1983 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 33rd Parliament

Hansard

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

( Hansard )

TUESDAY, JULY 12, 1983

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

225 ]

CONTENTS

Presenting Petitions

Friends of Clayoquot Sound from Tofino.

Mr. Skelly –– 225

Oral Questions

B.C. Hydro credit rating. Mr. Stupich –– 226

Tree-farm licences. Mr. Skelly –– 227

Prior discussion of Bill 9. Mr. Howard –– 227

PNE report. Mr. Macdonald –– 227

Financial aid for post-secondary students. Mr. Rose 228

Treatment of terminated employees. Hon. Mr. McClelland replies –– 228

Budget Debate

Mr. Parks –– 229

Mrs. Dailly –– 234

Hon. Mr. Schroeder –– 238

Mr. Lockstead –– 242

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 246

TUESDAY, JULY 12, 1983

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

Prayers.

CLERK-ASSISTANT:

Ministry of the Provincial Secretary

and Government Services,

July 5, 1983

Ian M. Horne, Q.C.,

Clerk of the House,

Parliament Buildings,

Victoria, B.C.

RE: General Election, May 5, 1983

On June 1, 1983, I transmitted to you a certificate of the

chief electoral officer and registrar-general of voters, dated May 31, 1983,

advising you of the results of the general election in all electoral districts

except Maillardville-Coquitlam.

The date for the return of the writ of election from Maillardville

Coquitlam had been amended because of a judicial recount before the County Court

of New Westminster and a subsequent appeal. The said writ was returned to the

chief electoral officer on July 4, 1983. His certification of the result is

transmitted herewith.

Yours very truly,

Norman Spector,

Deputy Provincial Secretary.

Ministry of the Provincial Secretary and

Government Services,

July 4, 1983

Dr. Norman Spector,

Deputy Provincial Secretary,

Parliament Buildings,

Victoria, B.C.

Dear Sir:

Further to my certificate of May 31, 1983, I now have the

return for the electoral district of Maillardville-Coquitlam.

The date for the return of the writ of election

for Maillardville-Coquitlam had been amended to an indefinite date

because of a judicial recount before the County Court of New

Westminster, and a subsequent appeal from the decision of the county

court. The said writ was returned to me on July 4, 1983.

1 now certify that John Parks has been elected to represent

the electoral district of Maillardville-Coquitlam.

Yours very truly,

Harry M. Goldberg,

Chief electoral officer,

British Columbia

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, I move that the letter of the

Deputy Provincial Secretary and the certificate of the chief electoral

officer with the results of the election of the member be entered upon

the Journals of the House.

Motion approved.

Presenting Petitions

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to present a petition.

Leave granted.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, this is the petition of the Friends

of Clayoquot Sound from Tofino to the Legislative Assembly of the

province of British Columbia in legislature assembled.

"The petition of the undersigned resident voters of

the province of B.C. and other concerned citizens humbly showeth:

whereas Meares Island, adjacent to the village of Tofino and Pacific

Rim Park, is one of the last large unlogged islands on the west coast

of Vancouver Island, and is being considered for protection by a

government planning team; and

whereas Meares Island has exceptional

migratory waterfowl habitat, including rare eelgrass mud flats, and has

outstandingly rich sea-life including salmon, whales, porpoises, seals,

oysters, clams, crabs and herrings pawning beds; and

whereas Meares

Island is important as the only source of pure water for Tofino; and

whereas members of the Clayoquot band residing in the Meares Island

village of Opitsat have, from time immemorial, made use of the area and

continue to rely on the island's natural bounty for their well-being;

and

whereas the ecology of Meares is extremely sensitive due to steep,

erodable slopes and high natural rainfall; and

whereas Meares Island's

forested integrity is essential to the productivity and aesthetic

beauty of the surrounding area; wherefore your petitioners humbly pray

that your hon. House may be pleased to pass legislation to conserve

this area in its natural, unlogged and un-mined state, for this and

future generations to have and to enjoy; and as in duty bound your

petitioners will ever pray."

There are 12,000 names on this petition, Mr. Speaker: more than the

number of shareholders of MacMillan Bloedel, which plans to log the

island.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of privilege

affecting the rights of members of this House. Yesterday, at

approximately 2:48 p.m., according to the Hansard Blues — which

were not available, of course, until today — the second member for

Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) stated to the House:

"I spoke to Alderman Don Bellamy yesterday for a few

minutes. He was furious about the 7 percent on meals over $7, which

doesn't apply to McDonald's, but applies to an awful lot of people. He

was saying: 'I'll never be a Socred again.' "

[2:15]

Mr. Speaker, in addition to being an alderman of the city of

Vancouver, Mr. Bellamy is president of the B.C. Restaurant Association

and a widely respected public figure of this province. I telephoned Mr.

Bellamy, and he denied making the statement recounted to this House by

the second member for Vancouver East. He subsequently reinforced the

denial on CKVU television last evening.

Mr. Speaker, I would refer you to Sir Erskine May's 19th edition,

chapter 10, page 142, wherein it is stated: "The House may treat the

making of a deliberately misleading

[ Page 226 ]

statement as a contempt." I submit that the

deliberate misrepresentation of the statements of a respected, public

figure, an elected municipal official such as Mr. Bellamy, is a serious

breach of the privileges of rights of all members of this House. It

impedes them in their duties by casting false appearances on the views

of the community which hon. members are obliged, conscientiously, to

represent.

If upon examining this question you find that these facts would,

when proven, constitute a prima facie breach of the dignities and

privileges of this House, I would propose to move a motion that a

special committee of privilege be appointed to consider this matter and

to report its findings to the House. I have an appropriate motion

prepared to that effect, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the Chair will reserve decision on the matter and bring it back to the House at the earliest opportunity.

MR. LAUK: Point of order. Any statement made by an hon.

member of this House must be accepted. If the hon. member wishes to

place an order on the order paper that's one thing, but I ask that when

Mr. Speaker is considering this motion of privilege he consider that

the statement of an hon. member is accepted in this House.

MR. MACDONALD: Although this is just a political flyaway

thing, which is perfectly ridiculous, I will be very pleased, the next

time I speak, to tell all of the conversation I had with Don Bellamy

and how I talked him out of his feelings about the Social Credit Party.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. MACDONALD: I saved him for you fellows….

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members who have been in this House for some time.... I would ask the new member to take his seat.

Hon. members, there is a standing rule in this House that when the Chair rises,

members cease debate and take their places. The second member for Vancouver

East (Mr. Macdonald), having been here for some time, is well aware of that

rule. So that all members may have this opportunity, I will state for the final

time: when the Chair rises, all members will take their places immediately and

all conversation will cease. Those members who disobey the only ultimate rule

at the disposal of the Chair will be asked to leave for the remainder of the

day. The Chair is reluctant to make such a ruling at any time, but clearly there

is no alternative if members fail to obey the instructions of the Chair.

[Mr. Speaker returned his seat.]

Oral Questions

B.C. HYDRO CREDIT RATING

MR. STUPICH: Yesterday the Premier said that this was Parks

Day. We're certainly pleased that the government has at last recognized

the importance of parks.

My question is to the Minister of Finance. Can the minister confirm

that New York financial houses have today responded to four inaccurate

budget presentations in succession by the Minister of Finance by

downgrading British Columbia's credit rating?

HON. MR. CURTIS: In answering a question from the opposite

side occasionally a member has to dissociate himself or herself from

the

preamble. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the

preamble is somewhat

argumentative. Financial houses as such have very little to do with the

credit rating of the province or any other jurisdiction. It is correct,

however, in order to assist the member, that the firm of Moody's

Investor Service Inc. today altered the credit rating of British

Columbia Hydro from triple-A to a double-A1. I point out to the member

for Nanaimo and members of this House that that is the next-highest

rating after triple-A.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, many years ago I heard that close only counts in horseshoes.

I have a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance. In view

of the fact that Moody's has cited the guarantee of the province as the

main reason for downgrading B.C. Hydro bonds, and in particular has

cited slow economic recovery in B.C., has the minister decided to

revise his budget proposals with a view to stimulating employment

growth in the economy?

HON. MR. CURTIS: There is a significant stimulative aspect to

the budget which was presented in this Legislature last Thursday. The

member was at some pains to emphasize the guarantee of the province of

British Columbia. He would know, having served briefly as Minister of

Finance, that British Columbia Hydro does enjoy a guarantee by the

province of British Columbia, as do a number of agencies. I have not

received anything in writing from Moody's Investors Service as yet. The

information has been communicated to me verbally, and I have a brief

news report. I have not received anything specific, but I'm sure that

will arrive in a matter of hours or tomorrow.

It is important, I think, in dealing with a matter such as this — in

answer to the member's question, and for the information of all hon.

members — to say that the quote attributed to Moody's indicates in part

that B.C. Hydro's rating revision reflects the guarantee by the

province, which has been negatively affected by current economic

conditions. I suggest to the member who asked the question that that

should not come as any surprise to anyone in British Columbia. That

certainly does not come as a surprise to this government, nor to the

Premier who spoke of it on many occasions last year. It is an accurate

reflection of the seriousness of the situation in which we find

ourselves, and also underscores — demonstrates very definitely — the

clear need for the kind of budget which was introduced in this House

and which is now under debate.

[ Page

227 ]

MR. STUPICH: The question was whether the minister had

decided to do anything about the slow economic recovery, which was the

reason for the downgrading. By his non-answer, I assume his answer is

no.

I have a supplementary question. Can the minister confirm that the

inevitable downgrading of the B.C. government's credit rating — at

least, B.C. Hydro and through that the B.C. government with this

guarantee — has been delayed for over a year, pending the provincial

election, by the device of conducting all government borrowing outside

of the U.S. financial markets? And can he advise the additional cost of

this method of avoiding the inevitable?

HON. MR. CURTIS: While I cannot be delighted at the decision

taken by Moody's…. Incidentally, I did answer the question the member

put. I'm sure that a distinguished and internationally known firm such

as Moody's Investors Service will be very saddened to hear the finance

critic for the official opposition suggest that this, or any other

government, can influence the timing of a decision with respect to a

credit rating. That is a very serious charge, Mr. Speaker. It is not a

charge against me, but I'm sure Moody's will not enjoy reading that and

hearing of it, as they inevitably will.

MR. HOWARD: You said you could do it.

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

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, one further supplementary. The

original question was based on the premise that the minister has

presented four phoney budgets in a row. My real question was: is he

determined to do anything to change that in the future, to improve our

credit rating?

TREE-FARM LICENCES

MR. SKELLY: I have a question for the Minister of Forests.

Can the minister advise whether he has decided to award new tree-farm

licences in the province, effectively granting further control over the

last of our forest resources, to major corporations?

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

MR. SKELLY: Can the minister confirm that he has 30 applications on hand for new tree farm licences?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, I can't confirm that exact number. There could be 30 more or less.

MR. SKELLY: In view of the fact that small forestry

operations having a market for their timber product today cannot find

timber, why is the government considering turning over further timber

to major corporations?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: The government is not considering turning further

timber rights over to anyone. Very little in timber rights remains to be disposed

of in British Columbia, and we have already set aside a very substantial amount

of timber for the small business enterprises of our province. As a matter of

fact, the tree-farm licence tenure provides an exceptionally good level of forest

management in British Columbia. We recently issued one of the first tree-farm

licences since the 1960s. That happens to have been issued to a native Indian

band, the Stuart-Trembleur band, who are market loggers and a small company.

So tree-farm licences don't automatically equate large companies.

MR. SKELLY: Another question to the same minister with

respect to forest management. Has the minister decided to discontinue

regular checking of company cutting plans and reforestation plans by

professional staff in the ministry?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Good grief, I though we had trouble with the other critic. No, Mr. Speaker.

PRIOR DISCUSSION OF BILL 9

MR. HOWARD: I wonder if I might direct a question to the

Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Ritchie), and by way of a short

preamble extend congratulations to him publicly, as I did privately, on

his elevation to the cabinet; I wish him well in that activity. Can the

minister advise the House whether he discussed the contents of the

Spetifore land rescue bill, otherwise known as Bill 9, with any member

of the Social Credit Party before it was introduced into this House?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I thank the member for his congratulations, and the answer to the question is no.

MR. HOWARD: That's the wrong answer. It's a false answer.

MR. SPEAKER: I must ask the member to withdraw…. The Chair is powerless to direct answers.

MR. HOWARD: All right, I'll withdraw that it was a false answer. It was an answer based on absolute ignorance of the facts.

[2:30]

PNE REPORT

MR. MACDONALD: To the Provincial Secretary, there's been a

report on the Pacific National Exhibition, which is popularly known as

the Hillman report, from the chairman. The Provincial Secretary's been

sitting on that report for three or four months. Has he decided to

table it in this House?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Well, Mr. Speaker, the substance contained

within that report is under very active review by the Provincial

Secretary. Until such time as that review is complete, it is very

difficult for me to say whether it's going to be tabled in this House,

and if it is, precisely when.

[ Page 228 ]

MR. MACDONALD: Thanks very much, Old Stonewall.

FINANCIAL AID FOR

POST-SECONDARY STUDENTS

MR. ROSE: I'm surprised to see the Minister of Education in

his place today, because I thought he'd be busy elsewhere — removing

the knives from his back or something like that. Anyway, a survey by

the University of Victoria indicates that those students with

post-secondary education have a much better chance of finding a job

than those without. The ratio is about 25 percent unemployed for those

without to 8 percent unemployed for those who have post-secondary

educations. In view of the fact that the government intends to put a

cap of some $14 million or $15 million on student aid, I wonder what

the minister could do to reassure the students — especially when more

unemployed students want to go to university — that they won't have to

forfeit that opportunity because of this restraint program.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: The member can rest assured I have been

across the pond and back this morning. With respect to that, I'm sure

the member has read the press release. He's now seen the budget.

There's something in excess of $14 million available for student aid.

The basic amount of $2,300 is something which is repaid. The next

portion — the grant portion from the province of British Columbia — is

still there. The concern he's really expressing, I suspect, is that we

now require somebody who is enrolled in college to take 80 percent of

the curriculum. I think that's not really an unreasonable request.

MR. ROSE: I have a supplementary to the minister. When does

he expect the rate restraint legislation to apply to student fees,

which have gone up 15 percent this year.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: First of all, Mr. Speaker, the question of

universities would have to be directed to the Minister of Universities,

Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer). As far as colleges are

concerned, I gather that some of these have gone up anywhere from 10 to

13 percent. But I might suggest that it's really a very small portion

when you look at the overall cost for the province of British Columbia

to provide the accommodation, instruction and place of learning for

students. We all know that it's roughly 10 percent of the actual cost,

and I don't really think that the fee is that exorbitant.

MR. ROSE: The minister made reference to the new guidelines

for student assistance, and I'd like to know whether the minister can

tell the House what methods he is using to investigate whether the

students who claim to be independent from their parents are actually

so. What kind of snooping…? Whether or not they are visiting their

parents for more than six weeks in the summer time, whether or not

they're driving a car, or have had a gift from their parents…. Is he

planning to change the guidelines so that they will be more fair to the

low-income students, who by the way are largely outnumbered by the

affluent at universities?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: It's news to me that the affluent outnumber the others at universities. I can tell you from my experience….

Mr. Speaker, I cannot give the member any specific details with

respect to the criteria to which he has alluded. However, I would take

that portion of the question as notice and bring back a full answer to

the House.

TREATMENT OF TERMINATED EMPLOYEES

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I would like to take this opportunity to

answer a question which was asked of me yesterday in the Legislature. I

am quite surprised that it wasn't the subject of some further

questioning today, since it was so important to the member yesterday. I

can only assume that he found out some facts. I had asked that member

to give me some information that he may have had in his possession, and

he didn't come forward with it; I assume he found out that his facts

were wrong, and that was the reason he didn't want to come forward.

Mr. Speaker, the question asked of me by the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann)

was: "Can the minister explain where the sensitivity and understanding

are when RCMP and sheriffs are sent to vacationing employees' homes to retrieve

office keys?" That is one of the most irresponsible questions I've

ever seen asked in this House, without any facts to back it up.

Interjections.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I love the way the

opposition attempts to react to lies with laughter. It used to work,

but it doesn't work any more.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, this is….

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: No longer can lies be laughed off in this House, Mr. Speaker. No longer.

When it became apparent that some people would be given termination

notices, we wished that they be given those notices by hand as quickly

as possible so that they not learn about them over the radio or in some

other way. So we used every means in our employ to make sure they were

given those letters personally and as quickly as possible. Every means

in our employ, but never did we use sheriff's personnel or the RCMP,

nor would we ever!

I deplore the headlines in the newspaper regarding this matter. A

member of our press gallery has carried these lies forward in a way

which does no justice to the people of British Columbia. The only

information that I have to substantiate the question given to me is a

newspaper

article this morning, and I refer to three parts of the

article by Allen Garr: "An RCMP officer was reported tracking a man in

the bush outside Terrace." That is a lie. "He was hunting human rights

worker Ross Fedy." That is a lie. "The RCMP officer was armed with a

dismissal notice and nailed Fedy Friday afternoon." That is a lie. Mr.

Speaker, no RCMP officer from Terrace, or anyone else, was involved. If

you had checked, Mr. Member, with the RCMP officer involved…

Interjections.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Sergeant LeBlond is the officer in

charge of that detachment. He would have told you and the press, had

they checked, that at no time was the RCMP ever involved in this

matter. One of our government

[ Page 229 ]

agents went to Mr. Fedy's home on Sunday because he

wished Mr. Fedy to get the letter before anyone else had it. At no time

were RCMP or sheriffs involved. I ask that member to apologize. Mr.

Speaker, I ask you to consider whether or not a member of our press

gallery has breached the privilege of this Legislature, and whether

appropriate action should be taken.

MR. GABELMANN: On a point of personal privilege. Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair must hear the point, hon. member.

MR. GABELMANN: The basis of my point of privilege is that in

effect, at least, the minister accused me of lying. I would like to be

given an opportunity to respond to that.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the member has risen on a point of

privilege and the Chair is bound to hear the matter put forth by the

member. Until such determination is made that it is not, then the Chair

will continue to hear the member. It is his right so to make.

Proceed, please.

MR. GABELMANN: On Friday afternoon the human rights branch

staff were to be given notice of dismissal. Two of their staff, one in

Kamloops and one in Terrace, were on holiday that week. On Saturday

morning one officer in Kamloops noticed a government car approach his

house. A gentlemen whom he did not recognize came to his door and

presented a business card — obviously a government business card —

which had "deputy sheriff" printed on it. The words "deputy sheriff"

were crossed off, but the human rights officer, in listening to this

gentleman, whom he did not know, assumed that this man was a deputy

sheriff, because that's what the business card had printed on it. As a

result of that conversation, he believed he had just been visited by a

deputy sheriff.

That's the first instance. There's another one, Mr. Speaker.

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

Prior to hearing the point of order, clearly, hon. members, this

matter is now entering into one of debate rather than one of any

personal privilege. While a member may feel every opportunity is called

for to explain any position, nonetheless, hon. members, we are bound to

adhere to the rules of the chamber. At this point, the argument being

carried forth by the member appears to be one more suited to debate,

rather than a matter of personal privilege, and I must ask at this

time, hon. member, that the matter be concluded.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, I have a pageful of debate notes,

none of which I am using. I am attempting to set out the facts which

led to me asking a question. The minister has accused me of lying in

this House, and I have a right under the privileges of this House to

get up and explain to the minister why, in fact, I am not the liar in

this matter. There was a second issue involved and it relates to the

question of an RCMP officer. If the minister wants to go back to his

office staff and check out conversations with senior personnel, he will

soon discover where the order came from for that RCMP action.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: There was no RCMP action.

MR. GABELMANN: Because you stopped it.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: You're lying again.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker….

Interjections.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: When a member stands on his feet on the

floor of this House and calls for a point of order, I think that

deserves priority over any other debate taking place on the floor of

this House.

Mr. Speaker, I would remind you that the words of the member who

purports to have the floor — and has the floor falsely, in my humble

opinion — are strictly a matter of debate. It is not a point of order,

it is not a matter of privilege, and I ask that you find it so.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.

Prior to recognizing the hon. member, I will first ask the Minister

of Labour to withdraw the remark that the member is a liar, which the

Chair clearly heard. I must ask the Minister of Labour to withdraw that

remark, in the parliamentary traditions of this House.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult when another member is allowed….

MR. SPEAKER: Without qualification, hon. member.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult when another member is allowed to debate, without the opportunity to debate in return….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I withdraw, in the interests of the Chair, Mr. Speaker.

[2:45]

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member.

Hon. members, the Chair has ruled that the matter presently under

debate is not a matter of privilege. There are other opportunities

which will be at hand, outside this chamber, to carry on discussions.

But inside this chamber, hon. member, we are bound by rules which we

must all obey.

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

MR. PARKS: Mr. Speaker, I pray leave to make a couple of

introductions prior to my speech. First of all, I'd ask the House to

join with me in welcoming Sheila Cowan and her niece Sarah Leach, who

is visiting with us from Rustington, England. I am also very pleased

and proud to introduce the, unquestionably, most important constituent

from Maillardville-Coquitlam, none other than my wife Joy, who is in

the Speaker's gallery.

Mr. Speaker, this being my maiden speech and having regard to the fact that I wasn't present in this House during

[ Page 230 ]

debate on the throne speech, I would appreciate

your indulgence in granting me some latitude in covering some areas

that might well not be directly attributable to the budget speech. It

is with considerable pride that I stand here before this hon. House and

acknowledge the trust vested in me by the citizens of

Maillardville-Coquitlam.

Interjection.

MR. PARKS: I take it this is custom — that only your own members heckle?

Mr. Speaker, I wish to recognize the other hon. members who are

joining this House for the first time. I wish to do that because I

share with them trepidation, enthusiasm and, of course, all of their

anxieties. Furthermore, I wish to recognize and acknowledge the advice

and wisdom that I have already received from various members on both

sides of the House. I am appreciative of that and I wish that they

would continue to pass on those words of wisdom, since I am certainly

prepared to accept them.

Before dealing with the substance of my speech, please allow me the

opportunity to add my congratulations to you and the hon. member for

Prince George South (Mr. Strachan) on your election as Speaker and

Deputy Speaker respectively. Although seated in your gallery during the

House opening, I could not help but notice the perfunctory manner in

which both of your positions were smoothly expedited through this

House. As a newly elected member I took that bipartisan display as a

clear indication from both sides of the House that you have earned

their trust in exhibiting the necessary neutrality of your office when

issues arise before this House. And, Mr. Speaker, through you, I wish

to add my expression of congratulations to Premier Bennett, and to note

how proud I am to be a member of his returned government.

Notwithstanding the obvious incorrect message that the media saw fit

to attempt to propagate during our recent election campaign, the

private sector certainly received the support of the silent majority,

and we are pleased to be back here in record numbers and with an

increased majority.

Our Social Credit government recognizes the value of individual

initiatives, the worth of a flourishing free market, and the freedom

which flows from these tenets. For all but three years of my adult

life, our province has been governed by Social Credit and these ideals.

It has resulted in this province being blessed with the best health

care system in Canada, the best education system in Canada, and the

best social services in Canada. These are accomplishments which this

government, notwithstanding the very difficult economic times, is

striving to maintain and improve. I am extremely proud to be a member

of Premier Bennett's team, who will ensure that these ideals are

maintained.

Now that my election is finally official, I wish to take this

opportunity to publicly express my profound gratitude to all of the

many hundreds of workers who assisted me in successfully wresting away

the Maillardville-Coquitlam seat for Premier Bennett's Social Credit

government.

Mr. Speaker, over the weeks since that election night, a time it seems is months

and months and not just weeks, I have had many friends and acquaintances outwardly

criticize my defeated opponent for exercising his legal rights in the matter

of the various and numerous judicial recounts. Being a lawyer by profession,

I have often had cause to use the expression: "Justice not only must be

done, it must be seen to be done." As such, I do not hesitate to state

publicly that regardless of the frustrations that I and my family have experienced

over the past few weeks, I hold absolutely no animosity toward the former member

for Maillardville-Coquitlam, Mr. Levi.

M. le president, cela m'amène à une plus grande connaissance de ma

circonscription. Maillardville-Coquitlam est une circonscription, sans

aucun doute, unique à cette province. En fait, c'est une

circonscription totalement unique à toute autre circonscription dans

l'ouest canadien. Cependant, dans ma circonscription il y reside la

L'héritage de Coquitlam a pris naissance le long de la rive nord de la

rivière Fraser sur le site original du moulin Fraser. Plusieurs de ses

employés qui one dirigé le moulin original étaient des canadiens

communauté, Maillardville.

actives, Notre Dame de Fatima et Notre Dame de Lourdes. Un des

avantages uniques à résider dans cette communauté, pour les

familles comme la mienne, comme mon épouse et mes filles qui sont nées

et élevées à Vancouver, est d'avoir l'opportunité de prendre part à une

de participer au festival de la caban à sucre et autres événements

social de Coquitlam.

Cependant, je n'étais pas la chambre pour entendre le discours

budgétaire mais après en avoir pris connaissance, je suis satisfait de

voir que non seulement notre gouvernement est capable de maintenir son

support pour ces écoles indépendantes, mais aussi accroit son support.

Les écoles indépendantes sont en effet moins coûteuses que le système

des écoles publiques, et on s'attendrait que les deux côtes de cette

Chambre endosserai telles propositions. Cependant, la politique

existante du parti de l'opposition de sa Majesté est contre

l'accroissement des fonds pour les écoles indépendentes, et j'applaudis

votre courage, M. le ministre, d'aller d'avant sur cette question.

Because Maillardville-Coquitlam is very much a working-class

community, with many of our citizens belonging to trade unions, I wish

to take a moment to make my views absolutely clear with respect to

labour-management relations. First, may I reaffirm to the members of

this House, as well as to my constituents, that in my view a healthy

British Columbia and a healthy economy require a representative trade

union movement and a healthy collective bargaining process.

In this regard I associate myself with the hon. member for

Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. Michael), who noted the necessity of returning

a degree of democracy to our labour legislation. Clearly the procedure

for associating into a trade union should be, for all intents and

purposes, the very same procedure for dissociating.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

In commenting on the Speech from the Throne, I noted the newly

elected B.C. Federation of Labour president Mr. Kube stated that if

government wants to improve industrial relations, then they had better

listen to the trade union movement. Although I understand the Premier

has already met

[ Page 231 ]

with Mr. Kube, thus exhibiting his government's

willingness to listen to the trade union movement, I feel, more

realistically, a more important comment should be stated; if the trade

union movement wants to improve industrial relations, then they had

better listen to the people of B.C. who spoke on May 5.

As many commentators noted, including the widely renowned director

of the Fraser Institute Dr. Michael Walker, unionism has evolved too

far from a democratic form of institution. The very nature of unionism

today conspires against the notion of individual rights of free choice

in a democratic setting. The most blatant example of that is that

unions are able to use present laws which give them the right to

exclude non-members from the workplace, regardless of the fact that the

non-member may well be a member of another union. It is time that the

anti-society, monopolistic, right of non-affiliation clauses be

seriously considered and removed.

I am pleased to note that another anomaly that required attention

will be resolved with the implementation of the amendment to the

Employment Standards Act. I'm referring specifically to the amendment

which removes the present conflict between the Employment Standards Act

and collective agreements. To date, regardless of the terms set out in

a collective agreement — which, among other things, sets out

termination rights, including notice — employees could elect to enforce

their rights under the existing act. With the amendments, the employee

will have either the protection of his collective bargaining or the

protection of the act, but not both. I would submit that this is an

eminently reasonable proposition, since a collective agreement is an

overall compensation and working conditions package, and each clause

relates to the other. The Employment Standards Act, on the other hand,

recognizes that should the employee not have a collective agreement

covering this multitude of factors, then he is entitled at the very

least to the minimum standards of termination and notice which are set

out in the act.

Although the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) stated to the

House that he was unable to so recognize it, the throne speech was in

my opinion a blueprint of hope. The citizens of the province of British

Columbia must surely have had their hopes buoyed after hearing the

benchmark speeches to date. They clearly enunciate, at least on the

part of the government, a commitment that they are prepared to make

those farsighted, long-range, often difficult but essential decisions

to ensure that the destiny of British Columbians is realized.

If, as we have heard, the sheltered public service is one of the

villains precluding economic recovery, then it is only the government,

not the public service or the individual employee, who should be

blamed. It is my generation of the post–Second World War baby boom that

has been given the silver-spoon treatment and has, quite frankly,

evolved North American society to a degree of waste and inefficiency

that may well not be far behind the level of decadence that led to the

collapse of what was once considered the infallible Roman Empire.

Undoubtedly the public service has constantly demanded a better

compensation package at the bargaining table. But the fact remains that

it was done at the bargaining table. If the civil service has made

gains to the extent that it has, the only conclusion I can draw is that

too much was left on the table.

[3:00]

The current dire economic times have, in my opinion, illustrated the

necessity for government to recognize the error of its past ways, and

equally so the necessity to alleviate those errors. The program

initiated last fall by Premier Bennett and the Minister of Finance was

but a start in re-evaluating the balance between the public and private

sectors. Looking at the extent of the projected budget, and the further

measures of the compensation stabilization program amendments

introduced by the Minister of Finance, citizens in this province should

have every confidence that their government understands the realities

of today's economic climate and is prepared to exhibit the leadership

necessary to ensure the quickest possible economic recovery in the most

stable of terms, with the least detrimental impact on any particular

segment of the economy.

Although it is this government's intention to reduce the absolute

numbers of the public service, I hope we are not going to experience a

disproportionate reduction of staff at the lower levels of the various

departments in our civil service. Frequently it is the front-line

troops — the clerks, stenos, police and prison guards, counsellors, men

and women who are actually extending government services to our

citizens — who may be terminated under the auspices of restraint. It is

my concern, which I trust is shared by our ministers, that in looking

for increased efficiency the administration of each and every

government department will be reviewed to ensure that the reduction in

numbers will be equally and equitably spread throughout the department.

On May 5, the citizens of British Columbia soundly endorsed our

government's format for recovery, and yet the programs initiated by

this government last year are not in themselves sufficient to continue

our province on the road to recovery. Our recovery to date is

tentative. Although jobs have increased in recent months, unemployment

unquestionably remains high. Likewise, although government revenues

have increased in various sectors, they continue to remain weak and,

unfortunately, seem likely to remain so for the foreseeable future.

Understandably, the private sector, which in my opinion is the only

sector that can create permanent jobs through investment, expansion and

development, has not had sufficient time to regain its former buoyant

status. It is within this framework that the Minister of Finance has

been given the Herculean task of establishing a budget. I wish to

commend the Minister of Finance for the budget that is before this

House.

Further, I unequivocally endorse this government's policy that

public service salaries must be based on the employer's ability to pay,

and on proven increases in productivity. The good times are over and

our expectations for the foreseeable future must be re-evaluated to

reflect the reality of these times. The world economic order has

changed. Technology in all areas has taken a quantum leap forward, and

we must modernize our business attitudes. Quite simply, the markets for

British Columbia products are becoming more competitive and we must

meet that challenge.

Relying on the feedback I received as I went about knocking on doors

in Maillardville-Coquitlam during my election campaign, I think it

needs to be reiterated that the direction our government is taking is

not merely restraint for the purpose of cost cutting; rather, what is

required is a total rethinking of the role of government in our

society. Needless to say, there is a vital integration between the

private and public sectors. Both have their roles, both are vital, and

neither can be done away with. However, over the past number of

decades, I would suggest that the public sector has seen

[ Page 232 ]

an unwarranted expansion in areas where clearly, in

my opinion, our society could be better served if they were left in the

hands of the private sector. I trust I'm not going to drive them all

out when I keep mentioning private sector.

The marketplace controls — such as bankruptcy, unemployment,

lay-offs, low or nonexistent wage increases and, in some cases,

decrease — are the very controls that ensure the viability of the free

enterprise system. Those controls operate on a much more direct basis

in the private sector, compared to their impact on the public sector.

Unfortunately, it appears to have taken a catastrophic event, something

akin to the depression that we are just now taking the first few

fragile steps away from, to make all of us realize that the public

sector has developed an insulated, non-real-world position in our

economy. The time has come when that misconception must be addressed,

and I'm very proud to be a member of a government prepared to address

that issue.

We have an opportunity to continue to be a forerunner government,

one which has recognized this necessity to re-evaluate the role of the

public and private sectors in a social democratic state. I believe our

citizens have progressed beyond that terribly naive stage where they

assume that in order to have a social conscience, one must be a

socialist. Rather, in today's real world our citizens are beginning to

realize that in order to have a social conscience, one must ensure that

government is able to afford to provide those necessary levels of

social services. Clearly, having experienced the most difficult of

economic times during the past two years, we now understand that

government does not create revenue in a vacuum. Government — and ours

is no different from any other — can only expect to receive revenue if

its economy is healthy. We have come full circle and returned to the

necessity of having the private sector adopt a confident, expansionary

attitude, which in turn results in expanded plants and inventories,

long-term jobs and the resultant revenue for the provincial coffers.

The massive coal development projects currently underway in the

northeast and southeast of British Columbia illustrate the government's

active commitment to resource development through the private sector. I

note that the impetus and coordination for these programs has come from

the Social Credit government. These projects are turning untapped

resource potential into a new area of growth and tremendous opportunity

for the citizens of our province. These are the types of projects,

working within the dynamics of a free enterprise market system, which

will tremendously strengthen our province's economy.

There are other necessary and exciting government-sponsored projects

going on in this province at this time. They are providing thousands of

jobs for British Columbians in every occupation and region, Two of

those projects are of special interest to me. First, we have underway

the construction of the first phase of the ALRT project. Not only is it

in the process of providing well in excess of 3,000 jobs, but the boost

it will give to high technology in our province is of tremendous

long-term benefit. Speaking of ALRT, I noted with interest that both

members for Surrey referred to their desire that ALRT be extended to

Surrey at the earliest moment, with construction to hopefully commence

prior to 1986. I also noted the response from the hon. minister, when

she was quoted as saying that she is truly enthusiastic about the

extension of ALRT into its second phase. At this time I would merely

ask the hon. minister to keep in mind the necessity of including an

extension to Coquitlam.

Interjection.

MR. PARKS: Whether or not the loop goes elsewhere…. We'll let other members take care of that for their own constituencies.

The second example I wish to note, Mr. Speaker, is cause to greatly

applaud our government for, and that is its government-sponsored B.C.

Place. As a director and executive member of our community-owned B.C.

Lions football club, I certainly understand the benefit of this new

facility for all professional sports in this province. It is not only

the finest facility in Canada, but probably one of the finest, if not

the finest, in North America.

However, one might ask what the relevance is of such a comment when

we're discussing tough economic times in this government's budget.

Interjection.

MR. PARKS: That's good. No, I'm not asking for more season tickets.

Might I suggest that not only has the construction of the stadium

resulted in the creation of hundreds, if not thousands, of jobs at a

very critical moment in our economy, but now that the stadium is

operational it has also created, in effect, approximately 1,000 new

permanent jobs.

However, of even greater importance is how the stadium fits into the

entire B.C. Place development. I understand that it is estimated that

the total employment which will be created by that development is equal

to approximately 40,000 person-years. Not only are we going to see

False Creek redeveloped into one of the finest inner-city areas in the

world, but we are also going to see B.C. Place create approximately

2,000 permanent jobs for the rest of this century.

MR. REID: Good stuff. That's leadership. That's good government.

MR. PARKS: I agree with the hon. second member for Surrey: it

is indeed good leadership and good government. The spinoff which we

will see created by this monumental development will long be a legacy

of the leadership shown by the present Social Credit government.

As the Minister of Finance said in introducing the Employment

Development Act program: "While there are promising signs in the

economic outlook, a full recovery will be gradual and will not take

place until the private sector regains its former strength. It is

important therefore that the government make funds available during

this transition period to help create jobs in the months ahead." Mr.

Speaker, I wish to commend this government's action in implementing the

type of program which recognizes the special type of capital works and

job creation programs which can help to bridge the gap on the road to

recovery. Because it will take some lag period before the private

sector can truly be effective as it once was and surely will be again.

I also wish to take this opportunity on behalf of the constituents

of Maillardville-Coquitlam to thank the Minister of Highways for the

tremendous improvements that we have recently seen initiated in my

constituency and, for that matter, in neighbouring Moody-Mission. I'm

sure when all of these are completed they will greatly alleviate the

significant traffic congestion in our part of greater Vancouver.

[ Page 233 ]

[3:15]

I understand that within the last five years the Ministry of

Highways has expended almost $50 million in improvements to the

Lougheed Highway and the Mary Hill bypass.

As the parent of two young children, I perceive the importance and

significance of a healthy education system. We are extremely fortunate

in Coquitlam School District 43, having earned a reputation that our

school system is truly efficiently administered. Also, it has long been

recognized that Coquitlam School District has the finest French

immersion program in the province. I shall also note at this juncture,

Mr. Speaker, that it was my ten-year-old daughter who tutored me on my

French pronunciation. She has been enrolled in the French immersion

program since kindergarten. My wife and I are convinced that such a

program adds a quality of education that I wish I had had the

experience of when I was passing through the school years.

It is undeniable that our youth are our most precious natural

resource, and therefore the education system must retain its priority

status. I was pleased, in reviewing the comments of the Minister of

Finance, that in fact that position of priority has been acknowledged

in this budget; I note that its spending is second only to health care.

Notwithstanding that recognized position of priority, we must recognize

the necessity of restraint in the education system. I believe that

those individuals involved in the system will understand the necessity

of these steps and will work with our government to ensure that we get

the highest quality of education for every dollar that we invest in the

system.

In discussing privatization of certain government facilities, I note

that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hewitt)

has announced that his ministry is moving out of the consumer complaint

mediation business, In endorsing this action I would urge the hon.

minister to give the Vancouver Better Business Bureau an opportunity to

expand its program of mediation without cost to the consumer. Merchants

are, in effect, self-policing the private sector. Admittedly its scope

is not as broad as that of the ministry, but I understand that the

board of directors of the Better Business Bureau are interested in

expanding their efforts and service to the community. Not only should

that type of self-policing be acknowledged as acts of responsible

corporate citizens, but also I feel it should be encouraged.

Although we have already heard criticism of the Minister of

Finance's plan to privatize a number of government publications, I

share with the hon. minister a comfortableness in turning over these

publications to private publishers. Undoubtedly it would be nice to

have these publications maintained in-house, but it would also be

irresponsible for us not to appreciate the severity of the economic

dilemma we find ourselves in — an economic dilemma not created by

either party in this House. However, the dilemma is upon us, and we

must take those steps that reasonably lessen our overhead.

In the same vein, the modification of the assessment cycle, as

introduced by the Assessment Amendment Act, recognizes a very positive

improvement in the assessment roll process. One of the annual

complaints we had while I was serving on municipal council was the

relatively short period within which we had to react once the

assessment figures were received from Victoria. The roll now being

authenticated by December 31 should give municipalities an ability to

more effectively react to assessment changes in their budgetary and

planning process; likewise, in reducing the expense of creating new

assessment rolls every year, we again are reducing our overhead or our

expenses by 50 percent. This again, I trust, is a method of showing

leadership to the overall economy.

In the area of deregulation, I also applaud the actions of the

Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs for his introduction of the

new Residential Tenancy Act. Once again the marketplace, left to govern

itself, has brought about an equilibrium between affordable rents and

accommodation. There is simply no need or justification to expend

precious tax dollars on a bureaucracy to review something that the

marketplace will take care of in its own right.

A prime example, Mr. Speaker, illustrative of how superfluous

departments or agencies can be eliminated, is the abolition of the B.C.

Harbours Board. I note that when it was given its task in 1967, it was

asked to give our province two new modern facilities in order for us to

take advantage of the growing Pacific Rim trade. The expansion of

Roberts Bank and the construction at Ridley Island were necessary and

for all intents and purposes now have been completed. The function has

been completed, and hence, quite understandably, the board can be done

away with.

Commenting on the Municipal Amendment Act, I note that at this time

the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Ritchie) has not addressed

the issue of compulsory joint bargaining by the members of the regional

districts — in particular, the Greater Vancouver Regional District.

Although I support the amendments pertaining to regional planning,

based upon my experience in the GVRD, particularly the labour relations

function, I believe that it is advisable that the problems of the past

pertaining to leapfrogging and whipsawing, which a highly coordinated

and solidified municipal employees union was able to carry out, should

not be allowed to continue. The employer should be given the same

collective clout as its employees.

An example of the negativism and destructive criticism that comes

from the opposition side of this House is the attacks on the

introduction of the 7 percent sales tax on prepared restaurant meals in

excess of $7. It amazes me that the opposition can attack this method

of raising money. Surely even the members of our loyal opposition can

understand the significance of a progressive tax, whereby those who

have the money to buy the more expensive meals are going to be those

who pay the bulk of the tax. It seems to me an extremely reasonable,

fair and equitable method of raising tax.

Just as I can wholeheartedly support the progressive tax on

restaurant meals, as one who smokes I am not in good conscience able to

speak out against the tax increases in tobacco. By my way of reckoning,

smoking is a luxury that everyone agrees is a blight on our society. If

we can raise taxes and also serve as an inducement to reduce smoking,

then again, Mr. Speaker, what better way of raising taxes?

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you going to quit?

MR. PARKS: No, I'll pay tax.

Mr. Speaker, we see a budget and supplemental legislation that has been forthcoming

with a very clear focus: to preserve essential services, to keep government

spending within constraints imposed by the taxpayers' ability to pay, to

foster a healthy business and investment climate by reducing government impositions

on the individual and business, and to ensure that British Columbians can take

full advantage of the opportunities that recovery will present them, without

the

[ Page 234 ]

restrictions that excessive government debt or taxation could create.

In my concluding remarks, I would be remiss if I didn't stress how

proud I am of the leadership role being exhibited by our Premier. The

road to recovery is undoubtedly uphill, windswept and pitted, with many

potholes filled with negative reaction and destructive criticism. Mr.

Trudeau and his federal cohorts have shamefully bragged about the

success their program of 6-and-5 has contributed, or rather how it has

been solely responsible for the general minimal level of recovery on

the federal scene. Having said all that, their deficit continues to

blossom, federal spending continues to increase and restraint in fact

turns out to be merely a result of the falling interest rates, not a

reduction in government spending at the federal level.

In British Columbia we are fortunate to have a government led by a

Premier who is prepared to make those difficult decisions and to stand

tough when shallow, unsubstantiated comments of criticism are hurled

from all sides. But I have yet to hear one constructive criticism of

the legislative program already initiated by this government. I have

yet to hear one logical alternative plan to this recovery program. I

support this government's bold plan for recovery, I support this

government's vision of a B.C. future, I support our Premier's

leadership and I enthusiastically support this budget.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to digress from addressing

only the budget speech. I look forward to serving this Legislature and

the citizens of Maillardville-Coquitlam.

MRS. DAILLY: First, I would like to congratulate the newest member to this House for a very well-delivered maiden speech.

Now to some of the older members. I as a member of the NDP

opposition would like to discuss with the House my impressions of the

1983 Social Credit budget. This budget reveals the true face of the

Social Credit Party philosophy. It is a mean, cruel face. It is not

only mean and cruel; it also shows signs of semi-fascism. Those are not

words that a person uses lightly. But when a government decides to take

away from the people of British Columbia human rights which are known

all across Canada and in many other places of the world, except

countries ruled by fascists, then one has to question what road we are

being taken on.

In this morning's Times-Colonist , Gordon Fairweather, who

heads the Canadian Human Rights Commission — and is a Conservative —

made the following statement about the shocking removal of the human

but who should intervene now is an outraged public." I want to assure

you that an outraged public will intervene to the best of their

ability. Two-thirds of the branch's employees were fired. Fairweather

said that the new legislation has hobbled and wounded human rights in

B.C. by removing education programs and watering down guarantees

against systematic discrimination.

[3:30]

Can you imagine that in 1983 we have a government in this province

that, instead of enlarging the rights of people so they will not be

discriminated against, is restricting those rights? Fairweather went on

to say: "We have international obligations; all the provinces in 1976

agreed to the ratification of the international covenant on civil and

political rights, which is the child, the creature if you will, of the

Universal Declaration on Human Rights. Canada reports on a regular

basis to the UN to point out whether Canada is fulfilling its

obligations. "Now," he says — and I say shame on the Social Credit

government — "there'll be an asterisk beside B.C., singling it out as a

lesser place for human rights." I am ashamed to have to say that I come

from a province where human rights are treated in a lesser way than

anywhere else in Canada.

Fairweather went on to say: "The bookkeepers have taken over the

province." When Premier Bennett was asked to comment on that, he said:

"I have no comment." Of course he has no comment. I suppose he would

perhaps suggest later on that they're only fulfilling their mandate.

I'm sure we're going to hear that from other members of the Socred

government. As the year goes along, this is going to be the most

inventive mandate we have ever seen. Every new policy brought in by the

Social Credit government is now going to be defended on the basis of

this so-called mandate. Do you know what it is really all about? It's

simply a blatant political attempt to legitimize its neanderthal

policies, and that's what they are.

I intend to go through here and discuss the policies enunciated

through this budget. I know that speakers on the other side often say:

"Let's hear something constructive." In discussing this I would like to

point out, first of all, how destructive many of these policies are,

and then what the NDP believes would be more constructive.

The people over there, led by Premier Bennett, are power holders.

They're not leaders, they're simply power holders. Many of them have

been sitting for seven years now in positions of power, and

unfortunately I think they have become completely remote from what is

basically their job — to serve the people of British Columbia to the

best of their ability. It does not mean serving just a select few. The

cutbacks in the Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs symbolize

more than anything else the thinking of the Social Credit government. I

notice that there is an increase for the corporate affairs

section and

a decrease for the consumer section. If that isn't symbolic of the

thinking over there, what else do we have to look at?

People services reductions are used, and the smokescreen for these

reductions is those terrible public servants who are responsible for

our increased debt and all the problems that we have today in British

Columbia. Isn't it interesting that it is never mentioned that many of

our economic problems today are not the responsibility of the little

people, who work every day as hard as they can in this province. Many

of the corporations of this province, and of course across Canada, who

went into enormous debts of expansion during the 1970s, are far more

responsible for the economic situation than are the so-called little

people of this province. Yet it's the little people of this province

that the Social Credit government has decided to penalize. The peoples'

services reductions become, to the Social Credit government, just a

matter of budgetary imperatives, despite studies which show, and keep

showing, that higher social costs will be incurred from such mindless

neglect. It has been proven in the United States and England that these

dogmatic, stupid policies encourage and increase the social costs that

all of society has to bear.

It is not just myself as a member of the official opposition and the

New Democratic Party who feels this way about this stupid budget; it is

also the feeling of some of our well-known papers. In the Vancouver Province ,

which certainly can't be considered to be a social democratic party

organ, the editorial — which is not written by Mr. Allen Garr — states

that the

[ Page 235 ]

rhetoric is clear in the Social Credit budget: "a

strong emphasis on the private sector as the best source of job

creation and a program of restraint to foster economic recovery.

Everybody wants to see some of this but," it says, "the government

seems to have gone about doing what they say is their objective in

exactly the wrong and opposite direction."

"The government says it wants to help small business, but its new tax measures will unquestionably hurt many small firms.

"It says it wants to encourage the now-growing return

of consumer confidence and spending, but it imposes tax increases that

will invariably slow that growth down, especially for the big-ticket

items.

"It says restraint is to be undertaken only because of its

importance to recovery, but the programs that are being slashed look suspiciously

like those that the Socreds have opposed on a political and philosophical basis

for years."

That's really what it's all about. It's not about restraint; this

budget is based on a dogmatic political adherence which belongs back two centuries.

The people of British Columbia are going to be forced to suffer

because of this unthinking power-hungry government. I want to go

through and point out some of these unthinking policies, and talk

basically about the NDP and our constructive policies. Just speaking

generally on that, I notice that when the member from West

Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Reynolds) spoke, he had a great time

belittling the social democrats and citing some strange facts — I don't

know where he got them from — which pointed out that the only social

democratic province in Canada, Manitoba, was inferior in its economic

performance to other provinces. I think if you'll check his figures —

he can check this through various statistics, and I'll be glad to give

him some — unemployment in Manitoba in 1982 was well below the B.C. and

Canadian levels. This situation will persist through 1983. Manitoba's

social democratic party — not Social Credit — outperformed virtually

all the provincial economies in 1982. That was the government of

Premier Pawley, based on social democratic policies. The Manitoba

government has to be given credit for this, with their policies,

particularly — and I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you and other members of

the Social Credit government will listen to this with great care — for

keeping unemployment down by stimulating housing and by investing in

public works. Those are the policies which the New Democratic Party

espouses, and we have tried to explain to the Social Credit government

that these are absolutely necessary to get the economy moving; and they

turn away from them. Yet the province of Manitoba, which put in many

hundreds of millions of dollars to stimulate housing and public works,

is showing the positive results of that policy. What do we have in the

province of British Columbia? We have increased unemployment and the

economy slipping.

I listened to the Minister of Finance making comments in his budget

speech, and I've heard almost every backbencher say the same thing in

this debate: "We're on the road to recovery." If you're going by the

prices in the stock market, it would sound so: a 70 percent increase in

stock market prices. No wonder you're saying that things look pretty

good. But do you know something interesting, Mr. Speaker? Do you know

the last time there was such an increase in the stock market prices? It

was in 1933 — 50 years ago. Do you know the next time there was one? In

1937. Now I think that if we think back — I know that there are not too

many in this room besides myself who can — to 1933 and what followed

1933, we would realize that the stock market may have had this gigantic

increase in prices, but what happened to the economy? We got into the

deepest depression that we have ever seen, if you follow the years from

1933 to 1939. The economy did not recover after 1933 or after 1937, so

don't get up your false hopes. This government had better start doing

something positive themselves about unemployment in this province and

about creating some positive public construction if they want to get us

out of this mess.

The only time, of course, that the economy and the Depression

ceased, tragically, was in 1939, and we all know why. It was because of

massive government expenditures. Unfortunately the governments did not

decide to inject any moneys into the economy to help the unemployed,

but they certainly found it necessary to put massive sums to work

because the Second World War had been declared. Suddenly everyone was

working. Everyone had a job to do; it took a war. My God, I know none

of us want to have that happen to create an economic recovery — but

that's another subject, because we can't even think in terms, today, of

a war. We'll discuss that at another time.

I would just like to go through some of the things in the budget

that have me so exercised when I see that this government is mean,

cruel and unthinking. If we start looking at the actual budget and

estimates — and without going into too many details because I know the

time will come for that — let's first of all look at the Ministry of

Intergovernmental Relations, because the minister is sitting right

here. Now I've known the minister personally for many years; he and I

came in here in 1966. I would hate to see him go, Mr. Speaker, but I

must say that if I can see any ministry — or any minister — that could

be eliminated without anything really suffering in this province, it

would be the Ministry of Intergovernmental Relations. It's $2,423,000

for what? I am not saying that the work that is being done by that

ministry should be completely removed, but, my goodness, couldn't it be

absorbed into another department? Why all this expenditure for a

ministry, an office, and everything else that goes with it? It's not

necessary. What is he there for as a full-time minister? I remember

when there were ministers without portfolio, and so does that minister,

I'm sure. There were three in 1966, and even they at that time had more

specific jobs than this minister has under Intergovernmental Relations.

So there's our first positive move. Eliminate that ministry and save

over $2.5 million.

[3:45]

How about the Housing ministry? It's exactly the opposite with the

Housing ministry. We are sorry that that is not a separate ministry. I

must admit, if money's going to be spent, we want to see it spent in

the area of housing to help the people of British Columbia. Instead,

what do we see, Mr. Speaker? We see that the Housing ministry's

estimates for increasing housing in British Columbia and stimulating

the economy have actually taken a drop. Can you imagine that at this

time, a time when people still are having struggles to buy and build

their own homes, here we have this ministry…? Instead of having enough

understanding of the importance of stimulating the economy by creating

construction and building, they have decreased that area. The NDP would

not. The NDP would follow the same philosophy as Pawley's in Manitoba,

and they would increase, aid and abet housing construction in this

province. It's funny, you know, when you walk around downtown Vancouver

and when I walk around

[ Page 236 ]

in Burnaby, there's always money for luxurious

condominiums, luxurious apartments and office buildings and Safeways,

but we never seem to be able to find enough money to build affordable,

reasonable housing for the people. This government has never been able

to.

I wish that the minister in charge of highways were here — the hon.

member for the Cariboo (Hon. A. Fraser). This one I really am concerned

about. I cannot believe that any government today, which speaks out of

one side of its mouth…. And I know that the House Leader is listening

to me very carefully on this because he has made good speeches on this.

He is as concerned about traffic safety, I know, as I am. He made his

contributions, positive ones, when he was Attorney-General. Yet we have

the cabinet that he resides in, and the minister who is in charge of

the motor vehicle branch, actually eliminating the motor vehicle

inspection branch.

The point is, Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the minister being

interviewed on this. Do you know what he actually said when somebody

said: "How on earth can" — I think it was the head of the B.C.

Automobile Association — "you actually defend the removal of something

that was promoting car safety?" Do you know what he said? He said — and

he can correct us later, but this is my understanding from listening

and reading what the head of the B.C. Automobile Association said…. He

defended it by this: "We believe in the policy" — listen to this one —

"of getting off citizens' backs. Government must get off citizens'

backs." So what did he do? He removed one of the most important ways we

have of attempting to keep down traffic accidents. Now if he believes

that's getting government off the people's backs, why does he not also

remove the driver's test? Why doesn't he remove all the safety programs

and everything else that has been done through the Attorney-General's

ministry?

That is one of the stupidest, most callous moves I've seen. Mr.

Speaker, when we leave this building, and most of us drive back to our

ridings…. I don't feel very comfortable that I know now…. I knew before

that there were a lot of cars that didn't go through the test, but at

least I knew that the ones in the lower mainland and in Victoria had to

go through the test. Now when we all travel we don't know what we're

meeting on the road. What a stupid callous government. How much money

are they saving?

MR. LEA: It's more stupid than callous.

MRS. DAILLY: Do you know why it's stupid? They're putting

people out of work. What is it based on? It's based on a philosophy of

the Minister of Highways that we've got to keep government off the

backs of the people. That was his answer, after this gentleman came to

him and expressed concern about the increased traffic accidents.

It's a great way for restraint, isn't it? You know, what is really

short-sighted about it — and it's being kind to use the phrase

"short-sighted" — is that we're going to have more accidents and more

people are going to end up in the hospital, either injured or

tragically dead because of this stupid move, and the province will have

to pay for it. All through this budget, practically every move made by

the Social Credit government in the terms of "restraint" is done not to

help the people of British Columbia; they are dealt with and made

rather simply on a stupid, dogmatic, philosophical adherence to a

political slogan: "Get government off my back and put the people on

welfare." Put the people off work instead of putting the people back in

work: that seems to be the philosophy of the Social Credit government.

Look at their employment development program. From everything I read

in the estimates, the most I can really see of new money is

approximately $40 million. The other parts are highways, construction

and so on, some of which was already allocated or not used up, and is

being brought forward. Where is the real initiative by this government

to create employment in this province? It isn't there.

Then we come down to the human condition, the young people of our

province, whom I know you are very concerned with as a former school

trustee. In a time of high unemployment, when I'll bet there isn't one

of us in this chamber who doesn't know some young student who's

desperately looking for work, knows he can't find it because it isn't

there and will have to apply for a student loan, what do we find? This

great government decides this year, of all years, to cut back on

student loans, to cut back on student aid — in a year when they can't

even find jobs out there. You know what we are getting down to? Again,

we are getting into the philosophy that's always been espoused by the

Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer),

who really has an elitist approach to education. We are getting down

once again to something that we fought many years to eradicate; those

who have rich parents or rich sources can get to university. Many

deserving students in this province are no longer going to get there.

This government should hang their heads in shame because those people

are going to be wasted. We are going to lose a lot of bright,

intelligent, competent young people who are going to end up on the

welfare rolls, when they probably have the ability to go on and get

professional training; and, hopefully in time, when a New Democratic

Party government is elected, they'd have work.

The Crown corporations reporting committee is actually being

eliminated. I think I spoke on this in the throne debate, so I don't

intend to repeat my words, except to say that I was on that committee

and I felt it was excellent. When the Premier brought it in we praised

him for doing so. Now it is going. Do you know what that means? No more

accountability. For all their fine talk about "We are going to handle

those Crown corporations…." Instead of setting up an accountability

process and keeping it, as we had with this committee, they are going

to take the hatchet and eliminate it. The NDP would not because the NDP

wants full accountability; they want to keep a watchdog on the Crown

corporations of British Columbia. But this government obviously is not

concerned about checking into whether or not the Crown corporations are

performing properly. They have taken away the one mechanism which we

had. Another very short-sighted approach.

Also the ombudsman. We talk about human rights. I listened again to

that member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Reynolds), who said that

he would vote against appointing the ombudsman again. Can you imagine

that? His own government, which he's now joined, somewhat belatedly,

has trumpeted to the public for many years how proud they were of

creating the ombudsman. The former Attorney-General was the one who

kept talking about it, and we gave him credit for the fact that the

ombudsman was created. If we had time, I could read the many speeches

of the Socred members who were so proud of it. Now this member for West

Vancouver–Howe Sound says he would vote against it. An ombudsman was

established in the province to help the people of B.C. They take over

in areas where an MLA

[ Page 237 ]

cannot. They do not supersede or take over from the

MLA. Witness the fact that MLAs, since we've appointed the ombudsman,

have certainly been as busy as ever and the ombudsman has had a

tremendous load. But I'll bet there are many people in this province

who would write as witness to the fine work done. Do you know why the

Social Credit government is not happy with the ombudsman? Because he is

a courageous ombudsman. Because he did his job well and had the courage

to criticize where it was necessary. Shame on a government that would

remove the ombudsman! I'm hoping that the House Leader and Minister of

Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) will rise up and join us

and vote against this budget just on this basis. You wanted the

ombudsman in, and this government that you're part of is now attempting

to cut back and eventually eliminate the ombudsman from British

Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, I hope all those "hear, hears" to

my left are going to be able to explain to the people who have been

served by the ombudsman, and served well, their reasons for eliminating

him.

The Premier's office — half a million dollars for salaries. And you

say what would we do. You compare that to the time when we were in

government — I don't have the figures, unfortunately, but I know one of

my colleagues who will get up later will have those figures. The

comparison between the salaries when the NDP premier was in office and

those the Premier has today is absolutely ridiculous. Half a million

dollars' worth of salaries for the Premier's office alone. We cut out

the motor vehicle branch, we cut out legal aid — we could go on and on

— but the Premier still rolls along with increased aid. Surely we don't

even have to mention the Doug Heal fiasco again, and the hundreds of

thousands of dollars that are being wasted on government PR. That

relates to the Premier's office, and that's why I'm referring to it now.

The agriculture. I know our agriculture critic will be doing a

considerable amount of discussion on this in the House, and I don't

want to trespass too much on my other colleagues. When we see that the

Land Commission has been actually cut down, we know that that is the

start of the breakup of saving farmland in British Columbia. It is

already on its way with the whole Spetifore thing, which is a disgrace.

The Social Credit government puts developers and their profits against

meeting the food and agricultural needs of the people of British

Columbia.

Interjections.

MRS. DAILLY: I hear somebody saying: "Negative." Not

negative. I'm telling you that if the NDP — and the time will come….

The NDP created that on a positive basis. They are known all across the

world now as pioneering the saving of farmland. I don't believe the

people of British Columbia are going to sit back and let that

power-hungry government turn away that very great idea so that the

people of British Columbia are denied their farmland. I'm looking

forward to the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Hon. Mr. Schroeder),

who has a responsibility…. He's the steward of that whole area, and I'm

telling him now, I hope you're fighting to preserve the farmland. If

you don't fight, as Minister of Agriculture, it's going to be very

difficult for other people, unless you give the leadership. It will be

tragic. Already we can see that some of this has happened.

[4:00]

The Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Smith). I could go on and on. That,

again, will be discussed in detail. But that is really an interesting

area. It really shows where this government is at. It's full of people

services — needed people services — legal aid, you name it, community

policing. Here is an example. Do you know what the community policing

program provides for? It provides for the promotion of behaviour and

attitude changes at all levels of society in regard to drinking and

driving through a combination of police enforcement, education,

community action, research and information programs. Do you know that

that budget has been put down? It has lost, from my figures, almost a

third of what it had last year. Talk about being stupid and

short-sighted. If those kinds of programs go down the tube, we are

going to have more people ending up in our prisons because of drunken

driving, we're going to have increased traffic accidents, which are all

going to cost society — including this government — more and more

money. Yet they are cutting back on it.

This is a nightmare budget. At times I cannot believe that I am

living in a province that could produce a budget as machiavellian as

this one. Family community services cut, probation services cut, in a

time of recession when more and more families are breaking up,

unfortunately, because of the strain of economics and being unemployed.

They are going to need counselling and guidance, but instead this

government, which has helped create the situation, is cutting back on

the very services that these people are going to need.

Criminal Injury Compensation Act. I remember mentioning in the

throne speech debate that in times of recession when the economy is

bad, unfortunately crime goes up. Yet this government is cutting down

the Criminal Injury Compensation Act at this time —

an act which was

there to give assistance, as we all know, to the victims or families of

victims. It's incredible.

Consumer and Corporate Affairs I mentioned before. We find money for

the corporate end going up, Mr. Speaker, and the money for the consumer

going down. That tells us where this government's at. They're not for

the people of B.C. They're only for a very select few.

The Ministry of Finance. That really tells a lot about the Socred

bumbling and incompetence in handling money throughout their last seven

years in office. The public debt is up to $181 million in interest.

Last year it was $18 million — up from $18 million to $181 million. I

think we'll have to have a full explanation from the Minister of

Finance as to just what projects have been involved in that debt. If we

could see it involving something that was helping the people of British

Columbia, fine. But who is it helping? We don't see any benefit for

this increased debt. And firing the public servants is hardly going to

put a wrinkle in that massive debt, I can assure you.

Earlier today in question period our Finance critic mentioned that

we were faced with four phoney budgets by this government. This is all

part of what concerns me. Not only have we a machiavellian, mean, cruel

budget, but we also have a budget which, if it follows the tradition of

all the other budgets the Socreds have brought in for a number of

years, is another phoney budget. The government is not levelling with

the people of British Columbia. In 1980-81, for example, do you know

how much the budget was out? It was out $563

[ Page 238 ]

million. Can you imagine if the NDP had been out

that much at the end of their first year? Do you know how much money

the 1981-82 budget was out, had not estimated correctly? It was out by

$650 million. In 1982-83, $1,242 million — another phoney budget. In

1983-84 it's expected, according to our Finance critic — who by the

way, if you look at his predictions, has been pretty well on — that the

budget will be out by over $600 million. How can we expect people to

have respect for a government that even plays around with the figures

in a budget? How can they trust a government that has not come straight

with the figures in a budget?

I want to end up today by discussing the Health ministry

particularly. I want to leave many of my remarks for the estimates, but

I would like to make a few points on the matter of the Health budget.

If anything, that too shows the philosophy of this government. It

shows, number one, that this government endorses and believes in, user

fees. That again shows the basic difference in philosophy between the

New Democratic Party and the Socreds.

Let's just look at user fees. User charges for health run counter to

the basic premise of public health insurance. Under medicare, patients

have already paid for their health services. They've already paid

through their taxes — even, in a few provinces such as ours, through

premiums. Our people have already paid. I remember when Mr. Bennett Sr.

brought in the sales tax increase. It was to help pay for hospital

costs. User fees, no matter how reasonable their amount, still tax the

sick and so undermine the principle of prepaid health care. We keep

hearing: "Oh, but they're not very much." User fees amount to a

regressive illness tax. I want to go into more detail on that when I

have an opportunity during the Health estimates. I want to discuss the

extra billing and the bill, which of course we will have an opportunity

to do.

I also want to say very quickly that the other cutbacks in Health

are absolutely appalling. Health education is cut back. Nutrition is

cut back. Dental programs are cut back. Home nursing care is cut back.

Homemaker services are cut back. Adult day care is cut back.

Mr. Speaker, as I said before, this is almost a nightmarish budget.

Any government that would present a budget like this in the province of

British Columbia today does not deserve to be government.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Mr. Speaker, before I come to the remarks

I have prepared for this afternoon, I can't help, in the normal course

of debate, but respond to some of the remarks that I've been listening

to here this morning and this afternoon.

I'd like to commend you on your elevation to the chair, sir, and

would you convey those same sentiments to Mr. Speaker. I think I

understand what I'm talking about when I say I wish you well.

The remarks I've heard today seem to be in conflict with themselves.

I was listening to the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) talk

about debt and interest rates and interest that will have to be paid

from general revenue in order to cover debt that exists. But at the

same time I heard her decry those areas in which the government has

taken some bold steps to try to reduce the amount of shortfall in a

given fiscal year so that debt could be avoided. In spite of all the

cuts she enumerated, the resultant shortfall for the forecast year,

which we are one-third of the way through, is $1.5 billion, which, by

the way, becomes a debt next year and translates into an

interest-bearing loan. The interest next year is going to be $150

million greater than this year. I can't believe the lady said that….

Interest in the year previous to the one just concluded was $18

million, and then she looks at the year we have just concluded and

says: "My word! Holy mackerel, it's jumped $180 million! " I've got

news for you: in the next year, thanks to the expenditure of this

government over and above its revenue, the interest bill is going to be

$150 million over and above the $180 million that you've experienced in

the past year.

I cannot believe the irresponsibility of that opposition. During all

the time they are talking about cuts, cuts, cuts, they seem to harken

back only to the days when they believed in shovelling money out of the

back of a truck; when they believed that the money was always there,

that somewhere there is some great repository of cash into which you

can go endlessly and dip bucket after bucket and that you never have to

repay it. Those days are gone. Let me tell you that the taxpayers out

there have said loud and clear that those days are gone; they have said

that it's high time that government pays some attention to

affordability. They have said it's time that we look at what burden of

taxes those people out there can bear. They have sent the message loud

and clear. I can't believe that you didn't get the message. The message

was loud and clear: enough is enough already. It seems to me somebody

else used that slogan in 1972, the day I arrived in this place: enough

is enough. Those taxpayers said: "We can't stand any more."

I don't know about you people, but I can tell you that in my

constituency I've had to attend meeting after meeting in which the

constituent has said to me, loud and clear: "No more tax load." This

came from homeowners, small businesses, corporations and farmers, who

said: "No more, Harv." I stood up, with a red face, and said: "I'll try

to do what I can." I have tried to do what I could.

We have tried to reduce the expenditure of this government so that

it could be held to a manageable level, and I've got to confess to you

that we haven't done too well. We've still got a $1.5 billion deficit

in the year we're now facing. Shame on us! But in light of that, how

can I listen to this drivel from the other side that says: "Oh, keep

spending!" I've got to tell you, they are still talking about

shovelling the money out of the back of the truck. They haven't learned.

I have an idea that some of the myths I want to reveal to you in the

remarks I've prepared are still subscribed to by the unlearned over

there. I have to tell you that this is a recovery budget. I don't know

whether you people understand recovery. Not too many years ago I had to

be laid aside; I think all members present remember the day. I had a

period of recovery. When you're recovering you decrease the demands on

that entity, whether it be a body like mine, a family or a government;

you reduce the demand. Can you believe what might have happened if,

following my radical surgery, I got up smack-dab off that slab and

they'd said: "Okay, Harv, right back into the Speaker's chair. Get in

there and do your thing."? No, whenever you are in a period of recovery

you reduce the demand on that entity. We are in a period of recovery.

It doesn't mean it's forever; thank God I didn't have to stay on that

slab forever, and thank God I wasn't in recovery forever. But in a

period of recovery you reduce the demand and you wait for strength to

come back, and when strength comes back you can then return to full

flow.

[4:15]

This is a period of recovery, and when you are in a period of recovery, these things, I would submit to you, Mr. Speaker,

[ Page 239 ]

are some of the things that we must consider doing.

We must stop moving in the direction which contributed to the need for

recovery in the first place. That's one of the things we've got to do.

Secondly, I think we have to stop and analyze and determine what the

new direction should be, and this takes a little time. It's not

knee-jerk, something that comes to you overnight, or some divine

intervention by which you get up the next morning and say: "Aha, we've

got the answers and we're going to move in that direction, devil take

the hindmost." No, it takes a little time to determine what that new

direction should be. Then, number three, we have to have the courage to

move in that new direction even though it may be unpleasant. I want to

expand on that a little later.

Number four, we have to develop a confidence in the people that

recovery can happen, because if we don't instil that confidence in the

people, we will never encourage them to get involved in the activity in

which they must be involved if recovery is to happen. We've got to get

them on side, and to believe in themselves, and to be willing to take

money out of savings accounts and invest it. We have to get them to

start the economy moving that will generate the dollars, because if

they don't do it in the private sector we can't possibly do it in the

government sector. We in government are non-productive. We are part of

the problem; we are not part of the solution. We must get the economy

moving through the private sector. So if you'll permit me, Mr. Speaker,

I'll go through them one at a time — four points.

We must stop moving in the direction which created the need for

recovery in the first place. What are some of the contributing factors?

I don't know that I've got them all or even that I've got all the right

ones, but can I share with you the ones that occurred to me? I've just

jotted them down for your consideration. I believe that one of the

contributing factors….

Interjection.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: I think that if the member from Comox would stop and listen she may learn something.

We need to stop moving in the direction that created the need for

recovery in the first place. These, I think, are some of the

contributing factors. If the expectation is greater than the ability to

pay, then you've got disappointment at both ends of the spectrum. You

are not going to realize your dream, demand or requisite. Your

expectation is beyond the ability to pay; therefore you're going to be

disappointed. In the next place, society is going to be disappointed

because if they even begin to meet that expectation, they are already

going to overextend themselves financially. There is disappointment at

both ends of the spectrum if the expectation is beyond the ability to

pay. In recovery we have to pay strict heed, for the period of

recovery, to the ability to pay. I've mentioned it a little earlier,

and I have to tell you that the electorate — the people of the

province; society; British Columbians — have given us the message

clearly: they do not have the ability to cover the cost of the

expectations of some of the segments of their own society. It's just

not possible. I think it is one of the contributing factors.

Here's another one. I think that the built-in assumption that seems

to exist in every negotiation and contract that says costs are

naturally going to increase…. If we have that built-in assumption, then

we can't possibly gain control of an economy that has already shown it

has to have a period of recovery.

Here's another one — I think this is a contributing factor. If we

always believe that we must catch up with inflation, then we are going

to contribute to the need for recovery. We are going to contribute to

our own deficit if we believe that we are catching up with inflation.

Why don't we catch on — instead of catch up — to the fact that whenever

we create a new settlement, whenever we think in terms of catching up

with inflation, whenever we draft a new contract with an increase over

previous contracts, we are developing and creating the next phase of

inflation. So I believe that the myth that says we are always catching

up is one of the directions that we have to change during a period of

recovery.

Here's another contributing factor: decisions based on need instead

of on affordability. If we run our business this way, we can dream up

all kinds of needs, we can rationalize all kinds of needs. I've

listened to them in this House in these last few days — legitimate

requests for need. No problem about it, no argument. I wouldn't put it

down, not for a minute. There are legitimate needs. If we design our

budgets only with regard to what we need, we will constantly overextend

ourselves. I say we must put something else into that mix, and that

ingredient has to be affordability.

Here's another factor. Budgets that are established always and only

on a percentage increase over last year can't help but be a

contributing factor to a deficit which will require a period of

recovery. The end result of budgets that are always designed on a

percentage increase over last year…. The problem with that is this.

Managers within that budget simply say: "I have got to spend all of the

budget that was allocated to me in the last fiscal year. If I don't,

that apportionment might be deleted from my budget next year and I will

not get my percentage increase for next year." It becomes a mind-set.

"We've got to spend everything that we've got in our last year's

budget." When it comes close to the end of the fiscal year, the items

of expenditure can be reasonable or unreasonable, but they're made so

that the dollars are spent and the budget zeros out, so that the

percentage increase will give those managers the extra dollars in the

next year. It's a direction which must be changed during a period of

recovery.

There's another myth. There is a belief which says that an increase

in wages and salaries will naturally accrue just because we've been

around a little longer, without any reference to productivity. It is a

mind-set that has to be altered during a period of recovery if indeed

we want to realize that recovery.

Here's another contributing factor: the belief that regulation

doesn't contribute to cost. Just give us more government, you say. Just

give us more boards and commissions. Just give us all of the regulation

we need so that we can virtually stifle the creativity of society.

Regulation does not contribute to costs? Come on!

Here's another myth that I think is a contributing factor: the

desire that says big government should render every citizen unharmed,

even from his own thoughtless action in the marketplace. That's got to

be turned around during a period of recovery.

Here's another one: the idea or notion that says rights mean more

than protection, that they mean provision. It's an idea that's got to

be turned around during a period of recovery. When people say, "It is

my right that my children should ride on a school bus," when people

say, "It is my right that I should have unlimited health care," when

people say, "It is my right to be defended by the Crown," when people

say that

[ Page 240 ]

their rights mean more than protection, that they

mean provision, I have an idea that that notion has to be turned around

during a period of recovery. Please remember that I said recovery is

not forever — thank God. But during the period of recovery that notion

must be turned around.

And there's another one. There's the notion that says those who

don't work must be supported to the same level — or at least a

comparable level — as those who do work. That notion has to be turned

around during a period of recovery.

Here's another one. There's a belief out there — particularly across

the way — that says real costs can somehow be camouflaged by simply not

meeting them. If you don't pay them, then the cost hasn't been

realized. I was never more conscious of the fact that that mentality

rests on that side of the House than I was when we were talking about

ICBC premiums back in the years of '72 through '75. They said: "We'll

just reduce the premiums, and we will pretend that the premiums that we

charge are the real cost of operating an insurance scheme. We'll have

society in their premiums just cover part of the costs, and that way we

can camouflage the real cost and nobody will ever know whether we paid

it or not, or whether it was charged out or whether it was a social

cost or whether it was part of an extra fee on gasoline." Can you

believe what gasoline would cost today at the pumps with this scheme in

place? Nonetheless, they believe that real costs can somehow be

camouflaged by simply not meeting them. That has to be turned around

during a period of recovery, because if we don't turn it around we will

have a deficit which will stagger the deficit that is already built

into this budget, of $1.5 billion — for which interest, Madam Member

for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly), will have to be paid next year.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

What is the result of not changing direction? The result in the last

fiscal year was somewhere near $1 billion in deficit. It's going to be

$1.5 billion this year — far too much, in my opinion — but unless we

turn it around, we commit ourselves to the federal model, where they

don't even blush about a nearly $30 billion deficit upon which, Madam

Member for Burnaby North, you're going to be paying interest beginning

this year. We have to stop moving in the direction which created the

problem and the need for recovery in the first place.

Second, we have to determine that new direction. It's not easy. It

takes a little time. It's simple for a group of gentlemen to sit around

an oval table and say, "This is what we should do; let's do this; let's

do that," walk away from the table, come to some agreement and then

leave it there. Determining a new direction itself is not the answer;

we must have the courage to move in that new direction. We must show

the leadership that's necessary. We must be willing to bear the stigma

of making some unpopular moves if we're going to get this thing under

control. If recovery is to be a fact, that is what we must do. We must

measure carefully taxpayer strength. We must curb expenditure in

government. These are the new directions we must go in. Government is

non-productive; it is non-generating; it doesn't create wealth.

MR. MACDONALD: Nonsense!

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Nonsense nothing. Let me ask you a simple

question. If I were to pay you, a civil servant, your salary out of

taxes and you were the only taxpayer, how much would I have to tax you

in order to pay your salary? I'd have to take from you every penny that

I wished to pay you. Government is a non-generator of real wealth. They

encourage, yes, but they are a non-generator of real wealth. We have

to….

[4:30]

Interjections.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Is it okay if I continue, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: If the member addresses the Chair.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Good shot. To the front of the class.

What we need to do in determining our new direction is make

private-sector activity easier. They are the ones who are going to

generate the bucks that are going to close the gap between what we wish

to spend and what we are actually taking in in taxation. In addition to

that, they are going to have to generate the bucks to pay the interest

on the stuff that we expended over and above our revenues in the past

years. It's going to be the private sector, make no mistake about it.

In taking our new directions, we need to remove the roadblocks to

investment. The signs are already there. It's beginning to happen. The

bond issue is oversubscribed. Money is coming out of savings accounts,

and it's moving into risk investment. As government in our new

direction, we need to provide advice, not restriction.

I think that we need to make it easier for the organized and

unorganized workforce to go to work. I know some bargaining units who

would gladly have gone back to work, and would gladly have taken a

little less of a draw, but were not permitted to do so. We've got to

make it easier for them to do that. We have to make it easier for

people in the organized sector and the unorganized sector — sometimes

in the same area; maybe not on the same job but in the same area — to

work in harmony together. We need to make it easier for people to go to

work. I think we should not assume for one minute that only those who

are organized have the right to go to work.

In taking our new direction we need to restore the competitive edge.

In my own ministry the bane of the agricultural industry is that we are

non-competitive. Land, packaging, labour, equipment, services and

utilities cost too much. Lo and behold, when we add it all together and

get a price on a quart or a gallon or a litre of milk, it's more than

it is anywhere else. We are non-competitive, and if we're going to turn

this baby around we'll have to return the competitive edge. We're going

to have to find ways. I don't have all the ideas. Mr. Speaker, I'm

going to call on you because I know you've got some.

We need to build pride in production if we're going to turn this

thing around. No longer should an applicant for work say, before the

description of the job is given: "How much do I make here?" Production

should be first and foremost in the mind, and the reward for production

should flow naturally from production, not from non-production. We've

got to turn that around.

If we're going to have a recovery period we'll have to spend less

time in meetings and more time at work. When I see a budget that talks

about a government direction that's going to reduce the number of

councils, boards, commissions

[ Page 241 ]

and meetings…. Can you believe that in the

approvals process, if someone wished to invest some risk capital in

order to generate some dollars so that we can close the gap between

revenue and expenditure, and can pay the interest that has already been

incurred, there are 52 approval steps? And for every one of those

approval steps a meeting, and another meeting yet, and another meeting.

I support any kind of direction that reduces and takes away the

restrictions and that provides advice, help and assistance in getting

the job done. It's the way we'll have to go if we're going to have

recovery.

We are going to have to make services affordable, not just now, but

also in the future. We'll have to put the brakes on growth in cost in

some of our major social expenditures. Let me give you an example. When

I came to this House in 1972 the entire provincial budget was $1.4

billion. Do you remember it, Mr. Second Member for Vancouver Centre

(Mr. Lauk)? You and I came to the House together. At that time the

total budget was $1.4 billion. In ten years the health expenditure has

grown to $2.5 billion, which is nearly twice the total provincial

budget just ten years ago. Unless that pattern is turned around, it is

reasonable to assume that ten years from now the health budget could be

twice our total budget right now. It's just as reasonable to look into

the future ten years and draw that conclusion as it is to look in

retrospect ten years, and find out that that's a fact.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

When I arrived here in 1972 the total budget was $1.4 billion; now

Education has grown to $1.4 billion. In ten years the education

expenditure has grown to a size which represents, exactly, the total

provincial budget of 1972. Unless we change the patterns of expenditure

we could forecast that that trend will continue, and that the

expenditure for education, although enrolment is dropping, could be as

high as $8.3 billion ten years from now unless we turn it around. In

our new direction we must make services affordable, not just now but

also in the future.

Further, in taking our new directions we must privatize for the sake

of efficiency. Let me give you an example — it's not just something

that rolls off the tongue. In my ministry I had a farm called Colony

Farm, where they milked 230 cows, with 24 staff. Just east of my house

is a farmer who milks 180 cows; he has a family and one hired man. I

say it's time we privatize for the sake of efficiency.

I am glad to see that provision is made in this budget….

Announcements have been made to the effect that in taking its new

direction government is going to get out of competition with the

private sector. Some ski slopes are going to be privatized. I think

that it's about time for that privatization, particularly when

government, with all its power, runs in competition with the private

sector. If they subsidize their own operations, then it's reasonable to

assume that those in the private sector should expect the same, but

it's not kosher to do that.

We need to get out of competition with the private sector. I think

we need to rationalize the compensation levels in the public service.

We have to do it if we're going to get this under control, and I'm glad

to see it's going to happen during this recovery period.

We have to keep a lid on property tax, and I'm glad to see that it's going to happen.

My third point: we have to stop moving in the direction that creates

the problem. We have to take time now to analyze a new direction. We

have to have the courage to move in that direction, to take on those

unpleasant tasks that are going to create recovery. Downsizing is no

fun.

Can you believe there is any feeling of elation in having to say to

anybody: "Your position is no longer required; therefore you are going

to have to find another job. You need to be upgraded, reclassified or

re-educated, but the job you have grown accustomed to is no longer

there"? Do you think it is fun to say that to anybody? The answer is

no. There are unpleasant tasks that have to be done. Naturally every

person affected will react, and we have seen it in the last week. The

opposition has thrived on it. Please remember that when we first

arrived in this place, I sat in opposition for a little while and I

know what it feels like. You can thrive on it, but that doesn't make it

better.

Every person affected will react; it's predictable that that will

happen. I think every segment out there in society is expecting that

they would react. Because man is a territorial individual he doesn't

like to have encroachments onto those areas where he has become

comfortable, and the reaction is predictable. Nonetheless I believe the

remedy must be applied, and applied now. The alternative is to let 'er

go. The alternative is to join the federal model. The alternative is to

follow the route of Italy, Mexico, Argentina or Chile and let ler go.

That's the alternative.

We have a choice: we can do corrective surgery now or radical

surgery later. Although this is an unpleasant time — a time I don't

enjoy; I don't relish it one bit — it is recovery. And it takes a

little while to recover.

It's a critics' heyday. If you want to be part of the problem rather

than part of the solution, it's a critics' heyday. I say: better we

should have a critics' heyday than an economic mayday.

I say we must adjust the established practices to which we have

grown accustomed; even though it's uncomfortable, we must do it now. In

spite of all the steps taken, we still face a $1.5 billion deficit this

year. Nobody seems to talk about that. We must do what we must do.

My last point: we have to instil confidence in society. We have to

have them believe that they can recover. There have to be signs that it

is a fact and a realistic expectation. In the first quarter of this

year we have record housing starts; some signs are there. People are

moving money out of savings accounts; it's a good sign. The bond issue

is oversubscribed; it's a good sign. This is the right government; the

people made that statement just two months ago. This is the right

government, which is already a sign of confidence.

Every one of those individuals out there wishes to participate in a

program of recovery. Every one of them wishes that recovery was already

a fact. No one stands with the goal in sight and reduces their effort.

Everyone says: "Let's do our share." I think that we have seen that

kind of an attitude in the public service; we have seen that kind of an

attitude in the teaching profession; we've seen that kind of an

attitude in municipal workers; we've seen that kind of an attitude in

the private sector; we've seen that kind of an attitude in society as a

whole. They all wish to participate in a recovery that they wish was

already complete.

[4:45]

I'm sorry that the members opposite find it in their hearts to

oppose absolutely every measure. They have given us few, if any,

recommendations for recovery — I don't remember

[ Page 242 ]

any, but we'll give them credit. I don't know that

they understand recovery is necessary or how to achieve it. Rather than

do that, they wish to seed discord. Rather than become a part of the

solution, they wish to remain a part of the problem. It's either that,

or their insistence on continued unfettered expenditure is simply

insincere.

Mr. Speaker, this is a recovery budget. We need to stop moving in

the direction that created the problem. We need to analyze and

determine new directions. We've taken some. Maybe they haven't all

occurred to us as yet. We must have the courage to do the unpleasant

things and we must take the people with us. We must have them believe

in themselves that recovery can be a fact, and let's endure till the

end.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: You know, Mr. Speaker, almost every speech

made by government members during the throne speech debate and now,

during the debate on the budget, is really refighting the 1975 election

campaign, the 1979 election campaign and the 1983 election campaign.

You guys are ten years behind the times. You're not coming up with any

positive programs, just a lot of negative programs.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Tell that to the people.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: We did. Talking about telling it to the people

— and I'll be talking about this in a few minutes — what you said in

the election campaign and what you're actually doing are two different

things. But we'll get to that in a few minutes.

What this government is doing overall in this budget document is

basically a ploy used successfully for 20 years by a former Premier of

this province, God rest his soul, W.A.C. Bennett, who always

overestimated expenditure and underestimated revenue, and then in the

next budget he would come in and say: "Look what good managers we are.

We've come in with a surplus." Sometimes it was a hundred million or a

hundred and fifty million, whatever, but they always had a surplus. And

this government is now, again, resorting to the same tactic in this

particular budget. That is to make them, of course, look good next time

around. They say: "Times are difficult now, but we're such good

managers that a year from now we're going to start doing this and this

with more revenues, etc., etc."

But the fact remains that this government is predicting, I believe,

a $1.6 billion deficit. I think the interest on that debt, to the

taxpayers of this province, will be approximately — if we are to

believe what we read here — $180 million per year. I don't hear them

mentioning that over there too often.

This budget, Mr. Speaker, will not lead to recovery, as the previous

speaker said frequently throughout his presentation. No way will this

budget lead to recovery. When you fire people, take away their jobs —

those kinds of things — obviously you are taking money out of the

economy. When you increase taxes — sales taxes and those kinds of

things — you are taking money out of the hands of the consumer. This is

money that will not be spent, as has been pointed out in this House by

many previous speakers, money that will not be spent at the local

businesses or whatever for purchases, thereby also depriving government

of revenues from sales tax and these kinds of things. So you are really

hindering recovery when you take those kinds of measures. When you

increase user fees for health care and a whole host of other services,

as is proposed in this budget, once again you are taking a great deal

of money out of the economy — money that people won't have to spend.

This kind of money management is particularly hard on low-income people

and working people.

As I said a few minutes ago, this government was not candid. I don't

want to use stronger words at this time because I am not going to get

all upset. I know the House is in a milder mood now as compared to

about two hours ago. I'm being very polite when I say "not candid" with

the electorate out there, prior to the election which was called last

April. First of all, if the government had been honest with the people

we would have seen this budget in February of this year. There was no

reason why the government could not bring in that budget in February,

as has been the parliamentary custom in this province for many years.

Do you know why they didn't, Mr. Speaker? I know you are a new member

of this House, but you'll see. There was a very good reason from their

point of view why they didn't bring in the budget last February or

March, so we could examine the budget, and so that the people of this

province could have some idea of what was going to happen, with the

kind of thing that's happening now. The reason is that the government —

the cabinet; the people on the treasury benches — knew that they were

going to call that election in April of this year and that polling day

would be May 5. They didn't have the guts; they didn't have the nerve

to go to the people of this province and tell them that they were going

to do all the things that are contained in this budget speech, as has

been well-documented here in this House.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: The interjection across the floor about my

smoking…. I'm going to tell you that that's a very regressive tax. I'll

speak to that under the bill. Now that you've got the federal

government on my back I may have to quit. You may force me to quit —

smoking, that is. Nothing else.

So what the government has done is not tell the electorate the

truth. They knew very well what they were going to do. You will recall

that during the course of the last election campaign certain documents

were discovered or leaked, but made available to us through the

Ministry of Health, suggesting that user fees for certain health

services would be increased. The Premier, out in the hustings, said:

"No way. Never, never. Trust me. No way will we increase user fees in

the health service field, nor will we increase taxes." But we didn't

know whether he was, or was not, telling the truth. How would we know?

There was no budget before this House or before the people of the

province. So here we are, about two months later, with a budget. And

what have they done? They have increased user fees in the health

service field, increased taxes and sales tax on a number of items that

have not had sales tax on them before — meals and telephone calls, and

these kinds of things. It's a government that we find, on this side of

the House, very difficult to take seriously or to believe.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: We take you seriously, all right. I think you

are very serious about the measures that you have proposed; in fact,

some of your backbenchers, if they had

[ Page 243 ]

their way, would go a lot further than the Premier and the Minister of Finance have gone on this budget.

This government looks after its own very well, I don't see their

so-called restraint program applied to friends of the government. I see

friends of the government get very high paid positions as government

agents, large increases in their salaries, while other people who are

covered under the restraint program are forced to take very slight wage

increases in spite of 6 and 7 percent inflation rates. The government

looks after its own friend