[ Page 7149 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Ombudsman report No. 4. Mrs. Wallace –– 7149

Cutback in revenue-sharing with municipalities. Mr. Barber 7149

Municipal tax interest rate. Mr. Howard –– 7150

Terrace municipal tax arrears. Mr. Howard –– 7150

Federal ferry subsidy. Mr. Lea –– 7150

Northeast coal. Mr. Leggatt –– 7151

Budget Debate

Mr. Kempf –– 7151

Mr. Leggatt –– 7153

Mr. Strachan –– 7157

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 7159

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 7163

Mr. Barber –– 7165

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 7167

Division –– 7170

Committee of Supply

On vote 1: legislation.

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 7170

THURSDAY, APRIL 22, 1982

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: We have a great deal of Hope in the galleries today. Would the House please join me in welcoming a group of Grade 11 students from the Hope Secondary School, accompanied by their instructor, Mr. Dahl.

MR. GABELMANN: In the gallery and in the precincts today are people from all over British Columbia representing HUDAC. I ask the members to please make them welcome.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: We have two visitors from Welland, Ontario, Ed and Mary Schultz, along with their granddaughter from Victoria, Allison Bodkin. Would members join me in making those three persons welcome.

MR. LEA: In the gallery today is Russell Anderson, who ran for our party in the riding of Omineca. Until Russell ran for us he worked for the Royal Bank. I would like to ask everybody to welcome him here.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to associate myself with the remarks made just a few moments ago with respect to HUDAC members who are visiting in the precinct today. A number of us have had an opportunity to meet with these men and women, and in my particular case I met with a number from the greater Victoria area council of HUDAC, which is a fine association in the province of B.C.

MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Cranbrook Royals of the Western International Hockey League on winning the Allan Cup at the Canadian senior hockey championship in Cranbrook last night by defeating the Petrolia Squires of Ontario.

Oral Questions

OMBUDSMAN REPORT NO. 4

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the ombudsman filed report No. 4 with this Legislature, a report which is shocking, to say the least. Why has the Attorney-General concealed documents from the ombudsman relative to the horse-racing industry?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I think that if the hon. member had read the ombudsman's report and the extensive exchange of correspondence which he set out in that report, she would know the answer to the question. If she'd also taken the time to read section 17 of the statute which authorizes the ombudsman to discharge his onerous responsibilities, she would most assuredly have the answer to the question.

The information which was demanded of me by the ombudsman would have offended against the provisions of section 17 of the Ombudsman Act, and therefore I was advised to issue my certificate.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, I assume that when a question is asked, we would like to hear the answer.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I have read the report, and the ombudsman states very clearly that the information that he has seen, without breaching confidentiality, in no way infringed on cabinet secrecy. The ombudsman has said that publicly.

Mr. Attorney-General, on whose instructions are you refusing this release, and on whose instructions are you invoking this section of the Ombudsman Act?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, it is clear from the supplementary question asked by the hon. member that if she has read the report, she has not understood what she reads. The fact of the matter is that a complaint was made to the ombudsman with respect to the report itself, which resulted in a demand made by him to see all of the files associated with that report, and it is in those files that matters leading to the deliberations of the executive council are contained.

MRS. WALLACE: I have a final question. Will the Attorney-General advise the House at this late date whether or not the report into the horse-racing industry included a recommendation to double the B.C.-bred bonus?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The answer to the question is no, Mr. Speaker.

CUTBACK IN REVENUE-SHARING
WITH MUNICIPALITIES

MR. BARBER: I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs, who had a $25,000 overrun in his personal office budget last year. The unconditional portion of the revenue-sharing fund has been cut by the minister by some $63 million in order to balance the provincial budget. This juggling has been described by Mayor Jim Tonn, the president of the Union of British Columbia Municipalities, as fraudulent. My first question is: is the minister aware that this "fraudulent practice" — quoting the president of the UBCM — has left municipalities all over the province with only three weeks in order to develop entirely new municipal budgets with new taxes in order to raise that lost revenue?

MR. SPEAKER: The question contains an unparliamentary word, and that word is "fraudulent." Perhaps the member could change the word.

MR. BARBER: I'm quoting.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think all the members know that we cannot use another vehicle to put into someone else's mouth a word which would be unparliamentary in this chamber. Therefore I'm sure the member can use a word other than the word which offends the House.

MR. BARBER: The cut in revenue-sharing has been described in a very novel way by the president of the Union of British Columbia Municipalities. My question is: is the minister aware that as the result of this novel practice, munici-

[ Page 7150 ]

palities have been left with all of three weeks to develop a new budget and raise new taxes so as to compensate for these lost revenues?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The first information getting back to us is that, for the most part, the majority of municipalities can certainly do their budgeting without substantial tax increases, if any. This is largely because of revenue-sharing and such programs. For the member's information, since 1975 — the last year of NDP — until today the amount of revenue going to municipalities from the provincial government has risen by 400 percent. For that member to assume that, somehow, municipalities are so incompetent that they must consistently receive a 25 percent increase annually.... I think it is an insult for him as Municipal Affairs critic to make such a suggestion. I see the municipalities as being much more responsible than he considers them to be.

MR. BARBER: That was a novel reply. Since 1980, by Socred order, municipalities have been required to print the following advertisement on every municipal tax notice: "Last year, without provincial government revenue-sharing, your general municipal taxes would have increased by X percent to provide similar levels of service." Will the minister announce today that he will permit municipalities to replace this rubbish with the truth of the matter: "This year, because of cuts in government revenue-sharing, your municipal taxes will be increased by X percent to provide reduced levels of service"? Yes or no.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I think that the taxpayers, local or wherever, being well informed, make the people in government most accountable. The fact that revenue-sharing probably still accounts for taxes being half of what they might be ought to be pointed out again — and it will be pointed out again.

MUNICIPAL TAX INTEREST RATE

MR. HOWARD: I too would like to direct a question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Given that the Union of B.C. Municipalities, at its convention last September, passed a resolution calling for increased penalties for nonpayment of taxes, penalties increased from the present 12 percent to a rate 1.5 percent above the prime rate of the bank with which the respective municipalities deal, could I ask the minister if he is aware that the unscrupulous are using this loophole to force municipalities to go into debt and to make money themselves by refusing to pay taxes or by withholding taxes? Can the minister tell us whether he or his government has decided to close that loophole and follow the recommendation of the UBCM?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The rate of interest has been stipulated as a part of the Municipal Act, certainly for a good many years, and some of those years were those during which some of the members opposite served in government. I've recommended, and am certainly supportive of, a change that would instead allow the interest rate to be established on the basis of whatever the market should dictate, but it's certainly, in my opinion, no crime for anyone to use the law as it presently exists. If in fact there is a provision, as there has been for a number of years, that you can delay the payment of taxes and pay the interest instead, and if you choose to do so, it's no crime. If that means, however, that we in government ought to address the matter differently, so be it. That should be a question for future legislation. But I certainly don't think it's fair for the member opposite to somehow label people who use that which is presently, in law, permissible.

TERRACE MUNICIPAL TAX ARREARS

MR. HOWARD: As a prelude to my next question, I should advise the minister that when we were the government, general interest rates were much lower than 12 percent.

I wonder — and this may be the reason why he has not been able to get his recommendation through cabinet — if the minister is aware that two companies, the president of each being one Raymond B. McCarthy, are in arrears of taxes to the extent of some $25,000 to the municipality of Terrace.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Again, I repeat: if a government, whatever the government, has not changed the percentage rate, then it's no crime and it's not stealing. No one goes to jail for using the law as it's written. Certainly for some member to suggest it's a criminal act for anyone to use the law as it's written is totally out of order.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, it's interesting to note that the only person who brought up the question of criminality is the minister himself.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. To seek the floor under the guise of a question when actually no question is at hand is out of order.

FEDERAL FERRY SUBSIDY

MR. LEA: A question to the Minister of Transportation and Highways. Can the minister inform the House on what date the Premier instructed him not to negotiate with the federal government for the continuing subsidy for northern ferry routes?

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, this matter came up this morning from that member. I would like to clarify the matter. The government of British Columbia has an agreement with the government of Canada for a subsidy to run the ferry service on the Pacific coast. The cost-of-living part of the subsidy is subject to review after a five-year period. I wrote the Minister of Transport in February 1981, and I have his reply stating that he does not want to deal with it in any way until a study that is going on on the Pacific coast is concluded — a joint study by the province of British Columbia and the government of Canada on marine facilities. That's where the matter is at the present time. As far as the study is concerned, we expect it to be delivered shortly. It's tied in, and I have a letter from the Minister of Transport of Canada to that effect.

MR. LEA: The five-year period expired four days ago. Can the minister confirm that there is an agreement between the province and the federal government to let the subsidy not rise and the extra revenue that would accrue to the province from a subsidy rise, and that that agreement has been reached in order to subsidize and to bring into effect the agreement with Pier B-C in Vancouver?

[ Page 7151 ]

HON. MR. FRASER: I really don't understand the question. I would like to state emphatically that at no time as the Minister of Transportation have I ever had any dealings with Transport Canada or the minister regarding Pier B-C — none whatsoever.

MR. LEA: I would like to ask the minister why the management of B.C. Ferries was told by the provincial government "not to concern themselves about this subsidy and to let sleeping dogs lie." It's a direct quote.

AN HON. MEMBER: From who?

MR. LEA: The minister.

HON. MR. FRASER: I don't know who he's referring to, Mr. Speaker, but I will say on behalf of the government that it is an agreement between the government of the province of British Columbia and the government of Canada.

MR. LEA: Not the ferries?

HON. MR. FRASER: It is not an agreement with the B.C. Ferries; it is an agreement with the government of Canada and the government of British Columbia.

NORTHEAST COAL

MR. LEGGATT: My question is directed to the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development. On Tuesday of this week, in answer to a question of mine, he stated that we have a $600 million debenture signed by Quintette protecting the taxpayers of British Columbia for every cent that has been spent. Has the minister decided now to table that debenture in the House so that the taxpayers of British Columbia can examine the extent of the $600 million protection?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: In answer to the member's question, Mr. Speaker, I understand that the debenture was filed in the superintendent of brokers' office here in British Columbia. I'd further like to inform the House that I will be tabling it and will be ready, willing and able to explain the complete agreement we have with the coal companies in due course.

Orders of the Day

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

MR. KEMPF: I rise to speak in favour of this budget. But before I do, I too would like to welcome Mr. Anderson to this House as a former constituent of mine and wish him well, wherever it is that he is now working.

Interjections.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, bring this House to order. I rise once again to speak in this debate

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, at this juncture there is usually some understandable movement. When members are taking new positions and moving to other, places in the building, I wish we would do that silently, because the business of the House must proceed.

MR. KEMPF: As I was saying, I rise once again in this debate to say that I am supporting this budget and voting in favour of this budget when the vote is taken later this afternoon. I am voting in favour on behalf of those I represent in the constituency of Omineca. I have consulted with many of those constituents, even though the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) — I really wish he had stayed in the chamber — doesn't think that to consult with one's constituents is proper conduct; he doesn't believe that to be the democratic process. I believe it to be the democratic way. In consulting with those whom I represent on this budget, I find they believe in the objects of the budget as brought down on April 5. I would like to read the objects, once again, into the record of this House:

"To provide economic stimulation and create employment, particularly in those sectors and communities hardest hit by world recession, to ensure that the burden of restraint and adjustment to current economic circumstances is shared fairly among all British Columbians, and to maintain the high quality of public services provided by the government of British Columbia."

My constituents agree with those objectives of this budget. A lot has been said in this debate by members opposite about this budget and, as well, about a very wide range of subjects both related and, in some cases, not related to this budget. I believe the most disturbing words I have heard during this debate since this budget was brought down on April 5 were the words uttered by the member for Prince Rupert. Again I say that I am sorry he is not in his place. That member really can't decide whether or not to support northeast coal even though the development means millions of dollars of investment and hundreds of jobs in his own constituency. The words that were most disturbing that came from that member was when he actually chastised me for saying that I was here in this chamber to speak on behalf of those whom I represent. I really think that is a shame. I believe that we are here for the sole purpose of speaking on behalf of those who've sent us here, not to, as the member for Prince Rupert has said.... It's here in Hansard for April 15, 1982, and I would like to once again read it into the records of this House:

Mr. Speaker, In our form of government (and he says "our" form of government; apparently it's a different form than the government of those on this side of the House) we are elected in our individual constituencies to come here and be individuals. We are elected to come here and to assess legislation and then to give our individual views as we see that legislation. If the majority of the people in our constituency don't agree with these views that we have given, then there is a democratic option, and that's to vote us out and replace us with someone else.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say to that member that I'm in touch with my constituents on a daily basis — as I believe all of us in this chamber should be — and I listen to my constituents on a daily basis and act accordingly as their representative in this chamber, as we all should do, Mr. Member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly), and as I think the member for Prince Rupert should do as well.

Now I know why it is that the member for Prince Rupert hops on the Queen of the North after election day and sails off into the distance, south to Victoria, never to be heard or seen again in his constituency until the next election. It's because he doesn't think that he has to listen to his constituents. He is now an individual; he has now come to Victoria to speak in this chamber on the basis of what he as an individual thinks. Mr. Speaker, I think that's a terrible shame. I've heard that

[ Page 7152 ]

member on several occasions in the last three weeks in the chamber saying that he wanted an election. No wonder that member wants an election. He wants to once again visit his constituency. I figured it out.

Mr. Speaker, I'm here to represent my constituents and speak for them, and I support this budget on their behalf. It's the first budget of its kind that will start us down a very long path, a path of return from the great, gaping hole into which we've all dug ourselves due to one form of greed or another. It's not perfect, but it's certainly a beginning. Just to admit, as many governments today will not, that we have a problem is a beginning. I support the budget and will vote that way.

But I'll have other things to say during this session. My constituents are not void of problems.

Interjections.

MR. KEMPF: Some hon. members have said: "Is it a hit list?" Maybe it is, but I'll be speaking in this chamber on behalf of my constituents and the problems they are facing. The media calls it a hit list, but hit list or not, they're the real problems faced by my constituents, Mr. Second Member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald), and I'll speak in this chamber about them. I would suggest that you do the same for your constituents.

I've heard the members opposite speak against this budget because it's a budget of restraint. In times such as we are experiencing, it's a budget which provides thousands of jobs in new industries. I'll name 5,800 of them in northeast coal, Mr. Member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly). It provides thousands of jobs in new industries when old industries are floundering. It provides no tax increases when our citizens are stumbling under an already heavy load. This opposition, even though they are aware of the situation regarding revenues to government, want more and more in the way of grants and what have you, and they speak against a budget of restraint.

I believe a constituent of mine puts the entire situation in perspective. I would like to read into the record a letter to the editor which appeared in a very recent issue of one of the local papers in my constituency:

"It gripes me to read about all the people crying about cuts in government grants to recreation, sports and other social services when we are in recession. We all have to tighten our belts. It sounds to me like we only hear from the people in charge of these programs and, of course, the union bosses. It appears to me that these people are more concerned about losing their jobs than they are about the people benefiting from them.

"We must all realize that if the money is not there, we have only two ways of getting it: one is higher taxes; and the other is borrowing and putting our government into a debt that our children and our grandchildren will have to pay. Neither of these is desirable. We do not want more taxes, and the only money the government has it gets from you and me sooner or later.

"Rather, let us pull together and help each other, as did our forefathers who founded this great country of Canada, without any government grants, without any subsidies, without any free meat, milk, eggs and without boards which only help the lazy and the inefficient support a greater bureaucracy and serve to increase the price of the product to the consumer. Let us defend our inherent freedoms with courage, initiative and ingenuity."

I think that puts it in perspective very well.

If those members opposite would practise what they preach, they would join us in trying to make this budget work. They would join us in trying to give support to this budget. Yes, I said it wasn't perfect, and it's very rare that anything ever is, but it's a budget that admits the problems and tries to do something about them.

Instead, those members opposite — and I see only three in the House at this time — oppose absolutely everything, thinking not of the people of British Columbia but speaking only of their selfish selves and their quest for power. "We want an election," is all they have to say. They want an election while the people of this province are in need of jobs. While this province, as do many other jurisdictions, fights the ravages of world recession, all the opposition can say is: "We want an election." Again, I say it's a shame. They haven't learned, and they desperately want to hang on.

Mr. Speaker, I read from a book which I commend not only to members of the official opposition, but to every member of this House, including yourself. It's a book called Wealth and Poverty — subjects often spoken of in this House by the members opposite, but understood by very, very few. I would just like to read one paragraph. It's by a Mr. George Gilder. I don't agree with the colour of the cover, but I agree with the contents:

"The most important event in the recent history of ideas is the demise of the socialist dream. Dreams always die when they come true, and 50 years of socialist reality, in every partial and plenary form, leave little room for idealistic reverie. In the United States, socialism chiefly rules in auditoria, parish parlours, among encounter groups or leftist intellectuals retreating from the real world outside where socialist ideals have withered in the shadows of Stalin, Mao, Sweden, Tanzania and bureaucracy."

Mr. Speaker, I would like to read the entire book. I really would. I'd like to read the whole thing, but time won't permit. However, I again commend all members of this House, including that member heckling me from over there, the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt), to read every word in this book, for those who would read it, Mr. Member for Coquitlam-Moody, would soon support this budget.

I too, as did the member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet), take exception to remarks made in this debate by the two members for Victoria, members who, by their own statements in this House, want only to have more, more and more from government, more from the taxpayers, more from the natural resources of this province — more for this city and this island, giving absolutely no thought to rural British Columbia whence the revenue of this province came in the first place, and giving no thought to those areas containing those people who actually produce the wealth of this province.

You know, Mr. Speaker, this is a prime example of what I'm going to say, and certainly a prime example of the kind of representation that we see here in this chamber from the city of Victoria — and from most of this island, as a matter of fact. I guess we're all to blame. We are all to blame — all as a society. We were so affluent during the fifties and sixties that we found during the seventies that we could be stupid — not all of us, but some. The popular pastime during the seventies,

[ Page 7153 ]

more often than not with a government grant, was to start some bleeding-heart organization designed to stop or to at least slow down development in this province. The NDP, seeing a means by which to become more popular with such groups, and thus to acquire more votes on election day, literally jumped to their assistance and chose their candidates accordingly. It became an easy way to get elected.

Politicians who stood for something, particularly here in Victoria, were swept aside. Politicians who care not where the money comes from or who have any experience out there in the real world were placed in office, and it wasn't very long before the wealth-spenders led the wealth-producers, as is quite evident here in Victoria. Those members over there — and they too are not in their places this afternoon, Mr. Speaker — who are said to represent this beautiful city of Victoria only want more and more and more from the taxpayers of this province for any hare-brained scheme, giving absolutely no thought whatever to where the money really comes from. Or maybe it is that they really don't know.

The member for North Peace River said it all, Mr. Speaker. The movers and the shakers of the city of Victoria, of which there are many, and the wealth-producers of this beautiful Vancouver Island had better wake up. They had better send to this chamber those who understand where it is that those dollars, of which they want more and more out of government, really come from. On behalf of those whom I represent, northerners, wealth-producers, I say again that I will vote in favour of this budget.

MR. LEGGATT: Before I proceed, Mr. Speaker, I understand it's appropriate that at the first opportunity a member raises a question of privilege where he feels the privileges of either himself or any other member have been breached. The question I wish to draw to your attention, Mr. Speaker, is an answer given by the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development to this House on Tuesday, April 20, in response to a question I asked concerning the security that the taxpayers of British Columbia have with respect to the public investment in the infrastructure in the Anzac spur line or the Tumbler Ridge line. In answer to that question, the minister stated to the House as follows: "We have, Mr. Speaker, a $600 million debenture signed by Quintette which protects the taxpayers of British Columbia for every cent that's been spent."

Mr. Speaker, I have now had an opportunity of examining that particular document, the debenture in question. The province of British Columbia ranks fourth and fifth amongst any creditors. It ranks behind every investor in the project with the exception of the shareholders, which means if you got a fifth mortgage on a dump truck you'd be very lucky.

Without going into the merits of this, the question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, is this: I believe my constituents are entitled to receive accurate information and not misleading information in this House. To say that that particular debenture protects the taxpayers of British Columbia is misleading and is wrong. I therefore have prepared a motion, Mr. Speaker, which I would ask you to consider, as to whether in fact the House has been misled.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you. We will review the words spoken by the hon. member in the record of Hansard and try to determine whether or not a prima facie case can be established. We will hold the motion until such time as debate is either permitted or denied.

Please proceed. The member for Coquitlam-Moody is, I presume, standing to debate the budget address.

MR. LEGGATT: Yes, I am.

Mr. Speaker, before we examine what is required or what is appropriate for British Columbia in these very serious times, I can expect that the minister — and I'm glad to see him in the House — and his officials sat down and examined the state of the economy. They had a look at what the president of the United States called the state of the nation address, or the state of the state address if you happen to be a governor.

The economy in British Columbia is now in a state that we haven't seen since about 1936. The response to the conditions of British Columbia aren't just merely inadequate; this budget is an abdication of leadership. It's a complete abdication of the responsibility of government to do something about a depression in the rural areas and a deep recession in the urban areas. You don't have to travel very far in British Columbia to know the disaster that has befallen this province.

Let's took at a few statistics. According to Statistics Canada's December report. we have 143,000 unemployed in B.C. That report also indicates that we have 64,000 "hidden" unemployed. As of last December, we had an unemployment rate in British Columbia of 10.6 percent. In addition, we have at least 140,000 thrown onto the welfare rolls in British Columbia. We have an unemployment rate that is now above the national average and is the worst rate west of Quebec in Canada. This is the first time that this has happened. That is a bloody disgrace! You are looking at an automobile industry that's in total shatters in the province of Ontario, and yet, believe it or not, our unemployment rate is higher than the rate in Ontario.

It's interesting that the Royal Bank of Canada brought out a recent study on the projections of growth for the province of British Columbia. I can only assume, Mr. Speaker, that before they produced that report they read the budget and asked: "What is this government doing to create economic stimulus, employment and to take a leadership role?" They came to the conclusion that the growth rate is zero and that the government performance rate is zero. They both came up with zeros. They have examined the budget, and the Royal Bank, that fiscal conservative of all times, has come to the conclusion that even the Royal Bank can't live with you fellows.

When you talk about unemployment you get lost in statistics, but I've got to produce a couple more. The rate of unemployment in Prince George is now 18 percent, in the southern interior it is 16 percent and in the West Kootenays it is 13.4 percent.

It's all very well to sit by complacently and talk about these wonderful philosophic concepts of socialism versus capitalism, but the real fact about this budget is that it doesn't give a damn for that 18, 16 and 13 percent that are unemployed.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I would recommend, perhaps, more moderate language for the chamber.

MR. LEGGATT: Something else I think we should examine is the rate of unemployment insurance claimants in the province of British Columbia. In my own area of Coquitlam, the percentage increase over last year is 94.7 percent, according to the latest UIC statistics; Port Alberni shows 223

[ Page 7154 ]

percent; Houston, 183 percent; Smithers, 120 percent; Kitimat, 167 percent; Fort St. John, 102 percent; 100 Mile House, 150 percent; Fernie, 117 percent. I hope the Minister of Finance is going to pay a little attention to this. There is a rip-roaring depression over this province right now, and this government hasn't responded to the economic conditions of British Columbia.

There is a little bit to fall back on because of that horrible socialist thing that I've heard everybody condemning: unemployment insurance — one of those terrible socialist measures that were brought in. Where would this government be without those little socialist measures? Where would these people be if they didn't have unemployment insurance or welfare to buy those groceries in the corner store and keep those small businesses at least turning over slowly? What this government misses because of its ideological fanaticism is that it is democratic socialism that has saved the free enterprise system. Do you know what? We are going to have to be called on to do it again. We are going to have to save them from themselves.

I hear my colleague for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) is reading Gilder's book on wealth and poverty. Gilder and Milton Friedman are the people you shouldn't be reading, because they are the problem. It is that philosophy, which says that you shouldn't redistribute wealth and give people purchasing power at the bottom, that is destroying the economic structure of the western world. It is that philosophy that means that people don't have the money to buy houses and don't have the purchasing power to buy the goods that the capitalist engine is capable of producing in abundance, and it is that philosophy which redistributes wealth upward instead of down.

AN HON. MEMBER: Redistributes poverty.

MR. LEGGATT: Let's deal with that — "redistributes poverty."

After the Second World War there was a consensus, something John Kenneth Galbraith described as a general agreement among all political forces in the western world. That was the liberals, the Tories, the coalitionists, the Socreds or what have you. For about 25 years they all accepted the concept that we have to try to produce fairness in the western democracies, that if you leave the free enterprise system alone you will wind up with only oligopolies and monopolies controlling the heights of the economy and you will destroy competition. Not through government. You destroy competition by allowing concentrations of wealth of such enormous size that small business can't possibly compete. The trust-busters of the United States. There was a consensus developed that said: "We conservatives will make a very slight gesture in that direction. We will bring in a little bit of legislation. We will vote in favour of a very modest pension or a very tiny medical care plan." The liberals were a little farther left than that. The liberals came along and said: "We're going to do just a little bit more than that. We will make ourselves just a bit more generous than the Tories." Of course, when these terrible socialists came along they said: "We'll go farther than anybody. By God, for democracy to survive we must have a government that produces equity among the competing components of society." Creating that democracy is what democratic socialism is all about. For about 25 years even those other forces — and this government was once a part of them — said: "We will make gestures in this direction. We will have welfare." We all disagreed on the extent and amount. We would do more. Admittedly, we are more compassionate, as a matter of fact.

Interjections.

MR. LEGGATT: That happens to be true.

That consensus was suddenly broken by my friend from Omineca's book, Wealth and Poverty. It was broken by the economic philosophy, persuasively argued, of the Chicago school, led by Milton Friedman. Milton Friedman came along and said: "Now wait a minute. We can't do this. It is ruining the economic structure. It is ruining the world to try to be fair to the poor, to try to produce welfare and compassion, to guarantee health care. By bringing that forward we can't accumulate that capital that is necessary at the top, and we are creating inefficiencies in the free enterprise system." And they ultimately bought it in the United States. Probably the first jurisdiction to buy that philosophy was the government of Sterling Lyon in Manitoba. They bought it, they ran on that ticket, and they won. The people of Manitoba had a chance to examine that philosophy and threw them out on their ears where they belonged. That's what happened. In England, the same thing occurred. When the Thatcher government came in, remember how everything was going to be roses and how she was going to cure unemployment? Look at the state of England today under a right-wing Thatcher government.

This philosophy, which I consider an amoral and unchristian philosophy, says: "To hell with my brother." It's like the elephant dancing among the chickens: everybody for himself, folks. That's what we had. Don't protect the weak in your society. Let the free enterprise system exist without the protection of this terrible thing called government, and let us stomp all over them. That's what has occurred in the last short while in the western world, particularly in the United States, which has the most important influence on the economies of all of us.

Now we come to the little economic jurisdiction of British Columbia. We're now told by the Premier, the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) and everyone: "The economy is out of control. We can't do anything about it, folks. It's only international forces which are creating this depression in the province of British Columbia. We can't do anything about it. We have to abdicate it."

I remember when the NDP was in power and they were accused of doing everything, including destroying several industries, and nobody mentioned the world price. Nobody mentioned international forces then. Where were these guys talking about the international conspiracy against British Columbia?

I don't believe that leadership is adequate, or even there, if you don't respond to a depression in this province. You're not responding.

The story of what's happening to small business in this province is a story that Galbraith could tell you. It's a story that anybody who has examined the economy of Canada will tell you. Small business is being driven to the wall, not by government but by high interest rates, by banks and by an economic philosophy that says you can't survive unless you're an American franchise; you can't survive unless you're a giant multinational corporation.

So here we are, looking at bankruptcies at an all-time high in the province of British Columbia. There were 174 bankruptcies in February. What are you going to do about

[ Page 7155 ]

that? Those were only the bankruptcies declared. You can multiply that by ten to get the number of small businessmen who have gone completely to the wall and are winding up on the streets without a job and without hope.

MR. KEMPF: Some on welfare.

MR. LEGGATT: Some on welfare. That's what this government has done to small business. It's destroyed small business. It's destroyed it because it refuses to see that there is a role somewhere for government.

I noticed that the other day in Vancouver 50 foreclosures went through. They're running the most amazing mill of foreclosures the province has ever seen. Every one of those brief little applications to a judge by a mortgage-holder contains another story of agony. It contains the hopes and the dreams of another family down the tube. Why don't you bring in a moratorium and give them a break like they did in Saskatchewan? Why don't you do something for them, instead of sitting there philosophizing about Mr. Gilder and wealth and poverty?

MR. KEMPF: We'll talk about Saskatchewan on Monday.

MR. LEGGATT: Got some money?

You are looking at a government that's out of touch with economic reality in the province. It is partly world markets. We know that we can't sell lumber when the U.S. housing market is dead, and we know we can't sell mining products when the price of copper is down. That's true. But who was it that was on the high-interest bandwagon ten years ago? My friend for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) pointed out that the economic conferences of Canada were constantly petitioned by the Premier of this province for a money-supply approach to the economy: "Get the interest rates up. Inflation is the key problem to everything." Now when they've done exactly what the Premier has asked, he wants to blame them for all his problems. It's an abdication of economic leadership.

If you happen to find $500,000 today, and there are not many people who have that.... I think the Premier probably has $500,000. I don't know what he's got in the bank, but I suspect there are a few people around here who have at least $500,000 sitting in the bank.

MR. KEMPF: Don't look at me.

MR. LEGGATT: Do you know what they make on that every year right now just in interest? The interest rate on $500,000 is $100,000 a year. They talk about welfare. Do you know who the real welfare recipients are in this province? They're the guys who are sitting back drawing that $100,000 a year without turning a finger. That's a disincentive to work. It harms the whole economy, and it doesn't put that capital to work. That's welfare. When you pay anybody those kinds of interest rates, that used to be usury. They used to throw people out of the temples for that kind of thing.

MR. KEMPF: You want to take it away from them whether they work for it or not.

MR. LEGGATT: I want you to do something about the ripoff in the banks, my friend. That's what I want you to do. I want you to have a policy that says that ordinary people can get interest rates at something they can at least afford. Right now two people with good incomes can't even buy a shelter over their heads, and it's a direct result of this government's failure to understand that human element out there. They haven't got a housing program worth the name, and you know it.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. If we don't interrupt the member who has the floor, perhaps he could remember to address the Chair.

MR. LEGGATT: Oh, they did do something in this budget about banks. They said: "By golly, that is a problem." They did respond. I forgot. I overlooked it. They've got a tax on banks now that will attract $15 million. Do you know how long it will take the banks to find a way to pay that $15 million? I'm sure that new tax they brought in must have made the boardrooms sweat right across the country. How many cents on a cheque will it take to get $15 million? One tenth of 1 cent? They'll pass that through to the customers so fast it will make your head spin. It's not going to make any difference.

They have failed to tackle the economic giants. They have failed to provide an economic atmosphere in this province through a low-interest program in housing and a low-interest program for small business. They have failed to see the trouble we're in.

We hear a lot here about the federal debt. I can recall my colleague for Skeena (Mr. Howard) and myself constantly being accused of being in Ottawa at one time creating some kind of massive, giant debt. These guys keep ranting and raving about the federal debt: the federal debt is too large; the philosophy of that Liberal government is wrong; they didn't do cyclical budgeting; and they only continued to increase the debt. But I want to tell you, my friends, that the individual debt of every British Columbian, if you divided up his federal share and his provincial share, is much heavier in terms of the provincial debt than it is in terms of the federal debt. It happens to be true. The provincial debt is now $10.5 billion.

MR. KEMPF: What are the assets?

MR. LEGGATT: What do you think the assets of Canada are? Anyway, through you, Mr. Speaker, those debts are secured by the assets of the country. In this province it's now $1,700 for every family of four on the provincial debt only. One of the great villains in all that is B.C. Hydro, who are into a program of continually expanding more than they need and massive borrowing that is unnecessary and at rates that are terrible. For what purpose is that? Why are we expanding?

AN HON. MEMBER: So we can have electricity.

MR. LEGGATT: No, so that California can have electricity, my friend. That's why.

Let me read you an item from this morning's Province:

"Indeed, as a Province business-page article has pointed out, B.C. is really subsidizing the Americans — to the tune of $240 million last year, or about $92 a person in B.C.....

[ Page 7156 ]

" Hydro has had to borrow heavily to finance its dams. According to the New York investment house of Salomon Brothers, Hydro was the fourth-largest single borrower in international bond markets last year. Only the World Bank, the European Investment Bank and Hydro-Quebec borrowed more than B.C. Hydro's $1.31 billion U.S."

B.C. Hydro needs all the money it can get to finance that debt, especially at today's high interest rates. This is what the Province said the day before: "B.C. Hydro provided a $240 million subsidy to power users in California last year by selling cheap, surplus B.C. hydroelectric power to west-coast utilities, enabling them to close down some of their own expensive oil-fired generating capacity."

What the Californians have been doing is shutting down their expensive power, getting rid of their oil-fired power and coming up to the banana republic here to buy some nice, cheap British Columbia power.

MR. LEA: And they lend us the money to do it.

MR. LEGGATT: And they lend us the money to do it at a nice, fat 16 or so percent.

"Although B.C. Hydro's customers will also benefit from the record $262 million it earned from sales outside the province — about $220 million of which went to California — the price at which it sold its surplus power was less than half what it would have cost the west-coast utilities to produce the same amount of electricity from their own plants."

Some bargainers we are! We must now be getting a world reputation as being the softies of all times across the bargaining table. The sucker government of British Columbia. We have taken overexpansion in our dams and now we're selling power to California at half the rate it cost them to produce it themselves.

AN HON. MEMBER: Would you send the water down the spillways?

MR. LEGGATT: That's because of overcapacity, my friend. This spill argument is nonsense. We are the softies of all time.

When we come to B.C. coal and we look at the bargaining that took place, it makes B.C. Hydro look pretty tough; they don't look so bad on the California deal. Let's see what we did on B.C. coal.

I see the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) has come in. I'm pleased to see him, because he asked a question in the House the other day. He said: "You fellows make up your mind: are you for northeast coal or against northeast coal?" Then he said we should go up to the northeast and ask any of those workers: "Do you want to lose your jobs?"

The trouble with the Attorney-General is he always asks the wrong question. He used to do that in court all the time. Do you know what the right question is? Go up there and ask them: "Do you think B.C. got a good deal on the coal?" Go ahead and ask them. I know what their answer is: "We got suckered. We got a very bad deal on the coal."

Let's go through the thing very briefly.

AN HON. MEMBER: Have you been up there, Stu?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Are you going to go up and ask them the question?

MR. LEGGATT: Of course, as soon as I get a ticket from the Attorney-General I'll be there in a flash.

Look at the project itself and examine what we've done. We have all the capacity in the southeast to provide the Asian market. The infrastructure is there and paid for. Roberts Bank is in place.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

That is not to say that we shouldn't develop northeast coal. It means that when you develop northeast coal, make sure that the development makes economic sense in terms of the price and the terms. Now we see — and it wouldn't have been too difficult for anyone negotiating that deal to predict, given the balance of trade with the Japanese — that the Japanese are about to treat the United States much differently. than they've treated Canada on coal. They are now about to buy thermal coal in fairly large amounts from the United States. They will be providing low-cost assistance to construct the transportation infrastructure for American coal. What did we do? We asked the poor taxpayers of British Columbia, who are sitting with 200,000 unemployed, with 140,000 on welfare.... They have drained all those assets and decided we are going to give a gift of a railroad for the Japanese to carry their coal over. That railroad is going to cost $500 million. When we started off, I remember they told us it was going to be $180 million. Then it went to $190 million, then $200 million, then $250 million. We always said it would be $500 million.

MR. LEA: Like Pier B-C.

MR. LEGGATT: Yes. Well, it is $500 million. The figures are largely in now and we don't withdraw one inch from our charge that there will be a billion to a billion and a half of taxpayers' dollars down the drain on northeast coal. There is no way that on these tonnages, and with this surcharge, you can ever pay the taxpayers of British Columbia back.

The Minister of Industry and Small Business Development has said — in slip, I think — that he had to sell another 11 million tons a year to make this thing fly. There is no indication from the eastern markets that there is a market for 11 million or anything like it in terms of additional tonnages. What is worse is that we were so anxious to make a political point, this government was so anxious to make a deal, that they buckled all the way down the line. If you examine the negotiations that took place, in fact the federal government is protected on the numbers. The taxpayers of British Columbia are holding the bag on the coal deal, no question about it.

Now you look at that and you say: $495 million, but aren't we creating jobs? Yes, we are, about 5,000. But you know what we should have had? We should have had all the jobs, and we could have had a steel mill and we could have had Canadian ships carrying that coal to the Japanese market — if you had a government that was willing to do some decent bargaining instead of buckling all the way down the line from a sense of political desperation. Political desperation led them to this impecunious deal. How many houses can you build in the province for $500 million? By, just using it as a mortgage fund you could reduce the interest rates to every small businessman and every housebuilder.in the whole of the province of British Columbia. You could take that capital and do it.

[ Page 7157 ]

So we got to the point where, in a great rush — getting off the choo-choo train, saying we've got it, it's all here — they proceed. But somewhere along the line we kept asking questions such as: what would happen if Quintette didn't get its financing? What would happen if there were some problems in the money markets, because interest rates are getting pretty high? What if these companies defaulted? And we were always told: "Oh, yes, my friends, the taxpayers of British Columbia are protected right to the cent." So we started to look at this and we find there is a debenture on file. There is an agreement that we haven't seen yet, but the debenture is very interesting.

In the annual report of Denison Mines Ltd. this particular debenture is referred to as follows:

"The company is participating in the development and construction of a coal mine in northeastern British Columbia by Quintette Coal Ltd. Total project costs are currently estimated to exceed $800 million, of which the company's share would approximate $370 million. The infrastructure commitments by the government of the province of British Columbia for road, rail and townsite facilities in the province are secured until the completion of the project by a debenture of $600 million."

Here's the hooker.

"This debenture creates a floating charge on the assets of Quintette, subject to Quintette's right to give prior security in certain circumstances."

That's curious. We wanted to see what that really meant so we got hold of the debenture. In the debenture, if Quintette can't get its financing, if Quintette goes under and we have put $500 million in the ground in northeast coal, what is our security? Well, here it is my friends — this piece of paper. It is all we've got to protect the taxpayers of British Columbia. Let's see what happens in the event of default. The first thing is that "discharge of all rents, taxes, rates, insurance premiums and outgoings..." comes first. The receiver gets payment second. The guy they hire to handle the default gets paid second. So we're not second and we're not first. Surely we've got to be third. Come on, it's got to be here. Third, "in keeping in good standing all liens and charges on the property and assets hereby charged prior to the security hereby constituted." Whoops! We're not even third. How about fourth? Come on, we've got to be fourth. Even this government can be fourth, can't they? Fourth, "in payment of any principal sum due and payable upon this debenture...." By God, they finally came in fourth. They are even fifth — "in payment of any interest accruing due on this debenture...."

What does this really mean? It means that the easy loan company and anybody with $20 who throws it into northeast coal ranks ahead of the public investment on that railroad. That, my friends, is a disgrace in terms of management of a project of this magnitude. This is not worth the paper it is written on. I think I said it isn't worth the fees they paid the lawyer to prepare it. It is just a useless piece of bumph, and I can understand the minister's reluctance to really produce it or talk about it. Maybe he hasn't read it.

This is a good-business government? These are the fellows who said the NDP couldn't run a peanut stand and they produce this to secure an investment of $600 million? Even Mr. Attorney wouldn't have prepared this document, I can tell you. That is the kind of good business management that this government has produced — no assurance whatsoever that in the event of a default of the coal companies we are protected on the rail line.

Interjection.

MR. LEGGATT: I hear my friend who gave an excellent speech this morning, the member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet). He is really coming into his own. Who used to give speeches like that? Was it Hughey Long? It was very good, and I must say that while I didn't agree with it I admired the spirit with which it was delivered.

MS. BROWN: That's the B.C. spirit.

MR. LEGGATT: That must be it. Individual opportunity, there it is. It is the kind of individual opportunity that allows a person not to pay his house taxes and pick up his interest at the bank, right? That is the kind of spirit that kept this country alive. That's personal initiative.

This document is a fraud on the taxpayers of the province of British Columbia. There is no protection, and I want to tell you that there is some very real risk that the financing will not come forward in view of the high interest rates that are worldwide, that used to be supported by this particular government. The problem is that the margins are pretty thin for the coal companies right now and I think they have their heels in. I think they're worried and they're dragging. I would like to see the project go ahead on the basis that the people of the province of British Columbia examine this deal and then give the NDP a mandate to renegotiate it on a fair basis. That is the only way the deal should proceed. We will proceed with northeast coal, but we'll do it in fairness to the people of British Columbia.

MR. STRACHAN: One of the things we discussed today was how hard it is going to be for us government members to follow our brother from North Peace. I have to thank the member for Coquitlam-Moody for his kind words about our brother from North Peace and associate myself with those remarks. I don't know if I can achieve the momentum my hon. colleague maintained, but I'll do my best.

In speaking to the budget we have to remember, of course, that a budget is a blueprint. It sets out plans for the coming year and it advises British Columbians of our current state of economic affairs. This year we have presented a leadership budget. It is balanced: it states what we want to do; it recognizes the external pressures on our economy; and, of course, it has the ability to deal with those pressures internally, in the province of B.C.

It was interesting this morning to listen to the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) speak at great length and give us the litany of increases in the cost of marriage licences and so on and so forth. I took the opportunity to look into these increased fees, and I see that marriage licences have increased from $5 to $10. That's certainly a tremendous increase in terms of percentage, but not much when you think of the real dollar increase to the person getting married. I think it's pretty fair to observe that $10 for a marriage licence is a pretty good deal, although I guess it could be argued that it depends on, who you're marrying.

Interjection.

[ Page 7158 ]

MR. STRACHAN: I guess if you can't afford the $10 — to the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) — then maybe you shouldn't get married. I don't think the member for Cowichan-Malahat really had much to say of any economic significance, and I would have to reject that litany of increases that were listed to us today.

The member for Cowichan-Malahat also spoke at great length about how we're taxing the people. This really does fly in the face of what we've heard the NDP do. For instance, we are not the government that taxed the mining industry out of British Columbia. We certainly didn't do that. We don't have members in our party who just recently told vocational students at a community college that industry should be taxed for all vocational training. We seem to have some disagreement with user-pay there.

The NDP seem to fly in faces and contradict each other at every turn; that's probably a reflection on their attendance. The other day I got the calculator out and looked at the attendance at divisions since I've been a member of the thirty-second parliament. To my great shock, I had to observe that the NDP attendance is about 80 percent. In other words, at any given time 20 percent of them are not here. I think that's shameful. For people who are not cabinet ministers and don't have cabinet responsibilities, but do have responsibilities to the people who elected them, to see their attendance in this thirty-second Parliament at divisions, when they know the vote is coming, at 20 percent missing, on an average....

The member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) spoke about debt, debt, debt. He pounded the desk. Unfortunately he's not here today. That's another one taking the afternoon off — so typical, I guess, of that party, in view of their attendance record.

HON. MR. McGEER: They would come if they were paid for the divisions.

MR. STRACHAN: What an excellent suggestion!

That's one way to look at debt. On our side of the House we see the amount of money we're putting into these projects we're doing as investment. I thought of this when the hon. member for New Westminster was speaking. It's an investment, like buying a life insurance policy. Of course, it is a debt that you incur, but it's an investment for your future. You buy that life insurance policy to protect yourself, to protect your family and to protect yourself in the future. I would submit to all hon. members, and particularly to the member for New Westminster, if he happens to look in the Blues tomorrow, that we could compare our investment in the economy of British Columbia and what we're doing now in this budget to an investment such as an insurance policy or any form of other capital expansion, Mr. Member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich), like investing in a hotel. It's an investment for the future. It creates jobs. It will create revenue, and it's simply a capital investment. I'm sure the hon. members are all aware of what the term capital investment is. That's what we've done.

The corollary to that is that it's interesting and ironic that the NDP continually talk about the debt, as they call it, and our investment in great and good capital projects in this wonderful province, yet, at the same time as they criticize us for doing that, they ask us to create jobs. That is where the irony comes in. We are investing, and it's costing us, but it's an investment in the future and in the people of British Columbia.

A simple analogy is that it's like buying a home. The NDP have clearly articulated what their housing policy is. I understand the members from HUDAC were just delighted with that. It's nice that the NDP have stated some policy. The NDP have said many things about housing. I think we would all be in agreement with the statement that everybody should own their own home. I don't think there's any question about that being a desire of that side of the House, and it's a desire of the members of this side of the House. Home ownership in British Columbia — or anywhere in the western world — essentially is a desirable thing. I submit to the hon. members opposite that that in fact is the same analogy that we are using with our capital projects. When you buy a home, of course it's a debt, but in fact it's an investment in the future for you and the family.

Mr. Speaker, we have investment in northeast coal, B.C. Place, the rapid transit system. Sure, it's a big expense. You could consider it big debt, but it's investment in the future for our children and for our province. We invest because we believe in our province and we believe in the great future of our province. I guess we could be like you or do as you suggest, hon. members opposite, and not invest — do nothing and essentially be nothing. However, that's not our policy. We are going to continue to invest the taxpayers' dollars in the future of our province so that we in fact continue to grow as a province and be a great province.

Mr. Speaker, the budget clearly articulates that capital spending by our government this year will in fact create close to 50,000 jobs, and it's going to be interesting to see the NDP vote against a budget that will create 50,000 jobs. I would suspect that that's maybe why the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) wanted to absent himself from the House this afternoon, so that in fact he wouldn't have to go on record as voting against a budget that created 50,000 jobs.

We have had some extremely interesting philosophical debates in the last couple of days, Mr. Speaker. I always enjoy the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt). He has a good, clear, articulate mind. I can't agree at all with his philosophy, but I do enjoy listening to him articulate his thoughts. Even more interesting, though, was a comment made earlier this week by the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly). He talked about being poor. If you look at his speech and boil the whole thing down, it seems to me that the hon. member for Alberni was saying that unless you're a failure, you haven't succeeded. He talked about the Premier and all of us as being millionaires. As a matter of fact, the Leader of the Opposition yesterday called me a fat-cat millionaire. Well, I can assure him I'm not a millionaire — and I'm a little thinner than he is too. I bet the waist size is smaller, if we wanted to compare them.

Mr. Speaker, the NDP take some pride in being poor. And they are — they're poor in vision, poor in spirit and they're particularly poor in opposition. I guess, in terms of success, the NDP have succeeded on their terms, because in fact they are failures, which is something they seem to identify with.

Mr. Speaker, no one likes poverty. We especially don't like it because the New Democratic Party prey on it. That's why our budget creates jobs — 50,000 jobs for northeast coal, B.C. Place.... And look at all the other job-creation projects we've had, such as the CP Air turbine plant. Hon. members, it's jobs, jobs, jobs.

The member for Coquitlam-Moody is, as I said, always an interesting fellow. I think he has trouble sometimes understanding his own philosophy. He talked about northeast coal,

[ Page 7159 ]

and of course I won't mention the question of privilege. He talked about depression in B.C., and he seemed to somehow equate the depression in B.C. with the state of affairs in our province when they were government during the early seventies. Mr. Member for Coquitlam-Moody, if you're listening, I think it's fair to observe that other members in this House, including your own members, particularly the hon. member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King), have indeed stated that in fact we're in a North American downturn — there is no denying that — and that we are caught up in that. The point the NDP will never admit, though, is that the depression in B.C. during the time they were government in fact occurred when the rest of the economy was booming.

Interjection.

MR. STRACHAN: That is right. If he wants an example, my good friend for Shuswap-Revelstoke, you brought in the mining tax, and just about closed down Afton Mines in Kamloops when the world copper price couldn't have been higher. It was at a peak and you ruined them.

MR. KEMPF: The Yukon Development Act.

MR. STRACHAN: The Yukon Development Act. You had to change your own legislation.

Mr. Speaker, times are tough. The hon. member for Coquitlam-Moody mentioned the unemployment in Prince George. No one likes that; however, those are the facts. One thing the hon. member for Coquitlam-Moody probably doesn't understand, though, is that at this time of the year in Prince George we are having what is called "breakup." Breakup is quite simple. That is when the frost comes out of the ground and the product is mud. I am sure you are aware of what mud is.

The hon. members mentioned the war. In 1946 the Labour Party was elected and England hit the skids and has been on the slide ever since. I would ask the hon. second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall) how many people have emigrated to England lately as opposed to people from England who have immigrated to our great country and our great province. If there is something wrong with our province, why did that member come here? That is a simple question. He came here because of great economic opportunity, because there was work, development and jobs and he knew he could, in fact, succeed for himself and for his family in this province under a Social Credit government. What do they do now? They do their best to try to defeat it.

I guess we could go on forever about political philosophy and how we differ. The interesting thing is that I think both parties, whether they be right wing or left wing, will agree on something. We can, in fact, identify the problem. The solutions we advance are different, and that is the basic disagreement we have in our philosophy. The opposition want to nationalize. They feel that by nationalizing the resource economy, the manufacturing economy and probably everything they can get their hands on they will have a lot of money to shell out the door to serve their social programs. It simply doesn't wash. Any country that has gone through that socialistic nationalization program is now economically bankrupt and, I would submit, morally bankrupt as well.

It is our philosophy and always has been that the best thing we can do for those people who are less fortunate than the rest of us is to provide a very healthy private sector. As the hon. Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) said the other day: "A collective agreement doesn't produce food on the table; a job does." We have to maintain that healthy private sector and then, everyone benefits. You can't do it by nationalizing. You can't print money as a government. You have to have a healthy private sector producing goods that are sold, exported and consumed. That puts food on the table and puts paycheques in people's pockets. It supplies revenue to the Crown so the social programs.... Some of the best social programs in Canada exist in this great province of British Columbia and I must say that we have been a leader in that respect for the last 30 years. The Social Credit government has introduced wonderful social programs, and it is because we have had a healthy, buoyant and thriving private sector.

It was interesting to hear the hon. member for Coquitlam-Moody talk about our taxing the banks. He apparently doesn't like to tax the banks. He said that all they are going to do is put one-tenth of 1 cent on cheque-cashing or whatever and pass it along. Yet it is interesting that that member, who has a great deal of respect, I guess, for Mr. Broadbent, the national leader of their party — probably more respect for that leader than maybe other leaders; he's worked with him — didn't take the time to read Mr. Broadbent's latest announcement that, in fact, Broadbent would tax banks to create jobs. I have a clipping right here that indicates that obviously Mr. Broadbent is agreeing with our budget and our philosophy of putting an extra tax on the banks. Although we don't have support from that side of the House, it is obvious to me that Mr. Broadbent seems to agree. At least, he would copy our provincial budget legislation.

A lot was said about the fact that B.C. Hydro has overbuilt or underbuilt. Who cares? We can all turn on the lights now. We can attract industry to our province because we have that tremendous hydro potential. It is there, it is going to continue to be there and that is why investment in British Columbia has gone the way it has. If it wasn't for B.C. Hydro, for the development they've done in the north, I can assure you that Prince George would not be the vibrant and vital community that it is today. I can assure you that had we followed the NDP philosophy of hydro development, our best industry at this time would be candle factories, because there would be no hydro to service our customers and industries and those people who have to use hydro. Further, it was most interesting to hear the comments about B.C. Hydro. Through some convoluted way of thinking the hon. member said that we're subsidizing California. I guess he would suggest that we spill the water and not sell it. Of course, there would be no revenue, but we'd be sticking to our principles as our province went broke. I can't accept that argument and I think that would be a hard one to find.

Mr. Speaker, I'm going to conclude, because this is the second opportunity I've had to speak — during the amendment and now during the budget speech. But I'll conclude by saying to all members here: our budget is balanced, it shows leadership, creates jobs, provides social services such as long-term care, and most importantly, gentlemen, it will pass because we're government and we brought in a very good budget.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, it's a great pleasure to see you here this afternoon. This is a thoughtful, well-reasoned and responsible budget. It's the result of a lot of hard work, a result of a generous application of common sense

[ Page 7160 ]

initiated by following a realistic and practical philosophy firstly, of not wanting to mortgage our children's future to pay for one's own present-day spending, and secondly, with the appreciation that in order to effectively comply with social needs, economic wherewithal is a sine qua non and an absolute necessity which cannot come about without fiscal responsibility.

Mr. Speaker, one doesn't need any after-the-fact economist to tell anyone that you can't take more out of a pie than you can put into it. The Minister of Finance, the government and all those in the public service in this province that have worked so very hard to produce this excellent product deserve full commendation, not only of this assembly but of all the people of B.C. This budget is responsible, it is positive, it is fair, it demonstrates leadership, and it will best satisfy the needs and fulfill the aspirations of B.C. plus the times which we are now going through.

We're not printing money like some administrations. We're not wallowing in debt like others. We're providing sound, uncomplicated, upfront, straightforward fiscal management. I think what gripes the opposition most, Mr. Speaker, is that they know the B.C. public know that, too, and in their heart of hearts, when their conscience starts to say tilt, they know that as well.

Little wonder, Mr. Speaker, that they have been unable to offer constructive, cost-analyzable, cost-benefit, workable alternatives to the proposals of my colleague the Minister of Finance. Little wonder that they have been so woefully weak in their opposition in having to rely once again upon their only port in the storm: infantile debating tactics and personal peccadillos for the hope of any kind of ink whatsoever.

Little wonder also, Mr. Speaker, that they run for cover, because they know that B.C. supports this budget. B.C. is behind this budget and behind the compensation restraint program. If the people of B.C. have the choice, they'll storm the polls to support this budget and vote for this party that showed the leadership and has the leadership to introduce and pass it.

Further, Mr. Speaker, it is little wonder that the NDP are suffering from the Philippine fall-aparts and are so sad and down-in-the-mouth, because they know that if they even so much as put their foot in the water, capital in B.C., Canada, the United States and Europe would once again incur St. Vitus' dance almost overnight. Everybody in B.C. remembers — and capital certainly does — the flypast of dollars fleeing and flocking over the Rockies, draining B.C. of opportunity, of jobs, of hope and of promise for the future.

It's no wonder that the official opposition is worried about going to battle with last-chance, fumble-the-ball, 1975-and-1979 Dave. He really and truly is a socialistic rarity like rare roast beef: brown on the outside but red in the second cut. It's little wonder that they're all thinking about getting some new juice aboard now, rather than face Dave's last stand, Dave's last hurrah, with once again the same consequences as he faced in 1975 and 1979. Mr. Speaker, I think the best thing for you to do really is to alert the crape merchants in our province, because they are going to be in for some major orders.

My colleague the member for Columbia River (Hon. Mr. Chabot), who unfortunately is not in the House, is a card player and a good one. He told me what's in the cards, and what's in the cards for the NDP, Mr. Speaker, is really nothing but double, double, toil and trouble. I wanted to share this prophecy with you within the privacy and indeed the confidentiality of these four walls. But I have to tell you one thing, Mr. Speaker: I'm not the originator of these observations, because that was the real message from $80,000 Bob and the NDP B.C. federal caucus and all of those who are still CCF supporters and NDP reformists out there. They know without qualification that the prospects of socialistic good fortune in B.C. under poor old Dave have vanished like the morning mists in summer. So I'd have to say to him that if he's going to stick around, baby, that's okay by us.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, on another topic, 115 long years ago, on March 29, 1867, Queen Victoria gave royal assent in London to the British North America Act. Now 115 years later, plus twenty days, this April 17, the Queen of Canada, Elizabeth II, proclaimed the constitution of Canada, the Canada Act 1982. As I said on Thursday last, great thanks are due to all, particularly the good Lord who has endowed us with so much: our land, seas, water resources and energies, our democratic institutions, parliamentary system, our rule of law and a free and independent press, all of our freedoms and, more glorious than that, the fact that we live in peace. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, how commanding indeed is our responsibility and indeed our duty, and it must be our commitment, that all of that which we have inherited may be nurtured and passed on to those who follow us: that is, Canada — a democratic federation; just, united, prospering and with bountiful opportunities from sea to sea. As a country Canada can anticipate over the short haul more growing pains, more exacerbation, more time before we can truly achieve real national maturity; and consequently more calls upon the energies, the will and the determination of our people to shape their destinies and that of our country — to stand by and to stick by Canada and not to turn their backs on it.

It's not unnatural to experience tugs and pulls in a federation. They are very normal — as professor Higgins said, as normal as breathing in and breathing out. But as soon as the forces of centralism become too strong the forces of decentralization react, and vice versa. That is the dynamic and it is a process that is always going on. It is, it was and it always will be thus in a federation and particularly one of such dimension, diversity and cultural uniqueness as in our country.

What we have to remember, Mr. Speaker, is that we are too big in every sense and our spokes are too distant from the centre to go to the extremes of a unitary route, or attempt to meld or mould our country into a unitary state. Purely and simply that would be a practical unreality for Canada and a fact that should never be lost. Nor must we forget, as some short-term alarmists among us would have us do, that the strength of our provinces and of our regions relies upon the strengths of them being cohesive one unto the other, and through them unto the whole, which is our country of Canada. Our national anthem impresses upon us to "Stand on guard for Canada," and so we must. I'd say, Mr. Speaker, how prophetic those words! For a weakened Canada would result in the regions and provinces themselves being perhaps irretrievably weakened.

As a boy I was taught the word treason, and perhaps that is now mollified into the words self-determination, but I don't think Canadians should touch either of them with a barge-pole. This nation is not an island unto itself. It has

[ Page 7161 ]

world presence; it has worldwide commitments and worldwide responsibility. There is no question that our country is one of the bastions of democracy, and essentially a free, competing and enterprising democracy — which do doubt can be improved upon. But we have to beware in our country — in the east, in the west, in the central and in the north — those siren songs, however attractive they may seem, because, unwittingly or otherwise, they are the songs of destruction, and for the destruction of the best nation with the best future of any country in the world.

What we want to do is keep Canada off the rocks, get it and keep it in the mainstream. Indeed that is how every one of us should be addressing our collective energies. Break-up will never improve our lot, but it is get-together that can do the job and produce the best and only practical and positive results. Sure, there is lots to be done. We're not living up to our potential and we are overgoverned and overbureaucratized in our country. Sure, the federal engines of power have become remote from the bulk of the country, and sure, the morale of our services is not the best and sometimes our sisters in NATO question our commitment, and sure, we endure a nation-wide tax jungle, but let's not pull up the tracks but get Canada back onto them.

The cry of the separatist is in so many cases one of frustration, but the consequences of the shrillness of that call and its so-called cure would be a travesty for this country, a travesty for everything it stands for and for its position in the world. I say it is sad, silly and irresponsible, and there is no way I want to see Canada turned into a tin-pot republic or compound any of the ills which some of these separatists now complain about. There is no way that I, or I'm sure people in this assembly, intend to idly sit by and see that happen. We can't take the country or democracy for granted, because it is only commitment that can carry that day. We have to appreciate that both are under considerable attack within and without. What better time to rededicate and recommit ourselves to those values, remembering always that the democratic system is completely and never-ending on test. That is not its weakness but its strength.

It is only by genuine effort and the exercise of good conscience that democracy in Canada and all of our democratic institutions can be effectively maintained and improved. They and it cannot be neglected. Recognition today, some think, is enough. It isn't. Acceptance isn't enough. These things are far more than objects of art, once to be completed and sometimes polished or occasionally admired and then left alone. They are living and vibrant and they have their successes and failure and indeed their friends and, unfortunately, their many foes, all in varying number and in varying force. But our country and the democratic principles under which we live have to be minded and taken care of, and we've got to ensure that they continue. That requires commitment and hard work.

I've said before and I want to say again that when Canada is functioning, cooperative federalism is functioning. That is proven through history. My friend across the street agrees with me. Where cooperative federalism is not functioning, neither does Canada. A country that doesn't function does not survive. History has. told us that over and over again. As cooperative federalism prospers so has and so does Canada. As it doesn't, Canada doesn't. It is proven. That is the way and the course, because Canadians have always responded much more to the carrot than the cattle prod. I can't emphasize these points enough, because this is the message that the opinion leaders — we have in this House 57 opinion leaders — and the opinion moulders across the country should be taking to our people.

I want to also ventilate about a few other items. Firstly, what are going to be the results of the new constitution? I would say that the justice system is going to face some unsettled weather. No doubt there are going to be a few ships' lawyers' judgments which would muddy the water and perhaps obviate common sense, but in every likelihood that will be an activity of the minority, and hopefully tempered, practical, broad-perspective, judicial wisdom and common sense will prevail over the very narrow parameters of the i-dotters and the t-crossers. I would say that there could be some unsettlement, and perhaps legislative cures along the line may well be called for to take care of them. I think, further, we are going to see a move to better representation in our national institutions — the Senate, the House of Commons, the boards and the commissions and all of those national levers of power — and it's got to be. We can't have the country continue to be dominated from the centre. I'd say thank the good Lord, and an awful lot of effort, that we now have an amending formula in our country that will help us to be able to effectively do that job. There is no need to restructure the country, but we need to better the balance. It's pretty obvious that, in a country of this size, that which can best be done locally should be done locally, and that which can best be done nationally has to be done nationally.

I can see a Senate or an upper House removed or remodeled. I can see the doors of family law becoming more accessible and less expensive. I can see the Supreme Court of Canada having greater visibility and being more regarded as what it really and truly is: the supreme court of our country rather than the supreme court of Ottawa. I can see it no longer being a creature of just a federal statute, with more input concerning the selection of judges from all partners in Confederation. And as we are a monarchy, I can envision greater visibility of the monarch, the Queen, and her Canadian representatives, who will continue to maintain their emergency power to curb anyone who would attempt to undermine our democratic institutions. As the London Free Press in Canada said a couple of days ago concerning the monarchy: "How fortunate we are to have a non-partisan, final safeguard against the predations of any would-be political tyrant." Mr. Speaker, there is much more to be done in the constitutional sense — for the Indian community, for the division of powers, and all of those things which, hopefully, will make us function better as a nation.

I'd also like to make a couple of observations about our own province, things where I can see that debate and interest may develop. Policy may eventually result, subject to the best interests and the desires of all of the people in B.C. I want to make it abundantly clear to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the members of this assembly on both sides of the House, that I'm not advocating or disadvocating government policy or changes to it, but areas which may well be the topics of discussion in the months and years ahead.

I'm going to talk about a few specifics. Labour. Perhaps illegal work stoppages by management or by labour could face civil penalties — money awards, damages — by virtue of society being so very interdependent and interrelated, the innocent party today rarely escapes, and in so many cases bears the very harmful brunt of an activity that isn't its own. Perhaps, too, they should have a similar remedy — money damages — and by that I would apply an analogy from the

[ Page 7162 ]

tort law of negligence. There one has a duty to exercise reasonable care not to injure one's neighbour — and a neighbour is defined judicially as a person who, one could reasonably anticipate, would incur the consequences of one's action. Perhaps such a tortuous remedy should find its way into labour-management relations. I think that is something that might well be looked at.

Further, Mr. Speaker, a gander might be given to the country having a federal, provincial, regional and municipal 40-hour work week for all of those in government service. This would probably result in an enormous saving in tax dollars. And who should better demonstrate national, provincial, regional or municipal leadership than all those involved in it?

Now I want to say a couple of words about elections, which everyone here seems to be very anxious about these days. Expressing a view of some people in our province on a matter that might well become a topic of debate at some point in time — it may well be considered heretical from the point of view of the other 56 people in here — I think it's not necessarily unreasonable to give some study to the question of fixed election dates — say every four or five years. There would be the safety valve that a government which is defeated in a non-confidence motion — say twice within a 48-hour period; they'd have to bring it on a second time — if it lost that non-confidence vote a second time it would then have to pull the plug. Now some people who advocate this say it might well result in better planning. It might result in less adverseriality, certainly in the early years of an administration. It might well produce, in the long run, an overall product that the taxpayer would better enjoy.

In health, Mr. Speaker.... It might be a small point, but it's talked about. Maybe at some point we're going to hear from the hospitals, the doctors and the nurses themselves that the reason elective surgery goes somewhat to pot in the summer and the ORs are closed is that so many people in that service have to hit the beach. These plants are tremendously expensive for society and I'd say it's not unreasonable to suggest some better staggering of holidays. And if indeed there are any goof-offs, see that they stop so that these units can function 12 months of the year.

Schools. We've got good schools, good teachers and fine students, and I want to say a word about each. School utilization....

MR. LEA: The whole system is a mess.

HON. MR. GARDOM: My colleague over there, the member for Prince Rupert, says the whole system is a mess. I can't go that far with you, sir, but I certainly think there has to be some improvement.

Utilization is far better today than it was 10 or 15 years ago when some of the old-timers first came to this House, but it can still be improved upon. Insofar as the kids are concerned, let's teach them to read, write and spell. I'm all for two official languages, but they're not much good if they can't manage either.

Regarding the teachers....

MR. LEVI: Watch it.

HON. MR. GARDOM: "Watch it, " says the member over there. He thinks I'm on dangerous ground. I'm just expressing some sentiments, Mr. Member, that I've heard and you've heard over the years and that perhaps should be a subject of debate at some point in time.

Is the grid system working, or is it just a Depression holdover? Is the job to better reward academic qualifications, or is the job better to reward teaching skills, because the two do not necessarily track together.

MR. MACDONALD: What's the grid system?

HON. MR. GARDOM: My friend, who has been on just about as many arbitrations as I have, should know what that is.

The merit-pay concept is something that perhaps should be discussed. Should not the teacher who gives his or her all and produces a product, the person who does a better job with the students, better than those who clock-punch, receive a better benefit than those clock-punchers whom the kids sometimes call 3:30 dropouts?

Now liquor. I knew my friend from Prince Rupert wanted me to start with or get into liquor. Let's have some competition in the business. If some beer producer wants to pay for refrigeration, let him do so and plunk his product right into the cooler. Why not permit sales of brands? If a producer wishes to undersell, let him do it. The public purse will get its markup, and if there's any break, let's see that the consumer gets it, My colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hyndman), is looking at some provincewide specialty stores insofar as wine is concerned. I say that's a first-class move.

Finally, returning to proof wouldn't be a bad idea either. Proof was dropped during World War I for munitions and it was dropped in World War II for munitions. The alcohol was required for munitions. If we ever have another war — and God forbid that; it's the last thing any one of us would wish — there is one thing for certain: there would be nothing left in the bottle but water. Maybe that would be a good thing too.

There's a lot of talk sifting through the community about marketing boards. In this country we have perhaps the most controlled and regulated system for the distribution of primary products outside of the Soviet Union. Cui bono — who benefits? The inefficient producer; a raft of swivel-chair fillers and local dumps who get the excess production. What is that doing to the freedom of the marketplace? I say it's wrecking it, larding it to the consumer and putting mighty unrealistic prices on the sales and purchases of operating farms, with quotas sometimes being sold like taxi licences, the hens and hogs and cabbages and cattle being of secondary economic interest. We often hear from a number of members about doctors, lawyers, accountants, naval architects and engineers in this context. Sure, they're all under standards and disciplines and certain types of closed-shop rules, but they don't regulate or hang quotas on the production of their members.

The Insurance Corporation. I'd say that on balance it has done a first-class job for our province. Its administrative costs are lower than in the private sector because their investments are locked into, and form a part of, their operation, as opposed to being separate, as in the private sector. Furthermore, ICBC has provided a good market in general insurance when that market has not been otherwise available. And it invests in B.C. I say that's good, and I think everyone would agree with it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Only 40 percent.

[ Page 7163 ]

HON. MR. GARDOM: But it invests in B.C. The Hartford Company perhaps doesn't invest here at all. Why I should pick Hartford I don't know. It just came to my mind. Some might well say that, in addition to ICBC's present portfolio of risk, some thought might be given to having the insurance on hospitals taken out of the private sector and put under the Insurance Corporation, or at least let it compete more actively for that kind of business. Perhaps it would result in coverage that would cheaper and a money-saver all round.

Fourthly, I think we should further remember that the concept of insurance is essentially for calamities; it is not to take care of a bust fender or a common cold. It is disaster protection. Maybe car accidents and the resulting injuries, which are now under ICBC, should be looked at from the viewpoint of the compensation route, leaving it, indeed, to the Frank Sinatras of this world to self-insure their own tonsils, as they deem it fit, under their own accident policies. I suppose if this kind of observation results in my ending up missing, I would have to suggest that the Attorney first interview B.C. trial lawyers and Melvin Belli as to my whereabouts. Perhaps it is worthwhile that a look be taken at this.

Legislation. The western world is overlegislated. No doubt it's overlegislated elsewhere, but I do know something about the legislative process in the western world. We all know that the common law is too slow, and in many cases it cannot do the job. The legislative process came to correct that, but it is starting to go hog-wild. Indeed, it is fattened by a bureaucracy that is increasing at a terrifying rate. It is trying to parameterize all human behaviour on the head of a pin. I tell you it just cannot be done. We might well produce a few snakes-and-ladders games that people don't know, to replace some that they do know. But indeed, all of that is perhaps questionable progress. At least the Napoleonic Code was reasonably conceptual. Many would say, let's leave something for the people themselves to work out, and for full intelligence to take over. Some administrations — hopefully not this one — are bringing in legislation much like trying to calcimine a barn.

Finally, I'd say that politics can and should be ennobling conceptually and in practice, but often it isn't. No one in this assembly but the full 57 individuals — I'm certainly one of them; perhaps I as well have been a transgressor — has control of that. But short-term muckraking is a punk alternative to long-term constructive suggestion and action. It demeans the participants; it demeans the institution and, unfortunately, almost all get tarred with the same brush.

I quite doubt that it was the mandate or the platform of anyone in this room to be elected to be rude or to call each other bad names or to spread untruths or develop spurious innuendoes to satiate those of prurient appetite.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I'm going to speak of one man and one family: Dick Vogel and the many spokes of his family, all of whom have had some commitment in varying form to public service, and all of whom have performed with dignity and integrity. They have paid a price; hopefully one that is not irrevocable in spirit, if not in health. Throughout his pillory all of those who jumped aboard and all of those who slavered at the trough of innuendo and arrived at judgment without trial have now, after the fact, the capacity and opportunity to examine that which was stated in the arena of judicial calm, wherein one found the innuendo discredited, the allegations discredited and Mr. Richard Vogel vindicated.

How many have said to this man of integrity: "Sorry"? "Sorry" to him; "sorry" to Patty; "sorry"to Vogels all — in all conscience, Mr. Speaker, that should happen.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, it's really a pleasure to follow my colleague the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations after his very thoughtful address to this House today. I have to say that it couldn't have been a more fitting ending to his address today. I am really very sorry that there were so few members of the opposition in the House to have heard the comments that my colleague has given on behalf of all of us in regard to the Vogel family. May I just say, in my response to this budget speech — my first address to this budget speech although I did address the amendment last week — that I really want to align myself with the minister's remarks and to also say how very sorry we on this side of the House are that the political process has sunk to the level that it has in this province through such kinds of innuendo and attack as we have witnessed, both inside this House and outside.

May I say to you today, Mr. Speaker, that I am very proud to stand in this House and speak on behalf of the budget. It must be the very best budget, the most responsible budget and probably the most enviable budget of any jurisdiction in this nation, because while there are other jurisdictions that have had to close facilities and cut services for people, raise taxes and burden people with even a greater amount of responsibility to pay for government services, this Minister of Finance, this budget and this government address themselves to the very real concerns of British Columbians who, through very many ways, told this government not to raise taxes. In fact, there were many people on the other side of the House — certainly it didn't come from this side of the House — and many people who, through the various spokesmen from the business community, even said in preamble to this budget: "Don't raise taxes. If anything, go into deficit financing." That our Minister of Finance withstood those pleas and arranged our financial picture this past year in order to present to us a budget as responsible as this is a great credit to him and to the government of British Columbia.

I am so pleased that today we have announced the members of the committee which was announced through this budget: the committee which is going to address itself to employment development in this province. I am very proud that I have a great number of our cabinet colleagues on that team. I am extremely pleased that I am going to have that kind of teamwork from our whole government. I would just like to say that in spite of the protestations from the hon. member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt), who was on his feet earlier in this address, trying to tell us that we were not in this budget addressing the results of a world recession — we were the masters of our own fate here in this province — it is interesting to note that at the time in this province's history when we had the highest revenues from forestry that this province has ever seen, it was that party opposite, through their government, that was not able to finance the province and left this province in debt when they finally left office. It is very heartening to know that through this budget we are going to be able to maintain the responsibility of providing jobs. It is exciting to be in this place at this time in this province and look forward to times of prosperity. I am going to say that we have a great deal of optimism to portray in this province. It is time that people started to do just that. The doom and gloom people, the negative ones opposite, can give the story of

[ Page 7164 ]

doom and gloom throughout this province, but I am going to tell you that this province has the most tremendous potential of any place in this nation. We are going to provide jobs and do creative things with the new committee that has been established and announced by the Premier today, but let us not forget that the very best people to provide jobs in this province are from a private sector that is free to provide jobs and that sense of confidence in the province and in each and every community.

We're going to call on them to do just that. You can tell the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea), who talks about the payment of taxes, that as far as the payment of taxes in this province is concerned, you can count on the private sector people to initiate jobs and provide them through the taxes that they are paying. I don't have to apologize on the floor of this House — or outside the House — for the kinds of taxes that have been created by members of my family to provide social services in this province.

I would like to comment about the training of people. My colleague the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) has addressed the training of people in this province to provide skilled workers in this province. During the past year we have had the best record in history of training young people for jobs in the province of British Columbia.

Interjection.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: There it is — the natural reaction from the side opposite. In case Hansard didn't pick it up, they said: "And there's no jobs available."

Mr. Speaker, there is going to be a need for skilled workers today and tomorrow, and this province will have them ready. In these last weeks or days that we have sat in this House and addressed the budget, surely there should have been some constructive ideas from the side opposite to say to us that even in spite of the good record that our Minister of Labour has put forth — and it has been the best in our history — British Columbia cannot tolerate importing skilled workers into this country and into this province when people in British Columbia need to be trained, and that has to be done.

I'm excited about the kinds of things that we can do. Job creation and economic stimulation are very much the responsibility of a provincial government.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I call to order the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) and the Premier, who are disrupting the member who has the floor.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I'm excited about it. It's been announced today. I'm excited about the program ahead of us. I call on the members of the New Democratic Party in this House, the business community in this province, the members of our own caucus and the people outside of this House, the business community and the labour leaders. This is a time when we can all get together and use the best creativity among us all. Surely all members of this House — in spite of what is said on the floor of this House, party politics aside — can we please get to a point in this province, put that party card behind us and do the best for the people of the province. That's what we'll be calling on each and every member of this House and each and every responsible member of the community to do.

On another order, and more in the line of social services in the province, there has been a lot of discussion over the past year.... My colleague the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) and myself have been very concerned, and we have been working together on a program for the enforcement of maintenance orders. We hope that it won't be too long before a revised program will be put before the people of this province through this Legislature and. through this government.

I know that the member for Victoria would like to continue with the interruptions, but perhaps the member doesn't understand the problems of the single parents of this province who are forced into poverty because their marriages have broken up and their spouses have left them in a state of poverty while the taxpayers pick up their bills and they go on to spend money which should go to their wives and their families. That's the kind of thing I think you should be concerned about in this House.

Interjection.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Yes, we'd all like to keep the families together, but unfortunately in the day and age in which we live.... The member opposite who just made the interjection about "keeping families together" will be more cognizant of that subject than most people in this House. I would like to suggest that although that would be the ultimate, and we would very much like to see that happen, reality tells us that there are couples who break up. Their spouses go on to another part of the country or province, and their lot is so much better than the spouses they leave behind with their children and responsibilities.

We don't want a welfare way of life for anyone. It is not first best. The most important part of that enforcement of maintenance change is not the dollars it will save the taxpayers; it is the elimination of the harassment that goes along with the whole situation of the breakup of marriage. So I would hope that we will very shortly see that kind of enforcement program which will get the concurrence of all members of this House.

It's a good budget. We're just about at the end of the debate on the budget, I understand. Our Minister of Finance will no doubt wind up the debate. There is a lot of credit coming to this Minister of Finance for the kind of budget we have before us. There is a lot of credit to come to this government that has been able to put forward this kind of budget in this day and age. Nowhere in this nation will there be a better budget presented to the Canadian people. Would that our federal government had been as cautious and responsible with the people's money in the past, and perhaps some of the problems that beset us in this province and in every province in this nation would not have been so difficult to bear during this time of a world turndown.

I'm proud of what we have before us. I'll be proud to stand to support the budget. Some of the new job-creating initiatives — just the capital projects alone — that are in this budget are going to create jobs in areas where jobs are so needed today. Where other jurisdictions are closing down buildings, this province is building buildings and creating work for the people of British Columbia. We have an economic climate that is the envy of this nation. We are in the best place at the best time, with opportunities abounding and ahead of us.

[ Page 7165 ]

In closing my remarks on the budget, I believe the people of British Columbia understand the kind of initiatives that are embodied in this budget and will support this government in those job-creating initiatives and in the responsible manner in which this budget has been placed before the people of British Columbia. I support this budget.

MR. BARBER: This budget would be more acceptable to the opposition and to the people were its authors more acceptable to the opposition and the people. If this government had any record for competence and management, if they had even an ounce of proof they could offer to the people that they knew what they were doing, it would be possible to take their budgetary plans more seriously. The point is, this is clearly and provably the most incompetent government that has ever maladministered the affairs of the people of British Columbia. That's just one reason why no opposition could support this budget: there's some evidence to suggest that this group of bunglers opposite is not, in fact, competent enough to deliver the goods they've tried to sell us.

Do you remember the Ministry of Deregulation? This monument to Socred skill, this achievement in public administration called the Ministry of Deregulation, is one more article of proof — but not the only one, to be sure — that Social Credit is the most provably and laughably inept administration this province has ever seen. They ask us to take seriously their ability to deliver on the goods promised in this budget, and we remind them and the people of a joke called the Ministry of Deregulation, announced several budget speeches ago, as the means whereby this group opposite would somehow manage to clean up the affairs of government to the satisfaction of business. They did neither. They finished one business called Seaboard, and we had to rescue it in an emergency session overnight once.

We cannot support the budget because the government is not competent to administer the financial affairs of this province. We cannot support the budget because this is the same government which cooked up the Ministry of Deregulation, which cooked up the $20 million bungle involving the Princess Marguerite, the Rupert, the jetfoil and the Surrey. This group of bunglers opposite, responsible for that $20 million squandering of public funds, asks us now to believe that they are competent to administer the budget which they wish us to support. They are not competent, they are not administrators, they are not managers, and if they were capable of earning a free-enterprise buck, that is what they would be doing. Instead they are here at the public trough.

This group of incompetents opposite, led by the former Minister of Health, cooked up a ridiculous compulsory heroin treatment scheme. It was illegal, unconstitutional, unworkable and a joke to anyone in the profession who knows anything about the field. Fifteen million dollars of waste later, the member for Langley (Hon. Mr. McClelland), being personally accountable for that waste, has to abandon the scheme altogether. But they tell us we should believe in this budget, that their days of waste and squandering have ended. Not so. This group of bunglers responsible for Seaboard, the Ministry of Deregulation, the Marguerite, the Surrey, the jetfoil and the Rupert escapades, responsible also for an illegal, unconstitutional $15 million experiment that did not succeed in a program they called "compulsory heroin treatment," now asks us to take them seriously when they advance a budget, and to believe them just for a moment when they tell us they are fit to administer it. They are not fit to administer a popcorn stand, and they've proven it repeatedly in the last six years.

Do you want more evidence?

MR. LAUK: Yes, more evidence!

MR. BARBER: The Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), who made up a political fiction which she entitled the Secret Police Force of British Columbia (1975) Ltd. — a total, complete and unacceptable falsehood — today asks us to have pity on her own incompetence, upon her own admission, because it has taken her and her government the last six years in office to realize there is something wrong with the way we manage maintenance orders in this province, When some of us, who have heard that speech before and have witnessed six years of incompetent Social Credit government, are asked now to take her at her word that even though she could not solve the problem in 1976, 1977, 1978, 1979, 1980 or 1981 — they've been in office all that long — she can solve it in 1982 — or that she even wants to — we say that we're not prepared to believe that. We've seen the record of incompetence, waste and maladministration, and we've seen her personal record in the public affairs of this province, making up fictions about a secret police force. Why should we believe her any more than we should believe them? They are not competent; they are not able; they are not managers enough to deliver the goods promised in this budget.

My colleague from Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) described the budget, in his opening remarks. as one of deceit and despair. The deceit is now demonstrated amply in the course of this budget debate. The despair is being demonstrated day by day on the part of the people of British Columbia, who recognize that this government has, first of all, more than doubled the public debt of the people of British Columbia in the past six years. They despair about our ability ever to finance that debt. They despair about a government that would mortgage the future of our children and grandchildren and create a situation of permanent debt. and they despair of Social Credit, which has done all that in just six years.

They despair of a government which is so careless of public funds that we see, for instance, the Premier overrunning his personal office budget by $150,000 in one short year. They despair because they see the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) overrun his personal office budget by $25,000 in one fiscal year.

They despair because they know that this is in fact a deficit budget. They know that Social Credit has been running deficit budgets for the last two fiscal years, and they know as well that the great likelihood is that they will do so again next year. This is the government that has doubled public debt in less than six years, and the people despair of ever being able to pay their way out of Social Credit debt.

They despair of a government that has forced the Crown in British Columbia into the hands of the money-lenders at interest rates and at a scale we've never seen before. They despair that this province will ever again be debt-free, and they know that as long as Social Credit continues in office it most certainly will be.

They despair of a budget which, when produced, makes one claim about pay as you go for B.C. Rail, and of a government which, in question period but two brief weeks later, appears not to be committed any longer to that principle and appears in fact not even to recognize that they themselves

[ Page 7166 ]

once enunciated that principle. Mr. Speaker, if they can't even remember what they said in their own budget, why on earth should the people of British Columbia take that budget seriously, even for a moment? In the minds of these folks opposite, it was not to be taken seriously for longer than two weeks. But that was just one statement of many in a budget that most do not accept.

This is a budget of deceit and despair, as has a former Minister of Finance of the government of British Columbia described it. The deceit is the pretence that this is not a deficit budget when in fact it is — provably so. The deceit lies in the fact that Social Credit has more than doubled the public debt in the last six years and pretends it is otherwise. This is also a fiction of an unacceptable sort. The deceit lies in the fact that they claim to be creating jobs when in fact the rate of personal and business bankruptcies in this province has never been higher and the rate of unemployment has never been higher either. On what basis, Mr. Speaker, are we to believe that this budget creates jobs, when in fact the budget last year and the budget this year, by overtaxation, by overspending, by overruns and by massive increases in the public debt, has only driven people out of work, out of their homes and out of their businesses? This is authentically a budget of deceit and despair, and of course it is rejected by the opposition. It is rejected by the people of British Columbia for the very same reasons.

MR. SPEAKER: I must ask the hon. member if he is attributing the characteristics talked about in his speech to any individual member of this chamber, because if he is it must be resisted by the Chair.

MR. BARBER: Of course it should be, Mr. Speaker, but I'm not and it's not. It's the budget. It's the policy document, it's the claim of fiscal responsibility this government makes, which we repudiate. It is that claim, that policy and that budget which we describe as one of deceit and despair. The minister himself, I'm sure, does not despair, even for a moment.

It is a budget which has been denounced as a shell game by the mayor of Coquitlam, Mr. Jim Tonn who in his capacity as president of the Union of British Columbia Municipalities has described its revenue-sharing claims to be be "fraudulent." Mr. Tonn is no New Democrat, Mr. Speaker, as I'm sure you know. To say the least, he is not a supporter of our party. To say the least, he is certainly no supporter of the Social Credit Party either, because he was here on opening day and he heard what the budget speech had to say about revenue-sharing. He thought that it was an accurate statement. He thought it was "wonderful." Like a lot of people who have experience with, shall we say, used-car dealers, when they get the dammed thing home and look under the hood, when they examine the fine print up close, they discover it ain't so wonderful after all.

MR. HANSON: There should be a warranty on the government.

MR. BARBER: There is a warranty on the government, and it will expire at the next election.

Mr. Speaker, never before has the president of the Union of British Columbia Municipalities ever been compelled to describe a budget document in one important aspect as "fraudulent," but that's what Mayor Jim Tonn did, because he feels that municipalities have also been the victims of policy deceit. The claim in the budget speech cannot be substantiated by the evidence of the estimates. The claim in the budget speech cannot be verified by certain bills which have come down later, and which clearly chart a different course. Although we will debate that course later, nonetheless Mr. Tonn has read those bills, and so have we.

We know what they mean. When the president of the Union of British Columbia Municipalities finds that one aspect of the budget we are now debating is, as he put it, "fraudulent," then it is surely incumbent on this government to either own up to what they have done in regard to revenue sharing this year....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, as I have reminded members before this day, you cannot put words into the mouths of other individuals which you cannot use in this chamber. I would suggest that the hon. member use a word other than "fraudulent."

MR. BARBER: I am only quoting the honourable mayor of Coquitlam, as you know.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, the proposition that one cannot quote other public officials and other people in public life in this chamber is a very new proposition indeed. That those persons might make statements that would otherwise, directly through the mouths of members of this chamber, be unparliamentary is one thing, but we have here a situation with the president of the Union of British Columbia Municipalities. These are groups of people that are governing our cities and villages in this province, and he is their representative. He has made a statement that has to be dealt with in this chamber. We have not heard the Minister of Finance deal with that statement in this chamber, but when he does he is entitled to quote the chairman directly and without paraphrasing.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I have your point.

MR. LAUK: But the hon. member did not use the term "fraudulent" as a charge from himself to the minister. He used the quotation to show the despair and the frustration of a high elected official in the province of British Columbia.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair is bound, of course, by the rules. These are your rules, hon. members; these are not rules which have been constructed behind a chair. The rules simply say that you cannot use unparliamentary language in this chamber and you cannot use someone else's speech to bring into the House those unparliamentary phrases. If you would wish to change those rules, I would be happy to work with new ones.

MR. BARBER: The comments of the president of the Union of British Columbia Municipalities, with regard to the revenue-sharing aspects of the budget speech, are a matter of public record. They are also a matter of public dismay. They are a matter of public contempt for a government that would move in such a direction, and they will finally, I predict, be a matter of public repudiation at the next general election.

This government is not competent or fit to govern. The Minister of Deregulation, Seaboard, the Marguerite, the heroin treatment plan, wasting $100,000 on a tunnel and bridge study, wasting $50,000 on refit drawings for the Surrey that were never used, the massive overruns and the

[ Page 7167 ]

massive increase of public debt are clear evidence and proof of the hopeless incompetence of Social Credit. That is just one reason to repudiate this budget. They are not administratively able to deliver the goods they promise herein. They are clearly unfit to administer the budget themselves.

This budget, in fact, will result in driving greater numbers of persons out of their homes, out of their businesses and into bankruptcy, both personal and corporate.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Want to bet?

MR. BARBER: Yes, we'll bet on it. Six months from now you come back with bankruptcy figures. We know what the figures were six months ago, and we know what they are today. The bankruptcy rates in this province have never been higher and they have never had anything done to them except being worsened by the inept and inhumane fiscal policies of the coalition opposite.

This government is a document of despair, because it offers no hope whatever to ordinary working people in this province that their kids will be able to go to a school whose taxes they can afford to pay; that their friends and relatives will be able to get into hospitals when they need to, and that those doors will not be closed instead; that they will be able to afford to take buses to work; that they will be able to afford to pay the mortgage; and that they will be able to save a bit for the future. All those hopes are dashed by this budget. All that promise is crippled by this budget. All that opportunity for personal growth and individual initiative is stunted by this budget.

This is a government of centralizers. They are a government of the worst order of centralizers this province has ever suffered. Ask regional colleges, hospital boards, municipalities and regional districts. Ask anyone who has had to suffer under the heavy-handed centralism of Social Credit, and they will give you one and the same reply. Ask the Islands Trust today. I wonder if the minister even knows what sort of trouble he is in now in the Gulf Islands area of his riding his soon-to-be former riding.

AN HON. MEMBER: Want to bet?

MR. BARBER: Yes, easy.

Mr. Speaker, they are not competent to govern: they are not fit to be believed. They have no hope, no promise and no plans for economic recovery, save to follow the kind of economic Hooverism that has been the trademark of this government for the last six years.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! The member continues.

MR. BARBER: The member tries to, Mr. Speaker.

The language is funny, the jokes are amusing, but the budget is not — the budget is a tragedy. The budget creates more debt, it creates more hardship. The budget will drive more people out of their homes, our of their businesses, and it will drive more people into the kind of bankruptcies they've suffered at an unprecedented rate in the last two and three years under Social Credit.

There is an alternative, and I wish to conclude by briefly discussing it. It is one proposed by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) a few weeks ago. It is a rational, humane — let me emphasize that, Mr. Speaker: humane — and intelligent reply to the problems of economic decay under Social Credit, and the prospect of economic recovery under a new administration. We put forward a proposal in eight sectors dealing with the fundamental industries of this province. We offered page after page, idea after idea, project after project of the most practical and positive order. We did so in the name of all of the people of British Columbia, because the government is not prepared to do any more than spend and waste additional millions advertising itself, and spend and waste additional millions trying to get itself re-elected in an increasingly desperate and crackpot set of schemes to persuade the public that they've done something worthwhile in the last six years.

Mr. Speaker, we have proposed rational, intelligent, affordable and appropriate proposals for economic recovery. We regret it is not possible to debate those proposals in the form of a budget. We predict it will be possible to do so after the next election. If this government really believes this budget is worthy of support by the people, let them test that proposition at the polls. If they believe this budget is worthy of any serious discussion and any serious view, let them test that at the polls, and let them do so tomorrow. Because they haven't, because they won't and because they can't, we'll not support this or any other budget this group of incompetents opposite puts forward, and neither will the people.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, this is a day which, in some respects, the members of the Ministry of Finance and I have looked forward to: the conclusion of the debate on the 1982-83 budget. It was at the beginning of November that those members of the government benches who serve on Treasury Board, together with senior staff, commenced the detailed review of expenditure estimates for the then coming fiscal year. So it's been about six months of living with this particular document and preparing for budget day on April 5.

Mr. Speaker, I wish I could have said many of the things in the way they were said this morning in this debate, when the member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet) spoke so eloquently. A number of us sent him notes and congratulated him. I also at this time want, for the purpose of Hansard, to reiterate that I was very impressed by what he said today.

Contrary to some of the comments which have been made, and some themes which those across the House attempted to develop during the more than two weeks since the budget was presented, I believe that the majority of the people of British Columbia say that this is a good budget, a budget for the real world, and a budget which is the envy of other jurisdictions.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) please come to order. This is the second asking.

HON. MR. CURTIS: There is a consensus abroad in the province that the government of British Columbia has acted responsibly in what is admittedly a very difficult time for North America, other parts of the world, and British Columbia. I want to address just a few issues that arose during the course of debate. I think they should be touched on in these closing remarks.

[ Page 7168 ]

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

It's important, perhaps, to reiterate the main thrust of the 1982-83 budget and its objectives: to provide economic stimulation and create employment, particularly in those sectors and communities hardest hit by the world recession. Steps are already underway, as the House knows and as British Columbia knows, with respect to that particular objective to ensure that the burden of restraint and adjustment to current economic circumstances is shared fairly among all British Columbians. Contrary to the claims which have been made by some members opposite, to maintain the high quality of public services provided by the government of British Columbia in times such as these is an ambitious objective. I know that this government is confident that the budget measures which we have taken, coupled with a continued commitment by this government to demonstrate economic leadership and financial responsibility, will result in the attainment of those goals.

Now to some of the issues. Some members across the House claimed earlier in the debate that the budget is an $8.5 billion budget because interim supply, passed a few days ago in the amount of $2.17 billion, was stated to be one quarter of the estimates. In fact, that was the statement. The gross estimates, before recoveries, are over $8.5 billion. It's necessary — I think it's the practice of this jurisdiction — to obtain spending authority for the gross amount. This has been the practice in previous years. Last year, for example, the gross estimates were over $7.1 billion. There is a sharp increase in the recoveries this year. The main reason for this increase is the non-residential school tax levy, which the province will collect provincewide for the first time and distribute to the school districts. This alone accounts for $837.8 million of the increase in the gross estimates. There are other factors which make up the difference between that which was presented as the budget and the larger figure which has been referred to by members of the opposition.

I think it's important to also touch on this question of the direct and guaranteed debt of the province. I would like to correct some of the major inaccuracies. I'm sure they were offered innocently. I want to use the debt figures reported in the audited public accounts of the province of British Columbia.

First, on the growth of the net direct and guaranteed debt of the province, I note that during the years when the opposition — or some members of the present opposition — formed the government, the net debt of the province increased at an average annual rate of 13.4 percent. That's the average annual increase between March 31, 1972, and March 31, 1976. It's a four-year period, including, of course, several months at the beginning and the end when the New Democratic Party was not in power. If we take just the two years when that party formed the government throughout each year — that is the two years from March 31, 1973, to March 31, 1975 — the average annual increase in the net debt was 13.3 percent, which is almost identical to the increase in the four-year period referred to a moment ago. From March 31, 1976, to March 31, 1981 — the latest audited figures available — the average annual increase has been 13 percent. That's slightly less than the NDP years, and very close to the average annual increase for the whole decade from 1971 to 1981, which was 12.8 percent.

The rate of increase in the debt has slowed in the last three years for which figures are available: in the three years to March 31, 1981 — that is, for the 1978-81 period — the average annual increase was 9.1 percent, and for the last one of those years the increase was just 5.5 percent. The figures for the year ended March 31, 1982, are not yet final. I expect they will show a larger increase than in the previous year — that is, the year ending March 31, 1981 — but in view of the slower economic growth over much of the last year, it's entirely appropriate that Crown corporations should have borrowed more than the average of the last few years.

It has to be observed, Mr. Speaker, that the borrowing is for capital construction within the province: hydroelectric facilities, schools, post-secondary educational institutions, hospitals and transportation systems. The absolute size of the net debt may have grown over the five years from 1976-81, but it has not doubled, as I believe the Leader of the Opposition has said on more than one occasion. As a percentage of the gross provincial product, the net debt has declined from an amount equal to 25.4 percent of gross provincial product at March 31, 1976, to 23.3 percent at March 31, 1981.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: With no reference to figures whatsoever, the member opposite simply says: "Wrong. Not true." Well, the facts speak for themselves.

British Columbia compares well with other provinces in terms of net debt as a percentage of gross provincial product. There are only two other provinces which record lower net direct and guaranteed debt as a percentage of gross provincial product, when the average figures are examined for the latest five-year period. Significantly, those two provinces do not have publicly owned hydroelectric systems such as British Columbia has. We know that Hydro itself accounts for about 75 percent of the net debt guaranteed by the province of British Columbia.

The opposition was even more inaccurate, as I recall their comments, when they spoke of the future, using published projections of capital needs from British Columbia Hydro prospectuses to conjure up huge increases in guaranteed debt as a fait accompli. It must be remembered that debt repayments and sinking fund instalments will partially offset the annual borrowings.

So much for the question of debt. It's a debate which, obviously, will rage on from time to time, but I do refer members to the figures which I have offered in these few moments.

Note should also be made of the government's commitment, even at a time of restraint, to the maintenance and enhancement of social programs. I think this must be restated, in view of the comments made most recently by one of the members for Victoria. We took particular care in developing the expenditure estimates for the current fiscal year, to ensure that a variety of social programs were not impaired and did not suffer as a result of significantly reduced revenues. A number of us have taken pains to explain that point. It's a point which I believe has been understood by the public of British Columbia, but it has not quite reached the opposition benches.

Very quickly, I would like to provide some figures — blue book over blue book. In the Ministry of the Attorney-General, the 1982-83 estimates call for an 18.3 percent increase in spending over 1981-82. In Education the 1982-83 estimates, plus funds in two of the new accounts, call for a 17.2 percent increase over 1981-82. There is $75 million in

[ Page 7169 ]

the education cost stabilization account to reduce the school tax burden on property owners. There is also $54.9 million from the employment development account for occupational training through post-secondary colleges and institutes.

As all members know, Health is approximately one-third of the total provincial budget. Total spending, including that from two of the new accounts, will increase by 17.3 percent. The 1982-83 estimates call for a 13.2 percent increase in spending over 1981-82. In addition there is a $77.8 million assignment from the health stabilization account for the provision of health-care services and facilities. There's also $1.8 million from the employment development account for vocational rehabilitation.

Human Resources activities. Total spending, including that from the employment development account, will increase by 18.7 percent. The 1982-83 estimates call for an 18 percent increase in spending over 1981-82. In addition there is $6.4 million in the employment development account for our rehabilitation programs. This, Mr. Speaker, at a time when of necessity overall spending has been kept well below the 12 percent guideline. The government has ensured that spending increases have been consistent with meeting public needs efficiently and effectively.

The members opposite can't get away with it. They can't say otherwise. This government has placed and maintains its emphasis on high-priority social programs such as GAIN and long-term care and services for families and children. These will grow in this fiscal year at a rate faster than the 12 percent guideline, because they must.

Mr. Speaker, on the same general topic, we have heard a lot about fee increases and there will be opportunities for members to debate that in the course of estimates in committee. Many of the fee increases that have been introduced have had the objective of encouraging more economical use of government services or resources. In our view, user-pay simply makes more sense for many hundreds of services than the only alternative, which is the general-taxpayer pay, as the member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet) observed earlier today. We made particular efforts, however — and we should not lose sight of this — to ensure that specific groups in the province are sheltered from the impacts of these necessary fee increases. British Columbia senior citizens, notwithstanding claims to the contrary, are protected from increases in health-care fees in several ways. There was and is no Pharmacare deductible for senior citizens; all drug costs are paid for by the provincial government. The province pays 50 percent to 100 percent, depending on the variety of circumstances, of medicare premiums for low-income families, devoting about $61 million in 1982-83 to that premium assistance.

About 55 percent of our senior citizens pay 10 percent or less of their medicare premiums. In other words, a typical older couple in British Columbia receiving the old age pension and the guaranteed income supplement would pay only $6 a year in additional medicare premiums as a result of the fee increases we found necessary to introduce. And the elderly who are in the greatest need — those who receive supplementary income under GAIN for seniors program — will continue to have 100 percent of dental costs paid for by the provincial taxpayer.

Mr. Speaker, we've heard a variety of wild claims from wild people, as one member observed, with respect to financial control and accountability. I'll match ours anytime and anywhere against what happened in 1972-75.

Let's run down the list very quickly. In 1976 there was introduction of quarterly financial reports, accounting every three months with respect to the state of the province; in 1977 the delivery of a promise made and kept — the appointment of an auditor-general; in 1977 an expanded role for Treasury Board to avoid the chaos in which that party found itself in 1975, when in fact — it's a matter of record — one minister didn't know what another minister was doing. There was no coordination and no pulling together. That's why we had an election in 1975. There was chaos.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Member for Victoria, you weren't in this House at that time, and you did not know the chaos which reigned in the last months of 1975 and rushed that party to the polls to be turfed out.

In 1979 there was the introduction of zero-base budgeting; in 1981 a new Financial Administration Act, replacing outmoded legislation, providing a clear framework for financial management and control, increased accountability of employees to the ministers of the day, and of ministers to Treasury Board or government to the Legislature. That has been the thrust of the previous Minister of Finance, now the Provincial Secretary and Minister of Government Services (Hon. Mr. Wolfe). It is a thrust which I have continued and which the government has supported fully. That is called accountability.

Also in 1981 there were new accounting policies. The main reporting entity is the consolidated revenue fund, combining the general fund and special-purpose funds. Revenue and expenditure are now recorded as they should have been a number of years ago, on an accrual basis rather than on a cash basis. In 1981 improved cash management procedures to increase investment earnings for those teachers, municipal employees, college employees and others who place their money in trust, in pension funds which are administered by the provincial government, were established. In 1982 we are pursuing initiatives for developing staff in the financial management function of the Ministry of Finance. A national recruiting campaign is being undertaken and a professional development system planned.

I think I would like to refer to a couple of statements made by the auditor-general in her report for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1981. They bear repeating here. Members will have read the report — some of us perhaps selectively, and I might be accused of the same — but generally I think it is a report in which the government can take considerable pride. From page 1:

"Landmark achievements were made during 1981 in providing a foundation and developing procedures to improve public accountability through enactment of the Financial Administration Act; approval and application of a body of accounting policies recognizing current circumstances and needs, and revision of the financial statement format to provide broader financial reporting and disclosure."

Page 19 of the same report:

"The government has taken several major steps during the year that should lead to improvement in internal controls. As noted previously in this report, the Financial Administration Act, which provides for stronger administration and control of the financial affairs of the government, was enacted. This act provided a basis for establishing a set of financial policies which were approved by Treasury Board and are contained in the Treasury Board financial administration policy manual. These policies, issued in December of 1981, give direction and guidance to ministries and are intended to ensure that the objec-

[ Page 7170 ]

tives and provisions of the Financial Administration Act are achieved."

Page 20 of the auditor-general's report:

"During the year the office of the comptroller-general undertook to review and document the government's progress toward improvements in the management of the province's financial affairs, as called for in my previous reports. This process culminated with the Minister of Finance tabling in the Legislative Assembly a report entitled "Response to the 1980 Report of the Auditor-General," which outlines actions the government has taken in response to my 1980 annual report. I am pleased that this initiative has been taken, and believe that such monitoring should foster timely action on the improvements recommended."

Mr. Speaker, this government will continue to receive, to review and to be guided by the positive and the less positive comments made by the auditor-general of the province of British Columbia. We are not perfect, we do not pretend to be perfect, but, with the assistance of the auditor-general and her staff in pointing out where we have some weaknesses, I hope we can have similar reports in years to come. Accountability is what it is all about, Mr. Speaker.

Finally, this budget, in a stormy early '82, is affirmation of the government's ability to provide economic leadership during a difficult period. It's not a wish-list. Ministers particularly know that they were not able to achieve all that they wanted on their wish-lists, and ministries, managers within government, were not able to attain all that they wanted on their wish-list. It's been a tough winter, and we are in a difficult spring. I indicated earlier that we are not alone; we have world recession. But we have, in this budget document, fairness and equity and — in spite of the giggling on the other side — financial responsibility; economic stimulation, with more of that to come soon, Mr. Speaker; and, perhaps most importantly of all for the government, and from our point of view, a commitment to social programs serving the needs of British Columbians.

Mr. Speaker, I am confident that the provisions of this budget for 1982-83, coupled with this Social Credit government's continued commitment to economic leadership and fiscal responsibility and accountability, will facilitate this province's attainment of its vast potential.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

As I said at the outset of these remarks, this is a budget based on the real world. It is a budget based on reality, recognizing the volatility of the time in which we find ourselves. Mr. Speaker, it is a budget in which my colleagues and I take considerable pride.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 30

NAYS — 21

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, did I hear the name Barrett on the list?

MR. MACDONALD: Yes — Alexander Barrett Macdonald! [Laughter.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

On vote 1: legislation, $8,343,500.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I move the committee rise and report excellent progress and ask leave to sit again.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order. When a vote is put before the chairman and other members wish to rise and debate the vote, you can't have the vote legitimately on the table without opportunity for a debate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, hon. member. The Chair can only recognize one member at a time.

MR. LAUK: My point is that one member at a time can make that kind of motion. He can't put a motion on the table and then move that the committee rise without an opportunity for other members to debate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes he can, hon. member.

MR. LAUK: Is this Davidson's Rules of Order? I'll sit down then. [Laughter.]

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:43 p.m.