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 )

FRIDAY, JULY 8, 1983

Morning Sitting

[ Page

171 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Budget debate

Mr. Stupich –– 171

Mr. Reynolds –– 181

Mr. Lea –– 186

FRIDAY, JULY 8, 1983

The House met at 10:06 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. REYNOLDS: I'd like to introduce a gentleman in the

gallery, Mr. Bill Anderson, who is a director of Metro Transit,

chairman of the natural gas conversion committee and a member of our

constituency association who worked very hard on my election.

MRS. JOHNSTON: I would like to ask the members to join me in

welcoming one of my constituents, Mrs. Jean Eddington, who is here with

us this morning.

MR. REYNOLDS: I just noticed in the gallery, and I would like

the members to welcome, my two daughters: Kelly, who is 14, and Katie,

who is 10.

MR. CAMPBELL: I'd like you to welcome my wife, Isabel Campbell, here from Vernon this morning.

Orders of the Day

ON THE BUDGET

MR. STUPICH: I've been asked just how long I might be this

morning, and may I say I haven't had time to make a short speech. The

Minister of Finance has had some 16 months to prepare his, and I must

compliment him. It was shorter than usual. But in the hours between the

time he finished and the time I'm starting this morning, there really

hasn't been time to develop a short speech. I guess we'll find out

together just how long it will be.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Certainly, we've heard that the budget that we were presented with

yesterday was at least the second — perhaps more than the second —

budget that was prepared for presentation for the year 1983-84. The

Premier told us once the election was over that it was back to the

drawing boards, and they were going to redraft the budget that had been

prepared in the event that the budget was presented before the election

was called.

Doubtless, the architects of the July 7, 1983, provincial budget

regard yesterday's package as a grand design for the future. Well, the

package may, in its own way, be as radical as any ever presented to

this Legislature. It must be recognized for what it is: accidental

Reaganism. After all, the government has backed its way slowly but

surely into a position where it is completely convinced it must turn

sharply to the right. It believes it has a mandate — an instruction —

from the electorate to do that. The budget is couched carefully in the

rhetoric of the new right imported from the United States, and from

Great Britain a few years later.

It is really not what it seems to be. There is no sense in which the electors

of this province voted for some of the propositions contained in the budget

that was presented in this Legislature yesterday. Not to impute motives, Mr.

Speaker, this budget is based on a big lie, or more precisely, the big lies.

[10:15]

The first big lie is that restraint leads to economic recovery.

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

formula for economic recovery. The budget will result in a downward

pressure on economic recovery, both from tax increases and direct job

loss to the economy. The second big lie, which I will deal with in some

detail in my following remarks, is to say that the government has no

choice.

As for the assertion that this package was supported by the

electorate in the recently concluded election campaign, the facts show

otherwise. It is true that during the election campaign the Premier

made vague references to continued restraint. It is also true that the

Social Credit Party promised a total of — and I chuckle at this one —

$1.474 billion in new spending; that's why I say "vague references to

restraint." When you talk out of one corner of your mouth about

restraint, and out of the other comer about new spending of a billion

and a half dollars, all I can say is that it was a vague reference to

restraint.

It is also true that the Premier promised no tax increases for a

year. It is also true that the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen)

promised no increases in health user fees. So much for Social Credit

election promises. We should all understand the budget to be a

manipulation of an election mandate.

There are obvious election debts to be paid, most notably to

property owners and property developers. These are being paid

handsomely in the budget presented yesterday. There is no other

explanation for the proposed sacrifice of farmland and tenants' rights,

all of which were proposed yesterday.

There is a measure in this budget of the government helping its

friends and disarming its perceived enemies. The right-wing rhetoric of

Reaganism provides a convenient cover or, as David Stockman said, "a

Trojan horse for hardball politics." Niccolo Machiavelli, the father of

hardball politics, described the situation of the present government

exactly. His advice to the usurper was "to examine closely into all

those injuries which it is necessary for him to inflict, and to do them

all at one stroke so as not to have to repeat them daily.... For

injuries ought to be done all at one time, so that, being tasted less,

they offend less; benefits ought to be given little by little, so that

the flavour of them may last longer." That's taken from The Prince ,

pages 72 and 73. If the members opposite haven't read Machiavelli they

don't have to, because they might have written a good part of it

yesterday.

In my remarks today, Mr. Speaker, I will turn first to the budget

year concluded March 31, 1983. I will then review the economic context

of yesterday's budget and some of the major elements of the budget

proposals. Finally, I propose to examine some elements of public policy

which are missing from this budget and which are needed to secure our

economic future.

First, to deal with the budget in review, the budget year just

concluded highlights the credibility problem of the Ministry of Finance

under its present leadership. Never in the history of the province of

British Columbia have revenues been overestimated anything in the

remote vicinity of the $872 million of the year just concluded. On

April 5, 1982, the Minister of Finance had the gall to issue a

statement under his name that he had produced an operating budget

balanced by revenues. Figures released with the budget yesterday prove

the utter falsehood that was presented to the people of British

Columbia by the Minister of Finance on April 5,

[ Page 172 ]

1982, when he produced that budget — a budget which

deliberately overestimated revenue by almost $1 billion. For a minister

in this day and age to be wrong by almost $1 billion in the accounts of

the province, with all of the assistance and experts that he has, and

the fact that budgets are coming later and later — for him to be that

far wrong in calculating revenue, with an error of almost 15 percent, a

figure far out of proportion to any such mistake made by any Minister

of Finance in any provincial government in this history of Canada —

proves that this minister produced a political document rather than an

estimate of government revenues.

The Minister of Finance, with this admission, has destroyed any

credibility he might have had in financial circles. He has proven that

he is willing to take political direction from the Premier to produce a

political document, rather than a budget which can be depended upon by

the citizens of British Columbia and by investment people worldwide.

For the sake of an election ploy the credibility of B.C. budgets has

been sacrificed, and that will hurt our province for a long time to

come.

The only recourse, if the minister has a shred of honesty left in him....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, we are really starting to offend

some of the parliamentary rules about referring to other hon. members.

I'm sure the hon. member for Nanaimo is quite aware of parliamentary

rules.

AN HON MEMBER: Quite aware.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I'll ask all hon. members to come to order, please.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I'm certainly not attributing any

motives to the particular individual who sits in that chair. What I am

talking about is the position of Minister of Finance. My concern is

that the evidence produced by the Minister of Finance proves to me, and

to anyone who will read last year's budget and this year's budget, that

the Minister of Finance took political direction from the Premier. That

is my point — not, certainly, that the individual has erred in any way.

The only recourse left to the Minister of Finance to re-establish

some credibility for the finances of the province of British Columbia

in British Columbia, in Canada and in the world is for that minister,

who has taken political direction, to resign as Minister of Finance.

All of the fancy Social Credit bookkeeping in the world can no

longer hide the fact that the minister's budget was out of whack by

almost a billion dollars. Elementary logic shows that it is impossible

to have a rational debate without having a common base. Without

agreement on the facts, rational discussion is impossible. The Minister

of Finance has poisoned the atmosphere of debate surrounding the

economy and government finances by consistently and persistently

producing budget statements which are not borne out by reality — four

years in a row. Even the minister's most loyal fans and supporters must

wonder why the minister's budget statements are so routinely at

variance with the year-end performance. In fact, the first three years

of the minister's performance have shown an appalling failure to be

anywhere close to the mark.

In the March 11, 1980, budget speech, page 14, the minister told

this House: "In the 1980-81 fiscal year, budgetary revenue is expected

to exceed budgetary expenditure by $250 million." At the end of the

year, the figures produced by the government show that the government

had depleted government financial reserves by $313 million. This was a

major shortfall at a time when the economy was booming, in the

minister's own words. Deficit financing was neither required nor

desirable.

On March 9, 1981, the minister told this House that he was bringing

in tax increases in the amount of $625.2 million in order to balance

the budget. That was in the 1981 budget address on page 12. The 1981-82

fiscal year pushed B.C. a further $356 million into the red. While

there were economic storm-clouds on the horizon at the outset of the

1981-82 fiscal period, it looked like a pretty good year economically

for British Columbia. Unfortunately the economy quickly got very much

worse. It was driven downward by the $625 million in tax increases that

I have just referred to. As the 1981-82 fiscal year continued, the

minister sought vainly to salvage his budget by bringing in

non-budgetary measures of all kinds. By various accounts the minister

increased between 390 and 1,200 different licences and user fees — tax

increases by any other name — in an effort to bring his budget into

balance. The exercise failed. The province slipped a further $356

million into the red. Then the minister had the gall to bring in the

fraudulent budget estimates. Certainly the estimates were fraudulent;

certainly the budget was, not the minister himself but the political

document he brought in on April 5, 1982.

Last year's budget — as said some 15 months ago — was a phony,

baloney budget. It grossly overestimated revenue. It overestimated

economic activity in the province by a factor of some $4 billion,

despite a multitude of respectable economic forecasts both inside and

outside the government.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: No wonder you've slipped from 16 to 15 percent.

MR. BARRETT: We don't do it by lying.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! The minister and the Leader of the Opposition will come to order. The member for Nanaimo will continue uninterrupted.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I don't know what I'd do without your help.

The minister had already increased every licence and user fee in

sight. He had already increased taxes. His government was facing an

election. There was nothing else to do. So he continued in comfortable

pursuit of a political fib — or, rather, several — which developed over

the course of the year.

Outside investors must surely be aware what to expect when a budget

is brought down in British Columbia under this administration. They see

what they will always see from this minister, under the direction of

the Premier. They see a budget which may or may not look good on paper,

depending upon the political purpose of the day. But the fact remains

that the credibility of B.C. budgets has been sacrificed by this

minister, and that will hurt our province for a very long time to come

— long after this minister has gone from office. We must begin the

process of healing this damage. There is no

[ Page

173 ]

other way to do that than for the minister to resign and for a new minister

to begin repairing the damage.

Mr. Speaker, prior to the last four years budgets were being

presented by a chartered accountant; now it's done by a professional

politician. When the chartered accountant left office, we started going

in the hole. We've been going in the hole ever since.

We must begin the process of healing this damage. The Minister of

Finance in this province is the last Minister of Finance in this

country to bring in a budget this year. It is the latest provincial

budget on record. The budget year just concluded was inaccurately

presented, was left in place long past the point where it had any

credibility, and has produced an ocean of red ink, the like of which

this province has never seen before, even in the hungry thirties. The

minister has produced a legacy for which there can be no appropriate

emotion but shame.

[10:30]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder what emotion comes to the minister's mind when

he reflects on the following words which he uttered on CBC radio on the

morning of April 26, 1982: "1 think we will see the budget on both

sides — revenues and expenditures — will stand the test of balance of

this fiscal year." It doesn't matter how naive the minister really is

in his heart of hearts; he has experts. Naivety? He has experts. He has

access to the best information money can buy, because the Ministry of

Finance has spent money, under his direction, on a scale never imagined

before in British Columbia. He has spent public money on some of the

most outrageous things ever imagined in respect of the Ministry of

Finance in the province.

Let's talk about spending priorities. The present government came to

office at the end of December, 1975, seven and a half years ago —

December 22, to be exact. I see applause from the government side.

Let's see what's happened since then, Mr. Speaker. During that time it

has, as I've said on previous occasions, racked up budget deficits

totalling $1,647 million to the end of the last fiscal year — quite a

record.

MR. REID: Well, we didn't lose $100 million.

MR. STUPICH: The member talks about losing $100 million; I'm

talking about losing $1, 647 million. On the dubious assumption that

yesterday's budget estimates are correct, that figure should be

increased by some $400 million to date in this fiscal year, for a total

budget deficit of some $2 billion. That's on the dubious side. In

addition it has gone on a spending spree of horrendous proportions

through the Crown corporations.

In the first 104 years of this province's history, from 1871 until the

end of 1975, guaranteed borrowings of Crown corporations and agencies — no direct

debt by the end of 1975 — totalled $4,425 million. That equalled approximately

$1,800 per capita. Significantly, there was no direct debt when this government

took office on December 22, 1975. As at March 31, 1983, the direct debt of the

province stood at $889 million. The debt of Crown corporations and agencies,

meanwhile, had jumped to $11,118 million. In other words, total provincial

debt, which stood at $4.4 billion when they took office in December 1975, by

March 31, 1983, exceeded $12 billion. This is equivalent to $4,274 per capita.

I don't think the significance of this slide into the ocean of deficit and

debt financing is fully appreciated by British Columbians.

The Minister boasted in his address yesterday — and I believe

"boasted" is the appropriate word — that expenditures in the Ministry

of Human Resources had increased by 32.9 percent. He again boasted of a

further 13.9 percent increase in the current year. These expenditures

are wasteful of precious taxpayer dollars. They are wasteful of lost

production, lost wages and lost spending in our economy. They betray

and deny the role of government as an innovator and catalyst for

economic development. They turn the public sector into the public dole.

They maintain individuals — because maintenance is not a livelihood —

instead of helping them to develop into human beings.

Ultimately this process turns in on itself. Welfare spending begets

deficits, tax and fee hikes, program cuts and more shrinkage in the

economy — and on and on it goes.

This minister, in the last two years in particular, has taken a most

irresponsible course: that of widespread tax increases and wasteful

spending on high-priced political hacks, foreign travel and welfare. It

has led British Columbians down a path of economic decline. How many

British Columbians realize that this restraint-preaching, sanctimonious

government opposite, which wants to be thought of as businesslike, has

managed in seven and a half years to triple the debt of the previous

104 years? Mr. Speaker, were you aware of that? One hundred and four

years of Liberal, Conservative, Social Credit and NDP governments

produced a total of $4.4 billion in debt. Seven and one half years of

this group has very nearly tripled that figure: $12 billion in debt in

seven and a half years.

And how many times over will we repay that debt in interest costs

before it is retired? Remember the lectures we used to get about the

cost of interest, Mr. Speaker? How much money is paid out of Crown

corporations, agencies of....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You haven't got much debt on your hotel in Nanaimo, because no one would give you the money — Comrade Hilton.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure that this is the

correct chamber in which to be discussing that problem. If the Minister

of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) and the

Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Richmond) want to have a discussion of

that project, I'd be very happy to meet and discuss it with them. I

think this is not the time.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: The Minister and the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) will come to order, please.

MR. STUPICH: How many times over will we repay that debt in

interest costs before it is retired? How much money is paid out of

Crown corporations, agencies of government and tax dollars voted by

this Legislature to repay that debt? I doubt somehow that the Minister

will answer these questions. What have we got for the money? Can the

Minister stand up in this House and explain the value received for the

additional $7.7 billion in debt racked up by this government to the

start of this fiscal year? This is to say nothing of the additional

$3,861 million the government plans to borrow in

[ Page 174 ]

the year we are now in, 1983-84 — an additional

almost $4 billion. That's almost as much in one year as 104 years of

government in the province of British Columbia had accumulated.

What exactly, Mr. Minister and Mr. Premier, have we got for this

money? According to the throne speech, we have got "an intrusive and

overweight public sector." The budget tells us that unnecessary

government expenditure is to be reduced. One wonders just who has

headed the government in the province of British Columbia for the past

seven and a half years when all of the "overweight" developed. Who was

the government? It certainly wasn't the NDP. The government fails to

realize that some of the wasteful expenditures of the past have

contributed to a deterioration of the province's financial situation.

The financial situation has crippled the government's ability to

manoeuvre. Thus, the Minister of Finance, with an apparently straight

face, stands up and tells us the terrible choices are tax increases or

severe cuts in economic and social programs. The government also fails

to realize that past fiscal policies, the irresponsible course of

widespread tax increases in an economic downturn and failure to pursue

job creation have contributed to the cost of government in an enormous

way.

The employment picture in British Columbia is abysmal and getting

worse. In 1982 there were 64,000 jobs lost in the province of British

Columbia. Unemployment was pushed beyond 200,000. The lost wages of

these 64,000 people translate into more than $1.4 billion. Local

economies lost almost....

Interjections.

MR. STUPICH: The Premier and the Minister of Economic

Development again are urging me to talk about a project that I've been

trying to further in Nanaimo. I suggest again that I'll be quite happy

to talk to them. I think this isn't the time.

Local economies lost almost $2 billion that would have been generated if these people were employed.

We could talk about the way in which the government has held up that

project in Nanaimo, but again, I think this isn't the forum for it.

In the Conference Board in Canada's quarterly provincial forecast,

the loss of employment in B.C. is noted. The Conference Board's

expectation for 1983 is that B.C. employment will fall at least another

1.5 percent. The minister forecast yesterday zero employment growth for

1983. In 1982 unemployment insurance payments exceeded the payroll for

both mining and forestry, our great resource industry. An average of

163,000 people were receiving unemployment benefits. This ranked the

UIC payroll as the number two industry in the province in terms of

employees on the payroll, behind retail trade and just ahead of

accommodation, according to the B.C. Central Credit Union. This figure

of 163,000 people does not reflect the size of the unemployed

population, since there is another group who have exhausted their

unemployment benefits and are now receiving social assistance. In the

mining industry, 30 to 40 percent of the workers are unemployed in the

producing sector. That is what "the friends of mining" have done for

mining.

Exploration is down 40 percent. The outlook for 1983 is a further 30

to 40 percent increase. In forestry 25,000 people were receiving

unemployment benefits in 1982, compared to 7,000 the previous year. The

Conference Board in Canada forecast predicts that unemployment in

British Columbia will be comparable to Canada's highest levels in the

Atlantic provinces and Quebec. Further, it is forecast that many

workers will not be rehired, even when the economy does turn around.

Clearly, Mr. Speaker, this government has not met, and now hopes to

ignore, its responsibility for job creation.

Who are these unemployed? They're not just figures or statistics. They're

people we all know. There are four general categories of unemployed people.

First there are the job-losers: those workers who have been laid off and expect

to be called back to work, and those who are permanently out of a particular

job, either because the business they were employed with went out of business,

or because their work was reorganized out of existence. They account for 58.7

percent of the unemployed. Second are those who have left their jobs voluntarily,

a group accounting for 7.9 percent of those out of work. Third, the new entrants:

mostly high school and college graduates who have not previously been in the

workforce; they make up 11.1 percent.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: The Minister of Industry and Small Business

Development wants to talk about federal politics. May I just ask him:

at what percentage does the Social Credit Party stand today?

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is certainly a heated debate, hon. members, but perhaps we can return to order.

[10:45]

MR. STUPICH: Finally there are re-entrants, mostly married

women who have left the labour force and wish now to re-enter. Many are

looking only for part-time work. This group makes up 22.3 percent of

the unemployed.

There are also a large group who are not counted as unemployed in

the statistics. Many are holding down part-time jobs, although they

usually have, or want to have, full-time jobs.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, sometimes I miss the remarks. If he

says anything worthwhile, would you draw it to my attention so that I

might respond?

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Yesterday,

when the Minister of Finance delivered his speech, we on this side of

the House sat and listened quietly. Just because the government members

do not like what they hear from our spokesman, that is no reason for

them to be rude and to try to interrupt the House so that people cannot

hear. I wish you would keep your eye on them, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. member for Prince Rupert makes a

very good point, and I would commend what he said to all members of the

House, because there appears to be an awful lot of cross-debate and

heckling coming from both sides of the House. That's my observation.

The member for Nanaimo continues — uninterrupted, please.

[ Page 175 ]

MR. STUPICH: The members should be reminded that it is Friday, Mr. Speaker. I've said that I don't know how long this will be.

Many are holding down part-time jobs. More are discouraged people

who have given up hunting for employment, because they see securing a

job as an unattainable goal. Clearly it is the job-losers who suffer

most from recession depression. And who are they? A striking feature of

recessions is how many people hold on to high-paying jobs.

Professionals and managers make up 26 percent of the workforce, but

receive 40.9 percent of the salaries. These are both public- and

private-sector workers. Of these people 73.1 percent are full-time

workers, compared with 49.4 percent for other occupations.

In hard-pressed industries the classic case of wages being reduced

and workers being asked to give back benefits, and long-term prospects

for employment diminishing with new technology, may apply. But this no

longer applies to some industries where the available jobs are

high-paying and insulated from market conditions. In 1982 the

unemployment rate for professionals was 3.3 percent; for

administrators, 3.5 percent; for clerical staff, 7 percent; for

blue-collar workers, 14.2 percent; for factory workers, 17.7 percent;

and for construction workers, 29.3 percent — and the minister has been

talking about a particular construction project. What has he done to

change that figure?

Unemployment does not affect everyone equally. It can be seen from

these statistics — which, admittedly, arise from U.S. studies — who

suffers most. Perhaps it can also be seen that the sufferers are not

Social Credit supporters. Perhaps that is why they promise everything

and do nothing to create jobs.

Let's discuss British Columbia's economic performance compared to

the rest of Canada. The economy of British Columbia has slid rapidly in

the last 18 months. High unemployment and low productivity have helped

to rank this province with the chronic have-nots such as Newfoundland.

In December 1982 Ted Brown, Vancouver district economist for Employment

Canada, said that we went from a province that was far better off than

most to one of the worst in four months under this administration.

The resource sector in British Columbia is shrinking, as both an

employer of people and a contributor to gross provincial product. At

least 70 percent of the value of goods and services produced in British

Columbia now occurs outside the resource sector. There is still,

however, an emphasis on the resource basis of the British Columbia

economy. Our economic slump is often blamed, especially by this

government, on unfavourable world markets. Even if the recession lifts,

a lot of jobs may no longer be available. With new technology and

automation, industries such as forestry and mining will be able to

become more productive without hiring what was once a full staff.

Unlike in the past, mining and forestry will not be the fields where

future job growth occurs. Between 1961 and 1981, 80 percent of

employment growth was in the service sector. In the future jobs will

lie in such areas as finance, high technology and secondary

manufacturing.

The rate of business failures in Canada is highest in British

Columbia. This province also leads the country in having the largest

businesses, on average, going broke. This means that when a business in

British Columbia goes bankrupt, there is a greater loss of investment

capital, a greater loss of jobs and a greater disruption to local

economies than elsewhere in Canada.

The rate of new company formation and registration in B.C. has

fallen severely in the past 18 months. Do you remember the figures we

used to get from the ministry of economic development about the rate at

which new companies were being formed? Between 1975 and 1981 there were

annual increases of 14.8 percent in incorporation and 19 percent in

registration from extraprovincial companies. We used to hear about that

regularly. In 1982 these figures fell by 51.5 percent and 9.5 percent

respectively, so that incorporations were at a pre-1976 level and

extraprovincial registrations at a pre-1979 level.

Receiverships, which grew at an annual rate of 8.3 percent from 1975

to 1981, increased 300 percent in 1982; they are projected to increase

again in 1983. In 1982 bankruptcies hit record levels with 1,285 filed,

compared to 404 in 1981. The 1983 projections have 14 percent of all

the bankruptcies in Canada occurring in the province of British

Columbia, up from 8 percent between 1975 and 1981. The first time these

figures rose significantly was in 1982. During the 1981-82 fiscal year,

with employment rising slightly, the tax load continued to increase to

$3,373.56 per capita. But in fiscal year 1982-83, with employment

figures dropping, instead of the tax load decreasing or at least

remaining constant, it continued to increase by almost $400 per capita

to $3,738.80. The minister's budget, delivered yesterday, ensured that

this tax load in total and per capita will increase once again.

It is not only in the field of income tax that the public is

burdened. There is a series of taxes — accommodation, tobacco and

gasoline, liquor, to name a few — where increases have occurred. The

Ministry of Finance, in its 1981-82 annual report, showed a provincial

tax increase of 25.6 percent. Without any doubt at all this helped

British Columbia rapidly move from a low to a high unemployment figure,

thereby slowing down economic activity and making unemployment

statistics even worse.

What about the outlook for 1983-84? Although 1983-84 looks in some

ways better for British Columbia, the picture is not necessarily a rosy

one. Mining and forestry may pick up, but automation and technology

mean fewer new jobs. The Conference Board in Canada sees the British

Columbia real domestic product output decreasing by another 6

percentage points in the months ahead. The Royal Bank of Canada

forecasts growth in 1983, but this growth is expected to be slow by

historical standards. In the field of business incorporation and

registration, minimal recovery is anticipated, but this will not raise

the numbers above a pre-1977 level. There is little, if any,

significant recovery in the field of employment in the coming year.

Factors such as increased taxation and more program cutbacks by the

government will do little to improve the economic position of the

province. Again, the Conference Board in Canada estimates a further 1.5

percent decrease in employment in British Columbia. British Columbia's

economic slide may slow down in 1983, but it will not be in this year

that the province's problems are solved.

This, then, is the background against which the minister proposes

his budget. It is this background against which his proposals must be

measured. So if the fragile recovery the minister spoke about yesterday

is a reality, it is a recovery without jobs for the working people of

this province. A recovery without jobs is no recovery at all.

[ Page 176 ]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the Finance minister and his supporters

opposite are convinced that he has produced a clever budget. Inasmuch

as the art of speechwriting has as its object to convince the audience

of the reasonableness of one's point of view, it is an art. The

minister's speech is artful — or clever — for what it does not tell us.

It does not tell us that the brand of restraint hitherto practised in

the government, and discussed during the election campaign, is nothing

like the brand of restraint which commenced with the tabling of

yesterday's budget and the 26 bills that accompanied it.

To give the full exercise its due, the pre-budget hype must be

noted. In particular, the absolutely absurd suggestion by the Premier,

made May 31 at the cabinet's summer camp in a luxury resort at Lake

Okanagan, that the province faced a $3 billion deficit, ranks as an

unequalled venture into pre-budget hyperbole. Clearly, the spectre of a

$3-billion deficit means the Premier believes all of this to be Heal's.

One might say, Mr. Speaker, if he "Kinsella" that, then he "Kinsella"

anything. However, it must also be noted that the underlying policy

shifts in the 1983 budget are as savage, ruthless and draconian as

advanced billing indicated. It is not my intention to go so far as to

impute motives to hon. members opposite. Had they the opportunity to

learn firsthand the plight of the unfortunate in our economy, they

might have been a little more fair-minded and even-handed in their

approach both to budget matters and their debate.

[11:00]

I have argued that many of the financial problems faced by this

government are of its own making. I have also argued that this

government's response to economic downturn has worsened economic

performance in our province and added immeasurably to human suffering.

Now they are faced with a new set of circumstances, and have come up

with a new set of policies. Blinded by ideological blinkers and captive

to the advice of those who are relatively well off in our economy, they

have turned to wrong-headed measures.

Obviously my colleagues and I will have much more to say about the

details of the budget in the debate to follow, and in consideration of

the estimates, but a few of the major thrusts must be addressed at the

outset.

Taxation. The budget makes it clear that revenue shortfalls are to

be made up by two principal means: sales tax hikes and user fee hikes.

There is no question that both are regressive. The sales tax measure in

particular will cost badly needed jobs in our economy. Is it any wonder

that the restaurant association in B.C. has told the government to take

this particular budget measure — the sales tax hike as it applies to

restaurant meals — and stick it?

The sales tax decision has to be put into context as a part of the

Socred's already regressive tax regime. In a study entitled "The

Redistribution of More in Canada, " Professor W. Irwin Gillespie of

Carleton University estimates that the B.C. tax system — for taxes

imposed by all levels of government — is second only to Ontario's in

regressiveness. But this Socred administration, despite a promise by

the Premier never to increase sales taxes.... Remember, Mr. Speaker,

the 1979 election campaign, when the sales tax was reduced from 7

percent to 5 percent! The Premier told us that never again in British

Columbia would the sales tax be increased. Then it was increased by one

point in 1982 and now is being increased again. The Premier promised

never to increase sales taxes. Apparently out of concern that Ontario

should have succeeded in being even more regressive, he first imported

Blue Machine functionaries from that province, then abandoned the

government and the treasury to them. Now, at last, our system is fully

as backward as Ontario's.

Sales tax. Making a bad tax system even worse is reason enough not

to adopt a tax measure, but in this case we have another equally

compelling reason. Virtually all of the authoritative commentators have

expressed their gravest concern in discussing what has been dubbed "the

fragile recovery on the disappointingly low consumer spending trend."

Apart from housing, which fortunately is again leading us out of the

depression, it is almost universally conceded that consumer spending of

large savings will be necessary for a full recovery. But adding 17

percent to the sales tax rate and dramatically increasing its incidence

discourages consumer spending, diminishes business revenues and

frustrates the recovery. In addition, the administration of this tax on

restaurant meals is a nightmare. With the stroke of a pen, the

government has turned thousands of B.C. restaurateurs into tax

collectors. Administering this tax will turn out to be the government's

only significant job-creation proposal.

The budget contains further user fee increases. Why do you suppose

the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) so indignantly denied

proposed health user fee increases during the election campaign? I

recall his saying the allegations that user fees were going up were a

lie. Who, Mr. Speaker....

If I say, "Who is the liar now," it's not parliamentary? Then I won't say that.

But the budget goes further than the health fee increases announced.

Despite the hundreds and hundreds of fee and licence hikes in the past

two years, there will be more and more. Page 18 of the budget reads:

"The question must also be addressed as to the appropriate balance

between the costs to be borne by the general taxpayer and by those

benefiting directly from the service." Any taxation system which causes

the poor to pay the same as the rich for the same purpose is

regressive. Any government which would cause this to happen is

regressive. Increasing user fees is regressive; it naturally follows

that the Social Credit government is regressive.

We can all agree that abuses of government services should be

minimized and abusers should be punished. We all agree that such abuse

imposes excessive costs on government and, therefore, upon society. But

what we in the NDP cannot agree to is that a regressive form of

taxation is the answer. We cannot agree that overtaxing the poor is the

answer to our economic difficulties. Why not, if one had to, increase

instead the income tax surcharge on high income earners? It is

something to be considered. But they have avoided that.

But when the government allows a system to remain which takes a

greater proportion of the income of the poor than it does of the rich

and when a system exists which imposes greater hardship on some than on

others, the government proves its indecency. And when the government

makes conscious attempts to increase the proportion of income it

extracts from the unemployed, raises fees to the sick, imposes more

hardship on the low-income families, it abdicates its responsibility to

care for those for whom the opening speech read in this Legislature by

the Lieutenant-Governor urged us to have some concern.

When you realize that even these increased fees will not recover

more than a fraction of the total costs, it makes one wonder about

motivation. Is it cost recovery, or is it really a deterrent to make

sure that those who can't afford it don't make use of hospital care? We

would support any effort by the government to legitimately reduce the

overuse of government services, but we will not support any effort to

do so by

[ Page 177 ]

increasing the problems which the underprivileged

of this province face. Therefore we have and will continue to oppose

any attempt by the government to raise user fees.

Mr. Speaker, what about the hit list? I've indicated earlier in my

remarks that the record of the Minister of Finance in forecasting

budget performance is seriously flawed. The minister has added a new

dimension to unsatisfactory budget presentation, and that is an

overriding lack of clarity. While the minister and his colleagues are

clear that they like restraint and are in favour of more of it, the

document itself is woefully lacking in stating exactly how the size and

cost of government is to be reduced. In particular I draw members'

attention to page 15 of the budget address which contains the hit list

of branches and agencies of government which are under attack. It is

only upon tabling of the legislation that the true fate of the

rentalsman's office, the human rights branch and the Human Rights

Commission was learned. Details of the new downsized institutions, how

they will work and in whose interests remain to be discovered. However,

the hit list chosen by the government is interesting in the extreme for

what it says about Social Credit in the 1980s — who it serves, who it

represents and the true nature of the changes in this budget, which

masquerade under the guise of restraint.

I said I simply do not believe the Premier's assertion that a $3

billion deficit either was or is imminent in the province of British

Columbia. Past experience and a quick perusal of the budget tables

leads me to believe that the $1.6 billion deficit is similarly suspect.

Mr. Speaker, the figures presented to us yesterday for the first two

months of this year show a deficit in those two months of $120 million.

In past experience, the first part of the year is usually worse than

the last

part in normal circumstances. At that rate, simply by

multiplying by six we would come up with a deficit figure of $700

million rather than the $1.6 billion. On wonders what expenditures are

contemplated that have not yet been revealed to us. Or, alternatively,

is the government once again presenting a document that has no basis in

fact?

I think it could be said that both figures are intended solely for

the purpose of creating an atmosphere under which certain institutions

of decision-making, adjudication and justice for common working people

will be eliminated, knee-capped, starved and slashed.

Mr. Speaker, these are the institutions which bring decision-making

and services closer to people, and in that sense it is an attack on our

fundamental democratic values. Nowhere is this clearer than in the case

of natural resource management. Here we see a fundamental attack on

those institutions which gave people in the various regions in this

province an ability to influence and shape the decisions of government

which bear upon economic development. In passing, I might mention that

contrary to popular belief, it was the NDP government which sought to

decentralize decision-making in this province.

I remember, for example, the Slocan Valley study, which sought the

widest possible public input into regional planning processes. It was

an experiment which effectively tapped the considerable talents

available in local communities and which could have shaped future

provincial economic planning policy.

The budget states that "savings will be realized by initiatives

affecting...regional resource management committees operating under the

aegis of the Environment and Land Use Committee of cabinet." This

government has already eliminated the interdisciplinary secretariat of

the Environment and Land Use Committee; now they plan to eliminate all

regional input into resource management in this province. The

elimination of regional resource management committees seeking to

develop broad, decentralized interministerial policies means that the

decisive role will pass to that ministry which commands most weight in

the cabinet, most likely in Victoria. That ministry will be the

Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing, with its real estate orientation

towards land and resource development. Certainly the Minister of

Forests will not have strong input into regional planning decisions,

for we are told that the policy of decentralization in that ministry,

which began in 1980, will be reversed and the power again will be

concentrated at the centre. The Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing

will have its regional input reduced, for that ministry is also marked

as a candidate for centralization in the budget. The Ministry of

Environment has already been effectively subordinated to the Minister

of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Brummet), who, of course, now

exercises a joint responsibility.

Following from the budget, we see in legislation that the planning

powers of regional districts in unorganized areas will be usurped by

the provincial government. What does this mean? We were slowly moving

towards an integrated land use planning process in which regional

districts worked with central ministries, which were themselves

organized on a decentralized regional basis. With the centralization of

ministries in Victoria and the effective abolition of the planning

powers of regional districts, the people in the regions will have next

to no input into the key decision of resource allocation and resource

development, which shapes the patterns of the regional economies.

MR. REID: Hear, hear!

MR. STUPICH: The member is saying "hear, hear!" He wants to remove democracy from the people, centralizing it in a cabinet room in Victoria.

When it comes to the difficult trade-offs between agriculture and

forestry in Prince George, for example, it is the bureaucrats in

Victoria who will determine the outcome, and they will have little

knowledge of the local situation. Local people will have simply no

input. In the proposed streamlining of the B.C. Utilities Commission, I

suspect we see — to give another example — early indication that the

people of the north will have no input into projects such as Kemano II.

We will have short hearings run as a PR exercise rather than an attempt

to gain regional input. This is done in the name of restraint and

downsizing of government, but I believe that decentralized

decision-making is, in the long-run, far more rational and efficient.

It is the people in the regions who are most aware of local

circumstances, who have most at stake in the decisions which have to be

made, and who should and must be actively engaged in the decisions

which shape the future of their communities.

[11:15]

The trend to centralization is equally marked when it comes to the

range of social services which are delivered by the provincial

government. In the name of restraint, we are told that school boards

will be amalgamated by the minister, that hospital boards may be

consolidated by the minister, that college boards will be exclusively

chosen by cabinet. The minister, rather than local trustees, will

prescribe pupil-teacher ratios in our schools.

[ Page 178 ]

MR. REID: A good idea!

MR. STUPICH: Administrative salaries and structures will be

decided by the minister. Smaller school boards, reflective of the needs

and desires of their communities, will be absorbed into large districts.

MR. REID: Another good idea!

MR. STUPICH: One step more removed from parents and taxpayers

— and the member keeps saying: "A good idea! " The more local influence

and input, the more people we have that can have some opportunity to

put ideas into government, in the mind of the second member for Surrey

(Mr. Reid), the better government we have.

I submit that such centralization will, as always, result in greater

inefficiencies. A bureaucracy totally removed from local conditions

will not make the best decisions. Worst of all, we will lose the sense

of involvement, active participation and dedication which local

institutions bring to the task of government. I find it rather ironic

that the NDP, which is commonly seen as the party of big government....

When we turn to the record, we see that it was this party which sought

to decentralize power. We instituted local community resource boards.

We decentralized regional planning processes, and so on. It is this

government which centralized power and which is abandoning totally the

idea that local institutions are best constructed if they're

responsible to the community and to the local taxpayers.

I'd like to say a few words about forestry. One thing that marks this budget

above all else is its lack of commitment to an industrial development strategy.

This government notes in passing that it was British Columbia's truncated

economic structure, its overdependence upon the forest and mining industries,

which exacerbated the depression, which made us particularly vulnerable to the

slump in the United States caused by Reagan's monetarist policies. Yet we

see nothing in the budget which would reduce our excessive reliance upon the

basic primary industries and, worst of all, we see a callous disregard for that

most basic of all industries — namely, forestry. In British Columbia today we

have well over one million hectares of forest land which are not satisfactorily

restocked. They have been logged but have not been successfully regenerated

or planted. We know from the forest and range resource analysis produced by

the Ministry of Forests in 1980 that the transition from old growth to new growth

forests will mean a decline in our annual harvest of up to 30 percent, and that

many regions face an even greater falldown. We know that the forest industry

on the coast is in a state of crisis and that its future will be secured only

if we begin to take the task of reforestation seriously. On this side of the

House we hoped, and thought, that the government had begun to take its role

as steward of our forest resource seriously. We had hoped that the government

would actually read the expert reports of the Ministry of Forests and realize

that a fall in timber harvest of 30 percent means a loss of 30,000 direct jobs

and as many as 100,000 indirect jobs. We had hoped that this government would

realize that reforestation is both an investment in our economic future and

an immediate economic stimulus — a vital government expenditure, a source of

new employment. Well, Mr. Speaker, we were wrong in our hopes.

In 1980 the government introduced a five-year forest plan and

created the forest and range resource fund with an initial endowment of

$130 million. We supported those moves, even though my former

colleague, Bill King, argued convincingly that the measures were

inadequate and that we had to double the planting targets if we were to

make sustained yield forestry a reality in the province of British

Columbia for the first time. Last year this government wiped out the

balance of the forest and range resource fund to balance cuts in

regular ministry spending, which was reduced from $190 million to $144

million. They took the short-sighted, expedient route of cutting back

on a vital investment in our economic future, an investment which could

have provided temporary employment for thousands of unemployed forest

workers. The original targets of the five-year plan were set back by

two years as a result of those cuts. For example, the original 1985

planting target of 83,000 hectares was set back to 1987.

The same holds true for other important silvicultural activities:

site-clearing, juvenile-spacing and so on. Just to put these cuts into

perspective, let us recall that we have to plant 200 million seedlings

each year — double today's level — to reforest the backlog lands within

the next 15 years. We still clearcuts three acres for every one which

we replant. The most recent annual report of the Ministry of Forests

shows that we continue to fall further and further behind.

In the 1980-81 annual report of the Ministry of Forests the first

following the announcement of the so-called five-year plan — it was

said that a significant problem has been the high level of vacancies in

permanent positions. Those vacancies were not filled subsequently, and

now we find in the estimates that more than 1,000 employees are to be

laid off. One hundred Forests ministry employees were laid off in

Prince George last week, 36 in Chilliwack the week before. The Forests

ministry has been selected as a target for cuts because it happens to

have a large number of auxiliary employees. The reason for that is

simple. We are just beginning to produce the silvicultural technicians

and professional foresters we need to regenerate and replenish our

vital forest base. The Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) would

have us believe that these employees will be hired and put to work by

the private sector. But I note that in 1981-82, the last year for which

we have figures, 40 percent of the total Ministry of Forests

expenditure was carried out by the private sector. People working in

the private sector are hired by the Ministry of Forests to do this

work. In other words, a substantial part of the Forests budget, now

being cut back, is directed towards employing workers in the private

sector. I would also note that the forest industry has been laying off

workers to cut costs and has relegated silviculture to a low position

in the overall list of priorities. The estimates show that spending on

silviculture will be down by 10 percent this year; that is, 10 percent

below a level already cut, a level already grossly inadequate to the

tasks that confront us.

I submit there is no more important economic activity of government

than the regeneration of our forest base. Only through significantly

increased expenditures on forestry can we maintain and expand the level

of employment in our forest industry. Let us not forget that for all

the talk of a post-industrial society, it is the forest industry that

directly determines the health of the economy throughout much of this

province; that it is the health of local economies which supports much

of the secondary industry and service industries in the large urban

centres.

I say that it is a total abdication of responsibility on the part of this government to cut back even further on forest

[ Page 179 ]

expenditures. Future generations will look back with disbelief on the utter lack of responsibility of this government.

They talk about reliance on the private sector, yet they should know

— they must know — that the forest industry itself is supportive of

increased investment in our forest base and recognizes that this task

must be shared by the private and public sectors.

I say it is a scandal. I hope the people of this province will

remember that this government reneged on its promises of just three

years ago. I say to them today that the NDP stands firm by its

commitment to double reforestation targets within the shortest possible

period of time when we are elected to government. There is no more

important economic priority and no greater economic responsibility.

The budget is thrice wrong. It is wrong in instituting regressive

taxation, which will drive down vulnerable industries as well as

economic performance generally. It is wrong in the selection of a

hit-list of agencies which attack institutions and bring

decision-making and justice to common people. It is wrong in the

abandonment of the critical goal of diversification in the economy

through linkages with our base industries. Again, this list is thematic

and does not cover the full range of damage inflicted by this budget.

In the weeks ahead the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs.

McCarthy) will undoubtedly be asked to explain in some detail how the

growing army of social assistance recipients can be expected to survive

in good health on 1980s subsistence poverty levels. The

Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith) will have to explain who he is

kidding concerning the effects of proposed cuts in corrections, legal

aid and criminal injuries payments. Education cutbacks and health-user

fees will all be canvassed thoroughly by members on this side of the

House.

When I started I said I would talk about what's missing in this

budget. The Social Credit government of British Columbia is the last

government in Canada to present a budget this year. This delay has

consequences for our economy, which I have already discussed. The

members may be interested to know that the first budget presented by a

Canadian senior level government this year was from the NDP government

in Manitoba. Ordinarily you would think that delay would give an

advantage; that the time spent would improve the product.

Let me quote briefly the opening words of the Manitoba budget

address, delivered February 24, 1983, four and a half months ago:

"Unemployment is the number one problem in Canada, and it is the number

one problem in Manitoba. Creating jobs and saving jobs are the top

priorities of our New Democratic government; and they are the most

important objectives in this budget."

[11:30]

Words to this effect are completely missing from the budget

presented yesterday, because, despite brave election talk, there are no

jobs for British Colombians in this budget. There are job cuts and

abandoned job programs. There are tax hikes which will cost jobs, but

there are no new jobs.

Instead, the budget gives us a big lie. The big lie is expressed

plainly on page 26: "Through the restraint program, longer-term

recovery will be secured." Mr. Speaker, the type of restraint proposed

in this budget is to recovery what fighting is to the achievement of

peace. Aggression no more creates harmony than singling out and

penalizing groups promotes recovery. Despite every disavowal there is

no question but that that is what this budget does.

Again, from the same page of the budget we are told that

productivity gains will lead us out of recovery. "Productivity gains

will be achieved through restraint," the comfortable Social Credit

slogan has it. One would have to be a fool to believe that the kind of

treatment afforded government employees in this budget will lead to

productivity gains. How does the prospect of a zero compensation

increase provide incentive for individual decisions and effort to

improve productivity? How does the 5 percent pay cut promote

productivity? Worse yet, how does the threat — without cause — at any

time, as a restraint measure, promote productivity gains? How does the

dismissal of these employees promote anything resembling improvement in

service, delivery and productivity? What if such dismissal occurs, as

it did yesterday afternoon on television before the eyes of hundreds of

thousands of British Columbians? What has any of this to do with

recovery?

The minister and the government know that the budget in this respect

appeals to the basest motives of an electorate frightened by economic

events. It is scapegoating, pure and simple. Nothing more, nothing

less. I think most thoughtful British Columbians will realize that

scapegoating has its price. The price will be paid sooner or later, but

it will be paid. This rightward drift, which depends, as it must, on

savaging certain people and institutions, will stand in the way of

grand ideological design, and is a mistake in response to an economic

situation. Social Credit has, of course, always been a party of free

enterprise. As a party which strongly supports small business

cooperatives and responsible business enterprises, the NDP also

supports the continued existence of the free enterprise system.

Members on this side have shown considerably more concern about the

elimination of competition in the workplace, particularly our major

resource industries, than have members of the Social Credit Party. It

is also fair to say that the party opposite has traditionally believed

in a mixed economy, where the provincial government paid a strong and

active role in leading the way for the private sector. There have been

many disagreements and debates, but in retrospect, the Social Credit

administration of the 1950s and '60s must be given credit for building

this province. They did so through a mixture of public and private

enterprise. The BCR has contributed to the growth of the forest

industry in the interior. Much of our economic growth flows from major

investments through B.C. Hydro.

The W.A.C. Bennett vision of the economic future of this province

required a strong and active role on the part of the provincial

government. This new government has turned its back on these traditions

to embrace the fashionable cliches of the Fraser Institute and the

radical right from the United States and Great Britain. This budget

does not state that recovery requires a strong private sector; it goes

a step further. It states that only the private sector can create jobs.

This approach is like fighting with one arm tied behind your back. It

is a self-imposed handicap, and one that will hurt economic growth. I

might add that the turmoil to be created throughout the public sector

by the government's incredible labour relations practices and vicious

methods of firing will further cripple the limited role of the B.C.

government in economic development.

We on this side of the House believe and consistently propose that economic growth depends on the development

[ Page 180 ]

of a coherent, overall economic development

strategy, emphasizing the partnership of government and the private

sector. Rolling back the role of government, which has existed

throughout our province's history, will impede rather than promote

recovery. Social Credit is in danger of becoming an ideological party

of the extreme right. This danger arises mainly from a wrong-headed

approach to an economic problem which it believes is not of its own

making. Whatever the cause, the Social Credit administration in B.C. is

now in bed with Thatcher and Reagan. Cuts are being made in the safety

net built up over the past 30 years. Regulatory and decision-making

systems designed to give local communities some say and input into

their local economies will be done away with. The responsibility is to

be shifted to the private sector alone. These things are happening

under the guise of a restraint program, but they have a deeper meaning

than that. Mr. Speaker, the number of people employed in this province

today is no greater than it was in 1980, three years ago. I think it

appropriate that the government reflect on the policies and decisions

it has made in the period since 1980. Is it not the floundering,

incremental march toward the far right, as embodied in the present

budget, which led us to the present difficulty?

Members opposite will protest that they have no choice in pursuing

these policies. This is the argument of economic necessity which

permeates the budget speech like water in a sponge. This, of course, is

the second big lie.

I referred earlier to the 1983 Manitoba budget address. Manitoba has

shown clearly in the past two years that it is not necessary to

victimize government employees, the unemployed or the sick. Moreover

they have shown that they can avoid the reaction policies of this

Social Credit government while also promoting economic growth. Manitoba

has not been one of the have provinces. In fact there is less to work

with in the way of resources in that province than in the province of

British Columbia. Yet in 1982 Manitoba outperformed any other province

in terms of economic growth, with the single exception of Prince Edward

Island. Unemployment increased in Manitoba in 1982, but by less than

any other province in Canada. B.C.'s increase in 1982, meanwhile, was

the highest in all of Canada. Yet Manitoba has done this without

sacrificing democratic institutions, without compromising health care

delivery and certainly without significant tax increases affecting

low-income and unemployed persons. Moreover, capital investment in

Manitoba has not suffered the same drop as it has in the province of

British Columbia. I think this record tells us that a government that

is prepared to create jobs by investing in needed economic and

community infrastructure can alleviate the impact of the depression on

its people, as we were urged to do in the opening speech. It shows that

even with rather limited room for manoeuvring it i possible for

decisive action to make a difference.

It is a question of policy and, ultimately, one of values. I do not

believe the sharp turn to the right reflects strong moral values on the

part of the government. After all, the members opposite created the

debt and the financial situation which they now plead forces them into

the unfortunate budget measures proposed yesterday.

We on this side of the House advocate a new industrial strategy

which has an important short-term goal of immediate job creation.

Unemployment levels approaching 15 percent, as envisioned this year and

next, are completely unacceptable. They would not be accepted in

Manitoba. In British Columbia we are witnessing the abandonment of

capital investment in the forest industry, particularly with MacMillan

Bloedel and B.C. Forest Products on Vancouver Island. MacMillan Bloedel

has made it known that it will never rehire 2,000 laid-off employees in

Port Alberni. The manufacturing industry has laid off numerous

employees and has no present intention of rehiring them. The government

has decided to join the club and declare thousands of its employees

redundant, useless and out the door.

We know that markets for our coal are saturated and fiercely

competitive. Southeast producers have agreed to price cuts and, worse

yet, volume cutbacks in shipments. The pressure is on for price cuts in

the northeast. The Minister of Industry and Small Business Development

(Hon. Mr. Phillips) knows that the writing is on the wall. I wonder how

many new coal contracts he's signed lately? New mines in copper, lead,

zinc and molybdenum will have to wait until presently closed mines have

been reopened — if they are reopened.

The bright spots in the economy for the future may be tourism and

high technology. But tourism, reeling from poor government promotion

efforts and the surtax on hotel rooms last year, will now be hit with

restaurant meal taxes and sales tax increases. The high-technology

field awaits stronger provincial action. This subject will be debated

in the House in this session. Members on this side welcome initiatives

towards high-technology developments, but hope we move beyond massive

public subsidies and concessions in the field of labour standards.

Where does all this lead us?

[11:45]

The kind of recovery envisioned by the budget document is fragile in

more ways than one. It is fragile because it shows no signs of

producing needed jobs, particularly for unemployed young people. But it

is also fragile because it leaves us extremely vulnerable to those

forces which made us the hardest hit of all the provinces in the

current depression. We are also vulnerable so long as the government

brings in ill-timed tax increases and cutbacks with critical economic

consequences. We need a coherent, overall economic development strategy

which will reduce our vulnerability to happenings in other countries

and which will create new jobs in the province of British Columbia. The

government simply must develop a new strategy for economic development

which goes beyond the slogans and clichés made popular by such

propaganda agencies as the Fraser Institute. Leaving free enterprise to

do the job alone sounds appealing to some people — no question about

that — but free enterprise can only work in our mixed economy when

government creates the proper environment.

The present budget falls short of the mark. The promotion of this

province in world markets is too big a job, and too important for our

future, to be left to the haphazard arrangements and the junketeering

of the past. B.C. is well-placed to enjoy a rich trade with the Pacific

Rim, as well as with our traditional trading partners in the United

States. We cannot survive on the political junketeering of the past. We

must get behind joint programs with the private sector such as the Asia

Pacific Foundation, proposed recently in a study for the Canadian

Secretary of State for External Affairs, to achieve these goals. It is

not as easy to work in tandem and to share responsibility with the

private sector for our economic future, but this is simply the only

policy that can work. There is something in all of this that our

citizens need to know; in the end, that is what is missing from the

budget. Our citizens, our

[ Page 181 ]

young citizens in particular, need to know that the

society in which they believe believes in a full-employment economy.

There is a greater fear than most members realize that unemployment is

a long-term prospect. Young families with children fear that the hard

road of social assistance — extreme poverty and lack of dignity — is

all this society has to offer. It is small wonder that people resist

technological change when it could mean the hard road at a time when

young families usually experience the joy of becoming contributing

members of their community. The right-wing clichés and the underlying

attack on democratic institutions which bring justice to common people

fall completely beside this mark. The budget, and the accompanying

legislative program tabled yesterday, will spark the debate about the

future of this province.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

We on this side of the House look forward to the debate. We hope the

debate will clarify the conditions under which British Columbia can

become the province and the society it has the ability to be. But, Mr.

Speaker, from the presentation of the budget yesterday, on what we've

seen so far of government plans for the people of British Columbia,

there can be no doubt that they've failed completely. The thrust of the

throne speech debate was to impress upon the government its

responsibility to serve the needs of the people of British Columbia.

This budget has failed completely, and the opposition cannot vote in

favour of it.

MR. REYNOLDS: It's a pleasure to be the first speaker for the

government after the Minister of Finance's budget. Before I start, Mr.

Speaker, I would like to introduce a couple of people who are in the

gallery: Mrs. Sheila Veitch, the chairman of finance of the Burnaby

School Board; and the government Whip's brother-in-law, Mr. Grant

Boyce, the secretary-treasurer of the Sudbury and District School Board.

Once again I have to say, from listening to the throne speech

debate, that the members on the opposite side didn't offer any

solutions. And listening to the member for Nanaimo for the last two

hours, I really didn't hear any solutions again. But, Mr. Speaker, I'd

like to start off by giving a couple of quotations. I'll read one and

then later I'll tell you who said it, Mr. Speaker, because you might be

surprised. It was in the Vancouver Sun :

"The provincial government will cut back on services if

necessary, in order to balance the budget, the Premier said here Wednesday.

The Premier has pledged in recent weeks that the government will hold the line

on services, but has not yet suggested that cutbacks might be necessary. He

said he believed the budget will balance without the necessity for cuts, but

said services will be chopped if the need arises. 'We've been spoiled

in this country,' he said. 'We've had it too easy, and we've

been led to believe that things come too easy.' He suggested that governments

have to take the lead and say there will be no deficit spending. 'If governments

don't, who will?' he asked.

"The Premier, citing the $1.6 billion deficit in

Ontario's budget and a four-month $1 billion federal deficit, said the

theory that deficits could be made up at a later date somehow never

works out. 'I'm going to have a balanced budget, and if I have to make

cuts, I will cut.' The Premier refused to speculate in what areas cuts

might come, and said the situation has not yet arisen since he believes

that government will be able to balance its books. 'But if the worse

comes to the worst, cutbacks will come,' he stressed."

Mr. Speaker, the Premier said that — and the Premier in 1975 was the

Hon. Leader of the Opposition who sits in this House right now.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, again I mention hypocrisy. Here's an opposition sitting

across from a government — the Premier and the Minister of Finance —

who have put out a budget that I will support 110 percent because it's

what this province needs. Yesterday I saw the official critic from the

opposition — because the television cameras were over there — flashing

up his newspaper about the government jobs and increases in that area.

I guess I don't knock him for that, because that's politics and they've

got to take the best shots they can. But he should remember also that

it was, as Premier, he who doubled his own salary when he got into this

House as Premier after so many years in opposition, at a time when the

senior citizens of this country.... The Premier at that time saw fit to

take a $53,000 salary when senior citizens on Mincome were making about

$3,180. I suggest to you that that party does not care about the little

people as they try to stress that they do.

AN HON. MEMBER: The critic is leaving.

MR. REYNOLDS: Well, the critic is gone because he doesn't like to hear the truth.

They haven't made any proposals. They talk about this government and

this government's caring. Well, I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that

this government in the Health ministry will spend $2.4 billion, up 7.3

percent over last year; the Human Resources ministry's budget of $1.4

billion is up almost 14 percent, and Education at $1.4 billion is up 7

percent. In a time of restraint, this free enterprise government of

which I'm proud to be a member, has increased the budget in the areas

that people are concerned in.

Mr. Speaker, I think the people of this province appreciate the fact

that this government.... They certainly did in the election. We

preached restraint. The members on the other side may remember the

leader of their party making statements about how he would remove

restraint on the civil service in this province. They got sadly

defeated, and yet they still seem to want to talk about it. Well, I

would suggest to them that they should be back in their constituencies

talking to their people, because the people of this province appreciate

restraint.

The official critic for the NDP stated in his speech.... You asked

me to speak to it; I'll speak to it. I'm going to start quoting some of

the things that the critic for your party said during his speech and

tell you what I think of them. He said he was upset about our deficits.

But what would he do? He really didn't say what he would do. Let me

quote what he said during the last election campaign. He said the

provincial government....

Interjection.

[ Page 182 ]

MR. REYNOLDS: The second member for Vancouver Centre says I

make it up as I go along, Mr. Speaker. Well, I'll give him some quotes,

and I defy him to prove that they are untrue. These quotes come from

newspapers in this province, most of them left-wing ones that support

his party and some of them from the NDP member of the Province , Mr. Garr.

Let me quote the member for Nanaimo, the official critic of the NDP.

He says: "'The provincial government should drive its forecast $1.3

billion deficit even higher to create jobs,' the opposition Finance

critic said Tuesday. The NDP member for Nanaimo conceded that this

would mean more borrowing, and that could lead to worsening inflation

and higher interest rates, but said that that was a price that had to

be paid if unemployment was to be conquered." Now, Mr. Speaker, this is

the same man who in this House just knocked this government about

inflation, and yet he was saying it himself. That's in the Times-Colonist , February 16, 1983, on page A3 if he wants to check himself,

During the opposition critic's speech, he talked about the strengths

of the Socreds in Ottawa. I guess he was trying to make a little joke.

This party in British Columbia is the Social Credit Party, but I would

suggest to him that he should look at the strength of the NDP in Ottawa

and across this country, because they've gone from the 26 percent high

that their party had in this country down to a low, in the latest

Gallup poll, of 15 percent. I would suggest to them, Mr. Speaker, that

maybe the New Democrats should have had a leadership convention at

their last convention and maybe sought a new leader, because certainly

the job that they're doing in Ottawa, in playing footsie with the

Liberals in that NDP-Liberal coalition, is going to defeat their party.

They'll be lucky to go back to Ottawa with very few seats after the

next federal election.

MR. LAUK: Are you going to speak in this debate at all, John?

MR. REYNOLDS: The hon. member wants to know if I'm going to

speak in this debate. I am speaking in the debate; he just doesn't like

what he's hearing.

Let me talk about the 7 percent tax on meals over $7 that the NDP

critic talked about. He said that we're going to turn thousands of

restaurateurs into tax collectors. The fact of the matter is — if the

member knew anything about business or restaurants — that people in the

business are already tax collectors. They're collecting tax on liquor,

and it's not going to be a major problem, no matter what you read in

the paper from the association member. I read it in the paper this

morning. I happen to be in that business. If my waiters or waitresses

in the restaurant didn't have enough brains to calculate a 7 percent

tax on a $7 meal, they wouldn't be working for me.

I would suggest that the people in the restaurant business, if they read my notice of motion in Hansard

of this Legislature, which a lot of them have, with regard to the

transfer of liquor licensing power and regulatory policies with respect

to restaurants, hotels, motels and neighbourhood pubs, they would

appreciate it if this government were to go in that direction and not

be concerned about this 7 percent tax. The people in the restaurant

business are free-enterprisers. They appreciate what this government's

doing, and they're going to help us along.

The official spokesman for the opposition talked about Reaganism. Also the

member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) in her throne speech knocked the Thatcher

and Reagan governments. Well, Mr. Speaker, I don't know why they want to

get on this attack. The Reagan government in the United States and the Thatcher

government in London.... Mrs. Thatcher just got elected with one of the

largest majorities in a country that has had a strong socialist government.

Certainly they should get the message that they shouldn't be knocking these

types of government. They're the types of government that the people of

this day want, and they're the types of government that are going to eliminate

the New Democrats and the socialists from the political scene in this province.

The official critic for the NDP also talked about the lack of

commitment to an industrial policy. I would suggest to him that he

really hasn't read the budget in its entirety, because the people in

this province in the industrial areas — and I've talked to a lot of

them since this budget was delivered yesterday — are thrilled with this

budget. They think it's time that the government of this province took

some strong action. They're happy they voted us in in the last

election, and they're looking forward to the implementation of these 26

pieces of legislation that were introduced in this House yesterday.

They're looking forward to the exemption on machinery and equipment for

over 15,000 businesses in this province and the reduction of property

tax for small business. They're really looking forward to the cutting

down of the size of the government in this province, a job which was

started last year by this government and will continue on. They're also

very happy that this government is eliminating tenure in the civil

service. It's about time that the civil servants had to act in their

jobs the same as people in the private enterprise sector across this

country. I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the NDP in this

province will see that other free enterprise governments in future

years — not only across Canada but through the United States and around

the world — will follow the example of this Premier and his government

in British Columbia in dealing with the civil service the way they did

in this budget yesterday.

[12:00]

Interjection.

MR. REYNOLDS: The hon. member in front of me says, "Bennett

for Prime Minister," and I see nothing wrong with that at all. If the

Premier of this province had been the Prime Minister of Canada over the

last ten years, we wouldn't have the problems we've got in this country

right now.

I'd also suggest that there are going to be a couple of federal

by-elections very shortly that will elect two Conservatives. In his

speech the member asked how we could expect a productive civil service

when we cut their salaries, reduce them by 5 percent? The hon. member

for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose) just took a pay cut in changing jobs

from the federal House to this House. I suggest that in his

constituency, which is now up for a by-election, he'll be replaced by a

Conservative member of Parliament, as well as Brian Mulroney winning

his seat in the eastern part of this country. In the next general

election, we'll have a massive change to a Conservative government in

Ottawa, which I'm sure we'll all appreciate in this country.

The official spokesman for the NDP talked about the diminishing

resource sector in British Columbia. Now that this election is over,

the resource sector in this province will flourish. One reason that

major mining companies and small

[ Page 183 ]

companies looking for mining properties were

investing in areas other than British Columbia was because they were

still concerned over the last four years that this province could go

back to socialism. The people in the resource industry are no longer

afraid that this province is going to go back to socialism, and you

will see more work in the resource field, the mining industry and the

oil search business in British Columbia than you've ever seen before.

Another reason the people in this industry were so concerned is some

of the resolutions this party passed at past conventions. I would like

to repeat some of them because I think they bear repeating.

November 27, 1982, the NDP convention: "Be it resolved that a

Crown-owned minerals marketing corporation be created to facilitate the

orderly marketing and stock-piling of our B.C. minerals." We've got

enough problems with marketing boards in this country without putting

them into our mineral area.

From the last NDP convention, another resolution: "The introduction

of a provincial surcharge on the income from capital gains." That's

certainly no way to encourage people to invest in this province,

especially in the mining industries. "A supercharge on income from

capital gains from speculatively held real property." Those are the

areas that scare investment away from this province, and those are the

areas in which, because we were re-elected, people will start to

reinvest in this province. That's why I'm so happy to support this

budget.

Interjections.

MR. REYNOLDS: I hear the hon. member for Vancouver East

shouting about Mr. Spetifore's property. He's wrong; it's no longer Mr.

Spetifore's property. If the member was paying attention he'd know that

it belongs to Dawn Development. That member must be very upset now that

this government has seen fit to take away the regional planning

authority of the GVRD. I'm thrilled about that policy statement

announced yesterday by this government.

The official spokesman for the NDP talked about the delay in the

budget — the fact that we were the last province in Canada. He talked

about the damage to British Columbia. The leader of that party was

quoted during the election as saying the NDP would not be able to bring

in a full budget until next February if they were elected in this

province. I think that goes to show how things can change. Just

standing here listening to this member.... I look forward, as he does,

to the debate, and I hope that during this debate we can hear some NDP

policies as to what they would do in this province to create employment.

One of the members down there says he's going to talk about that. I'll look forward to it.

AN HON. MEMBER: I'm right after you.

MR. REYNOLDS: Well, that's good. I'll make sure I stay in the House for your full speech. I'll listen to it with great interest.

In the last few years this government has created jobs in some major

areas. One of the areas is British Columbia Place, and I'm very proud

to be a member of the government that created British Columbia Place.

It created in excess of 2,500 jobs, and also brought the project in

early and under budget. That shows good management, and that's one of

the reasons we were re-elected in this province.

I know the hon. members of the NDP don't like to hear some of the

quotes, but when the Premier turned the sod of B.C. Place he said the

B.C. Lions would defend the Grey Cup here in 1983. Looking at them play

so far, maybe he's a bit of a prophet; it looks like they are going to

have a tremendous year. The Leader of the Opposition, who has a former

British Columbia Lion on his team, the first member for Vancouver

Centre (Mr. Barnes), said all the children can be taken through the

stadium with $125 million, another place for the Vancouver Lions to

lose. It's that kind of negative reasoning that cost the Leader of the

Opposition votes in this province.

The member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) was quoted as saying

Vancouver's new stadium could be built because needy groups such as the

mentally retarded and the physically handicapped were deprived of the

money they were entitled to receive. I say that's nonsense, and the

people of British Columbia showed that member and her party that it was

nonsense during the election. This party has increased its budgets in

the people areas, in the areas that people care about, since it has

been in power.

The hon. member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) was quoted as saying about

B.C. Place: "It is, however, part of a consistent pattern of using and

abusing government funds for promoting the political career of

individual Socred ministers and their political party in general." Mr.

Speaker, it is that type of comment that the people of this province

looked at during the last election, and that's why they didn't give

this party a chance to govern the province, because they realized how

irresponsible they were being in making those comments.

Heavens above, Mr. Speaker, I've got one here from the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk). He said:

"They need that almost $1 billion to juice up their

finances so they can build B.C. Place, so that they can build the

northeastern coal project at the direct expense of the school system of

this province. If the B.C. Place project is completed there should be a

plaque put up in a prominent place so people going into the stadium can

see it: 'This edifice — this monument — was built because of the

sacrifices and the suffering of kids in the schools, of single parents,

of the health system, of rural landowners.' Underneath it there should

be one phrase, 'Bennett for pharaoh, ' because it reminds me of the

time when the great mass of people in a state were expended to build

monuments for its monarch."

Mr. Speaker, that is being less than honest with the people of this

province, because this government.... As I mentioned, the education

budget is up 7 percent this year. The number of students in this

province in 1971 equalled 506,561. Last year there were 485,568

students — 20,993 less students in this province since 1971. But how

many teachers are there in this province? In 1971, there were 22,193;

in 1982, 29,075. Mr. Speaker, that's 6,882 more teachers for 20,993

less students. For every three students who left, one teacher was hired.

Interjection.

MR. REYNOLDS: The second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr.

Lauk) says I'm anti-education. Let me tell you something, I've got five

children in the school system — two

[ Page 184 ]

of them have graduated, two of them are sitting in

this gallery — and they are getting the best education in this province

that they can get anywhere in the world. I would suggest to that member

that I have as much concern for my children as any socialist in this

province does. In fact one of the reasons I got involved with politics

again is that I was tired of the nonsense I was hearing from the

socialist side when I knew that free enterprise gives you a better

government, a better system, and a better place to raise your children

than the nonsense you're talking about.

Mr. Speaker, the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly), speaking

about B.C. Place, said that it would hurt housing — that it doesn't

help housing. Well, it's interesting to note: CBC-TV, on May housing

starts.... They're up 172 percent over May 1982, and when you see

housing starts increase like that you know that the economy is getting

better. I'll just give you the figures: construction started on more

than 22,500 new homes in May — that's a whopping 172 percent increase

over May 1982, when just over 8,000 homes and apartments were built.

Mr. Speaker, the economy is coming back, and it's budgets like this

that are going to help lead us out of this recession that we've been

in. Once again, I don't know how many times I'm going to say it, but

I'm so pleased at the budget that the Minister of Finance brought in

that it bears repeating many, many times.

Mr. Speaker, in the throne speech debate the member for Prince

Rupert (Mr. Lea) didn't like the government spending on Whistler. I

would just like to tell him in the budget debate that we've allocated

money, as he knows, for highways. Highway 99, which leads up to

Whistler, is going to get some of that money. It's the finest ski

resort in North America. It's a fantastic place. But one of the things

the NDP doesn't understand when they talk about the government bailing

out Whistler is that Whistler has put over $20 million in taxes back

into this province since it started. I think that's a great benefit to

this province, and it's going to put a lot more money into the tax

coffers of this province. The government made the right decision when

it set up the Whistler land commission, and in the long term —

certainly well before the next election — the experts that it has

placed in charge will prove to the members from the NDP that that

decision was the right decision.

It is interesting how they don't like the spending on Whistler, but

they love spending it on Cypress Bowl. I was very pleased to see the

minister announce yesterday that we were going to look at putting

Cypress Bowl in the private sector. I can only encourage the government

to do it as quickly as they can, because certainly there is not a thing

in this country the private sector can't run better than government,

and the sooner we get the government out of more business the better

off we are going to be,

MR. LAUK: What about the stadium?

MR. REYNOLDS: The stadium and B.C. Place are a monument to

this province. I just find it astounding that the member still wants to

talk about it when so many of his supporters must be going there and

enjoying the baseball games and everything else.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not yet.

MR. REYNOLDS: Well, we'll be enjoying the baseball. You have

to remember that the Vancouver C's are going to be playing one of their

first games there.

AN HON. MEMBER: Does Mike like it?

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, the member should know that even

the mayor of the city of Vancouver, one of his party supporters, and

possibly one of the candidates for its leadership — and I'd love to see

him sitting in this Legislature — was not only one of those who knocked

B.C. Place, he knocked Expo 86 and even sent telegrams trying to stop

it. Now, of course, he's onside: the stadium looks great; he wants to

stand next to us and get his picture in the paper and say how great the

whole story is. I would just suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the mayor of

the city of Vancouver should possibly seek the leadership of the NDP,

because he certainly won't be the mayor of Vancouver after the next

election.

During the election, we talked about transit.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, please. The member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound has the floor and will be allowed to continue uninterrupted.

MR. REYNOLDS: I'm sorry I upset the second member for

Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) so much, but he'll have his chance to stand

in the debate, and I'll have my chance to sit here and take some jabs

at him.

[12:15]

I'd like to congratulate the second member for Surrey (Mr. Reid),

sitting at my left, for the fine job that he's done as the chairman of

Metro Transit. It certainly is nice to have somebody responsible in

charge. As you know, during the election campaign the NDP didn't like

the ALRT — said it was a disaster. I'd just suggest to you, Mr.

Speaker, that the decision made by this government to buy a system that

is made in Canada is one that wouldn't have been made by the NDP if

they had been in power. They were looking in areas other than Canada to

put in a system. This government here went to Ontario, is trying a new

technology, and should be given credit for the fact that we bought

Canadian and didn't necessarily be so parochial as to say it had to be

from British Columbia. We bought a technology from Canada. We bought it

because it's the best system in the world, and....

MR. LAUK: Why not build it here?

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, the second member for Vancouver Centre says: "Why not build it in B.C.?" Well, that's the problem with the NDP.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Second member.

MR. REYNOLDS: Well, of course. He came in second this time —

his popularity is slipping. He says: "Why not build it in B.C.?" They

tried to build some rail-cars in British Columbia and nobody would buy

them. If they were still manufacturing those rail cars they'd be lined

up from here to Prince George and back and nobody around to buy them.

But this government is a responsible government. We consider ourselves

Canadians first, and if some other part of Canada has technology that's

better than ours, we're not afraid to say

[ Page 185 ]

so, and put up our money to build a system made in Ontario. We know it's a good system.

Let me just quote Mr. Jim Lorimer, who was the NDP Minister of

Municipal Affairs at one time, if they want to talk about

responsibility. He stated, incredibly, that he was proud that his

government had lost $17 million in public transit. "Next year we're

going to lose more, and I'm not here to apologize, I'm here to brag."

Now, Mr. Speaker, what kind of a responsible minister would brag that

they were losing money? You'd think he would at least say that it's a

public service that does lose some money, but we're going to try and

make it make money, or look for a system that will make money.

I would suggest that the NDP should take a second look at the ALRT,

because the one-mile

section that this government has opened up for the

summer for people to ride on.... I give credit also to the member for

North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) who has done such a fantastic job

of putting that program together in the ALRT Over 40,000 people — and

that number could be higher by now; I got that figure last Monday, I

think — have ridden on that system free just to see what it looks like.

Now that doesn't seem to me, Mr. Speaker, like a system that people

don't like. I would imagine that they just can't wait till that system

gets open all the way to New Westminster, then on to Surrey, and then

up to Richmond, and then over to the North Shore on the Lions Gate

Bridge.

It's his party, Mr. Speaker, that has delayed us in this province.

It's his party that fought the tunnel going over to the North Shore

years ago that would have solved some major problems and would have

only cost $50 million at the time, of which $25 million was put up by

the federal government.

MR. LAUK: You wanted to pave Stanley Park.

MR. REYNOLDS: The second member for Vancouver Centre says I

wanted to pave Stanley Park — another hypocritical statement from the

NDP. Only they care about people; only they care about parks; only they

care about senior citizens. Well, Mr. Speaker, if it wasn't for free

enterprise in this country, the senior citizens, the children, and all

those things he talks about, wouldn't be where they are in this

province. Mr. Speaker, it was only one year ago today, on July 8, 1982,

that the second member for Vancouver Centre — he used to be the first

member — withdrew his claims about a major bank collapse in this

country. You talk about senior citizens. You talk about responsibility,

and senior citizens and children. How many senior citizens in this

province ran to their banks that morning after this irresponsible

statement? There were hundreds of them all across this country. I give

the member credit for withdrawing his statement, but it was an

irresponsible one to make.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

The member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) said in the throne speech

debate that she was short of time to comment on what the NDP has done

in Manitoba, and the spokesman for the NDP in this debate said that he

thought Manitoba was just doing a great job. Well, let me just tell you

that after 16 months of handouts and showing deficits the NDP there has

imposed a job tax — a tax of 1 1/2 percent on the gross payroll of each

and every employer in the province. That job tax is costing jobs in

that province.

The second member for Vancouver Centre talks about Manitoba and

everything else. Let me just quote the leader of his party. He

described Manitoba as an oasis in the middle of an economic desert, and

he had special praise for the 1983-84 budget recently introduced by the

Pawley government. "It's a shining beacon of responsibility, both

social and economic, that every other province should be following," he

said. "The NDP budget concentrates on job creation, and despite a

burgeoning provincial deficit" — expected to hit $579 million in a

province that is a lot smaller than this province — "Pawley and his

government will increase spending by almost 16 percent." Mr. Speaker, I

suggest to you that that's an irresponsible government.

The NDP, long a philosophical opponent of sales tax, has raised it

for the first time in Manitoba since it was levied by the Roblin

administration in 1967. It's gone from 5 to 6 percent — at the time

tied with British Columbia. The NDP can complain about this province

raising its sales tax by 1 percent, but they don't complain about a

socialist province. In this province we've got a lot of expenses they

don't have in the province of Manitoba. We've got a responsible

government, and that's why the sales tax has to go up on a temporary

basis to 7 percent.

Interjections.

MR. REYNOLDS: The second member for Vancouver Centre, for his

forty-seventh time of interrupting, has asked if I have anything

positive to say. Mr. Speaker, I've said it many times, but I will

repeat it again: the budget brought in yesterday by the Minister of

Finance is a masterpiece and is good for this province.

MR. LAUK: It's a declaration of bankruptcy.

MR. REYNOLDS: The second member for Vancouver Centre says

it's a declaration of bankruptcy — another forecast from the banking

genius to my right.

Mr. Speaker, it's the NDP who, when they formed the government,

wanted to close down our offices in Los Angeles and San Francisco for

promoting business and tourism in this province. I would like to tell

you that those offices are never closed; they're open still. Let me

just tell you the cost of those offices and the revenue that's received

in this province from them. The cost of our Seattle office to promote

British Columbia is $115,183 a year. The revenue from Washington state

is $100 million. I think that's a very good investment — that this

government has seen fit to have an office. The cost of the San

Francisco office is $127,402 and the cost of the Los Angeles office is

$119,263 for a total cost of $246,665. The revenue from California

state to this province is $120 million. Money well spent!

The cost of our London office is $150,000, and we receive revenue

from the United Kingdom of $40 million. I think that's an excellent

return and I give this government credit for keeping those offices open.

This party, the NDP, full of predictions of doom and gloom for 1983,

they quite often quote the Conference Board in Canada. Let me quote the

Conference Board in Canada when it comes to the real domestic product

increase. These are the Conference Board in Canada May 1983

predictions: Newfoundland, 1.9 percent; Prince Edward Island, 0.9

percent; Nova Scotia, 2.8 percent; New Brunswick, 2.4 percent; Quebec —

led by a socialist government — 1.8 percent;

[ Page 186 ]

Ontario, 2.3 percent; Manitoba — the second member

for Vancouver Centre, who has now left, was just quoting about their

unemployment benefits in Manitoba — 1.5 percent; Saskatchewan, 1.5

percent; Alberta, 0.00 percent; British Columbia, 2.9 percent — the

highest in Canada. The reason for that is the leadership of the Premier

of this province and the Social Credit Party, and the type of budget

and bills that were presented in this Legislature yesterday.

Let me just give another quote to the New Democratic Party, who talk

about the unions and what we've done to them in this province. In

Quebec, in order to increase their chances of winning the May 1980

referendum, the government gave its 300,000 public employees some of

the most generous salaries, working conditions and fringe benefits of

any North America public servants. Unfortunately René Lévesque feels

that whatever the government gives it can also take away. The acute

economic, fiscal and budgeting crisis facing Quebec prompted the

government last year to ask its so-called partners in the public

service and the unions to forgo scheduled wage increases July 1 —

increases expected to cost about $500 million. The unions refused. So

last summer the government passed a law last summer rolling back wages

at the end of the public service union contracts, most of which expired

earlier this month, to recoup that money in the first three months of

this year. The unions felt it was a negotiating ploy.

When negotiations started last fall with the common front of unions,

they discovered the government meant business. When the negotiations

got nowhere, the government passed another bill to create new contracts

for the next three years. Mr. Speaker, that's a socialist government.

The unions and the workers were stunned by the action of this socialist

government. Instead of walking out in protest the union leaders and

members put out feelers for a compromise, even offering to accept a

wage freeze or to negotiate a face-saving deal whereby the money saved

from the rollbacks would be used in a job-creation fund. No deal from

the socialist government of Quebec. Now the people who were in a great

way responsible for the PQ's rise to power are giving angry speeches

and pulling out rhetorical hyperbole that hasn't been heard of in

years, comparing Lévesque's government to those in Poland and Chile.

Mr. Speaker, it's great for these socialists, the NDP, to knock what

this government is doing in a responsible manner. I suggest that if

they were sitting in the chair of government, they would have to take

responsible attitudes too, Mr. Speaker. They wouldn't have to take it

just on the 55 percent of the people who don't belong to unions in this

province, they would have to take it on the whole province; including

that 45 percent who belong to unions.

I've run out of time to talk about ICBC, but I'm going to talk about

ICBC in some other debate; I'm sure it will come up, and I think it's

another government area that we should be looking at. This government

brought in and foisted so many managers and so forth that couldn't run

the insurance business properly that this government had to fork over

$181 million to keep it straight and narrow. I want to talk about that

in another speech.

I want to congratulate the government for eliminating the

rentalsman's office. I would also suggest.... It's not only the

government's responsibility, but this whole House should look at the

ombudsman's office in this province. That's an office that has got too

many employees, is doing work that it wasn't created for, and I think

is acting in an irresponsible manner. If I'm a member of that committee

that has to unanimously approve the ombudsman for his next term of

office, I make no bones about telling you I will vote against him so

that we don't have an ombudsman in this province. The MLAs are elected

to serve the people, and we can do it for the people of this province.

We don't need senior bureaucrats who stuff their offices full of

lawyers and secretaries to handle the people's problems.

In closing, I would like to say that I know everyone has some

problems in a budget. It sometimes affects us. We heard one of the

leaders of the restaurant association complaining this morning. But the

government has to take strong, strong measures, and I know the people

of my constituency — the overwhelming majority of them — will support

me in my support of this government and what they've done. And they

will also recognize what the NDP don't: that the Health ministry will

be spending $2.4 billion in British Columbia, up 7.3 percent; that the

Human Resources ministry budget is $1.4 billion, up almost 14 percent;

and that Education is at $1.4 billion, up 7 percent. They will

understand that this is a free enterprise government that cares for

people and people's services, and they will cheer us on in the way that

this government is managing the province.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, can you understand my disappointment in

finding out that the people of West Vancouver may not vote NDP next

time, and that they approve of this budget? My God, will wonders never

cease? The people that that member represents favour this budget. Now

doesn't that surprise the rest of us?

[12:30]

At the beginning of my remarks on the throne speech, I mentioned

that there are many areas that we agree on in the principles of running

a democratic government. In talking about the budget I think we have to

admit that there's one area again that we all agree on. We all agree

that we'd like to stimulate the economy in such a way as to bring about

economic recovery. But there's a basic difference. They are

supply-siders; we are demand. That's the difference.

Now, Mr. Speaker, this is a good budget for those who are

philosophically in tune with supply economics. Basically it's very

simple. What you do is allow corporations and the business community

more profit; they will invest that profit into an expanding economy,

and that expanding economy will supply more jobs three or four years

down the road. Now we are on the demand side of the equation. We say

yes, stimulate the economy, but why not do it through consumer

spending? Consumers would spend money in the small businesses in this

province who would order from suppliers and wholesalers who would order

from manufacturers, all of which would stimulate the economy in a

different way and immediately, as opposed to having to wait three or

four years for the jobs to come along.

Mr. Speaker, I have a number of remarks to make, and I wonder if the House Leader would accept an adjournment until....

Mr. Lea moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:32 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1984,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada