1985 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 33rd

Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is

for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, MARCH 21, 1985

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 5381 ]

CONTENTS

Oral Questions

Academic resignations. Mr. Blencoe –– 5381

Northeast coal. Mr. Williams –– 5382

Budget debate

On the amendment

Mr. Skelly –– 5383

Hon. A. Fraser –– 5386

Mrs. Dailly –– 5390

Mr. Veitch –– 5393

Mr. Cocke –– 5396

Hon. Mr. Richmond –– 5400

Division –– 5403

THURSDAY, MARCH 21, 1985

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to

welcome Prof. Don Balmer, who is here from Lewis and Clark College in

Oregon. He has with him a group of political science students who are

here to visit a number of people in Victoria, including the member for

Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy), whom he's meeting this afternoon. The

interesting part about it is that the students accompanying Prof.

Balmer are in fact senior civil servants with the Bonneville Power

Administration and other power people in the United States. I would ask

the House to make them welcome.

MR. SKELLY: I would ask the members of the Legislature to

welcome a former member of this body, the former Minister of Recreation

and Conservation under the government between 1972 and 1975, known at

that time as the Hon. Jack Radford.

MR. R. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, in the precincts today are three

people the government caucus was very pleased to meet with: Mr. Roland

Gordon, head of the labourers' union; Mr. Bill Milner, head of the rock

and tunnel workers; and Mr. Fred Randall, head of the operating

engineers. I want to thank them very much for coming.

MR. HANSON: I'd like the House to join me in welcoming Mr.

Don Gough and his daughter-in-law from Sudbury, Ontario, Mrs. Barbara

Gough. Would you join me in welcoming them.

MR. MOWAT: Today in Vancouver we launched the Man in Motion

tour, where a great British Columbian and a great Canadian from

Williams Lake, Rick Hansen, started his tour for Expo 86. He left the

Oakridge Shopping Centre this morning, sharp at 9 o'clock, and he will

be going down through California. He's on a 25,000-mile journey to

bring hope and awareness to all the disabled in the world, to tell

about Expo 86 and to set up a legacy in each country he travels

through. The Premier was there to send him off, and gave to Mr. Hansen

the first new official B.C. licence plate: it says "Expo 86" on it.

Also there was a contribution from the lotteries branch of $50,000.

We're looking to the federal government for some funding. The city of

Vancouver has given $100. We're going to be asking for some more

funding. He's on his way, and with your permission, Mr. Speaker, we'll

bring you reports as he makes his odyssey around the world.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to introduce four

guests in the galleries today: from Tsawwassen, Betty and Dick Davis,

and coming away from the great metropolis of Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan,

to avoid the harsh March, my uncle and aunt, Art and Jean Douglas.

MRS. JOHNSTON: In our gallery this afternoon are a very

active and involved lady from Surrey, Alderman Judy Higginbotham, and

her daughter Karen. I would ask the House to please welcome them.

Oral Questions

ACADEMIC RESIGNATIONS

MR. BLENCOE: I have a question for the Minister of

Universities, Science and Communications. On Tuesday the dean of the

University of Victoria engineering faculty resigned in protest. I have

since learned that a total of 24 University of Victoria faculty are

either resigning or considering opportunities at other universities

outside British Columbia. When are the minister and the government

going to acknowledge the message which is being sent by these departing

academics?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, the dean of engineering

certainly sent a message when he resigned to take a deanship at the

University of Calgary. This could be confirmed, but I understand it is

at an improved salary — and certainly at an engineering school that is

larger and better established than the one at the University of

Victoria. I think by the same token, the president of UBC, when he

resigned, went to a better-paying position in eastern Canada.

I suppose we will always be in the position in British Columbia of

our faculty being able to accept promotions and better-paying jobs

elsewhere. It has been my view that there is no reason why we should

not retain those faculty who are in international demand by paying them

competitive salaries. If you were to resign a post somewhere to take a

better-paying job somewhere else, your employer would always have the

option of increasing your salary to keep you. I understand, for

example, that this is precisely what Pacific Press did when columnist

Marjorie Nichols resigned on one occasion. Frankly, I see nothing wrong

with that. I always like to see people....

Interjections.

HON. MR. McGEER: I'm sure, Mr. Speaker, that the higher offer

did not come from the Premier or the government of British Columbia. I

am answering the question by saying that the university does have the

option of matching salary offers from other institutions.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, I would remind the minister that

those 24 members who are either going to resign or are considering

resigning are 5 percent of the faculty of the University of Victoria.

They are top-notch people. University professors with international

Ashwood-Smith, a biologist who has brought a tremendous amount of

research activity and grants to the university, is leaving to head a

new lab at Cambridge University in the United Kingdom.

[2:15]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. While some latitude

and some

preamble is allowed, clearly the rules which guide us indicate

that the question must be stated without argumentation or debate. When

one poses a question with such guidelines, one can only expect a

response with the same guidelines. I would ask the member, please, to

direct the question, and we will then hopefully have a specific

response.

[ Page 5382 ]

MR. BLENCOE: The top biologist has resigned. What is the

minister doing to stop this brain drain, and does he appreciate that

these people have simply had enough and want some action now?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I'm not aware of any

resignations, except to improved salary and a promotion. For example,

when Dr. Pedersen went to Simon Fraser University from the University

of Victoria, it was as a promotion. When he went from Simon Fraser

University to the University of British Columbia, it was as a

promotion. When Dean Bruton came to the University of Victoria from the

University of Calgary, it was as a promotion. If we have people who are

capable and can receive a promotion, either in terms of salary or a

position elsewhere, then the answer is to make an equivalent position

available here in terms of status, or to increase the salary. For

heaven's sake, Mr. Member, you cannot prevent people from seeking

higher positions of responsibility and better wages.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, does the minister appreciate that

B.C.'s reputation as a serious place to work, invest and research is

being damaged?

I have a copy of a memorandum. A leading mathematician was about to

return to the University of Victoria, but he says in this memorandum

that a primary consideration in not coming back to British Columbia is

the political climate with regard to higher education in this province.

When is the minister going to take action and ensure that our

universities are protected, particularly the University of Victoria?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I can't think of anything which

would be a greater deterrent to a great intellect like a senior

mathematician than the kinds of speeches that member across the way

makes. This is the difficulty that people would have coming to British

Columbia. They get into the atmosphere that you would create with your

speeches, and they would say: "Why would we come to a crazy place like

that?"

No, Mr. Speaker, the way you recruit outstanding individuals is to

have high quality in the departments of your university and to seek

people with equivalent high quality and offer them promotions. That's

how you recruit.

NORTHEAST COAL

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, in view of the absence of the

Minister of International Trade and Investment (Hon. Mr. Phillips), I

would direct this question to the Premier. On numerous occasions the

government has advised the House and the public that the contract with

respect to northeast coal was not negotiable, and that it would remain

at the price that was established at an earlier date. Now the

inevitable has happened, and the price for northeast coal has been

reduced by 8.5 percent. Can the Premier tell us what this price cut

means in terms of lost revenue to the people of British Columbia?

HON. MR. BENNETT: In response to the member, the first part

of his statement is erroneous, and his four-year absence from the House

hasn't improved his accuracy. What the government has said

consistently, and I can reaffirm it today, is that all of the taxes to

do with government, all of the surcharges to do with recovering the

capital costs on the railway and the capital costs — the other

surcharge — of hydro.... Highways and infrastructure are being paid,

are paid in full as of this date, and will be continued to be paid,

contrary to suggestions elsewhere. The government will continue to

collect not only the regular royalties but those surcharges — which for

the first time had the Japanese steel industry subsidizing in the

province of British Columbia our railways, our highways and our hydro.

In following up with the answer to the member for Vancouver East,

this is one of the great arguments for not having socialism in

government ownership. The private sector takes the risks on their

industry, and the government is getting full value on all of the

shipments of coal, through royalties and taxation. This is one of the

greatest arguments against the government owning the mines or moving

into sawmills, as was started to be practised between the years '72 and

'75.

MR. WILLIAMS: Seven hundred million dollars was spent by this

government on this project one way or another. The question is: is it

not so that coal royalties that were anticipated — which are related to

price; that is, related to the price paid by the Japanese for the coal

— are reduced, and that they in fact will be reduced by $4 million;

that because there hasn't been performance in terms of volume, those

payments to BCR will be reduced by $4 million; that the whole operation

is in such sad shape that $100 million anticipated in corporate income

tax is nowhere to be seen either? So that represents something like

$108 million lost.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Well, again, Mr. Speaker, the member is

totally wrong if he's suggesting that one cent went into the private

sector development of those mines from the government of British

Columbia. The money the government of the people of British Columbia

has spent has gone into infrastructure. The money that the people's

credit has purchased has been for the expansion of our railway. The

money that has gone into Hydro has been in the expansion of Hydro,

facilities.

MR. WILLIAMS: And the mine.

HON. MR. BENNETT: And a community of people, Mr. Member. The

member smilingly says "the mine, " You're darned right! Because one of

the things that we develop energy for is to expand our resources, to

create industry and jobs. If that member from Vancouver East wants to

stand up and say he's against industrial expansion and jobs for our

people, because that's the implication in his statement and his asides,

then let him do it. But I tell you, Mr. Member, that I want jobs for

our people. And we're going to continue, through our industrial

electrical discounts, to make sure that industry expands in this

province.

MR. WILLIAMS: I would hope, with as many people on UIC as

there are actually working, that there would be jobs for our people in

British Columbia. But with respect to the mine, it's now anticipated

that another hole will have to be constructed for northeast coal. The

minister indicated that the hole may indeed be in the wrong place.

But my question is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum

Resources. He indicated in January that the staff of the mines

department were aware that the location was probably unsatisfactory.

Can he advise us whether his staff were in

[ Page 5383 ]

fact asked to pursue this matter in some detail, to

avoid the expenditure of an additional $300 million on this project?

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Member, I think you're misconstruing

something that I said. I said that the staff of the Ministry of Mines

advised the company at the time that they felt a further delineation of

the ore body might be more appropriate than the delineation that the

company was doing. That was merely advice that the technical people in

my ministry gave to the mining company. We could give that kind of

advice to any mining company in the province that wanted it.

AN HON. MEMBER: And...?

HON. MR. ROGERS: And what? The ministry people are allowed to

dispense advice to any company that wants to ask for it. If the company

chooses or doesn't choose to use that information, that's their

business. We'd like to try to explain that to you. I know you have

difficulty with somebody else minding their own business.

MR. WILLIAMS: Further to the Minister of Mines, Mr. Speaker.

Wouldn't it be reasonable, in view of the high expenditure by our

government of some $700 million, to pursue that kind of question in a

more active manner than they did?

HON. MR. ROGERS: If the matter needs pursuing in a more

active manner, that's up to the company. It's not up to the officials

of the Ministry of Mines. There are untold numbers of prospectors,

about 100,000 people, looking in this province for mining operations.

There is a whole host of mines operating in the province. If they ask

us for some information, we're prepared to give them that technical

information. We are not in the business of advising them on how to run

their business. They have very competent and technical people working

for them. Maybe we'll let your House Leader have a....

MR. HOWARD: What do you care?

HON. MR. ROGERS: I do care. I don't think you have ever cared.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the bell terminates what should

have been question period. The Chair, hon. members, is bound to the

rules that the House provides for it. The rules clearly provide for

brief and precise questions and answers, without argument or opinion. I

would once again commend that to the members.

Orders of the Day

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

On the amendment.

MR. SKELLY: I understand I only have a few minutes left to

go. I've dealt with most of the speech this morning in any case, but I

can't help commenting on the debate that took place in question period

— or in what passed for question period, to use the Speaker's precise

words.

The debate goes something like this, and I suppose it's

characteristic of the debate that takes place in the House at all

times, that if private industry wants to put a hole wherever they want,

whether there's coal there or not, that's not the job of the government

to decide. We're just here to give advice. On the other hand, if the

government spends $700 million to provide a railroad and a townsite and

hydro lines and infrastructure to the wrong hole, then surely there

must be some government responsibility there, Mr. Speaker, for deciding

if the hole is in the right place.

It's very interesting to me that the minister should say that the

hole goes wherever the private sector wants to put the hole. We spend

$700 million of the taxpayers' money, provided by the general public of

British Columbia, or at the credit of the general public of British

Columbia, and the hole goes wherever the private sector wants it. That

seems to be the approach that this government has taken. It's the

motorcycle-gang approach again.

As you recall, Mr. Speaker, prior to the lunch-break....

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: I have nothing against motorcycle gangs, provided

they don't practise medicine, and provided they don't practise

government. Mr. Speaker, this government seems to practise both

medicine and economics as if it were a motorcycle gang, or else advised

by a motorcycle gang.

[2:30]

In any case, before the lunch-break I was talking about the state of

the B.C. economy. It appeared to me that the state could be comparable

to a victim that had been run over in the street, beat up by a

motorcycle gang and then left lying in the middle of the road bleeding

and unconscious with broken bones. I asked some of the doctors opposite

how they would treat the economy of the province if they found it in

that state, lying in the street. Perhaps the Provincial Secretary (Hon.

Mr. Chabot) has some ideas. The first thing you do is you remove people

like the Provincial Secretary, Mr. Speaker, who have caused most of the

damage. But since we can't do that until the next election, I think we

have to deal with those vital problems that have to be corrected right

away in order to get the economy back to health again.

AN HON. MEMBER: ...'72, '75, '79, '83....

MR. SKELLY: I wonder if the whole gang can count like that.

Mr. Speaker, I think the health professionals on our side agree that

the first thing you do is stem the bleeding. You stop the bleeding from

all the welfare budgets and all the unemployment insurance payments.

You stop the bleeding by getting people back to work. That's the way

you deal with that vital symptom. Unemployment is a vital symptom:

250,000 people unemployed, 250,000 people on welfare. The idea is to

get those people back to work. Get them into productive jobs again so

they are paying taxes again. Those taxes will go into provincial

revenue, and the economy will begin to restore to health.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.)

You might say: has it ever been tried? It has been tried. I'd like

to give you the example of Australia. That's where this

[ Page 5384 ]

program was tried. Australia, you understand, has a

Labour government.

MR. REID: But not for long.

MR. SKELLY: They just had an election, and they were

re-elected. But he wouldn't know that, Mr. Speaker.

However, before the Labour government took over in Australia they

were mired in the worst recession they'd experienced in 50 years. They

are now the fastest-growing economy in the western world, measured by

the OECD. When the Bob Hawke government came to office in Australia,

they established an employment goal of half a million new jobs in the

first three years. In the first year alone, they created 230,000 jobs,

both in the public sector and in the private sector. Of course the

Labour government in Australia doesn't draw a great distinction between

the success of the public sector and the success of the private sector.

If they don't work together, if they don't cooperate, if they don't

consult with each other, then neither is going to succeed.

As I pointed out, in the first year they created 230,000 new jobs in

Australia. By June of this year they expect to have created 400,000 new

jobs. Again, let me remind you, Mr. Speaker, that those are public

sector jobs and private sector jobs. They expect by the end of their

three-year goal to have reached or exceeded 500,000 jobs.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: Okay, let's talk about Manitoba: the lowest

unemployment rate in Canada. But the last time I was back in Winnipeg,

a few weeks ago, Howard Pawley was saying: "Can you tell those people

from British Columbia to stay home. We're having to create work for

them back here in Manitoba." For the first time in many years people

are beginning to return to Manitoba.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Does the Leader of the Opposition wish to be

recognized as the designated speaker?

MR. SKELLY: From the sounds of it he does, right?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please proceed.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, the same is true of Manitoba.

They've oriented themselves toward creating employment and solving the

immediate problem of unemployment, toward addressing the major symptom

of economic malaise — that is, to address the problem of unemployment.

But let me get back to Australia. At the same time that the Bob

Hawke government has created these 400,000 to 500,000 new jobs, he's

managed to increase benefits to the unemployed, he's managed to

increase old age pensions, he's managed to increase family allowances —

and we know the debate around family allowances in Canada these days —

and he's managed to increase welfare payments.

MR. REID: How much do they sell their coal for?

MR. SKELLY: They sell a lot more coal than you do, my friend.

And when they carbon-date it, they don't roll back the results.

They have raised all of those social benefits to people in Australia

at the same time that they've increased employment and reduced the

deficit in that country by $1.2 billion annually. What I'm attempting

to convey to the government today is that if the economy is in bad

shape and there are some symptoms that can be perceived immediately as

being a problem, and those symptoms are unemployment and welfare, then

the way a competent physician, a competent economist and a competent

government would deal with the problem is to address that symptom

first. They would put those people back to work, get them producing

again, get them paying taxes again, get them off the non-productive

unemployment and welfare rolls, and get those people working again.

That's precisely what we're suggesting.

But that's not the only thing we're suggesting. We've been

suggesting all along a three-pronged approach to this problem. The

second thing we've been proposing is that we deal with reviving the

body — the economy — and getting it breathing again. In order to do

that we do have to deal with the problem of incomes. People who are out

of work have insufficient income from unemployment insurance and

welfare; they don't have sufficient disposable income. Those people who

are working at fairly low wage levels in the economy, working hard but

not getting very much money, are also suffering.

The government has taken the step of providing an income tax credit

to help small business employ new people. I've talked to many small

business people in the last little while, and they say: "Well, thanks

for the credit, but what's the point of us hiring new people if we

don't have any customers with coins jingling in their pockets?" Small

business is based on people with disposable income. Small business is

based on customers out there — ordinary British Columbians, ordinary

Canadians like you and me, Mr. Speaker — who are able to go into their

stores or places of business with disposable income in our jeans so

that we can buy the goods and services they provide. All the tax

credits in the world won't encourage them to hire another employee if

there's no one there to do business with them. It's as simple as that.

I'm not saying that we should do away with that tax credit. I think

it's a good idea; in fact, our party proposed it. When the tax

commission from the Ministry of Finance came around and visited the

various communities in British Columbia, our member for Okanagan North

(Mr. MacWilliam), who at that time was an aspiring candidate for public

office, presented a brief to them. One of the things he suggested was

that the government should provide a tax credit, which would reduce the

unfair differential of overhead costs of employment that small business

experiences. But we understood that that would not be of any assistance

to small business unless there was a general revitalization of the

economy and the disposable income of our citizens was increased, so

that they could go out with money in their jeans, be customers to small

business, and buy the goods and services that small business provides.

There are ways of making the financial situation of ordinary British

Columbians much better than it is, and they are probably less costly

than the means that have been adopted by the government in its current

budget. They are probably methods which would have a much more

beneficial, immediate and direct impact on the economy; in other words,

they could get the economy revitalized and breathing right away rather

than waiting two and three years down the line, as this budget proposes.

[ Page 5385 ]

There are a number of ways. One of the ways is that the government

could reduce energy costs on individual citizens in the province with

the addition of water taxes, increased hydro and energy rates that are

indexed to the cost of living, people in this province are paying very

high energy costs, especially people on Vancouver Island and in the

non-gas service areas of the province.

The government could take steps immediately. With the tremendous

generation capacity surplus, transmission capacity surplus and energy

surplus that it has, it could wheel that energy into those areas that

require it — areas that pay a great deal for energy. It could sell

energy at a much lower rate than it's currently doing. It could improve

the disposable income of people on Vancouver Island, in areas like

Revelstoke and Shuswap and Nakusp, and in all those areas on the west

coast of Vancouver Island and on the mainland coast of British Columbia

that will never be served by natural gas even if the federal government

decides to pump in $558 million to make the project viable.

So that's one thing that the government could do to increase the

disposable income of our citizens so they would have money in their

jeans to support small business and encourage small business to create

employment to respond to that demand.

There are other things it could do, like reinstating the personal

tax credit — the provincial tax credit — that was of benefit to low

income and medium income citizens in the province and that they took

away just a very few years ago. That also would increase the disposable

income of our citizens and give them the money to go out to small

business in British Columbia in every region of the province to buy

goods and services produced by local entrepreneurs.

We believe in a legitimate mix between large corporations and small

corporations, small businesses, large businesses and varieties of

ownership as well — public, private, cooperative. We believe in all of

those kinds of things, and we believe that if each sector is healthy

then the other sectors can feed on that health and grow and prosper.

The way to do that is to provide additional disposable income to the

citizens of our province so they can go out in the free marketplace and

demand those goods and services that small businesses will be willing

to produce in response to that demand. There are many ways of doing

that. I've suggested some: lower energy rates, lower bus fares, lower

ferry fares, lower hydro rates. Lower the rates so that the disposable

incomes of our citizens can increase.

As the Fraser Institute points out, Mr. Speaker, British Columbians

are the most taxed provincial citizens in Canada, after the citizens of

Quebec. We pay more tax — and we pay that tax longer each year — than

citizens of any other province but Quebec. We have to start rolling

back that tax so that our citizens will have a little more disposable

income to encourage our small businesses in this province.

The member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) says that that's only going

to encourage those small businesses to go to suppliers or wholesalers

who will then go to manufacturers outside the province, who will

provide those goods and services so that we end up importing more. It's

a very simplistic view of the world. It's a very simplistic

understanding of the local economy. There's always a move.... It's part

of the enterprise and initiative of the small business community in

British Columbia, Mr. Speaker, that when they see goods being imported

from outside the province that could be manufactured inside the

province, a process takes place which economists call import

substitution. Those brilliant business people who can see that there's

a profit to be made by manufacturing those goods inside British

Columbia are inspired to produce those goods in British Columbia and to

eliminate the foreign producer. In that way our economy diversifies and

grows and prospers. That's the way economies work. Even if the member

for Prince Rupert doesn't understand that, that's the way economies do

grow and mature. I think we should encourage that kind of thing. But

the point where you encourage it is not at the supply end; it is on the

demand side. That's what small business people in this province want.

They don't want government handouts. They want ordinary British

Columbians, with money jingling in their pockets, who can be customers

for those small businesses.

[2:45]

I pointed out earlier, Mr. Speaker — and I won't go over this ground

again — that one of the ways to improve the local economy and to

stimulate demand in the local economy is to restore education, because

education spins off 0.7 jobs for every salary you pay in the education

system.

Health care is the same way. I thought I would discuss here a

problem that's taking place in my constituency. A few minutes ago the

Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) was in the House. I'd like to

just cover this problem, because it is important to constituents in

Alberni. Here is an example. Our hospital in Alberni in the last year

ran a deficit of, I understand, somewhere in the neighbourhood of

$400,000. I'd like to say that it's a hospital that is very strongly

supported by everyone in the community of Port Alberni. They appreciate

the service they get from that hospital, and they appreciate the

efficiency of the operation of that hospital. Unfortunately, even

though the hospital has cut its operations to the bone — and there are

some complaints building up about that now — they ran a $400,000

deficit last year.

The government hasn't indicated whether they're willing to shoulder

that deficit. As a result, our hospital is having trouble finding out

from the government if they have to pay that deficit themselves out of

next year's budget or if they have to lay people off. They've examined

their programs, I understand, and it looks like we may have to lose 14

or 15 people from a very small hospital in Port Alberni — a hospital

that's been losing staff every single year since the Social Credit

government took office in 1975. We have fewer employees in that

hospital now than we had in 1975, and it looks like we may lose 14 or

15 more. Each one of those employees has a spinoff impact in the

community of 0.7 people. So we may lose additional people in the

private sector as a result of that hospital having to lay off staff.

Mr. Speaker, I would urge the Minister of Health to take a look at

the situation at West Coast General Hospital in Port Alberni. In a

community like Port Alberni, which has lost over 3,000 people from its

major industry, where there are over 3,000 people on unemployment

insurance in a community of 19,000 people, it's almost impossible to

sustain that kind of unemployment. I would urge the minister to forgive

the deficit at West Coast General Hospital for this year, and to allow

them to proceed to provide a quality health service during the coming

year without any further layoffs, which would impair the whole

community in Alberni.

What I am saying is that we have to get people back to work. We have

to make sure that those people have sufficient disposable income that

they can stimulate demand for goods

[ Page 5386 ]

and services and the provision of goods and

services in their communities.

The last problem I want to deal with is how you deal with a sick

economy. You develop some long-term program to restore it to health. In

doing that, I think you have to address some of these supply-side

issues: helping to reduce some of the costs that are imposed on

business, so that they can be much more competitive; helping to reduce

the energy costs — we think that's a laudable move; helping to reduce

the tax costs and make them more realistic — provided other provincial

responsibilities don't suffer in the process. That too is a laudable

move. With those provisos, we would support those types of long-term

programs to improve the health of the economy.

But we cannot develop a long-term strategy in this province unless

we consult the people in industry, in labour, on both sides of this

House, in every region of the province — among all groups in the

province. Otherwise we will develop no credible strategy. It cannot be

done in the back rooms of government offices. It cannot be done in the

smoky rooms of cabinet. It has to be done out there in British

Columbia, out there in the regions. That's how it happened before.

This budget represents a line of demarcation, as one of the speakers

pointed out today. The thing this budget really marks is the fact that

we've come to the end of the blueprint that was originally developed in

the late 1940s. That blueprint, as I pointed out before, was put

together by the Postwar Rehabilitation Council. We have discussed that

before in this Legislature, Mr. Speaker. The government of the day back

in 1942 put together this economic rehabilitation council, and it was

made up of people from all political parties: Liberals, Conservatives,

including Conservatives who were about to become Social Crediters —

W.A.C. Bennett served on that — and CCFers who were in the House at the

time. Harold Winch, Dorothy Steeves and, I think, Colin Cameron from

Vancouver Island served on that committee. It was an all-party

committee. The government of the day respected the opposition in the

Legislature of British Columbia. It respected the views of the

opposition, and it knew how to solicit positive information from the

opposition of the day by getting them working together in a

problem-solving situation.

That rehabilitation council travelled all over this province, to

every community and every region. It talked to every economic interest

group and every industry. Its report included discussions of

agriculture, forestry, railway and highway infrastructure and

education. I've mentioned this to the Premier before — quotes from his

own father. All of these things were dealt with in the report of the

Postwar Rehabilitation Council, and as I pointed out, that document

became the blueprint for the economy of this province all through the

20 great years, right up through the 1970s.

What we've seen in the last little while, with the wallowing of this

government's economic program, with the lurching from one megaproject

to the next, with its failure to define a vision of an economic future

for British Columbia and the uncertainty that results from that, is the

end of that blueprint and the Premier's failure to develop a new one.

That's why we say that for the long-term health of the economy in

British Columbia, after you've dealt with the problem of unemployment,

after you've dealt with the problem of poverty and welfare, after

you've got the economy back on its feet, then you start dealing with

the long-term concerns. You can only do that by consulting with all of

the people in British Columbia.

That's why we on this side of the House have made that positive

suggestion to put together a council, an all-party committee on

economic reconstruction, a committee that would travel the length and

breadth of this province and consult with every affected group. It

would talk to every community, every region, every school board, every

industry, to find out what their future needs, requirements and

aspirations are, and to put their information together in a

comprehensive blueprint that can carry this province through the next

30 years. That's a desperate necessity right now. This budget has no

time horizon beyond three years from now. Nobody in this province can

look at this budget and believe with any certainty whatsoever that they

will have a job or that their children will have a job beyond that

three-year horizon, because this budget becomes void at that point,

vacant. It makes no statement about what is going to happen in this

province beyond the end of Expo and the end of the tax provisions that

are provided for in this budget.

Mr. Speaker, we desperately need a government that has that kind of

vision of the future of British Columbia, a government that's willing

to at least put that kind of vision of the future together so that the

people of the province of British Columbia can have some certainty

about the future, some stability of policy, stability of labour

relations and continuity of educational programs. It's absolutely

necessary that people in British Columbia have that so that we can

carry on and become a successful province again, so that we can be a

have province again, so that British Columbians can stand up proudly,

shoulder to shoulder with other Canadians, and say: "We're proud of the

contribution that we make to the national economy." British Columbians

can't say that right now.

I support this amendment because the budget neglects a number of

things. It neglects a provision for creating more employment in the

province, for creating adequate employment in the province. It doesn't

provide for methods to stop the bleeding of this economy, to stop the

increase in the public debt and the runaway deficits. It doesn't have

any provision whatsoever to do those kinds of things into the future.

It doesn't have any provision to restore the quality of our government

services, education and other services to people in this province. I

have to vote in favour of this amendment, Mr. Speaker, because the

budget does not deal with those things. The people of the province of

British Columbia are demanding that we be here and that we deal with

those things.

HON. A. FRASER: I have had some things to say during the old

session and at the start of the new one, but mostly regarding

legislation, on which you're rather confined. I guess you're really

confined in discussing this motion as well, but not too badly. I want

to say, in case I forget, that I'm not in favour of the motion.

I might also say that I'm highly honoured to follow the new Leader

of the Opposition — I now want to hand out some bouquets. First of all,

as I said, I haven't had the opportunity, and I want to congratulate

the new Leader of the Opposition on his being elected last June. You

fooled them all, and I congratulate you very much for that. I also want

to say that I give you a lot of credit for bringing a different

atmosphere to this place. I say that sincerely. You cleared up a big

problem that this Legislature had by assuming the job you have.

I'd like to congratulate some new ministers, starting with the

Minister of International Trade — Skies [laughter] — and Investment

(Hon. Mr. Phillips), my great colleague and

[ Page 5387 ]

friend. I would like to congratulate the new

Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr.

McClelland), and, of course, new colleagues in the cabinet, the

Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Pelton) and the Minister of Labour

(Hon. Mr. Segarty).

[3:00]

MR. NICOLSON: Parliamentary secretaries.

HON. A. FRASER: Oh, I'm coming to them. I also wish them

well, my old and new colleagues in cabinet. I always get a kick when

MLAs come to the cabinet. Before that they think they worked right down

to the quick of their fingernails. About two weeks after they've been

in the cabinet they find out really what it's all about and how much

work you really have to put in. So it's always interesting to see the

new blood and the new life.

Back to the new Leader of the Opposition. I'm very disappointed: he

took off so fast. I would give him a little bit of advice. The people

of British Columbia don't really want to hear about Manitoba, Sweden or

Australia. They want to hear from him how we solve the problems we have

here. We have a lot of people out of work, and all the members of this

House should be concerned about that.

Back to the parliamentary secretaries. I want to congratulate them

all, and I look forward to getting lots of work and mileage out of

them. I'm particularly happy that the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) is

going to help me. I look forward to working with him.

I don't want to miss all the thank-you's here. I also want to

congratulate the — I don't know how you refer to him, really — MLA from

Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) on leaving the NDP and forming a new party

called the United Party. I thought one of the best shots taken in this

session so far was what the first member for Vancouver East (Mr.

Macdonald) thought of the new United Party. He said he wished them

well, and as long as nobody joined it he was sure they'd stay united. I

feel the same way: I'm pretty sure they will stay united. I think he's

got his membership up to its maximum right now.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

Another thing has happened since I have been able to get a place to

speak in the House. We're all Canadians, and we have a new national

government elected on September 4, and we should be thankful for that.

I would just say that Canadians wanted a change and they sure got one.

Dealing with our province, we have 28 MPS, 19 of them on the

government benches and nine not on the government benches. We should —

our Premier has said this — be informing them all the time about what's

going on in British Columbia so they can help get our province

recognized in a national government. In my opinion, we have a little

better chance of being acknowledged as a province and part of Canada in

the new government than we had in the old, for the simple political

reason that we have members in the national government to take our

message to them. I might say that, as a minister of this government,

I've been to Ottawa and have met with the PC caucus, and so have a lot

of our other ministers. We certainly extend that we're trying to

cooperate with them, and they're trying to cooperate with us. That's a

way better attitude than we've had and got used to.

Something that I don't hear very often in this House when I'm

throwing compliments around is our Premier and leader of our province.

I very rarely hear bouquets sent out about him, but I want to tell you

this, Mr. Speaker: they're well deserved. No man or woman works harder

than our Premier to better the lot of all British Columbians. To lead a

government through these difficult times is no easy task.

MR. NICOLSON: He led us into them.

HON. A. FRASER: No, that is not correct. This is a world

situation, we're all in it and we all have to get out of it. But our

Premier spares no time. He's actually a workaholic: he works all the

time, from daylight to dark. He travels, he communicates. I heard the

Leader of the Opposition say that we've got to communicate. Well, our

Premier will communicate anytime, anywhere, and he's busy doing that

all the time.

As far as his being the leader of our government is concerned, when

you hear individual ministers getting hammered, that's a government

policy, and that policy was discussed by all the government members; a

consensus was reached that it would be government policy. I don't think

the general public understands that. Our Premier is a constant attender

of caucus and of cabinet. He never misses, if at all possible, and I

think we're very fortunate to have this great Canadian leading our

province at this difficult time.

When the next cabinet shuffle comes along, I hope the Premier will

remember this little talk and what I said.

I would now like to send out compliments to some other colleagues

that I have high regard for, and I'll start with the Minister of

Finance, again a dedicated person who works hard. He has a really

difficult job when revenues keep declining and expenditures keep

climbing. He's also a man of his word. Last year the Minister of

Finance toured the whole province and listened to citizens on what

could be done to spur economic renewal. He carried out as much as he

possibly could in the budget that he delivered here on March 14, and

believe me, that's a lot of hard work. That started last September and

culminated in the budget. I want to pay him a compliment for his

dedication and hard work — and also his staff, of course.

I will have a few things to say about the news media, but first I

want to say that the Financial Post feels the same way about

our Minister of Finance and have said so in one of their leading

editorials, which is post-dated March 23. I'll just read a few excerpts

from that editorial:

"British Columbia Finance Minister Hugh Curtis,

whatever one may think of his earlier budgets, has the priorities right

in the one he read last week. 'Unemployment in British Columbia is

recognized as our major problem,' he said. That was not an admission to

be found in earlier budgets when restraint was the order, not jobs.

Restraint has done its job — the unemployed would say it has done it

too well — and Curtis now has a much more appropriate focus: 'to

accelerate the growth in the number of permanent jobs."'

I would think that's an independent view of the budget from people

in other parts of Canada, and I was happy to see that.

Regarding the budget itself, Mr. Speaker, the citizens don't

understand it, and it's difficult for us. The budget is $9 billion —

not million, billion — in expenditures and $8 billion in revenues, and

the government has actually budgeted for an $890 million, I think it

is, deficit. We should all be concerned about that. I am amazed when I

hear the opposition hollering for more money for this, more money

[ Page 5388 ]

for that, but they never tell us where the money is

coming from. Everybody wants money but you've got to decide where

you're going to get it from. These are things that we have to be

concerned about.

The other emphasis in the budget is to try and give tax relief to

small and large businesses. Of course, new machinery and equipment is

immediately taken off the tax rolls, and I emphasize new. Certainly

this should give a better investment climate if the tax that's on now

is phased out over a period of time. Basically, the philosophy of the

government is to create an atmosphere so that the private sector in the

greater part will create the jobs that our citizens so badly need.

I don't think it's pointed out often enough that the priorities of

our government are the social services. Sixty-five cents of every

dollar of that $9 billion budget goes to four ministries of government;

the rest have to climb around for the balance. The four ministries are

Attorney-General, Health, Education and Human Resources. In the case of

the Attorney-General, I think that budget is up slightly; in Education

it's maybe up a little. Health is up slightly, and Human Resources is

up. We shouldn't lose sight of the fact that of every dollar the

taxpayer sends us, 65 cents goes out to these four ministries — what we

like to refer to as the social service ministries.

MR. LAUK: With so many people unemployed, Alex, no wonder

your welfare rates are up, for goodness' sake.

HON. A. FRASER: At least in the budget — if you'd bothered to

read it, and I'm sure you haven't — we're trying to create jobs for the

unfortunate people who are unemployed.

Another remark I have to make here.... Presently it makes good press

and good news in question period to go after my colleagues and friends

the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) and the Minister of

Universities (Hon. Mr. McGeer). I want to remind everyone listening

that what they're doing is a job for all the people of B.C., to carry

out government policy, not their policy. I see the press say "Heinrich

this" and "Heinrich that." It's government policy. It's the same with

the universities. Believe me, I feel very sorry for some of the

professors. But they're going on to better fields, and they left a

fairly paid job. I have a hard time when I go to my riding of Cariboo,

where today the loggers are working in seven feet of snow to make

$25,000 gross a year. I have a hard time convincing them that a

university professor quit when his salary was $120,000. They'd take a

run at me with a logging truck, I'll tell you. And they work from 3

o'clock in the morning until 7 o'clock at night to earn their money.

Mr. Speaker, we're living in such a negative society, it seems. We

always talk about unemployment and the unemployed people — and we

should talk about that — but why talk 100 percent? In British Columbia

today approximately 85 percent of our citizens are employed, and 15

percent unfortunately are not. But we never talk about the ones who are

employed. I think we should give a hand to them once in a while and

thank them very much for their labours.

[3:15]

Just a bit on my own riding. The Cariboo riding is large and

extensive. I guess that at least 50 percent of the economy is forestry,

and we have a big beef production segment. I would say that most of the

forestry people work around the clock all winter. They had a successful

winter. They didn't

belly-ache; they went out to work: they logged, they sawed and they

shipped lumber, and, thank you very much, they were quite busy. I'm not

saying there's no unemployment in the Cariboo, but, believe me, when I

read the stories that are written about the coast industry, I'm proud

of the interior forest operators. The press is really closer to the

coast than they are to the interior, and they never cover it. But they

should go up there and hear some success stories of people working all

the time and making money as well.

But we have a few problems with forestry — and I'm glad the Minister

of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) is here. We hear all this bunkum and so

on in the press, and we certainly have to have more reforestation. But

the biggest problem in forestry in the interior is the beetle

infestation. It's a bigger problem than reforestation, and our

operators are doing their best about it. The only thing I would like to

say to the Minister of Forests is that the bugs are on the move,

they're eating the forests up — millions of acres — and I wish the red

tape could be cut to put this bug-infested timber up to bidder so

they'll get in there, log it, and get it out of there. That's what they

want to do. Sure, there's some of it going on, but I'm saying that it

has to be expedited, because if we don't catch the timber infested by

the pine beetle within the next 12 months we might as well forget it;

it will be useless in 12 months' time. In other words, a lot of speed

is required.

I want to touch briefly on beef production. As you know, in the

Cariboo they're famous for their stampedes, their cattle ranches and

so. I would remind the Legislature, Mr. Speaker, that they ship 50,000

head of beef cattle to market every fall. They're the biggest

bull-shippers in western Canada, and they're quite proud of it. Right

now there are small problems. We have wolves eating cattle. We don't

need any Paul Watsons up there, I'll tell you. I was home the other

day, and one thing they said emphatically was that they needed

professional guidance, but they would be able to handle the wolves,

thank you very much. But it is a problem.

Back to Transportation and Highways. I want to tell you that we've

come through what I call an old-style winter. Snow-ploughing — I want

to pay tribute to the employees of the Highways ministry who snowplough

around the clock all winter long. As I said earlier, in some places

today we have ten feet of snow on the level. We haven't got daffodils

and green grass. I want to pay them the greatest respect. Regardless of

weather, time, holidays or whatever, they're out there to make our road

system safer for our citizens.

I'm glad that at least one member from the city of Victoria is in

the House. I'm reminded that between Christmas and New Year's, you

know, they had a real snowfall here in the great capital city of

Victoria. They'll probably say I quoted the wrong depth, but it was 10

to 11 inches, and it was pretty serious for the motorists, who all had

summer tires on that were worn out. But it was still a dangerous

situation. You know, in the little alcove of Victoria.... Believe me, I

was just amazed. The city of Victoria's mayor was asked what he was

going to do about the streets — and this city of Victoria mayor is

aspiring to be the Premier of British Columbia. You know what he said

when he had about three miles of snowploughing to do — not 30,000

miles, three miles? He said: "We haven't got any snowploughs." And he

says that our Premier's a poor manager.

I'm going to tell you, Mr. Speaker, it is a real joke. What he

didn't say was that he could have hired people that had lots of

equipment and made his streets safe, but he didn't do it.

And why didn't he do it? Because I've got to assume they've

[ Page 5389 ]

wasted tax money on things and forgotten about

their street system. It was dangerous, and it stayed that way for a

whole week. That's this excellent manager, who wants to be the Premier

of British Columbia. What a bunch of nonsense!

The other thing.... You know, they're always complaining from

Daffodil Island here — I call it Fantasy Island. Victoria has the

best-looked-after taxpayers in British Columbia, by any government,

regardless who they are. Do you know, Mr. Speaker, that they're

complaining all the time? They want more, more, more from government.

You know what they've got, Mr. Speaker? Something that any and every

community in Canada and British Columbia would love to have: they've

got 14,000 public servants here. What a payroll! A clean payroll, and

they complain and they want more. You know, they might be able to fool

some of the people some of the time, but not all of the people all of

the time. They've got it real good, I'll tell you.

Dealing with the Coquihalla.... I'll have to be careful dealing

with that, but between it and Annacis there are 4,000 people out there

at work today — not promises. And you people on the other side say we

need job creation now and for the future. Well, we have at least tried

that, as well as having tried to give the private sector incentives to

hire. But we're hiring as well. Those 4,000 people wouldn't be working

today if it wasn't for this government stepping up the construction of

these two badly needed facilities to give us a permanent and better

transportation system in our province so we can be more competitive in

the world market that we have to live from — our exports.

Interjection.

HON. A. FRASER: That was brought up the other day. I hadn't

noticed him in the House, but I think he's the member for Okanagan

North (Mr. MacWilliam). He tried to do a little twisting the other day.

He's a typical NDP twister, and he said, regarding the Coquihalla:

"What about the length of the Okanagan?" Well, I'll tell you what about

it. We're building the Coquihalla from Hope to Merritt, from Merritt to

Kamloops, from Merritt to Peachland, and from Peachland to Vernon. How

do you like those apples? That little fellow can take that home and

make a meaty event of it, you know.

Interjection.

HON. A. FRASER: Never mind. One thing I can assure that

second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) that had a sabbatical

for too long.... He's out of touch; I found that out. He had about

an eight-year sabbatical, I think, from the Legislature. But I'm going

to tell him that at least the citizens know that when we're government,

they're going to get it. They know that under the NDP, regarding roads,

all they got was potholes filled with snow.

I want to deal a little with the press. At least we have some of

them here. We've got real problems with the media. I think they're even

a bigger drawback to the province of British Columbia than the NDP are.

I have some suggestions to you, Mr. Speaker: take all this electrical

junk out of here, this Hansard stuff. Take it out. Throw it away. Be

sure, though, that those other people.... These fine people that

run it; I've nothing against them. Take it out and throw it away. When

I first came here none of this fancy Dan stuff was here. When a speech

was made by any MLA, regardless of party, those reporters up there were

in the press gallery where they belong. They don't have to be any more,

because of this fancy Dan stuff. What they do now is go and sleep; then

they promise themselves they'll wake up and read Hansard , but they

never do. They complain about the days we sit and everything, you know.

Why don't they tell the public that they sit and cover this

Legislature, this great capital of democracy, 15 minutes of every day —

question period. No wonder they don't know how to report to the

citizens of British Columbia — fifteen minutes coverage every day!

Interjection.

HON. A. FRASER: Yes, they get well paid too, that's right.

And then when we want to get a little increase, they're all down on us

like a ton of bricks.

Interjections.

HON. A. FRASER: Am I just about finished? I haven't even

started my speech. Can't I be appointed the designated speaker? Anyway,

what I wanted to say.... How long have I got?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Your time is up, Mr. Minister.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: With leave? Carry on, then, Mr. Minister.

HON. A. FRASER: The other day the member for Atlin attacked

one of the reporters. I think that was terrible. He attacked one of the

lady reporters for knitting. I just want to tell the member for Atlin:

you made a grave mistake. The lady was knitting, but, you know, Mr.

Member, she doesn't knit with her ears; she can listen. A lot of ladies

are pretty mad at you, because a lot of ladies like to knit and listen.

This particular reporter is a veteran. I just want to say to her: just

carry on the same way and don't pay any attention to the member for

Atlin. I want to give you a little secret about this reporter, Mr.

Speaker: she's a real good race track handicapper.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, Mr. Minister. There is wide

scope of debate allowed in the budget debate, but possibly....

HON. A. FRASER: Well, okay, I was dealing with the press,

because they're the ones giving the message about the budget, you see.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Could you direct your comments to the budget

and to the amendment to the main motion, please?

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I have another observation about

the media that I think is quite important, but....

Back to transportation systems. These people talk about northeast

coal, inferring to the Premier today that it was our fault that they

drilled in the wrong place. I want to tell you something, Mr. Speaker.

Through the northeast coal project we have a whole new transportation

system, from Tumbler Ridge out to Prince Rupert. We now have a second

world port in Prince Rupert, generated by northeast coal.

[ Page 5390 ]

[3:30]

In 1984 the BCR carried 55,000 carloads of coal and 150,000 carloads

of lumber. I don't think these people over there will ever understand,

but it diversifies what they have to haul. They ended up making a

profit of $40 million. What's wrong with that? What are you

bad-mouthing projects like northeast coal for? There are 3,500 people

gainfully employed in that community.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. LOCKSTEAD: You're throwing $700 million worth of

taxpayers' money down the wrong hole.

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, to that member, you were told

today what was put in there and how it's coming back, for the first

time ever. They won't believe all that stuff.

I want to get back to the press for a minute, though. The press

never work on the weekends, and I can't understand that. They're a

Monday-to-Friday bunch. Do you know what we have to listen to in

British Columbia? All weekend, because they're not working, we have to

listen to the war in Iran and Iraq. I don't see why we can't get some

B.C. news. These great managers of the press.... These editors

employ these hard-working reporters. I have nothing against these

reporters; they're fine people. But their bosses, they think they're so

smart and know everything. Why can't they stagger their reporters so

they cover the news seven days a week? We politicians all work

seven-day weeks. They can on a staggered basis as well.

There's one other thing about the press that I'd like to note, Mr.

Speaker, and then I'll get back to the essence of my talk. Do you know

that in this great province of British Columbia, on Saturday morning in

the largest city in our province, the city of Vancouver, you can't get

a Saturday morning paper published and produced in British Columbia,

but you can get one from Toronto. You can get one in Victoria, but you

can't in Vancouver. Can you believe that? At 6 o'clock in the morning

you can get the Globe and Mail in Vancouver, and you've got to

wait until almost noon to get the.... I forget the name of the paper

published and printed here — the Vancouver Sun , I think it is.

Now isn't that really something? The press serving the public of

British Columbia! You've got to get a paper from Toronto — and boy,

they give good B.C. news, I'm telling you. You really get up to date

when you read them.

I just say to the citizens of British Columbia, Mr. Speaker, that I

haven't much time for political holiness, I guess. Gossip-mongers! I

just say to the great public of British Columbia: consider the source.

Don't necessarily buy it all. Consider the source that it came from.

I want to close now and just say a bit about the press. We've got it

on the front page every day about the bankruptcies, but I don't see on

any pages in the paper how many new businesses started. I wonder why. I

call that Negative Nelly stuff. I'm going to tell you, our citizens

generally are pretty fed up with it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Fancy Dan and Negative Nelly.

HON. A. FRASER: That's right.

In closing, I hadn't mentioned, but I will, the provincial municipal

sharing problem — partnership. Our Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon.

Mr. Ritchie) is out there promoting that; I hear he's having a lot of

success, as I'm sure we will have, from our municipal people, to again

create pride and create jobs. The same thing with the Minister of

Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Rogers) ; he has

announced that we'll have cheaper electricity for inducing new business

to start.

I appreciate the time I've had, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the

audience. I just want to sit down and remind you all that I won't be

voting for this motion.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, I'm rising to support the amendment

put up by the official opposition, but before I do I would like to

comment on the minister who just took his seat. It's a little bit of a

difficult act to follow. I'm afraid I am going to have some doom and

gloom in my speech, because those are the facts that exist in British

Columbia today. But before I leave the minister, I couldn't help

thinking as I listened to him.... And he is a very charming,

folksy, affable person — and I say that with all sincerity; I have

known him many years — and we all appreciate that. At the same time, I

could not help thinking as I listened to the folksy little talk that we

were just given about how everything is wonderful in B.C., so let's all

be happy: where have I heard that kind of thing before? I was reminded

of someone who happens now to hold the position of the presidency of

the United States, President Reagan, who is known to be very charming

personally and very folksy. But he has presided over some of the most

dangerous policies we've ever seen in the history of this world.

The minister who took his seat — and I regret I have to say this, to

some degree, but I feel very strongly about it — has also presided over

what I consider to be one of the most dangerous policies brought in by

his government. That is the policy of his.... And this refers to

the budget and to my particular area, about which I'm going to go into

detail in a few minutes, the whole area of hospitals. That minister

presided over the removal of the testing stations for cars in the

province of British Columbia. That minister presided over a policy

which will increase accidents and deaths in the province of British

Columbia. That is the kind of dangerous policy which has come from that

minister. In debate we have to put aside our own personal likes or —

hopefully not — dislikes of any members in this House, because by and

large we have gotten to know each other, but, Mr. Speaker, I have to

put that aside and say to that minister who just took his seat: you

must bring back car testing before the accidents in B.C. are increased

far more than they ever should be.

I know that the minister will be able to trot out statistics during

his estimates which perhaps may show not a great increase in accidents

and deaths, maybe, since he removed the testing station. You know the

only reason, Mr. Speaker, is that because of the Socred restraint

policy there are fewer and fewer cars on the roads of British Columbia.

That is the only thing that saved you at this time. But as soon as the

economy improves — hopefully soon, but we don't have much hope from

looking at this budget — then we will have more cars on the highway.

And I can assure you that his dangerous policy of removing car testing

is going to bring about some very serious accidents and deaths in the

province of British Columbia.

So I get a little tired of the folksy, happy little "let's not be

doom-and-gloom people" when I think of some of the policies that have

been brought in by this Social Credit government. We are not only

talking about the doom and gloom; we are also going to present what we

consider positive policies.

[ Page 5391 ]

The particular area that I've been given as debate leader in health

is hospitals, and I will discuss that today. Following me, the member

for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) will talk about his area of health

dealing with medicare and medical premiums; he's also going to deal

with a very specific issue which I will not divulge now to keep

everyone in suspense. It's something that I'm sure will be worth while

for people to stay and listen to. Tomorrow we will hear on health

matters from the member for Burnaby-Edmonds, who will be dealing with

community health and prevention aspects of the health-care system. But I

want to get down to some of the facts of what happened with the Socred

restraint policy in reference to health.

Mr. Speaker, we have a major crisis in health care in the province

of B.C., for two reasons: one, the Socred restraint program; and two,

the fact that the whole health care system in British Columbia needs to

be restructured. We have ideas on how that could be done which will be

brought up throughout this session and today.

Let's look at what has happened to the hospitals of British Columbia

under the so-called.... They call it a restraint program. As

somebody said, it seems some of this was done strictly on an

ideological basis to appear tough; that's what we understand. Let's see

just what has happened.

In talking to people out in the health field, there's unanimous

concern that in 1985 we're going to see a repeat of 1982, when the

Socreds first brought in their massive cutbacks. Twelve hundred

hospital beds were closed in the province, and 3,000 full-time jobs were

lost. The important thing to remember is that none of the hospitals in

British Columbia has been able to bring back to any degree the

standards they had in 1982. At the same time, because of the economy,

the restraints placed upon the citizens of British Columbia and the

increasing number of people who are out of work — our leader went

through some of those statistics — we have more and more stress on our

citizens, more and more illness. Yet the government that brought in the

policies which created much of this stress is at the same time closing

beds in hospitals and cutting back on services to them.

At this particular time, I regret to say, the need for psychiatric

services in the province has increased tremendously. I think we all

know that in families where people are out of work we are getting an

increase in cases of child abuse, family violence, general nervous and

complete breakdowns; yet Social Credit is cutting down beds. Victoria's

Royal Jubilee Hospital, for example, said that they had an increase of

35 percent in their hospital unit cases for child sex abuse, yet the

nursing staff and beds to cope with this are all being cut.

It's a list of horror stories. We saw another story in this

morning's newspaper: "Hospital axes 85."

"Shaughnessy Hospital has taken a scalpel to the jobs

of 85 health-care workers.

"At the top of the casualty list is the Vancouver

hospital's kidney dialysis unit, which is being phased out as part of

an effort to make up a $400,000 budget deficit."

What fear is going to be struck in the hearts of people who have

families or relatives who need this? At the same time, right across the

province psychiatric beds are being closed right and left — not only in

the lower mainland but in many areas of the interior also.

We have word from the Vancouver General Hospital that their very

effective — and B.C.'s only — adolescent psychiatric unit will be

closed down for seven weeks in the summer to save money. Most of the

hospitals in British Columbia are under orders from the Minister of

Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) to get their deficits down. You can't run on

a deficit — that's his policy. But the policies of the Social Credit

government, as I pointed out earlier, are the ones that are causing

these hospitals to increase their deficits. The Minister of Health is

taking the same strategy and tactics as the Minister of Education (Hon.

Mr. Heinrich). He's sending tough, hard letters out to the hospital

boards in British Columbia, saying: "You have to do this, you have to

do that; you've just got to learn to operate. Times are tough." Times

are tough, yes, and the hospitals know it. I can assure you that they,

like the school boards of British Columbia, have been working

exceptionally hard to try to do what they can with what they've been

given. But every time they think they're going to get ahead, out come

letters telling them that they'd better smarten up, that they're going

to have different groups sent out to check on them.

[3:45]

Mr. Speaker, your own area of Prince George was in a very serious

situation. I know that you are aware of all the details of that: not

being able to handle people, hundreds of people waiting for elective

surgery, shortage of beds, staff, etc. It wasn't until that hit the

newspaper headlines, and until you as an MLA, the other MLA and others

had to finally get involved in it, that some action was taken. But why

did it have to reach such tragic proportions? I'm sure it did cause

tragedy for many people in that area. I understand there was some

alleviation. But there's never going to be a satisfactory situation

until a number of things are done. That is the area that I want to talk

about. But before I get on to some of our positive suggestions, I think

we have to get some of the areas of cutbacks and just what they mean on

the record.

Kelowna General Hospital, in the Premier's own riding, has been

ordered to chop $1 million from its budget. There are major cutbacks at

the Royal Columbian Hospital. I know that the member for New

Westminster (Mr. Cocke), who has the Royal Columbian in his riding and

is speaking next, will certainly go into detail on that. As I said

before, no hospitals have returned to the pre-1982 level. They say that

any more cutbacks will be made in the bones of what they were operating

on last year. Hundreds of hospital beds are still closed: Royal

Jubilee, Vancouver General, Burnaby — my own area — Campbell River,

Prince George, to name some.

MR. WILLIAMS: How many?

MRS. DAILLY: The total number of beds? They were reaching

over 2,000. I don't know what the present situation is. Some have been

able to bring some down, but I want to emphasize that it has not come

back to even what it was in 1982.

There are increases in the elective surgery waiting list. Prince

George tops it with 2,000 people. Can you imagine the trauma of sitting

out there, if you're going in for, say, a.... Well, that reminds

me; I actually had a man in my riding phone me and say he had been

diagnosed as having a brain tumour and was going to have to wait six

months to get in. I can't believe it. Of course, we checked. But that

was the situation at that time. Fortunately, I think, he was able to be

speeded up. But a lot of people don't think of going to MLAs.

[ Page 5392 ]

They don't realize.... And I don't think it's fair, anyway,

because there are thousands out there who have been waiting. To start

to use the pressure of one or two people for preferential treatment is

not fair. Yet MLAs are there to serve the people who come to them. Some

of the trauma that people go through, waiting for elective surgery, is

indescribable. And here are 2,000 waiting in Prince George. In Kelowna

there are 1,500 people waiting for elective surgery. In Kamloops the

waiting list has increased to six months. All the hospitals — the

majority of them, anyway — are experiencing overcrowding.

Hospitals are seeing an increase — and this is interesting — in

staff illness. There are higher stress levels due to fewer staff and

more work, and heavier pressure on existing staff. These are things

that we found out just in talking to some administrators and some staff

people. The WCB figures between 1978 and 1982 show an increase of 32

percent in the number of back-injury claims by health care workers.

On top of all that, I think one of the most ill-conceived and cruel

things done by the Social Credit government in health care has been the

move to increase the user fees. When the economy is down, to then, on

top of that, impose on people a weekly amount of money, which they are

asked for as soon as they turn up at the hospital now.... If

they're going to spend a week in the hospital, or even less, they're

asked to hand over so much money now. It has been increased by this

government almost twice a year. You know what's happening in the

hospitals? They're in trouble for having deficits. Yet they say people

are showing up who are without medicare premiums, without coverage,

because there are so many young unemployed out there who are not even

aware of the fact that they're not covered any more.

Many more people on UIC and welfare recipients are unable to pay the

money asked for a deposit. I know that no hospital will turn anyone

away, but I've said before that we're turning citizens again into two

classes of patients: those who have the money to come into the hospital

and those who don't. That's why medicare, hospitalization, the

But the Social Credit government seems determined to take us right back

to the way it was in pre-medicare days.

As for user fees being a deterrent, which I understand is the basic

reason the Social Credit government imposes them and keeps increasing

them, I would like to quote to you from research done by the Ontario

Economic Council, which found that user or deterrent fees neither deter

people from using health services nor reduce the costs of such

services. The study done was called "Controlling Health Care Costs by

Direct Charges to Patients: Snare or a Delusion?" They concluded that

user fees only put more money into provincial treasuries or into the

hands of doctors and insurance companies.

Well, Mr. Speaker, we have tried over and over again in this House

to convince the Social Credit government that they should definitely be

decreasing and finally working towards elimination of all user fees

today. But instead of accepting that and their responsibility to do

that, we find that this government is increasing them.

On top of that, they are going against the Canada Health Act. Mr.

Speaker, you are well aware that we debated this in the House last

year. Under the new Canada Health Act amendments, as you and most

members of the House are aware, any province that abridges the

believe that to date the province of British Columbia is paying out

over $2 million a month, or has been fined that by the federal

government, because they insist on maintaining user fees. So there is

money that should not be taken out of this province for that particular

reason. I believe that the Social Credit government is doing it either

from an ideological thing that everybody must keep paying, whether they

pay taxes or not, or because they actually believe it's a deterrent. I

just hope, Mr. Speaker, that somehow or other some of the members on

that side of the House will try to convince their cabinet and the

Minister of Health that these user fees are not a deterrent. What they

are doing is causing, again, a lot of concern and unhappiness for the

people who arrive at hospitals now and are beginning to feel like

second-class citizens.

It's many of these areas, Mr. Speaker, which are causing major

concern to the NDP I want to remind the House also that at the same

time that these user fees are being collected.... The Minister of

Health informed the House, of course, when the bill came in.... I

think it was the Minister of Finance who brought it in, the new Health

Maintenance Tax Act that is now bringing in over $160 million annually

out of the pockets of the taxpayers of British Columbia because we're

told by the Minister of Health that they simply are not getting enough

money from that awful federal government.

Mind you, they've been awfully quiet since the Liberals were

defeated, and we have a new federal government. It's funny, I really

haven't heard the Minister of Health complain about that awful Tory

government, and yet I understand that those moneys are being deducted

every month from the province of British Columbia by that new

government, which happens to be a Tory government. I think it will be

very interesting to find out what is going to result from that. Will

the honeymoon between the provincial and the federal party continue

when it gets really right down to money and money being taken away from

the coffers of the central treasury of the B.C. government?

Mr. Speaker, I am particularly concerned about the way the province

of British Columbia is really abusing the taxpayers when it comes to

increased health taxes, and yet at the same time is continuing to be

penalized. They're doing it on purpose, apparently, because of

ideological policies of their own.

What bothers us most, I suppose, is not only the restraint policies

and the terrible effects it's had on the province and the people of

British Columbia, but we're also concerned that the Ministry of Health

does not seem to have made any attempt to find ways of reducing health

costs. There are little closed-door meetings going on with the doctors.

I always find that very interesting, Mr. Speaker. All the people of

B.C. are responsible for the payment of the doctors, yet we are never

privy — none of us — to what goes on behind those closed doors. All we

are told is to sort of be nice little children: "Don't ask any

questions. We have arranged it and met with the doctors, and a new

situation has developed between us." But we're never clued in. It's

apparently not up to us to ask how this was arrived at. Is it to the

benefit of the people of British Columbia? That's the question. How do

we know? We don't know what goes on behind the closed doors.

Speaking of doctors, it leads me to the next point I want to bring

up about the whole area of restructuring our health system. I have not

seen any major attempt by the Social Credit government to look

seriously at ways of reducing the costs. The NDP believes that you have

to restructure the

[ Page 5393 ]

whole system if you're going to face what appears to us to be this

crisis in health care and in the cost of health care in British

Columbia.

[4:00]

We had hoped that the Ministry of Health would by now have been

examining alternatives. Some of the alternatives which the NDP would

like to see examined — and I know would examine and move on, I'm sure,

when they become government.... Number one, they would like to see

a far greater effort moved into prevention. We do not see that by this

government. By the time a person gets to hospital, the prevention

period is over, and it's the critical area. We have said that in the

area of alcoholism, the area of lifestyle, all the areas that could

prevent many people ending up as patients in the hospital....

We do not feel that this government has made a sincere attempt to

move in on this preventive area, particularly when we see that they

disbanded the Alcohol and Drug Commission. Can you imagine abandoning

that at a time, as I've said many times, when more and more people are

being driven to drink in this province? They have abandoned that. They

claim that some of the treatment centres are still available. But there

is no question about it, the heart of the government seems to be far

more interested in accepting the revenues from the distribution of

liquor, through the government, than it is in trying to cure and treat

the people who use alcohol.

There is absolutely no comparison between the millions and millions

of dollars which are taken in by the government through liquor taxes

and the sale of liquor, and the little, tiny bit that is spent on

prevention and treatment of the alcoholic. I consider that to be an

immoral act of government, frankly — that it does not see that it has a

grave and great responsibility to do something about the serious

effects of alcoholism. Most of the tragedies in homes today, as I dealt

with earlier, where we have deaths, accidents and cruelty, are

combinations of results of the Socred restraint program — because of

unemployment. But they are also usually made even worse, in many cases,

by the use of alcohol.

It is becoming increasingly known that this problem is becoming

greater every day. I know that the doctors.... I give the Medical

Association — the doctors of British Columbia — credit, because I know

they are very concerned about what they see as the results of

alcoholism. They want some very specific measures taken by this

government to do something about it.

At the same time, I would like to pay tribute to the doctors for

pushing for the child restraint law, which was first brought up by one

of our own members, I believe — or certainly pushed for by the member

for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) several years ago. There was another

area where our Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) sat back and

stood up.... In fact, he not only sat back; sometimes he stood up in

this House and said: "There's no way we're bringing in child

restraint." It wasn't until the doctors got into the act and pushed for

it that that minister finally changed his mind. That really doesn't say

much for a government's philosophy of care for children, when they have

to be pushed into doing something which is so beneficial to the

children of this province.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

The NDP is also very concerned, as I said, about prevention. We

think this government has to restructure their whole health care system

with a whole new emphasis on prevention. That means they have to change

their priorities. That means a lot more money has to go into prevention

than goes into some of the other things which this government considers

have priority over that. We've already talked about northeast coal and

increased highway construction in some areas, perhaps, where there

could be questions at this time, though not all.

I notice that my green light is on, and I have a lot more material.

I just want to say that the NDP also believes very strongly in the

development of community health clinics, where you can make use of the

nursing professionals and the ancillary health people along with

salaried doctors. I'm not saying you want to cover the whole province

at this time, but I say to the minister, at least give them

encouragement to see how they can work in comparison to the system we

have now. But that Minister of Health has cut back on them instead of

increasing them.

MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, I notice that we've finally emptied

the galleries, and the people in the House are staying away in droves,

but at least you're here, and that's all that's important.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: We'll bring them back.

MR. VEITCH: We'll bring them back.

I want to congratulate the Minister of Transportation and Highways

(Hon. A. Fraser) on his speech. I appreciate the down-to-earth manner

in which he gives his presentations in this House. I hope he stays here

for many, many years to come. He's one of those fellows who know where

the rubber hits the road, and he's always folksy and makes a lot of

common sense.

I'm also pleased to listen to the member for Burnaby North (Mrs.

Dailly). I hope she wouldn't mind if I said that I think she's a good

lady — a real good person — but I don't agree with her politically,

obviously. She spoke about President Reagan and said that if in some

way or other we would be emulating President Reagan we would be doing a

bad thing for society. I want to tell you that in my opinion, Mr.

Speaker, President Reagan is going to go down in history as one of the

best presidents the United States of America has ever had. He wrought

an economic miracle in that country, and he did it through one word

that a lot of other people don't seem to understand. That word was

confidence. He brought confidence back to America, and that's what we

need to do here in British Columbia and in Canada.

HON. MR. McGEER: Confidence and free enterprise.

MR. VEITCH: Confidence and free enterprise: they're like

different sides of a coin. The member for Burnaby North seemed to be

blaming the government for illness or bad weather or something, I

suggest in this province we ought to stop blaming each other and push

the positive button and get on with doing constructive things. That's

what's needed.

The only negative thing I'm going to say is that I reject this

amendment, and I think that's probably positive, in the final analysis.

Mr. Speaker, the last time I rose to speak, in the throne speech

debate, I was negligent in not complimenting the Leader of the

Opposition, who is out doing some other work right now. He has brought

a sense of direction to that caucus

[ Page 5394 ]

that was missing. I congratulate him on that and on what he has done

for them.

The member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) spoke just a while ago. I

think he's been a socialist far too long. He can't change his spots,

that fellow. He gets things all mixed up. He's the member I know who

has both feet firmly planted in the air. I'm just not sure where he's

going, in either direction.

What the socialists fail to realize — and I don't know how many

times we have to drive this home — is the difference between potential

and value. Marshall Fields, a great merchant in the United States, used

to sum it up this way: things very seldom break down from the mines out

to the factories or from the factories out to the distributor or from

the distributor out to the retailer. Where things break down is that

last three feet. It's the distance across the counter that makes the

difference; that's where selling is done or not done. That's why we

have to have people like the hon. member for South Peace River (Hon.

Mr. Phillips) going around selling British Columbia's products. You can

have all of that coal in the ground, all the trees in the forests and

all of that potential, but it's damn well worthless until you sell it

to someone — you take it somewhere. That's what it's all about.

MR. BLENCOE: Dig the right hole.

MR. VEITCH: You're digging your own hole, hon. member. You'll

see next time around. Just keep it up. Why don't you quit when you're

behind?

The Leader of the Opposition talked about a reduced tax base for the

educational budget, as a result of taking away the non-residential

property side of the thing and giving benefits on that. Again, what he

doesn't realize is the potential of new investment. We're talking about

new investment; it's money we haven't got yet. Those people who are

working in those new industries will be paying income tax; they'll be

putting money back into the coffers. That's the way the thing works,

and that's the economics we're practising here.

I don't know if you remember, Mr. Speaker, the story of the candle,

the little poem that says: "I bum my candle at both ends; It may not

last the night, But oh, my friends and oh, my foes, It makes a lovely

light." That's what it's all about. You just can't do those things.

Government aid and pure government aid, which they seem to be

propounding all the time, is like giving yourself a blood transfusion

from the left arm to the right and spilling two-thirds on the way over.

That's the process. I don't know how often we have to tell them.

What the government has done to the business community, to the

free-enterprisers, is that they've issued a challenge. I know that the

people in the business community are going to accept that challenge,

and we're going to be better off for it here in British Columbia.

MR. BLENCOE: You said that two years ago.

MR. VEITCH: And we'll say it again this year and again next

year, because it's true, hon. member.

It's my pleasure to rise in support of the budget speech and to

reject the amendment. This budget was put together with a maximum of

responsibility and responsiveness, common sense and foresight. It

provides the positive framework needed for the cooperative partnership

for the economic renewal now underway in British Columbia.

MR. COCKE: Where?

MR. VEITCH: Keep looking, hon. member. If you look past the

cynicism you'll see it happening. Don't kid yourself; it'll happen in

spite of the NDP.

This budget provides clear proof of the Social Credit government's

determination to meet the challenge of a rapidly evolving global

economy. We're in a new economy; things are never going to be the same

again. Our commitment extends, in full strength, to our province's

small business and to our people who are seeking the training necessary

to ensure them productive and meaningful jobs within a free society.

This budget means far more than numbers; it unfolds a vision of British

Columbia as a renewed partner in a vibrant world, and a competitor in

that world meeting all comers. That's what we're talking about. It

underlines our conviction that British Columbia's small businesses and

well-trained new professionals can creatively generate new economic

growth. It sends forth the strong message that this government is

working hard in partnership with business and labour to make sure

British Columbians are prepared for the new careers opening up, and

that there will be private companies there to hire them — real

permanent jobs.

The goal of our own enhanced and renewed economic strength can't be

achieved through shortcuts and short-term measures. All the make-work

projects and government intervention can never replace the basics of

incentive investment, productivity, efficiency, salesmanship and

profit. There's no escape from the real world — not for small business,

students or any of us. In this budget we discuss a vision of what hard

work and taking chances can achieve. It's the stuff that brings dreams

to reality.

In this budget the government has provided incentives for existing

businesses to grow and for new ones to stake a claim in the

marketplace. It has also reaffirmed its commitment to ensuring that all

interested British Columbians may acquire new skills and upgrade to the

existing training necessary to take full advantage of the increasing

demand for specially qualified individuals. The effect of the budget

and the government's efforts to renew the confidence of business and

students in themselves and in the future will appear gradually. As with

a tidal wave, a powerful economic stimulus travels undetected beneath

the waves until it hits the shore with the roar of new economic growth,

and that will happen in British Columbia very soon.

Look below the border. I spoke of President Reagan. The Reagan

legislation passed in the first days of 1980 significantly led to their

surge in growth in 1984. But his detractors didn't see that until 1984.

They were the doom-and-gloom boys.

[4:15]

1 would like to point out one measure in particular that will

stimulate economic growth in small business. That's the small business

venture capital tax credit, which is being introduced at an auspicious

time as our provincial economy stands poised to reassert itself in

growth and job opportunities. I've long supported this initiative;

indeed, I first began to do so in 1978 under the previous Minister of

Finance, who retired after years of long and capable service to our

province.

The initiative is both simple and innovative. The province will lend

its assistance in the formation of venture-capital companies through

providing tax credits to investors of up to 30 percent. These

venture-capital companies will then make

[ Page 5395 ]

investments in new and existing companies that are developing new

products and services in certain industries such as manufacturing and

processing, electronics, tourism and aquaculture. These recipients of

investment must employ under 75 workers, of which at least 75 percent

must work in the province of British Columbia. The goal is to create

new markets for British Columbians and not to add more competitors to

existing ones. The aim is to give free enterprisers and small business

people the opportunity to launch projects they might otherwise not be

able to do. The provincial government, through the Ministry of Industry

and Small Business Development, will also be helping to provide

participating companies with managerial and technical advice.

The venture capital tax credit system also provides a new mechanism

to increase the investment of British Columbians in enterprises in

their own province. While the tax credit system will provide incentives

for all investors, it will especially do so for first-time investors.

This has proven to be the case in Ontario, where they have operated a

substantially similar program for the past four and one-half years. A

recent study of the Ontario program revealed that approximately

one-third of the shareholders in the venture capital companies had

never previously invested. In that Ontario program, $30 million has

been generated for investment in small business, which, during the

existence of the program, provided 11,000 jobs. Given the strong

entrepreneurial attitudes and willingness to work of British

Columbians, I see no obstacle to this province doing better than

Ontario.

The small business venture tax credit system has already generated a

good deal of interest among the business community. For example, Cetec

Engineering of Burnaby is even now undertaking discussions with

potential investors. A Cetec engineer, Stephen Mitten, stated in the

Vancouver Sun on Friday, March [5: "There's an awful lot of

people out there just waiting for this kind of thing to happen, and the

really sharp ones will work that out very fast." Yes, Mr. Speaker, this

initiative is an example of good news in the making, good news for

British Columbia.

The budget also contains several other measures which will support

the development of new and creative companies and the strengthening of

existing ones. The small business employment tax credit will provide an

annual credit of up to $300 for each employee. This extends to both new

and existing companies. It will prove to be a real boost to companies

who are thinking about expansion to go ahead and make investments that

will provide the jobs that British Columbians want and deserve.

Another positive measure is the phasing out of property taxation on

new machinery and equipment being brought in over the next three years.

It provides the incentive for companies to upgrade their facilities and

thus also increase their demand for more highly skilled labour.

Significantly, Mr. Speaker, the upgrading of machinery and equipment

will also lead to fewer industrial accidents, as old and comparatively

more dangerous items are retired. Increased worker safety is a very

important benefit of technological improvement.

A related initiative is the exemption from the sales tax on the

purchase of certain types of machinery and equipment in target

industries such as aquaculture, manufacturing and publishing. Again,

the same benefits have increased demand for skilled labour, and better

safety conditions will result.

Mr. Speaker, I would particularly like to emphasize that the greater

demand for skilled and professional labour brought about by

technological advance will be amply met by the graduation from our

colleges and universities of well educated, well-trained men and women.

Indeed, ensuring that our province can produce the qualified personnel

we need is a major goal of this government. That commitment can best be

demonstrated by this government's support for education, even during

these past years when we all felt the effects of global recession and

British Columbia felt them very sharply.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like first of all to present a few statistics which

will correct some information presented to this House Monday by the

member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose). He's usually a well-researched

member; in this case, he was not. He asserted that this government had

cut funds to school services since 1982 by at least 25 percent,

counting inflation. Well, Mr. Speaker, that member has been clearly

misinformed — I'm sure by his research staff. In every category — the

total education budget, the public school budget, post-secondary

colleges and universities and school district grants — there have been

increases in the money spent, and that is in current dollars and in

real dollars, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, that member in addition failed to display a real

understanding of the purpose of vocational training and of the colleges

and post-secondary institutes in this province when he accused them of

having failed the generalists. The goal of our colleges and

post-secondary institutions is to provide specific training in the

skills and areas a student needs to move directly into a job. The

humanities and social sciences are amply available at our colleges and

post-secondary institutions, but as any student at Langara or BCIT or

PVI will tell you, they are not attending to get degrees in medieval

history. That's not why they're going there. Those students will tell

you that they're there to receive specific training, the training

necessary to succeed in their chosen vocation. Many of them are

returning at an older age to study, after many years out of the

educational system.

It is precisely that fact which makes the TRAC program which the

government introduced so well suited to our colleges and post-secondary

institutions. The TRAC, or training access, program provides for

goal-based, competency-based training and retraining for anyone over

the age of 16. It provides individuals with the opportunity to move as

quickly as possible to the training they need to succeed in existing

and new occupations. TRAC represents an innovative alternative to the

traditional lock-step education in which students advanced through a

set of curriculum regardless of whether they already knew the material

or whether the courses were pertinent to their occupational needs.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to report that there are over 3,400

students enrolled in the TRAC program at our colleges and institutes.

The program has proven a particular success at the College of New

Caledonia in Prince George. Not only have its graduates met with good

success and a good success rate in finding work, but the program itself

has been very innovative.

To better exemplify what a community college could do, a portion of

the core courses in the TRAC program are now being taught at the

Vanderhoof high school, and, as I predict, many of the industrial

courses in high schools quite properly should be upgraded and maybe

disappear with training access becoming the alternative. In this way

the student can learn to take best advantage of the program, and the

college can more accurately judge future participation in the program

as those students transfer to the main campus.

[ Page 5396 ]

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to leave today without expressing that I

do agree with the member for Coquitlam-Moody that the humanities, the

social sciences and the arts are important parts of an individual's —

and particularly a student's — life. I would state strongly that the

colleges and post-secondary institutions are very definitely providing

that training for students. But there must be priorities, Mr. Speaker.

The priority for our colleges and post-secondary institutions is to do

the best possible job in preparing students for the demands they will

meet in their occupations. That's the reality of the new economy.

It's also a reality that our colleges and post-secondary

institutions are doing very well at their jobs. For example, at the

British Columbia Institute of Technology in my riding, they tell me

that 90 percent of the graduates find work within three months of

graduation. In part that is due to the fine job the faculty is doing in

cooperation with business leaders, and the job they do in monitoring

BCIT programs to ensure their quality and relevance — and excellence, I

might add. That is an example of the partnership in economic renewal

which our Premier is deeply committed to, both personally and as head

of the government of British Columbia.

Our colleges and post-secondary institutions are the cutting edge of

our technological advances in virtually all of our industries. They

are, Mr. Speaker, thought shops, not sweatshops. That responsibility

entails that they must be flexible, comprehensive and productive, using

the most efficient resources that they have available to them.

This budget recognizes the importance of our colleges and

post-secondary institutions. It provides very well for them indeed. The

colleges and post-secondary institutions will maintain their present

1984-85 levels of financing. Moreover, within the allocation,

adjustments will provide for a potential 6 percent increase in student

financial aid, and $2.7 million for the development of employment

training programs.

This budget, which I'm proud to support, holds good news for two

areas in which I hold particular interest. The first is the stimulation

of venture capital companies, which will stimulate new investment and

create new jobs in growing industries and in industries yet to sprout

in our province. The second is the training and retraining of our

people in the skills they will require to be able to fill new and

existing jobs, to improve their existing positions and to make their

own business initiatives. I contend that the two programs are

complementary, one to the other. The strengthening of one encourages

the other, and vice versa. Increased venture capital provides

opportunities for skilled workers not only to work but also to start

and maintain their own companies. Better trained workers can more

easily find jobs in new industries, and are more aware of their future

potential.

Now, Mr. Speaker, some here might question the value of this budget

and its strong support for venture capital companies and for the

employment training programs. They might prefer instead that the

government run companies. They talk about Sweden and other areas. They

might prefer, indeed, that British Columbians not move into the

technical and skilled industries where rapid change is taking place.

But the economic renewal underway shows that what the people of British

Columbia want is the opportunities to get ahead. They want

opportunities to move ahead for themselves in new careers, in new

industries, and they want the tools to be able to do that.

For our detractors, the New Democratic Party, I would like to answer

them in my conclusion when they say that the things that we are doing

are not good for British Columbians. But I tell you, Mr. Speaker, as

the member for Vancouver–Point Grey continuously points out, what they

are doing here will not help them in the next provincial election. They

won't win the next provincial election.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. VEITCH: Oh, no, they won't. The people of British

Columbia are smarter than that. I'll tell you, this budget will help

this party become re-elected again. But it's not done for that purpose.

You have to do strong things for the right reasons.

But it will come back to haunt you, what you say in this House, hon.

member, and I agree with the hon. member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) in

this one thing. He said that you ought to be supporting this budget.

You ought to really show cooperation. You ought to really get behind

the wheel in British Columbia and make things happen.

Before taking my seat, I would like to read a poem from one of my

favourite poets, William Blake. He said:

Mock on, mock on, Voltaire, Rousseau:

Mock on, mock on: 'tis all in vain!

You throw the sand against the wind,

And the wind blows it back again.

And every sand becomes a gem

Reflected in the beams divine,

Blown back, they blind the mocking eye,

But still in Israel's path they shine.

The atoms of Democritus and Newton's principles of light

Are sands upon the Red Sea shore,

Where Israel's tents do shine so bright.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to a better British Columbia. I look

forward to this government providing the leadership in this province

for many years. I reject the amendment and support the budget.

[4:30]

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I'm delighted to follow the member

for Burnaby-Willingdon. One of the reasons that I'm delighted is that I

can proceed with what I was going to talk about anyway, and not have to

discuss what he had to say, because I've never heard such empty words

and empty phrases. There's just one thing I'd like to suggest to him:

despite the gerrymander, watch out at the next election, Mr. Member.

You watch out, and the rest of you watch out.

Mr. Speaker, in supporting this amendment, rejecting the budget out

of hand, rejecting the government out of hand, I want to tell you a

story that's a story to beat all stories. If there was ever a

government in this province or anywhere else that could fog up an

issue, it has to be the Socreds. You can't beat the Socreds at that

one. Just for a second let me take you for a walk through fairyland. I

want to tell you a little story that emerged two days ago in the Sun .

It's going to go on for some time to come. This is a story about B.C.,

the gamblers. The headline is: "B.C. Gambles on Medical Equipment

Experiment."

"The experimental equipment will do the job of

standard radiology departments" — I'm talking about Victoria General

Hospital — "but no one knows if it will do it better. Standard

radiology equipment would

[ Page 5397 ]

cost $8 million to $10 million. Victoria General is committed to the

deal, but the $15 million price tag represents only...." — part of

the cost of the material that's going into Victoria General.

Mr. Speaker, they were advised against it. It's not as if we're

talking about an innocent government that went ahead, following what

they determined to be good advice. It wasn't that at all. They were

advised against it, and I'm going to deal more with that in a moment.

But I'd like to deal with the minister's fascination with the equipment.

The Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) is normally, one would

think, a relatively intelligent person. Let me tell you what he says

here. He couldn't explain the equipment: "'I need someone to explain it

to me."' Yet he's spending $15 million on it — and incidentally, that's

only part of the cost as I see it.

"The equipment already installed at Victoria General

so intrigued Nielsen that he and senior Assistant Deputy Minister of

Health Stan Dubas — promoted last week to deputy minister — flew to

West Germany last December to see more.

"His assessment: 'Just fascinating. Oh, my God,

though, the stuff we saw! We saw stuff that makes Star Wars look

antiquated. That research and development centre, my God! We had some

pretty well-trained people with us, and they just shook their heads."'

No doubt they shook their heads. They didn't understand it either.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nice trip, though.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. COCKE: Lovely trip, Mr. Member.

"Dr. Gordon Ritchie, chief of radiology at Victoria

General Hospital, says he is happy his hospital is at the forefront of

the technology, but admits no one knows whether the equipment will be

better than standard stuff." We're talking about $8 million for

standard material, standard stuff, and $15 million for this new

sophisticated material. Ritchie is asked: "Isn't the purchase something

of a gamble for a Health ministry that now complains of high operating

costs?" "'That's right, "' Ritchie answered. 'No wonder I've got

ulcers."'

Then the Premier throws smoke at it. He says it's a part of a

partnership. We've gone into partnership with Siemens of West Germany.

Ain't we lucky, gang? "Under this policy you'll see some innovative new

partnerships to promote jobs." Where? In West Germany? It's not going

to create one job here in Victoria. No more radiologists are going to

be employed using this new digital material than would be employed

using conventional radiological equipment.

AN HON. MEMBER: They bought it?

MR. COCKE: They bought it. Why did they buy it?

AN HON. MEMBER: I thought Siemens was the navy.

MR. COCKE: That's right.

Isn't it absurd that we should gamble in times of "restraint"? The

advice of the radiological council of the day in 1981-82 was: don't do

it. And I can prove it. I have the confidential documents, here before

me. They're not confidential any more, Mr. Minister. I've had them for

over two years, thinking, until the minister's announcement, that

there's no way they'd do it. Why would they take professionals such as

these people....? The misters are administrators and the doctors are

radiologists: Mr. McGann, chairman of the radiological committee; Mr.

Barth, who runs the Burnaby General Hospital; Dr. Boyd; Dr. Burgess;

Dr. Burhenne, Dr. Kaan, Dr. Harker, Dr. Mark, Dr. Schneider; the

secretary of the committee, Mr. Lawrence; Dr. W. Green; and Dr.

Sinclair.

MR. LAUK: They're all closet NDPers.

MR. COCKE: They're closet NDPers. Do you know what happened

to them in 1982? They got canned. Their advice was no good. Why they

got canned is as follows. I'm going to read into the record their

advice at that time, the advice that the minister did not take. The $15

million mistake that the minister made is a result of not listening to

the professionals who were advising his ministry, who advised my

ministry before these people took over, and who advised the ministry

before we took government. When you're dealing with instrumentation

that's as deeply technological as what we're describing here, you need

the best professional advice you can get. Mr. Speaker, the minister

decided that he didn't want to listen to that advice. This is the

advice he got:

"The committee recommends against the joint proposal

of a digital department with Siemens Co. for the following reasons:

"

(1) There is no substantial medical benefit to be

gained.

(2) The projected cost, even in phase 1, far exceeds the cost

for conventional equipment.

(3) The total cost to the end of stage III

is estimated at $13 million."

Those are 1981 dollars. We've seen the $15 million now, so that's

the conversion. So they were right, weren't they? They were absolutely

right.

"

(4) The cost for completion of stages IV and V

central digital storage and reporting — have not been included."

Incidentally, Dr. Ritchie has said he doesn't even know if it will

work.

"

(5) The total period of implementation is estimated

as 5 to 7 years. X-ray equipment has a finite life expectancy. It is

possible that the new equipment installed may become outdated by the

time the final digital process is completed.

(6) The operating expenses

for the digital system are not determined at this stage. It is possible

that the increased maintenance cost and the interest cost required to

purchase the digital system may far outstrip the cost savings claimed."

They're not admitting there's any cost saving. And this is another

key factor, Mr. Speaker:

"Being tied down with one single company, the hospital

forgoes the benefits of competitive tendering in future purchases."

That is partnership, Socred style. In other words, sell out.

"In addition to the lack of competition, currency

fluctuation may make European equipment unduly expensive at a given

time. There is also no guarantee that Siemens will come up as leaders

in every aspect of digital radiography.

[ Page 5398 ]

"The committee recommends against embarking on the

project which will cost significantly more than conventional equipment

without the guaranteed returns in both medical and economic benefits."

Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to go through the appendices of this

document.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: The first minister of this province announced it.

That's right. It is so, I'm afraid, Mr. Member. Now the appendices to

this document are here, so anybody who wishes to have a look at them

may do so.

I say that this is just another indication of a government that's

totally out of control, living with catchwords: "partnership." Who are

we in partnership with? Siemens? We sold them some coal. We didn't;

Esso did.

Let me go on.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, let me go on. This is the first of

two documents that I have before me. The second is a document of a

meeting of this group, which disappeared from the face of the earth in

terms of their advice to the Minister of Health.

This group, which I've already named, had a guest on January 7,

1982. Guess who that guest was at their meeting? Mr. Stan Dubas, who

until a week or two ago was the assistant deputy Minister of Health. He

is now the Deputy Minister of Health, replacing Mr. Bazowski, who has

retired to his just whatever.

The first thing Mr. Dubas does is explain to the advisory committee,

these old pros, what their function is. Let me tell you how he does it.

He says this:

"Mr. Dubas began by explaining the purposes and

relationship of various advisory bodies to the ministry and said that

in his opinion the ministry would find it difficult to function without

them. However, he said: 'The ministry felt there was a need to examine

the purposes of these advisory bodies.' He referred to a recent change

where the laboratory advisory council had been replaced by a laboratory

strategic planning group."

[4:45]

Now if that wasn't the beginning of the end, my friends, I don't

know what it could possibly be. That was the beginning of the death of

this very vital advisory council to the Ministry of Health. All right,

then we go on to talk about the Victoria General project.

"Referring specifically to the Victoria General project, Mr. Dubas explained the terms of the approval which had been

given to the hospital and their limited nature (which had been confined

to an approval for digital intervenous angiography only with a general

approval that the hospital might explore only the possibilities of

developing a fully digital department in the future) and stated that

the hospital had not intended to proceed to the tendering process

before the specifications had gone before the council."

He admitted right there that they had already jumped ahead of it.

First he tells them that they are likely to change their very being

to a strategy group, and then he tells them: "Well, kinda sorry, in a

way, that we couldn't take your advice. We just haven't, but in the

future we will." Well, in the future they won't, because they disbanded

the council.

Mr. Speaker, let's go on with this exploration of fairyland. The

minister is uncomfortable. Maybe she could go and have a cup of coffee.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Oh, is she the secretary to that minister? No,

can't be.

Mr. Speaker, in reply, Mr. Dubas then invited questions from the

council:

"In reply to observations by some members that council

had been bypassed in this sequence of events, Mr. Dubas said that he

did not consider that this had been done intentionally. He referred,

incidentally, to some other forthcoming possibilities of change, one of

which might embrace the adoption by the ministry of a process similar

to that of a certificate-of-need process which was being employed in

the United States."

Well, that's a good way to smoke that one up.

"Mr. Dubas, having referred earlier to the exploration

by the hospital of the principle of having all equipment for the new

department supplied by one manufacturer, some members expressed doubts

at the value of this principle from several well-recognized points of

view."

Then they go on to explain that, but I think we all understand that.

You tie yourself to one supplier and, man, you are just at his disposal.

Mr. Speaker, we got taken. Dr. Mark, one of the council members, was

talking at this time.

"Dr. Mark explained that the hospital's tender

document was drawn up in two parts, the first of which was a general

tender document along conventional lines, and only the second part of

which, the 'joint proposal, ' was in the nature of a more general

inquiry.

"In response to a further question from Dr. Burhenne,

Mr. Dubas made [it] clear that, at this stage, nothing had been

formally approved and that the whole proposal would be brought back to

the council before any commitment was given to the hospital."

AN HON. MEMBER: What council?

MR. COCKE: Exactly. What council? This likely was the very

last time they ever met.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to just go on. Here we're talking about

what the council were doing. The members of the council had expected to

encounter an approach from the hospital along normal lines, but

everyone had been surprised to hear — via the grapevine — of the

hospital's having undertaken the tendering process, including

approaches to the ministry at the