[ Page 4529 ]

CONTENTS

Orders of the Day

Budget debate

On the amendment.

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 4529

Mr. King –– 4533

Hon. Mr. Hyndman –– 4537

Mrs. Wallace –– 4540

Mr. Gabelmann –– 4542

Appendix

Appendix –– 4546

FRIDAY, MARCH 13, 1981

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. DAVIDSON: Visiting with us today from Vancouver city is a good friend of mine, Mr. Tod Manrell. I would ask the House to make him welcome.

Orders of the Day

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

On the amendment.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I'm going to try and deal specifically with this amendment and refrain from remarks of a more general nature that would be more applicable in the budget area. I've no intention of responding to the comments of the Leader of the Opposition about items not relevant to their own motion. But I will take the opportunity later in this session, either in estimates or various ministries where it may be applicable, to deal with such things as BCRIC, railways and pass construction. I've no intention of dealing with the performance of the past president of the railway, who is now the Leader of the Opposition, or the president of the railway previous to that, W.A.C. Bennett, and their disputes. I will have something to say on railways and pipelines.

Later in this sitting, I will defend the government's budget. For it is our budget and I am prepared to defend it. I'm prepared to defend those parts of it where spending involves programs. I'm prepared to defend the programs that money will be allocated to, whether it be in the area of social services, the important areas of health care and education, or whether it will be part of the continuing development of public transportation systems in this province to assist our people — individuals or corporate citizens — in building the province.

However, in this case this motion belongs to the New Democratic Party, and it is a motion that they must defend. It's not good enough for them to come in with a motion that is both frivolous and contradictory — and those are the only words that can be applied to it until they give some rationale as to why they introduced it. The amendment reads: "that this House regrets that the Minister of Finance has introduced onerous, unnecessary and expedient tax increases." It is contradictory in its terminology, poorly prepared. But let me say that in trying to interpret what they felt they were saying, I guess we could say, as the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) said yesterday, that all taxes are onerous. None of us likes paying taxes, but the very function of government under the private enterprise system is to raise money from the prosperity of our citizens — both from individuals and from business — to pay for government services, those things that must be provided in a public way.

Perhaps the socialists' answer is to take over industry and business and, hopefully, improve on what has been a dismal record of socialism; that is, have companies somehow make a profit, which has not been the case. But taxes are the only way the private enterprise system works, and they can only pay taxes when there is a measure of prosperity. Taxes will fluctuate, particularly where we have an economy such as British Columbia's that is interdependent with the international community, as our products are world products.

So let me get to the point of this motion and why I oppose it. No compelling argument has been made on what programs the New Democratic Party would cut which have called for the raising of over $600 million in new taxes. No alternative, realistic tax measures that deal with those amounts of money have been advocated by the New Democratic Party. They have yet to comment on the third option available to government, for there are only three: cut programs, raise taxes or go into debt. In this case it would be increasing the debt that has already been left to the people of this province from the three years of New Democratic Party government ending in December 1975. A $261 million debt, with the interest charges, was left and is now part of a budget. It's being repaid at $26 million a year plus interest. That amount is much more than $26 million. If we compounded that we might find that it would almost be the amount of the new taxes that are needed this year.

The point is not to dwell on the past. We're dealing with the realities today, and what a government coming in today can do about financing the established programs for people, and what priorities and choices we have in developing this province. I want to say now that this government rejects increasing the debt. We reject that easy solution that has been taken by other governments: it has only started them on that slippery slide into increasing debt and a mounting interest burden that is paid for by future generations. We've seen it on the provincial level in other areas. British Columbians faced that in the past and in 1952 embarked on a program of pay-as you-go. With the exception of a brief period, British Columbians have not had to deal with governments pushing us into debt and leaving the burden of current-account expenditures for future generations. Really, that's what you're doing.

We should be taking this message to every young British Columbian — because it's their province in the future — and telling them that we've rejected the option of paying for things on current services. I'm not talking large capital projects that are strengthening the economy; I'm talking now about current services like health care and education. We're not going to not pay for those in the year in which they're delivered. We're not going to borrow money for those services which we receive today and leave them to pay the bill tomorrow.

It may be that in moving this motion the opposition, because we have rejected that, will then consider that that is their policy option and will advocate debt and plunging this government and the people of this province, who the government represents, into the hands of the money-lenders, and leading us down the path to the type of thing that we see has happened to our federal government. Time after time they have not been able to level with the people on the true cost of programs. They are unwilling to share the cost with people, knowing that they would find disfavour. So over the years they have embarked on a borrowing program that this year, as the Minister of Finance has stated, in interest charges alone will cost every British Columbia family about $1,500, for which we get no value. It's money down the drain, money evaporated and of no social use. It's gone.

It may be that the New Democratic Party may wish to advocate that. It appears to me, if my memory serves me correctly. that in sonic of the debates of 1976 some of them may have alluded to there being nothing wrong with that. To me that debt for current account is the worst sort of govern-

[ Page 4530 ]

ment management, and yet there is a legitimate case for debt for economic development for capital expenditure. That is what happens.

Those accounts are outside of this budget. We're talking now about current accounts, for which we're not prepared to go into debt. It's only a smokescreen to deal with those other areas where we do have capital projects that are designed to help the economy of this province and also to serve people. Hydro is necessary for not only the lighting of our homes, which is the most obvious and convenient thing, but the fuelling of our industries and creation of jobs. Our natural gas is more than heating our homes; it's the fire industry to create jobs. The development of roads and railways has always been a part of opening up this province to develop jobs and also to serve people. That is the role of government.

But in this motion we're dealing with this budget. So now we've got a motion from the opposition that says that these tax increases are unnecessary. If they're unnecessary, it may be that they're willing to advocate debt; or they've got to tell us what programs they're going to cut. To take $600 million worth of programs out of this budget is no simple paring or criticizing the efficiency of government, because all governments could be more efficient. I know our government could. We attempt, and have attempted since we've become government, to provide greater cost control and better ways in which to get more value for the taxpayer's dollar in this province. We've not only brought in our own controls, where we discipline one another; we've also created the position of auditor-general, not responsible or captive to this government, but responsible to this assembly and able to rule on whether we're giving effective government. Certainly we want to heed the auditor-general's advice. We want full value. But you're not going to find $600 million there. You can only find it in whole programs, the largest program being health care.

I want to say that the Social Credit Party as government has been part of the problem in increasing the health-care costs in this province. But I don't call it a problem. I call it part of our social policy goals — our commitment to health care for the people.

I think it's time that we dealt with the myth that's being fostered by the New Democratic Party, that they are the only people, when they take out that membership, who have a social conscience or care about the health and education of people, or care about our seniors. Perhaps there was a time in this country when they could be called the conscience. or one of the consciences…the time of the late J. S. Woodsworth. But, you know, there has been a maturity in this country since then, and many governments have made contributions to the social programs which help our people. Oppositions don't bring in social programs; governments do. In this province, I haven't seen…. I've heard a lot from the NDP, but I did not see during their three and a half years any major breakthrough in new social programs. Yet this province has the best record of provision of health care and income support to our elderly and the needy and the handicapped.

I'd just like to review, because you'd think they had invented hospital insurance, but hospital insurance was brought in by the old coalition government and made to work by the Socreds. The dollar a day they established then in relation to incomes is just as consistent with the amount we pay related to incomes and costs today. Perhaps we might be giving an even better value to our citizens today.

We're proud of the hospital programs introduced by the coalition and made to work by Social Credit. I saw no major change in hospital programs when the New Democratic Party came in. I heard the rhetoric, but I didn't see the results. It was left for us in December 1975 to come in and play catchup on the construction of hospital beds. It was left to us to deal with introducing the first major new hospital program in this province in the seventies, to introduce long-term care. They've talked about it but never did anything about it. To hear them talk in perpetuating their myth, you'd think that somehow they had done it. Yet it was this government that brought it in; and yes, it's part of the cost implications we face today — the need for these taxes.

It is not an inexpensive program, but it was very necessary to embark on a path of taking the pressure off acute-care beds, providing this other alternative to meet the health needs of our people. Hopefully, because of larger expenditures now in getting this program underway in the last few years, there will be cost benefits down the road. We knew full well when we brought it in that you don't provide it for nothing, and I defend that program. I defend the fact that it is part of the need that is increasing costs to increase taxes. The provision of health services is not something you can slash. The bulk of it is made up in wages of people and professionals, and a large part of that cost was an increase in salaries to the nurses last year, not by government but by third parties negotiating. We pay the bill.

The New Democratic Party want to, say that any of the professionals or the nurses or those that work in the health care system are getting too much. That's where they'll save the money. This is your motion; get up and say so. But by the very fact that it's in the budget, you know where we stand. It is not enough for you to just oppose and bring in frivolous motions. I'd like to see you for once — particularly when the burden of proof is upon you because it is your motion — prove it and say how you are going to do it.

I'd also like to deal with that NDP myth that they are the only ones, again, that bring in health care. You are very shrill in the newspapers about medicare, but I want to remind you that medicare was brought in in this province by a Social Credit government. At the time it was brought in, the then Prime Minister, Lester Pearson, said that in introducing the program British Columbia was one of the key reasons they were able to provide a national medicare program. That wasn't some program brought in in British Columbia by the NDP. It's a program that costs money, and today we're facing difficult negotiations surrounding the delivery of medicare. They can't on one hand say to the doctors that they will give them everything they want — there's a limit on my entering into the dispute here, because that will be settled by negotiation — and then come in here and say that we have unnecessary taxes that may well have to be increased again, should the negotiations for the continuous provision of medical-care services be continued without destruction or distortion of the program we are committed to.

What about denticare? That party that introduced this motion always talks about dental care as though they were the only ones that cared about the preventive provisions in the denticare program for children and seniors. They were government for three and a half years. I never saw them introduce a dental-care program. It was introduced by this Social Credit government. We knew full well the cost of that program. It is not enough to niggle at the columnists and say: "Oh, the Socreds are cutting back on their own dental-care program."

[ Page 4531 ]

We've introduced it. It is there for the provision of prevention, cure and maintenance of our people, and as we are able to, we will improve that program. We brought it in knowing full well that it would cost money. That cost can only be paid for by the money that comes to government. That program is part of the increase in taxes, and I defend it.

We're out to provide help, not rhetoric, Mr. Speaker. But if the New Democratic Party wishes to say that the somewhat under $100 million perhaps –– I don't have my estimates here in front of me — that dental care is going to cost this year should not have been introduced at this time and that we should not pay taxes, let them say so and not bring in a frivolous motion — poorly drafted, not thought out, a motion they're unable to defend or even rationalize to this Legislature. It's an insult to the Legislature. I saw a motion introduced — a lot of rhetoric, a lot of fanfare, a lot of personal attacks — but I saw no rationalization for the motion and no alternatives to support its introduction.

What about education? Again, the myth of the NDP. It's not a myth with substance. They're still living on the memory of J.S. Woodsworth those many years ago, trying to say they're the only ones who are concerned about education. Come into the 1980s. We have an educational system in this province of which I'm very proud, one that goes through all aspects. Let me review it.

I can remember growing up in the interior when there was no provision of post-secondary educational facilities in the interior of this province. I can remember when the Social Credit government brought in regional colleges. I can remember when they put vocational schools into the interior.

MR. LAUK: Why didn't you use them?

HON. MR. BENNETT: And the first member for Vancouver Centre says: "Why didn't you use them?" Those facilities were available in the lower mainland for him, but not available to us in the interior during my period. He displays that smugness and that disrespect he has for anyone from the interior when he calls them "country cousins" and all the rest of it. We're fed up with you; you're used to all the services. "I'm all right, Jack; I got mine." Somehow the people in the interior are second-class, but it was a Social Credit government that brought in those regional colleges.

The New Democratic Party keeps talking about how they want to take the cost of education off the local taxpayer. They were the government for three and a half years and not once did they make a move to assume the cost of the regional colleges, which until then had been shared by the government and the local taxpayer. But this government took the cost for regional colleges off the local taxpayer and we didn't need Stanley Knight to tell us how not to do it. It was this government that took the cost off. That cost is now part of the cost we pay within provincial taxation. Obviously it was the policy of the NDP to leave it on. They left it on when they were government. Perhaps, in justifying and supporting their motion, they wish to suggest that that's what they'll do again. It is the policy of this government to pay those costs: it's part of the budget. It's part of the cost to further enhance our universities and public school system. Yes, it's part of our cost to fund alternate education in independent schools — a measure that party opposed when we introduced it in this Legislature. Perhaps they wish to stand now in this debate and say not that "it's my personal opinion," but that "it is the party policy of the NDP that that is one of the fundings that should not be in this budget and is a reason for onerous taxes."

Well, I say we're committed to that funding. It's part of the reason we have to increase taxes. But it may be part of their rationale that they should be justifying and introducing their motion that once was their policy. What they voted against, they will stand up in this House and say: "Here's the $600 million worth of programs and things we want cut, including independent schools." Because that's the only way you can justify this motion and say that the taxes were unnecessary. Or you can waffle and have the former Minister of Education saying that she's still against it and have the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), in times of election, meeting privately and saying: "Don't worry, we'll never take it off."

It's about time you stopped, in your inglorious march to try to return to power, saying one thing to one group and another thing to another group, and came out and levelled with the public on where you stand. It's not enough for the former Attorney-General, the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald), to say in private meetings in their newfound love-affair with the business community that he, who introduced rent controls, is against them. Perhaps he'll make that same statement to the tenant groups to whom another member of the NDP caucus is saying: "Trust me. I have more influence than Alex with the first member for Vancouver East." Because, quite frankly, taking this position to this group and an opposite position to another group — frivolous motions without substantive argument — is not causing the public to gain great confidence in the New Democratic Party.

You may think that you don't have to say anything or justify your reason for being in public affairs at all. If there's a reason to be in politics, its not just to be negative it's not just to hope that you can slide into power because the government, which is accountable, takes all the criticism, some of it justified, and hope that's the way you'll ride to power. I would hope that in the 1980s, when we have a very aware public, you will feel the obligation to justify your statements and advocate your policies and say how you intend to pay for them. It's a good place to start. I had hoped you would start right now, with the introduction of this motion, rather than resort to the same old rhetorical tactics — speeches that I have heard. Thank goodness I wasn't here more than seven years ago. Members who were here then say they've heard the same old tired speeches, now worn out. In this day of 33-1/3 they're still being played at 78 rpm.

It's no longer good enough — this type of frivolous motion in the Legislature, where the public expect us to be conducting their business in a sincere and responsible way. The style cannot make up for the lack of substance. A lack of substance will only reflect upon that party. I would expect that later in this debate more responsible members who have not yet spoken to this motion — because it may be too late for those others, no matter how much they had hoped to change their image — can realize it takes more than a blue suit and a vest to change what's inside, or whether there's anything inside — if there is anything inside. In fact, there has to be some content.

Are you going to cut Education? I've gone through Health. I've gone through this party's commitment in the introduction, development and provision of health-care in this province, and what we see is that every major health care initiative has been brought in — with the exception of hospital insurance — by the Socreds. We've seen that the major

[ Page 4532 ]

educational initiatives have been brought in by the Socreds, with their regional colleges and technical schools. I saw no new technical schools in the years between 1972 and 1975, or any attempt to give training and skills to our young people, whether it be technical or vocational. I saw no attempt to do what we're doing now, and that is to develop an additional opportunity for more scientific research and development in this province.

They are a party grown old in opposition. They talk about parties growing old in government. A party grown old in opposition, caught with slogans from the thirties, unable to adjust their mentality to the eighties, taking credit for programs they never introduced, riding on reputations they never helped to build; and their only way of attaining power is not through their policies and programs but through an uneasy alliance with a few labour bosses. Thank goodness that alliance isn't with the ordinary working man and woman in this province. The only time they get to put their signature to a political alliance is in the secrecy of the ballot box, and they've made the mistake of signing an alliance with that group but once.

I'd also like to ask: are you going to cut Human Resources — income supplements for our seniors? I remember when the government of W.A.C. Bennett brought in the first old-age assistance supplement, helped our seniors who built the province. The NDP, quite rightly, increased it when they were government. It wasn't their program, it was a program for the people of B.C.; but they rightly increased it, as have we. But we've brought in other programs to assist our seniors.

The present Minister of Finance, when he was Minister of Municipal Affairs, brought in programs to assist in the provision of housing. We brought in programs to assist in making more land available for that housing. It is not our policy that the government own the land and the people have to lease it on 99-year leases and be tenants in their own province as has been stated by some members of the New Democratic Party. We want them to own the land and the house on it.

Are we going to cut from Human Resources? Are we going to remove the SAFER program we introduced? No. That's our policy; that's part of the cost of government that warrants these tax increases.

What about the other areas — reforestation and silviculture? I can remember great speeches being made in this House by the former Minister of Forests, Bob Williams, when the New Democratic Party was in. But I'll tell you, his rhetoric couldn't even match the solid performance of the commitment to reforestation of this government that's in this budget. Are you going to stop planting trees? Is that part of the reason you brought in this motion and one of the ways you'll save money? It is our policy to continue improving our forests for a sustained yield. Improved silviculture is in the budget and that's part of the tax increases. Will you cut there? Not at all. You talk about "them," and you haven't identified the programs you'd cut. It would be substantial, because you're talking about $600 million being unwarranted.

So then we may go to the taxes you may want to impose if you're not going to go into debt, and I'll expect you to make a very clear statement on that. Are you going to bring back succession duties? Are you going to cancel the exemptions we've made in the sales tax?

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Yes, the sales tax has gone up. But you know that since we've been government — five years — we've tried to give assistance in those items that could be called necessities to end any imposition on those who can't afford those items of necessity. The list has been included by the Minister of Finance. Are any of those items that are exempted from the sales tax — which the New Democratic Party was unwilling to bring in — the ones that they would put back to raise money? We're not willing to. We're looking for the day when we can remove additional items from the sales tax.

My colleague, the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis), speaks eloquently against the capital tax — as I have done, because I'm against it in principle. I look forward to the day that we develop the type of tax regime that we want and don't have to depend…. Even though we've raised exemptions for small business twice against that evil capital tax introduced by the NDP…. And I don't care who they say they copied it from; it's their tax…. I tell you I'm not happy that part of it still remains, but at least small business has been removed. I look forward to the day that it's removed. Are they going to increase it?

Are they going to bring back the onerous mining taxes that they introduced when they were government, that drove the mining industry out of the province? I believe the system of taxation that we've put in for mining is both just and fair, without all the rhetoric of, "The coal companies are robbing the people of B.C.," because it's a tax on profits. Before our regular income taxes we do not create a high fixed cost for products in what is a volatile market that goes up and down, one that would make companies face the possibility of shutdowns or remove the possibility of workers getting their fair share of the value. You've got to remember that government competes for the same dollars that profits are competing for and that workers are competing for when they ask for wage increases. Government's hand should never get so large at the table that it leaves no money for either profits or wage increases. That's what a high fixed-cost type of royalty does. Rather, when management and labour bargain, they know their fixed costs; they know the extent to which they can go and the extent to which they can make requests. They know that after that they're going to make a profit and the government's going to get its share. It's going to get a fair share because we have that profits tax before the other income tax is shared by both federal and provincial governments. It's penny wise and pound foolish to suggest that you would drive the industry out with taxation that goes beyond the ability to pay, or for people to be paid, with the resulting unemployment and the resulting decline in the economy, and expect that somehow these services could be continued. Why, you'd have a shrinking economic base.

I hear the shrill giggle from the second member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson), who finds that amusing.

MR. COCKE: He wasn't laughing, or even listening to you.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I don't find it amusing. Those of us who live in the interior know what it took to build the economy of this province. We saw it. We didn't live down in the first settled parts of the province where the living was easy — and get a job with the federal government where the pay cheque was easy. Most of us had to be involved in the productive side of the economy, producing the wealth. We

[ Page 4533 ]

know what it takes, and it's not easily developed, It takes a lot of vision and courage. So part of this budget and part of this government's commitment is in industrial strategy — roads and rail and all the rest.

I've got to tell you that I took a trip up Vancouver Island to some of the more traditionally settled areas. Their concern is for the environment. Their concern is that they don't want new development forced on them, and I am sensitive to them. So where must new development take place? In the great unreached hinterland of the province, the northeast, where people will not be disrupted. That's what this government has done. We're sensitive to the already settled areas. We're opening up areas in which we do not frighten people and do not disturb their environment. Mr. Speaker, that's what this budget is all about. I defend the budget — both in its social measures and its economic measures. I reject the motion. Above all the motion rejects itself, because nobody on the other side has had the courage to give us any substantial fact why it should be moved at all. Really this motion is a non-confidence motion in the opposition.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer). I'm not sure of all the far-flung responsibilities that he does hold, but he is a very perceptive and a very bright individual. It was he who observed with devastating accuracy that the Premier does not sparkle in debate. The Premier this morning has set out to make a prophet of his own minister; he has demonstrated that the minister was perceptive and accurate. It was another former minister who indicated that the Premier lacked the qualifications that would ignite the imagination of the province. He was the former Minister of Health and we, of course, know where he is now.

I've listened to the Premier with great attention this morning. He has categorized our motion of non-confidence as frivolous; he's categorized it as inconsistent. I want to indicate at the outset, Mr. Speaker, that I rise in support of our amendment to the budget.

Interjections.

MR. KING: Oh, I'll deal with the difference in economic philosophy between the official opposition and the government. Don't get too excited. The motion reads: "…that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the House to go into Committee of Supply be amended by adding the following: that this House regrets that the Minister of Finance has introduced onerous, unnecessary and expedient tax increases. Just precisely what were those tax increases contained in the budget which we object to? They were massive increases in the tax on cigarettes and liquor, the sales tax, income tax, corporation tax — and these increases followed large increases which bad already occurred in virtually every other area of the government service and which were not brought before the House for debate, Mr. Speaker. There were increases in ICBC rates of between 40 percent and 70 percent in British Columbia within the last year. There were increases in the ferry rates, increases in bus fares, increases in business tax and licence fees, increases in medicare premiums, and all of these occurred during the last year without the benefit of debate in this Legislature as government dictums. They were decisions made in cabinet — in secret without debate — but nevertheless decisions that exacerbated the very difficult economic times that the average person in the province of British Columbia is experiencing.

We now have a budget which heaps additional burden on those hard-pressed taxpayers, and we think it's unfair. That's why we have moved a motion of non-confidence. And the government's response is: "Okay, so you think it's unfair. What would you cut?" You know, that reveals a very simplistic, if not simple, mind that feels that there is only one economic avenue to take — either hose the taxpayers or cut programs.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Leader of the Opposition indicated that there were other methods of relieving the burden of tax on the taxpayers of British Columbia. He made specific suggestions of where cost savings in the large bureaucracy of government could be achieved. He pointed out that the government had failed to increase the royalties on coal shipments to Japan from southeastern British Columbia. Indeed, they cancelled the announced increase that was to take place in the spring of 1976, and the taxpayers of British Columbia have consequently lost in the area of $50 million.

He didn't point out that the cost of the office of the Premier has doubled in the short term that the new Premier has been in office, He didn't point out that the Premier has just hired himself a new flack to try to improve his flagging image in the province of British Columbia. Mr. Speaker, I don't know if it is significant or not that the name of that individual is Mr. Heal. I'm advised that there are two kinds of heel. Mr. Speaker: one is a rubber heel, and the other is a kind that I'm not at liberty to describe in this Legislature — but I would observe that I see neither the Premier or his flack doing any bouncing.

The motion is not frivolous. The motion is serious. We think there is another way to raise the revenue necessary to run the business of government. We believe that the resource wealth of the province of British Columbia should carry a greater portion of the revenue-sharing requirements to fund the functions of government. We don't believe that the public should subsidize the development of northeast coal when there is not an iota of chance that that coal is going to bring a fair return to the taxpayers of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, it is not just the opposition who say that. Virtually every editorial page in the Province is crying out that this is a bad deal for British Columbia. Their own government backbencher, the one they demoted, who probably has more on the ball than anyone in the executive benches at the moment, the member for North Vancouver–Seymour, a former Liberal cabinet minister, an engineer and a Rhodes scholar in his own right — here is w hat he has to say about the coal deal. These are words uttered right here in this chamber. He said: "Our gas bubble…has burst, timber sales have slowed down, metal prices have softened, and coal, on balance, looks as if it will be a cost item rather than a revenue producer for another decade at least." That is what their own member said. It is going to be very interesting to see whether that member will have the principle and the consistency that the Premier talked about to stand up and back up his observations when it comes time to vote on this issue. It's going to be very interesting indeed.

The Premier put on an extremely lack-lustre performance this morning, one of the poorest performances I have witnessed from the Premier of the province of British Columbia. It was a pathetic defence. It was a defensive posture, crying out against the opposition as if they were the architect of the government's troubles. Mr. Speaker, nothing could be further from the truth. The government are the architects of their own problems, both in terms of public image and faltering eco-

[ Page 4534 ]

nomic initiatives, the few that they have taken. They are totally committed to the big ticket, the big monument. They are totally committed to a questionable deal in northeast coal — and I say questionable because, as their own member observes, it's not going to produce revenue and relieve the taxpayers of the province from any tax burden. It's a project that comes in competition with an area of the province — the southeastern part of British Columbia — which is already developed, largely by private capital.

I think it was the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) who talked about the cost of the rail lines to service Fording and Kaiser. Well, Mr. Speaker, not one cent of government funds went into those branch lines. It was all private investment. It is true that Edgar Kaiser raised some of his money for the development of the mine on the B.C. market, but it was in the private sphere, not the public. Now, after the infrastructure and rail-line improvement, paid for by private capital, has all been put in place under a stiff competition for the coal sales from British Columbia, what does this government propose doing? It proposes a massive public investment in the order of over a billion dollars to subsidize a new coal supplier in competition with that portion of British Columbia which is intact and which now creates jobs in the province of British Columbia and should be creating revenue for us as well.

We are delivering to our customer, the Japanese steel industry, the ability to whipsaw one portion of British Columbia against the other, the ability to play off southeast coal against northeast and gain advantageous prices. Lord knows we have enough competition for the supply of coal already coming from Australia and the United States. Now this government that call themselves a group of entrepreneurs and businessmen propose to deliver to that customer a lever on which to manipulate the supplier, our own province of British Columbia. I say that is absolutely stupid. To top it all off and to add insult to injury, they are asking the taxpayers of British Columbia to subsidize that shockingly stupid deal at the expense of social programs, at the expense of programs that should be brought in by this government dealing with the needs of people.

We've heard a great deal from the government about their concern and their regard for not going into debt. The Premier likes to get up and pontificate about "those terrible socialists who put us in debt," and "we are a government that believes in paying our way and balancing the books." Anybody with half an ounce of brains understands that when you guarantee borrowing authority for a Crown corporation you are liable for that debt. The fact of the matter is that we have a British Columbia railway system $700 million in the red and that debt is guaranteed by the government of the province of British Columbia, and they tell us that they are not in debt. Is he going to go back to the old euphemism that that's a contingent liability? The people of the province of British Columbia are a bit more sophisticated than to believe that nonsense in this day and age.

What about B.C. Hydro? What is the debt of B.C. Hydro? If my memory serves me correctly, I think they have borrowing authority of somewhere getting close to $8 billion guaranteed by the province of British Columbia. Is that not a debt? It was the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf), when he was chairman of the Crown corporations committee, who came out with a scathing indictment of B.C. Hydro and their accounting policies. Yet he sits there along with his fellow silent backbenchers and, sheeplike, votes for an ever-accelerating debt volume with B.C. Hydro, despite the fact that he has issued an indictment of them showing that their accounting procedures, their cost-control procedures, are woefully inadequate. That's a debt to the people of British Columbia. We are paying fantastic amounts to service those debt loads by these two major Crown corporations. They would try to dupe the people into believing that we are debt free in this province. Nonsense!

We are in favour of development of our resources in the regions of the province of British Columbia. We would like to see a coal development in northeast British Columbia if and when it makes sense to do so, if and when the project pays for itself, if and when we start to receive revenue from that natural resource that will ease the tax burden on the backs of the ordinary taxpayer in the province of British Columbia — not before. What kind of business sense is that? They would not run their own business in that fashion. They are only prepared to do so because they understand that the average working person and the average homeowner in the province of British Columbia carry the can for their wastrel tendencies.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The other ruse that this government likes to come up with as a scapegoating effort to hide their own responsibility for their own dilemma and their own conduct is Liberal- bashing: "Oh, the NDP is in bed with the Liberals. Oh, those terrible Liberals are stealing revenue from us. Oh, we don't get any money from the Liberals." Well, I can understand and I can have some sympathy for their hatred of the Liberals and their distrust of the Liberals.

I understand why they have some hostility toward the Liberals and why it's now manifesting itself in such hatred of those terrible federal Liberals. They know what they're all about now. They understand the federal Liberals, because they imported the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams), the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom), the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer), the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), who a few years ago ran for the leadership of the Liberal Party, the former Minister of Health (Mr. Mair), now departed, the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich), and the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) — all active Liberals.

There are two Liberals consulting together on the back bench there. I suppose. Mr. Speaker, what they're discussing now is how they are going to override the decision of the Greater Vancouver Regional District board, which by democratic vote decided that they were not going to allow a certain Mr. George Spetifore's land to come out of the agricultural land reserve, so that he could profit to the tune of $100 million. Both of those ministers have indicated they're going to override that democratic decision now. They're going to flex their government muscles, and they're going to deliver alms and patronage to their friend and political contributor, Mr. Spetifore. They wonder why the public has no confidence in them. Patronage, patronage, patronage! It smells to high heaven, Mr. Speaker.

Why do they bash the Liberals? They're the ones that clutch them to their bosom. They are the ones who now have their cabinet riddled with Liberals who once dedicated themselves to all of the principles and the policies of the Liberal Party — not us. It was not us who drove those Liberals over to the Socred benches.

[ Page 4535 ]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Oh, yes, it was.

MR. KING: That's an admission. Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Municipal Affairs said yes, it was us. He never went over there out of conviction. He never went over there out of belief. He went for political survival. That must be a commentary on integrity and principle, Mr. Speaker — a commentary, indeed. Sometimes the truth has strange ways of coming out, Mr. Speaker.

But what about these people? They continue to condemn and to blast those terrible Liberals in Ottawa. The Leader of the Opposition didn't tell the Socreds to hire Mr. Manning to try to get B.C. Place going and the stadium. He was the Prime Minister's right-hand man a couple of years ago. Liberals are hated in the ranks of Social Credit, but, by golly, who did they hire? They hired Paul Manning. Then they got into the northeast coal deal. Who are they negotiating with, and who are they offering preferential freight rates to? Mr. Andras, a former Liberal cabinet minister. Well, you can't trust those terrible Liberals, they tell us — they're stealing from the province of British Columbia. So, by golly, as a defence against this terrible Liberal cabinet minister, Bob Andras, what do they do? They hire another Liberal cabinet minister to negotiate with them — Ron Basford.

I know why they hate the Liberals now. They figure they're the intelligentsia of the nation, and they feel inferior. They hate them, but when they're in trouble they feel that their only alternative is to go and get a Liberal to negotiate for them. What are we paying Mr. Basford? Sixty-two thousand dollars a year or eighty thousand?

Interjections.

MR. KING: Oh, $600 a day, plus lunch. Does he have a right to come down to the subsidized restaurant in the parliament buildings and eat on his $600 a day? Those people ask if we're frivolous about our motion of non-confidence. My god! We've got a make-up artist for the Premier at $54,000 a year. We've got a flack for the northeast coal so we can subsidize the giveaway of our coal to our Japanese customers, and we hire a federal Liberal at $600 a day to preside over the export of this resource in competition with that member's security in southeast British Columbia — in competition with the interest of that man's constituents, Mr. Speaker. What a mess! They're in total disarray, and because they are they point their guns at the New Democratic Party and say: "Because you were in office for a brief three years out of the last one hundred all of the sins and problems we have today are on your shoulders."

AN HON. MEMBER: And we don't have any Liberals with us, so it's our fault.

MR. KING: We don't have any Liberals with us, so we must be to blame. One of the marks of a decaying government is when they circle their wagons and start shooting inward, flaying out in all directions at imaginary enemies. Perhaps I've got that wrong. Maybe they'd be better if they did circle the wagons and start shooting inward, because the enemy is within with this government That's where the enemy is. It's a government in decay, a government in disarray. It's a government without leadership, credibility or integrity. It's a government that's lost the confidence of the people in the province of British Columbia; and Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, I might say, would be remiss in our duty if we failed to move a motion of non-confidence in this sorry lot. Indeed we would.

I find it amusing when I see the Premier rise and attempt to take credit for medicare and health standards in the province of British Columbia. Most people remember when the doctors and their Conservative cohorts in the province of Saskatchewan were attempting to kick the legislative door down because the NDP premier of that province had introduced, for the first time in the nation, medicare. There was going to be a strike and a mass exodus of doctors from the nation. Oh, we couldn't interfere with the doctor-patient relationship. Who were the ones in opposition? All of the right-wing ilk in western Canada. Funds were coming up from the U.S. to fund the anti-socialist campaign that would dare to try and deliver prepaid health care to the people of the province and the nation. They were all part of it, and now that it's paled into the distance, in some peoples recollection, they have the colossal gall to stand up and try and embrace it and take credit for it. You talk of hypocrisy; that is the epitome of hypocrisy.

What would we cut? We would cut the costs of the Premier's office, because we have a leader who doesn't need artificial make-up jobs and doesn't need prompters to get his message across clearly and coherently in the province of British Columbia. We have a leader who we all have confidence in to articulate our programs and policies without prompters, facial powder, $600 for a make-up person and $62,000 for some flack to make sure he doesn't falter when he's enunciating policy. Look at what's happened to the cost of that office and tell me you're protecting the interests of the taxpayers of the province of British Columbia. Nonsense!

MR. LEA: The best Premier money can buy.

MR. KING: The best Premier money can buy, but I wouldn't want to make that investment, my friend.

Talk about saying different things to different people. We're accused of being inconsistent. We just have the simple belief that the natural resources of the province of British Columbia should bear the burden of the cost of government services; it's as simple as that. Because we disagree with the onerous taxes contained in this budget that doesn't imply that we want to cut programs. No. there's another alternative. There are some programs we would cut. We don't believe in make-up men for politicians. We don't believe in junkets abroad, first-class. We'd cut back on some of that. But, more importantly, we believe that the natural resources should bring adequate revenue to pick up the cost of many of the social programs of government. We believe in fair royalties on coal and that the forest industry should bear a fair return to the province of British Columbia. When the Premier talks about inconsistency…. I don't know whether he's a financial genius or whether his Minister of Finance is or not. but here's what the budget says, on page 8, about revenue from the forest industry: "While forestry revenue declined as expected, log prices have held up better than anticipated." Forest revenue declined, the budget says. so therefore we had to tax people to make up for that deficit. Well, yesterday. or the day before, the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) introduced his five-year plan.

In the deputy minister's message on page 1 it has this to say.

[ Page 4536 ]

Interjection.

MR. KING: The annual report, yes, along with your five-year plan. That was a brilliant interjection.

Here's what the report has to say: "The year 1980 was a mixed one for the province's forest industry. The timber harvest declined slightly to 75 million cubic meters, approximately one million less than the record harvest of 1979." — one million cubic metres less cut — "But forest revenues to the province increased to $540 million, surpassing the 1979 record by $55 million." Now, Mr. Speaker, I don't know whether someone's fibbing or not. I don't believe that the Minister of Finance would tell a lie, and far be it from me to accuse him of lying in the Legislature. And far be it from me to accuse the Minister of Forests of lying in his annual report. I don't believe he would do that. In fact, I don't know whether he even knows what the annual report is. There it is, and the Premier of the province gets up and accuses the opposition of inconsistency.

This brings me to the conclusion that my colleague, the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald), was absolutely correct when he categorized this budget as a cynical document that is calculated to hide but amass surpluses by taxing the people of the province in punitive fashion, so that one, two or three years down the road, whenever this government musters the courage to go to the people again, they will have vast surpluses available to try to buy votes to sustain their tenuous grasp on office. That's the purpose of it.

The Premier even had the gall to brag about their wonderful silviculture program. I'm going to have a lot more to say about the Minister of Forests' activities when we get to his estimates. But he talked about the wonderful increase in the allocation for silviculture and he asked if the opposition would take that away. I find there's an increase in the ministry's estimates this year — in the total budget — of $5,708,974. Do you know where the biggest increase is? It's not for silviculture, fire prevention or expansion of nursery capacity. The largest increase is in building occupancy and computer consulting costs. Do you know what the increase is? It's $10.5 million, whereas the total increase in that ministry's budget is $5.5 million. That says to me that there is an overall reduction in the administrative costs for the important silvicultural programs in the activities of the regional offices.

There's a $5 million reduction in those programs this year. The minister is going to have some explaining to do, but for the Premier to stand up and say that we're inconsistent and that they've, increased all these allocations for these wonderful programs…. It doesn't stand up under examination.

I want to tell you that the Minister of Forests is going to have some accounting to do with respect to the special fund set up last year of, I believe, $146 million to fund intensive forest management for the years to come. There are some very interesting anomalies with respect to the administration of that fund which we'll be examining much more closely when we're considering his estimates.

The Premier says that the opposition should accept the government's policies and accept its direction without votes of non-confidence, and he says that we should quit saying different things to different people. We're inconsistent; we go out and make different statements of policy in different parts of the province.

I would be prepared to promise the Premier that we'll make a very sincere and honest attempt to be fully consistent with respect to our policy, if he will get the Deputy Premier (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) to come before this Legislature and apologize for her claim, some years ago, that the New Democratic Party had set up a secret police force with caches of arms and ammunition all over the province. She knew that wasn't true, Mr. Speaker, but she has never, to this day, stood up in the House and apologized for that kind of downright untruth which was propagated out there among the public by the Deputy Premier of this province.

Mr. Speaker, the lovable Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) made an interesting speech the other day, but I wish people would be totally honest when they make speeches and when they make claims. One of the things the minister said which shocked me a little bit was that during the course of a railway dispute on BCR in 1975, the then Minister of Labour, yours truly, wouldn't even let him into my office. Now, Mr. Speaker, he must know better than that; surely his memory serves him better. He came down with a group of mayors from up and down the north part of his riding and had an audience in my office for one hour. Now, you know, he gets up blithely in the House and says I wouldn't even let him in the office. He knew that wasn't true when he said it, and if we want to talk about being consistent, then I think we should be fully consistent.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Did you give him an audience? You were "the Pope."

MR. KING: Well, it was his terminology, and when it comes to pomposity I think that the Minister of Health, being so hotly in love with the member for Richmond, could give us all a bit of a history lesson in pomposity in this House.

MR. LEA: But the love is returned; the member for Richmond loves the Minister of Health!

MR. KING: As my colleague observed, the member for Richmond is a self-made man and he's wildly infatuated with his creator — and I think that's an apt description.

Mr. Speaker, those are the little things that rather annoy us. And then the Premier gets up and says: "Look, be consistent. Tell the people of the province the same thing all over the province." Well, I'm prepared to go to any part of the province and discuss our policy, and I've frequently done so in all parts of the province.

The Premier said we didn't bring in any social programs when we were in government. Well, Mr. Speaker, he wasn't here for all that period of time. There was a very active period of our administration before his father had donated his seat to the son, and perhaps he's not aware of the many social policies that were introduced in 1972 before he held a seat in this House: air service ambulance, Pharmacare, all kinds of programs that benefited the people. Pensions were brought up to $200, consistent with the cost of living in 1972 — a major increase which the former government had denied — and many of these programs were brought in.

I get a kick out of the Premier. He says. "I'm not going to get into personalities," and then he starts talking about the Leader of the Opposition's wearing apparel. "Oh," he said, "he puts on a blue suit." Well, I suppose maybe he's cross because you can't afford a suede one like him, I don't know. I can understand him being pensive, I can understand him

[ Page 4537 ]

being petty, and I can understand him being jealous, because he has a major image problem in the province of British Columbia. It's been acknowledged by his own cabinet members; it's been acknowledged by his own party riding associations — they've got a major problem. It was the Premier who, hard on the heels of all the dirty tricks, stood up at their convention and said: "I'm going to bring in a code of ethics for the party to live by." Whatever happened to that code of ethics? I think that would have been a wonderful social program for the government to bring in, and it wouldn't have cost the taxpayers any money.

AN HON. MEMBER: And George Spetifore is working on the first draft! [Laughter.]

MR. KING: George Spetifore is working on the first draft of the Social Credit code of ethics! And I suppose. Mr. Speaker, he's not going to complete it until his agricultural land is finally removed and he has gathered in his hundred million dollars in his hot little hand and run away. Then he'll deliver the code of ethics for Social Credit to live by.

Really, they are the architects of their own problems. They haven't been frank with the people: they're heaping incredible taxes on the taxpayers, the working people of this province; there is a housing crisis now in the lower mainland and in Victoria of proportions never seen before in the nation; rental guidelines are coming off; rental regulations are coming off. I can tell you that many senior people on fixed incomes are living in deathly fear that they are going to be bounced out of their accommodation because they can no longer afford it. In my own constituency in the city of Revelstoke the homemaker service has been abolished. People who are now coming back from the regional hospitals in the Okanagan after serious surgery are no longer able to get home care for the changing of dressings and so on. And they brag about their social programs! When people see the erosion of these kinds of people services in the face of massive tax increases, no wonder they want an election, and no wonder they want to get rid of this gang.

One of the hallmarks of a political party that's in trouble is that they huddle together and they point the finger in every direction trying to find a scapegoat to relieve them of their own culpability and their own ineptitude. If this government would start levelling with the people — being honest, being open — and start relieving the people of some of the onerous taxes that they have placed on them, then they wouldn't have to be as defensive with the opposition as they are today.

There are many inconsistencies in this budget. There are inconsistencies in the revenue claims from the forest industry. There are conflicts between the forecasts from the Forests ministry itself and the Finance minister. In light of that, we believe that our amendment is absolutely necessary, and I'm very pleased to support it.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: It's a pleasure to join in the debate on this amendment, which is couched in terms of criticism of the budget on the basis that the tax increases in it are onerous, unnecessary and expedient. In looking at that amendment, I must say I was taken by the research and the analysis of the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) in his remarks yesterday. I think he pointed out to the assembly the real reason why the opposition should choose to couch this amendment in these terms.

We've now learned that the Opposition, the New Democratic Party, is into the hotel business in a big way in this province. In Nanaimo they're building a luxury political palace in the sky — a luxury hotel. We're advised that the room rates are $80 and up. Therefore we conclude that that part of the budget dealing with tax increases on hotel rooms is of particular concern to these hotel developers across the aisle. Since that time, I've had the opportunity to glean just a little bit more about these NDP hotel plans in Nanaimo. I want to address myself to some better understanding of the thinking of the opposition behind the amendment. Perhaps if all of us in the assembly understand to a better degree why the opposition — now luxury hotel developers — are concerned about the increase in taxes on room rates, we'll better understand the attempt they're making today.

It is a surprise, I must say, when we learn that the Leader of the Opposition has now embarked on a program to become the Conrad Hilton of Canadian party politics. It's a bit of a tipoff, because if the Leader of the Opposition now wants to become the Conrad Hilton of Canadian politics, it's probably the case that deep down the opposition knows they're going to be there for a while, and they're casting about, we suspect, for some alternate part-time employment.

I've come across some information that suggests some of the potential jobs available in this new political hotel in Nanaimo. For example, I'm advised that the former Attorney-General has put in to be the house detective. There is going to be valet parking, I understand, with the former Minister of Highways in charge of that. The member for New Westminster, I gather, has filed application to be house doctor. My good friend, the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi), the former Minister of Human Resources, I gather he has applied to be chief night auditor. I'm told there's an application for social director from Yvonne Cocke. I'm told that there is a line-up among members opposite for the position of head bellman. Why do you suppose that is, Mr. Speaker? Because when Jim Kinnaird checks in they all want the chance to carry his bags.

I've heard something of the plans for this hotel with a luxury restaurant. The main restaurant is Going to be called Panco's. As you might expect, there's nothing but chicken on the menu, with lots of free lunches and evening specials on left wings.

The plans for the plumbing are fascinating. In this new luxury NDP hotel the public facilities are not going to be a men's room marked "men" and a women's room marked "women," but on each floor just one room marked "persons."

Now it's a Vancouver Island location, and the planning of the NDP caucus for their hotel…. Mr. Speaker. I'm aware of your concern about the amendment. but again this relates to the background of the opposition amendment framed with concern about the tax increases on room rates in this luxury hotel. If you can imagine. this group opposite, now doing a luxury hotel in Nanaimo, is the same group which is against gas to Vancouver Island, against hydro to Vancouver Island, and for no growth on Vancouver Island. How can they can be doing a luxury energy-consuming hotel? I understand that they've taken some advice from the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly), their energy critic. The elevators are going to be run by a windmill on the roof of the hotel. The kitchen is going to be heated by tidal power: that may explain the preponderance of cold cuts on the menu. The rooms will all have candles.

[ Page 4538 ]

In the rooms there will be not just a Gideon Bible but a personally autographed copy by the Leader of the Opposition of the Waffle Manifesto on top of the Gideon Bible. The parking lot will be all gravel with some planned pot-holes.

There's going to be a bar and, as you might expect, pink gin is going to be featured. You know, bars today in hotels have themes; this one's going to be the Bob Williams Lounge. It's fitting, I think, for the Nanaimo NDP to pay recognition to one of its favourite personalities. They've got an interior decorator. There's not going to be a feature wall. You know, many decorators these days take a room and do a feature wall, but in the Bob Williams Lounge instead of a feature wall there's going to be a feature seat. I understand that it is a reproduction of one of the seats in this assembly. I'm told the cost of this feature seat is in the order of $80,000; it seems to be a phenomenal figure.

The doors in the hotel on every level will all open to the left. In keeping with the spirit of the members opposite who planned this hotel there will be only cold water, not even lukewarm — the cold-water party; cold water for everything.

Finally, not in Panco's Restaurant but in the main dining room they thought that, as happens in major luxury hotels, they'd have a prominent feature theme: they're going to call it the Constitution Room. I understand they've asked members of the NDP across the country to help plan a menu that would reflect this wonderful country, its diverse regions and many points of view. I gather that the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Notley next door, Premier Blakeney, Mr. Pawley and Mr. Broadbent have been huddling for some weeks, but they can't get together to produce a menu and agree on anything of a national scope. Mulligatawny stew, I think, is the only thing they've agreed on so far which bears some reference to the constitutional position.

If those are the real reasons why members opposite are concerned about the room-rate increases, we understand the concern a little better. I echo the views of my colleague the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser): for a group who so frequently talk about social housing and low-income housing, it's fascinating when they step to the mark as developers and we find them in the luxury hotel business with, I gather, no percentage or proportion of the plan providing for social housing or luxury housing.

In terms of the budget more directly, it's often helpful when we're faced with an amendment that's critical of the budget to step outside party politics in the province and to see what some independent commentators have to say.

The Toronto Globe and Mail on Wednesday had an editorial on the budget of the Minister of Finance. It's interesting that this editorial comes as the Ontario provincial election moves to a close. It's a brief editorial, an envious editorial, and I'd like to read it into the record. It is entitled: "B.C. Tries Balance," and it reads:

"British Columbia's Social Credit government certainly has the courage of its convictions. Unlike most Canadian governments, it has balanced budgets. To continue this record, Finance Minister Hugh Curtis has, among other things, raised the provincial sales tax from 4 to 6 percent — still 1 percent lower than Ontario's — and will spend $26 million to retire more of the debt piled up by the New Democrats while they were briefly in power. At the same time, there will be new income tax credits for 40 percent of B.C. families, a drop in tax for small businesses, tax benefits for people who buy fuel-efficient cars, and big investments in new coal fields that will provide many jobs. A government that is not spending huge parts of its revenues to pay interest on its public debt can afford to create jobs."

From a leading national newspaper in a province with a serious unemployment problem, a province that has not had a balanced budget, this closing sentence is worth repeating:

"A government that is not spending huge parts of its revenues to pay interest on its public debt can afford to create jobs."

On Wednesday in Toronto, the leader of the Ontario NDP, Mr. Cassidy, made a very interesting statement in the Ontario provincial election campaign which bears upon the approach taken by members opposite. It reflects in part the continuing disarray of the New Democratic Party on matters of policy across this country, because members opposite have inferred through their debate on this amendment that there should not be tax increases if they are necessary to maintain social programs and balance a budget. But the Ontario leader of the NDP adopts a tone in the Ontario election campaign that is strangely different from that of members opposite. The Ontario NDP leader on Wednesday of this week promised a denticare program, less attractive than the one in British Columbia, and to finance it he proposed an increase in provincial taxes. The program that he proposes for denticare does not include seniors. It is not as comprehensive as British Columbia's.

From the Globe and Mail, page 8, Wednesday, March 11: "Mr. Cassidy also announced yesterday that an NDP government would introduce free dental-care programs for school children, which would be paid for with provincial revenues and an increase in provincial taxes." Well, part of the remarks of the Premier and the Minister of Finance this week have been to the effect that if we're to balance our budget in this province, and if modest tax increases are necessary to maintain important social programs, that's the approach we're going to take.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: That wonderful fellow, the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald), has been a career socialist. Let me just pause here, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: Well, it's my point. Indeed I haven't, but you fellows across the aisle…. I'm just delighted to pause here. We heard late yesterday from the Leader of the Opposition about political claim-jumpers. My friend — to the second member for Vancouver East — I've changed parties in my life. You've changed parties three times. You belonged to the CCF. You changed all that to hoodwink the public to the NDP. Then you all joined the Waffle. Then you jumped away from the Waffle, and now you're back somewhere else. Don't talk to us about political claim-jumping. You've been all over the map, and you know it.

You talk about political claim-jumping. The Leader of the Opposition, when it was fashionable, belonged to the Waffle. He signed the Waffle, and now ten years later: "Oh, I just signed it so they could debate it." That's not political claim-jumping? The Waffle didn't work for you. The change of name to NDP didn't work for you. Your marriage with the

[ Page 4539 ]

labour bosses isn't working for you. What are you going to do next when you jump claims politically, those of you across the aisle? Don't give us that.

The budget of the Minister of Finance referred to the fact that some $28 million of further revenue would be provided by way of increased liquor distribution markups. I would like in my remarks on the amendment this morning, because the amendment is couched in terms of tax increases, to indicate the general direction that this ministry will take in raising that $28 million. I hope, in announcing that general direction, that some members opposite might be inclined to reject the amendment on the basis of the positive and appropriate policy thrusts we will pursue in raising this additional revenue.

The Minister of Finance has, as I say, left to this ministry and the liquor distribution branch the precise determination as to the manner in which the $28 million will be raised, bearing in mind that today the liquor distribution branch, in terms of listings, has in the order of 1,500 from which to choose. For very broad discussion purposes we can talk about the beers, wines and hard liquors. Those, I think, are the easiest categories to describe the choices. The general approach we will take is very simple. In approaching markups we wish to pursue a policy of encouraging moderation in the use of alcohol and encouraging the consumption of the more moderate alcohol content products. That's our first principle in determining the application of markups: the principle of moderation in use and persuasion of products with a moderate alcohol content. Our second principle is to maintain the existing relative preference for British Columbia wines. We deem that to be an important policy principle.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: My good friend the second member is going to have to just be a little calm and hang onto his seat. In the fullness of time all these things will happen. Let's not get too excited. I know that perhaps the prospect of some modest increase in liquor prices may excite you, but if you'll just give me a little time we'll try to make the picture more clear.

First of all may I say that I will not be announcing today the precise particulars of which specific items and by how many cents. I'm proposing to announce the general guidelines we're going to apply. The precise determination of which particular product by which particular amount, and the precise date of timing, is still being worked on by Mr. Bob Wallace, the general manager of the LDB.

First of all may I deal, within that framework of moderation, with the beers, both imported and domestic. There will be no hike in the price of beer in this province as part of the $28 million revenue project that we're proceeding with.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Member, you should know this and listen to this: by virtue of not proceeding with any increase in the price of beer, British Columbia will continue not to have the most expensive beer in Canada. That honour belongs, my friend, to the province of Saskatchewan. The province of Saskatchewan today does not have the highest-paid brewery workers in the country but has the highest price of beer. British Columbia today, my friend, has the highest-paid brewery workers in Canada and not the highest price of beer. There will be no hike in the price of beer in terms of implementing this revenue program.

The absence of any further price hike to beer will apply to both the imported and domestic beers. Ninety percent of the imported beers are from the United States. They have a lower alcohol content than the Canadian beers, and because we think that's an important principle — the principle of moderation — we include the imported beers.

Turning to the wines, there will some increase in the markup on wines, although significantly less of an increase than that applied to the hard liquors. Again, the wines are a drink of relative moderation and within the wine increases the preference in favour of B.C. wines will be maintained. So the wine increases will be less than those for hard liquor. There will only be a modest increase in terms of B.C. wines. In other words, the lowest of the increases will be in B.C. wines.

Now turning to the hard liquors, not the drinks of moderation.

MR. MACDONALD: Hit the scotch drinker again.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: Yes, Mr. Member, we're going to put the biggest part of the increase on the hard liquors. That's correct. That's a policy decision, and we can stand and be counted occasionally. If you don't like the idea of the price of beer not being hiked, stand up and vote for your amendment, but if you'd like to vote to keep the price of beer not the highest in the Canada, come on and vote with us. Take a stand for beer; it will be good for you.

MR. MACDONALD: Just don't expect the scotch vote.

MR. SPEAKER: Would all members please come to order. And the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs would assist the Chair by addressing the Chair. Would the second member for Vancouver East also please come to order.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: The hard liquors will carry the brunt of the increase, on the basis that. If we're to encourage moderation, and some people choose to exercise a preference for higher alcohol content, they're going to have to carry the biggest part of the load.

A final word on the pricing of beer. As a matter of policy and it's a very novel thing in this country — the government of the province of British Columbia freed the price of beer in the pubs and the beer parlours last year. We are pursuing that program. and we hope that the price of packaged beer — the case, half-case — is going to see some variation and competition. As a matter of policy, we are freeing the price of packaged beer. We are no longer as government going to be in the business of approving or regulating the price of packaged beer.

Our policy goal is very simple: for the benefit of the consumer, we want to encourage competition amongst the brewers. The brewers are very competitive among themselves in other than price ways. For historical reasons across this country, the brewers usually have to come to government for some form of approval as part of a beer-price increase. We can see no rational need for that in 1981, and therefore we are out of the regulation of the price of packaged beer. Henceforth, changes in the price of beer will not be determined by way of government regulation in this province; rather, it will

[ Page 4540 ]

be determined individually by the breweries on a periodic basis as they see fit. We hope that will promote, for the benefit of the consumer, some competition in beer-pricing in the province of British Columbia. Mr. Speaker, those aspects of the budget are hopefully of interest to members.

In concluding, I would be remiss if I didn't spend a moment or two on the topic of the budget and the amendment, in respect of tax measures necessitated by fiscal policies of the federal government. Again, we've heard from members opposite in the last several days suggestions that this government is Canada-bashing. It would seem that anybody — including four of the seven members of the federal New Democratic Party from Saskatchewan — who attempts to legitimately stand up for the economic interests of the people of western Canada is accused by this particular opposition of Canada-bashing.

I think it would be instructive if members opposite refreshed their memories with some of the words of the member opposite for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea), who had some things to say about Ottawa and Ottawa-B.C. relations in a fiscal context just last year when we voted interim supply. He gave the government some advice. It would appear the government's been following that advice, but it now appears some of his colleagues opposite differ. The member from Prince Rupert, on April 2 last — in Hansard — had, among other things, these words of advice to government in the supply debate. He said:

We have had nothing but problems with the federal Liberal government for over 100 years…one broken promise after another.

When I grew up in the interior of this province, Mr. Speaker, I woke up every morning feeling I was a Canadian. The more I'm around government, the more I see the workings of the federal government as it pertains to Liberalism, the more convinced I am that every morning I wake up I'm feeling less of a Canadian and more like a British Columbian.

All you ever get out of the federal Liberals are promises, promises, promises; but after the election, they don't keep any promise to the west — none.

Mr. Speaker, I will gladly vote for interim supply if some of this money is going to be used to try to convince the federal Liberals that the west needs the opportunity to produce so that we can better our lot as a people. In this particular area I have faith that the minister and the government are going to act properly on our behalf as citizens. But boy, you've got a rough road to go, because I have lost all faith in the federal Liberals.

And the member opposite from Prince Rupert concluded with this advice to this government:

Through this interim budget I urge the government to take the hardest, most severe position it can take with the federal Liberals, because it won't be enough. As far as I'm concerned, they've sold us out and are going to continue to sell us out.

Mr. Speaker, that was the member opposite for Prince Rupert last April in the supply debate. That's the kind of advice which he gave to us. It's advice echoed by four of the seven New Democrat MPs from Saskatchewan. It's a position echoed by Mr. Notley, leader of the Alberta NDP, and by Mr. Pawley of the NDP in Manitoba. And now for this last couple of days we've heard suggestions that we're Canada-bashing. Well, your own Democrat magazine tells you, members opposite, that three of four callers to your offices are against your position in bed with Mr. Trudeau and Mr. Broadbent. The member for Prince Rupert differs with you as to the approach taken with Ottawa.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Some of the tax increases in this budget are necessitated by the insensitive fiscal measures of Ottawa. Perhaps the member for Prince Rupert before voting for the amendment will pause to realize that the kind of sentiments he echoed in this House last April have been reflected in the time since by the actions of this government.

In watching the members opposite grapple with the fact that they're now stuck in bed with Mr. Broadbent and Mr. Trudeau, while many of their NDP colleagues around the country have jumped out of bed, I'm reminded of the fable of Buridan's ass. Mr. Speaker, I know you well recall the fable. A man named Buridan once had an ass. Come lunchtime one day, he walked his ass into the farmyard and unhitched him, and there Buridan's ass stood, as it turned out, precisely equidistant between two bales of hay. Poor Buridan's ass stood there so long wondering which bale of hay to go nibble on that he starved to death.

Well, members opposite, it's slowly falling apart for you. You rushed out and jumped in bed with Mr. Broadbent and Mr. Trudeau. In the debate in December I quoted to you some of your federal colleagues, the ones who have now broken rank. Mr. Notley, your leader in Alberta, has rejected the Trudeau package. Mr. Blakeney has rejected it; Mr. Pawley has rejected it. Mr. Broadbent is now fighting with your colleagues the Labour Party in Great Britain. And you're stuck in the middle — equidistant. You've got to take a stand sooner or later. You're dancing around the asparagus patch.

You know, you're dangerously close to becoming intellectually bankrupt on the issue. Why don't you stand up and take a clear stand? Tell us today, if it's the reason, that this amendment is here because you agree with Mr. Trudeau and Mr. Lalonde: what they're doing is right; therefore what we have to do in our budget to counter that is wrong. Tell us that. We'll at least respect you for your frankness, if you're still supporting them, and that's why you differ with our budgetary approach. Alternatively, if you've thought about it, and you don't want to be the only remaining NDP group in western Canada still supporting Lalonde and Trudeau, stand up and tell us that. Agree with us, that we've had to take some tax measures because of what Ottawa has done to us. We'll respect you for that too.

You can't have it both ways. Remember the fable of Buridan's ass. You may starve yourselves to death intellectually. You're offering the people of this province no clear policy choice in this field. You're in danger of becoming intellectually bankrupt. Think about that before you vote for the amendment.

MRS. WALLACE: It seems we wander a long way from the topic that we're talking about in the course of our debate. The last speaker certainly was a bit humorous. He had spent a lot of time writing some parables, fairy-tales. Perhaps that's what that side of the House is really noted for — writing fairy-tales. It was interesting to listen to some of his comments.

I was very interested in his comments on the liquor tax and his division of that tax. I don't have any real argument with that. When he makes the point that he's not going to increase the tax on beer, and at the same time frees the price of beer so it's set by the suppliers, and then builds in a little protection in the marketplace by increasing the price of wine and hard liquor through tax measures, I'm wondering whether or not that free market situation relative to the sale of beer isn't going to mean that the price of beer is going to

[ Page 4541 ]

increase to fill the pockets of the manufacturer, rather than that extra amount going into the taxpayers' pockets. Making through taxes the alternative choice more expensive to drink seems to me a bonanza to the manufacturers of beer, and an opportunity for them to increase their prices.

This discussion today on the amendment, which speaks of our concern about the taxes that have been placed on the people of British Columbia in this budget, has related that concern to three reasons. I was prompted by the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) when he quoted a dictionary definition of "expedient" — and got dictionary definitions of the other words as well. Incidentally, my dictionary definition of "expedient" doesn't match his, but we'll get to that later.

"Onerous" — the Attorney-General said when he was speaking that all taxes are onerous. According to the dictionary which I consulted in the library, "onerous" means burdensome or oppressive. That's what the opposition is saying these taxes are — burdensome and oppressive. There is no tax, the Attorney-General said, that isn't onerous, and I disagree with that. It's a quote from that side of the House that there's no free lunch. If we're going to have government services, we have to pay for them with taxes. But some taxes are more palatable than others some are more fair. The taxes that this government has raised in this budget are not fair or just. They are onerous because they're burdensome and offensive.

The increase in sales tax, for example, which represents the largest return to government coffers, is considered by economists far and wide as a regressive tax. It's a tax that doesn't take into consideration in any way, shape or form the ability to pay. A 2-cent increase on every dollar for articles purchased by people with incomes of $2,000, $3,000 and $4,000 a month is nothing. But when you add that increase onto the price of articles purchased by people on fixed and low incomes, the working poor, retired people and the people on social assistance and handicapped pensions, it becomes a very burdensome, offensive and oppressive tax, and it's not fair or just. That's why we very much regret that this government has seen fit to take that step in attempting to balance its budget, in attempting to pick up that $625 million shortfall, in attempting to recoup some of the reserves it has depleted. It's an unfair, burdensome and oppressive way to go.

It's particularly difficult for some groups, as I mentioned earlier. The increase in the gasoline tax — many people on this side of the House have talked about that. It poses difficulties for people in rural areas and in certain industries such as the agriculture industry, which is a heavy consumer of energy. To increase, over and above the increase that the general public is being asked to pay for gasoline, the amount being charged for gasoline used in the production of food is certainly burdensome and oppressive as far as the farm community goes. The farm community has been caught in the cost-price squeeze for some time. Costs keep escalating and market prices at the farm gate are lagging behind inflation. They're caught in the cost-price squeeze, and now this is just one more item that has been put on the backs of the agricultural producers in British Columbia. It's an onerous tax, burdensome and oppressive. That's why we on this side of the House are opposed to the measures the government is taking.

An expedient tax. Well, no, let's do "unnecessary." I'm going to save that "expedient" until the end, because I want to differ with the Attorney-General's definition. An unnecessary tax: "not absolutely needed to accomplish a certain result." That's the dictionary definition. The result that the government tells us they're trying to accomplish is to maintain services at a level — somewhat below previous levels. Incidentally — just to maintain those services. No particular improvements, nothing else, just to maintain them — that's what they say they're trying to do by these taxes. We say it's unnecessary, that it's not needed to accomplish that end. They say: "Well. what would you do?"

I wonder. Mr. Speaker. have they ever thought about saying to the public of British Columbia: "Look. we are going to have to change our plans about the convention centre. There just isn't enough money to build it." How many millions of dollars would the add to the social service programs if that particular monument was not constructed? Have they ever thought of saying to the taxpayers of this province: "Look, we don't really think that the government can afford to get involved in a professional sports stadium. We think that probably that would be better left to private investment." Have they ever thought about taking that step, Mr. Speaker'? And have they ever thought about the millions of dollars that that would return for the use of the human services programs, the needed programs, the routine estimates for the ministers of the Crown of this government? Have they ever thought about the amount of money that that would make available?

Transpo '86. Are they so determined to rush headlong into that program and perhaps repeat the Montreal fiasco and find B, C. taxpayers faced with the kind of situation that's facing the people in Montreal and Quebec? Have they ever thought about looking at that instead of socking it to the general public on sales tax and gasoline tax and all the other moves that they're taking to increase the amount of money that they say is necessary just to maintain those services?

Have they ever thought. Mr. Speaker, about getting some different approach to the development in the northeast? If they are so determined to give away an energy resource at a price that is below the return that they can get from that resource or are able to sell it for, have they ever thought about asking for some assistance from the people they're selling it to? I'm not supporting that kind of an approach, but certainly that is what is happening in Australia.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: It is not.

MRS. WALLACE: The Minister of Industry and Small Business Development says that that's not happening in Australia. I have here a copy of the Australian Financial Times which indicates that the Japanese are begging the Australian government to take some financial assistance to build port facilities and other facilities to get coal out of Australia. In any of these jaunts that that minister takes all around the world, has he ever thought of talking to Australia about this? Australia is not buying; they want to keep that coal; they want to use that coal to produce an alternative energy source in Australia; they're not making that coal available to the Japanese. But because the Japanese want it so badly, they're prepared to put up some of the costs — and here we're asking the taxpayer to foot the bill for those things. It's a very strange approach.

As for the other idea — that it's absolutely needed to accomplish certain results — I wonder if it is really needed. We have seen that happen so often with Social Credit governments: the old approach of overestimating your expenditures and underestimating your revenue. It's a great way to build up

[ Page 4542 ]

a nest-egg. Is it really necessary to put these taxes on the backs of the citizens of British Columbia just to maintain present services? Is it really necessary or is it just a way of building up a nice little nest-egg? There are strange things happening when you compare the figures in the budget with the estimates.

The budget talks about $17 million for roads in the northeast — maintenance, upgrading and construction. Yet if you look at the estimates, as my colleague for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) pointed out, the budget of the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) for highways maintenance and construction is up by nearly $100 million. Is that holding the line? Is that retaining the present standards? If in fact that $83 million is going to roads around the province, that's certainly an increase, that's not holding the line. Where is that $83 million? How much of it is going to wind up as a hidden subsidy to northeast coal? Will we ever know? I doubt it. The whole change in the approach of financing that development by hiding the costs within the estimates of the various ministries has removed from the scrutiny of this Legislature something the Legislature has a right to know: how much that northeast coal development is really going to cost us.

AN HON. MEMBER: You don't know, nor does your department know.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, yes, I know.

MRS. WALLACE: The minister says he knows.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The member for Cowichan-Malahat has the floor. I would ask all hon. members to bear that in mind. They too will have an opportunity for debate.

MRS. WALLACE: The minister says he knows. If he knows, why has he been so reticent to answer questions in this Legislature that have been put to him time after time? Why is he so reticent to file backup information? Nothing has been made public. We just have his word, and we will never know how much money the taxpayer is actually pouring into that development.

Now let's go to "expediency." The Attorney-General dealt at some length with that particular word. He had a dictionary definition, but I failed to find his dictionary definition. The first definition given in Funk and Wagnall's in the library is this: "Expedient: serving to promote a desired end." That's exactly what we're saying this budget is. It's expedient in that it's serving to promote the desired political end for that particular party and for that government. It's expedient in attempting to build up a reserve to build monuments to themselves and to utilize taxpayers' money for unnecessary expenditures. That's where it's expedient. It's building up a slush fund, if you will, for pre-election. It's moving to accumulate money out of the economy of this province — because whenever you increase taxes you take money out of the economy.

People on fixed incomes, low incomes…. Working people only have so much money and they spend it on consumer goods. If the government takes some of that away from them and hides it in some government sock, then it's taken out of the economy and that starts the spiral on the downturn. That $625 million that is supposed to be raised by increased taxes is taking $625 million out of the economy of the province of British Columbia — dollars that could be invested in cars, clothing and all the things that people use and need to have a comfortable and pleasant life. For that $625 million that you remove directly, the side effects of that have an economic effect that turns down the whole economy.

I suggest that this budget is extremely expedient in that it is using dollars that should be left in the hands of the people of British Columbia to fill their reserve funds, ready to use when they want to bring on a budget of handouts before they're prepared to face the people of this province. I suggest it's an old trick and it won't work, but I do suggest it is politically expedient. That is why this resolution is on the order paper; that is why we object to the high-handed, tightfisted policies that have been outlined by this government.

They are looking in the wrong places and at the wrong time for the kind of funds that they're asking for. They are not taking a responsible approach to the problems that they appear to be facing. How they ever got there, I don't know. They seem to have frittered away a $500 million reserve in one year. My colleague from Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) pointed out that the forest industry's returns are not down, they're up. The economy, according to the Minister of Finance, is booming. Why then is the provincial government in such dire straits? Complete mismanagement is the only explanation. I just don't understand how a government of supposedly successful business people could ever drive a province into such a supposedly desperate situation in one short year. Five hundred million dollars of reserves have disappeared and a $625 million would-be overrun on this year's budget has to be covered by excessive tax increases onerous, unnecessary and expedient.

Mr. Speaker, I certainly support this amendment. It's a sorry day for the Legislature, a sorry day for British Columbia, when we face in this House a debate that is causing us to have to look at the absolute disaster that this government has brought to this province in one short year. I oppose the budget and I support this amendment. I would certainly hope that some of the government members, some of the back-bench members, will consider what they are doing when they stand, if they stand, to oppose this amendment. They are opposing a move that would attempt to take from the backs of the people of British Columbia this $625 million burden that has been placed upon them by this particular government that seems determined to go ahead with its self-perpetuating monuments. Perhaps that's a sign of the future. Somehow they have to perpetuate their own memory, because they know that come the next election they will no longer be sitting in these seats in the House.

MR. GABELMANN: I was expecting that the government would have a speaker in turn, but obviously no one else on that side wants to talk against this amendment.

A number of references have been made by members on that side of the House to the fact, from their point of view, that there is no reason for such an amendment. We in this House can divide quite predictably on that question, and I have no illusions about those mavericks on that side who when outside this chamber speak on our side of the issue but inside speak on the other side of the issue. But where the real vote should be taken is out there in the public. If the public had an opportunity to divide on the question that we have put before this House on the amendment, there's no doubt, not just in our minds as partisan New Democrats, but no doubt in the

[ Page 4543 ]

minds of active Socreds and active members of other political parties around this province, that we would win the vote.

The taxes that have been increased on the people of this province by this budget are not only onerous, expedient and unnecessary, but they are in fact deceitful, because the increases in the taxes people have to bear this year are simply there to buy their votes next year. I resent that kind of politics and I know it's no longer the 1950s and 1960s in this province. In these 1980s, the public will no longer be deceived by that kind of political chicanery. No longer will that work. For a government which is trying to invoke memories of the 1950s and 1960s with the big-ticket, big-project items and deceitful bookkeeping methods in an effort to try to bring back those glory days of successive election victories, they have misjudged the mood of British Columbians.

If the cabinet ever wanted any evidence of that they should have picked it up on their tour of Vancouver Island in January. In January, on Vancouver Island, in a blatant, political Social Credit tour — paid for by taxpayers, I might add — what did the members of this government find, when they went into community after community, but opposition to various programs. Where was that opposition coming from? Was it coming from the weirdo environmentalists off in left field? Was it coming from active New Democrats with a political axe to grind? No. Some of the demonstrations were led by chambers of commerce. In Campbell River, for example, the major protest against government policies was led by the establishment business leaders of the community. If that doesn't tell this government something, if that doesn't give them a message, then they have thicker blinders on than I ever thought they had.

What the government is saying in economic terms, in my judgment, is two things. I've alluded to one. Nineteen eighty-one is a year for taxpayers to dig deeper to finance giveaways and goodies, and I suspect, an increase in the homeowner grant in 1982, should you survive that long. God forbid! Taxes are also increased deliberately to assist in this illusory big-ticket, big-project, desperate grasp for electoral return.

The member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) a few moments ago talked about the increase in Highways' budget. There is a significant, major increase in the Highways budget. I doubt very much whether that significant increase in the Highways budget is designed for problems in transit in urban areas. I doubt very much whether that significant increase in that Highways budget is designed to improve the highway system on Vancouver Island — the needed four-laning from here to Campbell River. I suspect that just as in the sixties with the Columbia River, when costs for the Columbia River policy were hidden in forestry. highways and hydro expenditures — to name only a few of the budgets that carried some of the costs of that massive hydro scheme of W.A.C. — just as the taxpayers paid hidden costs then, so too today are we paying hidden costs, at least in the Highways budget, because that's where that money is designed for. It's designed to subsidize those corporations that can't make a go of it in a free enterprise way.

One of the ironies of political life in British Columbia now and in recent years is that the true free-enterprisers are on this side of this House. We believe that business should be able to make a go of it, or it shouldn't go. If it doesn't go financially, if it doesn't go economically, it shouldn't go. This is something that doesn't go.

I have no objections to governments providing infrastructure and a variety of services that are required to open up the province. In fact, when we were government, we were beginning those kinds of things not just for the northeast but for the northwest too, and for the southeast and various other parts of the province. But when we do it, Mr. Speaker, it should be done openly and honestly so the public has an opportunity to judge whether or not those expenditures are legitimate. How can the public make a judgment about whether or not now is the time to develop northeast coal when they don't have all the figures in front of them, they don't know what the costs are, they don't know what the hidden subsidies are, and they don't know the contribution that B.C. Rail — already $700 million in debt — is going to make to this kind of project? And they talk about free enterprise. It's not even private enterprise, as I prefer to characterize it.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

We are in a province that has serious problems in a wide variety of concerns about human life. We live in a time when our health-care system is probably more threatened and in more danger than it has ever been before. We live in a time when the poor people among us — mostly children — are actually and literally going hungry. If any evidence is needed of that, you are welcome to come to my riding and visit a lady who wrote to me recently: she gets $331 a month total income, $280 of which is rent; that's $51 a month left to live on — not even $2 a day after she's paid her rent and her heat.

We have this preoccupation with the big ticket; we have this preoccupation with northeast coal, with football stadiums, with glass slippers, with Pier B-C — and there are people absolutely literally starving in this province. And that government has the gall to proceed with billion-dollar programs — probably in the next five years or eight years it will be $10 billion worth of capital expenditure — at a time when we have been unable to distribute our wealth in this province at all equitably, and at a time when divisions between people in our society in terms of the income they receive and the wealth they possess are growing even greater as the result of the housing policies of the government.

It is a when those who were fortunate enough to have had a home or an investment in land or property prior to the last few years are now exceedingly wealthy, if not in income at least in property, in assets. But those people who come behind, those people who come now, are without any of the assets they may have gained by having property in earlier years, and as a result of the phenomenal increases in wealth that are given to those people, including myself, in this society who happened to own prior to these insane escalations in prices — not in values, but in prices — those people are hit with extra rent increases and an extra cost of living, particularly for their housing, simply because of the increases in value and wealth that the other side of society has managed to gain for itself.

Rents of $400, $500, $600 or $700 a month in the lower mainland for a two-bedroom apartment or two bedrooms in a house are not uncommon; in fact, they are the rule. How, in a society that has a starting wage of $5.80 an hour for a woman in the city of Vancouver, are they going to be affording $700 or $800 a month — or more, if they happen to have some children? Where in the budget is there any attention given to these kinds of problems? Nowhere. It's a millionaire's budget designed by car dealers who have never known a day of hunger in their lives.

[ Page 4544 ]

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: The minister who's supposed to be in charge of developing an energy policy for this province is yapping again. He's just as irrelevant in here as he is when trying to explain energy policies for his government. A man who wouldn't even conduct a public inquiry as to the route for a gas pipeline to this island, but rather — not even allowing his free enterprise friends a chance — giving it to B.C. Hydro and a pre-selected route without public inquiry, and without any concern whatsoever for possible environmental impacts of that route that's been chosen….

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: I wasn't going to talk about the alienation of farmland. To start getting into all the issues that have not been dealt with by this government in the budget, each of us would probably require half a dozen hours just to get through all the issues.

I talked about the question of poverty and the fact that the welfare rates for those people in this province who cannot earn an income in any other way, most of whom, may I remind this Legislature, are children…. Well over 50 percent are children, and bringing it up to the 90-95 percent figure are women and children. Most of those women, 15 and 20 years ago believing the North American myth about getting married, owning a home and living happily ever after, and therefore not learning any trades or getting any training, are unable to get into the job market — were there jobs available; I note unemployment is up again this month in this province. They don't have the training because they believed the myth that's peddled by those people in our society who are reflected on the other side of this floor. But even if they did have the training, even if they did have the capability of moving right into the job market, and even if there were jobs to go to, what would they do with their small kids? Day-care facilities in this province have become a joke in the last five years. There is no attention and no concern. What is there in the budget for those people?

Wouldn't you think that a government made up of private enterprisers who believed in the worth of the individual would allow those individuals to develop some worth by allowing them to go out and work and become productive members of the workforce and of society, so they could contribute something to society rather than just taking from it? To do that you have to provide things like day care, but you're not interested in doing that because you don't really believe the individual has any worth. You peddle that line simply as a cover, as do the Reaganites in the United States, for those people who want to make a million bucks or more — the George Spetifores of the world and half the people across this Legislature.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: The member needs to return to his seat. Would the hon. member please continue to address the Chair.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, I will continue to address the Chair, as I have done throughout my speech.

We talk in this budget about health care — the blame and the scapegoating. The guy who is responsible for that terrible increase in government expenditures is Rafe Mair, now that he's gone. There was a $200 million overrun last year in health care. Why is that? Not because more money is being spent on health care for good purpose, but because more money is being spent on health care in the wrong way, where better service could be provided for less money. We have in this province hundreds, and I think I might safely say thousands, of acute-care beds that cost a significant amount of money every day. They are being occupied by people who do not need to be in acute-care beds, who do not want to be in acute-care beds, and for whom doctors and people in the public are trying to find extended- and long-term care beds. There aren't any. Those beds would be cheaper. The cost of running our health-care system would be less expensive were those acute-care beds not occupied by long-term patients.

Mr. Speaker, that kind of lack of government planning and attention to the way in which we deliver health-care has led to, we all agree, an amazingly increasing budget for health-care services. Why don't we develop extended-care facilities? Why don't we develop and expand the home-care program, so that people who are recuperating, who need some attention — perhaps only to do some of the housework and make sure the meals are prepared — have those services provided in their home at a fraction of the cost of acute-care beds? But no, we have a health-care system badly in need of overhaul which, rather than being controlled by the government, is controlling the government. It is not in fact a health-care system; it is a sickness-care system. Until we recognize that the only way to deal with people's health and their personal welfare is to treat them when they're healthy and to help keep them healthy, rather than waiting until they're sick and dealing with problems, the cost of health care will continue to escalate at the rate it is now. Future Finance ministers will have even more difficulty in making ends meet if we do not now, as late as it is, address ourselves to the problem of health care and the way the service is delivered. And let's talk about health care, not sickness care.

The Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers) was talking, I think it was yesterday, about the Fraser River cleanup program. Whether he meant to or not, he said something to the effect that it was the only additional money he was requesting for his ministry. He was pleased that he was able to get it, because the cleanup of the Fraser River was an important project and he wanted to get on with it. We all applaud that. We should have gotten on with it years ago. It's the major salmon-producing river in the world undoubtedly, and one that's on the verge of dying. Any efforts that the government takes to improve that river, to bring it back and to make it again the major food-producing resource in this province, will be applauded by all people in this province.

He said, though, that that was the only allocation that he asked for, and he was glad that he got it — of course, apart from the normal increments that all ministries would be asking for. Yet we experienced in this province last December 26, and in the weeks following, a series of floods, unusually devastating floods which not only wiped out significant portions of the salmon in my riding and in the ridings of the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) and undoubtedly the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) — not only wiped out significant future stocks of salmon — but cost significant millions of dollars. One small river in my riding has already cost well over a million dollars to clean up.

Why did we have to spend not in all cases but in many and in particular, the one I'm talking about at the moment was a $12 million program, if my memory is correct — these

[ Page 4545 ]

millions of dollars of both provincial and federal money? Why do we have to spend those millions of dollars? Because the Ministry of Environment last year only had in its budget a figure of, I believe, around $400,000 for stream maintenance, clearing log jams and clearing gravel buildups we get out of the flash-flooding because of the kind of logging practices that go on. The figure was in the neighbourhood of $400,000 for that stream maintenance. I m not talking about dyking and I'm not talking about some of the other programs that go on, but I'm talking about the maintenance.

If we had spent the kind of money that is required to keep those river channels flowing properly and to keep them free of debris, we could have saved millions of dollars this December and January. It's those kinds of preventive programs that the government seems totally unable or unwilling to spend any money or any time considering. Why don't we spend some money ahead of time to save a lot of money later? It applies in all aspects of government, and I select specifically the question of stream maintenance. Because of the way in which logging has gone on in the upper reaches of many of these rivers and streams they are now more subject to flashflooding than ever before. Not only does it cost us millions and millions of dollars in joint federal-provincial money to repair the damage, it costs homeowners and people who live along these riverbanks untold personal costs and suffering, I might add. It also wipes out millions of dollars worth of one of the major resources in this province, which is the salmon fishery.

That kind of lack of planning and approach to government, in my judgment, Mr. Speaker, has been found wanting by the public and has already — even though we haven't had the writ yet — has already been found guilty by the public. You only have to talk to a wide cross-section of people in any community in this province to discover that.

I stay again with question of the environment. Many people around the world come to British Columbia and go to Campbell River and that area of this province, drawn to that location by the salmon and the possibility of a good fishing holiday and the almost certainty of it being successful. Yet we have a government which in this budget has failed again to deal with an issue that will wipe out that salmon fishery in the Campbell River area, that has the potential to wipe out the tourism that's drawn not only to that area but also to all of this province, and wipe out the money that's gained in exchange from foreign tourists, and on and on.

We find that in that budget there is no additional money in the Ministry of Environment for studies and action on the Buttle Lake pollution. There we have a famous lake in one of British Columbia's major parks — a lake that in 1966 was allowed to have a major mine located on its banks and be used as the site for the tailings. The lake is at the head of the source of the drinking water for all those people who live in Campbell River. That lake has indisputably been poisoned by the mine. All the initial studies have proven that conclusively. What everybody involved in those studies has said is that we need more money to do the conclusive studies that can demonstrate to the company, once and for all, that it is their fault that the lake is poisoned and that our drinking water is threatened. The staff in the ministry, the consultants hired in the ministry and the people in the professions that are affected by it in the community are all saying let's, once and for all, clean up this mess and solve this problem. To do so requires some funding from the ministry, and it's not there.

So what are the possible effects. apart from eventually poisoning everybody who drinks the water? One possible effect is killing the river that produces the major salmon fishing sportsground in this province — one of the most attractive fishing spots in the whole world.

Not only — and this is just in passing; I'll get onto this in more detail during the estimates — not only is the government continuing to ignore that problem, they're proceeding with the idea of an open-pit coal mine right between the rivers that go into Campbell River. What must Roderick Haig-Brown think, looking down from where he is now, and seeing the actions of that government — their mad desire to please corporations whose only objectives are to make a few more bucks for their shareholders, most of whom don't even live in this country'?

I'm going to have a lot more to say about a variety of issues during the estimates. I particularly want, during the Attorney-General's (Hon. Mr. Williams') estimates, to talk about rural fire protection. I'm going to do that in some detail next week perhaps, or the week after next, when the budget debate is over and presumably the Attorney-General's estimates will be up. I'm going to talk about a variety of other issues, such as the inequities that exist for municipal funding between those municipalities with large industrial bases and those without, and a variety of problems in delivery of services to poor people, to women in particular, in remote and rural communities in my riding and in other parts of the province. We will all, on this side of the House, have a great deal more to say about the budget of this government during the coming months of debate in this Legislature, because that's what the debate on the estimates is. It's a debate on the budget. although it's a bit of a sham debate. I might say, because it takes effect on April 1, and we won't have come close to proving it. We will have a great deal more to say.

I think, in the debate on this amendment, we have demonstrated on this side of the House that the taxes that have been imposed are not on the resource side of our society or the resource corporations in any meaningful way, but are on the ordinary working people in a regressive fashion. They are not even penalizing those of us who earn more but penalizing everybody across the board. We have demonstrated that those taxes are unnecessary. The are excessive and are certainly politically expedient, because they hope they'll still be in power in 1982 when they can use that $625 million to buy the votes of the public. It won't work.

Mr. Gabelmann moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:55 p.m.

[ Page 4546 ]

APPENDIX

8 Ms. Brown asked the Hon. the Minister of Human Resources the following question:

With reference to the Zenith Child Abuse line, what are the monthly figures for October, November, December 1979, and January, February, March, April, May, June, July and to date in November 1980, for the following categories: anonymous, by neighbours, by parent, by family member, by child involved, and by professional or agency; and other calls: parents wanting help, children lonely or wanting help with problems, information about child abuse, other problems, and crank calls and hang-ups?

The Hon. G.M. McCarthy replied as follows:

Source of Calls

Nature of Calls

Some calls may appear in more than one column. For example: an anonymous call concerning possible child abuse which was dealt with by initial telephone counselling and then referred to a ministry office for follow-up would appear as an anonymous call, a counselling call, and a call concerning child abuse.

The figures in this table differ in some cases from previously released figures. The recording and reporting systems have undergone extensive revision and some identified problems are still to be resolved. The figures in this table have been generated by computer analysis of all previous recording systems; however, systems difficulties can and do result in under-reporting in all categories.

[ Page 4547 ]

The variance in calls in the "crank" column results from procedural changes in the recording system. Up to June 1980, there was no computer reporting category for crank calls or hang-ups. The figures obtained prior to June 1980 came from a manual check on written records where such observations were made.