Mr. Speaker, between you and me. Comparing budget

estimates with the previous year's original budget estimates — that is,

on a basis which compares apples with apples — the increase was 16.3

percent.

Now why, the public asks, does the budget increase so much when

services are cut and people are fired? I think a quick glance at last

year's spending estimates answers part of this question. Together with

subsequent special warrants, the income assistance program has

increased by some $300 million. That's $300 million to people receiving

social assistance. This has a great deal to do with the so-called

"productive sector" that the government talks about. Can you imagine

anything more unproductive and degrading than placing such a high

proportion of our population, especially young people, on welfare? I

can't. I defy members opposite to see whether they can come up with a

less productive deployment of human resources.

The second major item is accelerated health capital programs,

amounting to some $170 million. We're still talking about the last

budget, Mr. Speaker. It is wonderful to build new health facilities,

but only if the government is prepared to operate them. Building new

hospital beds to sit empty alongside old hospital beds for lack of

funding for staff represents a certain kind of economic policy

priority. In my view, it is not a sensible one. The good people of

Coquitlam and Port Moody who are awaiting the opening of Eagle Ridge

Hospital perhaps will agree with me.

A third major item is interest on public debt. At $162.7 million,

this was a major expenditure increase. I doubt that this is one the

minister is proud of. Again, it reflects past use of the credit of

British Columbians by this debt-prone government in order to squeeze by

and through another election.

Finally, last year we had the employment development account, the

last hangover from the 1983 provincial election where the Social Credit

government still pretended to be interested in providing jobs for

citizens.

These, then, were the government's priorities for expenditure growth

last year: welfare, interest on debt and pork-barrel construction

projects in swing political ridings. Remember the Premier travelling

through some of these ridings, Mr. Speaker, and announcing new capital

projects as he travelled?

Meanwhile the manipulation of public accounts for the greater goal

of manipulating the voter continues unabated. The government, in

1983-84, will have borrowed very nearly $4 billion for public purposes.

The public debt, as my colleague the Leader of the Opposition so ably

said on February 17, today stands in excess of $15.3 billion, including

all the guarantees. This is a debt of $5,400 per capita, very close to

the $6,000 per capita federal debt about which the minister is so

concerned.

The open house of the Minister of Finance has arrived. When we open

the door and look inside, we see that this government has already

pushed its borrowing capacity to near exhaustion. Again I contrast this

to the day when this government was elected in December 1975. At that

point the total debt of the province was slightly more than $4.4

billion, or some $1,800 per capita. Now the debt very clearly reflects

certain economic and political endeavours on the part of the

government. The government has, for example, borrowed more than $2

billion, much of it at high interest rates, to construct the Revelstoke

Dam. Some $250 million in interest costs are associated with this debt,

and there is no market for the power. We're trying to give it away.

This is an excellent example of Socred planning as practised by that

government opposite. Now we're trying to sell our power on a long-term

basis to the United States. This, in the language of newspeak, is

called "the energy advantage." Meanwhile, Alcan wants to build a new

hydro dam to generate electricity for their purposes in the Kitimat

area. Is it unthinkable that our idle capacity could be used to supply

Alcan's electrical needs in respect of an aluminium smelter? Or does it

make more sense for B.C. Hydro to borrow additional funds to pay the

interest on the Revelstoke dam while Alcan goes ahead with its own

power project? We shall have to see which makes more sense to this

government.

During 1983-84 the government borrowed $500 million to complete

construction of the Tumbler Ridge railway line. I shall have more to

say about this later. The point is that more and more people are

wondering what they get in return for the billions of tax dollars they

send to Victoria, and for the billions more borrowed in their name in

foreign markets. The government responds by slashing services, although

never those enjoyed by the rich, the upper middle class, the Socred

supporters. The answer for the poor people is that they should cut

back. They must lose educational services. They are abused verbally by

the government for being victims. This government is not without waste

and not without mismanagement. Public dollars today are going to help

people who don't need it, while tax breaks are going to those who don't

need them.

The effect of the economy on B.C.'s current economic position.

Arguments pro and con about the government's program could continue

forever. The government is of course happy with an intellectual debate

because it happily ignores intellectual arguments. Safe behind a

protective cocoon of public relation hacks and equipped with the best

that modern media manipulation has to offer, the government always

believes it can tough it through and campaign its way to re-election.

Moreover, the government's media manipulators are good at their jobs.

To a fair degree they have succeeded in promoting confusion and goal

displacement among the population. Thus the government likes to be

associated with such positive concepts as entrepreneurship, strong

commitments, initiative, personal freedom and competition. These are

powerful concepts, and the government's media and advertising

manipulators are more than pleased to substitute them for real economic

achievement.

But real economic achievement is the test of government in the

1980s. The proof of the pudding is not in the salesmanship but in the

product itself. It either does the job it is claimed to do, or it does

not. The product in this case is the peculiar mix of policies dreamed

up by the group opposite,

[ Page

3353 ]

and the claim we have all heard ad nauseum is that the product promotes recovery.

Put simply, the proof of this pudding must be in its eating. Unfortunately a

lot of people in British Columbia are not eating very well and there can now

be no doubt that the July 7, 1983, budget is to blame. The economic effects

of this budget are staggering and they are negative. Sixty three thousand jobs

have been eliminated in B.C. British Columbia has, over the cycle of the recession,

experienced the largest increase in unemployment of any province in the country.

The 15.2 percent unemployment rate in B.C. in January, 1984, is even higher

than that in such economically depressed areas as Prince Edward Island, Nova

Scotia and Quebec. It is a shame; it is a disaster; it is proof of the failure

of the July 7 budget. The economic growth which was promising in the first half

of 1983 has sputtered, coughed and died.

The Conference Board of Canada reported this month that the public

sector restraint program — so-called — has caused consumer and business

service activity to lag. Confidence is missing in the economy at a

crucial time in the upside of the business cycle. We in B.C. have

experienced the downside without the upside. To take a further example,

Statistics Canada reported again this month that retail sales in

British Columbia increased a mere 2.838 percent in 1983, in what was

supposed to be a year of recovery. This is the weakest performance in

all of Canada; it doesn't even keep up with inflation. The forecasts

now available show that B.C. will not reach even the 1981 levels of

production by the end of 1984. I hope the members opposite appreciate

the importance of this. If we do not achieve historical levels by even

the end of this year, what prospects are in place for our people? The

bankruptcy problem continues to plague British Columbia long after it

has reversed in the rest of the country. While bankruptcies are

dropping in the rest of Canada, there was a further increase of 26

percent in personal and business bankruptcies last year. People are

hurting, Mr. Speaker, and the government refuses to recognize it.

The most significant determining factor of future prosperity is

investment, but again, in the investment field we have seen large drops

over the past two years. This is true of our resource industries as

well as in manufacturing. People with money are not investing in B.C.

It appears that neither they nor the victims of Social Credit policy

appreciate its economic merit. I do not claim that the Social Credit

government caused the recession; I do claim, however, that it has

prolonged it and made it worse. Perhaps it is not guilty of creating a

recession, but it is guilty of making it hurt.

It doesn't matter whether one looks at job losses, retail sales,

investor confidence, bankruptcies or growth forecasting; the indication

is the same. The July 7, 1983, budget successfully killed the economic

recovery, which at that time the Premier said was in a fragile state.

The irony is that Social Credit rode to re-election on the back of that

recovery. I suppose it is fortunate for the members opposite that

people did not discover that Social Credit had plans to kill the

recovery — at least did not discover it until after votes were cast.

In politics there are certain things that one has to accept. That one's

opponent is capable of fooling the people in this regard is one of those things.

It is our job as an opposition to see that it doesn't happen again. It is

our job to see that the economic voodoo practised by this government will never

again have its wretched way on the working people in the province of British

Columbia. It will be our job to tell the people what they are doing and to show

that there is — as I shall outline — a better way for British Columbians.

[10:45]

The Finance minister made fleeting reference in the introduction to

his budget to the period since his last budget, "one of intense

activity in carrying out last year's initiative in preparing this

year's goals and objectives." It's a pity for all of us that he did not

add that it was a period for reflecting upon the changes proposed last

year and their effect on the economy. For reasons of its own the Social

Credit has chosen not to reflect on its actions. In bull-headed, almost

Stalinist or Hitlerite fashion, the government is pursuing policies

which have demonstrated flaws and hardships for our citizens. They

believe their own rhetoric and slogans to the extent that the Socred

government of 1984-85 is guilty of truly massive goal substitution.

Sociologists define goal substitution or goal displacement as a state

where secondary considerations become more important than primary

objectives. The pursuit of the god or goddess of restraint has

supplanted all other goals in B.C. This is as unfortunate as it is

wrong for the time.

I submit that there are at least three important lessons to be learned from

the experience since July 7, 1983. These concern the role of the neo-conservative

ideology of restraint, best exemplified by the Fraser Institute, the lessons

of economic strategy — what it takes to promote growth in B.C. — and the lessons

of restraint as practised in B.C. so far.

The Fraser Institute. Many people are wondering today why Social

Credit continues to cling to its favourite slogans and passwords of the

past, despite the consequences for B.C. The answer is a political one:

political choices and commitments have been made, and the consequences

are secondary. I intend to deal with these consequences in some detail.

It seems appropriate to reflect upon the source from which the

present Socred government draws the inspiration for its callous

budgetary and legislative programs. The Fraser Institute, which

flatters itself as a think-tank, is nothing more than the mouthpiece

for large corporate interests in this country and abroad. The Fraser

Institute advocates the repeal of all legislative protection for

citizens of this province whether it be human rights, fair and adequate

housing, employment standards, health care or education. The so-called

brains behind the government's policy, which has been eager to

characterize the weaker segments of our society as receiving a free

lunch from government social programs, has also encouraged the

government to prepare for the corporate sector a feast at the expense

of those most in need of assistance.

Its registration as a charity under the federal Income Tax Act

entitles its supporters to write off their donations and to exempt

itself from income tax payment on its operations. Who are the financial

supporters of this charity — this so-called independent Fraser

Institute? We have the eight largest banks in Canada, the top eight

insurance companies, 20 of the 25 largest companies headquartered in

British Columbia, 65 of the largest companies in Canada and the top ten

forest companies in British Columbia, companies controlling 24 of the

29 largest mines in British Columbia. Then we have BCRIC, including

B.C. Coal and B.C. Timber. The Fraser Institute funding and personnel

also have links to Reagan's ruling elite and to Richard Nixon's inner

circle during his term in office. For the Fraser Institute to claim to

be independent is like the government claiming to be independent of its

taxpayers. The Fraser Institute professes to be independent because it

receives no government funding.

[ Page 3354 ]

The government claims not to rely on the Fraser Institute. The

Premier has said that Michael Walker was invited to challenge the

cabinet when they met to prepare last year's budget. There must not

have been much of a challenge, because Michael Walker carried the day.

The Walker-Fraser Institute corporate elite philosophy thoroughly

drenched the budget and the legislative package of 1983, a package that

threatens basic principles of justice and equity which have long been

struggled for by the people of this province and elsewhere. No, the

Bennett government cannot hide its close relationship with the Fraser

Institute, which has advocated the removal of rent controls, the

relaxation of all zoning controls, the dismantling of universal

medicare and public dental services, the dismantling of human rights

legislation, the reallocation of expenditures regardless of social

costs. Does that sound familiar? The institute's publication, Unions and the Public Interest ,

bears a strong resemblance to the government's labour relations policy,

and you can bet that the proposed establishment of duty-free zones in

British Columbia relies on the Fraser Institute's proposal for the

establishment of free economic activity zones in British Columbia —

making British Columbia the Switzerland of North America.

Now that the Socred government is firmly on the Fraser Institute

bandwagon, we can only ask if they are going to go all the way, and

where will the Fraser Institute's vision lead us? Let's reflect on a

few ideas put forth by Walter Block, a senior economist at the Fraser

Institute. In a book published in 1976 Mr. Block describes the

"basically heroic nature of the slum landlord," blames unemployment on

the minimum wage — for example, if handicapped people were paid $2 per

hour they wouldn't be unemployed — and describes the institution of

child labour as an honourable one with a "long and glorious history of

good works." In the area of sexual harassment Block states that "the

pinching the secretary receives from her employers is not a coercive

action, but part of a package deal in which the secretary agrees to all

aspects of the job." Because the boss owns the office he owns the

people who work there. Is this the type of society we really want to

build in British Columbia? Can there be doubt that this is where the

free-market philosophy of the right may lead us? Completely divorced

from the reality of the economic system, these policies attempt to

create a society in which there are no personal safeguards and in which

greed and ruthlessness are elevated to virtues.

There are people who received a contract from the Ministry of

Education to design a new compulsory course in consumer education for

B.C. high school students. If consumers ever needed protection it is

from the new right, the Fraser Institute and its emanations. The cold,

calculating approach which the Fraser Institute preaches, and which the

Social Credit government implements in the name of restraint, will

destroy social harmony by forcing confrontation between sectors of

society who must work together if a true recovery is to be achieved.

There can be no recovery without the maintenance of principles honoured

by a democratic society.

The Fraser Institute is performing a very definite service for the

big business which funds it. The anticipated result is a climate where

investment by large corporations can thrive unfettered by the need for

human rights, dignity or freedom.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The government would have it that the reorganization of spending

priorities under the 1983 budget is an economic development strategy.

Last year I referred to this proposition as the big lie. I said that

restraint is, of course, many things to many people, but it is not a

formula for economic recovery. I do not wish to extend this claim to

suggest that government restraint is the entire economic policy of the

government; this is, unfortunately, far too optimistic a view. The

economic strategy of this government has two basic elements. The first

of these is what I call industrial strategy; the second is resource

management. Both elements impact heavily on the economy. Unfortunately,

the impact is negative in both directions, which explains the prolonged

recession in B.C.

First, on the subject of industrial policy, there are two aspects:

public subsidy and free-trade zones. The elements of public subsidy are

well documented in respect to the three major economic projects the

government has touted over the past year. The first of these is

northeast coal. Yesterday's budget proposes to throw some 70 percent of

resource revenue during this year into the northeast coal project

through a $470 million grant to the BCR. There has been public

discussion of this issue and I don't intend to repeat all of it here.

Suffice it to say there is no prospect of recovering this investment,

let alone making a return under present contracts. The minister

admitted as much in consideration of the estimates, and to newspaper

reporters outside. To be more specific, he said that annual export of

7.7 million tonnes of coal a year won't be enough to justify

multibillion-dollar coal field developments. The situation now is that

the 7.7 million tonnes are shaky. Even that represents just slightly

over 3 percent annual return on the total investment.

There is no other explanation for Ron Basford, the minister's coal

coordinator, making public speeches in which dire threats are visited

upon the Japanese if they cut these contract volumes. The Japanese do

not have to negotiate volume cutbacks. They control the shipping; they

can simply stop sending ships. I'm afraid our earlier estimates of a $1

billion loss on the northeast coal deal are far too low. The $470

million paid in subsidy in yesterday's budget is only the beginning.

Yesterday, when I spoke briefly, I described this $470 million as a

subsidy to BCR. There was some negative reaction from across the way.

I'd like to make a couple of points with respect to this $470 million,

just to point out some coincidences.

The minister was talking about the problems of BCR. We all

appreciate the problems of BCR and recognize the importance of it. But

there is one thing that concerns me. In his speech, in the very bottom

line on page 6, he talks about the contribution to the accumulated

deficit of the BCR as a result of the Dease Lake extension: "This debt

was incurred to finance construction costs, mainly on the Dease Lake

extension which cost more than $200 million...." In the latest

financial statements for British Columbia Railway Company, on page G124

of Public Accounts , which was handed to us

yesterday, I read: "Dease Lake Extension, $98,020,000" — which is a

difference of $102 million. I read note 5, which talks about the Dease

Lake Extension: "These costs consist of charges related to the

uncompleted Dease Lake Extension prior to suspension of construction in

1977, and legal and other costs incurred subsequently in connection

with litigation...." There are no commitments to continue construction.

It would appear as though that figure of $98 million includes

everything that is known about the cost of the Dease Lake Extension.

Where in the budget did the figure of $200 million come from? It's a

more than 100 percent increase over the figure included in B.C.

Railway's financial statement.

[ Page 3355 ]

That's one question on which I hope someday to get an answer from the minister.

Now we come to Tumbler Ridge. In the same set of financial

statements, in note 4, we see that the Tumbler Ridge line, while it

hadn't cost that much at this date.... They do say that the

construction, excluding capitalizing of finance charges — that is,

leaving aside all the interest that the government is paying — is

currently projected at $455 million. This statement is dated December

31, 1982; in all likelihood the figure is up. But let's say $455

million. By some strange coincidence, although the money has nothing at

all to do with the Tumbler Ridge line, the amount we're giving to BCR

is $470 million, which is a difference of very close to $15 million.

The minister said that none of it is for the Tumbler Ridge line. Once

the money has gone to BCR, how does he keep a tag on it and say that

this dollar came from the $470 million and this other dollar came from

hauling a load of freight? How can he say that the dollars will not be

used for the Tumbler Ridge line? Beyond that, what is the

responsibility of the government? Looking at the BCR financial

statements, it's very clear on page G130, note 4, with respect to the

Tumbler Ridge branch line, that the government has accepted total

responsibility for this line. It's going to be a charge against the

public purse; it says that right in BCR's audited financial statement.

They had evidence, or the auditors would never have included that note,

to prove to them that the government had accepted a financial

responsibility. If this $470 million that we're now giving to BCR is

not for Tumbler Ridge, then it would indicate that another $470 million

is to be transferred to BCR at some later date.

But we're reducing debt. I'm sure every one of us here would like to

be able to reduce his or her debt. So we're going to reduce debt by

$470 million. Do you know how we're going to do it? We're going to do

it in part by borrowing $2.62 billion. If we weren't going to reduce

debt, we wouldn't have to borrow quite as much. We could get by by

borrowing $2.1 billion. But there's another way of looking at it. It's

great to be out of debt. We'd all like to be out of debt. I'm sure the

government would like to be out of debt. I suggest that if it's that

easy to be out of debt, why don't we go out and borrow $15 billion and

pay off all our debts — all cleared with one stroke of the pen? That

makes just as much sense as going out now and borrowing $2.6 billion in

order to spend $470 million to pay off a little bit of our debt. Why

stop at $470 million if we could get rid of the whole $15 billion in

debt? They're shovelling it from one pocket to another. It's a shell

game. It's a subsidy for the export of coal to Japan. That's BCR.

[11:00]

How about Dynatek? The provincial and federal governments have

offered a subsidy package worth a minimum of $19 million. This includes

an $8 million grant from the province, providing some $5 million for

financing on the building premises and leasehold improvements and $3

million for equipment. The federal government has offered a $7 million

grant and a $4 million interest-free loan. All this is subject only to

$16 million worth of equity from the promoters and a further $16

million in loan capital. In other words, the two levels of government

are prepared to provide the building and the manufacturing equipment,

and the promoters have to provide operating capital only. Still the

promoters are having difficulty raising the funds. One has to ask

whether this is really the sort of economic development strategy that

British Columbia needs. Yet it is entirely representative of the

economic development strategy of Social Credit.

A third example is Toyota Canada Inc. The federal and provincial

governments have provided $5.5 million to Toyota, interest-free, to

build an aluminium wheel plant. Toyota has made it clear that it has no

plans to build an auto assembly plant in Canada. The attraction of B.C.

is the availability of aluminium, producer-cheap electricity and

taxpayer subsidies. Toyota has made it clear that it expects tariff

concessions to accompany the interest-free financing provided by the

two levels of government. In other words, further tariff concessions

will be part of the deal as well. Cost of the interest on the $5.5

million loan is estimated at $3 million. The plant will produce 100

jobs: a subsidy of $30,000 per job created from the taxpayers. Yet, Mr.

Speaker, we are firing people in the government service who are

providing needed services to people and earning much less than that

$30,000 each. The heavy subsidization of a few showpiece projects is

intended to mask and hide the lack of economic development under Socred

economic policies. The second major area of industrial policy is the

free trade zones advocated in the throne speech. Social Credit now

wishes to join those jurisdictions that have opted to attract a certain

kind of capital by offering better and better breaks in labour costs,

on taxes, on duties, on health and safety and on environmental

standards. This much we know. We can only hope that they hold this view

out of ignorance. In that hope, I offer these illustrations of other

jurisdictions advertising their free trade zones, so that you will have

some appreciation of what the competition is.

In a brochure entitled "Malaysia: Opportunities for European

Investments," the federal development authority of Malaysia is trying

to attract high-tech investors with the following arguments.

"Labour rates in Malaysia are among the lowest in the

region, and female factory workers can be hired for approximately $1.50

literacy rate is extremely high. Large multinational U.S. corporations

like Hewlett-Packard, Motorola and National Semiconductor, which have

invested in labour intensive manufacturing projects in Malaysia, have

found labour so easy to train and so productive that within less than a

year they have not only expanded their operations in Malaysia, but also

set up new factories to produce more sophisticated products than their

original investment."

Can we compete with that, Mr. Speaker? Should we?

In a full-page advertisement placed by the government of the Philippines in the Times under the headline, "Seven Good Reasons Why You Should be Looking to the Philippines Now," the following appeared:

"Our labour force speaks your language, whether you

are talking electric components, garments or car manufacturing.

medium of instruction, which brings the Philippines closest to the

Japanese standard among all the Asian countries. The generally high

level of education of the Philippino worker makes him highly adaptable,

easy to train in new skills. You might even find that the government

has pretrained your workers for you in one of its skill centres."

[ Page 3356 ]

Wonder what the Minister of Universities and Science has in mind.

The board of investment of Thailand advertises in a brochure: "15 powerful

reasons why you should invest in Thailand."

"One of the major factors which recommends Thailand to

the investors over other countries in the region is its abundant supply

of cheap and trainable labour. The minimum wage for unskilled labour in

Bangkok metropolis and the six surrounding industrial provinces was

fixed at 20 baht per day (approx. $1 U.S. funds a day) as of late 1974.

Although this is still an extremely low wage, it is 20 per cent higher

than in late 1973, showing that public and private sectors are aware of

the rising cost of living facing Thai workers. Outside Bangkok the

minimum wage has recently been set at 16 baht per day in the north and

northeast, and 18 in the south of Thailand.

"The Thai people are naturally clever with their

hands, and they are very quick to learn new processes, even when they

require considerable concentration, adaptability and initiative. The

managers of two firms which require high-precision work — Cosmo Watch

Dials and National Semiconductor — have praised the dexterity as well

as the quick trainability of their Thai workers. National Semiconductor

sent a group of workers to learn electronic skills in Penang. The

workers were all able to complete the six-month course in three months'

time. Thai women are every bit as skilful as the men, and are often

preferred to men due to their perseverance. Women work side by side

with men on the job where sex discrimination might be made in other

countries. They are given equal pay for equal work as a general rule.

Foreign investors should realize that the Buddhist religion and

Thailand's social history have ensured that the relationship between

the employer and employee is normally more that of guardian and ward

than of master and serf. In other words, it is easy to win and maintain

the loyalty of the workforce as long as they are treated with kindness

and due courtesy."

The Economic Planning Board in South Korea — similar advertisements,

Mr. Speaker. And there are many other examples — examples of low wages,

deregulated enclaves for cheap manufacturing and processing. There are

dangers in this concept for the quality of life in our province. In a Vancouver Sun

story of February 14, Michael Walker said: "Export processing zones

would be a first step towards a deregulated free market system and

would help promote high-technology industries." It is fervently to be

hoped that the government has, since last May, learned to pause and

reflect a little before accepting these so-called ideas from the Fraser

Institute.

Resources. The 1983 budget offers a second area of instruction in

Socred economic planning strategy, that of resource management. I wish

to refer in some detail to our most important resource industry:

forestry. Perhaps the place to begin is with the Pacific Forest

Research Centre report published last week. Federal researchers have

estimated that a minimal backlog reforestation and current

spacing-fertilization program would generate something in the order of

250,000 person-years of employment. The report is so important to B.C.

that it bears quoting over and over again in detail:

"Another consideration which cannot be captured within

a strict accounting framework relates to the long-term implications of

failing to proceed with improved forest management. In the absence of

improved forest management the long-run harvest of timber in British

Columbia will decline by as much as one-third from present levels.

Within a benefit-cost framework there is an implicit assumption of a

costless and easy adjustment to lower levels of economic activity.

However, this is unlikely to be the case. Neither the extent of the

falldown in timber supplies, its timing nor, for that matter, the

geographic distribution of future timber shortages is known with

precision. Also, the implications of falldown are not well understood

by the public. In general, long-run decisions are being made to invest

in plant and equipment and regarding location of residences, etc., on

the assumption of future continuity of timber supplies. Given this

fact, future timber shortages could result in substantial social and

economic costs being imposed on future generations of British

Columbians.

"On a minor scale there are a number of instances

which provide illustrations of the type of effects which can be

expected. For example, Ocean Falls, a community which was developed on

the basis of assumed adequate long-run supplies of wood. The closure of

the mill entailed and is entailing high unemployment rates and

dislocation of workers and their families. This has involved

substantial private and public financial costs. The value of residences

declined dramatically, and this has presented exceptional difficulties

for individuals whose major form of saving has been home ownership. In

many cases, substantial relocation costs have been incurred in order to

obtain alternative employment. Unemployment itself has resulted in

financial losses to individuals, as well as to government through the

unemployment insurance program. Also, large social investments in

schools, hospitals, transportation and communication systems have been

made redundant.

"Events at Ocean Falls pale to insignificance compared

to the potential effects of the projected falldown on the British

Columbia economy. A one-third decline in the timber supply from current

levels would multiply the Ocean Falls experience many times, and would

have massive and pervasive effects throughout the British Columbia

economy. Based upon current employment figures such a contraction would

throw 31,000 British Columbians out of work in both logging and

wood-based manufacturing industries. Due to the central importance of

the forest industry to B.C., at least an equivalent number of jobs

would be lost in other sectors, including the transportation industry,

the capital repair and construction industry, the material and supply

industry, and most significantly, the retail and personal service

industry. The major effects would be largely localized in

forestry-dependent communities, but every major settlement in British

Columbia would be impacted.

"It is estimated that one in four jobs in British

Columbia owes its existence to the forest industry. It is unlikely that

this dependence will change dramatically in the near future. In the

final analysis, a major decline in the forest industry may require

massive

[ Page 3357 ]

out-migration of workers from the province, and this type of

adjustment can extend over lengthy time periods. Also, the major burden of adjustment

is likely to fall on senior government, as the financial ability of the province

to respond would be seriously impaired.

"Clearly, avoidance or at least reduction of these

social costs may be a principal benefit of investment in improved

forest management. The potential jobs saved in the long term varies

from forest region to forest region. Based upon current employment

levels, harvesting and processing employment generated per hectare of

backlog reforestation ranks from a high of 0.8 person-years in the

Vancouver forest region to a low of 0.2 person-years in the Cariboo

forest region. Complete reforestation of all good- and medium-backlog

sites throughout the province could generate total employment of

approximately 200,000 person-years. Per-hectare employment generated by

an integrated spacing fertilization program could range from 25 percent

to 50 percent of that generated by backlog reforestation."

Mr. Speaker, these words speak for themselves.

The point has been underlined by John Walters, director of UBC's experimental

forest, who had this to say, as quoted in the Vancouver Sun on February 18:

"'As we know it today, the forest industry is dying,'

Walters told the delegates. 'Action is required urgently if the forest

industry and all it means to B.C. is to survive.

"'We are kidding ourselves if we think we can sustain

forestry with $2 to $3 per-hectare annual expenditures. A harassed and

depleted ministry staff, working with inadequate data, starvation

budgets and uncertain funding, is expected to water half of B.C. with a

watering can.'"

In a document dated February 1984 the Association of B.C.

Professional Foresters recommended a minimum allocation of $90 million

for current NSR and an additional $70 million for backlog. They go on

to say that that $160 million — in 1983 dollars; it would be $168 in

1984 — will have to increase by at least 25 percent. The vote this year

for silviculture was $57,247,537 — 34 percent or one-third of the

amount required.

In a brief presented to the Minister of Finance dated January 24,

1984 — one of the groups the Minister of Finance met with but

apparently didn't listen to — the association pointed out that 1984

sowing requests were for 236 million trees, compared with current

nursery capacity of 120 million — just half of the needed amount. They

also urged a focus on the forest research programs, pointing out that

we are two generations behind our competitors in genetic improvement.

What they got is a 15 percent reduction in real terms. This is the

background against which we have to judge the Minister of Finance's

capacity to lecture foreign governments — page 4 of the budget — and to

caution all British Columbians against complacency — page 8.

[11:15]

This lecturing and cautioning comes from a man who is presiding over

the ruination — the rape, as John Walters called it — of this

province's economic base. Together with the Minister of Forests (Hon.

Mr. Waterland), this Minister of Finance has chief responsibility for

devising and administering those precious assets, our forests. He has

major responsibility for the problems at Shoal Island. They are jointly

responsible for what department officials describe as a 90 percent

reduction in goals relating to intensive silviculture. They are, in

brief, jointly responsible for utter chaos and ruin in our economic

base. The Minister of Forests does not have the interest of the

land-owning public in focus.

The Forest Act, as revised in 1978 by the present administration,

took control of the legislation from the Legislature, from the cabinet

and the Minister of Forests. In the crucial areas of revenue from

timber sales there are four elements in the Forest Act. These are:

allowable annual cut, which is determined under sections 7 and 28;

stumpage rate, determined by the regional manager under

section 84;

scaling, controlled variously by a committee of the regional manager,

the area manager, the chief forester and the supervisor of scalers,

under

part 6; and rebates of stumpages, rebates for projects done to

the satisfaction of the chief forester in respect to forest nurseries

or seed orchards and the regional manager in respect to logging access

roads and reforestation under

section 88. The first three elements

determine the amount of revenue. The fourth forgoes that revenue. There

is no arm's-length scrutiny, audit or evidence to guarantee a public

interest focus. Decisions involving hundreds of millions of dollars of

revenue and rebate of huge sums are made in smoke-filled rooms by

bureaucrats from government and industry, without scrutiny by

legislative watchdogs. Is it any wonder that in the fiscal year 1981-82

before the recession had full impact, Forest Service income before

section 88 was $172 million — from page 28 of the Forest Service Annual

Report. Expenditures after rebates were $297 million — page 24 of the

same report — for a deficit taken from the public treasury of $125

million. Yes, the landowner — the public of British Columbia —

subsidized forestry by $125 million drained from essential services.

Major leakage in revenue is visible in stumpage payments. Small

business that competes for timber pays 368 percent of stumpage as

appraised under the Forest Service formula. In the Vancouver region,

small business pays $11.30 per cubic metre and big business pays $4.29.

Over the entire province, small business paid $6.20 per cubic metre and

big business paid $2.17. Had big industry paid stumpage based upon

competitive prices for timber, the public treasury would have been

enriched by $400 million in that one year. Scaling is a critical

factor, as the ombudsman's report has shown. The ability of the

conglomerates to abuse the system is now revealed as a major leakage of

public revenue.

The people of British Columbia should be grateful for an ombudsman

who has ferreted out this breach of public trust and exposed it.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: I've been asked who appointed him, and I give

the government full marks for appointing him. I do hope that they'll

continue to support him to the extent that he needs it in order to

continue the good job he's doing on behalf of the people of British

Columbia.

Section 88. Rebates of stumpages are about 50 percent of gross

stumpage, rising so fast as to soon preempt all timber sales revenue.

Section 88 is wasteful. When less than 60 percent of trees planted

survive....

MRS. DAILLY: Not one cabinet minister is here.

[ Page 3358 ]

MR. STUPICH: The Minister of Universities, Science and

Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) is fond of attending the House

occasionally, briefly, and pointing out that some members from the

opposition side are absent. He's not here often enough to see how many

are here as a rule. It's been pointed out by my colleagues that for a

few moments there wasn't a single cabinet minister in the House, at a

time when we're talking about the most important resource in the

province of British Columbia. However, as was suggested by someone,

perhaps they're listening on their speakers in the office. I say that,

Mr. Speaker, with a smile.

Section 88 is wasteful. When less than 60 percent of trees planted

survive, when trees in the slow-growth areas and on mountaintops are

planted in priority over high-yield lands at low elevations close to

communities, and when 13 percent of B.C.'s previously denuded forest

land — equal to the area of Holland — does not support tree crops, the

economic waste committed to the future is enormous.

Section 88 rebates

are the greatest political pork-barrel in the history of British

Columbia. They pay the salaries of a substantial number of bureaucrats

on the staff of the conglomerates and are, no doubt, a source of Social

Credit political funds.

As a result of the 1978 Forest Act, the Ministry of Forests is in

partnership with the conglomerates and is obligated to protect and

pamper them in order to keep alive. It is a partnership with a twist,

which causes the ministry to work against the public interest; against

economic expansion of new, vigorous, entrepreneurial energy; against

economic expansion through modernized technology; against job expansion

through full use of an annual allowable cut; and against collective

realistic full value for timber sales from one of the world's greatest

heritages of long-fibred northern coniferous forests. Instead, the

minister protects, subsidizes and pampers conglomerates that are worn

out, technological derelicts that for 30 years have withdrawn profits

and capital cost allowances to invest the world over in everything from

roller skates to hamburger emporia — literally a dissipation of capital

and jobs, caused by an egomaniacal urge of management to make

acquisitions and the stupidity of boards of directors in forgetting the

roots of the company in British Columbia. In just 30 years almost all

coastal companies awarded tree-farm licences have become economic

cripples and corporate welfare bums, consuming our heritage resource at

subsidized prices.

In 1978 the Forest Service was decentralized and a proliferation of

staff added. It is leadership without a line of command. There is a

committee churning out policy manuals that are vague, confused and

purposeless. It has a staff that is confused, disheartened and so

manipulated by the conglomerates on the one hand and senior officials

of the ministry on the other that useful competence is destroyed. Never

in the 72-year history of the Forest Service has there been such a body

of professional foresters, with such world-class educational

competence, so misused by a statute so wrong and ministerial management

so inept.

I mentioned the four crucial areas of public interest revenue

collection. The Minister of Forests has presided over the downfall of a

once-vibrant public-interest-oriented Forest Service. He has allowed it

to devour itself with incompetence. He's presiding over the harvest of

our most important renewable resource as though he were still the

Minister of Mines disposing of a depleting resource.

Now let me return to discussing the byproducts of this partnership

of the ministry with the conglomerates. The minister was the midwife

who gave birth to debt-ridden western forest industries. He allowed

ITT-Rayonier to sell its tree-farm licences for $420 million cash. ITT

threw in a gaggle of worn-out, technologically defunct pulp mills and

sawmills, then disappeared in retreat with the money to the telephone

business. Instead of shuffling tree-farm licences in smoke-filled

rooms, Mr. Waterland should bring the action out in the open for public

scrutiny.

A further example of the duplicity of the Socred policy is the sad

demise of Ocean Falls. The NDP government purchased that operation at

$1 million to set up a midcoast development project to supply timber to

Bella Coola and Ocean Falls. The plan, completed and documented,

involved the construction of a forest-access road from South Bentinck

Arm to the head of Owikeno Lake. Among other things the transportation

of logs through the salmon-rich lake would be avoided. The Socreds came

to power, tore up the mid-coast development project and allocated the

unused allowable cut to three foreign-controlled multinationals already

with more timber than they could use. They abandoned the mid-coast road

development and dealt Ocean Falls a mortal blow by depriving it of its

timber supply. The only timber supply was that which the conglomerates

would sell at usurious prices.

Kruger Inc. of Quebec, anxious to invest in British Columbia, was

given the green light to purchase Ocean Falls. Kruger had a newsprint

machine on order in the factory and capital to invest to bring a

powerline to utilize excess power from Kemano. As a byproduct

communities in the mid-coast would be electrified with other than

diesel generators. Ultimately a link to the northern Vancouver Island

power grid could have resulted. Ocean Falls would have been modernized

with world-class technology and would be selling high quality, low-cost

newsprint into markets long served by Ocean Falls. The new Ocean Falls

would have competed with Crown Zellerbach, B.C. Forest Products and

MacMillan Bloedel in the California market. Kruger is a private

enterprise, competitive entrepreneur — a dead species among B.C.'s

conglomerates. The free-enterprisers did not want a Kruger in their

midst. At the final meeting of a long negotiation, when all the bricks

were in place and senior executives of Kruger were in attendance,

Ministry of Forests officials — without any warning — announced they

had reviewed their previously published annual allowable cut scheduled

for the mid-coast on which negotiations were based. The ministry

explained that a major reduction in the timber supply was necessary.

Eight weeks from the date Kruger arrived and announced its objectives,

the Minister of Forests — with the stroke of a pen, again in the back

room — wiped out the entire future of Ocean Falls. Kruger abruptly

departed from the meeting and the member for North Peace River (Hon.

Mr. Brummet) was left with an empty bag. Ocean Falls was dealt a

second, and this time mortal, blow as a pulp and paper centre.

It seems obvious that the Minister of Forests responded to an appeal

from the conglomerates to bar the door against a potential competitor.

The Minister of Forests prevented the survival and growth of a

mid-coast community. It remains among the Socred castaways, the disused

flotsam of their lifeboat ethics.

It is Socred forest policy which protects and conceals the plunder

of every British Columbian's birthright for the proverbial mess of

pottage. Mr. Waterland now advocates privatizing forest management.

This is the policy of 40 years

[ Page 3359 ]

ago by another coalition government of Liberals,

Conservatives and opportunists, and the public inherited a derelict

industry in the coastal sector. The Chemainus problem of technological

obsolescence is marching northwards, step by step, on Vancouver Island,

propelled by a dead-end forest policy, the wrong legislation and a

worse-than-useless Minister of Forests.

The Forests ministry needs to be put under trusteeship. The trustee

should be given the responsibility of reorganizing scaling and the

joint supervision of harvesting and reforestation in a fashion which

gives first priority to the public interest. The trustee should deal

simultaneously with expediting the recommendations of the ombudsman

with respect to the Shoal Island situation. Further, he should conduct

an audit of stumpage rates under

section 88. Forestry is our most

important natural resource, and it needs the attention of someone who,

rather than treating it as an ore body to be exploited and abandoned,

will husband and manage it so that it will produce an ever-increasing

supply of products for present residents and for generations yet unborn.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

The third and perhaps most important lesson concerns the essence of

the last two budgets: restraint. Restraint in many people's minds is

synonymous with self-discipline. One restrains one's expenditures in

order to save or simply to make ends meet. One restrains one's passions

in order to be well-behaved. Restraint in the use of force is a

precondition for peace and so on. Thus Social Credit newspeak adopts a

perfectly good word and perverts it for its own political purposes.

Restraint in B.C. means privatization and contracting out. It does not

mean a lack of self-indulgence. Government ministers still enjoy the

same high salaries, perks and pension plans as before, only now they

enjoy more global travel. In this province it means the specific

measures of privatization and contracting out.

[11:30]

1 want to deal at some length with the second of these ideas; that

is, contracting out. The government has made it clear that many of the

full-time equivalent employees delivering programs will be replaced

with contracted services. Thus a vastly expanding army of paid

consultants is replacing a diminishing army of employees. This tool is

not new to government or unique to Social Credit; however, the

wholesale application of the policy and absence of proper guidelines

leads to a clear-cut potential for abuse. The abuse I'm talking about

was sumarized recently by Professor Rodney Dobell, respected dean of

the school of administrative studies at UVIC, as "jobs and money for

the boys." It is no secret that in B.C. there are no jobs to be had in

government. It is, however, less known that there are no shortages of

contracts to be had if you know the right people in government.

Recently, without any announcement, the Minister of Finance brought

forward Treasury Board order 2/84. This order doubles the maximum

consulting contract which may be entered into without Treasury Board

approval from $25,000 to $50,000. There is, in fact, a slackening of

government control over spending in this area. I might add that any

government manager worth his salt knows how to break up consultant

contracts to get around Treasury Board approval or guidelines. What is

the difference between two $45,000 consultant contracts to one

contractor and one $90,000 consulting contract?

So the question has to be asked whether this process saves the

taxpayer any money. In fact, the displacing of a non-partisan public

servant appointed through competition and merit with a consultant does

not save money; it generates income for supporters of the Social Credit

Party. To the additional costs associated with consultants over

government employees must be added the costs of unemployment and

welfare benefits for government employees who are displaced. Every

non-partisan employee replaced with a Socred consultant will have a

problem of income loss which will be reflected in government spending

sooner or later.

Government employees are understandably upset at seeing their jobs

turned over on the gravy train to the Socred party machine. In one such

case a complaint has been laid before the Labour Relations Board. It

has been alleged that a consultant is being paid $290 per day to peruse

two to four complex files or six to eight simple files per day in the

Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing. This work, the employees say, is

normally done by a clerk 5 who is paid approximately $80 per day. It

will be interesting to see whether the government allows a full hearing

at the LRB. Perhaps it will be more interesting to see whether the LRB

will survive long enough to conduct hearings on issues such as this.

In addition to those privatization contracts which end up costing

taxpayers more money, there are those which cost specific members more

money. This is clearly true of the privatization of court stenographer

services. It is becoming true of the privatization of sheriff services.

The approaching experiment with private sector sheriffs will be

interesting from another perspective. The days of private law

enforcement were once thought long-gone in North America; they are

returning in B.C. Among their many functions, sheriffs have a critical

role in carrying out court judgments, particularly of a civil nature.

In what fashion would various private sector sheriffs undertake to

enforce court orders? What control will exist over the way in which the

law in the province is carried out on the doorsteps?

Of course, the privatization scam is being extended broadly through

the corrections system. Under Social Credit I suppose we would call it

the corrections industry. This is how corrections will join the

"productive" and escape the tainted public sector. I am informed B.C.

is going to privatize chaplain and nursing services in jails. Most

recently the Ministry of Human Resources advertised a variety of

juvenile and family treatment facilities for private contractors, and I

understand that interest has been keen. Some feel there is gold to be

made among those who have serious personal problems; others feel their

own private religious or philosophical methods should have great sway

among those of our own troubled youth and families who are at risk.

Government should realize that a full-time equivalent doing the same

job is economically similar in all sectors. A Social Credit consultant

is no more valuable to society than a non-partisan government employee.

Getting rid of thousands of full-time equivalents on the payroll, the

way the minister and the government have done, is relatively easy.

There is nothing new or different about a government handing out

contracts. The only difference is the use of fancy words such as

"privatization." This is called lubrication, which, as we all know, is

what makes machinery work smoothly. In this case the machinery is the

Social Credit Party. From now on, when

[ Page 3360 ]

the members opposite use big words like "privatization," "invitations

for proposals," or even "contracting out," we on this side

must remind the public that we are talking about lubrication. It is, in a word,

a scam. Worse, it has now I become a smokescreen to hide some serious cutbacks.

I shall return to this point in reviewing the current year's budget proposals.

There are those who had hoped that the experience of the past seven

and a half months would bear heavily on the considerations of the

Finance minister in preparing the 1984 budget. There are those who felt

that, politics and ideology aside, the government would see that

British Columbia's unique failure to enter a recovery phase during 1983

should cause a certain re-evaluation. There are those who felt that the

Finance minister and the government would take a more pragmatic and a

less ideological stance. There are those who had hoped that economic

reality was more compelling than adolescent competition to determine

who practises the toughest restraint. Perhaps Social Credit will go

down in the annals of the political history of the 1980s as flexing its

governmental muscles and cutting the most machismo figure among western

democratic governments. If so, it will be as an example of ideological

and political excess, of blind political faith over evidence, and of a

government having been sold a bill of goods by corporate backers who

have no real interest in the long-term future of this province.

Remember, Mr. Speaker, that the corporate backers of the Fraser

Institute, who are behind this budget in philosophy and in detail, are

known to be investing their dollars outside B.C. They want low wages

and low taxes for as long as they can get them, and once the time comes

they'll move on. The government of this province is supposed to view

this province in the long term, but never before has the B.C.

government been so completely in the grasp of and so beholden to a

group of special interests.

Economic initiatives. Let it never be said that the corporate elite

in this province does not know on which side its bread is buttered. It

is no accident that the corporate elite — the stock promoters and the

people who buy and sell real estate in this province — support Social

Credit. They know on which side of the political landscape they will

get favours. They know Social Credit will force working people to pay

the bills while they receive the benefits. That is why boom periods in

this province are defined as those periods when real estate sells for

the large dollar. Every real estate boom has its financial winners. The

present Premier made his start in life by buying and selling the land

of this province during a real estate boom. It's small wonder, then,

that the government showcases as an economic initiative a study of the

tax burden on various types of businesses in several jurisdictions, to

be followed by a consultative process. This is to be done in

conjunction with a thorough review of the impact of taxation on

economic development. The result of all of this is to be innovative tax

measures for stimulating new investment by large and small business.

There is to be no study of the high impact of taxation and user fees on

working people in the province. There is to be no consultative process

through which innovative approaches to making ends meet on the part of

our citizens will be developed.

It is interesting that the net effect of eight years of the Bill

Bennett Social Credit government is a youth unemployment rate of 24.2

percent.

Interjection

MR. STUPICH: I haven't come to that page, but it's in here; I don't think it's in the budget.

That is, one in four able-bodied young persons under 25 is not just

unemployed but actively pounding the pavement in search of a job and

unable to find one. Rather than study the shattering life prospects of

people in this category, the solution of the Minister of Human

Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) is to introduce age discrimination in

the paltry allowance under the legislation for unemployed persons and

to penalize the under-25s for economic circumstances which the

government has created for them.

What about the situation of those who are still lucky enough to have

a paycheque under Social Credit? The Minister of Finance does not

propose to study their lot, either. He has slapped on an 8 percent tax

hike to ensure that the paycheque will be smaller, starting in July.

The clever Minister of Finance opposite has produced tables on pages 42

and 43 of the budget showing precisely half the impact of this tax. The

fact is that there will be $10 to $14 less in every pay packet as a

result of the tax increase imposed yesterday by the Minister of Finance.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I'm told that I can thank the

federal government for that. I thought it was the provincial Minister

of Finance whom I was listening to yesterday. Like all good Social

Credit budgets, this one blames all the problems on someone else, and

that member is falling into the same trap. It's so easy to point to

someone outside this House and say it's all their fault, rather than to

look in the mirror. Whether it is world economic conditions or the

federal government or the weather or what have you, every Social Credit

budget has an external scapegoat upon which all tribulations and tax

increases can be visited. This budget is of course no exception. It is

for this reason that the public relations staff have coined the phrase:

"health care maintenance surtax." The minister is obviously aware of

how this charade was orchestrated, but for the benefit of other members

and those in the public who may be interested, I think a little

background is in order.

Among other ways your Social Credit government squanders your tax

dollar is that they conduct political opinion surveys at taxpayers'

expense. The most recent of these, conducted by Goldfarb in January

1984, asks respondents to rate a series of proposed tax increases for

health care. This was pointed out in the House a short time ago by my

colleague the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly). Among the list is

a variety of user fees and — surprise! — "an increase in general income

tax to provide the additional funds." This is as close as we come to

finding out the truth about the intelligence gathered by the

government, at taxpayers' expense, about the voters. Now we know what

Mr. Goldfarb told the government. It is left to the Doug Heals of this

world, in their taxpayer-financed dream world, to invent "health care

maintenance surtax." But wait! There is a further dimension added to

muddy the waters. This tax is a "temporary" one, until such time as

federal-provincial funding issues are ironed out on medicare. Remember

when income tax was introduced as a temporary tax?

Let me deal with this argument for what it is — a demonstrable lie

designed to fool the public. Members opposite must surely be aware that

this side of the House fought strenuously to oppose the end of joint

funding in health care.

[ Page

3361 ]

While the NDP was fighting the end of cost-sharing, this government, with dollar

signs in its eyes, leaped onto the block-funding bandwagon. Social Credit thought

it could skim money out of the system for political propaganda, polling, subsidized

resource development and all of its other favourite projects. The fact is that

the dollar signs in your eyes blinded you to the potential for reduction in

federal contributions once the fifty-fifty proposition was abandoned. Now you've

been caught by your own greed and lack of principle, and you're taking it

out on the taxpayer.

Let me put one proposition clearly: the only basis upon which you

could sell this tax increase as a health care measure is by also

eliminating user fees. That is, the so-called health care maintenance

surtax would be credible were it to at least replace hospital user

fees. Hospital user fees raise some $40 million a year, compared to the

minister's heath care surtax which will raise $166 million, according

to the minister's estimate. While on this subject, I'd like to point

out that the total reductions in federal health contributions are

closer to $185 million over the five-year period and not the $364

million noted in the budget. Over the same five-year period the

minister's surtax would yield $830 million. All of this is by way of

pointing out that the tax increase has nothing to do with health care.

Health care is really a smokescreen to mask a tax hike. Moreover,

because of the way our tax system works, this is a tax hike which

applies to those who are on a paycheque, rather to those who earn their

incomes through property transactions and other means which are not

taxable under present income tax rules. To repeat, the Minister of

Finance gives every indication of making the situation worse by

proposing to study even more tax gimmicks for tax avoidance by those

who have the means to qualify.

[11:45]

I had hoped to dwell in some further detail with economic initiatives in the

budget. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, there are none. In fact, the 1984 budget

is one of economic inertia. It's amazing how the passing of these months

under the present watchword of restraint could have led to the kind of paralysis

on the economic front that we see on the part of this government today. With

the exception of the tax-fiddling I've just referred to, there is nothing

which indicates that Social Credit has a clear idea of where it wants to go,

how to get there, and what means it will require along the way.

Certainly it is easy to deny that Social Credit has any lingering

desire to deal with the serious social problems it has wrought over the

past 30 years. Any of the legacy of social conscience that the Social

Credit Party inherited from its predecessors in the 1930s has gone and

is sadly forgotten. Representatives of that party have grabbed onto a

single idea, that of fiscal restraint, and transformed it into a

complete philosophy and program. The illogic of this extreme can be

seen with simple reference to Webster's dictionary, which defines

restrain as: "To prevent from doing, exhibiting or expressing

something; to limit, restrict, or keep under control; to limit

development or full exercise of." I think anyone with sense can see the

limitations of this concept. Yet the government expects congratulations

for applying it in an indiscriminate fashion.

Thus the Socreds have successfully prevented the economy from exhibiting or

expressing economic recovery. Are we supposed to say thank you? It has successfully

limited the development of the economy by clamping a lid on a major portion

of it. Tax hikes for ordinary people and tax breaks for the wealthy do not make

it as an economic policy for B.C. in 1984. We can argue in this chamber whether

or not it might have worked at another time. But it will be difficult for members

opposite to lay aside their usual insults and argue its merit as an economic

strategy. I shall deal with this in depth in my conclusion.

The budget speech contains an incredible prophesy, one, I am sad to

say, that may be self-fulfilling. One page 4 the minister says: "...we

may be forced to undergo another painful recession without having fully

recovered from the last one." I think everyone who follows this debate

should remember those words, Mr. Speaker. This is precisely the course

that this government has set us upon. I don't have to go beyond the

paper tabled by the minister yesterday to make my point. It takes five

minutes, a book of labour force statistics and a calculator to

determine from the data on pages 36 and 37 of the budget that our

economy is in deep trouble. Even if everything goes exactly as Social

Credit hopes, fewer people will be employed in B.C. in 1985 than in

1981. We are going to come through the entire cycle of recession and

so-called recovery and wind up with fewer employed and a great many

more unemployed. Production in the economy has not yet recovered to

1981 levels, and may not do so by 1985. There has been a doubling of

the unemployment rate, and no employment strategies in sight. The

economic policy of the government has nothing to do with initiative and

everything to do with inertia.

I can't close this brief examination of the budget economics without

commenting again on the $470 million grant to the B.C. Railway. The

minister has appropriated almost 70 percent of all resource revenues

for the coming year to subsidize the northeast coal project. The

minister claims that these funds cannot be used for northeast coal. I

say he has gone to clever lengths to make his point, but in so doing

makes distinctions with no real difference. Consider, for example, the

minister's clarification that funds paid to BCR will not reduce debt

but be added to the sinking funds of the railway's prehistoric debt.

For those intimidated by the term "sinking fund," these are simply

investments, the interest from which is dedicated to meet loan

repayment instalments. Very clearly, these funds will remain as an

investment portfolio in the hands of B.C. Railway. This is far from the

same thing as paying off historic debt; this is actually a provision of

investment capital to the railway.

The minister doesn't say what these funds will be invested in, but

the BCR has indicated its past investment practice. If one examines the

1982 annual report of the BCR, at page F10 it says that during the year

bonds issued by a related provincial Crown corporation were acquired to

be held as assets in the sinking fund. Let me repeat: bonds issued by a

related Crown corporation — we're talking about B.C. Railway now — are

considered as an investment in the sinking fund.

MR. HOWARD: They could have been invested in B.C. government bonds.

MR. STUPICH: B.C. government bonds are not related to B.C. Railway.

I submit that there is nothing to prevent some or all of the $470

million finding its way into purchasing such bonds or bank paper, or

some other device for financing the Tumbler Ridge railway. It is even

possible that the bonds could be issued by a direct subsidiary of the

B.C. Railway. Far stranger things have already happened in the

wonderful,

[ Page 3362 ]

wacky world of Social Credit Crown corporation finance. Who says the A plus B theorem is dead?

The government plainly has huge financial losses in northeast coal

to hide. The $470 million is just the beginning. Less money for

education, less money for health — in terms of real dollars — less

money for child care and protection of public safety in the future,

because future tax dollars are committed to this project. I think the

minister himself has gone as far as a Socred cabinet member could in

admitting it. He announced yesterday that natural resource revenues

will no longer be available for any purpose in terms of budgetary

expenditure. It is going to take the entire resource heritage of every

British Columbian to take care of the losses, subsidies and debts on

Social Credit economic failures already committed. It is a poor legacy,

one the members opposite cannot be proud of.

The minister no longer talks of saving for a rainy day. The best he

now musters is: "...revenue derived from our resource endowment will be

used to build the financial strength of the provincial government in

preparation for any future economic downturns." It is pale stuff, Mr.

Speaker, and the minister is a pale imitation of himself imitating a

Minister of Finance.

All that can be done by Social Credit is to cover up for the

mistakes of the past, using the people's resource heritage as hush

money. The miscalculations of government and the greed of the few have

their price. The price is now to be paid. It is a far cry from economic

strategy. It is economic inertia which is dragging our province down

and away from our remaining opportunities.

Expenditure priorities. I had hoped to deal with the government's

expenditure priorities in some detail. However, I see that the Minister

of Finance has not let this opportunity slip to once again reorganize

the spending estimates, in particular the supplement containing details

of ministry expenditures. The annual reorganization of the estimates

under this minister has reached the point where it is impossible to

determine expenditure shifts from year to year. Not only are figures

not presented in a manner consistent with prior years but the prior

year's expenditures are themselves recalculated on the basis of

complicated transfers of funding and accounts. The net effect is that

it will be impossible, save for examination of each vote in detail, to

determine exactly what he has done.

This is a clever approach to presentation of budget estimates.

Unfortunately, while clever is what we have come to expect of this

minister, it is far from fulfilling the role of a budget in the British

parliamentary system. It is no accident that people have a great pride

in the British parliamentary system. There are many in this chamber,

present and past, who have risked much in its defence. The budget is,

or ought to be, the centrepiece of parliamentary democracy and the

principle of accountability in government. It is supposed to be the

chief mechanism for people and their representatives to maintain a

handle on what the government is doing. I say you cannot continue to

shuffle and reshuffle the estimate book to disguise and to hide and to

deceive people about what you are doing. It is time that we returned to

some sense of honour and honesty in the reporting of financial

information to this House in the estimates, in the public accounts and

in the examination thereof.

In the fiscal year just completed the government chose to operate for four

months in the absence of any supply from the Legislative Assembly. During this

time the government operated under the very margin of constitutionality. Government

employees were reduced to seeking pencils on requisitions marked as "urgent

and public necessity" to deal with the fact that this government chose

to operate without legislative supply. At the same time, a budget is the central

document of the government's program. It reconciles public demands and needs

with available public money supply.

Well, we must be pleased that the government has finally chosen to

introduce a budget in advance of the period for which funds are

required — and we are pleased about that. The budget fails miserably as

an attempt to state government priorities. We know, for example, that

the government intends to penalize young unemployed persons for being

unemployed. It should be noted that the proposed reduction for

under-25s leaves them as individuals with the grand total of some $5

per day for food, clothing, cleanliness and transportation. For a

couple, the comparable figure is $8.50 per day. The Minister of Human

Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) held a press conference yesterday and

suggested, of the new age-discrimination policy, that unemployed young

people could go home or could go to Fort St. John. There's lots of room

there, Mr. Speaker — a 30 percent vacancy rate in Fort St. John. The

Minister of Human Resources ought to be aware, but the Minister of

Finance certainly is, that there are more than 70,000 young people

officially registered as unemployed in B.C. They are heavily among the

35,000 British Columbians who go through food banks and soup kitchens

every week in this province. I realize that the Minister of Finance has

been generous in the $470 million granted to the benefit of the

northeast coal project resource revenue yesterday. How on earth are we

going to employ 70,000 young British Columbians in northeast B.C.? As

the ombudsman asked in his 1980 report to the Legislative Assembly,

does a young person on income assistance need less money for food than

an older person? How many calories per day can they get by on? Surely

there must be a better solution for unemployment than starving them out.

I note with interest that provincial Pharmacare spending is down.

Members may recall documents presented by the NDP during the election

campaign which showed that Pharmacare deductibles would be increased.

These were vehemently denied by all and sundry, especially the Minister

of Health, the hon. member for Richmond (Hon. Mr. Nielsen), and by the

Premier. British Columbia electors will have to learn how to approach

Social Credit denials. Unfortunately they just have to learn to ignore

them.

It should be noted that education spending is again on the skids.

British Columbians started this year at the absolute bottom of the heap

in terms of education spending. That tight-fisted government opposite

spends fewer dollars per capita on education than any other province in

the country. The same is true relative to personal income.

On the university side we're not quite last. We tie for last with

Prince Edward Island. The government has often defended its spending

policies, in particular the allegation that fewer British Columbians

are able to attend universities than the national average, by saying

that universities are not for our people. We prefer to send them to

other post-secondary institutions. The evidence is now in. With the

exception of Newfoundland, B.C. has the lowest post-secondary education

participation rate in the country. If you were unlucky enough to be

born in British Columbia, you have a smaller chance of obtaining any

sort of post-secondary education

[ Page 3363 ]

than almost anyone else in the country. But if you

can't get an education, you can go into the labour market, where you

will not get a job. In this case you will not be able to obtain full

social assistance and will begin your life by attempting to survive on

$5 per day. This is what the Socred government offers our young people.

Is this really what the people voted for last May?

If you study hard and get by on your provincial exams in grades 10

and 11, you can shop around for a post-secondary education. If you try

technical school — let's say BCIT — they will tell you they are not

sure which courses they will be offering and since all staff are on

general notice of layoff, who will be offering them. If you go to a

community college, you will find that most have been ordered by the

province to cut out business administration courses. This is called

privatization. The same courses are available from private schools for

two or three times the price — not much hope there. You could try going

to university. The government has announced that it will cut back

university operating budgets by only 5 percent instead of 6 percent.

This, they argue, should result in a major reduction in tuition fees.

That's Social Credit financing. Suppose the Minister of Finance is

right in this; the prospective student can expect an $18 discount on a

tuition bill approaching $1,000 per year.

Meanwhile our prospective student has discovered that Walter Block has advised

the government to eliminate rent controls. The average student hovel will cost

$50 or $60 a month more than it did last year. If, however, he or she is lucky

enough to find a place removed from campus with a lower rent, there are the

transit costs, which are bound to increase as a result of further cuts in the

transit budget. Two years ago the provincial budget provided more than $91 million

in subsidies to the Urban Transit Authority. In this budget these sums have

been reduced to $74 million. Of course, the provincial government was prepared

to loan money to those who qualified under the student aid program, but now

the Minister of Finance has announced that student aid is gone. To quote the

minister's words exactly: "Effective April 1, 1984, student aid will

be provided primarily in the form of loans, rather than grants as in the past."

So the prospective student is facing a debt load of some $30,000 after graduation,

or a $400 monthly payment for ten years. One can, of course, take summer employment

to subsidize one's education, but unfortunately this area has been cut back

as well. The only comfort offered by the Finance minister was a proposal to

lend money to students to create their own jobs. Just what we need — another

way to get into debt. Is it any wonder, then, that many of our young people

choose to join the 70,000 others who are actively seeking jobs in the labour

force. If young people without post-secondary education are lucky enough to

obtain employment, this is a blessing. If they are lucky enough to maintain

that employment in an increasingly complex and specialized world, more power

to them.

Mr. Speaker, I move adjournment of the debate until the next sitting.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:01 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1985,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada