1985 Legislative Session: 3rd 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)

MONDAY, MARCH 18, 1985

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

5305 ]

CONTENTS

Oral Questions

Vancouver Island energy costs. Mr. Skelly –– 5305

University standards. Mr. Nicolson –– 5305

Possible cuts in ERDA funding. Mr. Williams –– 5306

Mr. Howard

Community involvement program. Ms. Brown –– 5306

Community college funding. Mr. Rose –– 5306

Kelowna-Vernon bypass. Mr. MacWilliam –– 5307

Provincial court judge. Mr. Macdonald –– 5307

Tabling Documents –– 5307

Budget debate

Mr. Kempf –– 5307

Mr. Rose –– 5309

Mr. Davis –– 5313

Mr. Nicolson –– 5316

Hon. Mr. Pelton –– 5319

Ms. Sanford –– 5321

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 5323

Mr. Lank –– 5326

Appendix –– 5329

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure today to introduce in

your gallery Mrs. Chris Taulu and a number of members of the Metro

Education Association, which is a coalition of parents, teachers and

trustees concerned about education. They are over here today to meet

with the MLAs.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I'd ask the House to welcome members of the

Select Committee on Science and Technology for the Future from the

Legislative Assembly of New Brunswick, accompanied by the Clerk of the

House, Mr. David Peterson. I understand as well that our fellow

Canadians from New Brunswick are not only investigating science and

technology but that our Clerk of the House enjoyed his share of three

cases of Atlantic lobster last evening.

MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, if all goes well, this September

my wife and I will be celebrating our twenty-first wedding anniversary.

By saying that, I'd like to introduce my best man from 21 years ago,

Bill Forster, and his wife Ida, who are in the gallery today,

MRS. JOHNSTON: In the gallery today are some students from

Trinity Western College in Fort Langley — soon to be known, hopefully,

as Trinity Western University. I would ask the House to please welcome

them.

MR. R. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce Mr. Puri of the Link , a Vancouver newspaper. Would the House please make him welcome.

Oral Questions

VANCOUVER ISLAND ENERGY COSTS

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Premier,

perhaps I could address a question to the Minister of Energy. A week

ago in Port Alberni the Association of Vancouver Island Municipalities

withdrew its support for the Vancouver Island gas pipeline and moved

instead to call for a reduction in electrical energy rates to equalize

energy costs between gas service areas and areas outside the natural

gas market. Has the minister decided to respect the wishes of the

Vancouver Island municipalities and develop an alternative pricing

policy which will equalize energy costs between gas service areas and

those which have no access to natural gas?

HON. MR. ROGERS: First of all, they haven't contacted me. But

for now the answer is no, and the answer for the future is in all

likelihood no, but I'll give it consideration.

MR. SKELLY: A supplementary to the Minister of Energy. Is it

consistent with the minister's definition of cooperation to provide gas

to municipalities on Vancouver Island whether they want it or not?

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, I would not force any municipality on

Vancouver Island to take gas if the municipality didn't want it. However,

there is this one caveat: people living in the municipality may want it, regardless

of the political stripe of the person occupying the mayor's chair. Given

the choice, they will vote with their pocketbooks and install gas.

MR. SKELLY: Supplementary to the minister. Would the minister

be willing to conduct a referendum on Vancouver Island to ask people

whether they would prefer lower electrical energy costs or natural gas

with its added capital costs?

HON. MR. ROGERS: Number one, I'm not in the referendum

business; and I don't believe referendums are appropriate. I believe

your supposition is incorrect, and on that basis I don't think it would

be appropriate.

UNIVERSITY STANDARDS

MR. NICOLSON: To the Minister of Universities, Science and

Communications: the president of the Confederation of University

Faculty Associations of B.C. has published a letter regarding the

contents of a meeting held with the minister. Does the minister feel

that B.C. has too many university faculty and students and that

entrance standards should be raised to get rid of students who attend

university for social reasons?

MR. SPEAKER: The member will not be surprised by a lengthy answer.

HON. MR. McGEER: No, Mr. Speaker, and as soon as we can find

the man who gave that interview we're going to fire him. We're hunting

all over the place to determine who in the ministry holds those views,

but we haven't been able to discover such a person.

MR. NICOLSON: In view of the fact that the minister has now

threatened legal action, is he prepared to table an affidavit regarding

his version of the comments that he made during that meeting?

HON. MR. McGEER: We're still hunting for the culprit, Mr. Speaker. The letter to me was sent to Monday magazine, that paragon of investigative reporting, and Monday magazine then sent the letter to my office. We're now extending the investigation beyond the ministry right up to Monday magazine, but we'll certainly report to the House as soon as we can run down exactly who said those things.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Boyanowsky says he stands by the contents

of his letter. He said that he's not just Socred-bashing, that he

didn't make it up. He was accompanied by Dr. Gordon Shrimpton.

Why does the minister believe that every time somebody tries to

engage in a meaningful dialogue on university education, he has to get

into character assassination? Why does he have to undercut the

credibility of people, whether it be the resignation of the president

of the University of British Columbia or the well-intentioned visit

from two of the leading educators in British Columbia?

[2:15]

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I'm not trying to undercut

anybody. As far as the former president of the University of British

Columbia is concerned, I do nothing but

[ Page 5306 ]

thank him for his service to this province and wish him well in his new post.

With respect to my views on higher education, the ladies and

gentlemen of the press are welcome at all times to come down and seek

those views. As far as Monday

magazine is concerned, when I suggested to them that they determine the

views of myself and the ministry, they didn't have any space in their

edition for those views. I leave that option open to Monday magazine and to the press. I'm delighted to give an interview at any time on these subjects.

POSSIBLE CUTS IN ERDA FUNDING

MR. WILLIAMS: In view of the absence of the Minister of

Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. McClelland), a

question to the Minister of Forests. Reports this weekend indicate that

the ERDA agreement might well be reduced to $500 million. Can the

minister advise whether he has carried on discussions with his

colleague in terms of meeting the downsizing that the federal

government appears to be considering for aid to British Columbia?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Yes, I could so advise.

MR. WILLIAMS: Could the minister advise us whether a

reduction in the proposed amounts is therefore acceptable in terms of

the forestry subagreement?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, no such discussions have

taken place. As far as the British Columbia government is concerned, we

are still seeking a $650 million agreement, and I have no information

that anything other than that has been offered us.

MR. WILLIAMS: Could the minister advise whether he sees that

as a priority amount within the spending and would argue for

maintenance of the $300 million amount?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: The objective of the government of

British Columbia has been stated many times in this Legislative

Assembly. It has been stated publicly and has received wide press

coverage. It is that the province of British Columbia is seeking a $650

million agreement with the federal government, $300 million of which

will be a forestry agreement. We have not negotiated or discussed

alternatives to that.

MR. HOWARD: A supplementary. I wonder if the minister could

confirm that decisions made within his ministry are to the effect that

of that amount of money, a limitation of $22 million will be placed

upon expenditures in the first fiscal year.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, the proposed agreement

provides for, I believe, a first-year expenditure of $22 million,

rising to $44 million the next year and $78 million for each of the

three succeeding years.

COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM

MS. BROWN: My question is to the Attorney-General and has to

do with the very lengthy litigation which a number of disabled people

had to go through in order to get the Ministry of Human Resources to

pay their CIP — that $50 a month that they used to earn. What did it

cost the government to pay for that lengthy legal attack on the

disabled and the poor?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, even by stretching

the rules of question period, such a question can hardly qualify under

urgent importance — one that requires that amount of a figure. The

member may wish to rephrase the question.

MS. BROWN: Is the Attorney-General able to tell this House how much money was involved in that case?

HON. MR. SMITH: Answering the second question instead of the abortive first question with the deceptive

preamble, the answer is no.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, there are other sources which

indicate that there was something in the neighbourhood of $80,000

involved. Can the Attorney-General confirm that it was at least $80,000.

HON. MR. SMITH: No, I cannot, Mr. Speaker.

COMMUNITY COLLEGE FUNDING

MR. ROSE: My question is to the Minister of Education. The

ministry, according to the budget, has decided to withhold about $12.7

million of college funding for the community colleges in a fund — some

people would call it a slush fund — to be controlled from the

minister's office. I'd like to ask the minister: has the ministry yet

determined how much of this fund will be required to meet severance

payments in the programs directed for elimination by this government?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, the amount of money has been

placed within the budget. I concede that it is to be used at the

discretion of the ministry. However, the funds are to be disbursed to

the colleges in support of a number of programs which I'm sure those

colleges wish to advance in their communities, depending on what the

demands are and remembering that each of the colleges represents a

certain regional area within the province.

With respect to the question of severance, I haven't even

entertained that idea at the present time. Whether part of it will ever

be used for that I honestly cannot answer, Mr. Speaker, but for the

present, I have not even considered that particular item and the

utilization of those funds for that specific purpose to which the

member referred.

MR. ROSE: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I believe what I

heard was the minister just confirming that it will be the minister who

will control the distribution of these funds. Since the minister

appointed all the members of the college boards, none of which are

elected, why couldn't decisions about which programs are to be

abolished and which programs are to be expanded be left up to those

boards that were appointed by the minister?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: That's exactly what will happen. The

ministry will be responsible for allocation of those funds, and they

will go to each of the colleges. The amount that will go to each

college will be totally dependent on the nature of

[ Page

5307 ]

the program that is going to be advanced. I presume certain programs will probably

incur greater costs than others.

MR. ROSE: The minister said that the boards will distribute

the funds but that the decisions were probably going to be left up to

the minister. Has the ministry decided at this time whether any new

programs will be funded from this source? If so, what are they?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I will have to take that question as

notice, because I do not have any specific details in mind. I think

that it's a very valid question.

KELOWNA-VERNON BYPASS

MR. MacWILLIAM: I have a question to the Minister of

Transportation and Highways. The Premier's announcement of the

Coquihalla Highway project just prior to the by-election last fall

included the construction of a Kelowna-Vernon bypass along the west

side of Okanagan Lake. In your latest reannouncement, you made no

mention of the proposed bypass. Will the minister please explain why

the proposal for construction of the Kelowna-Vernon link has been

deleted from recent announcements of accelerated phase 3 construction?

HON. A. FRASER: I assume that it is because it is not happening in 1985-86.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Will the minister assure the residents of

Okanagan North that the construction of the Kelowna-Vernon link will be

included in the construction plans, or is the minister holding off the

promise for another election?

Interjections.

PROVINCIAL COURT JUDGE

MR. MACDONALD: I have a question to the Attorney-General.

Judge John Davies of the Provincial Court of B.C. said that he could no

longer work as a judge because of various factors which in his opinion

rendered him incapable of being impartial. My question to the

Attorney-General is: did he continue to be paid by your ministry during

the period he said he couldn't work?

HON. MR. SMITH: I don't think he quite said that he couldn't

work. I think he said that he couldn't adjudicate guilt and innocence

in trials. [Laughter.] There is more to judging than that function,

hon. member. During the period in which this justice declined to take

trials, I understand that he administered caseloads in criminal court

chambers in Vancouver and performed other duties. But a superior court

judge has now made it clear that he can work in all respects, and I

anticipate that he will do so. The answer to the question, however

unartfully it was posed, would be yes.

I ask leave to make an introduction. Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. SMITH: In the gallery this afternoon are a number of students

from Mount Douglas Senior Secondary School in my riding, with their teacher

Mr. Skapa. They are French immersion students. I would ask the House to welcome

them.

Hon. Mr. Pelton tabled answers to questions on the order paper. [See appendix.]

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I wish to file a number of

documents in compliance with statutory requirements: first, the

consolidated financial statement of the British Columbia Steamship

Company, which is growing good news for the taxpayers of this province

and an indication of the able stewardship of my predecessor, the

Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. A. Fraser); and second,

the annual report of the Law Reform Commission of British Columbia, the

thirteenth annual report of the Criminal Injury Compensation Act of

British Columbia and the annual report of the B.C. Police Commission.

Orders of the Day

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying at adjournment on

Friday, it is with the greatest of pleasure that I stand in my place to

speak in favour of this budget. It is, in my mind, a northern budget.

It is a budget designed to assist the business sector, both large and

small. It’s a budget that will ultimately motivate that private sector

to provide long-term employment, employment that is so badly needed in

this province during these economic times.

Mr. Speaker, I know that the socialists opposite are against it.

That was made quite clear by their critic on Friday, and it will

probably be made clear over and over as speakers on their side of the

House get up to speak in this budget debate. They had no time for the

private sector during the short time that they were government in this

province, and they have no time for the private sector now. They had no

time for the private sector during those dark days of socialism in this

province. Mr. Speaker, they haven't changed a bit. They haven't changed

one iota since they were tossed from office in 1975.

[2:30]

[ Mr. Ree in the chair. ]

I heard the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) speak of Sweden, and

I'll give you some statistics. He spoke of Sweden in his address on

Friday. Sweden, that great, wonderful socialist experiment — and the

member for Nanaimo, the NDP finance critic, spoke in glowing terms of

what this democratic socialist economy was doing. Well, Mr. Speaker, I

have done some research since Friday just to give this House and the

people of this province something of an idea of what the NDP finance

critic is advocating for British Columbia. I really wish I had more

up-to-date figures, because these figures are a little out of date, and

the picture is worse today than it is here.

Mr. Speaker, the average Swedish corporate income tax is 58 percent

— and these figures are as of the end of 1983. The sales tax at the end

of 1983 in Sweden — and this is what the NDP finance critic is

advocating for British Columbia — the sales tax was 23.5 percent.

Personal income taxes in Sweden are high also. A person earning $30,000

in Canadian dollars, to put it into perspective, would have to pay 20

percent

[ Page 5308 ]

national maximum income tax, in addition to an

average of 30 percent in municipal income tax — clearly 50 percent,

half of that income.

Mr. Speaker, by the end of 1983 the Swedish cost of living was up by

9.4 percent. B.C. during that same time had an increase of 5.5 percent.

AN HON. MEMBER: A Socred depression.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Member, it gets worse; it gets much worse. By

January 1985, the consumer prices had risen in the previous 12 months

in Sweden by 7.3 percent, while in Canada they rose by 3.7 percent.

In the 12 months prior to October 1984, Sweden's gross national

product rose only 1.95 percent, while Canada's rose 4.8 percent. In

February 1985 — last month — the prime lending rate in Sweden was 14.5

percent, compared to 11 percent in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, between 1977 and 1984, Sweden's krona — their dollar —

was devalued five times, or 45 percent. And that's what the finance

critic for the socialists opposite advocates for British Columbia. In

Sweden in 1983-84, 84.53 percent of total revenues was gained through

taxes. I could go on and on.

If that's what the socialists opposite advocate for British

Columbia, I would say to those people in the gallery today: go out and

tell your friends, because that's what you'd have under an NDP

government in British Columbia.

MR. NICOLSON: Yes, you'd have work — wages instead of welfare.

MR. KEMPF: Well, okay, you'd have work. How about the suicide

rate in Sweden? It's three times what it is in Canada. They must be

really happy in their work over there.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the member for Omineca

address the Chair. All other members will have their opportunity to

participate in the debate. They can stand in their place then and not

speak from their chairs in the meantime.

MR. KEMPF: The finance critic of the NDP failed to tell the

whole story. He failed purposely to tell what is really taking place in

Sweden and what those socialists opposite would like to see for British

Columbia. The headline says: "NDP Scores 'One-track' Budget." That may

be so, Mr. Member, but at least it's on the right track; it isn't

derailed the way Sweden's is. We don't need that kind of prosperity in

British Columbia.

MR. MACDONALD: You were better before you joined the ministry.

MR. KEMPF: I'll get to you, Mr. Member.

We intend, through this budget — and many others to follow, I might say — to

build our beautiful province and provide still more products for export. In

so doing we will leave some of the fruits of the people's labour in their

pockets so that they too might grow, prosper and reap the benefits of such success.

We will not take it from them as the socialists would, and we will not seek

to strip our citizens of their freedoms through state control. God knows, Mr.

Speaker, we've got enough of that now in this province and in this country,

and we sure don't need any more.

I remember the words of a former member of the NDP government when

they were in power and back in this House after a lengthy paid holiday:

"Bring them to their knees," he said. "You don't have to buy out

private industry in order to attain state control; you simply bring

them to their knees and take them over." I remember those days very

clearly, because that is why I am here today.

That group over there, through their finance critic, advocate those

very same things today. Nine years later they haven't learned a thing.

Our budget moves in just the opposite direction: it provides tax

reductions and incentives in order that the private sector might grow.

Leave some jingle in their pockets in order that expansion may take

place in this province. Through that expansion, in case you don't know,

Mr. Leader of the Opposition, we get investment, development and jobs

in British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you sure of that?

MR. KEMPF: Yes, I'm sure of that, Mr. Member. There is no

greater force in the world than the power which can be harnessed

through individual enterprise. It provides initiative instead of taking

it away, as your government did in British Columbia when you were in

power. Give the citizens of this province the will to want to make

something of themselves and in the process create jobs for others.

Earlier I said that this budget was a northern budget, and I'll tell

you why. Those northern members over there — and I don't see any of

them in the House at the moment — won't have any trouble selling or

explaining this budget to their constituents. I commend the member for

Atlin (Mr. Passarell), who realized very early on in this House that

the most important role of any member of this House is to represent his

or her constituents. He'll support what is good for his constituents.

You bet he will! We are here for those whom we represent, Mr. Speaker.

The member for Atlin is one of the few on that side of the floor who

seems to realize that.

It would be difficult for anyone, let alone northern members, to

speak out against tax reductions and tax credits for small business. We

all have small businesses in our areas. It will be difficult for any

member of this House to speak out against a budget which reduces the

tax of off-road motor fuel, a move which will assist many of our

constituents — unless, that is, we wish to ignore the loggers, the

truck haulers, the fishermen, or those in the aviation or mining

industries who operate in our province. I have no trouble with it, Mr.

Speaker, none whatsoever.

I've had a mine down in my constituency — and a community hurting for the last three-plus years now — at Fraser Lake.

MR. MITCHELL: Brought to their knees by the Social Credit.

MR. KEMPF: No, you can't say that, Mr. Member. And that's just how ignorant you are.

Mr. Speaker, the initiative in this budget, coupled with the

legislation introduced last Friday providing the possibility of reduced

hydro rates for such operations as Endako Mines, might just reopen that

operation and give those

[ Page 5309 ]

miners jobs and their families new hope and anew future. I'm for that.

I'm for a budget which provides for tax reductions on machinery and

equipment, reductions which will not only assist miners such as those

at Endako but, as well, a multitude of existing and future industries

and businesses in British Columbia. I'm for those reductions.

I'm for the reductions in the non-residential school tax for

commercial and industrial properties, which on top of all the

incentives I've mentioned before will give business and industry yet

more initiative to build and grow and prosper — and provide long-term

jobs in British Columbia. I can support those kinds of initiatives.

Even the socialists have seen some of the errors of their ways —

very few, but some — and can support, as I have for some nine years

now, fighting very hard, the abolition of the corporate capital tax

which we see in this budget.

I can support all ten of the taxation measures for economic renewal as presented in this budget. But there's more, much more.

[2:45]

1 really wonder as I hear remarks attributed to those members

opposite, and hear the remarks of the finance critic, whether they've

really read the budget. It was brought down on Thursday last. It's now

Monday. They've had a weekend. Have they really read that budget? It

was clear, Mr. Speaker, in listening to the NDP finance critic on

Friday, that he had not read the budget — not to that point, at least.

The member for Comox laughs (Ms. Sanford) ; she should have been here

to listen to it.

Had he read the budget the story would have been different. Unless,

of course, for purposes of debate his debate was simply to oppose, and

not to represent his constituents and other British Columbians. Perhaps

he has no loggers or business people or industries or fishermen in the

area he is elected to serve.

The initiatives in

section VI of the budget, under the heading

"Expenditure Policy," are clear initiatives which will be proven sound

and fair — responsible stewardship of the resources of British Columbia

on the part of government. There's a very significant line in one of

those policy changes as alluded to in that budget. To quote from page

18: "The pricing policy for Crown land is also being reviewed,

including lease rates for marina operators and agricultural land."

It is the wish of this government — certainly of this member — that

people own land all over this province; that the people of British

Columbia own British Columbia. I see the member for Atlin (Mr.

Passarell) shaking his head in the affirmative, and I believe he

believes that. I'm just sorry that many of his colleagues don't share

his philosophy: the ownership of land by British Columbians. To make

that easier and to make it happen, a serious took at the pricing policy

for Crown land is long overdue and has to be undertaken. Now it's

etched in stone in this budget. It will go a long way toward making the

system more equitable.

Companion to this but unfortunately not seen in this budget is a

subject which must be addressed immediately if we are to have

development as sought by many of the initiatives in this year's budget

— the agricultural land reserve. In most of rural British Columbia that

piece of legislation is 100 years ahead of its time. It's a definite

deterrent to the progress and development which create jobs. In my

mind, Mr. Speaker, it has got to be addressed in the very near future.

There never was, there isn't now, and there never will be, the

need for such detrimental, unfair, dictatorial, socialistic legislation

in regard to land control north of the 51st parallel in this province.

Enough for today. I could go on and on speaking of the initiatives

and the way in which this budget assists those British Columbians whom

I represent in this chamber. I'll be addressing many of the issues

coming out of the budget — and many of those issues in the companion

legislation that will surely come forward in this House — in future

debate on bills and on estimates. Suffice to say that I strongly, on

behalf of the people of Omineca whom I represent, support this budget

and look forward to voting in favour.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased that members of the Metro

Education Association are in the gallery this afternoon to hear the

speeches from my party, which are going to emphasize educational

concerns this afternoon.

At the risk of being negative, because sometimes we are accused of

being negative, it's my belief that government policies are a threat to

the future of a great number of young British Columbians. I think the

government doesn't understand that you're only young once, and the cuts

to school services by the Social Credit government since 1982 by at

least 25 percent, counting inflation, permanently damage the prospects

of many children in British Columbia.

Over the past three years the government, if you count inflation

plus cutbacks, has confiscated nearly $200 million out of the education

budgets of the province. If you figure 12 percent inflation — and

that's modest — and a 6 percent cutback in three years, to be

redirected God knows where, they've stolen money from the educational

system to a point where boards are saying: "No more. We can't stand it

anymore. We've cut the fat. Now you're cutting the bones — the guts —

out of the education system." What's worse, only about one-third of the

districts bear the brunt; the larger proportion is being borne by those

districts that hitherto had provided higher quality educational

services than some of the others. So $200 million is taken out of

one-third of the districts. But in the case of some of the other

districts that apparently have had gains, such as Armstrong and Vernon

— bigger gainers.... Those gains scarcely keep up with inflation, so

they are really frozen at 1983 dollars.

In addition to facing cutbacks, the boards facing cutbacks face a

legal bind. Let me outline it briefly. The Education (Interim) Finance

Act specifies that the minister sets limits on budgets. The

Compensation Stabilization Act empowers the commissioner to set levels

at which a salary must be paid. The Public Sector Restraint Act says

that an employer "may terminate the employment of an employee in

accordance with the regulations." There are no regulations, Mr.

Speaker, so school boards are effectively prohibited from laying off

teachers. If the minister's budget is set at, say, $100, and the

compensation stabilization commissioner requires salaries to consume

$101, the boards cannot lay off teachers, because there are no

regulations. Under those circumstances how can school boards be

expected to obey the law? B.C. school trustees argue that the

regulations under Bill 3 would be just band-aid and would create more

problems than they solve.

What it means is that legislation to restore school board autonomy is essential.

The government of B.C. spent less on education in 1983 — that's the latest

year for which we have any statistics available — than any other Canadian province.

I've cited these figures before. In terms of the gross provincial product,

[ Page 5310 ]

B.C. spends 3.5 percent; the Canadian average is 5

percent. We spend 7.5 percent of personal income; the Canadian average

is 9.4 percent. Ontario — another have province — spends 8.4 percent.

B.C. spends 15.5 percent of its provincial budget, while the Canadian

average is 21 percent and Ontario is 20.6 percent. So we in B.C. can

well afford a better-quality education and better-quality financing.

I think that what the Social Credit government and the minister and

the ministry fail to grasp is that those societies which make better

use of their economic opportunities are those with a higher standard of

education. It isn't just giving a tax break here or a little incentive

there. Social Credit also fails to understand that during periods of

economic downturn educated people are best able to deal with the

consequences of unemployment. Let me cite you a few examples. A few

years ago California was reeling from the effects of proposition 13.

Last year it added 30 percent to its education budget. Why? Because

skilled people refused to come to California because during those years

they had an inadequate education system in certain areas, such as

Silicon Valley. In Washington, according to their....

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: There's a lesson for B.C. In that.

In Washington the new governor, Gardner, supports an increase in the education budget. On January 9 the Seattle Post-Intelligencer said the state needs "a top-quality educational system in order to attract those industries."

HON. MR. HEINRICH: You're out of date, Mark.

MR. ROSE: So the minister found one paper to say that. I can find lots of papers that will contradict the minister.

By failing to appreciate the economic benefits of education, by

their repeated attacks on schools and colleges and teachers and faculty

and school trustees, the government is passing a very strong negative

message about the value of education to all British Columbians,

particularly young British Columbians. For the past three years the

Social Credit government has been systematically browbeating trustees,

scapegoating teachers and chiselling our kids. That's a fact, and

that's why we've had more educational concern at this time than we've

ever had in our history. No one can get away with that, regardless of

how many newspaper clippings from California he found in the last 48

hours. If California had suddenly done a reverse over the previous

year, then I think that would be California's bad luck, California's

bad management. But we do know this: there are a great number of

teachers here who are concerned and who have already sent job

applications to California, where the system is expanding and not

contracting.

I was talking about the value of education. Among young people from

16 to 24, the unemployment rate for those with post-secondary education

is under 10 percent; without, over 20 percent. In other words, a person

has twice the chance of a job if he has had some post-secondary

education. The gap in earnings per year for those two groups is

similarly startling: between $10,000 and $15,000 per year. So the

negative message is reflected throughout the participation rate in

B.C.'s post-secondary education system. It's the worst in Canada. In

1968 we were first among equals — equal with Ontario. Now we're 24 or

25 percent below the Canadian average. In B.C. In 1983 — the last year

for which we have figures — there was one chance in ten of going on for

post-secondary education. In Canada it's one chance in six. So you have

a far better chance of getting post-secondary education if you leave

B.C., and that's precisely what a lot of students are doing. They're

knocking at the doors of universities and finding that they're closed.

They're knocking at the doors of colleges and finding that they're

closed as well.

Education should not be treated as a cost. It should be treated as

an investment in the future. It should be available to an individual

throughout his lifetime.

[3:00]

We've had a little bit of drum-beating called "Let's Talk About

Schools." It asks questions about what our schools should be like, what

the purpose of education is and how schools should be managed. A number

of people have gone into detail about that, and I don't intend to

today. Perhaps I will another time; perhaps in the estimates.

I think we should remind ourselves that most of the kids going to

school today — in fact, all of them — will spend most of their lives in

the twenty-first century, especially if they're going to elementary

school. They're going to be living in the twenty-first century. So it

seems to me, then, that the crucial question is: what kind of education

is the most suitable for everyone's child — not just for the

academically talented and academically competent, but for everybody's

child; even for children of those people who pay taxes for universities

and colleges but whose kids will never have a chance to go there? We

know how the enrolment of schools and colleges are biased in favour of

the well-to-do and those people who happen to be in the proper

geographic setting where they live. There are some examples of that

right around this room, but I won't go into the details of that either.

There are two kinds of broad views about what kind of skills people

will need to function effectively in society in the future, but I think

the budget fails to meet either need. One says that a school should

provide for a few highly educated, specialized technocrats; the other —

and this is the one that New Democrats prefer and support — is that the

need will be for people with a high level of general education and a

talent to be flexible. It's our belief that the budget fails on both

grounds — the highly specialized technocrats because to obtain these

people and these skills it's becoming so that you have to be almost

independently wealthy in order to afford to go to schools and colleges.

We know that the province is kicking in, in terms of the

universities, only 3.2 percent, while the feds are kicking in 80

percent and the kids are kicking in 16 percent. So as fees go up and

the provincial contribution goes down, more and more will be demanded

of those kids in terms of fees, and that will mean fewer courses,

smaller programs, bigger classes and, certainly, higher fees. Fewer

people will be able to attend, because fewer people will be able to

afford to attend. That's a serious matter. The independently wealthy

are not necessarily the people with talent; that wasn't the case in the

past either, when I first went to university. Those people who were in

shape to go, who lived close to the university and who were wealthy,

had much better representation than the people like the minister and me

— from Mission or some other, in those days, rather remote community.

The talented are in groups that are very underrepresented even today

in the student population in colleges and universities: women, the

disabled, handicapped, native people and mature students. Single

parents, for example, are being ruled out of colleges and universities.

They're being ruled out of

[ Page 5311 ]

colleges by the grant system, or the absence of it. My colleague will go into that in more detail.

Prof. Kazepides claims that "when crude utilitarianism prevails, the

most sensitive and the most humane elements in the educational programs

are sacrificed." What Prof. Kazepides means by that is that visual and

performing arts are systematically being obliterated from our school

system. They can't compete because of the new graduation requirements.

There are going to be fewer and fewer music, art and drama programs,

and this seems to be deliberate.

Yet it's ironic that the highest technical standards of any nation

in the world are in Japan: they can all have had training and advance

training on two musical instruments when they graduate from high

school. What are we doing in terms of the humanities and the things

that make us different, make us humane, in our schools? We're

systematically obliterating those programs. We're crowding them out

with demands for science and math, to the point where the kids are

afraid to take the other subjects because they might be cut off at the

heels, because the university requirements do not include those

subjects.

The other thing that is possible is that we have a centralized

school system. The reason that education faces, I think, a real crisis

is the centralization that has gradually taken place under this

ministry, the grabbing of power to be centralized in the bureaucracy of

Victoria. It doesn't allow our community college boards to plan or our

school boards to manage.

The Minister of Education has the power to direct local programs; we

saw an example of that in question period today. He specifies what may

be taught and what may not be taught under Bills 19 and 20 and under

his graduation requirements. He does that; he has affected.... This

minister has more power to control a school system than any other

Minister of Education that I know of in western democracies. He's a

very powerful man. I think his direction is wrong, and so is his

philosophy. It's not that I don't appreciate that whenever I speak he

comes to listen; I appreciate that with the minister.

Post-secondary colleges and institutes are in real difficulty in

terms of what their mandate once was. The operating contributions to

colleges are down by 5 percent to $240 million this year, except for

the adjustment program, which is going to be used, in my view, not for

new programs at all, but to pay termination for teachers and profs who

are fired because programs have been abolished — like the business

programs that were abolished last year and the hairdressing programs

that were up for the slot again last year. The minister looks shocked,

as if it comes as a surprise to him. It should come as no surprise to

him; his ministry ordered it. He shouldn't have to take it as notice.

It depends on how much money is used to buy out contracts — I agree

with the minister, it depends on that — whether we're going to get a

cut in the services. But if it's used to buy out contracts, then the

government's right on target. It's going to cut the colleges, with an

effective 43 percent cut by 1988-89 over 1982.

1 talked about the student loan scheme. We've got a student loan

scheme now that's going to be an average loan of $1,300 just to pay the

tuition fee. I don't know why — as I asked him in the question period —

the minister can't trust his own boards, which he appointed, to manage

the colleges, rather than have a special fund which will permit him to

direct what courses are to be on go and what courses on hold or stop.

1 think, as I said earlier, that the budget fails the generalists as

well, because I think this business of the attack on students and on

the colleges means that there are fewer and fewer options. Therefore,

if there are fewer options, there is less opportunity to be a

generalist. I've gone over the reason for that, too. The students have

a tremendous hazard. They've got to get a job. They've got to be able

to pay those fees. They can't get a student grant anymore. And in

addition, they've got a new one; their courses might disappear before

they finish them. Medical lab technicians at BCIT are an example.

Architecture is on the hit list at UBC, plus 11 others. Pacific Rim

studies at Langarra — going, going or gone. This is what's happening in

our school system.

According to researchers Levin and Rumberger from Stanford: "The

educational implications of high technology are that a solid basic

education rather than narrow vocational preparation will become more

important in the future" — not less important, but more important.

"This will require elementary and secondary schools to strengthen

virtually all their instructional offerings that require analytical and

communicative skills."

Here's Raymond Williams, North Vancouver executive educator of the

year. What's he got to say? He says that students trained for

problem-solving and flexibility, not for specific jobs, should be our

aim. "He advocates a broad range of learning, from science to fine

arts, which he said develops different parts of the brain." I could

quote him further, but I have to watch the clock, so I guess this final

quotation will be enough. Williams is an outstanding man. To quote from

the Sun , March 14, page A10:

"'Career and Canada Manpower counsellors,' said Williams, 'are looking

more favourably at liberal arts graduates than at specialists."' I

could document this a lot more if I had more time. Nevertheless, I'd

like to quote again from Rumberger, because I think it's really

important as to what kinds of schools we're going to have in the

future. Not just the crass meat-and-potatoes utilitarian schools that

turn out kids for some dead end job, but schools that teach them to be

critical and analytical, and that develop an educated person, not an

indoctrinated person or a trained seal. That's not what education's all

about. The minister should be designing a program to meet those needs,

not cutting back on those opportunities — which his program is doing.

Again, Levin and Rumberger:

"Since we cannot predict in any precise sense which

jobs will be available to particular persons, which jobs they will

select from among those available, and what characteristics of jobs

will be over a 40-year working life, it's best to provide students with

a strong general education and an ability to adapt to a changing work

environment. Such adaptation requires a sufficient store of information

about culture, language, society and technology, as well as the ability

to apply that information and acquire new knowledge. Accordingly,

general academic and vocational preparation should be stressed, as

opposed to specific training, especially for young students. Specific

job skills can best be learned on the job, if a worker's general

background is sufficient."

Then he goes on and parallels what Williams had to say — maybe

Williams saw his paper; I don't know. Anyway, they're both saying the

same thing. And they're both at odds with what the minister wants to do.

[ Page 5312 ]

Let me say a word about the independent schools. We see that their

grants are up again this year by 16 percent to a massive $28.6 million.

Half of this increase is accounted for by an increase in enrolments. We

have to ask why. Are parents saying that it's because they can have an

effective say in the independent schools and no longer have an

effective say in the public schools? Because the school boards are

merely there to take the flak. The real power rests in curriculum and

finance with the minister. Maybe the independent schools can provide

more responsiveness to the needs of the individual and his parent. So

the school enrolments there are going up, because in the public schools

they're shut off at the pass.

The other half of the budget increase is fiddling with the formula.

Now for the first time, in order to base the formula on the previous

years, we've included the teachers' pension contributions from the

local school board. So that increases the formula.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Well, the minister denies it. That is my assertion.

If he tells me it's wrong, then I'll accept his word, because I have

other things that I can be critical of him about, but prevarication

isn't one of them. He might not know, but he wouldn't lie.

I can understand very easily why the minister and the government

favor independent schools. It's because he gets education on the cheap.

Instead of paying out a dollar for the education of a youngster — a

Canadian, a British Columbian — he pays 30 cents or maybe nine cents.

It also favours the government's political friends.

The NDP supports choice in education. I don't think anybody would

deny that the parent, over the state, should have the right of choice.

Choice is fine, but a threat to the public school system such as is

happening now is not fine. It's not fine, because people have to turn

to other systems because their public school system's quality is

perceived to be eroding. So we support the right of choice. But this

party is never going to support the privatization of the public system.

Mr. Speaker, I think it's only fair to ask what our policy is — the

NDP alternative in terms of education reconstruction. We propose that

funds be restored to colleges and institutions and schools at their

1984 level plus inflation. We further propose that we would like to

assess the damage caused by the government's abandonment of equal

educational opportunity in the schools, and develop an orderly program

of mitigating the worst effects of the government's policies. In other

words, we wouldn't pursue the ham-handed approach that this government

is taking to schools and to almost everything else that it touches.

Secondly, publish a new schools act and refer it to a select

standing committee. Don't have people chase around on this make-work

project called "Let's Talk About Schools" and then call it

consultation. We don't support that kind of thing. We would give it to

a committee of the Legislature, and we'd send that committee around the

province to hear from people and then to report back in a public way to

the Legislature.

To develop the $225,000 it'll cost you for "Let's Talk About Schools"....

AN HON. MEMBER: You'd break the taxpayers.

MR. ROSE: Never mind talking about breaking the taxpayers. You guys have broken the taxpayers, to a debt of about $14 billion.

We would like to develop a new funding mechanism that reflects a

commitment to equal opportunity, equal access to educational services

and an equitable share of financial professional resources and

specialized programs on behalf of a demonstrated need.

Local participation and autonomy — which the school boards once had

— so that within the framework of provincial goals, boards of school

trustees have the right to set budgets to reflect locally-determined

needs. That's why we're getting needs budgets. That's why at least 34

school boards have said: "No, your framework doesn't work for us. It's

too chintzy, it's not equitable and it's unfair, and we would like to

express what we would need on behalf of our people, the people we were

elected to represent."

A tax burden based on the ability to pay. We accept McMath and that

75 percent be funded from general revenue. We in British Columbia have

the largest proportion — nearly two-thirds — of school costs, which is

far more than taxpayers in Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario or Saskatchewan.

To reach the McMath target, we'll have to phase it in; no question

about that. The minister doesn't agree with me, and he's squinting his

eyes. I know that means he's thinking. Every time he squints his eyes,

I know he's thinking.

[3:15]

AN HON. MEMBER: How do you know?

MR. ROSE: How can I say that? Sound research, that's how I can tell.

As far as the colleges and provincial institutes are concerned, Mr.

Speaker, we want to put the "community" back in community college. We

have not — this isn't new to the minister.... When we were debating

bills 19 and 20 we called for a continuation not of appointed boards —

you know, easily manipulated people who will take orders — but boards

that are elected, even indirectly through the school boards, and that

can respond to the needs of the community and will not take orders from

the Kremlin in Victoria. We want a school board and college boards that

are responsive and that have the autonomy which was taken away from

them. It was confiscated.

We want to restore the community college boards and let them set

their own budgets within a framework based on local taxation at 25 and

75. I see nothing wrong with that. I didn't see anything wrong with

that when it was removed, but it was removed. So when the funding was

centralized, so was the authority, ultimately.

We want them to deliver transfer programs. Mr. Speaker, at the same

time that we're making the high schools more academic and cutting down

on the options, we're limiting the university transfer programs in the

community colleges, meaning that those people in remote and rural and

northern areas represented by some of these people do not have the same

options. Those kids will not be knocking at the doors of the

university, so you can reduce the university budgets too and make them

so restrictive that the only thing that will happen is that everybody

will be paying for Dr. McGeer to do brain research. There will be

nobody else around at all. He won't even be able to find a brain.

We want to restore to provincial institutions the ability to deliver programs. We don't want any $12.7 million slush

[ Page

5313 ]

funds. We think that just allows the minister to do

things that he probably shouldn't do, because he doesn't know the needs

as well as those people elected or even appointed to do that job in the

community. We want them to be able to plan for orderly restoration of

services, and that will require a sensitive, local and pragmatic

administration.

Finally, we need a new educational system for the new society that

we're going into in the twenty-first century. We need an educational

system to equip people to think critically, to analyze accurately and

to cope not only with the massive economic effects of the new

technology, but with the social effects, which are going to be even

more massive. The social effects of the new technology are going to be

the new industrial and social revolution. We have to have people who

are flexible, knowledgeable, critical, analytical and can cope with

those changes, both at home and in the workplace.

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, I am going to speak in very general

terms about the budget. It covers many important topics. I must

congratulate the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) on his

presentation here in the House the other day. He put a brave face on

what is a very worrisome situation not only here in this province but

generally across Canada; indeed, in many other parts of the world at

the present time.

We have a particular problem in British Columbia, essentially a

product of world market developments and declining prices for raw and

semi-processed materials. Those declining prices, plus some falling off

in activity in our export industries, have resulted in a $1 billion

shortfall in the income to the provincial treasury. That first occurred

three years ago; we've had an approximate $1 billion shortfall from the

resource industries to the provincial government in each year since,

and it looks as if that situation will continue for another 12 months

or so. A billion dollars is a large sum of money; it's the equivalent

of 50,000 people working full-time. A drop in revenue of that order of

magnitude, alongside a continued expansion in expenditures by the

province for worthy people programs, has resulted in successive

deficits. Generally speaking, this province has operated either on a

balanced budget or in the black since the early 1950s. Beginning with

1981, we've seen a shortfall. We've been in the red in the order of $1

billion for several years, and it looks as if this situation may

continue.

First, I would like to thank the Minister of Finance for several concessions.

I've argued over a period of several years in the House for several changes,

and most of them have been made in this budget, on a phased-in basis in several

instances rather than overnight. While I'm saying that they're perhaps

overdue, I'm glad these changes have in fact taken place. The capital corporation

tax should have been removed earlier. It was a promise made by the Social Credit

Party in the 1975, 1979 and 1983 elections. Now it's being achieved on a

phased-in basis and will be complete, with one exception, three years from now.

The exception is that the corporation capital tax is still to be paid by chartered

banks with their headquarters outside of British Columbia. I will still argue

that the capital corporation tax should be completely removed. I find it anomalous

that the minister is on the one hand talking about attracting financial institutions

to Vancouver, or conceivably to some free enterprise zones here on the west

coast, and at the same time retains a capital corporation tax on banks and banking.

That tax must be totally removed; otherwise, I doubt if this administration

can be taken seriously in the area of financing export activities, import activities

and so on, particularly financial activities based here in B.C.

The property tax on machinery and equipment is being phased out and

the tax on new machinery and equipment is eliminated immediately. Those

two taxes are, I believe, not only punitive on many capital- intensive

industries — indeed, most industries — in the province, but again, tend

to reduce profitability. Certainly they impact heavily on small

business. Those taxes should have been removed, if for no other reason

than that few other provincial jurisdictions have a tax of any kind on

machinery and equipment. No U.S. state has a property tax on machinery

and equipment. We should never have had one in the first place; we

should have removed it long since.

Bringing the property tax yield on job-producing industries,

commercial industrial activities, down to a reasonable relationship

with property taxes on homes: a ratio of 2:1 is now the objective and

should be achieved over the next few years. In other words, the tax on

a given investment would only be double if it is commercial or

industrial, compared to a home. I think that is worth while. In recent

years the property tax level in British Columbia has been much higher

than in the rest of Canada, and much higher on commercial and

industrial businesses. Reducing it to a 2:1 ratio is, I believe, a

positive step. It will help us to attract new industries, and it will

certainly help existing industries to continue profitably into the

future.

I believe it was British Conservative Prime Minister Benjamin

Disraeli who said, when manhood suffrage was brought in in the United

Kingdom in the 1880s: "We are all socialists now." His comment had some

basis in fact. I think I can say with greater assurance that we're all

welfare statistics today. It's a matter of degree, but certainly Canada

and most western nations are, in varying degrees, welfare states. By

welfare states I mean that many people — indeed, the great majority of

the population — receive services free or nearly free; in other words,

without themselves having directly to pay for them. The services appear

costless or free, and therefore they use those services much as human

beings the world over have always used those things that are free —

wastefully. Welfare statism really means producing services, many of

them vital, many of them essential — health services, education,

welfare support — at no immediate upfront charge to the citizen.

It must have been distressing to a number of Canadian right-wingers

— I'll call them conservatives — to hear our present Prime Minister

Brian Mulroney finally embrace universality. Universality means that

everyone is treated the same: everyone will get a given service without

having to pay more than others, without having to pay directly for it,

without knowing really what it costs. If you measure services provided

nationally in that fashion, certainly Canada is a welfare state.

Federally, the health program, the education programs and the social

assistance programs are universal. They're available regardless of

income or ability to pay. They're there if you're alive and breathing.

Those services are paid for by others, often in ways that we don't

totally understand, but by and large through income tax, corporation

and otherwise, and through sales taxes of one kind or another.

Welfare statism typically sees deficits. If deficits are a measure

of the degree of welfare statism we have in this country, then we

really are a welfare state. Our national deficit is of the order of 30

percent. For every $100 of income to Ottawa, Ottawa spends $130. With

this province's billion

[ Page 5314 ]

dollar shortfall, for every $100 of income we're

currently spending $110. Provincially we're a 10-percent welfare state;

nationally we're 30 percent.

There are several measures which I think are important, and I would

like to see them in the documents that we receive when we're listening

to the budget. It's always been the habit in Ottawa, at least for the

last 20-odd years, to publish the current figures and the estimates for

the next 12 months of the gross national product; in other words, the

output of the nation. We do not receive figures on the gross provincial

product from the Minister of Finance. He doesn't publish those numbers.

I think they are very important, because you cannot measure provincial

expenditure appropriately unless you know the total income of the

province. You know what the provincial spending is; you don't know for

sure what the provincial ability to pay is, in the sense of total

income generated in the province in any given year.

[3:30]

In Canada we've seen a rise in the percentage of the gross national

product that is taxed away from the people and spent by the central

government. In my days in Ottawa, of the order of 16 or 17 percent of

national income was spent by the central government; today, 22 or 23

percent of the substance of the nation is taken in by the national

government and spent at the whim of, or certainly under the direction

of, the government in Ottawa. Provincially we've seen an increase as

well. In the late 1960s, in the order of 12 percent of the gross

provincial product was taxed away by the provincial authorities and

spent in a balanced budget: 12 percent in, 12 percent out. That was the

order of magnitude.

When the NDP government was in, that figure rose steadily and

reached 18 percent. In the next few years it tended to dip a percentage

point or two, and I well remember the present Premier going east in

1979 and lecturing the nation on reducing government expenditure. He

said at that time that government expenditure should be tailored —

restrained, if you will — so that they did not increase annually at as

fast a rate as the national output or, in our case, the provincial

output. In other words, if the provincial output went up 1 percent, the

increase in government should be less than that, and he said that

ideally it should grow at least at one percentage point less than that

of the total output of the economy.

But we've fallen on difficult times, and today in this province

spending by the provincial government is of the order of 20 percent of

the gross provincial product, which has to be the highest in the

history of this province. It's spending beyond our ability to generate

income. Admittedly we're spending a billion dollars more than our

income. We're receiving $8 billion in tax and spending $9 billion.

We're short a billion dollars. It's a shortfall, and it's a shortfall

substantially because we are largely a welfare state in this province,

because the great bulk of the spending — close to four out of every

five dollars, close to 80 percent of all spending in the province — is

directed to health, education and human resources. As the costs of

those programs rise, so the deficit tends to increase. As long as

national resource revenues are in the doldrums, we will continue to

have a deficit.

Looking at the figures we've received in the publications, I'm left

groping. I certainly would like to see a balanced budget long term. But

I would like also to see a separation of current costs from capital

costs. I would like to see a balanced budget when it comes to current —

I'll call them operating or year-to-year — costs, and I would like to

see the capital account balanced, but over a much longer term. Capital

items should be written off over the economic life of the capital item.

I'm enough of a Keynesian to believe — and indeed, certainly the record

of the government is highly Keynesian, because it apparently believes

in spending on capital during recessions — that it's possible to

balance these capital items over the long run, but the key to it is

having the capital items ready for execution when the slump occurs,

carrying them out during the recession or period of restraint —

restraint on current operating items — and recovering those costs over

the longer term, over the long period when there are both good times

and bad times.

The present government has several substantial capital projects

underway. I would have preferred to have seen them picked out

separately and in total, and costed not only as to their immediate cost

of construction but also over the long term, including maintenance, and

then the regime for recovering those charges over the long term. Taking

that approach, I obviously support the Coquihalla Highway construction

program. The timing is right. If you're going to build highways —

certainly if you're going to spend a lot of money on bridges,

throughways and so on — you should spend it now. You should spend it

during periods when unemployment is up, when resource revenues are

down, and when there are tens of thousands of construction and other

workers otherwise idle. So the Coquihalla project fits.

I think the Annacis crossing over the Fraser — the four lane highway

bridge from Surrey to New Westminster-Burnaby — should be built now,

and it is being built now. I think the timing again is right.

Those two items — the Coquihalla item and the Annacis item — are

well identified in the estimates submitted by the Minister of Finance

and others. I really can't segregate the investment in light rapid

transit. I would like to see what is being spent each year, in terms of

capital, on that desirable project, and I would like to see it costed

out over time. Again, I would like to see it in the capital budget, and

I would like to see it clearly spelled out, not only as to how it's

being costed currently during the construction and run-in phase, but

also how the costs are likely to be recovered over the longer term.

Similarly with northeast coal. Northeast coal should have been

clearly identified as a capital item, to the extent that the province

regards it as a long-term investment. It should have been quantified

fully, and its long-term recovery program laid out for all to see. The

high hopes that some have for it may not be realized, or they may

indeed be realized, but they should be spelled out so that future

legislators and future Ministers of Finance — certainly future

taxpayers — can see whether the project was well warranted or not. But

it is a capital item, and it should be reported as such. It should,

along with ALRT, be easily identified, and therefore the project better

understood.

I think then, if we knew what those investment items were in the

current budget, we might well find that a large part of what I've

called a billion-dollar deficit would be accounted for, would disappear

in the sense that current operating costs would come closer to the

current income of the government. The $400-plus million turned over

last year to B.C. Rail, so that B.C. Rail could itself pay off its old

capital debt, was a capital item. That shouldn't, in my view, have been

in the operating budget.

To repeat, we should have an operating budget and we should have a

capital budget. The two should be seen separately. And more important

from a budgetary point of view,

[ Page

5315 ]

the operating budget should be the one that's

balanced in the short run, balanced each year. The other one should be

an on-and-off budget, depending on whether we're in difficult times

from an employment point of view, or jobs are readily available and the

government can pull back and let the private sector drive the economy —

as indeed it must, certainly in overall terms. But the government can

act as the flywheel.

Where Keynes is basically criticized is that in real life

governments are quick to spend, including spending on capital projects,

but very slow to pull back when times improve. That's been the history

Europe. Perhaps it's human nature: it's easier to give than to

penalize; it's easier to hand out funds and announce projects than it

is to restrain or cut back or terminate, no matter how prosperous the

economy seems. So in real life Keynes is wanting, but in theory Keynes

is right. In fact, if you look at the books of this province and try to

rationalize the numbers in front of us, you see that we're acting like

Keynesians. We're certainly building capital projects at a time when I

believe they should be built. Will we pull back on those projects when

times improve? Hopefully the resource revenues will rise. Will we

resist the temptation to go on spending in a big way?

One project I certainly would like to see completed is light rapid

transit. I'd like to see it pushed across the Fraser River into Surrey

— and, indeed, a wing into the Brunette exchange in Coquitlam — before

the government stops spending in a big way on that form of public

transportation. That project won't be genuinely economic unless (

a) it

crosses the Fraser, and (

b) taps Coquitlam; in other words, taps the

two main population growth areas in the lower mainland. But then there

should be a pause, and that pause might last a decade or so; it should

last at least until the next recession.

The Coquihalla Highway will be largely completed, at least in its

first phase, before our economy fully recovers. Fine — then there

should be a pause. I'd like to see more Coquihallas. If the toll

charges pay them off early, well and good. I'd like to see a similar

project, beginning perhaps in the 1990s, pushing a highway straight

north from Vancouver, up through Pemberton and the upper reaches of the

Bridge River and the Chilcotin, towards Prince George. Mr. Speaker, I'm

sure you'd welcome a project like that. Its timing would be for

sometime in the 1990s — the next recession, the next time for restraint.

Your capital budgets, then, would vary, depending on whether you're

in a slump, when they'd be large, or in a boom, when they'd be

restricted. You would have that flywheel effect. You would have the

overall impact of government spending tending to offset the

vicissitudes of the private sector.

The private sector must have more assurance, must have more

encouragement. I wish that the government had seen its way fit to give

Alcan whatever approvals Alcan needed to proceed with its massive

project a couple of years ago. I look with some envy at Quebec. Quebec

entered into an agreement with Pechiney of France several years ago.

They now have a big aluminium development in that province, using what

otherwise would have been surplus hydro power. It's nearing completion.

Its job impact in the longer term, direct and indirect, is of the order

of 20,000 persons. We would have done well to have had an Alcan project

going now, nearing completion at least. It's a bigger scheme. It

involves several communities. It involves a degree of fabrication of a

high-tech metal, which aluminium really is, and it involves a corner of

the province where typically there's been a lot of unemployment.

Certainly there are many other opportunities if the population base up

there grows. So there I see a missed opportunity.

I know there are those — especially environmentalists — who hate

big corporations, even if they're headquartered elsewhere in Canada,

and they would have opposed that project. There are those who are still

very much concerned that the long-term contract which the Aluminium

Company of Canada has with this province re water and water rental

charges should never have been entered into. But Alcan views that

contract as a great resource, which indeed it is. Very few

metallurgical firms nowadays will launch a new project in this country

unless they know they can contain their energy costs.

If you can enter into an agreement which allows you to develop water

power or similar resource at your costs and you know that you will not

be subject to some penalty at the whim of a government any time, you

will likely proceed with that project. But you won't if you know that

the water levies or charges can go up any amount. British Columbia sent

a signal to the world: "Don't buy power for power-intensive industries

in British Columbia, because we can change the water rental charge any

time we want."

[3:45]

The only way to get metallurgical developments to the minerals in

the north of this province is to make long-term commitments. It may be

a limited hydro resource but a definitive one. That resource has to be

contracted out to the entity which is going to carry on the

development. Further processing isn't possible without it. Jobs aren't

possible without it, certainly many jobs. So I believe that a

fundamental policy decision has to be made. We have to go with

particular developments in particular areas. If the resources are

there, if the resources are going to be well-managed, if low-cost

energy is one of the conditions of an industry getting going there,

then I think the provincial administration has to face that fact and

has to enter into agreements, admittedly on a smaller scale than the

Alcan one, and has to give some assurance that it will ensure that the

environment, etc., is looked after but in a reasonable way, with

hearings with definite time limits and with costs and environmental

protection costs — generally low anyway — fully identified, faced up to

and then taken into account. Then we'll get industrial development.

Alcan is one example where I think we've missed the boat. The next time the aluminium market is improved, let's get on with it.

Liquefied natural gas out of Prince Rupert — partly from Alberta and

partly from northeastern B.C. I think the province was right to make an

early commitment as to an export surplus from this province, and I hope

that project goes ahead. It's a matter of time. Perhaps it won't be

until the 1990s. But there is another multi-billion dollar project —

two or three billion dollar project. Alcan's development would be a two

or three billion dollar project in its early phases.

The CNR and CPR are going to put large sums of money into their

western transportation systems. They're proceeding. I hope nothing

stands in their way in carrying out some massive investments which will

provide many more jobs in B.C. In the next couple of years.

Finally, small hydro developments. I've already made mention of it, but I don't believe that where a private concern

[ Page 5316 ]

sees an opportunity to process a mineral or forest

product, it should be denied the opportunity of harnessing a local

waterfall or water power resource. I don't believe that B.C. Hydro,

with all its vested interest, should be the referee in these cases.

Indeed I don't think it should be called in to comment whatsoever. The

province should independently assess what the costs and benefits of

such a project are likely to be and act according to the results.

There were some danger signals in the address by the Minister of

Finance. I don't like what he said about $2 billion of spending by

several levels of government within the province, the inference being

that that money should be directed to B.C. firms only — that outsiders

shouldn't have a look in. It's certainly anti free trade, and it

probably means that we won't get full value for all the dollars spent

by our own provincial and municipal levels of government.

The critical industry czar idea: we'd all like to know more about

that. Special employment zones: each of them runs in the same direction

as many of the policy initiatives in Canada in recent years. They

protect industries in trouble and look after zones which have a certain

amount of unemployment. It's the opposite to reinforcing success; it's

the opposite to going with winners. It tends to be defeatist; it tends

to be protectionist; it tends to prop up companies, and certainly

technology, on the way out. In the long term that is bad economics, not

good economics.

Finally — I see my time is rapidly running out — in listening to the

opposition I hear the familiar tune. I think that the two sides of the

House can be separated, at least along these lines. The government side

tend to be supply-siders; the opposition are definitely demand-siders.

The opposition believes that by pumping more money out there, even if

you haven't got it, and putting more money in the pockets of people who

have to spend — particularly the poor and the disadvantaged.... That's

the way to pull the economy out of a recession. The government side

believes, in some degree, more in putting money into projects. I

believe that with an open-sided economy like ours, demand pump-priming

doesn't work.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, that was an interesting speech by

the member for North Vancouver-Seymour — the independent member,

perhaps, except when he gets up to vote.

Certainly I found some of his comments rather interesting,

particularly his comment about water licence fees. It can be absolutely

certain that the government's budget has done nothing to change the

situation that existed a month ago as far as companies such as Cominco

and others — who use cheap power in the refining process; at least,

what used to be cheap power — are concerned. The budget really didn't

take a step one way or another, and I think we have the worst of all

possible worlds.

He spoke about the government having the third consecutive deficit

budget; in fact, we have the sixth consecutive deficit budget. This is

really the sixth consecutive deficit budget. This Minister of Finance

has always spent more money than he has collected in revenues. He only

managed to balance a budget, on paper, for the first three years by

spending the money that had been judiciously saved by the previous

Social Credit government of 1952 to 1972 and the New Democratic Party

government of 1972-75, who saved over a billion dollars, which was

squandered by this government during what should have been good

economic times.

Certainly this is not a Keynesian or a neo-Keynesian government, but

it is a government that I think.... In one respect they act as though

they are neo-Keynesian economists; in another respect they act like

they're neo-conservatives. They seem to adopt one measure one way.

Certainly what is said for public consumption will be of one theory,

and the actions that are taken by the government are something else.

When we see the way in which this government is staggering from

crisis to crisis, it is clear that they have lost their compass, that

they don't have direction. This government has taken us out of the

international recession, which we were in 1982 when there was 12.1

percent of our people unemployed, and they have plunged us into the

Social Credit recession of 1984-85, in which they put us into 13.5

percent unemployment. Currently the unadjusted unemployment rate in

British Columbia is 16.4 percent.

Mr. Speaker, this is a bad budget. This is not a jobs budget; this

budget is a slap in the face to the almost quarter of a million British

Columbians who are presently unemployed. In addition, it is a slap in

the face to the almost quarter of a million British Columbians on

welfare who will probably never be employed. This is not the way out of

the Social Credit recession. The way out of a Social Credit recession

is a job-led recovery. That's the way they did it in Australia; that's

the way they're doing it in New Zealand; that's the way they did it in

Manitoba. That is the only way, so this government had better find a

compass. They had better find some direction, and they had better stop

stumbling from crisis to crisis.

Mr. Speaker, this government acts as if it believed in the words, of John Eatwell,

an economist from Cambridge University, who commented, I think rather wryly:

"If the world is not like the model, so much the worse for the world."

This government does not want to face reality. They have this model. They've

been stuck with this model ever since the likes of Mr. Kinsella, Mr. Spector

and others were invited to join this government and, start directing it in 1979.

This government has been stuck with a model, and the world and British Columbia

are not like the model, so they say: "So much the worse for British Columbia."

That is what is wrong in this province.

That is why we are facing the worst education crisis that has ever

been visited probably in North America, and I would include the country

of Mexico. This is the most backward step that has ever been taken in

any part of North America. Others recognize that a university education

through strong universities and colleges, and, indeed, a strong

education system from K right through to post-doctoral work, is the

real way to providing a strong economy.

The member who spoke previously talked about how things aren't too

good in British Columbia because we're a resource-based economy. The

reason we are a resource-based economy is because we have not stressed

the type of development that is stabler and less subject to the

vagaries of the international marketplace than is the simple extraction

and export of raw materials. We haven't taken advantage of what I think

are some very fine educational institutions that had risen to

prominence, and even today manage to survive the vagaries of the

current government. Today there has been a negative signal sent out

which is reflected....

[ Page 5317 ]

For instance, I received a copy of a letter to the Minister of

Universities from a gentleman in West Vancouver. He outlined in this

his plans to consider enrolling in UBC's master of business

administration program next September. He says:

"However, since the tuition costs will be 50 percent

higher than anywhere else in Canada, the cost of living is higher, the

local employment prospects weaker and the university quality,

especially with regard to the exodus of our excellent professors,

declining relative to that of other Canadian business schools, I am

likely to move to Toronto to be educated and later employed. It is a

shame, because I really love B.C., having been born and raised here."

That is, I think, the nexus of the problem that we face here in

British Columbia. That should never have happened in a province that is

so blessed and so strong in its basic attributes that it could survive

good or bad governments, until this government came along, Mr. Speaker,

and proved the exception to the rule — that one government could be so

bad that even British Columbia couldn't survive it. It would never have

entered a person's mind that he would have to leave a province like

British Columbia and seek educational opportunities elsewhere in

faculties that already existed here in B. C.

[4:00]

Mr. Speaker, we are making it more and more difficult for young

people to participate in a university education. We have set up

roadblocks and hurdles to post-secondary education. A young woman who

represents the Canadian Federation of Students outlined to me her

personal situation as a single-parent on welfare, She cannot attend

university full time. She cannot even take a course load of three

courses, or she disqualifies herself from receiving social assistance.

But at the same time, unless you take more than three courses at a

university, or the equivalent of three full-time courses, you cannot

qualify for student assistance. These are the kinds of things which

have created the most inequitable situation of any province in Canada.

These are the kinds of actions that have taken our university situation

in British Columbia from a position of number one in many instances to

number ten in many instances.

Mr. Speaker, we have here in British Columbia a whole new change.

The minister has decided that because high school enrolments are

dropping — and his statistics show them dropping perhaps 8 or 10

percent — we have to start cutting back on our universities. But our

universities have the lowest participation rate in all of Canada. Only

101 out of every 1,000 high school graduates go on to university in

British Columbia — 25 percent less than the Canadian average. It would

be 161 students, as compared to our 101, in the province of Ontario,

with which we used to rank as number one back in 1969.

We are removing equity in education. That inequity is even greater

in the case of non-metropolitan students, students who come from

communities like Nelson or Prince George or Houston or Fort Nelson and

from parts of Vancouver Island. They now participate at a rate of only

about 7.5 percent. The gap is getting wider. The disparity and the

inequity is growing. We are denying some of the best minds in this

province the opportunity to participate in a university education.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

When I look and see what is put into this budget for universities —

a $1 million scholarship program that works out to about $25 for every

university student in this province.... It's called a loan remission

program. What an inadequacy! What an insult! We have taken so much away

from students. We are the only province in Canada that does not have

unconditional grants for proven-need students. A graduate from the

University of British Columbia comes out of school with a debt, if he

has to take advantage of borrowing, of $22,000. The same student would

graduate in Ontario with a debt of $5,000. I'm asked what's wrong with

going into massive debt. Apparently, according to this government,

nothing is wrong with going into massive debt.

Interjections.

MR. NICOLSON: I'll invite interjections from across the

floor, because.... I want something for students in British Columbia —

an opportunity that is at least as good as the opportunity that I had

20 years ago. I would certainly accept nothing less.

MR. PARKS: Did you have a student loan?

MR. NICOLSON: I certainly did not have to go into debt to get

through university. Students in those days didn't have to do it. There

were opportunities in those days. Times have changed. These people who

think back to the days when they were kids in Vancouver, and Trout Lake

and Lost Lagoon used to freeze over every winter in those days, and,

"We used to ice skate, " and do this and that.... In fact that isn't

the case. You look back fondly to those old days and say how wonderful

they were, as the Minister of Universities (Hon. Mr. McGeer) tends to.

But in fact, in those days it was very simple to get summer jobs. In

those days it was very simple for anyone who had the motivation to go

to university. But today the obstacles that are put in the way of a

university education are almost impossible to overcome. It's a much

more complex world and it's not the same.

The attitude of this government toward the universities is one which

would channel everyone into a type of specific training. We even heard

it in the budget speech. One of the few references to education was to

training, with the clear inference being training for a very specific,

very narrow field, which would probably become very limited in the very

near future.

The successes which have been achieved at the University of British

Columbia — successes in creating things such as the moly battery — were

not.... That particular discovery was not a directed piece of research.

It was an accident, and that is admitted by Dr. Rudi Haering — in fact

bragged about by Dr. Haering. He points out how, had he been a chemist,

for instance, he would never have made the discovery. It was only

because by accident — one of his students mentioned this.... He had not

been reading all the literature in this field. He had not been

convinced by reading the literature that a lithium-molybdenum oxide

battery was an impossibility. Therefore as a physicist he plunged ahead

and actually created one. He then initiated research, only to find out

that all the literature in the world of chemistry said that it was

impossible. I mention that because this is way in which many very

useful inventions are created. Yet this government seems to have an

attitude that we must direct all research and

[ Page 5318 ]

that everything must have a very specific goal already in mind before it is embarked upon.

This government has a very negative attitude towards the

universities. Any useful dissent in the community is met with by

derision, by personal attack. The resignation of Dr. George Pedersen

was treated by this government.... The minister immediately pointed out

that he already had another job to go to, and that somehow demeaned the

significance of what Dr. Petersen had to say. He takes issue with

leaders of faculty associations who try to come up with some kind of

basis for discussion. The minister has very glib remarks. The

accounting of that particular discussion would seem to me to be

consistent with what we read in Hansard of the minister's attitudes towards education and universities.

We have been led into a very difficult situation here in British

Columbia. I think we must recognize that education is the best

investment for the future that we can make in this province. For these

young students that are in the universities today, this is their one

opportunity of a lifetime. When we create this negative climate, it

will be a scar that they will bear for the rest of their lives. We

appear to be bent upon creating a lost generation here in British

Columbia.

We're the only province where the university system is entirely

financed by federal funds and student fees, with 2 percent from outside

donations in the private sector. British Columbia has the lowest

participation rate in Canada. I gave the figures earlier. Only 7

percent of grade 12 graduates from outside of the metropolitan areas of

Vancouver and Victoria attend university, and only 16 percent in

Vancouver and Victoria attend university. In other words, the

participation rate in the metropolitan areas of B.C. is the same as it

is for all of the province of Ontario. The participation rate for

non-metropolitan areas in B.C. is less than half of what it is for the

province of Ontario.

Our student summer employment program is the meanest program to

students in the country. Back in 1975 there was $30 million for student

summer employment. No student would go begging for a job back in 1975.

In 1973 we geared up a program that delivered $10 million through

meaningful employment to students; today we have less than that in our

budget. We have gone so far back in terms of student summer employment

that it's absolutely deplorable. It's only one third of the amount put

up by the federal government,

whereas Ontario is matching federal

summer job funds dollar for dollar.

Only the B.C. government requires a student to undertake a $22,000

debt just to get a bachelor's degree. In Ontario a student in similar

circumstances — one that would have to borrow their way through

university — would incur a debt of just $5,000. In British Columbia

student loans in 1985 will average $1,400, which is not even enough to

cover a year's tuition fees. Tuition fees last year were up 33 percent.

What else does government allow to increase at a rate of 33 percent,

except hydro bills or telephone bills that they let go unchallenged?

Certainly government is not recognizing.... They talk about an

increased cost of living and various other things in this province, but

it certainly isn't reflected in terms of student fees.

Then the other day there was another 10 percent increase in student

fees. It was 33 percent last year, and a further 10 percent this year

at UBC. Student fees and federal transfer payments are now carrying the

entire load as far as funding our universities is concerned.

We allocate less of our wealth in gross domestic product for

education than any other provincial government. In 1983 — the last year

for which there are statistics — the current British Columbia

government had education spending equalling 3.4 percent of our gross

domestic product; the all-province average is 5 percent. British

Columbia can well afford to support universities and colleges

adequately; it really can't afford to do otherwise.

This province is now threatening academic freedom. It's becoming

increasingly involved in the university budget allocations. Operating

budgets are cut by 5 percent, but the reduced special slush fund will

be used to support programs that the government thinks are important.

It will also be used to pay severance in faculties that the government

might think are threatening to them. There is so much orthodoxy running

through the philosophy of this government that it is very alarming and

very dangerous.

[4:15]

I'm going to mention something else, and that is that the salaries

are now the lowest in Canada. Peter Lusztig, the head of the faculty of

commerce, in which we are a leading faculty in all of North America....

Our graduate students, for instance, score in the 87 percentile in the

GMAT tests, which are the standardized achievement tests for graduate

students, administered at most universities in North America. But now

we are losing that faculty. We are losing our competitive edge in but

one of several faculties where British Columbia is North American

class, or, in many other instances, the best in Canada. There has to be

an alternative, and there is. We should make funding available to the

universities to at least maintain the 1984 levels.

Federal funds received under the EPF funding should be earmarked for

educational purposes, and the increases in the funding — anticipated to

be 7.5 percent this year — should go directly to the purpose they were

intended for.

We should also immediately reopen the David Thompson University

Centre. There were more graduates from there getting jobs than there

were from the faculty of engineering at the University of British

Columbia. And that doesn't mean that we should stop graduating

engineers; we shouldn't stop graduating writers, actors, rural

education people and others as well.

We need strategic long-term planning, and that is the message that

Dr. Pedersen had. Here we were three weeks away from the beginning of

their fiscal year, and the University of British Columbia, the

University of Victoria and Simon Fraser University didn't know what

their budgets were going to be for the next year.

We recognize that there are arbitrary barriers that determine

whether a student goes on to post-secondary education. It's a lifelong

process, if a person wishes. The failure to equip British Columbians

with the skills they will need to function in the twenty-first century

will mean that whole generations will continue to be hewers of wood and

drawers of water, figuratively. The top jobs will be filled by people

from out of the province or from the privileged strata of society — as

the minister suggested apparently to the heads of the faculty

associations. British Columbians deserve the opportunity to compete and

participate on equal terms with the rest of the people in Canada. The

barriers to study are financial, geographical and cultural; they should

and could be overcome.

The New Democratic Party believes that the province should aim at

improving our participation rate from the present level of the worst in

Canada to at least the national

[ Page 5319 ]

average, over five years. To meet this target we

would restore the grant portion of the B.C. student assistance plan. We

would review the maximum amount of the award annually and adjust it for

inflation. We would deregulate the excessive criteria for student aid,

and we would remove barriers for the participation of rural students

seeking post-secondary education by developing a comprehensive strategy

of decentralization, program delivery and boarding and travel

assistance if attendance at urban centres is necessary or desired. We

would increase opportunities and support for groups traditionally

disadvantaged — women, single parents, mature students, cultural

minorities, native people and the handicapped and disabled — and this

would be achieved pragmatically by consulting with the educational

community and representatives of the various organizations.

Mr. Speaker, what we need is a consultative process. This government

has shown, even in this budget, that it is going to continue to

legislate its solutions. For instance, in the field of municipal

affairs it legislated without consultation, and then it brought all of

the mayors and aldermen down here to tell them what we were going to

do. That is not the way to run this province. If we get on with the

proper process of consultation with our people, and if we listen to the

needs of our people, we can pull this province out. Because British

Columbia can do better. British Columbia deserves better. British

Columbia will settle for nothing less than the best performance in

British Columbia, particularly in education.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr. Minister, the red light is stuck, as you

may be aware. You will be warned two minutes before the time is up, if

you speak so long.

HON. MR. PELTON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am very pleased today to give my support to this budget. I would

like to begin by congratulating the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr.

Curtis) and his officials on a truly magnificent effort. We've been

through the desert, and although we may not have crossed the River

Jordan yet, from where we stand today we can see the promised land. And

that's welcome news, because I can tell you that a lot of the camels

have been getting mighty weary out there. So lest they pay attention to

opposition claims that this is but a mirage, let's focus our binoculars

on some of the orchards and minarets so that we go forward confident of

our destination.

We began with a search inquiry into taxation in our province and

into the burden it placed on our industries struggling to compete in

the world economy. We opened up the process of the tax policy formation

as never before, and we let the sun shine in. We invited and received

many very worthwhile suggestions from business people and from other

concerned citizens, all of them wanting to see more job creation and

more job preservation in our province. Not all jobs can be saved, and

not all jobs should be saved. We can't live in the era of the horse and

buggy unless we want the world to pass us by. What we can do is create

a climate in which our people are given the incentive and the

encouragement to meet the competition of others in sectors of a world

economy in which we can realistically hope to perform well in the long

run. These proposals, together with the common areas of development

potential which we identified in our umbrella agreement with the new

federal government this past November, gave us an overview of where our

economy was headed and of the measures needed to propel it forward.

Mr. Speaker, I would like particularly to compliment the Minister of

Finance on the background paper which accompanies his budget, entitled

"The Economy in a Changing World," and on the very helpful introductory

remarks in his budget address. Together they provide the best framework

I have seen to date for an understanding of our recent economic history

and direction. I only wish that every British Columbian could read

these, because I believe they are most useful in explaining the

necessity for many of the very controversial steps taken by the

government over the past few years and which have set the stage for

this progressive and stimulative budget. They are very readable and

very persuasive. I hope the Minister of Finance will continue in this

vein. To build public confidence, government must be open, not only

concerning its intentions, but also concerning its motivations and the

thought processes which lie behind its measures, all the more so when.

as in British Columbia, we have been breaking new ground and taking the

lead in legislative initiatives to deal with fundamental structural

changes in the world economy.

I'm pleased that the opposition presented an alternative throne

speech. Perhaps they will also present an alternative budget so that

the public can understand just exactly what their principles might mean

in practice. I was quite distressed by the inward-looking nature of

many of their proposals, which seemed to reflect a lack of confidence

in our ability to meet foreign competition head on. While stimulating

domestic purchasing power is a laudable aim, the relative lack of

priority given to export development and the occurrence of

anti-American and anti-Asian themes seem to demonstrate a fundamental

blindness to the realities of our economic life and a regrettable

dog-in-the-manger sort of attitude that could prove ruinous in our

forest industry, our agricultural industry and our fledgling

manufacturing sector, as they seek not only to penetrate new markets,

but to keep vital existing markets open in the face of mounting

pressures for protectionism.

Snarling at one's best customers and potential customers is no way

to run a comer grocery store, let alone a province, and to my mind it

is regrettable indeed that the leader of the opposition feels it

necessary to play on people's fears of foreigners and envy of U.S.

success in this fashion. I was frankly shocked. Certainly these

jingoistic comments make B.C. no friends in the world, and indeed we

need friends. Our working men and women depend on them. Our young

people depend on those markets for our future, just as our elderly

people depend on them for health care. It is truly irresponsible,

particularly at this time when the Weaver bill is an active topic in

the U.S. Congress, and as great a threat to our forest workers and

their families' futures as they have ever had. Gratuitous attacks on

our defence relationship with the United States only compound the

alarming impression of negative stereotyped attitudes which are more

reflexive than reflective.

Mr. Speaker, our budget is pro-labour, pro-worker. It's a

pro-worker's family budget which reaches out to the entire world with a

hand of friendship and commitment to work together as partners in

progress, renewal, innovation and the pursuit of cooperation and

excellence. We live in an imperfect world, and no doubt the fault to

which pure capitalism falls most easily prone is that of greed. But the

fault to which pure socialism succumbs is that of envy, a fault no more

admirable and, I fear, one far more connected with failure than with

success. We should not be envying the Americans

[ Page 5320 ]

or the West Germans or the Japanese. We should be striving to surpass them.

The member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) has tried to convince us that

tax relief is no way to create jobs. I can recall that not very long

ago many people in this country and elsewhere were decrying the

presumed evils of Reaganomics. I'm sure they began before the poor man

was ever sworn into office. But they presume too much. These

declarations remind me of the usually left-leaning U.S. cartoon strip

in which one of the characters said: "I have some good news and some

bad news. The good news is that unemployment is down. The bad news is

that Reaganomics is working." Incentives work. The mainland Chinese,

considering the severity of the cultural revolution, have discovered

that. One might have thought that that message would have been a pretty

profound one. So, Mr. Speaker, I appeal to all members of this House:

let us stop snarling at our neighbours, our allies and our potential

trading partners, and let us stop playing ideological games, which only

harm our people and say more about the worst in us than the best in us.

While I'm on the subject of Americans, I do have a soft spot for

their former president, Jimmy Carter. For all of the problems which he

experienced, he was a man of humane vision. He used a phrase which I

believe applies to all of us today when he asked: "Why not the best?"

Why should we in British Columbia be satisfied with less? I simply

don't buy it. Nothing we could do could make the member for Nanaimo

happy. It is his job to be unhappy and he does his job very well —

although I'm sure that in real life he is much happier than he allows

himself to be in this rather theatrical process we all go through in

this chamber.

[4:30]

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The commitment to forest renewal is welcomed by all British

Columbians. The commitment to secondary industry is music to our ears.

Similarly the commitment to high technology is a sensible and

progressive initiative. I have argued very strongly for a greater

emphasis in our programs on relief to the small business sector, and I

particularly wish to commend the minister on his decision to phase out

the corporation capital tax — a stifling and repressive measure which

should have been repealed in 1976. Likewise the small business tax

credit is a very exciting initiative. But above all, I believe the

abolition of property tax on new machinery and equipment will foster

healthy growth and badly needed diversification throughout our economy.

Skilled trades people stand to benefit most from this initiative, along

with secondary industry in our province.

The scope of the new initiatives is rather awesome, and I will not

even attempt to cover them all. I do wish to draw attention, however,

to items relating to aquaculture and mariculture, since this, I know,

is a topic of interest to members on both sides of the House. There is

a significant list of sales tax exemptions for the industry, but this

is not all. Aquaculture is also specifically included under the

Industrial Development Incentive Act and would certainly be eligible

for assistance under the Small Business Venture Capital Act. No less

importantly, we are working very closely with Ottawa in this field of

overlapping jurisdiction, and I am pleased to report that the federal

minister, who also represents the good people of Vancouver South in the

House of Commons, is extremely supportive of and cooperative in efforts

to realize our potential as producers of seafood for a hungry world.

The lifestyle changes of the eighties and increasing fitness

consciousness are continuing to enhance the desirability of this

high-protein growth industry — if I may mix metaphors — and as Minister

of Environment my philosophy will be to encourage the expanding

production and harvest of both saltwater and freshwater food species.

I'm sure that my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Hon.

Mr. Schroeder), will include a good representation of our fish,

shellfish and similar products in his marketing initiatives at Expo and

elsewhere.

Once again, I believe that vigorous marketing and a good-neighbour

policy, as well as sensible regulations and cooperation with Ottawa,

are key to expansion of this sector. The opposition would appear to

favour small businesses only until they succeed and wish to expand.

That is not our view. With over four billion mouths to feed on our

planet, we believe that there's room not only for hobby-farm-scale

operations but also for an expanding aquaculture and mariculture sector

in our province, and for an expanding agricultural sector as well. Tax

changes in this budget, combined with these new marketing initiatives,

will help make that happen.

On the expenditure side education receives an impressive 5 percent.

To some that's not enough, I know. But the government has given every

school board in this province the vehicle to supplement local school

budgets through reference to the residential tax base — by referendum.

That is bringing government closer to the people — perhaps too close

for some, Mr. Speaker. It is true that the residential tax base is not

evenly distributed, but neither is the non-residential tax base. If our

unemployment rate were considerably reduced, I would favour opening up

that tax base for school purposes as well, but not at a time when we

need so badly to create a climate of certainty and of confidence in

known costs in order to attract new investment and encourage industrial

and small business expansion in order to get our people back to work.

It's always good politics to sock it to the employer. He's the bad guy

— we all know it. But when he or she goes out of business, nobody gets

any milk and cookies: not Grandma and not Little Red Riding Hood, not

even Goldilocks and the Three Bears.

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciated the Finance minister's remarks

concerning EPF, because this issue has been the subject of endless

self-serving comments by those whose higher education should permit

them to know better. The past decade has seen a very substantial upward

shift in the age composition of the Canadian population. Nowhere has

that been more acutely felt than in British Columbia. The allocation of

higher-than-average priority to health care is perfectly understandable

in terms of the population mix in B.C. While I am a very great believer

in the value of higher education, our number one spending priority

remains health care for the sick and elderly of our province, and I

make no apology for that.

We know that health care was not the number one spending priority of

the opposition, as it is of ours. But I was rather astonished that in

their alternate throne speech it seemed to have slipped to the status

merely of a footnote or an afterthought. I believe it was a rather

skimpy

section 15, Mr. Speaker, a reflection, perhaps, of their own

public opinion polling, which I understand shows that the public is

quite satisfied with our outstanding health care system.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate negotiators on behalf of

both the doctors and the transit workers on achieving very responsible

proposals to assist in our economic renewal. Our new Minister of Labour

(Hon. Mr. Segarty)

[ Page 5321 ]

knows what it is to be a union man and to support

union principles, and he knows too that progressive and healthy

cooperation is the ticket to success for working men and women. I am

sure that he will be very effective in promoting that sense of common

endeavour which we must establish if we are to succeed.

You know, Mr. Speaker, well over 80 percent of the construction jobs

on Expo are union jobs. ALRT and northeast coal are over 90 percent. I

am sure that if we had lost our nerve in the face of criticism by those

who dare think small and had cancelled those projects, thousands of

union members and their families would have been adversely affected.

If we had listened to the visionaries who were against the Peace,

the Columbia and the Revelstoke dams, and the highways to the interior,

the Roberts Bank, the Annacis crossing, the Ridley Island superport,

the Anzak spur and every other solid investment in our province's

economic infrastructure, many thousands more of our union families

would be out of work, and indeed would never have had the opportunity

to come to British Columbia in the first place.

If we had followed that philosophy over 100 years ago, when the

opposition in Ottawa made similar arguments against Sir John A.'s

transcontinental railway, I wonder if any of us in this House would be

here or anywhere else for that matter.

Mr. Speaker, the member for Nanaimo accused us of putting all our

eggs in one basket. If I thought he was right about that, I would agree

with him that that would be a great mistake. But in view of the very

wide scope of these proposals, I have a hard time believing that the

member really had his heart in it.

There is direct public sector stimulus to construction through the

Coquihalla acceleration and to high tech through the expanded funding

for the very worthwhile Discovery Enterprise program. There is

tax-based stimulus to secondary industry, which one would have thought

the NDP would favor, considering their voluminous comments on the need

for such stimulus over the years.

There is direct employment-related aid to small business through a

small business tax credit program. Mr. Speaker, not very long ago I

recall Mr. Ed Broadbent touring around the country saying that small

business was the engine of economic recovery and that helping small

business was the essence of his solution to the country's economic

problems — or words to that effect.

Now I grant you that our small business tax credit program is not a

socialist's dream. It does not involve a huge new bureaucracy to pick

and choose among our small business. It helps all who qualify. Perhaps

that is the problem that the NDP have with it, or perhaps it is just

that we thought of it and they didn't. We have a venture capital

program to provide incentives to our economy, and to become more

progressive and more readily willing to undertake some reasonable

risks. I would think that the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson),

for one, would applaud such aims.

But that is not all. You know, Mr. Speaker, I recall reading that

the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) wanted us to avoid

putting all our eggs in the high tech basket. He wanted us to

strengthen existing industries. That's exactly what we've done for

forestry and mining with the machinery tax measures, industrial power

discounts, the critical industries commissioner, the five-year water

rental freeze, the new small business forest account. There is Expo 86,

and parks upgrading, and abolition of the corporation capital tax — all

of benefit to the tourist and hospitality industries, which he is

directly familiar with.

Removal of the machinery tax will not be a burden on homeowners. If

people take full advantage of these opportunities, the economic

expansion produced could eventually ease everyone's tax burden,

provided local governments and others learn the lessons of the past

recession and avoid repeating the costly mistakes of ballooning

bureaucracy and skyrocketing costs to the public. There is even

something in this budget for the cigarette smoker: that is, a very good

incentive to quit.

I was very impressed by the position announced by the hon. member

for Atlin (Mr. Passarell), who is fed up with the games. In that he

speaks not only for his independently minded constituency, but I'm sure

for thousands upon thousands of British Columbians of every political

hue, region, ethnic origin and sex. I would say both sexes, Mr.

Speaker, but I don't want to leave anyone out. The member for Prince

Rupert (Mr. Lea) is tired of games as well, and I in sure there are

others. All but the most ideologically inviolate members of the

opposition must realize that this is a great job-creation budget — a

genuinely comprehensive and progressive approach to setting our economy

on an upward path, with ample encouragement to our own people to do the

job with a little help from our friends.

I invite all members to join me in supporting this outstanding tax-slashing, job-creating budget.

[4:45]

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: It's a pleasure to introduce a

Conservative member of Parliament for Kootenay West in British

Columbia, Bob Brisco, who was at one time a colleague of the member for

Skeena (Hon. Mr. Howard), the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose) and

myself. It's a pleasure, and I hope the House will welcome him.

MS. SANFORD: The Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Pelton),

who is now leaving the chamber, mentioned in his speech that he felt it

was time to leave the era of the horse and buggy behind. I wanted to

inform that minister before he left that the best way to leave that era

behind is to ensure that we have a quality educational system in this

province. Unfortunately, the budget under debate at this time does not

make any provision for a quality system of education in British

Columbia.

When we have a situation in the province where the government,

through various moves, has gone out to destroy what was an excellent

system of education, to demoralize the entire teaching staff of British

Columbia, whether at the college or university level, or in the public

school system itself, that alone ensures we will not have a quality

educational system. People demoralized because of the attitude of the

current government toward education means we have inflicted on British

Columbia society a harm that is going to take years and years to repair.

It's a tragedy for everyone, not just those who are in the

educational system today. Everyone is going to he responsible to pick

up the pieces after this government is through with

[ Page 5322 ]

its wrecking-crew approach to the economy and to

the various systems within the province, whether in human services,

education or health. They are the ones who are going to have to

shoulder the burden after the mismanagement of the economy through the

approaches adopted by this government. They are the ones who will have

to put the province together again once this current government is out.

In order to do that, people will have to be well educated; they'll have

to have a vision and some foresight. The only way we're going to

achieve that is to ensure that the people of this province have a

quality education and the opportunity to face the problems of this

province. The problems are difficult enough without having the

destructive approach taken by this government. We have difficult enough

problems in terms of the environment and in terms of what is happening

in technological change. We need people who have ability and foresight

through the opportunity of a quality education.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to point out what is happening in one small

community as a result of the cutbacks in the budget to the community

colleges at this time. Within the constituency of Comox and the

community of Parksville, there is a Malaspina College campus which,

unfortunately, because of the cutbacks in education, is going to close.

The people who are currently employed there have been given their pink

slips. The recommendation of the administration of Malaspina College,

located in Nanaimo, to the board is that the entire campus be closed.

The board has yet to make a decision on that. I don't see how they can

keep that college campus open in any way, shape or form, based on the 5

percent cutback in community college funding. When you tie that in with

inflation, the college campus is facing a cutback of about 9 percent.

The community of Parksville is in a difficult position financially.

The unemployment rate in Parksville is no doubt higher than it is in

many parts of the province. The line-ups at the food bank are similar

to those in many other communities in this province. I'd like to point

out what the closure of this campus will mean to Parksville. This kind

of thing can be duplicated in every part of the province.

There is a base budget of $91,000 which is awarded to the campus at

Parksville every year — $91,000 out of a $9.2 billion budget. On top of

that $91,000, the community collects an additional $95,000 through

fees. On top of that, there is some $60,000 that comes into that

community through various federal and provincial grants to the

Parksville campus of Malaspina College. The federal government, through

programs like CIDA, has assisted financially in keeping various

programs and operations and sponsoring conferences and things of that

nature.

In addition to that, the college campus at Parksville has just

negotiated federal moneys to the tune of $66,000 for a youth training

option program, a program that serves as a link between school and the

workplace for students, plus another $40,000 from the federal

government to assist the students in travelling and other expenses that

they would incur while they are involved in this youth training option.

So there we have another $106,000 coming into Parksville — entirely

federal money — which is now going to be lost because that college

campus is going t