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

Morning Sitting

[ Page

5369 ]

CONTENTS

Budget debate

Mr. Michael –– 5369

Mr. MacWilliam –– 5369

Mr. Parks –– 5371

Mr. Lea –– 5374

Mr. Skelly –– 5377

THURSDAY, MARCH 21, 1985

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. GARDOM: On this second day of spring there is one in

our midst who is celebrating a natal day with a horoscope that says

that the individual in question is versatile, sensitive, stubborn and

sensual. Who indeed could that be? It could be none other than our

Deputy Clerk, Mr. E. George MacMinn. Happy birthday to him.

MR. SKELLY: On behalf of the opposition, Mr. Speaker, I would

like to join in congratulating our Deputy Clerk on his birthday — and

on his foresight for having a birthday on the same day as our national

leader, Ed Broadbent.

Orders of the Day

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

On the amendment.

MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, I would like to conclude my remarks

on the budget with a few points. One has to do with the amount of

dollars that this government has allocated to health care in British

Columbia, and I would like to give the House some comparison figures

between 1975 and 1985.

The budget in 1975 was $3.43 billion. That has grown in this current

budget to $9.056 billion, which is about a threefold increase –– 164

percent net increase. In 1975 the amount of dollars allocated to the

Health ministry was $.7233 billion. Today, that figure has increased to

$2.6669 billion. Looking at percentages, in 1975 Health absorbed 21.09

percent of that budget; in 1985 that has grown dramatically to 29.45

percent, That is a net increase, on straight percentages within the

budget, of 8.36 percent. The important point here is that health costs

between 1975-85 have increased remarkablya, by full 40 percent — from 21.09 percent to 29.45 percent.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

In looking at these figures, surely the opposition and the people of

British Columbia should have no doubts as to the first priority of the

Social Credit government in the province of British Columbia, which is

certainly illustrated here as being that of health care.

There is another item I would like to compliment the government on before closing,

and that is the proposed naming of a commissioner of critical industries. As

the months roll by, we're going to find this a tremendous benchmark in the

recovery program in British Columbia. I think it's going to be a very interesting

program to watch unfold. I think there are very exciting things ahead. In closing,

I would ask the opposition to please get off the negative kick. Try to be positive

for once. I look back in history and I find the opposition was against the B.C.

Rail extension to the north country, they were against the homeowner grant program,

they've been against hydro development, they were against B.C. Place, and

they were against Expo.

MR. MacWILLIAM: I rise to support the amendment to the budget

speech, and may I remind the members of the House that the general

thrust of the amendment is that the House regrets that the Minister of

Finance has failed to make provisions to reduce unemployment or create

long-term employment within this province.

Mr. Speaker, in light of that statement, I'd like to direct my

comments to the area of tourism in British Columbia. I notice the hon.

Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Richmond) is not present in the House.

It's unfortunate that in the spirit of cooperation he cannot hear these

comments, unless of course he's listening outside.

[10:15]

No business activity in this province is more important now and in

the future than tourist trade. Tourism is now the second major industry

in British Columbia. In 1983 the revenues from tourism exceeded $2

billion. In 1983 there were also an estimated 86,000 people working

full time in the tourism industry, with 126,000 individuals employed

during the peak season. Tourism is a rapidly growing, non-polluting,

labour-intensive business that is a major growth industry in this

province today. Because the tourism industry occurs primarily in the

small business sector, it is one of the major sources for new

employment in British Columbia. A recent study of the Canadian

Federation of Independent Businesses shows that 71 percent of all new

employment occurs in firms with fewer than 50 people. The fact that

such firms make up such a major portion of the tourism industry augurs

well for the future expansion and job creation of tourism in the

province,

I want to have a look through some of the economic benefits that are

derived from tourism. In 1983 almost 12 million people toured British

Columbia. Over 47 percent of these individuals were B.C. residents;

they spent approximately $955 million in the province. About 26 percent

were from other provinces, mainly Alberta, Saskatchewan and Ontario;

they generated over $610 million in revenue. Approximately 24 percent

of these tourists were U.S. residents, largely from Washington and

California, who added approximately 20 percent to the total revenue for

tourism. Interestingly enough, Mr. Speaker, only 3.8 percent of those

tourists were overseas visitors. This forces one to question whether

the minister's many sojourns to Japan, London and Europe are really a

cost-effective method of generating the tourism trade. Perhaps he

should be placing a far greater emphasis on encouraging the growth of

the North American market.

There is no doubt that tourism is big business in British Columbia.

It's a business with a great potential for the future. Yet there are

disturbing signs when we look at the government's commitment to tap

that potential. Although tourism grew about 5 percent per annum between

1969 and 1979 — a fairly steady rate of growth — our industry has been

growing at a slower rate than has the competition. In relative terms,

we've been falling behind in the marketplace.

Now here's the disturbing news. In 1983 the ministry report on

tourism clearly shows that between 1979 and 1983 the total volume of

visitors in British Columbia dropped 11 percent, from 13.3 million to

11.8 million. The most drastic decline, when you look at the graphs and

figures, is due to the reduction in travel by British Columbia

residents, undoubtedly as a result of the province's poor economy and

imposed restraint measures. When you look at the graphs, tourism from

the U.S., overseas and other parts of Canada remains

[ Page 5370 ]

fairly stable. The most precipitous drop is in our

own local tourist economy, in British Columbians traveling their own

province. The fact is that when people are in fear of losing their

jobs, they're just not going to spend their money on travel. It's as

simple as that. Interestingly enough, in his statement about tourism to

this House just a few weeks ago, the minister did not mention in his

glowing accolades the precipitous drop in the tourist trade since 1979.

He took transient increases for a single month and used them to give

the appearance of growth, when we have in fact been falling behind.

A report in the Vancouver Sun in July 1984 brings the issue

into perspective. The

article highlights the fact that the tourist

industry suffered a tough year, with increased bankruptcies among

Island and interior tourist businesses, compared to 1983 — which was

itself a very tough year. Especially hard hit were the tourist

accommodation centres in the Okanagan Valley and in the Kootenays. A

recent

article in the Province

reported that the hotel industry continues to be severely battered by

the B.C. recession. None of the major hotels have fared well. Occupancy

rates reported in the 30 to 40 percent range are well below the

traditional break-even point. Latest figures from the ministry confirm

that for 1984 the average B.C. occupancy rate for hotels and motels was

only 57 percent –– 3 percentage points below the traditional break-even

point.

I don't understand how the minister can paint such a glowing picture

when facts from his own report show otherwise. It's as simple and

logical as that. The minister has also neglected to mention that

British Columbia, despite its great potential, presently suffers a

significant tourist trade deficit. In 1979 our balance of trade deficit

for tourism in British Columbia was over $250 million; $250 million

more went out of the province than came in. British Columbians spend

more in other provinces and in the U.S. than visitors from those

destinations spend here in British Columbia. Expenditures made by B.C.

residents overseas are more than twice that spent by overseas visitors

here. I think those figures show a rather disturbing trend, Mr. Speaker.

Part of the outflow o f the tourist dollar isunavoidably due to the

midwinter lure of sunny southern climates like Hawaii and Palm Springs.

But part of the blame also lies in the fact that we are simply not

competitive enough in developing and marketing our own tourist industry.

I'd like to give this House a little direction in terms of marketing

and good basic capitalist strategy — just to remind the other side

where it's at. If this government is serious about exploiting our vast

potential for tourism, it must do more than pay mere lip service to it.

Government spending to promote tourism is one-twelfth of the tax

revenue generated by that industry. Less than one-twelfth is going back

into it.

In 1984, the total budget for Tourism was less than $8 million,

compared to over $19 million for this government's political propaganda

machine. I wonder where the emphasis lies. The minister over there says

raise more taxes. I'm not saying that. What I'm saying is to redirect

our spending priorities.

Let me give you an example, Mr. Speaker. The budget for the

fledgling Ministry of International Trade and Investment for one year

is greater than last year's entire budget for Tourism. Budget estimates

for 1985 and 1986 show only a modest increase and are indicative of

this government's lack of interest in tourism. There are no new

incentives in this budget that have come from the Tourism minister.

It's time this government put its money where its mouth is in

developing our tourist trade.

Mr. Speaker, the tourism trade shows excellent potential for the

generation of jobs, but it needs assistance through tourism-based small

business incentives, tax relief, and extensive research in resource

inventory identification and the development of marketing strategies.

As a member from the north Okanagan, I come from an area that's very

dependent on the tourism dollar. It's an area, if I can remind the

House, that presently suffers from over 21 percent official

unemployment and that would significantly benefit from increased

tourist trade.

On behalf of the tourism industry in the Okanagan and throughout

B.C., and in the spirit of cooperation, I'd like to offer this

government some positive suggestions for their consideration. These

suggestions are designed to stimulate the potential in tourism that

continues to remain untapped in this province. I offer them not as

party doctrine but rather as proposals of an individual member for

economic reconstruction in our tourism industry. I believe that some of

these proposals would reduce the inequitable tax burdens which dampen

consumer demand and also reduce the revenues of established businesses

and make it hard to start new ones. These measures would also provide

an increase to regional involvement in identifying market needs and

pursuing target markets.

First, the elimination of the meal tax — nothing mentioned in the

budget speech. The government tax on meals is simply no way to

encourage tourists and residents to patronize restaurants. An

alternative to the complete removal of a meal tax would be to provide a

reasonable tax exemption on that portion of the meal, for example,

below $10. Secondly, removal of accommodation tax. The government has

been repeatedly approached by the hotel-motel association in terms of

that tax burden. This is a time when we need to encourage the use of

B.C. hotel and motel accommodations. Figures for the 1984 season

demonstrate that the hotel occupancy rate is below the break-even

point. Now the minister over there is trying to dissuade me from

repeating the figures, because it doesn't look too good. But that's the

reality, sir, and you have to face it.

The removal of this tax should increase the average length of stay;

it should generate increased spinoff revenue, and it should create jobs

in the accommodation industry. An alternative to the complete removal

of this tax would be to provide a basic tax exemption for accommodation

that would effectively tax only the more expensive rooms.

Third is the concept of tourism enterprise bonds. The issuance of

special low-interest development bonds for tourism would allow

investors who want to help the tourism industry to make a contribution

and take advantage of significant tax credits. Bonds would be issued

with equivalent interest rates and tax credits to provide a competitive

return for investors throughout the province. Capital generated by

these bonds would be made available at low rates of interest to new

projects designed to bring more tourists into the area.

Interjection.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Mr. Speaker, the member over there has asked

us to be positive, and now I see that the member himself is being

negative. I suggest some reasonable, logical alternatives to stimulate

economic recovery in this province, and he has the unmitigated gall to

criticize such

[ Page

5371 ]

logical and reasonable alternatives. If you want to be positive, sir, it cuts

both ways.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. All members will be pleased to

contribute to the silence of the House and allow the member to direct

his comments to the Speaker.

MR. MacWILLIAM: The provincial government, in dealing with

the tourism enterprise bonds, would forgo the income tax revenue from

those people willing to invest in the future of the tourism industry,

but it would recover far more from increased revenues and reduced

income support for the unemployed.

Fourth is the establishment of a tourism development fund. Since

1982 New Democrats have advocated the establishment of such a fund,

with the following objectives in mind: (

a) to achieve direct employment

opportunities in planning, upgrading and constructing tourist

facilities; (

b) to achieve lasting employment through the operation and

maintenance of such facilities; and (

c) to stimulate permanent

employment in related accommodation, travel and hospitality service.

[10:30]

Interjections.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Mr. Speaker, there's an old saying in the

north that when you throw a stone into a pack of dogs and one of them

yelps, you know you've hit something.

The present government has paid mere lip service to the concept of

tourism development. The government has failed to show a real

commitment to tourism development. Although the present government,

after years of urging, has established such a fund, the $25 million

allocated in the present budget over the five years of the program is

hardly significant. As loans for tourism development throughout B.C.,

it will hardly cause a ripple in the pond.

My fifth point is the development of a regional advisory and

planning council. B.C. will simply have to do a little better job at

selling its tourism product. This province has failed to come up with a

viable and long-term plan for tourism development, It's been stated by

the federal minister that our tourism strategy is simply too vague. The

need for long-term planning is related to the need to integrate

regional values into an overall marketing strategy.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Although the government — and I give them credit for this — has

formed a provincial advisory council from a few bureaucrats and

industry representatives.... I think it meets twice a year, and the

Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Richmond) will, perhaps, confirm this....

Interjection.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Mr. Member, I'm not against regional input;

in fact, I'm going to suggest positive alternatives to increase that

regional input.

Although the government has formed a provincial advisory council from a few

bureaucrats and industry representatives, such a body, I feel, doesn't really

reflect the true regional needs. For this reason B.C. should create regional

advisory councils for the nine identifiable tourism regions throughout the province.

Let's increase our regional representation. Such councils should be given

the mandate and the means to recommend future strategies for regional tourism

development. Composed of municipal and regional representatives, as well as

members from local chambers of commerce and industry personnel, regional councils

could develop a local resource inventory, identify areas of unexplored potential

and initiate regional market research to assess local tourism needs.

Sixth, market research. Although the ministry has been moving in this direction recently....

Interjections.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Mr. Speaker, I ask for order in the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Although the ministry has been moving in this

direction in the last few years, and I give it credit for that, I think

there's still a critical need to develop a more intensive marketing

research program. Our past scattergun approach, as evidenced by

"SuperNatural B.C.," has simply been too vague a sales job. It lacks

focus. Not everyone is interested in the outdoors and scenery. We have

to learn who is interested in what, and then we have to go out and sell

them the package they want. That's just basic, logical, capitalist

marketing strategy. I remind you that you're not practising that

strategy. Tourism promotion must learn to use proper marketing

techniques, to define its objectives. We need to develop a focused

program that highlights identified tourist attractions.

I want to give you an example, Mr. Speaker. A person comes up from

California, as opposed to somebody visiting us from Europe or Japan.

What does he want? Where do we focus our efforts in each market? Which

areas of the province are best going to suit and fill his needs? How

can we best promote these areas to capture that tourist dollar? These

are simple, logical questions that haven't been answered. The minister

should study these questions and develop a rational and more

cost-effective approach to market research.

In

summary, I've gone over a number of points that I suggest as

positive alternatives, positive proposals from this side of the House,

in helping to stimulate our tourism industry. The tourism industry has

the potential for unprecedented growth. As the second-largest B.C.

industry today, it promises to be a major component in the creation of

future jobs in the province. Tourism deserves more than the mere lip

service that's presently being allocated to it. It deserves a solid

commitment in terms of funding and planning in order to reach that

potential and generate the economic activity that will help get B.C.

moving again.

MR. PARKS: Before I get into my considered text, I feel

compelled to comment on the remarks of the hon. member for Okanagan

North, who has just taken his place. I found it most interesting that

he commented on the merits of a tax on meals and accommodation.

Obviously he was somewhat critical of that tax in this province.

Throughout his speech he was chastising our government for the "lip

service" that we have illustrated in our various incentive programs. I

find it confusing that although he was prepared to criticize the tax on

[ Page 5372 ]

meals and accommodation in B.C., he failed to note

that the only NDP government in this country, that of course being the

government in Manitoba, has tax on meals and accommodation. I find it

very interesting that the NDP, at least from the ranks of opposition,

is prepared to advocate the removal of these two taxes, while the only

NDP government in Canada has in fact imposed those two taxes.

Mr. Speaker, I'm extremely proud to be able to rise and speak in

support of the budget, and obviously contrary to the amendment, noting

that we have seen an expansionary budget brought forth by the hon.

Minister of Finance. It is a budget that is a blueprint for recovery, a

blueprint for optimism. I am somewhat distressed by the number of

negative comments. I have noticed in the recent media we have various

members, not only of the opposition of course, but members of the

labour sector, saying things like: "Basically this is a profit-creation

budget, not a job-creation budget." That was Mr. Andstein, the

secretary-treasurer of the B.C. Fed. We also had Mr. Owen Dykstra, the

president of the B.C. CUPE branch. He says that it "ignores ordinary

British Colombians and doesn't stand up to any real test of fairness."

We then even have Mr. Roy Gautier, of the B.C. Construction Trades

Council, stating — at least it's purported in a quote: "'I can only see

it as a lot of relief for business,' he said, adding that there is

little indication in the budget that it's going to produce jobs."

The hon. member from the opposition applauds those comments. It

seems to me that there is an inherent lack of recognition of the

principles of economics. Of course it's meant to encourage profits,

encourage business. It so happens that well in excess of 80 percent of

all jobs created in this province are created by small business. This

government has seen that what is required is to give consistency in tax

planning.

The members of the opposition fail to realize that encouraging

businesses to invest and expand creates jobs. Encouraging British

Columbians who are sitting on a record amount of savings to invest in

British Columbia businesses creates jobs. And by creating jobs, we are

going to have the position, the ability to take care of our unexcelled

social service programs.

My colleague from Shuswap noted in his closing remarks how expansive

our expenditure has been with respect to health. I think it's worth

noting that since 1975, the total social services budget has increased

from $3.4 billion to $5.6 billion. In the same period we have seen the

portion of our budget spent on social services rise from 57.3 percent

to 65.2 percent. Clearly, this government's track record shows that the

safety net of social services must be, and has been, maintained. The

record is clear.

The hon. member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson), when he was

speaking in opposition to the budget, spoke out against the student

loans remission program. I found that somewhat surprising, Mr. Speaker,

as one of the members of this House who has so often spoken in support

of education. Here we have a program that says: "Look, students, if

you're prepared to bear down, if you're prepared to excel, then we are

going to ensure that that excellence is recognized." What can be

criticized about that?

He referred to the purported fact that an individual going through a

four-year baccalaureate program today likely would incur a $20,000 debt

by the time he or she graduated. Quite frankly, I find that figure

somewhat unreasonable. I don't understand how an individual, if he or

she is truly interested in getting an education, cannot find part-time

jobs and work throughout the school year, if not work full-time during

the period when they're not in session; and if they really do wish to

take their education seriously and to excel, then this loan remission

program will be directly of benefit to them. So I was quite surprised

to hear that hon. member criticize what I feel is one of the most

significant programs in the budget with respect to education.

I know we've had some comments with respect to the health component

of the budget, but as parliamentary secretary to the Minister of

Health, I am extremely pleased to see that our government's commitment

to health care as our number one priority continues. That is, of

course, very evident in our budget.

If I may quote the Minister of Finance in the budget: "Health care

continues to be of major importance to the government. The health

budget will rise by 5 percent to $2.677 billion." He also noted that

we're looking at inflation to remain just under the 4 percent level

this year, and probably at the same level next year. So if you consider

the actual increase in expenditures provided for in the budget, we are

looking for at least a 1 percent real increase in growth in the health

budget. I think both sides of the House would be prepared to support

that aspect of the budget.

[10:45]

It seems to me we have for many years been proud of our universal

health care system, but I wonder if it's not coming to the point where

we are taking it for granted. I had that thought brought home to me,

Mr. Speaker, when I happened to be watching television last Sunday

evening and caught a segment of Sixty Minutes ,

the American news program, which had a very interesting program on what

they call dumping. While it focused on the experience in Dallas, they

said that the situation is throughout the United States. It illustrated

that indigent patients, or patients who do not have medical insurance,

can find themselves rolled up to the emergency ward of a private

hospital, and as soon as the administrator finds out that the patient

does not have health coverage, they are shuttled off to one of the few

public hospitals in the various cities.

Another, I thought, most alarming comment: one young person indicated that

when she was taken to the hospital, her mother was given the ultimatum: "If

you pay me this evening, I'll take $75 for the ambulance ride. If I haven't

been paid by the morning, the cost of that ambulance service will be $105."

We aren't just talking about shunting minor breaks and contusions from the

private hospitals to the public hospitals. We're talking about compound

fractures, broken pelvises, individuals being transferred from hospital to hospital

who were in such extreme pain that throughout the trip from the private hospitals

to the public hospitals they were actually passing out. One person had meningitis,

a number of people were in shock and there was a person requiring resuscitation

upon receipt at the public hospital. These were all cited as examples of this

dumping process.

Do we have that in British Columbia, Mr. Speaker? Of course not. We

have a health care system second to none in the world. Regardless of

your position in society, you are offered the best that our medical

service can deliver. I think that's something we should all be very

proud of, and we should all be cognizant of it. I'm sure that both

sides of the House will support that.

I think it's clear that we have to be concerned about the efficient allocation of our very limited resources, and that is

[ Page 5373 ]

something that has been clearly brought to the

forefront during the past three years of extreme recession, if not

outright depression. The coffers of the provincial government have been

tremendously depleted by the international depression, and that has

meant that there has been a tremendous burden on government to ensure

that efficient allocation of resources. In the health field we have

seen that move toward efficiency in the alteration of the hospital

management hierarchy. The multi-unit management concept has been

introduced in British Columbia, and I am of the opinion and have been

led to believe that it has been extremely successful. By amalgamating

facilities, we are able to concentrate greater resources for

solving specific problems. Today many specialists are able to

concentrate their efforts in establishing first-class facilities in

combined hospital groups. The combination of these facilities results

in an increase in health care expenditures beyond even the mere 5

percent budgeted, just because of the increased productivity from our

health care facilities.

It's unfortunate that the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) is

not here, because I was going to refer to him. I'm sure that he will

support my comments as to the effectiveness of this multi-unit

management concept, for he and I in our respective constituencies have

one of the first examples of the amalgamated management structure:

Royal Columbian Hospital, Eagle Ridge Hospital and, to a lesser degree,

St. Mary's. We have there the efficient utilization of our resources,

to get the best bang for our buck in an area that is extremely

expensive and, hopefully, extremely beneficial to all British

Columbians — certainly to those in our constituencies.

Rather than have glorified health facilities, we are ensuring that

our dollars are spent on the delivery of health care in the most

efficient fashion possible. I know Eagle Ridge Hospital, which was just

opened last year, has proven to be an excellent example of this

integrated system. I expect and hope that within a very few months, or

within the next fiscal year or two, we're going to see that it has

fully integrated with Royal Columbian. Hopefully we'll even see the

advent of a fully serviceable emergency ward. I know that's something

that my constituents and those of the hon. member for Coquitlam-Moody

(Mr. Rose) are very concerned about. I'm sure that with the integrated

administration system it's going to be a lot sooner, notwithstanding

the scarce dollars in our respective budgets.

I would suggest that the increased expenditures for the Ministry of Health,

as well as the increased efficiency with respect to the ministry's operations,

illustrate once again our government's commitment to the people of British

Columbia. More importantly, they demonstrate our belief that the efficient allocation

of resources is the paramount determinant in our budgetary process. As government

we must first and always ensure that the taxpayers' money is spent wisely,

prudently and frugally. The people of British Columbia have placed a trust in

our government, and we must never disregard or misuse it.

I think one of the most important directions that the Ministry of Health seems

to be taking — and it's reflected in the annual reports of that ministry

for the last couple of years — is the movement toward more and more involvement

in preventive health services. That, of course, is an attempt, through education,

to promote the importance of personal health care and of a living environment

where the conditions that cause and promote disease are eliminated or minimized.

This morning I was walking into the buildings with the hon. first

member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes), and we were discussing the

importance of understanding our bodies. I think it's well known that

that member has had some difficulty with his back over the past number

of years. He was suggesting that a number of things he has learned

because of his personal physical problem with respect to his back are

things everyone in British Columbia should be taught, hopefully to

prevent the type of handicap he is now facing. So the stress on

preventive health care is something that we must encourage, and I'm

very pleased to see that the Ministry of Health is doing that.

Interestingly enough, it was a comment that was referred to in the

opposition leader's alternate throne speech that preventive health care

had to be given more priority.... In fact, as I'm stating, Mr. Speaker,

in the last two annual reports it has been very clearly indicated as

one of the priorities of the ministry, and it seems that we are getting

the support of the opposition in maintaining that priority.

By way of statistics, I understand that the increase in real dollar

terms for that particular part of the Health ministry budget was 6.5

percent. As I say, that shows that, notwithstanding the very scarce

dollars in all areas of the government's budget, we were able to

emphasize and focus expenditures in that very important area. I wonder

if it can be assumed that since the Leader of the Opposition supported

the encouragement of preventive health expenditures, he is

acknowledging that the hon. Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) has

embarked on the correct emphasis for his particular ministry.

Mr. Speaker, I just pause for a moment. I see that a group of

students has entered the building. I would like to welcome all the

students and their teachers to their moment of this exercise in

democracy. I hope that their brief stay with us today will be somewhat

enlightening to them, and hopefully we'll all be on our good behaviour.

Another comment that was in both the 1983 and 1982 annual reports

was that the Ministry of Health thought it would be more important for

us to focus on wellness rather than illness. I find it quite

interesting, when one reviews the alternative throne speech background,

that there is the comment that the NDP is committed to changing the

emphasis of our health care system from sickness to wellness. When you

review the NDP's background paper on what they would do with respect to

health, you find an amazing coincidence between words in their document

and words that are contained in the Ministry of Health's annual report.

As I said, not only this past year but the year before, there are

almost word-for-word verbatim quotes. I wonder if that mere parroting

of what the government is already doing is in itself an acknowledged

commendation of the work of this particular ministry.

We do have a very serious long-term impact on health care in this

province; that, of course, is as a result of the ongoing aging

population in this province. It's going to bring increasing demands on

our acute-care facilities. Although we do have a number of acute-care

beds available in this province at this time, I think we're going to

have to be concerned about he impact of that. I know the Minister of

Finance noted in the budget that new acute; extended- and

intermediate-care beds will be opened in several communities throughout

the province. I applaud that, and I'm sure members on the opposite side

of the House would be also inclined to applaud hat.

[ Page 5374 ]

I don't want to keep quoting too many of the articles out of the NDP

background paper, when every time I refer to the Ministry of Health

annual reports I find they're extracted.

I am pleased to see that the NDP are prepared to adopt, as their

policies, policies that have been those of the Social Credit government

for some years. I guess, as they say, if you have someone trying to

model their policies after you, then it's the utmost sense of flattery.

I don't think that particular member would concur with that, but I

think that the words speak for themselves.

The Minister of Finance, in my opinion, has very clearly charted a

course for our province that will ensure that economic recovery in

British Columbia will continue to grow. I had the opportunity to attend

a luncheon yesterday afternoon where our Premier spoke to a number of

the members of the business community in Vancouver. I was greatly

impressed with the enthusiasm with which that community was taking the

remarks of our Premier, and the partnership in enterprise the tenor of

the budget and the direction that this government; is giving the

province of British Columbia. The response clearly was that, yes, the

business community accepts the direction being given by the government.

They recognize that the government has reduced a number of barriers

that have prevented expansion in the last couple of years. Those

barriers are now down. There are a number of incentives, and those

incentives should create jobs.

MR. WILLIAMS: Did you visit the food bank line-ups across the street?

[11:00]

MR. PARKS: The hon. member refers to the food bank lines. I

did not have occasion to do that yesterday, but I have visited food

bank lines. I'm sure every member of this House is concerned about food

banks and food bank lines. Not one member of this House would wish that

we'd have to have food banks. I can only offer that member two

comments. Firstly, thank goodness we do have the resources and the

community support to have food bank lines if they're necessary. But are

they to be long-term permanent features? I suggest not, and I suggest

the hon. member from the opposition bench understands that.

The way we're going to do away with food banks is to have this

province up and running like we all, I trust, are sure that it can get

up and running. It's going to be the private sector. The hon. member

for Vancouver East, I think, has some difficulty appreciating that it

is the private sector and only the private sector that is going to get

our economy going again.

MR. WILLIAMS: No doubt you're irrelevant; no doubt about that.

MR. PARKS: It may well be, but it's interesting to note —

speaking of irrelevancies — that, in my opinion, the date March 14,

1985, is going to be remembered as the benchmark date when this

government proclaimed a budget that in fact was a cornerstone of

economic recovery, and it will be noted as the moment of turnaround in

this economy. It's maybe not quite irrelevant, but it's interesting to

note that that date in history is almost interesting from another point

of view. It just so happens that 102 years ago on March 14 — and I know

this is an irrelevant fact — a gentleman by the name of Karl Marx died.

He died in London 102 years ago on March 14, and I think it's extremely

fitting that on March 14, 1985, the Minister of Finance brought down a

budget that will ensure that capitalism and encouragement in the

private sector will be the direction in this province and will be shown

to be the way that recovery will come in British Columbia.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: With us in the gallery this morning, Mr.

Speaker, is His Excellency Kiyoaki Kikuchi, ambassador from Japan,

along with Madame Kikuchi, and with him is Mr. Katakura, Japanese

consul from Vancouver. I hope the House will make them welcome.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to be voting for this

amendment, and I would like to tell you why. It falls under what I call

the two "s's": specious and silly. I'd like to review the amendment for

a moment. It says: "...but this House regrets that in the opinion of

this House the hon. Minister of Finance has failed to make provisions

to reduce unemployment or to create long-term employment within the

province."

Mr. Speaker, I don't think that the government has failed to take

this into consideration. The point is whether we agree with the method

that they're employing to reach the goal, but they obviously haven't

missed the point. They believe that that's what their budget is going

to do.

Then it goes on to say, Mr. Speaker, that they've also failed to

address the crisis in education and human services, and I agree with

that part of the amendment. I don't believe they have done that. But

then the amendment goes on and makes that statement look a little

ridiculous, because it ends up by saying: "...and to control increasing

government deficits and the cost of public debt." You can't have it all

ways. Obviously, if the revenue isn't coming into the province, you

have to reassess and plan how you're going to spend the money that is

coming in. I think the government has failed on that count. They're not

spending money according to the priorities that would be beneficial to

the province. Education, when you're talking about economic

development, has to be one of the highest priorities this society

should be looking at today. At this point in our economic history, I

would like to know how the official opposition intends to decrease the

deficit. That's what I'd like to know.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

The other reason that I will not be supporting the amendment is that

I'm going to be supporting the budget, with serious reservations.

AN HON. MEMBER: Great reservations.

MR. LEA: That's true, with great reservations. At the

beginning of the budget speech, the minister pointed out that we have a

changing economy. He and his government have finally realized that

we're not just in a cyclical business downturn, that we have structural

problems in the economy —an unorthodox economy in a traditional sense.

Then the government has gone ahead and applied the most orthodox

[ Page 5375 ]

procedures that you can find to cure the unorthodoxy. Mr. Speaker, that's the enigma.

But they call it a budget of cooperation and partnership. To me,

partnership doesn't mean that you come up with your own budget plan,

plan it all by yourself — not going out to talk to labour, the business

community and small business — and then say to everybody else:

"Partnership means you agree with me or you don't." Now the Minister of

Finance will say: "But I traveled all around the province." That isn't

planning, Mr. Speaker. That isn't sitting down with all of the people

who are involved in the economy and with other special interest groups,

working with those partners to devise a plan for economic strategy and

then coming back into this House and implementing the necessary

procedures, programs and legislation to carry out a plan that you've

devised and planned with your partners. Can you imagine a business

where you have partners and one of the partners sits down and says:

"I'm going to do the whole planning process. The rest of you partners,

it's in or out"? I'm afraid that you wouldn't have that partnership

long.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell you why I have serious

reservations about this budget. But first of all, I would like to point

out that it is the government's budget. They believe that this budget

is going to do the job, and I for one am not going to stand in their

way; in fact, I will cooperate with the government, even though I have

grave reservations about the path they've chosen.

In 1979 we had BCRIC, in 1983 we had restraint, and this year we

have partnership and cooperation. It's almost like three on a match.

But since they made the statement that they realize the economy has

changed, what have they done? A few moments earlier the hon. member who

spoke before I had my opportunity talked about Karl Marx. He didn't

mention Adam Smith. I believe that if Karl Marx and Adam Smith were

able to come back today and look at the kind of economy we have, they

would both probably revise their thinking from when they brought their

theories out. At least they were both thinkers. It's the adherence to

both Adam Smith and Karl Marx and the narrow way they interpret those

people that is the problem. This is an Adam Smith budget that we're

looking at. It's pure supply-side.

Let's take a look at some of the problems we have in British

Columbia. The year 1979 was the bumper year for forest products out of

this province. It was the highest year of volume output this province

had ever seen. But did you know that 1984 was bigger? In 1984 there was

almost a 10 percent increase in volume output from the forest industry.

AN HON. MEMBER: But they didn't make any money.

MR. LEA: At lower prices, at lower prices.

The intriguing part of this is that the forest industry turned out

an almost 10 percent higher volume output, over 1979, with 25 percent

less of a workforce. MacMillan Bloedel had 40 percent less — from

25,000 employees to 15,000 employees.

The government has, I believe, the right idea in one respect: they

see it as a priority to create wealth. I think probably everybody would

agree with that. But if their plan works, and if they can go into

industry and retool with new technologies that will make those

industries more productive, we are going to be having an

ever-increasing rise in unemployment, because that's the idea of it.

One of the big ideas is that in order to make our industries — the

forest industry, the fishing industry or the mining industry — more

productive we must apply the latest new technologies to those

industries so that we may be competitive in the international

marketplace. But what this government is doing with their budget is

telling us that they can do that and create employment. That's the

fallacy in the argument. But it is their plan, and I believe that they

believe it is the correct plan.

Mr. Speaker, never let it be said that the member for Prince Rupert

or the United Party is going to stand in their way of having their way.

Mr. Speaker, I don't believe that this budget has much of a chance of

working, but I hope it does. If it does work out the way the government

says, it will be good for British Columbia. I don't believe that I

should oppose the budget because it may happen to be good for my

political career. I don't think I should hope that it fails. I don't

believe that northeast coal should fail to help me. I don't believe

that Expo 86 should fail to help me. I don't believe that any political

party should hope that these projects fail. We should all get behind

them to try to make them work.

Mr. Speaker, this government planned their budget and their economic

strategy behind closed doors, and it's their responsibility. If it

doesn't work, it is their accountability. I'd like to ask the

government whether if it's proven a year down the road that this budget

has failed, they will do the honourable thing. I don't mean resign; I

mean go to the people of this province and say: "We did our best, and

it didn't work."

You know, John Kenneth Galbraith said that governments are made up

of lay people and they have to go to others for advice, and out of all

the advice they get, they have to choose the one that they think is the

most desirable. They may choose advice that doesn't work. Galbraith

says: "Don't be angry at them. They're not evil people, but for God's

sake, don't reelect them."

So, Mr. Speaker, I believe it is the job of opposition to point out

to the government areas for improvement. I don't believe it is the job

of the opposition to hope the government fails, because if the

government fails, British Columbia fails.

Mr. Speaker, in opposing this amendment, I believe it is the

official opposition's job to either lead, follow or get out of the way.

The official opposition should be coming out with what they consider to

be the way to go, and I believe that they have to a certain extent.

You see, what we have is a changing economic world. But we have both

sides of the House trying to apply old solutions to new problems. Let's

take a look at the two sides. On the........

[11:15]

Interjection.

MR. LEA: Well, listen. I know what yours is, Mr. Member.

Yours — and I've heard you say it — demands.... Let's deal with the

opposition first. Let's deal with demand-side economics and follow it

through to its logical or illogical conclusion.

What the official opposition is calling for is the consumer-led economic recovery. That's what they're....

Interjection.

MR. LEA: Oh, not true. Well, what the official opposition is

saying is that somehow or other, by some means or other, we must find a

way to put money into the consumers' pockets so that the consumers will

spend money in the retail stores of our province, who will in turn

order from the

[ Page 5376 ]

wholesalers in our province, who will in turn order

from the manufacturing sector. When the manufacturing sector kicks in,

that's where the real wealth is developed in demand-side economics.

But Mr. Speaker, we live in an open economy. If you're going to

apply demand-side economics, yes, there will be some stimulation out of

the demand-side theory. There will be some — for a little while. In the

long term, it doesn't deal with the problems.

Let's take a look at the open economy we live in. In an open

economy, like we have in British Columbia, almost everything we produce

in this province we sell outside our borders. Almost everything we

consume, we import. So if we stimulate the economy from the official

opposition's point of view, we will be stimulating someone else's

manufacturing sector, and the loss out of every stimulative dollar will

be absolutely incredible. You have to wonder whether that kind of

stimulation is the way to go. I don't believe it is.

Now, Mr. Speaker, let's deal with supply side on the other side of

the House. I'll have to give the government full credit for supply-side

economics. I haven't seen one like it in my life, the one they just

brought in. The theory of supply side is that you allow the business

community to retain more of their earnings, the theory being that they

will spend those retained earnings in expanding the economy and thus

creating new wealth and jobs that can be taxed, and the trickle-down

effect will work. But what are we going to have them expanding into?

What are they going to be investing in? Has the government any

guarantees that the business community in this province is going to

spend those retained earnings in this jurisdiction? Not one. There is

no guarantee, and if history is any judge in this province, we are in

for real trouble.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Nonsense.

MR. LEA: Nonsense, they say. Look at the coastal forest

industry. Have the retained earnings from the coastal forest industry

been put back into the coastal forest industry to make it a modem

industrial plant? The answer is no.

What guarantee do we have that these tax incentives that will allow

the business community more retained earnings — that they won't take

those retained earnings and build a pulp mill in Alabama? What

guarantee that they won't take the money to southeast Asia or South

America? There are no guarantees. This government has not taken it the

one step further and said: "If you're going to get this tax benefit,

you must give us a guarantee that you're going to spend that

expansionary money in this province." And that's lacking.

Mr. Speaker, there are choices.

MR. PARKS: What happens if they don't spend it here?

MR. LEA: We've had it, haven't we? We've given them taxpayers' money to run off somewhere else.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: No, they haven't had it, because their returns from the Alabama pulp mill won't hurt them a bit.

Mr. Speaker, the problem is that with these new economic problems we're

having, as we shift from what some economists call the mass economy to the information

economy, the two parties in the House, the official opposition and the government,

become more entrenched in the past. Demand side becomes even more important

to the official opposition; supply side becomes even more important to the government.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: I don't know better than that, or I wouldn't be here. I'd be there.

MR. SKELLY: Oh no you wouldn't.

MR. LEA: Yes I would. Unless, of course, you asked for me to be kicked out.

Mr. Speaker, how do we deal with these problems? We're talking about

research. As we all know, the amount of money that's spent on research,

compared to the domestic product in this province, is below most other

provinces. We know that it's below the Canadian average, and the

Canadian average is below most of the industrial western world. So what

are we going to ask these companies to invest in once we give them

these tax breaks from retained earnings? Is it more pulp mills we need?

Is it more sawmills we need? Is it more fish canneries? Just where are

they going to spend this money? This government and preceding

governments have not put the energy and effort and resources into

research that we should have.

I think it's time we quit looking to the past. If we want to blame

somebody for the problems we have now, we can all look at ourselves.

The government and almost everyone else point to the federal deficit

and say: "Do you know that about one-third of every dollar that the

government takes in in revenute goes o pay off the interest on debt?"

That's true. If you look at the corporate structure in this country,

you'll find that their revenue and their ratio of debt payoff is almost

the same. If you take a look at average citizens in this country and

take their debts and earnings as an aggregate, you'll find that theirs

is about the same. We have all been living in the same bubble. How many

people sitting here just a few short years ago, when they were watching

the price of their house rise with inflation, weren't counting the

dollars, weren't rubbing their hands and saying: "Oh, there's some

unearned money coming my way. Isn't it nice"?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: We were against that.

MR. LEA: "We were against that," says Gullible Gulliver's Travels.

Mr. Speaker, we have all been part of the problem, and we all have to be part

of the solution. We have to look for common ground. We have to look for common

goals. We can only do that by working together in a cooperative way. But a cooperative

way does not mean coming up with your own plan and then telling everybody else:

"Cooperate or else."

You know what the government will do if this plan fails? They'll

say: "Well, we told you at the beginning that it wouldn't work unless

the federal government kicks in with some tax dollars." They'll say:

"We told you at the beginning it wouldn't work. We've given the

municipalities the tools to do the job, and they failed. We're okay.

Sure we had BCRIC. Sure we had restraint. Sure we had partnership and

cooperation, but wait till next election. We're going to have a new

slogan."

I saw the Premier on television, Mr. Speaker, breaking a champagne

bottle against what he called a renewal train. If you'd watched that on

television, you know what you'd have

[ Page

5377 ]

thought? You'd have thought that was the first

train taking those boats down east. You'd have thought it was a brand

new business that sprang into existence since budget day. That business

has been there for some time. It has been a successful business, and it

has been shipping houseboats down east for some time. I don't know what

the number of the train was that was the economic renewal train, but it

sure wasn't number one.

If we are going to deal with the economic transition that we're

going through, number one to economic renewal in this province is

education. That's number one, because if you're going to go into an

economy that more and more and more is going to call for skills and

knowledge, then we have to have the institutions in society that will

supply the skills and knowledge to meet the demands and needs of that

new economy. We must have that.

At the very time when we should be investing in the skills and

knowledge that will take us into a bright economic future, this

government is building highways. Their priority of spending has not

been best suited for economic recovery. Their economic recovery is from

the days of Adam Smith; that's where it's from. In fact, the Premier,

when he feels in a jaunty mood, wears an Adam Smith tie, just to prove

that the nineteenth century is still alive and well.

But, Mr. Speaker, how can we move from the old mass economy into the new information

economy? We can only do it by first of all facing up to the very serious problems

we have. A liberal estimate of the amount of timber we have left in this province

is about 40 years, at the present annual allowable cut — about 40 years. If

we were to do all the reforestation necessary right now, we would still be waiting

approximately 80 years for the return of wealth. There would be a 40-year gap

between the end of the old and the beginning of the new economic wealth coming

on from reforestation. What about those 40 years in between?

MR. SKELLY: Research.

MR. LEA: Absolutely. What we have to do is to use our

existing resources in the most judicious way we can in order that we

will generate wealth through added value to our resources, to allow us

to do research and get money for capital investment in that new

economy. We have not been doing it, and I see no big move in this

budget in that direction.

Research is still a very low priority with this government, because they believe

that research somehow is some airy fairy academic exercise. I don't believe

that all of the research in this province should be done in academe. I sure

don't believe that all of the research in this province should be done by

the huge bureaucratic companies that we have in this province. Their track record

isn't that good here or any place else. The innovative research that's

being done in most places is, to the greatest degree, coming from small and

medium-sized businesses. The research money available in this country and in

this province is based on profit. If you aren't making a profit, you can't

get any research money.

[11:30]

First of all, we have a banking system in this country that is not conducive

to small and medium businesses; there is no risk capital there. You can't

go into our banking system and say: "I have some good experience. I have

a good idea. Can I get some money?" The answer is: "No. We want nine

times as much collateral as you have before you get any money." In fact,

you can't get money on ideas.

In closing, I put the responsibility of this budget exactly where it

belongs: in the government benches. It's their plan. It's not devised

in partnership or in cooperation, but devised by themselves. I would

urge the official opposition to vote for the budget and put them on the

spot, instead of doing the same old hackneyed thing. I knew what the

amendment would be; I could have written it for you. If the government

had brought in the Lord's Prayer you would have had an amendment, and

it would have been the same amendment. I'm asking the official

opposition to put this government on the spot. Let's all cooperate with

this government and do our darndest to make sure that their budget has

an opportunity to work, and if it does.... I don't believe it will

work, but boy, I'm going to give them every chance. I'm going to

cooperate with them in every way I can to make sure it works, because

if it does, British Columbia will be better off. If it doesn't, no one

will be able to point a finger at this side of the House and say: "You

were an impediment to its working." They would say, "At least you tried

to make it work. Now you might look to us to be a viable alternative to

government," and that's what opposition should be.

MR. SKELLY: I appreciate this opportunity to take my place in

discussion of the amendment, which has something to say about the

failure of this budget to make provision for creation of new long-term

employment, to address the crisis in education and human services in

the province and to control the increasing cost of public debt and

government deficits. I can't, for the life of me, understand how the

member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) could have predicted that this type

of resolution would come down from the opposition, except for the fact

that it deals with things that the budget doesn't deal with. Nobody who

has looked through the budget, analyzed the budget in any detail and

applied any of the kind of research to the budget document that the

member for Prince Rupert says is required could have come to the

conclusion that any other resolution was required than the one we

presented in this Legislature under the signature of the member for

North Island (Mr. Gabelmann).

So it amazes me, Mr. Speaker, but I've heard this member speak many

times before. I've never heard him say anything different than what he

said in his speech today. I've heard it many times before. I heard it

on For The Record a few days

ago on local television. What the member is basically saying is this.

He's trying to do what soap producers do in the United States. They

have this technique called product differentiation. In order to make

one soap product appear different from another, they have to

differentiate themselves. Even though they're the same colour, and have

the same effect and the same chemical composition, they try to make

themselves look different. Sometimes they turn themselves into

crystals, dye themselves a different color or wrap themselves up in a

different package. But they are no different whatsoever, and their

effect has no difference whatsoever on the job that that soap is

supposed to do.

I simply cannot believe the member for Prince Rupert is going to

vote for this budget, given what he said about this budget. If you

truly represent the people of your constituency and truly represent

them on the basis that you ran in that constituency in the first place,

at some point you have to get off the fence, you have to stand on

principle and you have to vote on principle. In this House it's as

simple as that, and people are going to judge you on that basis back

home in your constituency.

[ Page 5378 ]

So, Mr. Speaker, I am standing up in this Legislature, as most of

our NDP caucus members have, and I am going to vote for this amendment

for the very reasons the amendment states. And I am going to vote

against this budget because I think this budget is going to do

incredible damage to the province of British Columbia and to the

economy of British Columbia.

I congratulate the member for Nanaimo, (Mr. Stupich) on the speech

that he made in response to the budget. It was well researched, and it

referred to many economies outside British Columbia and many economies

in Canada that were faced with the same economic problem that this

government faced: the problem of worldwide economic recession — and we

all know what the impact of that has been. The problem of changes in

economic structure: we all know how those have affected British

Columbia, and in particular certain industries such as the forest and

mining industries. But the worst impact on this economy has been the

impact of harsh government policies internal to British Columbia.

That's the problem that we have to deal with. Partly we have to deal

with that worldwide economic recession, and we have to respond

appropriately to the things that are coming from outside the province.

We have a little bit of control over those things, Mr. Speaker. Partly

we have to respond to the structural changes that are taking place in

our economy, especially in those critical industries of forestry,

mining, agriculture and energy. We have to respond to those changes

that are taking place, but we have to respond in a way that's

appropriate. We don't have very much control over those changes, but we

have some control, and we can ameliorate their worst impacts. The

government has failed to do that. The thing that the government has to

do most of all is to respond appropriately to those changes that are

taking place.

I must admit, Mr. Speaker, that I had high expectations of this

budget. I thought the Premier and the Minister of Finance would

actually do something appropriate, having seen the damage that the

restraint program has caused, having seen the increase in unemployment

in the province of British Columbia: a new person going on unemployment

every 39 minutes between 1975 and 1984. As that clock ticks around 24

hours a day, a new person is out of work every 39 minutes in B.C.

I once calculated the increase in the number of people on welfare in

this province between July 1981 and July 1984. In those three years a

new person went on welfare every 16 minutes in B.C. As that clock

ticked around, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year,

under this Social Credit government a new person — man, woman or child

— went on welfare every 16 minutes.

This economy is in a shocking state, and the government has failed

to respond appropriately, in such a way as to relieve the worst effects

of this worldwide recession on the people of the province of British

Columbia. The problem is the failure on the part of government to

provide adequate leadership and an appropriate response to the

worldwide recession and its impact on the British Columbia economy.

The problem with this budget, by the budget's own admission, is that it

refuses to deal with the issue of unemployment. Unemployment in B.C., in seasonally

adjusted terms, is now about 14.8 percent. As a result of this budget, they're

predicting an unemployment rate of 14 percent — a totally unacceptable rate.

Well over 200,000 people will be unemployed after this budget has taken effect,

and there are 226,000 people actually out of work. And that's if the budget

succeeds. The budget itself expresses certain caveats that it may not succeed.

It may not succeed in even reducing the number of unemployed people in this

province to 200,000. It may go the other way, in fact. And the member for Prince

Rupert (Mr. Lea) is going to vote for a budget that accepts that as a fact.

I can't believe it.

Mr. Speaker, this is the sixth consecutive year that the Social

Credit government has announced a deficit budget. In most of those

years they've actually exceeded the predicted deficit. There's been an

absolute runaway in the amount of deficit and public debt that this

province has to sustain. The cause of that is higher budgets for

welfare. As more and more people are taken out of the workforce, or

allowed to drop out of the workforce by this government, the amount of

money that has to be paid out in their shelter and support goes up and

up and up, and it becomes a greater and greater burden on the public

coffers and the taxpayers of this province. That has been the cause of

higher taxes here in British Columbia. Even the Fraser Institute, the

government's own economic advisers — people with the same kind of

economic theory as the government — says that British Columbians pay

taxes longer and pay more taxes than people in any other province

except Quebec. Here in British Columbia we have the second-highest

taxes of any province in Canada.

Quebec has a much lower unemployment rate than British Columbia, so

their taxes possibly go to some good effect. But in British Columbia,

we have among the highest unemployment rates in Canada. We rank with

Newfoundland. We rank with Prince Edward Island. I'll get to the

solutions in a minute, Mr. Member, because clearly you need some advice.

In terms of unemployment we rank with Newfoundland, Prince Edward

Island and New Brunswick as having among the worst unemployment rates

in Canada. We are now one of the Maritimes provinces, in unemployment

terms. In some areas — Vancouver Island, for instance — we rank among

the worst — the southern interior of British Columbia and the West

Kootenays. Some areas rank even worse than Newfoundland and among the

worst in Canada, and that's a shameful record for this government. It's

something that is not being dealt with in this budget speech in any

clear and concise way. And the member for Prince Rupert is going to

support the budget speech.

Mr. Speaker, the government talks about relieving the tax burden on

citizens in this province, and yet just before this budget came down,

ferry rates, electricity rates and bus fares in Vancouver went up. All

of those charges that the government levies against the people of this

province and all of those charges that reduce the disposable income of

citizens of British Columbia went up just before this budget came down.

British Columbians pay the second-highest amount of taxes of any

province in Canada — second only to Quebec.

Mr. Speaker, as far as I can see, this budget is nothing more than a

blueprint for three more years of recession. It's going to mean longer

food lines, longer welfare lines and longer unemployment lines in this

province. That's all that I can read out of this budget that's been

presented by this government.

[11:45]

Yes, there are going to be tax concessions to industry — clearly, the budget

is based on tax concessions to industry — but those tax concessions will mainly

come out of the tax base of municipalities, regional districts and school districts.

To the extent, of course, that this represents a transfer of funding of public

school systems away from the property tax base and on to the general revenues

of the province, I think we could

[ Page

5379 ]

support that, Mr. Speaker. But that isn't what it

means, because those school district budgets are going to be cut down

even further, with further disastrous results to the education system

in the province.

Remember what this means, in terms of what the member for Prince

Rupert was saying. He supports this budget, which cuts back even

further on the school district budgets which he says have to be

expanded and supported so that we can get this capability for research

and development in the province. By voting for this budget he's voting

against the education system, against additional research and

development, against providing our students and our children with those

very skills that they need in order to generate that new economy of the

future that will be based on the information economy and not on the

mass economy. Let me tell you that information doesn't stand by itself:

information is about something. Technology doesn't stand by itself;

technology is science applied to something. It's that something that

people in this province should be dealing with; it's that something

that's important; it's that something that the member for Prince Rupert

doesn't understand. That something is the fundamental natural resources

that we were blessed with in this provinc. That something is

agriculture, forestry, mining and minerals, energy, water and our

natural environment that has attracted so many people to British

Columbia. Information alone is not going to do us any good. It's the

information that is about that something, applied to that something,

which is going to be the salvation of the provincial economy.

Yes, we have no hesitation in saying that part of our economic

approach has to do with the demand side. Any successful economic

program has to address the demand side of the economy. The problem

today is not that a certain party is demand side and a certain party is

supply side. That would be a problem if it were true, as the member for

Prince Rupert states it, but of course it's not true. It is true that

there's one party in this Legislature that is strictly supply side;

that's absolutely true. They fail to see a whole other aspect of the

economy. They are totally blinkered in their economic approach, and

that's definitely a problem. This party does believe that the demand

side does have to have equal importance with the supply side. We have

to have a balanced approach to our economic problems.

Let me give you a few examples of how the NDP would deal with the

problems in the province of British Columbia. I'd like to make a

comparison. When you look at the economy today in B.C. and try to

create an analogy for it, it reminds me of a guy who's been beaten up

in the street and run over by a motorcycle gang. You find this economy

lying in the street — it's not breathing; it's bleeding from all its

arteries; its bones are broken — surrounded by this tough motorcycle

gang, and it's in a poor state of health. I guess you'd assumed that

from my description, Mr. Speaker.

I wonder if there's a doctor in the House.

Clearly there are no doctors, but I wonder if anybody over there has

had any first-aid training. If you come on a situation where you find a

victim lying in the street, and he's been beaten up and run over by a

motorcycle gang — clearly he's bleeding from the arteries, clearly he's

not breathing, clearly he's unconscious and his bones are broken — what

do you treat first?

MR. LEA: You bury it.

MR. SKELLY: That's the positive approach. That's the United

Party approach: bury it. That's the positive United Party approach:

when you find an economy in rough shape, bury it. He would be drummed

out of the college of physicians and surgeons and first-aid attendants.

I'll tell you. What you do first, Mr. Member, is you get rid of the

motorcycle gang at the next election. You get rid of the motorcycle

gang that beat him up and left him in the street in the first place.

That's how you do it.

The second thing, though — and there is a treatment sequence; I

consulted with a doctor on this, and with our debate leader for health

and hospitals — is that you stop the bleeding. This economy is bleeding

through its arteries, bleeding through its welfare budget, bleeding

through its deficits and bleeding through its public debt. Unless you

stop that bleeding, that patient is going to have serious problems.

It's not going to survive. What we've been saying in the NDP is that

you deal with the worst symptoms first. You stop the bleeding. You get

those people back to work. You get the people who are on welfare and

unemployment back to work, and you get them working in productive jobs

again so that they are able to contribute in a positive way to the

economy.

What has this Social Credit government done? Of course, their

approach to treatment is to fire more people. In the last while we've

done a little research, as the member for Prince Rupert suggested, and

I wish he had done something the same. We estimate that as a result of

this government's attempts to cut down on the public sector in the

province of B.C. — school districts, hospital districts,

municipalities, regional governments and the government itself — 9,172

jobs have been lost. That's in the government sector alone. In

education — teachers and support staff — we estimate that 3,514 jobs

have been lost. So that's a total of 12,686 jobs lost unemployment

deliberately created by this government.

But this is not simply public sector unemployment. Whether they're

working for the government, the school districts or the hospital

districts of the province, every one of those employees spends their

salary in the local community, and generally on retail goods and

services — groceries, housing, travel; on purchasing those goods and

services that we all purchase with our salaries in every community in

the province. According to economists in B.C., each one of those jobs

lost has had an employment effect in the private sector. So for those

12,686 jobs lost in the public sector, we've destroyed 8,880 private

sector jobs, for a total of jobs deliberately destroyed by Social

Credit Party policies of 21,566. You haven't stopped the bleeding; you

have increased the bleeding. The patient is going to die a lot more

quickly as a result of the actions you've taken.

When you look at the additional cuts that are going to take place in

public sector employment as a result of what this government is doing,

and the newspaper articles are numerous.... The Times-Colonist

a few days ago says that if they continue with the current budgets

proposed for school districts, 1,000 teachers' jobs are going to be on

the line as a result of the cuts — 1,000 jobs, teaching staff, support

staff. In addition, you can't separate the public sector from the

private sector in this or any other province, in this or any other

economy, because each of those jobs has an employment effect in the

community. If we sack 1,000 teachers, it's going to mean 700 additional

jobs lost in the private sector, as the economy in those communities

spins down and spirals down.

[ Page 5380 ]

This government's economic measures are actually counterproductive

to creating employment or improving the economy of British Columbia. I

cannot see a single part of this budget that is going to create

additional employment and help revitalize our economy over the next

little while.

Mr. Skelly moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Schroeder moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:57 a.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1986,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada