1984 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 33rd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 1984

Morning Sitting

[ Page

3417 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Budget debate

Mr. Reynolds –– 3417

Mr. Mitchell –– 3418

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 3421

Mr. Passarell –– 3425

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 1984

The House met at 10:06 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege

affecting this House and its members. Last evening, after the House had

risen, an activity was brought to my attention which could have a

tendency to impair members in the discharge of their duties. This,

therefore, is the first opportunity I have had to raise this question.

The question of privilege is that the agency of government

identified as government information services and the Minister of

Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) are sending through the mails, at public

expense, written material about the budget currently before the House.

That written material is misleading, both with respect to what it

contains and what is omitted therefrom, and is false insofar as some of

its content is concerned.

Budget documents show that the level of employment has decreased and

the unemployment rate doubled, but no mention is made of these facts in

the material being sent through the mails at public expense. Those

budget documents also show that the provincial gross domestic product,

housing starts, value of building permits, business incorporations and

the volume of timber scaled have all declined, but the material being

sent out ignores those facts as well.

Information contained in the document is misleading and distorts the

facts. For example, the claims that the total cost to the province for

universities is $315.2 million, that the total cost to the province for

acute care is $1,270.4 million, that the total cost to the province for

long-term care is $202.5 million and that the total cost to the

province for the Medical Services Plan is $512.7 million distort the

fact that more than half this money comes from the federal government.

By mailing such misleading material the government information

services and the Minister of Finance are conspiring to present a case

to the general public which tends to impair members in the discharge of

their duties, and the publication is a distorted version of the

proceedings of this House.

The written material which I referred to is called "Fiscal Facts:

Budget '84-85, Province of British Columbia," and I submit that

material for Your Honour's perusal. If Your Honour finds that I have a

prima facie question of privilege, I have an appropriate motion ready

which condemns the government for issuing false and misleading

information and for using, in this time of restraint, public funds for

that purpose.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, as is the procedure, I will

undertake to review the matter brought forward by the member for Skeena

and bring information on the matter back to the House at the earliest

opportunity.

Orders of the Day

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

MR. REYNOLDS: It's interesting to watch the New Democratic

Party get up on questions of privilege. In my opinion, some of these

things are an abuse of the privileges 4 this House, and we have to

listen to those types of activities in this Legislature. It would seem

to me that the member has forgotten that he lost the election last May

MR. COCKE: On a point of order, the Speaker has not come down with a

ruling in this case. The member is alluding to it, and as far as I am concerned,

there should be no argument unless there's a debate that the Speaker rules.

MR. SPEAKER: It's a valid point. The member continues.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, I see the Minister of Forests

(Hon. Mr. Waterland), and I know he has to leave for a meeting, but I

think that all members of this House.... [Applause.] I'm so happy to

see that applause for the minister. I noticed that not too much of it

came from the New Democratic Party. In the past number of days this New

Democratic Party kept on yelling across and asking the Minister of

Forests to resign over an accusation that's since been proved false by

an ombudsman who has apologized to this House and to the Minister of

Forests. Where are those members of the NDP, Mr. Speaker, standing in

this Legislature today, to get up and be the men and women they should

be and apologize to the Minister of Forests? I would suggest that the

people of this province would expect the members of the New Democratic

Party, who went after this minister and demanded his resignation, to

stand up and say: "We apologize for saying that." They may not agree

with his politics, but as decent human beings they should be up on the

floor of this Legislature. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett)

should be the first one up. Instead we sit here and see four of them in

the Legislature this morning in this very important debate.

The member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) is here. I wonder why

she is not up in this House congratulating the minister on the fact

there is a new sawmill at Chemainus. She's been asking him that

question. We're going to employ 150 people in her constituency. Why

isn't she getting up to congratulate the Minister of Forests? The man

has had a tough few days in this House. No, there's no common decency

in the New Democratic Party. They're not going to get up and say what a

great job the Minister of Forests has been doing in this province...

MR. COCKE: You're absolutely right, because it's lousy.

[10:15]

MR.REYNOLDS: ...because they just don't have that inside them.

The member for New Westminster's sitting there saying it's lousy,

it's this and that. Why can't he stand up with a little common decency

and apologize for all those taunts across the floor to the Minister of

Forests? The Minister of Forests is a decent human being. He told this

House that he didn't make those statements, and they should have

accepted that. He's a man with a family, and he's had to go through

unfounded accusations in the press. No, the New Democrats don't get up

and say, "We apologize for making those accusations," because they just

like to mire in the dirt. That's why that party will never, ever form a

government again in the province of British Columbia.

It's not surprising to me that the New Democrats have to go outside

this chamber to find a leader. That's because the members of the New

Democratic Party see the way these people operate in this Legislature

and say: "We'd better get somebody new or we'll never have a chance to

form a government in this province." Why is it that this New Democratic

Party, that demanded the resignation of the Minister of Forests on the

basis of a statement made by the ombudsman,

[ Page 3418 ]

haven't demanded that the ombudsman resign for

making c that mistake? No, we won't hear that from the New Democratic

Party, because they're good socialists. They wouldn't do those things.

No way.

MR. COCKE: He didn't make a mistake. He was misinformed, and you know it.

MR. REYNOLDS: Listen to this, Mr. Speaker. They're saying

that he didn't make a mistake, he was misinformed. Isn't that nice

socialism? Well, if the ombudsman was that misinformed and wants to

ruin a man and his family's reputation, he should resign.

You people love your muckraking. It's your party that got those 400

people out screaming in the streets of Vancouver last night — jumping

on people's cars, damaging their cars. It's New Democrats who support

that kind of action in the city of Vancouver. They like to muckrake.

Your Uncle Mikey is the man who would have liked to be your leader,

until he made the biggest goof of his career. The only good thing I can

say about this kind of activity in this province by the New Democrats

is that it ensures that this province will never, ever have a New

Democratic government again.

In finishing I would just like to say again how much I support this

budget, this Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) and the ministers in

his government who have worked so hard to pare this budget and get the

deficit down. We have shown good government, and in the years to

come....

And these members know it, because before that next election a lot of them

will never be back again. I can certainly look at the member for Alberni (Mr.

Skelly) sitting down there at the end, a pretender to the leadership of his

party; he's one of those demanding the resignation of the Minister of

Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland). Why isn't he up apologizing in this House?

He's been here a long time — another muckraker, Mr. Speaker. The members

of his own party will see where he stands when they vote for the leadership

of the New Democratic Party.

I see my time is up. I look forward to the next time I get up to

speak in the chamber on some of the great bills we are going to be

bringing forth over the next few months.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Apologize!

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, I wish you'd bring this House to order. I really have to....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Apologize!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members.

MR. MITCHELL: I'm really impressed with the selective recall of

the member who preceded me. The one thing he forgot to mention was the letter

that came to the Minister of Forests in 1982 outlining the problem that it took

until 1984 for the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith) to do anything about. Over

those two years, companies were bringing vital information to the ministry's

attention and the minister and the government did nothing about it. This is

the important part. We in the New Democratic Party do not apologize for anything.

We are fighting for the small contractors. We are fighting for the loggers who

work for those contractors. We cannot afford to see companies go down. Now political

brownie points are trying to be made. Maybe the ombudsman did read something

into a report, but let us remember what Williston said this morning when

he was speaking on the Webster show. He said the ombudsman was doing his

job. That is the important part.

The Ministry of Forests, the government, did not do their job in

1982 when it was brought to their attention. The Attorney-General took

until 1984 to institute criminal proceedings which were not the basis

of the original report. I know something about criminal investigations.

I know when they are needed. Why was that sat on from 1982 until 1984,

when it was released? That is the only issue that we in British

Columbia should be looking at. We have no reason to apologize. I think

it's important that you review all the facts.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. At some point during this debate the member has the right to be heard.

All members will have an opportunity to take their place in debate. At the present time the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew has the floor and, as such, is entitled to be heard.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's got the right to apologize.

MR. MITCHELL: If anyone has the right to apologize, it's the government.

It must apologize for sitting on this report since 1982 — I think this is the

important part of our work in this Legislature.

We should look at some of the problems we have and the reason for this Legislature.

This Legislature was set up by the people of British Columbia and the people

of Canada to run the government of this province in an orderly manner. As the

57 people elected in British Columbia, if we as individuals can't conduct

ourselves in a mature and positive manner, if we can't lay out some formula

for doing the people's business, then we should not be here. I call on this

government to review the manner in which they ran this Legislature last year.

We jumped from throne speeches into budget speeches; we jumped into bills; we

had all-night sessions; we went into estimates; we jumped out of estimates.

I am calling on this government and the House Leader, and those who are going

to run this Legislature, to lay down something in a positive manner so that

the back-benchers from both sides of the House can review some of the material

— some of the estimates — through committees, so that we can know down the

line when the estimates for a particular ministry will be coming up. I am not

asking that just for my particular privilege, but I feel that the people of

British Columbia should know when the Minister of Forests' estimates are

going to come up. Forest companies, professional foresters and others who work

in the business should know that on the week of March 10 that ministry is going

to come up; then they can be here. If it is deemed that certain estimates should

go to a committee hearing, those who are on the committees should have an opportunity

to meet with or ask questions of the various officials — the deputies who are

working in the field.

I believe that when the estimates of the Minister of Municipal

Affairs come up, there are other elected people in this province who

have a deep interest in the legislation or the estimates coming from

that ministry. They should be able to know that those estimates are

coming up at the end of March, April, or May, and the people then could

make arrangements

[ Page

3419 ]

to come down and listen to how we behave or how the minister behaves. I think

if we, as mature people, can't run our own business in here in an orderly,

constructive manner, we are missing the responsibility that I say we were given

when we were elected. We cannot afford to continue to play these political games

that the House Leaders and the cabinet play. We cannot afford them, because

we have that responsibility. I call on the House Leader, the government and

the party Whips to lay some long-range guidelines so the House and the members

can know what's coming up. I say this seriously. I know the government House

Leader sits there and makes these snide little remarks. The majority of parliaments

in a democracy run this way. I think it is not unfair to the younger members

of this House to know that they are going to have a summer recess, that they

can plan ahead for their families.

People in this House should be able to plan ahead. I've said this

each session that I've spoken, and I'm going to repeat it: there should

be a spring session, there should be a summer recess, and there should

be a fall session. The public has a right to know somewhere in that

scenario what time which estimates and what bills are coming up. We

cannot afford to run a democracy in a political showmanship manner and

attempt to gain brownie points. We have a responsibility, and the

government should give some leadership that they haven't given.

Going into the throne speech, I feel that there are two or three

points I would like to bring to the attention of the government.

HON. A. FRASER: We're in budget debate now, not the throne debate.

MR. MITCHELL: I stand corrected by the Minister of Highways.

I am in the budget speech, and I apologize to you, Mr. Speaker, and to

the House that I made that slip of the tongue. I have been known to

have a slip of the tongue and I do not claim to have a halo above my

head, and from my view over here I don't see any on that side of the

House, either.

[10:30]

I'd like to bring to the attention of the House — and I'm sorry that

the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Richmond) isn't here, because I feel he

should be supporting this and bringing it to the attention of his federal counterparts

— some of the problems of commercial fishing in this province: the effect it

is having on the tourist industry, and especially how it's affecting

my particular riding. Maybe you can say that I'm a sport fisherman, but

I think it's important that the governments of both British Columbia and

Ottawa realize the impact the sport fishing industry has on our economy. Do

you realize that the economic impact of sport fishing — with fishing gear, bait,

lodgings, etc. — works out to $120 million a year, and that the investment in

the sport boats is close to $1 billion a year, which is nearly twice as much

as the boats used in commercial fishing? Sport fishing in this province generates

37 percent of the total employment in the Pacific fishery. Sport fishermen utilize

approximately 4 percent of the catch, while the commercial fleet takes 91 percent

of the catch and the remaining 5 percent is caught by native fishermen. When

you compare the $120 million to the $145 million that is generated by the commercial

catch, sport fishing as a utilization of one of our natural resources generates

far more per capita than the present methods of commercial fishing.

I would like to see a study made by the Ministry of Environment and the Ministry

of Tourism, and a complete review of the methods of commercial fishing in this

province.

We should not only review the various methods, but we should review some of

the studies made by biologists and those who are actively engaged in the fishing

industry. When I talk about the 4 percent catch made by sport fishing, I think

you should realize that the bulk of that is two particular species: the chinook

and the coho. The bulk of our commercial fishing is confined to the sockeye,

the pinks and the chums. When the commercial fishing is at its best, these

are the three species they are harvesting. But when the seine boats are harvesting

either of the three commercial species, the incidental catches they make with

the methods they use are decimating the two particular species that make up

the bulk of the sport fishing catch. Those who are involved in the seine boats

and have travelled with the seine fleet not only catch commercial fish, but they

also destroy the young salmon, and they are lost forever. It is not harvesting.

They are caught in the commercial seines, hooked up into the nets, and they

end up being washed overboard. The methods of the seine fleet are going to kill

the sport fishing industry in this province. I think the government and the

tourist industry should take a strong stand on it.

The commercial trollers do play a large

part in our export of salmon

to Europe. The main catch when the commercial trollers are working on

the outside of the so-called blue line is that the spring salmon they

are catching out there are largely the salmon that are exported at a

premium price to Europe and our American neighbours. It is the fish

that are harvested in the open sea that get the best price. But when

they are harvesting that particular fish, from biologists' studies that

were made in the southwest end of British Columbia, for every keeper

that was kept and sold there were anywhere from 1.2 to 1.9 shakers. For

every one that they kept they threw more than one away — dead. These

are the young, immature salmon.

The time to look at both of these particular methods of fishing and

how they are going to control and protect the stock is fast coming to a

head. The only method by which fish can be harvested in a reasonable,

controlled environment is the gill-net fleet. They can be harvested,

and the type of fish they catch can be controlled and monitored. By the

size of the net, they are not killing off the small. Immature fish. By

the depth of the net, because chinook, coho and the daytime fishing go

deep.... The sockeye, the chum and the pink stay closer to the top.

Those three commercial fish can be harvested without disseminating the

sports fishing and destroying the junior stock.

I know there is going to be a howl and cry from those who have

invested capital in the commercial fleet, the banks and the trust

companies who have gone into partnership — I think we should say that

they have gone into partnership on some of these half million dollar

seine boats.... If you're going to say that your method of harvesting

the resources of this province is outdated, they are going to scream.

But I say that the banks and the mortgage companies went into

partnership with these fishermen, and they have a responsibility to

take some of the blame.

I say, Mr. Speaker, through you to the government, that a study should be made

of our resource and of changing the method that is now utilized in harvesting

salmon. We should seriously look at not only the gill-net fleet on the inside

waters but the gill-net fleet on the high seas. The Japanese fishermen

[ Page 3420 ]

are now using gill nets out at sea, and they are

harvesting the catches without killing the young. It is the fish that

are harvested out at sea beyond the blue line that are going to bring

to the commercial fishermen a higher return for the fresh-fish market

in Europe and in the States. I think if we are going to protect the

salmon, as the Governor of Washington said, so they are here for our

enjoyment and our children's and grandchildren's enjoyment, we have to

stop the method and the incidental catches that are being taken by

trollers and by the seine boats today.

I believe that the minister of fisheries, speaking on the Jack

Webster program, stated that any four seiners today could harvest the

total catch for the next year. But it's not so much that we want to

wipe out.... I'm not advocating that we wipe out all the fishermen, but

I think that the boats today that are being used for trollers and the

boats that are being used for seiners can be adapted to gill-net

fishing. They can be adapted, and there is still, from people I know in

the industry, a place for anywhere from 3,000 to 5,000 commercial boats

to harvest the resources. Properly managed, they will protect them, and

then we can raise our 4 percent catch that is going to the sports

fishermen to 10 or 15 percent. If the economic impact that the 4

percent is generating is allowed to enlarge, then we will have a new

industry and an enlarged industry that is going to create more

employment in this province. I think this is where this government

misses. They are missing the opportunity to create new jobs. They sit

with their blinkers on. They are so locked into protecting the

super-large multinationals....

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. R. FRASER: That's a bunch of hogwash, and you know it.

MR. MITCHELL: I know it's true. They are still locked in. The

only industry we are going to protect is in the exploitation of our

present natural resources. They are not looking to create

labour-intensive industries. They are not looking at the creation of

new jobs. They are only looking at a balanced budget. They are only

looking at the shell game that they play with the budget. They are not

listening to innovative ideas that are brought to this House and to the

government by people from all walks of life. This is what I've been

trying to say in every one of my speeches. If we use the committee

system, committees could go out into the community; they could meet the

experts; they could meet the people who have the problem of

unemployment and who have some new ideas that will create additional

jobs. We should be developing that approach, not thinking that we who

are sitting here, or the 20 who were selected by their peers to sit in

cabinet, have all the answers. You do not have the answers. You do not

even have the commitment to look at new ideas, at the principle that we

must develop in this province and in this country a belief in full

employment.

We must get away from the idea that we in this country can tolerate

a situation of 5, 10 or 15 percent unemployment as part of the new

technology. This country cannot accept it. The youth of this province

will not accept it. Those who are working will not accept it. It's the

most disgusting thing that in a rich country like British Columbia we

can say to 25 percent of the youth of this province that we're going to

cut their standard of living. I heard the Minister of Finance say in

this House that the people of British Columbia must lower their

expectations. As one who grew up in the Depression and worked through

the war, was part of the armed forces....

We had expectations, For those who joined the forces, put on

uniforms and went to fight for this country.... I say this because a

large part of my riding went to fight for this country, and many of

them are in uniform today for the defence of this country. They have

expectations. They have a right to those expectations. They have a

right to be able to look down the road and see that they are going to

get employment, that they are going to have an opportunity to raise a

family. With all the inflation we've had for the last two and a half

years, we've had no increase in the minimum wage that we give to people

on welfare. Then we have a government in a rich country saying to these

youths that we're going to cut it a little more and, if they don't like

it, they can hitch-hike to Tumbler Ridge. I talk to people weekly who

have come back from Tumbler Ridge, and there are no jobs. I know people

who have gone down to get work on the ALRT construction in Vancouver,

and there is no work. Why use words to twist and ridicule the people

who have come out of our education system, who are products of many of

us in this House, and say that we're going to cut them down a little

further? I know this attitude and this outlook have got to change — put

forward by the government and by those who run this particular

province. We must look....

[10:45]

I don't say I have all the answers; I know the government has none.

But we must have a commitment that we are going to change our outlook

and that we are going to develop our secondary and service industries

and the facilities that are needed with the human and natural resources

that we have. I know that if there were a war tomorrow, the government

of British Columbia and the government in Ottawa, with the resources

and with the economists that we have, would create a situation of full

employment. I say, Mr. Speaker, through you to the government and to

every member in this House: until each one of us in his own heart

believes and accepts that every British Columbian, every Canadian, has

a responsibility to work, has an opportunity to earn a living and has

hope, we cannot sit in this House and make fun of these people. This is

a commitment that we must give. We can play our political games. We can

have the snide remarks of where is the money coming from and where is

the bottom line — I've heard it all. It was the same terminology that

we used in the thirties to my parents and the parents of my friends and

to youths who were a few years older than I. But when Hitler unleashed

his army in 1939, there was full employment. We did a job. Canadians

can do a job.

Ridicule is the attitude of this government. They failed to take the

proper responsibility that they as the government had. They started on

their so-called "privatization." Let's remember what they privatized.

In 1978 the leader of British Columbia's Social Credit government, with

his advisers, said: "We have a problem, and that problem is inflation.

To solve that problem we are going to raise the interest from 10 to 18

1/2 percent." That minister went to Ottawa from British Columbia and

advocated that we should raise the interest rate to 18 1/2 percent.

This was going to solve the problem of inflation.

Mr. Speaker, when we had a war that Canada was involved in through

1939-45 we had inflation. But what was the method of solving that

inflation? Was it to give the banks the responsibility of doing the job

that government was elected to

[ Page 3421 ]

do? Governments looked at taxes. They looked at

such innovative methods as compulsory savings, and they skimmed that

money off the economy to protect and stop the problem of inflation. But

what did we do? We abrogated our responsibility. We privatized that

responsibility, gave it to the banks, and said that they could take

that money out of the economy. Then we turned around and borrowed it

back at 18 1/2 percent. The Premier was right. The biggest economic

millstone around our neck is the high interest that we.... I say "we"

very loosely. The government of British Columbia jumped on the

bandwagon of the Reaganites and the Thatcherites, that the way of

solving inflation was by high interest.

What happened to the governments of Canada in the 1939-45.... After

the war, when a lot of commodities were available, they released their

compulsory savings. The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) was

correct and 100 percent on mark in his budget speech when he said that

the consumer spending in the States is bringing them out of the

depression. We are looking at it today. If that consumer money was

available in British Columbia and in Canada, we could be coming out of

the depression. We are afraid to look at an approach of full

employment. We are afraid to utilize the responsibilities that

governments have to control some financing. We stumble on, and the boom

and bust psychology that has gone on the past.... The trouble with so

many of us is that we fail to read history. Consequently we make the

same mistakes as our predecessors. High interest — and I don't say it's

only British Columbia's economy — is killing the economy of the free

world. We sit and laugh and giggle. You think there is no other answer

but to see our economy go down the tube. Economics is not something

that is either capitalism or socialism. It is the driving force of any

country. When you destroy that economy, have it sucked dry by high

interest or misuse of our resources, then we have a problem with job

creation, with our fishing industry, because we have not looked at new

ideas or changes.

I'm sorry the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr.

Hewitt) is not here, because when I talk about high interest, I talk

about another problem that came through my constituency office, and

from that, with a lot of hard work, it is now before the courts. It is

a problem created by Royal Trust in the issuance of one of their

mortgages. Many people in my riding came to me when interest rates

started to go down; they wanted to get out of the 18, 19 and 20 percent

mortgages that were breaking their families. Many times they signed up

for the high interest when both husband and wife were working and they

could make their payments. But when the interest started going down

they wanted to get out of it.

With some study I found out that there is such a thing as the

Interest Act. This act basically says that if you have a mortgage of

five years or over, you could pay a three-month penalty and get out of

it. So I phoned a lot of banks and credit unions and they agreed to

drop the mortgage and rewrite it. The only one was Royal Trust. When we

studied that we found that Royal Trust has a special

section in their

mortgage that says that when you sign it, you sign away your rights

under the Interest Act. No company should deny people the statutory

protection that the federal Interest Act gives. We have an action

before the court. It lost the first round and is now before the appeal

court. I think there is a need in this province for legislation similar

to that in Ontario and Manitoba which gives to those who have a

five-year mortgage the protection that is guaranteed by the Canada

Interest Act. I call on this government and the Minister of Consumer

and Corporate Affairs to look at that type of legislation and bring in

similar legislation in British Columbia, to give those who are caught

in this high interest sphere some protection. If we are going to

protect families and homes, we in this Legislature must take a positive

stand to protect our resources, our economy and the homes that many of

us live in.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to

stand in the budget debate for 1984-85. It was most interesting to hear

the debate which has taken place so far and to pay some attention to

that which has been reported outside of the chamber in response to the

debate and to the budget.

It's a privilege to be a citizen of our province and see the

responsible attitude the government has taken toward the costs to the

taxpayer in running government. I think it is a privilege to see that

any government in Canada has the courage and conviction to reduce a

budget from previous expenditures in a time of extremely high costs and

rising costs. What a convenient opportunity it is for those involved in

politics, in their attempts to please everyone, for eventual reward of

perhaps high office, to continually tell people that there is an

opportunity for everyone to receive everything they want from

government because, in effect, it is basically insatiable.

[11:00]

There are those who would suggest to people that all they need to do

is ask, and the money will be found somehow. There are those who

constantly advocate that the government should continuously borrow more

money, go into greater debt or continually increase taxes —

particularly income taxes of all kinds and other forms of taxation —

simply to satisfy not necessarily the needs of citizens but the wants

of citizens. Over and over it is repeated: why can't you come up with

the money to satisfy the wants of a particular organization, group or

individual?

I know that there is a tremendous amount of interest in the B.C.

budget of this year. I heard quite a bit of interest last night in

Ottawa when I was speaking before the House of Commons committee on the

Canada Health Act. Many of the Members of Parliament were quite

interested and quite intrigued that any government in Canada not only

could reduce expenditures but would reduce expenditures. There is no

question that the government of B.C., through the Minister of Finance

in the budget, has shown the way for politicians and governments in the

country to do something about the problem — not to continue adding to

deficits and debts and taxes, but to do something about it — to

actually have the courage to say "no" to some demands from some of the

citizens. They are not necessarily justified at all times.

We hear numbers and statistics constantly offered to us. We know

that the revised deficit for the previous year — the current year — is

now S1.37 billion, with an anticipated deficit for next year of $671

million. As the Minister of Finance pointed out in his speech, that is

not acceptable. It is certainly an improvement over the previous year,

but a $671 million deficit is still not acceptable in British Columbia,

and he is working towards a balanced budget.

It is a particularly interesting contrast to the budget brought down

by the federal government a week prior, and I see that the opposition

today have not hurriedly gone to their research department — the daily

newspapers — and picked up an item by a professor from the University

of Victoria this morning with respect to the two budgets. He said that

the

[ Page 3422 ]

federal budget was political. The B.C. budget

appeared to be an honest attempt to bring down a realistic budget. We

haven't heard that reported as yet. Maybe the member who follows me

will refer to it — even quote from it. After all, that party on the

other side pay a great deal of attention to what is reported by the

media and reach tremendous and very quick conclusions, quite

frequently, based on reports in the media.

I am not suggesting that the

article I referred to by the professor

from the University of Victoria is absolutely correct or the

professor's attitude or conclusions are correct. What I am saying is

that it is strange that the opposition hasn't referred to it, since

each day we are constantly being referred to negative articles which

appear in the media or somewhere else.

The people of British Columbia should feel quite proud that their

government is prepared to take action to try to reduce the debt of the

province and to try to reverse the trend of continually high budgets,

high deficits and high debts. Someone must do it. It is a matter of

following. I have indications from other governments that indeed they

will consider following B.C.'s lead, as they did with respect to

fighting inflation and compensation for the public service a couple of

years back when the legislation was introduced in British Columbia, to

be followed by other provinces and by the federal government, more or

less, with their 6-and-5 program, which they recognize today was far

too rich and which they have revised somewhat. I think it is of

interest to note that while British Columbia comes down with something

very specific and definite in its attempts to control the cost of

government, the other governments in Canada look at the idea, flirt

with the idea, and in some very cautious way adopt some of the

policies. I can assure you that when you talk to these people

privately, they say: "We just wish we had the guts to do what you've

been doing."

I am most pleased, of course, as Minister of Health to see in the

1984-85 budget that the government of B.C. and the Minister of Finance

has approved an increase of approximately 2 percent in the expenditures

in the Ministry of Health as shown in the blue book. I think it must be

recognized that it is the only ministry in government to receive an

increase. Mr. Speaker, the Premier, Minister of Finance, myself and

others have repeatedly stated to the people of British Columbia that

health is the number one priority. I know the New Democratic Party a

year or so back stated that education was their number one priority. I

have no argument. You each choose your number one priority, and who is

to say who was right? We say health is this government's number one

priority.

Mr. Speaker, as you know, health represents in excess of a third of

our budget, growing each year — tremendous amounts of money. Our

figures indicate an expenditure anticipated next year in excess of $2.5

billion. Actually more is spent — well in excess of $3 billion. Because

of the nature of reporting in the estimates, moneys received and

expended in the Medical Services Plan and elsewhere do not show up in

those estimates, but indeed they are spent.

The government has indicated in no uncertain terms that we will

continue to protect the integrity of our health care system, as

evidenced by the budget under review and by previous budgets. The

growth has been phenomenal. The service to our people has been

exceptional. But that is only one

section of the budget. It should be

noted, I hope, by so many people, as I think some of the socialists

before have indicated, that in their minds big is not always better. We

just heard the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell)

discussing the multinational corporations and the big, giant

corporations. I think he was suggesting that big is not always best.

There could be a grain of truth in that. Big budgets are not always

best. Big increases are not always best. It can't go on indefinitely.

The people of the province of British Columbia, who foot the bill,

recognize there must be a limit to government expenditure. You're not

going to buy your way back to prosperity by continually increasing the

cost of government.

Of course, everyone recognizes there are essential services. We're

spending in excess of $8 billion for services in British Columbia. The

vast majority of that is for social services. But there is a limit to

the capability of the citizens to generate the necessary funds.

Governments must take upon themselves the responsibility of being

responsible and fair. But politically it's not difficult for any

political party to simply accede to the demands of all and say: "Aren't

we wonderful people? We're not spending our money, we're spending those

other people's money and your money. But if that's what you want.... If

you come back and say you'll support us in some way, perhaps it's worth

increasing the debt, increasing the deficit, increasing the costs of

government to all." The attitude so many have is that as long as you

never say no, you are going to retain that political support from some

people. That's fine. If that's the way they wish to do it, so be it.

Criticism constantly comes from the other side. Some members

attempt, on occasion, but very rarely, to offer alternatives. It's

wonderful to have a group in the opposition who are well-schooled in

the use of buzzwords. All the solutions are a matter of using the right

buzzword. "Full employment." Terrific! Who can fight against full

employment? I don't know whether anyone can define full employment, but

it's motherhood, of course. The cliché-ridden rhetoric we hear from

that side leaves a great deal to be desired, because they aren't

offering solutions or resolutions. They're frequently recycling the

rhetoric of the 1930s to which Canadians have been subjected for many,

many years.

Mr. Speaker, it was a pleasant opportunity for me to be in Ottawa

last night, because it just makes our Legislature appear to be that

much more sane — appear to be. It may have something to do with

familiarity. But while we lament, as citizens of the province, the

tough times we have and the tremendous decisions and actions which must

be taken to resolve it, you should see the situation in Ottawa and in

Canada and the approach the federal government is taking to try to

resolve some of the problems. It's obvious that the priorities are

very, very different. I think you will find more and more people

standing up and speaking out about the responsible attitude the

government of B.C. has with respect to the cost of government to people.

Mr. Speaker, I couldn't and wouldn't expect — and I wouldn't even

suggest — that an opposition, particularly one in complete disarray,

should be able to concentrate on alternatives that are practicable and

reasonable. The NDP has never displayed that capability in the past,

and I guess it's fair to ask why they should change now. When an

opposition, or any political party, is in the throes of a leadership

race....

I'm not criticizing a leadership race, because that's a very

important part of the system. But when you're in the throes of a

leadership race, as the lame-muck leader — as my colleague referred to

him this morning — said, there must be pain and blood and all the rest

of it. That's the system; that's

[ Page 3423 ]

fair enough. But when all else is lost to an

opposition simply because they're in the throes of a leadership race,

it leaves a great deal to be desired. We had a display this morning of

an incredible inability to at least appear to be doing the right thing.

There's been a great deal of criticism and comment about the office

of the ombudsman in the past while, with respect to our colleague the

Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland). But I notice that the

Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith), last evening or this morning,

complimented the ombudsman for quickly apologizing for an apparent

error. The Attorney-General commended the ombudsman for taking that

route. The ombudsman is a public servant. The office of ombudsman is

non-political. But what about those people who put themselves forward

as possible candidates for government in British Columbia? How quickly

do they come forward to apologize when they make an error or mistake,

particularly when it's damaging to another individual in this chamber,

or another individual anywhere? On Monday afternoon there was a debate

in this House on a motion with respect to thePublic Accounts committee,

and the people who are absent today took

part in that motion for an

amendment. They were talking about the need for the Minister of Forests

to resign right now. Little chirpy in the corner there, one of their

leadership hopefuls....

AN HON. MEMBER: Where's he from?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) in the

corner was chirping: "Resign, resign, resign." He didn't have

possession of the floor, but he said: "Resign right now." The report

was then amended, and the ombudsman, to his credit, said: "I was wrong,

and I apologize for any of the difficulties and personal hardship you

suffered because of that report." That's not asking any decent human

being to do too much. It's so frequent and so casual and so easy to

simply stand up and throw some mud, and call into question the

integrity of any member in this House, based on third-party information

which may prove to be inaccurate. That's fine; that happens. When you

find out, indeed, that it happened, you stand up and say to the House

and to the member: "I'm sorry. I apologize. I was wrong." The stature

of the individual then rises, and so does the stature of this chamber

and every member in it. It's not the first time it has happened and

presumably it won't be the last, because for public people to make

quick judgments prior to any investigation, calling into question the

capability and conduct of the police force.... "What good is a police

report?" you say. Well, let's not reach the situation in British

Columbia where we as elected officials publicly tell people we don't

trust the police. Where would we be then, if we said that we don't

trust the police? The judgment of individuals in this chamber who,

without taking one moment to investigate anything, have reached a

conclusion prior to the justice system concluding its own

investigation.... It has happened before, and I think it'll happen

again.

[11:15]

A non-elected official of this government, the Deputy

Attorney-General, was libelled and slandered one night on television.

The next day the same muckrakers were calling for his resignation. They

went to a justice of the court and they wanted to seal that Deputy

Attorney-General's office and his files because the CBC had found him

guilty. That man, they said, must resign. There was an investigation

and there was a libel case, and the courts found that the CBC broadcast

was false — a $120,000 judgment. I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, what an

uplifting feeling it would be if those members who previously called

for the resignation of the former Deputy Attorney-General would simply

stand and say: "We were misled, and we apologize for the personal

punishment that Dick Vogel went through because his integrity was

brought into question by members opposite."

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

AN HON. MEMBER: Did they apologize?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Of course they didn't apologize. It's not in their character. Socialists are immunized at birth with stupidity.

I'm sorry to report with great regret that it is not confined to the

members who are in this chamber. I had the opportunity of listening to

a couple in Ottawa last night, and they must all drink the same soup,

because they certainly all sound the same. They spew the same stuff

out. So it isn't just provincial.

Mr. Speaker, the budget we are considering is of utmost importance

to the citizens of our province and to the future of our province. It's

a responsible document, a responsible budget. It is a budget which is

envied by other governments in Canada. It's an honest budget. It's an

honest attempt to do something about the high cost of government to the

taxpayers. Seldom do we hear in this chamber from those opposite what

it is like for people who are working people or for others with income

of some kind who are paying the taxes to foot the bills. We don't hear

about them. We hear about somebody who says: "I didn't get my grant."

We don't hear about the people who are paying that bill and may

themselves be unemployed. Wouldn't they like to get an $80,000 grant

for some make-work project to determine someone's attitude about

somebody else's attitude, or whether the former Secretary of State of

the United States should have some fellow representing some guerrillas

in the jungles of Central America standing beside him to monitor his

very words in a free, open country?

Just because the city of Vancouver put some money into some building

at some time, those turkeys — I can't say that — those members on city

council decided, "We, Big Brother, will have some type of civic

censor," and they can go and sit down and appoint someone to listen to

Mr. Kissinger to make sure that, should he have an opinion, it can be

balanced. George Orwell, even though he was a socialist, didn't realize

what he meant about 1984. The reason Orwell has had such an impact over

the years with that novel is because he could see into the minds of the

socialists, because he was one himself.

But I'm sure that even Orwell wouldn't have gone as far as even

suggesting, with a free border.... Can you imagine the irony? We brag

about the free border between Canada and the United States — the

longest unguarded border in the world — and we welcome millions of

visitors each year, and we take advantage of that by simply driving

across the border and telling them where we're going, and no one

hassles you for the period of time you're down there. It's the same

with Americans coming to Canada. We consider that to be very important.

We mention that with pride to other people. What a wonderful example of

harmony! However, are the socialists going to replace the unguarded

border with a personal censor

[ Page 3424 ]

for every person of importance who comes to Canada?

Remember, we're not talking about this group here. But we're talking

about a man, the mayor of Vancouver, who wished to be leader of this

group until he realized, no, a bird in the hand is worth two in the

bush, because he thinks he has a better chance of being mayor of

Vancouver than leader of the NDP, and even if he were leader of the

NDP, so what? Then where would he be?

So, Mr. Speaker, the attitude of the socialists is freedom of

speech, provided it's balanced by our appointee. Well, I know the mayor

of Vancouver has egg on his face, and I know he's recognized that it

was a dreadful thing to do. But I think it's disgraceful in our

province when the Lieutenant-Governor arrives at a function and is

mobbed by protesters who have been urged to be there by the ridiculous

motion that the city of Vancouver passed. I don't care what Mr.

Kissinger takes back as a memory of the city of Vancouver. I would hope

that it would be much more positive than perhaps it's been, but

Kissinger's been around. He's seen it all before. He probably

recognized some of those demonstrators last night from his last trip to

Central America.

I think the point is very important, as we discuss the budget, that

we recognize that while the opposition is quick to condemn, quick to

bring about judgment, they're not always correct. That's human nature.

You can make a mistake, you can make an error, you may be wrong. Or in

the words of the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) today: "He

wasn't wrong; he was misinformed." That's fine. So someone was

misinformed. But surely there's nothing wrong with being civilized and

standing to say: "Listen, I really apologize if I did you any personal

damage or caused you any difficulty. I apologize. I made a mistake."

Mr. Speaker, I think that's what we tell our kids to do, isn't it? If

you're wrong, admit it and apologize. It's good for the soul.

How many of you remember the night Stanley Knight was fired on

television? Probably not too many. Talk about swift justice — bang! The

member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) remembers.

For the last number of decades the people of British Columbia have

always indicated that they believe in the future of this province.

There's no question of that. There are always going to be difficulties

because it's a growing province. It's a province of vast size and

sparse population, with the difficulties that are common in such

situations: difficulties in transportation, difficulties of providing

service on an equitable basis across our province. But they recognize

that. People with different attitudes respond differently to those

problems, but I can tell you that most of the people in the province of

British Columbia understand reality. They recognize that times have

been difficult. They also recognize that there is a way out. The way

out is not simply to make the matter worse. The way out is to be

responsible, open and honest, and not afraid to make decisions which

obviously must be made.

Over and over we receive that type of support from citizens throughout the

province. Let's not go back to the last provincial election, which is a

formal way of having the people criticize your policies. We were aware of their

endorsement prior to that, because the people make it obvious wherever you go

in the province. There are several more hectares in B.C. than in the provincial

legislative precincts. There are other parts of the province where people have

things to say, and they say them. The attitudes of the people of the province

of British Columbia are not confined to those of two or three columnists in

the major newspapers — hardly. The attitudes of the people in B.C. are diverse,

quite different from what one would believe if one confined oneself to reading

the major dailies or watching some of those dreadful television channels. The

attitude of the people can be understood very simply by speaking to the people.

If you sit in Victoria for a long period of time, you develop certain attitudes

about specific problems. When you go into the interior of the province, the

people wonder what has come over you, particularly when you relate to them how

you view their problems. They say to you: "I'm sorry, but you're

looking at it from the Victoria point of view. That isn't the situation

here at all." All members recognize that, because they come from various

parts of the province and know what's going on at home.

The enthusiasm of the opposition in the debate on our budget is

astonishing. The enthusiasm of the opposition to debate in a

responsible way is almost non-existent. We hear about attitudes. We

hear stories and reminiscences and various other things. Perhaps

they're quite interesting and have a place in debate at some point in

time. I guess it's asking too much for any opposition to simply say:

"Well, good for you guys. At least for once you're doing something

about it. Maybe it's not what we would do precisely, but you're heading

in the right direction." It's a sad situation when you produce a

budget. Subjective analysis suggests it's a good budget, but you can't

get anyone on the opposite political side to even acknowledge that

somewhere in the budget there is something worthwhile. I know it came

as a shock and surprise to my critics that Health increased its

expenditures. Only a week before we heard: "What's going to be cut out

of Health?" One member who is aspiring for leadership said: "Will they

stop cancelling open-heart surgery? Where are they going to find the

money for cuts in health care?" I recognize that the increase in health

care is relatively modest in comparison to previous years, but an

increase in expenditure of public money in today's real world is a

responsible accomplishment.

I want to acknowledge my appreciation of my colleagues in cabinet.

If you look in the budget you will see the decreases in the ministries

of my colleagues. I'm sure most colleagues took at Health and think:

"There they go again." But cabinet colleagues recognized that health is

our number one priority. They took it upon themselves to assist the

government in producing the necessary revenues by freeing up some from

their ministries so that our number one priority can be maintained. I

appreciate that very much.

MR. R. FRASER: So do the people.

[11:30]

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Of course they do.

Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity of speaking to people in the health professional

field the other night, and they recognized that they themselves are put into

a difficult position once in a while, because the opposition would like to use

them to get at the government. They were telling me: "You know, it's

been a tough time over the last couple of years; it's been quite difficult.

But we really had very little to complain about, because we've been treated

fairly, openly, and we've been asked to take

part in trying to resolve the

problems." They appreciate that. They're not simply going to stand

up and take shots, because they want to act in a responsible way. They have

done an excellent job over the past few years. I've

[ Page 3425 ]

acknowledged that, and they understand that they have done a good job over the past few years.

One of the criticisms and comments made was: "How can you possibly

maintain the same level of health services when your increase may not

match inflation?" Questions such as that come from people who do not

understand, appreciate, or believe in such words as "management,"

"efficiency" and "productivity." Of course it can be done. A person who

is ill is not going to feel any better if you cover him with money. The

doctors are not going to be any more skilled because their fee is

higher, nor is a hospital going to give any better service if you give

them more per day per patient. We're dealing with an area in health,

fortunately, of very highly skilled professional people. Integrity is

something they understand, even though certain unnamed groups may not.

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity of speaking in this

debate. I would like to share with my colleagues an incident which

occurred in our capital of Ottawa last night, which I found to be most

interesting. Ministers of Health from various provinces were invited to

appear as witnesses before the House of Commons committee on the Canada

Health Act. I was asked to be there last night, and I appeared before

the committee. I appreciated it very much. Scheduling had been a

difficult problem, but they worked it out so that the ministers could

appear. The minister from Ontario was following up at 7:30 last evening

and the minister from Prince Edward Island had spoken immediately prior

to my arrival. I must commend most of the members of the House of

Commons committee on health for their interest, their understanding,

and their genuine concern about the difficulties the Canada Health Act

could bring to Canadians. To share a moment with you, I thought it was

most intriguing to hear a question and a statement made by one of the

members on that committee last night. Breaking away from discussions of

the Canada Health Act, the member became very political. Being a very

gentle soul, I wasn't quite sure how to respond, so I sought advice. I

said: "Dare I be frank and open and rude in this committee, because

this is a House of Commons committee?" It was suggested: "No, take the

high road. You're a guest; you're a witness." I usually find doing that

no difficulty, so I answered the member's questions as honestly and

completely as I could. Then I thought: "You know, you can't really

ignore these political shots." The federal NDP member for Burnaby said:

"Your budget has threatened the most vulnerable group of people in

British Columbia, and they are frightened." The member was correct. Our

budget has indeed frightened the most vulnerable group of people in

British Columbia — the New Democratic Party of B.C.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just before I recognize the next speaker in

the budget debate, I would like to bring something to the attention of

all hon. members. Over the years, hon. members, there has been compiled

a list of words and expressions that are considered to be

unparliamentary and that are not permitted to be used in this House.

Over the last day or two the terms "muckraking", "muckraker" and,

"muckrakers" have been used on several occasions. The Chair would like

to make it clear to all hon. members, for their information and

edification, that the use of the term, "muckraking" is in order;

however, the use of the terms "muckraker" and "muckrakers" is not in

order, is considered unparliamentary and will not be accepted.

MR. PASSARELL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I certainly won't talk

about raking here today, but I've got a couple of things that I'd like

to say before we adjourn for the lunch break.

The first is about the suggestion by the hon. Minister of Health

(Hon. Mr. Nielsen) regarding apologizing. In the five years I've sat

here.... Before you leave, I hope you listen to this, my friend. I

would certainly hope that we could sit sometime and start apologizing

right across this floor for some of the.... I don't know if I can use

this — it'll probably be in that book that you quoted from. We can use

it up north, but I don't think we can use it down south here. I would

like to see a little bit more when statements go across the floor...for

people to start apologizing. It's a sign of maturity and a sign that

this House could....

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: Angus, be quiet. We've got 25 minutes before lunch.

There are a couple of things the hon. minister mentioned that I take

exception to. First, he said the opposition never says anything decent

about the government and the budget. That'll be changed here in the

next 40 minutes because I will say a number of nice, decent things

about this budget. By the same token I'll talk about a lot of things

I'm opposed to in the budget, I certainly won't come down and just say

it's all negative. Criticism, yes. There's always criticism; that's

part of why political parties exist. When you look across the spectrum

in this province, one of the problems, and why this continues, is the

fifth estate, which I think here in Victoria is probably one of the

worst group of individuals when it comes to reporting that I've ever

witnessed. If you really want to get some decent reporting, I think you

have to go over to Vancouver, and forget about certain columnists here

in Victoria.

After attacking the fifth estate for the poor job that I find

they're doing in this capital on reporting from both sides of the

House, I'd like to go on and take some of the budget highlights which I

find acceptable. I've had the flu for the last couple of days, so I'm

chewing on some lozenges here so I can speak.

The first thing I agree with in the little statement that the

minister passed out, "1984 Budget Highlights," is: "First time in 31

years provincial budget has been reduced from previous year." I agree

with that. It's about time. Second: "Deficit of $671 million, down from

the revised 1983-84 deficit of $1.307 billion." I always like to see

deficits drop. I think last year's $1.307 billion was a little

exaggerated, but it's still coming down. The minister responded to an

article in this morning's Times-Colonist which says: "Budgets:

B.C. 'Realistic,' Ottawa 'Dishonest'." He used this statement as a

cure-all. I certainly don't agree with what Ottawa is doing with my tax

dollars, your tax dollars and my constituents' tax dollars, but I think

a couple of comments from the

article are worth noting here. This is

Mr. Jim Cutt, a university professor here, "But he questioned the

spending of $470 million from that fund to retire old B.C. Rail debt.

Ideally, revenue surpluses should be used for that purpose. 'What they

are doing is paying off debt by running up more debt.'"

That gets back to a question one of my constituents asked me to

raise here. Old Bob wanted to know when, if they can come out and spend

this $470 million to.... They say in their own statements:

"Extraordinary payment of S470 million to British Columbia Railway to

eliminate the historic

[ Page 3426 ]

debt burden." Bob wanted to know when they were

going to finish off the Dease Lake extension. As you are aware, Mr.

Speaker, the Dease Lake extension is probably the longest sidewalk in

the world, with the railbed there. I would certainly like to have some

kind of statement from the government. If they're going to pay off B.C.

Rail, by having one debt upon another debt, what are they going to do

with the Dease Lake extension?

I'd like to praise the government on another aspect, to a certain

extent, but it's kind of hard. It says: "Except for Health, all

ministry budgets below 1983-84." Well, I like to see Health go up, but

one of the things that concern me, and I will get back onto it later on

in my speech, is the special income tax that has been put on to

subsidize health to a certain extent in this province. It was an

interesting comment made yesterday. It said, "B.C.'s per capita debt is

greater than Ottawa's," meaning the federal government's. I find that

quite interesting, because we've heard so much about how poor Ottawa's

doing. And they are doing a poor job. But B.C.'s per capita debt is

greater than the federal government's debt. I find that interesting.

But onto the budget itself, because I don't want to make a tirade

like the Minister of Health; I want to deal with the budget. I refer to

certain pages here of a news release put out by the hon. minister, Hugh

Curtis. Page 2 — this is something that I mentioned earlier: "The first

payment will see $470 million go to the British Columbia Railway to

eliminate its historic debt, a move which will save the railway some

$1.034 billion in interest alone over the next 21 years." Further on:

"The deficit for the coming year is projected to be $671 million, a

reduction of $636 million from the 1983-84 forecast of $1.307 billion."

I doubt there are very many economists in this Legislature, but I

wonder why at this time, when we are seeing 225,000 people unemployed

in this province, we are spending $470 million — almost half a billion

dollars — to relieve the debt of the BCR, unless we're going to sell

it. I could see putting $470 million into B.C. Rail if we were going to

continue with the Dease Lake extension and work out some kind of a deal

with the Yukon government and Alaska to have a northern railroad. But

at this stage of the game, when we're faced with massive unemployment

in this province, to give almost half a billion dollars.... To borrow

money to pay off a debt just doesn't seem realistic at this stage of

the game.

This is from page 3 of the news release: "A deficit of $671 million

still represents almost $650 per household in this province and the

interest payments alone for 1984-85 are equal to the combined budgets

of seven ministries...." Curtis said the outstanding direct debt for

government purposes is forecast to reach $1.9 billion by March 31,

1984, and $2.6 billion at March 31, 1985."

I wonder why, on one hand, the minister is talking about bringing

down the debt in this province.... We see on page 2 that they throw

around the figures I quoted of $671 million, and then on the next page

they come out and say there is going to be a debt of $1.9 billion — not

million but billion — by March 31, 1984, increasing to $2.6 billion —

not million — by March 31, 1985. It just seems a contradiction in the

statement itself: $2.6 billion is a lot of money to have as a debt in a

province of 2.5 million to 2.75 million people, particularly when you

have almost a quarter of a million people unemployed.

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: I'm reading from the news release that you talked about.

[11:45]

HON. MR. HEWITT: How much is the debt?

MR. PASSARELL: I'm just referring to what the minister says.

As the Minister of Agriculture has stated.... I'll read again: "Curtis

said the outstanding direct debt for government purposes is forecast to

reach $1.9 billion by March 31, 1984, and $2.6 billion by March 31,

1985." You should read the minister's news release.

On to page 4. The next quote I'd like to read is about a concern of

mine on what we're doing in putting a special surtax onto our personal

income tax. "The surtax will be equal to 8 percent of British

Columbia's personal income tax, payable commencing July 1984."

Personally, I don't like seeing any kind of extra taxes put onto our

personal income taxes at this stage of the game.

Another quote I'd like to read from the minister's budget: "New

privatization initiatives, Curtis announced, will include real estate,

insurance and securities licensing, travel agency regulation, selected

forest management functions and laundry facilities." That's a real

grabber there: "laundry facilities."

The next quote: "At the same time, the government will conduct a

review of the impact of taxation on economic development and will

consider innovative tax measures to stimulate investment by large and

small businesses." Sounds good; I'd rather see it go for small than

large at this stage of the game, particularly when I look in my own

riding and find something like Granduc. According to yesterday's Province ,

the Granduc copper mine, the largest employer in the community of

Stewart, is going down the drain and for the next three years is

selling off all their real estate through a company called Universal

Equipment.

I would like to say something positive about the budget's only tax

changes. I'd like to praise the government on exemption of the sales

tax on a wide range of safety equipment including children's car seats.

I'd like to see the government take this one further step and make it

mandatory for all parents, and all drivers in the province, if they're

driving around with children under the age of 5 or 6, to have

children's car seats in automobiles. Secondly, taking the sales tax off

portable fire extinguishers: excellent idea. Bicycle and motorcycle

helmets and oxygen used for medical purposes, effective midnight

tonight....

One that I don't agree with is an increase in the minimum property

tax, from $150 to $175 starting in 1985. I think northerners are

already paying a high increase; we've seen our property taxation go up.

The last quote I'd like to make from the minister's news statement:

"The tax measures, including the new health care maintenance surtax,

will increase provincial revenue by $97 million in 1984-85." I would

certainly like to know for sure, 100 percent, that that almost $100

million is going to go directly to health and not put into general

revenue, as in the case so often with transfer payments.

The last sentence of this news release is an interesting one. It

says: "As our goal, we should accept no less." It almost sounds like

something that President Roosevelt would say. It's a good line. But I

think that if we look at the facts and figures of what's happening in

this province, when we find

[ Page 3427 ]

almost a quarter of a million people in this

province unemployed.... Communities like Victoria — the capital city —

are facing almost 25 percent unemployment. When we look in the far

north, the area that I represent, we see almost 30 to 40 percent

unemployment in small communities. That's much too high. Regardless of

our political stripes, our goal should be to relieve the high

unemployment we're facing in this province.

I don't understand why the Finance minister accepts higher and

higher unemployment figures and rates in this province. It's much too

high. We're too strong; we have too much in this province. We have

everything imaginable in this province. We could be self-sufficient to

a certain extent. What's happening? We're finding young people who

can't get a job. They can't even afford to go to college because of

some of the cutbacks that this government has made.

In the budget itself, Mr. Speaker, they have said absolutely nothing

about young people, who have the highest unemployment figure right

across this country. What type of future do 17- and 18-year-olds have,

particularly in Victoria, where we see more and more government jobs

being moved or cut right back? We're finding out that the 17- and

18-year olds can't afford university. They can't afford to go to UVic,

Simon Fraser or UBC. By the same token we find that young people in

this province, who have the highest percentage of unemployment, can't

even attend a mining school. We used to have a mining school in this

province, but it was closed a few years back. It was in Rossland. The

Rossland Mining School once provided the technical training for one of

the largest industries in this province, and what happened? That was

closed. Instead of borrowing $470 million to reduce another debt, I'd

rather see that sort of money going into a mining school or a forestry

school — but particularly a mining school — to allow young people some

type of technical opportunities that they could gain.

I was listening to the President of the United States on television the other

night, making some statement about unemployment in the United States. After

his speech the networks went to the opposition candidates and asked them for

their comments on the President's announcements. One of the leading Democrat

candidates for president of the United States said: "Wouldn't it

be novel if we came up with the idea of declaring war on unemployment in this

country." He said that if their citizens declare war, they put everything

behind it — everything. They get the factories going and unemployment goes down.

It is a massive effort by the public and the governments. Wouldn't it be

something if we as British Columbians and the 57 lawmakers in this chamber declared

war on unemployment and came up with every imaginable idea to take the horrendous

number of 225,000 people who are unemployed in this province and give them

some type of decency, some type of job? It might be a novel idea, but I doubt

it would ever be done in this Legislature.

Mr. Speaker, as it is almost noon, with very few members in this house, I move adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved,

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, if the

Government House Leader is going to say, as he just said with respect

to the member for Atlin, "You're doing a good job," then that should

appear on the record. That should appear in Hansard . I think the minister should stand up and commend the member for Atlin for doing a good job.

HON. MR. GARDOM: He's not a mudslinger. That's why he's doing a good job.

MR. SPEAKER: I don't really think that's a point of order, hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:55 a.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1985,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada