1983 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 33rd Parliament

Hansard

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

( Hansard )

THURSDAY, AUGUST 18, 1983

Morning Sitting

[ Page

903 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

On the Budget

Mr. Mowat –– 903

Mr. Cocke –– 903

Mr. Campbell –– 907

Mr. Nicolson –– 911

Mr. Michael –– 914

THURSDAY, AUGUST 18, 1983

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

MR. MOWAT: It's my pleasure to introduce a very good friend

of mine, Mr. Warren Brant. He is with Dale and Co. Ltd. and has come

over to see this House in action. I ask the House to make him welcome.

Orders of the Day

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

MR. MOWAT: It's my pleasure to address the budget speech

today and to talk about the budget. I've looked at the budget and I

feel that it is dedicated to the financial accountability of this

government, which is a government of the people. I also firmly believe

that the commitment of the financial budget is the responsibility of

the government through the Financial Administration Act, and I also

believe that the budget brings us the principle of fairness. I think

the government is very strongly committed to the role of supporting the

private sector so that we can get the private initiative going. This

will lead to permanent and rewarding jobs in our province and will help

to build and secure a prosperous economic future for British Columbia

and its citizens. We must get across and talk to the people about the

signs of recovery. We note that the employment growth is already

beginning to pick up, with 67,000 jobs created since January 1983.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

We think the compensation stabilization program introduced by this

government last year has led to the start of the recovery across

Canada, and particularly in this province. We note that within the

budget we have an overall increase of 12 percent. The Ministry of

Education has an increase of 7 percent, which will give a lot of funds

to continue the educational programs and provide the educational

services needed for the children of our province.

We also note that the Health Ministry is up 7 percent. The 7 percent

increase in the Health budget will greatly assist in the provision of

health care services for the citizens of our province, continuing the

expansion of many of our hospitals, such as St. Paul's in the city of

Vancouver and the new Shaughnessy Hospital complex on the Shaughnessy

Hospital grounds.

Some of the most desirable programs I found in the budget are those under the

Human Resources ministry. We will be increasing the Human Resources budget of

$1,368 million. In these times of very difficult economic restraint, this is

an increase of 13.9 percent. Many of our citizens out there are having difficult

times when they can't find employment, and when their unemployment insurance

runs out they have to look to the Ministry of Human Resources to receive the

dollars to carry on with until they can find gainful employment. We are going

to be spending a great deal of money in that area of Human Resources. Those

three areas — Education at 7 percent, Health at 7 percent and Human Resources

at 14 percent — are taking up the major portion of our increases in our budget.

The province of British Columbia was the first one into restraint.

Our Premier could not find a seconder in February 1981, when he asked

other governments across Canada to follow the lead of British Columbia

in showing restraint. Consequently he had to come back, and this

government started the Compensation Stabilization Act and the 6-and-5

program. We are now seeing signs of recovery.

One in four British Columbians were employed in 1982 in the public

sector. They were employed by the taxpayers in either municipal,

provincial or federal areas. We now see that we have to curb some of

those areas; we have to be very restraint-minded with the number of

people working in the public sector. In 1982 there were 146,854 British

Columbians working in the health and education fields — they were not

directly employed by the government. I think we must continue to

practise our restraint program.

In 1982 we had a deficit of $1 billion. This year we have forecast a

deficit of $1.6 billion. Those two deficits put together, totalling

$2.6 billion, will have interest payments of $270 million for this year

alone. That pays nothing back on the principal; that is for interest

payments alone. If we continue deficit financing, which we're trying to

get away from, we will continue to have increased interest payments

each year. It's essential that the government of the province put on

restraint and slow down this massive spending through deficit

budgeting. Otherwise, we will be mortgaging our province, our children

and grandchildren.

When we look at a budget of $8.4 billion, it's astonishing for a new

back-bencher to see the kind of money we have the responsibility to

handle. As a government, we must make sure that every penny is

accounted for, and that it goes to help the citizens of our province.

I have reviewed the budget. We've had briefings with our Minister of

Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), and I must say that I strongly support the

budget. We must all work together — both sides of the House. This

province is a wonderful province. It needs jobs now. The private sector

must be stimulated. We must get the people back to work. The government

has no funds of its own; it only receives funds from the taxpayers.

When the taxpayers are not working, they cannot pay the taxes. I

encourage all members of the House to support this budget very

strongly, and I would thank you for this.

MR. COCKE: What a surprise! Here we are discussing the budget

29 or 30 days later. I welcome the fact that we are finally getting

back to it. I believe we are now on day five of the budget debate that

started on July 7, as I recall. In any event, the budget was put

forward by this government that was talking restraint and giving us a

budget with a 12.3 percent increase. I'm not complaining about some of

the increases that are found within this budget. I'm just complaining

about the rhetoric we keep hearing: the talk about firing one-quarter

of the civil servants of the province of British Columbia; about how we

must restrain government spending, at the same time putting forward a

budget with a 12.3 percent increase. What, however, could we derive

from that suggestion?

[10:15]

I charge, Mr. Speaker, that the revenues are underestimated and that

the expenditures are overestimated. This makes this budget a document

probably attracting the same amount of respect that every other budget

we've seen from that Finance minister since he's been placed in that

office has

[ Page 904 ]

garnered. Each time the budget has been totally out

of whack. Now these have been tough times. But that doesn't indicate to

me that people who are estimating for the politicians are in any way

inhibited, except possibly for political reasons. Won't it be a

surprise to everyone when we get to the end of this fiscal period and

we find out that, lo and behold, the suggestion that we're going to be

in the glue a billion and a half or more is not true.

MR. MOWAT: Good management.

MR. COCKE: Good management, my foot! That is already built

into this document — the document that lies, the document that does not

tell the truth. Why not come out and say that the deficit will be less,

if that's in fact what the government plans? Why give us a document

that does not show the kind of restraint that the rhetoric we keep

hearing shows — the underestimation of revenues and the overestimation

of expenditures?

This has been a wily trick. There are some people — as a matter of

fact, one is coming in the door at the present time — who have been

around here long enough to remember a chap by the name of W.A. C.

Bennett, who consistently provided us with this kind of entertainment:

overestimating and underestimating, and coming out smelling like a rose

at the end of a fiscal period.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, that expert on everything will no

doubt get up and give us his testimony in due course, but at the

present time he cannot raise his voice in defence of this budget in

what I'm saying other than to say that I'm likely wrong.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: Yes, let the light shine on men.

AN HON MEMBER: It's probably a sign.

MR. COCKE: It is a sign. But you'll note the one thing the

light is not doing: it is not creating a halo around that member's

head. All it is doing is emphasizing the fact that he's in his chair.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: I put on my blinders today; I decided that today was the day.

Mr. Speaker, there are one or two things I would like to talk about just before

I get on to some of the things that have happened recently affecting a very

large number of people in B.C. I want to talk about something that affects a

very small number of people in our province directly: that is, this whole question

of privatizing that has led the government to go wild with the notion to the

extent that they're in the process of selling off Beautiful British Columbia

magazine. That, as far as I'm concerned, is not only a shame but a shocking

display of stupidity. No magazine in our province has ever had the effect that

that magazine has had on tourism and on advertising the beauty of our province.

Turn it over to private industry and it will be a conglomeration of cigarette

and whisky ads in order to make it "profitable."

I contend, no matter what the Minister of Industry and Small

Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips).... Why he's selling it I have

no idea, because it's the responsibility of the Minister of Tourism

(Hon. Mr. Richmond). Their selling this magazine has to prove that they

have totally lost sight of some of the good things occurring in our

province as a result of the fact that people know our province all over

the world. They're not going to get the readership with a bunch of

Seagram's ads interspersed with the odd picture and the odd little

squib about B.C.

That magazine has been totally dedicated to the promotion of our

province. It has always been that people who once see it want to see

the next edition, because not only is it beautiful but it tells the

whole story, and it has told the whole story of B.C. for lo, these many

years. It's a loss. No matter who takes it over, whether it's Maclean's

or Evergreen, they will not do the kind of job that has been done by

that little group down on Wharf Street, who have so ably put together a

promotion package that has cost very little, and has gone worldwide.

Mr. Speaker, what a shocking lack of understanding of the prestige that

that magazine has provided this province.

I can remember that magazine, before I came to this chamber, as one

that I used to pick up and look at, and it made me proud of my

province. What's it going to be in the commercial field? I'll tell you

what it's going to do. That magazine will not promote British Columbia;

that magazine will promote every two-bit

article you can think of, and

not build B.C. What a lack of understanding, of knowledge about what's

been going on.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: "Create jobs," says that member over there. Create, my foot! We've lost 41 jobs already.

Mr. Speaker, this tells me that we have a government totally out of

control, totally without sensitivity, and totally without understanding

of what they're doing to our province.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: I'm out of touch with reality? I hope that member

for Surrey (Mrs. Johnston) stands in her place and defends the

government's putting out to pasture one of the best promotion pieces

ever devised in this country. I have been across the country many

times, and in places other than the North American continent, and often

you will hear people who have never been to B.C. say they'd like to

come here to see some of the things they've seen in this promotion

booklet. It's not the kind of piece that promotes a particular

government enterprise, that promotes what the government is doing. It's

the kind of magazine that promotes the beauty of B.C., and it does so

in all comers of the earth.

I brought to your attention during the throne speech two copies of a

magazine that's produced by the automobile association. One was

produced immediately after the election, and none immediately before. I

pointed out that just prior to the election, virtually half of that

magazine had been used for promoting the government. I can see that

when Beautiful B.C. is sold

to private enterprise, the government will do the same thing again with

that magazine. They can't now. It's a piece that promotes the entire

province, and on that basis I suggest that they should see reason today

to pull that magazine off the market and put it back where it belongs.

The

[ Page

905 ]

Ministry of Tourism has so ably handled that magazine for a number of years.

It's first class, and anybody who can argue that you should give up that

magazine has to make some pretty specious arguments, in my opinion.

Forestalk is also being sold out, along with a number of other government magazines. Well, I’m not going champion them all. I think Forestalk has done a good job, but if you want to privatize it or do whatever you want to do, maybe you ought to do it. But not Beautiful B.C. ,

because it's been the pride of the province. I'll tell you right now

that previous Social Credit governments understood that, and previous

Social Credit governments were never in any way tempted to get rid of

this particular magazine. Who's it going to? I don't know. There are

rumours of David Brown and other people being involved. I don't know.

All I hear are rumours. I hear that we're very close to making a

decision about the sale, and that worries me.

Let me read to you an editorial in the Victoria Times-Colonist : "If the provincial Tourism ministry's Beautiful British Columbia

magazine was poorly read or a financial horror story, there might be

some sense in the current rumour that the government is considering

selling the magazine to private industry." It's no longer a rumour;

it's official. "But Beautiful B.C.

is neither. On the contrary, it's an outstandingly successful

publication with the kind of circulation any publisher might envy and,

more important, the tourist drawing power is of incalculable value."

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: The magazine's importance to B.C.'s tourist industry was emphasized in a two-page spread in the December 1981 issue of Tourism B.C. Newsletter .

Tourism is booming today and has become B.C.'s third largest industry,

the newsletter noted. The magazine, which has grown with the industry,

now has a circulation of 450,000, with subscribers from almost every

country in the world. The total readership per issue is estimated at

2.5 million. The magazine has the fifth largest circulation in Canada,

behind only the likes of Macleans , TV Guide , Reader's Digest , Time and Chatelaine . It has the second largest regional publication in North America, behind only the publication Arizona Highways .

The newsletter gives a helpful breakdown of the magazine's worldwide

readership. In any event, the government is obviously not taking this

seriously. I thought the government House Leader would probably have

enough sensitivity to appreciate what I am saying, but he doesn't have

that sensitivity. Maybe I am fighting a lost cause, but let me tell you

very clearly that if you do give it away, the day will come when

another government in power will put that magazine back where it

belongs — under government supervision and under the Ministry of

Tourism.

[10:30]

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: No, it "ain't" going to be me, said the Forests

Minister (Hon. Mr. Waterland) with his quaint little utilization of the

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: It is a travesty and a piece of stupidity. That's it;

I've said it.

I would like to comment about some reading that I have done in the

last few months. Here is an order-in-council resume, for example, on

the Environment and Land Use Committee, which was appointed on June 23.

Actually these are resumes of June 3, 7, 10 and 13 of 1983. On the

Environment and Land Use Committee are the Minister of Highways (Hon.

A. Fraser), the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Schroeder), the

Minister of the Environment (Hon. Mr. Brummet), the Minister of

Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), the Minister of Municipal

Affairs (Hon. Mr. Ritchie), and the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr.

Waterland). The Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Neilsen) is missing. I am

not sure how much good that particular minister would do on the

Environment and Land Use Committee, but I will say that that position

should be maintained on the Environment and Land Use Committee.

The Minister of Health has far too much responsibility for the

health of the people across the province, including environmental

health, not to be on that committee. That is just a word to the wise.

It will not be accepted, because they are not wise. Mr. Member, you

have probably noted that in the time that you have been here.

I also look at all the changes in Treasury Board, and it makes me

wonder what is happening. In any event that is their government, and

they can do whatever they like.

I would like to touch on some little matters that I think we should

be reminded of from time to time. This is a headline from the Vancouver Sun ,

dated April 9, 1983. It was my statement that was picked up by that

paper, and by a number of other papers, and it talks about the fact

that I charged, during the election campaign, that based on government

documentation, there would be increases in user fees, and that the

government, once elected, would implement that particular process. No

less than the Premier and the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen)

suggested I was lying. No sooner were they elected, no sooner were they

sworn into office than that's precisely what they did again to the

people of our province. It was not only the indexing which would

normally have taken place in any event, but they actually increased

over and above the indexing, which means future indexing is based on a

higher plateau than before.

Mr. Speaker, I claim that that government thrives on taxing the

sick, the poor. Everything they do suggests that I'm quite right. The

fee hike for the hospital user fee was 10.9 percent. That government

preaches restraint, but restraint is never thought of in terms of their

decisions on how to treat the people in our province. No restraint

there. Increase fees, increase the cost of government services....

MR. REID: Increase the budget.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

MR. COCKE: If you believe that. Seven percent, possibly. Mr.

Speaker, some day I'm going to give that member a lesson in common

numbers — a little arithmetic.

MR. REID: I've been in business 18 years. You don't have to give me any lessons in economics.

MR. COCKE: He's been in business 18 years; I'm going to give him that lesson right now.

[ Page 906 ]

You talk about increased governmental expenditure with respect to

health care. I say that's absolute beeswax! This government takes

credit for a $2.29 billion budget last year for health care. Let me

tell you, of that $2.29 billion of that budget last year the federal

government participated to the extent of $969 million. They got no

credit, but that was their participation. Medicare premiums threw in

another $200 million, so we already have over half being contributed

from outside the provincial government's coffers — $969 million from

the feds, $200 million from medicare premiums and roughly $150 million

from diverse user fees, etc. Now it becomes bite-size, doesn't it? Not

quite the budget or the expenditure that you would like the public to

believe this philanthropic government is producing.

It's a lot of hogwash. What this government does, Mr. Speaker, is

move in on every department of government where a human service is

provided, and squeeze, squeeze, squeeze.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Nonsense! Heartless, witless, mindless government.

Back to the situation, Mr. Speaker. The budget is wide open, and I

understand that; however, I was dealing with the fact that during the

election campaign the Premier and the Minister of Health had the

audacity to suggest that the papers I had shown publicly were not

authentic, and that I personally was lying.

MRS. JOHNSTON: The election is over.

MR. COCKE: Yes, the election is over, and I now ask: what

were they doing during that campaign? Immediately after that campaign

they did in fact increase those fees across the board. It's not very

kind or useful for me to get up now and make the statement that I am,

but I must because I feel there may be somebody in that back bench with

some kind of conscience. I say to that person, this is whom you're

working with. Think about it just once. These are the people with whom

you have associated, and in that association I don't think you can hold

your head too high.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Sure, the election's over. There are others to

come, I would hope, although the way we seem to be going in this

province, one would wonder sometimes. But there will be elections in

the future, and I hope the people of this province understand that this

government is capable of lying. They have proved that they're capable

of lying.

MR. REID: On a point of order, I take offence at the reference of the member to the Social Credit Party lying.

MR. LAUK: On that point of order. Mr. Speaker, it is

long-held parliamentary practice to accuse, where supported by the

evidence, a Social Credit Party or a government generally of falsehood.

It is unparliamentary to accuse any individual member. There was

nothing in the remarks of the hon. member who is speaking in this

debate to focus on any individual member. The reason that I want to

bring that carefully to your attention is that in the last two or three

days when Your Honour has been in the chair you have on the mere

intervention of an interrupter under standing orders allowed their

objection to any kind of reference as an offence. I urge Your Honour to

consider that only unparliamentary expressions focused on individual

members entitle a member to ask the Chair to intervene.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I do think standing order 40

bears reading because it would certainly complement and correctly

support the position taken by the hon. second member for Surrey. I'll

quote it to you: "

(1) No member shall speak disrespectfully of Her

Majesty, nor of any of the Royal Family, nor of the Governor-General or

Lieutenant-Governor or person administrating the government of this

province.

(2) No member shall use offensive words against any member of

this House.... .. Then it carries on about speaking beside the question

in debate, etc. The position essentially taken by the member for Surrey

is that there was a disrespectful statement about people administrating

the government of the province, and he considered the words to be

offensive and asked for withdrawal. He's perfectly correct in

requesting withdrawal.

MR. LAUK: I thank the hon. House Leader for pointing out the

actual standing order. It says: "...or person administrating the

government of this province." That's precisely my point, and that's

been held several....

HON. MR. GARDOM: Individually and collectively, both.

MR. LAUK: No, the rule is clear. The hon. member for Surrey

rose and said that they offended him. The standing order says: "No

member shall use offensive words against any member of this House...."

The key words are "against any member of this House," not that someone

may find words offensive. I find the whole budget offensive. Are you

going to order the government to withdraw it? The point is that under

standing orders any words that offend a member that are stated against

and concerning that member must not be used, nor any disrespectful

language about a person administrating the government of this province.

By the way, that's really a reference to a high bureaucrat. It

really doesn't mean anybody in this chamber. It's been interpreted to

mean some high official, because this chamber takes care of

disrespectful and unparliamentary language about individual members

anyway.

[10:45]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I thank all hon. members who have spoken to

this point of order. In my opinion, the reference as made, if it's made

against a political party per se, is, under the rules, acceptable: but

if there's any inference that it might have been made against those

people who sit in government as that political party, I think it takes

on a different aspect.

I would like, just for the information of hon. members, to read from

Beauchesne,

chapter 7,

section 324. It says: "It is impossible to lay

down any specific rules in regard to injurious reflections uttered in

debate against particular members, or to declare beforehand what

expressions are or are not contrary to order; much depends upon the

tone and manner, and intention, of the person speaking...." And then in

section 326, subsection 2, it says: "Words may not be used

[ Page 907 ]

hypothetically or conditionally if they are plainly

intended to convey a direct imputation." Putting a hypothetical case is

not the way to evade what would be, in itself, disorderly.

Hon. members, I think the debate has been going quite well up to

this point. I had intended to remind members that the hon. member for

New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) did have the floor. There were quite a

number of interjections actually coming from both sides of the House.

So I would like the hon. member to rise to his feet again, and we'll

continue with the debate on the budget.

MR. COCKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm going to let you draw your own conclusion with respect to what happened.

I'm going to quote from the Province for July 10. It's talking here

about increased user fees: "He promised" — and we're talking about the

Premier here — "explicitly in Cranbook on April 12 that it will not be

our policy after May 5" — election day — "to raise user fees for

hospitals and doctors services.' "

MR. LAUK: Who said that?

MR. COCKE: The Premier, on April 12, in the midst of a heated campaign.

MR. LAUK: Was he speaking for the Social Credit Party?

MR. COCKE: He was speaking in Cranbrook on behalf of the Social Credit Party, in the election campaign.

Then the fee hikes came: 10.9 percent — or up to $12.75 a day for

hospitals — and a 150 percent increase for emergency and minor visits.

I just bring that to your attention. I suggest to you that this is not

the kind of behaviour that one would expect from a party that has

governed this province for some length of time. I would just like

everybody to know that I have noticed. I particularly want everybody to

know that I have noticed because it was I who was explicitly pointed

out during that campaign to be, in fact, misleading the people of this

province.

MR. LAUK: You were accused of lying.

MR. COCKE: Of course I was. So I just bring this back to this House today for that very purpose.

MRS. JOHNSTON: What were the figures you used?

MR. COCKE: The figures out of the report that was being circulated within the ministry, called the ministry policy report.

MRS. JOHNSTON: They were less than honest, weren't they?

MR. COCKE: Less than honest? Do you think that that report

came from anybody's desk other than the minister? Come on! There would

have been firings all through that ministry if it hadn't been actual

policy. Of course it was policy, and it was proven to be policy after

the election. Don' t give me that kind of stuff. Of course it was

policy, and is policy, and that's all there is to it. Naturally they

did not want it to become public during the campaign. There were a lot

of other things they didn't want to make public during the campaign. A

lot of the legislation that we see before us they didn't want to make

public prior to that campaign.

What we have seen today in this budget is a budget that's

anti-consumer, because they're closing down and reducing funding to

consumer advocates and consumer organizations. It's

anti-people-with-health-problems, because of what I've been talking

about. It's anti-renter, because for budgetary purposes we're knocking

off the rentalsman, etc. For that matter, they're also doing the

landlord an injustice as well. I have talked to many landlords who have

valued the intervention of the rentalsman in disputes.

Government's purpose is to provide services for people, to stand up

for people. We're living in a very complex society. Why should we, just

because somebody suggests it's not a great idea, put up with this

service being dismantled? Services to children across the province —

our total future, Mr. Speaker.... In that particular area, the most

vulnerable of children are having services withdrawn. I'll tell you who

is going to pay for that; we're all going to pay for that in the

criminal justice system in the future. A stitch in time does save nine,

and for us to turn our backs on those young children with a need for

counselling and community support is most stupid. We're turning our

backs on women in need, women who have been bashed around by a husband

of unsound mind and have no transition house to go to, no one to lean

on.

We've done some very stupid things. Here we are, a province

suggesting that our third largest industry is tourism, and we say:

"Tourists stay away, because we're going to tax your meals." Mr.

Speaker, I see I'm out of time, but just one more word: another stupid

move was getting rid of the motor vehicle inspection. It should have

been expanded as opposed to being taken away.

MR. CAMPBELL: We're now speaking to the budget debate and the

budget increase of 12.3 percent. It amazes and astounds me when I

listen to the opposition complaining. Even after the cuts that we have

put forward with the 12.3 percent, we still receive no cooperation from

the opposition. They don't seem to understand that the revenues of the

natural resources have dropped and the money is not there to spend. On

one side they criticize us for increasing revenue, and on the other

side they criticize us for increasing the deficit.

Human Resources has increased 13.9 percent, and yet we hear all this

rhetoric about how this government is trying to oppress people.

Imagine, in a time of restraint like this, with a 13.9 percent

increase, the opposition feels this is oppressing people. As the people

of this province listen to the news media and to what's going on in

this House, I'm sure they must shake their heads and say: "What is

going on down there? What is the opposition saying?" An increase of

13.9 percent and we're oppressing people! What kind of truth is this

that they're trying to put forward? I don't know whether this is

Victoria politics or whether they really believe this stuff. I don't

believe that they can believe it, because I know these people are very

intelligent. I know that they want to do what is right for the people

of B.C., so I've got to believe that this is just politics being played.

We sit in this House day after day through the hoists, the tabling

motions and the time wasted. It costs $20,000 a day to run the House.

They're well prepared to spend this kind of money and to allow it to be

wasted, and yet they say it isn't enough when we're paying 13.9 percent

more to Human Resources. I say get on with the job down here and

there'll be

[ Page 908 ]

some more funds for the people out there to use. Why waste it in here?

When we look at Human Resources it's true there have been some cuts.

Maybe there are people in this province who believe there should be

some cuts. For instance, the Vancouver Women's Health Collective

received a grant from the Ministry of Health for $119,654 in 1982-83,

and the support is being discontinued on September 8, 1983.

Interjection.

MR. CAMPBELL: What did they do? I'm glad you asked that

question, hon. member. This centre is run by an independent society

which provides services for women such as birth control counselling,

and, according to the Ministry of Labour women's section, provides a

drop-in centre for lesbians. I think it's time this government took a

look at where some....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: The taxpayers are paying for that?

MR. CAMPBELL: That's right, the taxpayers are paying for

this. We don't want to sit here ruling on the morality of people, but

surely that's their morality and not that of the taxpayers of the

province. In my area most people don't want to pay taxes to support

this. If these people wish to live like this, that is their business,

but don't ask the taxpayers at large to contribute to this.

With the decrease in revenues the corporation tax from 1979-80 to

1983-84 is down 15.1 percent. As I talk to accountants in my area I say

to them: "How are things in the business community? How are the people

doing?" And they say: "Well, you know it's very tough." Of course we

realize in government that it's very tough. Remember that taxes earned

in 1981-82 are paid in 1982. Because of such a downturn in 1982, a lot

of these companies are filing for refund in 1983. When they're filing

for a refund, the government is in revenue in 1983 because they collect

the taxes after they're earned.

There's one thing more that must be brought out here. Not only did

these companies not earn money in 1982 — for instance, the ten major

forest companies lost $665 million in 1982 — but they're also filing

for refunds. That's like the man who went out to work in 1981 and got

paid his salary, in 1982 he paid his tax, and in 1983 or the tail of

1982 he was laid off in the forest industry or the mining industry, or

whatever is affected by the downturn. He's been told by his boss: "I'm

sorry, there is no job for you. You're laid off." He said: "That's

terrible." The boss said: "That's only half of it. We also want you to

refund what we paid you last year." The man said: "How can this be? How

can I refund what I've already spent?" That's my point: the government

collected the taxes in 1982 on the income of the companies in 1981, and

in 1983 part of that money is being refunded to these companies that

lost all this money in 1982 because of the downturn in the economy.

[11:00]

I don't know if the opposition realize the seriousness. They keep on

talking frivolous talk as if they were opposed to everything. This is

serious. One-point-six billion dollars is serious. It's time that this

Legislature realized that, took these actions and got on with the job

of doing the government's business that needs to be done and that the

public out there wants us to do.

The natural resource revenue dropped 24.5 percent. That's a fact of

life. We have to recognize this; we have to be responsible people here,

and we have to take this into consideration when the budget is being

drawn up. We have to act responsibly, and I would call on the

opposition to act responsibly and get on with the job.

Our forest industry revenue dropped 51.2 percent last year.

HON. MR. GARDOM: How much?

MR. CAMPBELL: It dropped in half: 51.2 percent. Yet during

the campaign we heard the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) say he

would dismantle the stabilization program so that costs could increase.

Open the floodgates, hon. member. Imagine opening the floodgates and

letting the costs increase when the revenue has dropped in half. What

kind of a responsible opposition would talk like this? I'm astounded at

this type of thinking. I know they don't think this way. This is

strictly political talk. This is rhetoric that they're feeding to the

media because it sounds good and makes them look good, but surely they

don't believe this. We know they don't because, as I said earlier,

they're very intelligent people, and they know better than this.

The rentalsman's office will be discontinued. That is true. The

rentalsman's office offered a short-term benefit to people because of

the rent controls back in the early time when there were very few

apartments, and there was a shortage. The rent controls also aggravated

this problem and stopped the investors from investing. Why would people

invest in housing if it doesn't pay enough return to pay the payments

to the mortgage companies they have to mortgage to to invest? Most of

the landlords are reasonable people like you and I, like the

opposition. Yes, I have to go that far because I do believe these

people are reasonable people. I believe they've been caught up in this

rhetoric in the media, and they've been sold on this idea. But they're

not unreasonable people. I believe within a very few days they're going

to realize this. They're going to say: "This is not the way the

government.... We're not the ones that will have spent $20,000 a day

extra in this Legislature." We're going to pass this legislation. We're

going to do what they know that we as a government have to do.

In the marketplace of apartments, the only way we're going to have

more apartments built is when the return on investment is there.

Subsidized housing is paid for at the expense of the taxpayers of the

province. I believe that most people in B.C. realize that they have a

responsibility to look after themselves. That responsibility is to

provide housing for their wives and children or their husbands, if it

may be that it's the lady who's working, and to provide food for their

families. That's a basic responsibility of everybody in Canada, as well

as B.C. The people are prepared. I believe that if the government keeps

out of the marketplace, they will provide that.

Interjection.

MR. CAMPBELL: That's right. The people out there want to be

able to provide for themselves. The people in B.C. are hard-working

people, and they want to provide for themselves. But because the

government has got involved in the

[ Page 909 ]

marketplace so many times, it has destroyed the

initiative of the people, so today they don't know what they should be

doing. This government has to get out of the marketplace so that these

people can provide for themselves.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The new apartments that are going up are not under rent control. We

hear them saying that if they're not under rent control, it has nothing

to do with the rentalsman. It does have something to do with the

rentalsman. If their rents are too high because of the increased cost

of building, of money, etc.... They have to have a return. If their

rent is above what some of the others are, they simply become holding

tanks for the people who move in there for two, three or six months

until they can move into a place covered by the rentalsman, where the

man cannot show a rate of return and is locked into that.

Mr. Speaker, if you have been to New York you will have seen blocks and blocks

of apartments with stores in the bottom and apartments on top. I was there three

years ago. As I drove in a cab down to the centre of New York, I was utterly

amazed at all the burnt-out premises. I said to the cab driver: "How come

these premises are burnt out like this?" He said: "Well, we made a

mistake here. We implemented rent controls. As the rent controls were implemented,

the people couldn't pay for their apartment buildings. The cost escalated

on one side but the rents were fixed." What did they do? They let the places

deteriorate because they had no alternative. That was not a benefit or an asset

to the landlord or the tenant. Surely the tenants are entitled to reasonable

premises that the landlord can keep up to the rents they are paying. But when

his rent is frozen, he cannot upgrade his premises. As they became further locked

into this socialistic approach, the landlords couldn't pay the taxes any

more. After a while, through unknown causes, there were fires in these apartments,

and they were gutted. The man was trying to recover a portion of his money.

He says that the tenants may have set them; they say the landlord. Who knows?

I was only through there on a tour. The buildings remain standing, gutted, empty.

This is of no benefit to the city, because it can't collect the taxes; it

is of no benefit to the tenant who needs the premises to live in; and it is

certainly no incentive to the investor to invest his money there.

AN HON. MEMBER: Everybody lost.

MR. CAMPBELL: That's right, everybody loses under these socialistic approaches.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Any time the marketplace is stifled, the people who invest the

money.... That's not the rich people. It's the working people who have

their money in pension funds and the union people who have their money

in pension funds; the widows with $1,000, $2,000 or $5,000 in stocks or

bonds, as a nest-egg against their retirement. These are the people who

are being destroyed through this.

When we talk about looking after people, surely the people who have

invested their pensions, who have worked many years, are entitled to

some protection against this type of treatment. It's a farce to suggest

that this is all being done by the so-called rich people — "them

people," "them guys." Who are these mysterious "them guys"?

Last night I was talking to a gentleman from the Aluminium Co. of

Canada. He said that 8.5 percent of their stock is owned by a pension

fund out of Quebec. Those hard-working people put their money into

pension funds for their retirement. These are the people who invest the

money. They are the people who own the corporation. Who owns the

corporation? Every person who wishes to go out and spend $500 or $1,000

or $2,000. The hon. members across the way, with their pensions. Good

for them. We need their money and we need the socialists' money. We

need to invest the money of the working people in this province, so

there can be production and jobs created. That's great that they're

putting their money up there.

When the testing stations were being eliminated, the hue and cry

went up. There have never been any testing stations in Okanagan North.

The people of Okanagan North know how to look after themselves. I

suggest that the people on the coast and in the lower mainland also

want to look after themselves. We have to give them the opportunity to

do this. When these testing stations are closed, these people will go

to the private sector, where they had to go, anyway, to get their

vehicles fixed.

There are a great many things in this budget. When we see that the

tax that small business people pay on equipment has been eliminated....

Some 15,000 businesses won't pay taxes on equipment. Mr. Speaker, these

people are finally being given a break. The small business people have

felt this crunch in the last two years, when the government has still

kept on spending money and the private sector has been cut back and cut

back. There has been a decrease in employment because they simply

didn't have the money. They simply were not showing a profit. That's

why they couldn't pay their taxes. That's why they had to lay off some

of their people.

We look at the school budgets, and the hon. member from Prince

George, who is bringing in the new program for the schools — a great

program.... He's bringing it in, and he's increased their budget by 7

percent. The education system is being looked after, and still we hear

the cries about how they're being strangled. He has asked them to cut

back the student-teacher ratio to 1976 levels. In all the years

previous to that, when all these people here got their education, I

don't believe they suffered. I think most of the people.... I don't

think they'll suffer after this change. As far as trying to muzzle

local school boards, that's not true, and the opposition know it's not

true. The only place they can't move the money into is into

administration. They can move within the other.... They can move it out

of administration.

Mr. Speaker, are we a government that wants to build palaces of

administration, or are we a government that wants to provide services

to the people out there? The people out there who are working in the

marketplace, the people who are paying the taxes to run these school

boards — those are the people out there who are working and who are

providing the tax money to run these systems. They're entitled to some

guidance from Victoria so that the administration of some of these

places can be trimmed back to a reasonable level, where it should have

been in the first place. It never should have got out of a reasonable

level. But because we went through good times, the governments of the

day perhaps had money to provide a little extra service. Wanting to

provide a better service to the public, we perhaps all got caught up in

this. But

[ Page 910 ]

we have to realize that times have changed. The

revenues have dropped. As the revenues have dropped so much, we cut our

expenses like we would in the home.

I believe that every hon. member sitting across there, if their

income dropped by $5,000 or by $8,000.... I don't believe they'd go out

and keep on spending like they have in the past. I don't believe that

for a second, because these are very intelligent people and they

understand that you don't spend more than you make. The people of my

area understand that, the people of this area understand that, and I

believe all the opposition members understand that. But because it's

politically expedient they tell a different story. That is the problem

we have here today.

During the election it was stated many times that there was going to

be downsizing of the government. This is nothing new that has come out

after the budget. This was the whole thrust of the election: restraint

and a downsizing of government. To try and suggest that this came out

after the election, to suggest that this came out in the budget and

that the people didn't know about it.... I'd suggest that is not true.

That's why the people voted for Social Credit, because they wanted a

downsizing of government. They knew they had to have a downsizing of

government, because they can't afford what we've got here today. They

can't afford it. The people in the galleries know that, Mr. Speaker.

They know that they can only pay so much in taxes and that they're

paying to the limit now. The limit is not enough. The limit is still 19

percent short of enough to balance the budget. It's still short. Even

after all the taxes they're paying, it still isn't enough to provide

the services that this government is providing today.

That's the story that we have to tell them. We're not proud of this

deficit, Mr. Speaker. I'm sure every member on this side of the House

would like to see a balanced budget. But we also have to act

responsibly.

[11:15]

MR. BLENCOE: Fire the child-care workers!

MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, this member for Victoria keeps on

nattering away today as he's done many days in the past. That's why

this House goes on day after day at $20,000 a day, $100,000 a week, of

taxpayers' money wasted. I'm sure these great people in the gallery up

here, as they sit and look down upon this and hear that rhetoric going

on over there, say: "Are those the people we've got sitting down in

Victoria representing...wasting this kind of money?" I'm glad the

galleries are.... We've got a lot of people in here today. I'm glad

when the people come here to watch the goings on in this House so that

they can go back to their constituencies and say: "I couldn't believe

it. I can't believe what the opposition is trying to do down there,

stalling that good legislation day after day after day. They keep on

and on and on." Mr. Speaker, they're looking for headlines in the

media. If they've got the headlines in the media they feel they've got

their twenty-thousand dollars' worth that day. But the taxpayers up

there don't feel they've got twenty-thousand dollars' worth. The people

up there and the taxpayers out there don't feel they've got their

money's worth. When I go back to my constituency, they say: "How long

is this farce going to go on down there?" I say: "Listen ,the

government opens the debate, the opposition closes it.': Who knows how

long they're going to go on with this?

Interjections.

MR. CAMPBELL: It's all right, Mr. Speaker; I don't mind them

heckling me. They can only sit and listen to these facts so long, and

then they get nervous. They get concerned. They can't sit still

anymore. Then they start jumping and heckling. But it's all right,

don't worry about them. I don't mind them heckling me. I don't mind

them at all. It's quite all right. Go ahead.

I would like to ask members of this opposition to reconsider their

position and reconsider what they're doing in this House. Take another

look at this budget. Seriously look at it and say: "If we were in

government" — which they haven't been, and if they carry on like this

they will not be — "what would we do? Would we raise money or would we

borrow it?"

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on!

MR. CAMPBELL: They say: "We would keep on borrowing and borrowing and borrowing."

MR. HANSON: Just like you're doing.

MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, we saw that going on in Ottawa;

they keep on borrowing — it's $30 billion this year. The hon. member

says: "Just like we do." Yes, we're going to have borrow $1.6 billion,

and I say shame on us that we can't balance the budget. But because we

have a conscience and compassion for the people out there, we know that

we do have to provide services for them during this time of restraint.

We have compassion, and so we have to take a look at it and say: "Do we

run a deficit for a year or two until our revenues pick up so that we

can show compassion to the taxpayers of this province, the people who

are out there and who have aspirations in this province?" After

weighing both sides, we have taken the least of the two evils and we've

said: "Yes, we'll have to run that deficit." But we're not proud of it.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Shame on us.

MR. CAMPBELL: Right. We hope that with the upturn in the

economy coming — with the upturn already in progress, Mr. Speaker — it

won't be long until we have enough revenue to balance.... Then we'll

have the funds to provide even more services to our people, and we

won't have the debt that we have to pay interest on. That's what good

government's all about.

Mr. Speaker, in closing I would ask the members of the opposition, once more,

to reconsider their position. Look at this budget and say: "Yes, the government

has to do this. The government has to trim back a little bit so that government

deficits don't become too large." They know that we're going to

have pay interest. They know that the taxpayers in their constituency are going

to have to pay the interest on this just like all the taxpayers who are sitting

up in the gallery have to pay interest on this money. They don't want to

pay interest on it any more than any of sitting down here, but I'm sure

they realize the government has an obligation to provide some measure of security

to the people out there. They have compassion for the people out there who are

less fortunate. That's why we're running the deficit.

MR. BLENCOE: How much do human rights cost?

[ Page 911 ]

MR. CAMPBELL: The man asks how much human rights cost. A lot

more than the people who are out there and the labour that's being

spent.... It's the people who are being harassed; it's the Hunky Bills.

It's the Hunky Bills who put in time in the courts for the

frivolousness that some of the cases Human Rights provided.... How much

did it cost, Mr. Speaker, for the aggravation of some of the people who

took claims in there and waited five or six years to get their claims

heard? I don't know how you put a cost on the anguish that has been

dealt to these people. Maybe the opposition can put a cost on it, but

on this side I don't see how we can put a cost on the anguish that has

been inflicted on some of these people.

MR. NICOLSON: We certainly know now — as we always know fresh

after an election — where this government stands. It is only in the

months and maybe the year leading up to an election that this

government hides like the lowest form of fauna under a rock, and won't

come out with where they stand. That is when they hide. Now, flushed

with victory, after once again having used deception, a party that has

lied, a party that has deceived, a party that has done absolutely

nothing to be upfront with the people about their policies....

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I have a member on a point of order.

MR. SEGARTY: The second member from Victoria (Mr. Blencoe)

has again shouted across the floor that our government didn't tell the

truth to the people of British Columbia. I find that remark personally

offensive, and I would ask the member to withdraw it.

MR. SPEAKER: The member has been ask to withdraw. The Chair

cannot insist because it cannot find that the remark in itself is

offensive under the definition. Nevertheless, one hon. member has asked

another hon. member if he would withdraw a remark. I would ask if the

member, in keeping with some of the traditions of this chamber, would

so do.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, I won't withdraw. I believe that during the election....

MR. SPEAKER: That's all that is required.

MR. SEGARTY: On the same point of order, it is a tradition in

this House that when an hon. member finds a remark of another hon.

member personally offensive, the hon. member withdraw that remark. I

would ask that the member withdraw the remark.

MR. SPEAKER: Notwithstanding the offence taken by one member

to another, the Chair can only rule when such matters are of an

unparliamentary nature. I regret, in this case, that the Chair cannot

so rule. Offences taken against a party are one thing; offences taken

against a member of this chamber, specifically, are another. On the

latter the Chair may rule, on the former the Chair may not.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Shame!

MR. ROSE: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, I agree with your

ruling. If, for instance, the member from Victoria had described the member

for Kootenay as being intelligent and the member for Kootenay found that offensive,

and asked him to withdraw, would that be a point of order?

MR. SPEAKER: Points of order which are not points of order are equally offensive to the Chair.

MR. NICOLSON: I am sure the member wouldn't have found the

word intelligent offensive. He might have found "intellectual"

offensive, but not "intelligent." The member and the government are now

saying that parliament and democracy are a waste of time. The

institution of parliament might be a cumbersome instrument, it might

often miss the mark, but there are people who are willing to give up

their lives this very day in countries in Central America to strive for

some form of democratic representation. There are 14-year-old children

caught up actively as participants in this struggle in countries like

El Salvador. A member from the Ottawa press gallery who was visiting

here, a former editor of one of the Victoria daily papers, related to

me the kind of price that is being paid in that struggle, where he went

out on the death count in the morning and saw a young, pregnant woman

who had been crucified to a piece of plywood and was disembowelled,

caught up in that kind of a struggle. My goodness, you don't have to

pay a very great price to sit here and listen to some debate and have a

government held accountable for actions that are placing thousands and

thousands of people out of work, but more importantly, are creating the

wrong economic climate in this province.

This budget is based not on Reaganomics, not on Keynesian economics,

not on monetarism, not on Friedman economics or any other type of

economics other than something that was tried in the 1830s in Britain

and found wanting: laissez-faire economics. Yes, it was popular in 1830

to say that no government was good government. It was H.L. Mencken who

said that for every problem there is a solution which is simple, neat,

plausible and wrong.

This is a government of clichés, but one with no fundamental

understanding. Most people knowledgeable in economics, whether they be

in the conservative camp or in the left-wing camp, are looking for a

consumer-led recovery at this point. There's a very fragile balance.

But this kind of a budget just kicks the slats out of a consumer-led

recovery.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

A few areas of business were relatively unaffected by the recession.

People talk about recovery, as if recovery has already started. If

you're going to look at every little dip, every peak and valley on this

road to recovery, it's very difficult to say even today whether we have

bottomed out, whether we have seen the worst. One thing that everyone

is agreed upon is that recovery is very fragile, if it's taking place

at all, and that draconian measures such as this destroy confidence in

this province. The people who do have secure jobs are scared, afraid to

make investments and to put people to work. Last winter I took about

$10,000 of personal savings and created my own winter-works project. I

didn't get any government grants for it either; I may or may not have

qualified, but I didn't apply for any. I had a construction project

done on my home — I built a large garage and shop — and put money into

the economy. That is the kind of thing we've got to encourage in this

province, and we are not

[ Page 912 ]

encouraging it when we create massive layoffs, and when everyone thinks disaster lies just around the comer.

[11:30]

I spoke the other day about the value that some people place on

democratic government, and about the courageous action of King Juan

Carlos I of Spain in standing up to the military junta that marched

into parliament with pistols held up. I was shocked yesterday by the

cavalier attitude that the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith) of this

province took toward French-Canadian migrant workers — a child has a

broken collarbone after having the boots put to him. Mr. Speaker, this

budget is the dismantling of human rights in this province, and we now

have the example of a newspaper editorial which actually encouraged and

abetted that kind of hooliganism and racism. Except we're all the same

race, I believe; I think the French.... Well, we're not all the same

race, are we? We're a very mixed bunch of people in British Columbia

and in Canada. But I understand that the people involved in that

conflict were of the same race; I believe they were all Caucasians. But

still it was racism, as most people would understand racism. These are

the things that we are giving up, and that some people are willing to

give up so lightly.

This budget has some notable omissions. It claims there are going to

be tremendous cutbacks. We've been told there will be a 25 percent

reduction in the public service. I see that this would happen sometime.

It's already happening, and this budget runs until next March 31. Yet

when one looks at the salary estimates in the budget, one finds they're

pretty close to a zero growth position. Some of the big ticket items,

like the Ministry of the Attorney-General, have a 1.6 percent increase

in the allowance for salaries. In another ministry of almost equal

size, Forests, there's a 6.1 percent decrease; in Health, the largest

of all, a 1.2 percent increase; and in the Ministry of Human Resources,

now the third largest employer in terms of salaries, a 1.4 percent

increase. If we're going to cut back the number of public servants by

25 percent — and of course I realize that we're halfway through the

budget year — how is it that this is not reflected in the budget in

terms of allowances for salaries?

I agree wholeheartedly with my colleague from New Westminster that

this budget is not upfront. Last year when I called the budget

dishonest the author, the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), got up

in high dudgeon and said it was the most honest budget ever been

brought into the province. Well, that budget was a budget for a

balance. What happened? Now, by the words of the second member for

Vancouver-Little Mountain (Mr. Mowat), that budget of last year led to

a $1 billion deficit, and this year we're budgeting again for $1.6

billion.

But these things didn't happen just overnight. This has been going

on for some time. To suddenly discover that we are in debt in this

province is very ironic to me. The New Democratic Party has been

pointing out the growth of certain areas.

In the 1979 election I warned the people in my riding that if the

Social Credit Party was elected they had secret plans to reorganize the

Ministry of Forests. I predicted that it would become top-heavy,

bureaucratic, ineffective and very expensive. My warnings were borne

out when there was a massive upward movement in terms of reappointments

as a result of that reorganization.

The most telling thing about that reorganization — and this is something that

those back-benchers should listen to — was that three budgets ago the budget

to put a roof over the head of the Ministry of Forests was $3.5 million. In

one year after reorganization that amount rose to $10.5 million. Just imagine,

a 300 percent increase in one year, and that wasn't enough. Even I, this

suspicious member, thought that they had padded the budget that year; but no,

they managed to spend that 300 percent increase in that one budget item, and

the next year they submitted a budget of $19.5 million. Only this year has that

figure ceased to grow at such an alarming rate. This year it's only up another

$400,000, to $19.9 million; you might as well say $20 million. So in three

short years the cost of putting a roof over the Ministry of Forests has risen

from $3.5 million to $20 million. That's why you're in financial trouble

over there. You have to look at $5, $10 or $20 million at a time. You've

got to look through the budget and look back to see where you went wrong.

Government is contracting out all kinds of services which were

formerly done by people hired within the ministry of public works. I

know that in my area boilers that simply needed an O-ring replaced were

improperly handled and led to having to replace a whole new heating

system. It's leading to thousands and thousands of dollars in repairs,

because you don't have the hands-on day-to-day maintenance that we had

in the old Public Works system. Talk to anybody who works in government

buildings, and they can relate their own stories. You don't have to go

to Nelson. I'm sure if you go to Revelstoke, Salmon Arm, Vernon or

wherever, the same kind of story will be told. What is the price now? I

agree that certain things should be contracted out — quite often

renovations and so on. You can get very good competitive bids from good

contractors. But these long-term contracts for maintenance tend to

create an even worse type of bureaucracy than the one that we seek to

remedy by contracting out to the so-called private sector. It's not a

private sector. It's a pseudoprivate sector that you have contracted

out a lot of this to. But it is an area that is open to abuse,

patronage, overpayments and people looking aside and not even

questioning the quality of the work that is being done. These are the

things that have led us to this sad and sorry situation.

As I say, it didn't happen overnight. The symptoms of this disease

with which we are faced today were sown when the present Minister of

Finance took over from the previous Minister of Finance, Mr. Evan

Wolfe, a long-time member of this House. When he took over in 1979-80

we had a closing balance of $1,961,000,000 in this province. We had

almost $2 billion in this province in terms of special purpose funds

and cash in the bank. It was divided almost evenly with almost $1

billion of each. In 1980-81, while I think the minister budgeted for a

surplus, there was actually a deficit in terms of net revenue. We spent

$256.7 million more than we collected in revenue in this province. We

dipped into some special purpose funds. We dipped into the bank

account, and we reduced the closing balance to $1,703,000,000.

Mr. Speaker, the next year, 1981-82, was a very good budget year.

But even then we managed to spend $184 million more than we collected

in revenue. That left us with a closing balance now down to

$1,520,000,000. As the second member for Vancouver-Little Mountain (Mr.

Mowat) pointed out, in 1982-83 we spent $978.2 million more, and we

reduced our balance of liquid assets from $500 million to $542.1

million. If the current budget forecast holds true, at the end of this

fiscal year, March 31, 1984, we will be in deficit in the closing

balance by $1, 060,900,000.

[ Page 913 ]

This is not something that suddenly came up. It is not something

that was not predicted. If the hon. members opposite would read the

speeches of the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) in reply to the

budget, going back to those budgets of 1981-82, they would see that the

caution was sounded, but it was not heeded. This has always been an

arrogant group. The only time this group ever tries to show some

humility is close to an election, and then they revert to their ways.

This government has been great at closing down businesses, closing down

towns. The Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon.

Mr. Phillips) should be called the minister for ghost towns. He has

created a ghost town at Ocean Falls. Lord knows he's tried to create

ghost towns in Nelson and Creston, but the people there, with a little

bit of luck and a lot of determination, have managed to fend off some

of those things. I participated in a committee that sought to get our

major industry reopened, and I think we were finally successful. B.C.

Resources Investment Corporation had virtually abandoned the city of

Nelson. Today, as a result of the committee in which I participated —

and, I might say, that Mr. Howard Dirks, the Social Credit candidate in

the last election, also participated as nominee from the city of Nelson

— and not because of anything this government did, we managed to

salvage some of the jobs at Kootenay Forest Products.

[11:45]

This government has abandoned employment bases all over the

province, including Ocean Falls and Nelson. They've turned their backs

on communities like Port Alberni. They've turned their backs on many

things. We talk about going out and creating employment by creating

employment where there is an investment. If you go out and spend money

doing some silviculture treatment, can't you capitalize the value of

that silviculture treatment? Couldn't that be put into the books? I'll

tell you, it would be a lot better on the books of this province than

the debt of the B.C. Railway, which will never be able to pay off its

debt. That's put down. We put down as assets many necessary Crown

corporations, but to view some of these things as assets is absolutely

insane.

It was interesting to hear the member for North Okanagan (Mr.

Campbell) say something to the effect that government has to get out of

the marketplace. This government has gotten into maybe the second

largest marketplace in the whole province. This government has gotten

in not ankle deep, not knee deep, not hip deep, but this government has

gotten us in so deep that we are drowning in debt due to the northeast

coal agreement. This government has invested $1.5 billion to create

1,500 coal-mining jobs. That works out to $1 million a job, and yet I

see the headlines in my papers about the southeastern comer of the

province where the Balmer mine has shut down and we've lost 400

coal-mining jobs. So we haven't created 1,500 jobs; we've only created

1,100 jobs.

Then I see that there are further cutbacks. I see that the Japanese

are negotiating cutbacks not only in price but in volume. We're losing

even further coal-mining jobs, so all we've done is displace jobs from

one place to another. The northeast coal project may very well be

spending $1.5 billion to create no net jobs at all. But let's give them

the benefit of the doubt: $1 million to create one coal-mining job. Of

course there are service jobs that follow from it. I realize that the

coal has to be taken to a port on a railway, and handled at the port.

But we're talking about something that could be going on in other parts

of the province, without government interference. I think this

government has interfered in the marketplace on a scale that no

government in the western world would have contemplated — the

proportions of this interference and the price we're paying. Then we

see $450 million now being borrowed — the government has approved it —

for the British Columbia Railway.

From the minister's own admission, we know that the extra fee being

paid by the Japanese for the transportation of coal won't cover the

cost; it will never pay for the railway. By the minister's own figures,

we know that instead of shipping 7.7 million metric tonnes, it will

take more than 18 million metric tonnes; so we'll have to triple the

amount. If we read B.C. Business Magazine

or many of the other journals in this province — which if not totally

independent are possibly biased towards the government — we know that

there isn't a hope of that kind of market take-up; if there is, we

already have the capacity to supply that market increase from southeast

coal.

This government has gotten into government enterprise in a larger

way than the previous NDP government with its socialist philosophy ever

dreamed of doing. We were interested in creating jobs, and seeing

people continue in their employment.

Something else these members opposite should look at is the economic

analysis of the budget. Don't just read the budget; read what the B.C.

Central Credit Union has to say about the budget. One thing they show

is the debt as a percentage of gross provincial product. Guess in what

years debt dropped as a percentage of gross provincial product. It

almost went out of sight. It dropped down in percentage terms in 1972

from about 27.4 percent to about 26.6, and by 1975, when we left

office, it had dropped down below 22 percent. Since that time....

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: We didn't have to loan money, and we never had trouble getting money if we did need it. But unlike....

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: I have an interjection from the Minister of

Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Brummet). Mr. Speaker, one is

tempted. But I'm not going to go back in comparing....

By 1975 it had dropped down to below 22 percent, but in 1976 it

jumped up to 24 percent, and there has been a rise and now in 1983

we're right back where we were in 1971 before the NDP government

brought in sound fiscal policies. That's why we're in trouble in this

province.

This government has done all kinds of things to hide the real cost

of government. They've sold off the ferries. If we kept books in this

province by any reasonable accounting practices.... You always notice

in an auditor's report that the auditing has been done on a basis

comparable with the previous year's audit. But this government has

changed the bookkeeping method every year. You can't compare the budget

today to what it was in 1975 because in 1975 we paid for things like

ferries and new government buildings out of current revenues. This

government sells off the ferries, recovers that money and calls it

income when it isn't really income — when they're incurring a debt.

They do it by a leasing system, which means that all they have to do is

pay the interest but not carry the capital of the debt on the books of

[ Page 914 ]

the province. They've mortgaged the buildings of

this province. Now they are doing the same thing with the buses. I

noticed the other day that they are now leasing buses instead of paying

for them. Well, you know, there's a price that has to be paid. It's

just like going out with a credit card. This government is an

irresponsible user of a credit card. Only this credit card obviously

has a credit rating up to of about $16 billion, because that's where

we're going to end up in this province at the end of this year. We're

going to be in debt $16 billion. It took this province over one hundred

years, from Confederation until 1975, to accumulate a debt through many

different governments — Conservative, Liberal, Social Credit and NDP —

of $4 billion, but this government has quadrupled the debt since 1976.

That's why now you not only want to kill the services that you have

in this province.... You feel that there is only one way of balancing

this budget and that is to cut down expenditures. We've proposed

cutting down certain expenditures — Lord knows we have.

MR. KEMPF: Which ones?

MR. NICOLSON: You were here; you know what we proposed. We

proposed cutting back on office furniture expenses. Obviously we were

right, because this year you finally did cut back on office furniture

expenses. You cut back on it in your budget this year by 54 percent,

but we said you should have done it years ago.

We said you could cut back on government advertising. Lord knows,

it's immoral to have political advertising paid for. I certainly, as a

New Democrat, very much resent, as do thousands and thousands of

British Columbians, having to pay for Social Credit advertising just

because Social Credit happens to be the government of the day. We saw

false advertising. We saw them talking about creating thousands of

day-care centres or placements. When it all came out, it was something

like 16, or 300, or whatever, but it was certainly off the mark by

thousands and thousands.

The government is in trouble because it has only one solution. It

has no imagination and can only look at cutting back on government

expenditures, some of which are very productive, in terms of both

providing very necessary service and feeding the economy. It's been

proven time and time again that money spent in health care has the most

stimulative effect on the economy for government money. But that isn't

the direction we see this government taking.

Mr. Speaker, this government is not looking at ways of increasing

government revenue. Their only way of increasing government revenue is

to bring in some counter-productive tax measures — like putting 7

percent taxes on restaurant meals. I'll tell you that most people I

know are avoiding meals over $7 when they go to a restaurant. I'll tell

you that most people....

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, I don't come from a big enough city to have a McDonald's. We don't have a

McDonald's in Nelson-Creston. We have good, local free-enterprise —

not international chains sucking the money out of this province and

taking their profits and reinvesting them elsewhere. We've got local

free-enterprisers in my neck of the woods who run their enterprises. We

don't need McDonald's. We've got dammed good nutritious food, and until

this government brought in its draconian measures, it was affordable.

This government is driving away tourists. This government is placing

a tax on long-distance telephone calls so that people can't phone their

mothers as often as they used to do.

MRS. WALLACE: They're against motherhood.

MR. NICOLSON: That's right. This government is against

motherhood. Well, this government has never thought, in all of their

planning, about stimulating the economy of British Columbia. They have

even disregarded the very negative effect of this whole budget, and

that's why one can't support it.

One of the things pointed out by the B.C. Central Credit Union is

the fact that the budget failed to provide forecasts on B.C.'s

unemployment. This is a pretty weak document that really doesn't look

at the future, set a plan, or provide a platform upon which we can

start to rebuild this province. No, it is a retrenchment to nineteenth

century and early nineteenth century laissez-faire capitalism. That was

the thinking of the Liberal Party of the day, Mr. Speaker, that brought

that in. It failed. And I can say that the countries that are

succeeding right now are the countries that have planned economics. The

countries that have weathered this economic storm the best are mostly

led by democratic socialist governments. These governments....

Interjection.

[12:00]

MR. NICOLSON: Well, Austria, yes. I.... Sweden bounced out

the Socreds after a six-year flirtation with them. Australia has

bounced out the Socreds after a six-year flirtation with them. I hope

that British Columbia, after maybe a 10- or 12-year flirtation, will do

the same.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that if the members opposite don't vote against

this budget they will at least listen to what I've said and read some

of the things in the previous three and four budget debates. Read the

comments of the member for Nanaimo, and then maybe next year, if you

have any input into the budget, you will see that it is aimed at

stimulating the economy of British Columbia, not strangling it.

Mr. Michael moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:02 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1984,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada