[ Page 225 ]

CONTENTS

Presenting Petitions

Friends of Clayoquot Sound from Tofino.

Mr. Skelly –– 225

Oral Questions

B.C. Hydro credit rating. Mr. Stupich –– 226

Tree-farm licences. Mr. Skelly –– 227

Prior discussion of Bill 9. Mr. Howard –– 227

PNE report. Mr. Macdonald –– 227

Financial aid for post-secondary students. Mr. Rose 228

Treatment of terminated employees. Hon. Mr. McClelland replies –– 228

Budget Debate

Mr. Parks –– 229

Mrs. Dailly –– 234

Hon. Mr. Schroeder –– 238

Mr. Lockstead –– 242

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 246

TUESDAY, JULY 12, 1983

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

Prayers.

CLERK-ASSISTANT:

July 5, 1983

Ian M. Horne, Q.C.,
Clerk of the House,
Parliament Buildings,
Victoria, B.C.

RE: General Election, May 5, 1983

On June 1, 1983, I transmitted to you a certificate of the chief electoral officer and registrar-general of voters, dated May 31, 1983, advising you of the results of the general election in all electoral districts except Maillardville-Coquitlam.

The date for the return of the writ of election from Maillardville Coquitlam had been amended because of a judicial recount before the County Court of New Westminster and a subsequent appeal. The said writ was returned to the chief electoral officer on July 4, 1983. His certification of the result is transmitted herewith.

Yours very truly,
Norman Spector,
Deputy Provincial Secretary.

Dr. Norman Spector,
Deputy Provincial Secretary,
Parliament Buildings,
Victoria, B.C.

Dear Sir:

Further to my certificate of May 31, 1983, I now have the return for the electoral district of Maillardville-Coquitlam.

The date for the return of the writ of election for Maillardville-Coquitlam had been amended to an indefinite date because of a judicial recount before the County Court of New Westminster, and a subsequent appeal from the decision of the county court. The said writ was returned to me on July 4, 1983.

1 now certify that John Parks has been elected to represent the electoral district of Maillardville-Coquitlam.

Yours very truly,
Harry M. Goldberg,
Chief electoral officer,
British Columbia

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, I move that the letter of the Deputy Provincial Secretary and the certificate of the chief electoral officer with the results of the election of the member be entered upon the Journals of the House.

Motion approved.

Presenting Petitions

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to present a petition.

Leave granted.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, this is the petition of the Friends of Clayoquot Sound from Tofino to the Legislative Assembly of the province of British Columbia in legislature assembled.

"The petition of the undersigned resident voters of the province of B.C. and other concerned citizens humbly showeth: whereas Meares Island, adjacent to the village of Tofino and Pacific Rim Park, is one of the last large unlogged islands on the west coast of Vancouver Island, and is being considered for protection by a government planning team; and whereas Meares Island has exceptional migratory waterfowl habitat, including rare eelgrass mud flats, and has outstandingly rich sea-life including salmon, whales, porpoises, seals, oysters, clams, crabs and herrings pawning beds; and whereas Meares Island is important as the only source of pure water for Tofino; and whereas members of the Clayoquot band residing in the Meares Island village of Opitsat have, from time immemorial, made use of the area and continue to rely on the island's natural bounty for their well-being; and whereas the ecology of Meares is extremely sensitive due to steep, erodable slopes and high natural rainfall; and whereas Meares Island's forested integrity is essential to the productivity and aesthetic beauty of the surrounding area; wherefore your petitioners humbly pray that your hon. House may be pleased to pass legislation to conserve this area in its natural, unlogged and un-mined state, for this and future generations to have and to enjoy; and as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray."

There are 12,000 names on this petition, Mr. Speaker: more than the number of shareholders of MacMillan Bloedel, which plans to log the island.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of privilege affecting the rights of members of this House. Yesterday, at approximately 2:48 p.m., according to the Hansard Blues — which were not available, of course, until today — the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) stated to the House:

"I spoke to Alderman Don Bellamy yesterday for a few minutes. He was furious about the 7 percent on meals over $7, which doesn't apply to McDonald's, but applies to an awful lot of people. He was saying: 'I'll never be a Socred again.' "

[2:15]

Mr. Speaker, in addition to being an alderman of the city of Vancouver, Mr. Bellamy is president of the B.C. Restaurant Association and a widely respected public figure of this province. I telephoned Mr. Bellamy, and he denied making the statement recounted to this House by the second member for Vancouver East. He subsequently reinforced the denial on CKVU television last evening.

Mr. Speaker, I would refer you to Sir Erskine May's 19th edition, chapter 10, page 142, wherein it is stated: "The House may treat the making of a deliberately misleading

[ Page 226 ]

statement as a contempt." I submit that the deliberate misrepresentation of the statements of a respected, public figure, an elected municipal official such as Mr. Bellamy, is a serious breach of the privileges of rights of all members of this House. It impedes them in their duties by casting false appearances on the views of the community which hon. members are obliged, conscientiously, to represent.

If upon examining this question you find that these facts would, when proven, constitute a prima facie breach of the dignities and privileges of this House, I would propose to move a motion that a special committee of privilege be appointed to consider this matter and to report its findings to the House. I have an appropriate motion prepared to that effect, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the Chair will reserve decision on the matter and bring it back to the House at the earliest opportunity.

MR. LAUK: Point of order. Any statement made by an hon. member of this House must be accepted. If the hon. member wishes to place an order on the order paper that's one thing, but I ask that when Mr. Speaker is considering this motion of privilege he consider that the statement of an hon. member is accepted in this House.

MR. MACDONALD: Although this is just a political flyaway thing, which is perfectly ridiculous, I will be very pleased, the next time I speak, to tell all of the conversation I had with Don Bellamy and how I talked him out of his feelings about the Social Credit Party.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. MACDONALD: I saved him for you fellows….

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members who have been in this House for some time.... I would ask the new member to take his seat.

Hon. members, there is a standing rule in this House that when the Chair rises, members cease debate and take their places. The second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald), having been here for some time, is well aware of that rule. So that all members may have this opportunity, I will state for the final time: when the Chair rises, all members will take their places immediately and all conversation will cease. Those members who disobey the only ultimate rule at the disposal of the Chair will be asked to leave for the remainder of the day. The Chair is reluctant to make such a ruling at any time, but clearly there is no alternative if members fail to obey the instructions of the Chair.

[Mr. Speaker returned his seat.]

Oral Questions

B.C. HYDRO CREDIT RATING

MR. STUPICH: Yesterday the Premier said that this was Parks Day. We're certainly pleased that the government has at last recognized the importance of parks.

My question is to the Minister of Finance. Can the minister confirm that New York financial houses have today responded to four inaccurate budget presentations in succession by the Minister of Finance by downgrading British Columbia's credit rating?

HON. MR. CURTIS: In answering a question from the opposite side occasionally a member has to dissociate himself or herself from the preamble. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the preamble is somewhat argumentative. Financial houses as such have very little to do with the credit rating of the province or any other jurisdiction. It is correct, however, in order to assist the member, that the firm of Moody's Investor Service Inc. today altered the credit rating of British Columbia Hydro from triple-A to a double-A1. I point out to the member for Nanaimo and members of this House that that is the next-highest rating after triple-A.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, many years ago I heard that close only counts in horseshoes.

I have a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that Moody's has cited the guarantee of the province as the main reason for downgrading B.C. Hydro bonds, and in particular has cited slow economic recovery in B.C., has the minister decided to revise his budget proposals with a view to stimulating employment growth in the economy?

HON. MR. CURTIS: There is a significant stimulative aspect to the budget which was presented in this Legislature last Thursday. The member was at some pains to emphasize the guarantee of the province of British Columbia. He would know, having served briefly as Minister of Finance, that British Columbia Hydro does enjoy a guarantee by the province of British Columbia, as do a number of agencies. I have not received anything in writing from Moody's Investors Service as yet. The information has been communicated to me verbally, and I have a brief news report. I have not received anything specific, but I'm sure that will arrive in a matter of hours or tomorrow.

It is important, I think, in dealing with a matter such as this — in answer to the member's question, and for the information of all hon. members — to say that the quote attributed to Moody's indicates in part that B.C. Hydro's rating revision reflects the guarantee by the province, which has been negatively affected by current economic conditions. I suggest to the member who asked the question that that should not come as any surprise to anyone in British Columbia. That certainly does not come as a surprise to this government, nor to the Premier who spoke of it on many occasions last year. It is an accurate reflection of the seriousness of the situation in which we find ourselves, and also underscores — demonstrates very definitely — the clear need for the kind of budget which was introduced in this House and which is now under debate.

[ Page 227 ]

MR. STUPICH: The question was whether the minister had decided to do anything about the slow economic recovery, which was the reason for the downgrading. By his non-answer, I assume his answer is no.

I have a supplementary question. Can the minister confirm that the inevitable downgrading of the B.C. government's credit rating — at least, B.C. Hydro and through that the B.C. government with this guarantee — has been delayed for over a year, pending the provincial election, by the device of conducting all government borrowing outside of the U.S. financial markets? And can he advise the additional cost of this method of avoiding the inevitable?

HON. MR. CURTIS: While I cannot be delighted at the decision taken by Moody's…. Incidentally, I did answer the question the member put. I'm sure that a distinguished and internationally known firm such as Moody's Investors Service will be very saddened to hear the finance critic for the official opposition suggest that this, or any other government, can influence the timing of a decision with respect to a credit rating. That is a very serious charge, Mr. Speaker. It is not a charge against me, but I'm sure Moody's will not enjoy reading that and hearing of it, as they inevitably will.

MR. HOWARD: You said you could do it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, one further supplementary. The original question was based on the premise that the minister has presented four phoney budgets in a row. My real question was: is he determined to do anything to change that in the future, to improve our credit rating?

TREE-FARM LICENCES

MR. SKELLY: I have a question for the Minister of Forests. Can the minister advise whether he has decided to award new tree-farm licences in the province, effectively granting further control over the last of our forest resources, to major corporations?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SKELLY: Can the minister confirm that he has 30 applications on hand for new tree farm licences?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, I can't confirm that exact number. There could be 30 more or less.

MR. SKELLY: In view of the fact that small forestry operations having a market for their timber product today cannot find timber, why is the government considering turning over further timber to major corporations?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: The government is not considering turning further timber rights over to anyone. Very little in timber rights remains to be disposed of in British Columbia, and we have already set aside a very substantial amount of timber for the small business enterprises of our province. As a matter of fact, the tree-farm licence tenure provides an exceptionally good level of forest management in British Columbia. We recently issued one of the first tree-farm licences since the 1960s. That happens to have been issued to a native Indian band, the Stuart-Trembleur band, who are market loggers and a small company. So tree-farm licences don't automatically equate large companies.

MR. SKELLY: Another question to the same minister with respect to forest management. Has the minister decided to discontinue regular checking of company cutting plans and reforestation plans by professional staff in the ministry?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Good grief, I though we had trouble with the other critic. No, Mr. Speaker.

PRIOR DISCUSSION OF BILL 9

MR. HOWARD: I wonder if I might direct a question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Ritchie), and by way of a short preamble extend congratulations to him publicly, as I did privately, on his elevation to the cabinet; I wish him well in that activity. Can the minister advise the House whether he discussed the contents of the Spetifore land rescue bill, otherwise known as Bill 9, with any member of the Social Credit Party before it was introduced into this House?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I thank the member for his congratulations, and the answer to the question is no.

MR. HOWARD: That's the wrong answer. It's a false answer.

MR. SPEAKER: I must ask the member to withdraw…. The Chair is powerless to direct answers.

MR. HOWARD: All right, I'll withdraw that it was a false answer. It was an answer based on absolute ignorance of the facts.

[2:30]

PNE REPORT

MR. MACDONALD: To the Provincial Secretary, there's been a report on the Pacific National Exhibition, which is popularly known as the Hillman report, from the chairman. The Provincial Secretary's been sitting on that report for three or four months. Has he decided to table it in this House?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Well, Mr. Speaker, the substance contained within that report is under very active review by the Provincial Secretary. Until such time as that review is complete, it is very difficult for me to say whether it's going to be tabled in this House, and if it is, precisely when.

[ Page 228 ]

MR. MACDONALD: Thanks very much, Old Stonewall.

FINANCIAL AID FOR
POST-SECONDARY STUDENTS

MR. ROSE: I'm surprised to see the Minister of Education in his place today, because I thought he'd be busy elsewhere — removing the knives from his back or something like that. Anyway, a survey by the University of Victoria indicates that those students with post-secondary education have a much better chance of finding a job than those without. The ratio is about 25 percent unemployed for those without to 8 percent unemployed for those who have post-secondary educations. In view of the fact that the government intends to put a cap of some $14 million or $15 million on student aid, I wonder what the minister could do to reassure the students — especially when more unemployed students want to go to university — that they won't have to forfeit that opportunity because of this restraint program.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: The member can rest assured I have been across the pond and back this morning. With respect to that, I'm sure the member has read the press release. He's now seen the budget. There's something in excess of $14 million available for student aid. The basic amount of $2,300 is something which is repaid. The next portion — the grant portion from the province of British Columbia — is still there. The concern he's really expressing, I suspect, is that we now require somebody who is enrolled in college to take 80 percent of the curriculum. I think that's not really an unreasonable request.

MR. ROSE: I have a supplementary to the minister. When does he expect the rate restraint legislation to apply to student fees, which have gone up 15 percent this year.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: First of all, Mr. Speaker, the question of universities would have to be directed to the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer). As far as colleges are concerned, I gather that some of these have gone up anywhere from 10 to 13 percent. But I might suggest that it's really a very small portion when you look at the overall cost for the province of British Columbia to provide the accommodation, instruction and place of learning for students. We all know that it's roughly 10 percent of the actual cost, and I don't really think that the fee is that exorbitant.

MR. ROSE: The minister made reference to the new guidelines for student assistance, and I'd like to know whether the minister can tell the House what methods he is using to investigate whether the students who claim to be independent from their parents are actually so. What kind of snooping…? Whether or not they are visiting their parents for more than six weeks in the summer time, whether or not they're driving a car, or have had a gift from their parents…. Is he planning to change the guidelines so that they will be more fair to the low-income students, who by the way are largely outnumbered by the affluent at universities?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: It's news to me that the affluent outnumber the others at universities. I can tell you from my experience….

Mr. Speaker, I cannot give the member any specific details with respect to the criteria to which he has alluded. However, I would take that portion of the question as notice and bring back a full answer to the House.

TREATMENT OF TERMINATED EMPLOYEES

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I would like to take this opportunity to answer a question which was asked of me yesterday in the Legislature. I am quite surprised that it wasn't the subject of some further questioning today, since it was so important to the member yesterday. I can only assume that he found out some facts. I had asked that member to give me some information that he may have had in his possession, and he didn't come forward with it; I assume he found out that his facts were wrong, and that was the reason he didn't want to come forward.

Mr. Speaker, the question asked of me by the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) was: "Can the minister explain where the sensitivity and understanding are when RCMP and sheriffs are sent to vacationing employees' homes to retrieve office keys?" That is one of the most irresponsible questions I've ever seen asked in this House, without any facts to back it up.

Interjections.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I love the way the opposition attempts to react to lies with laughter. It used to work, but it doesn't work any more.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, this is….

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: No longer can lies be laughed off in this House, Mr. Speaker. No longer.

When it became apparent that some people would be given termination notices, we wished that they be given those notices by hand as quickly as possible so that they not learn about them over the radio or in some other way. So we used every means in our employ to make sure they were given those letters personally and as quickly as possible. Every means in our employ, but never did we use sheriff's personnel or the RCMP, nor would we ever!

I deplore the headlines in the newspaper regarding this matter. A member of our press gallery has carried these lies forward in a way which does no justice to the people of British Columbia. The only information that I have to substantiate the question given to me is a newspaper article this morning, and I refer to three parts of the article by Allen Garr: "An RCMP officer was reported tracking a man in the bush outside Terrace." That is a lie. "He was hunting human rights worker Ross Fedy." That is a lie. "The RCMP officer was armed with a dismissal notice and nailed Fedy Friday afternoon." That is a lie. Mr. Speaker, no RCMP officer from Terrace, or anyone else, was involved. If you had checked, Mr. Member, with the RCMP officer involved…

Interjections.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Sergeant LeBlond is the officer in charge of that detachment. He would have told you and the press, had they checked, that at no time was the RCMP ever involved in this matter. One of our government

[ Page 229 ]

agents went to Mr. Fedy's home on Sunday because he wished Mr. Fedy to get the letter before anyone else had it. At no time were RCMP or sheriffs involved. I ask that member to apologize. Mr. Speaker, I ask you to consider whether or not a member of our press gallery has breached the privilege of this Legislature, and whether appropriate action should be taken.

MR. GABELMANN: On a point of personal privilege. Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair must hear the point, hon. member.

MR. GABELMANN: The basis of my point of privilege is that in effect, at least, the minister accused me of lying. I would like to be given an opportunity to respond to that.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the member has risen on a point of privilege and the Chair is bound to hear the matter put forth by the member. Until such determination is made that it is not, then the Chair will continue to hear the member. It is his right so to make.

Proceed, please.

MR. GABELMANN: On Friday afternoon the human rights branch staff were to be given notice of dismissal. Two of their staff, one in Kamloops and one in Terrace, were on holiday that week. On Saturday morning one officer in Kamloops noticed a government car approach his house. A gentlemen whom he did not recognize came to his door and presented a business card — obviously a government business card — which had "deputy sheriff" printed on it. The words "deputy sheriff" were crossed off, but the human rights officer, in listening to this gentleman, whom he did not know, assumed that this man was a deputy sheriff, because that's what the business card had printed on it. As a result of that conversation, he believed he had just been visited by a deputy sheriff.

That's the first instance. There's another one, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members.

Prior to hearing the point of order, clearly, hon. members, this matter is now entering into one of debate rather than one of any personal privilege. While a member may feel every opportunity is called for to explain any position, nonetheless, hon. members, we are bound to adhere to the rules of the chamber. At this point, the argument being carried forth by the member appears to be one more suited to debate, rather than a matter of personal privilege, and I must ask at this time, hon. member, that the matter be concluded.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, I have a pageful of debate notes, none of which I am using. I am attempting to set out the facts which led to me asking a question. The minister has accused me of lying in this House, and I have a right under the privileges of this House to get up and explain to the minister why, in fact, I am not the liar in this matter. There was a second issue involved and it relates to the question of an RCMP officer. If the minister wants to go back to his office staff and check out conversations with senior personnel, he will soon discover where the order came from for that RCMP action.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: There was no RCMP action.

MR. GABELMANN: Because you stopped it.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: You're lying again.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker….

Interjections.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: When a member stands on his feet on the floor of this House and calls for a point of order, I think that deserves priority over any other debate taking place on the floor of this House.

Mr. Speaker, I would remind you that the words of the member who purports to have the floor — and has the floor falsely, in my humble opinion — are strictly a matter of debate. It is not a point of order, it is not a matter of privilege, and I ask that you find it so.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.

Prior to recognizing the hon. member, I will first ask the Minister of Labour to withdraw the remark that the member is a liar, which the Chair clearly heard. I must ask the Minister of Labour to withdraw that remark, in the parliamentary traditions of this House.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult when another member is allowed….

MR. SPEAKER: Without qualification, hon. member.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult when another member is allowed to debate, without the opportunity to debate in return….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I withdraw, in the interests of the Chair, Mr. Speaker.

[2:45]

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member.

Hon. members, the Chair has ruled that the matter presently under debate is not a matter of privilege. There are other opportunities which will be at hand, outside this chamber, to carry on discussions. But inside this chamber, hon. member, we are bound by rules which we must all obey.

ON THE BUDGET
(continued debate)

MR. PARKS: Mr. Speaker, I pray leave to make a couple of introductions prior to my speech. First of all, I'd ask the House to join with me in welcoming Sheila Cowan and her niece Sarah Leach, who is visiting with us from Rustington, England. I am also very pleased and proud to introduce the, unquestionably, most important constituent from Maillardville-Coquitlam, none other than my wife Joy, who is in the Speaker's gallery.

Mr. Speaker, this being my maiden speech and having regard to the fact that I wasn't present in this House during

[ Page 230 ]

debate on the throne speech, I would appreciate your indulgence in granting me some latitude in covering some areas that might well not be directly attributable to the budget speech. It is with considerable pride that I stand here before this hon. House and acknowledge the trust vested in me by the citizens of Maillardville-Coquitlam.

Interjection.

MR. PARKS: I take it this is custom — that only your own members heckle?

Mr. Speaker, I wish to recognize the other hon. members who are joining this House for the first time. I wish to do that because I share with them trepidation, enthusiasm and, of course, all of their anxieties. Furthermore, I wish to recognize and acknowledge the advice and wisdom that I have already received from various members on both sides of the House. I am appreciative of that and I wish that they would continue to pass on those words of wisdom, since I am certainly prepared to accept them.

Before dealing with the substance of my speech, please allow me the opportunity to add my congratulations to you and the hon. member for Prince George South (Mr. Strachan) on your election as Speaker and Deputy Speaker respectively. Although seated in your gallery during the House opening, I could not help but notice the perfunctory manner in which both of your positions were smoothly expedited through this House. As a newly elected member I took that bipartisan display as a clear indication from both sides of the House that you have earned their trust in exhibiting the necessary neutrality of your office when issues arise before this House. And, Mr. Speaker, through you, I wish to add my expression of congratulations to Premier Bennett, and to note how proud I am to be a member of his returned government.

Notwithstanding the obvious incorrect message that the media saw fit to attempt to propagate during our recent election campaign, the private sector certainly received the support of the silent majority, and we are pleased to be back here in record numbers and with an increased majority.

Our Social Credit government recognizes the value of individual initiatives, the worth of a flourishing free market, and the freedom which flows from these tenets. For all but three years of my adult life, our province has been governed by Social Credit and these ideals. It has resulted in this province being blessed with the best health care system in Canada, the best education system in Canada, and the best social services in Canada. These are accomplishments which this government, notwithstanding the very difficult economic times, is striving to maintain and improve. I am extremely proud to be a member of Premier Bennett's team, who will ensure that these ideals are maintained.

Now that my election is finally official, I wish to take this opportunity to publicly express my profound gratitude to all of the many hundreds of workers who assisted me in successfully wresting away the Maillardville-Coquitlam seat for Premier Bennett's Social Credit government.

Mr. Speaker, over the weeks since that election night, a time it seems is months and months and not just weeks, I have had many friends and acquaintances outwardly criticize my defeated opponent for exercising his legal rights in the matter of the various and numerous judicial recounts. Being a lawyer by profession, I have often had cause to use the expression: "Justice not only must be done, it must be seen to be done." As such, I do not hesitate to state publicly that regardless of the frustrations that I and my family have experienced over the past few weeks, I hold absolutely no animosity toward the former member for Maillardville-Coquitlam, Mr. Levi.

M. le president, cela m'amène à une plus grande connaissance de ma circonscription. Maillardville-Coquitlam est une circonscription, sans aucun doute, unique à cette province. En fait, c'est une circonscription totalement unique à toute autre circonscription dans l'ouest canadien. Cependant, dans ma circonscription il y reside la plus grande communauté canadienne française à l'ouest de St. Boniface. Quelques 16 pourcent de mes électeurs sont canadiens français. L'héritage de Coquitlam a pris naissance le long de la rive nord de la rivière Fraser sur le site original du moulin Fraser. Plusieurs de ses employés qui one dirigé le moulin original étaient des canadiens français qui se sont installés sur la côte ouest et formé leur propre communauté, Maillardville.

Notre communauté a deux paroisses canadiennes françaises très actives, Notre Dame de Fatima et Notre Dame de Lourdes. Un des avantages uniques à  résider dans cette communauté, pour les familles comme la mienne, comme mon épouse et mes filles qui sont nées et élevées à Vancouver, est d'avoir l'opportunité de prendre part à une variété d'activités culturelles canadiennes françaises. L'opportunité de participer au festival de la caban à sucre et autres événements culturels canadiens français semblables ajoutent à la qualité du tissu social de Coquitlam.

Cependant, je n'étais pas la chambre pour entendre le discours budgétaire mais après en avoir pris connaissance, je suis satisfait de voir que non seulement notre gouvernement est capable de maintenir son support pour ces écoles indépendantes, mais aussi accroit son support. Les écoles indépendantes sont en effet moins coûteuses que le système des écoles publiques, et on s'attendrait que les deux côtes de cette Chambre endosserai telles propositions. Cependant, la politique existante du parti de l'opposition de sa Majesté est contre l'accroissement des fonds pour les écoles indépendentes, et j'applaudis votre courage, M. le ministre, d'aller d'avant sur cette question.

Because Maillardville-Coquitlam is very much a working-class community, with many of our citizens belonging to trade unions, I wish to take a moment to make my views absolutely clear with respect to labour-management relations. First, may I reaffirm to the members of this House, as well as to my constituents, that in my view a healthy British Columbia and a healthy economy require a representative trade union movement and a healthy collective bargaining process.

In this regard I associate myself with the hon. member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. Michael), who noted the necessity of returning a degree of democracy to our labour legislation. Clearly the procedure for associating into a trade union should be, for all intents and purposes, the very same procedure for dissociating.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

In commenting on the Speech from the Throne, I noted the newly elected B.C. Federation of Labour president Mr. Kube stated that if government wants to improve industrial relations, then they had better listen to the trade union movement. Although I understand the Premier has already met

[ Page 231 ]

with Mr. Kube, thus exhibiting his government's willingness to listen to the trade union movement, I feel, more realistically, a more important comment should be stated; if the trade union movement wants to improve industrial relations, then they had better listen to the people of B.C. who spoke on May 5.

As many commentators noted, including the widely renowned director of the Fraser Institute Dr. Michael Walker, unionism has evolved too far from a democratic form of institution. The very nature of unionism today conspires against the notion of individual rights of free choice in a democratic setting. The most blatant example of that is that unions are able to use present laws which give them the right to exclude non-members from the workplace, regardless of the fact that the non-member may well be a member of another union. It is time that the anti-society, monopolistic, right of non-affiliation clauses be seriously considered and removed.

I am pleased to note that another anomaly that required attention will be resolved with the implementation of the amendment to the Employment Standards Act. I'm referring specifically to the amendment which removes the present conflict between the Employment Standards Act and collective agreements. To date, regardless of the terms set out in a collective agreement — which, among other things, sets out termination rights, including notice — employees could elect to enforce their rights under the existing act. With the amendments, the employee will have either the protection of his collective bargaining or the protection of the act, but not both. I would submit that this is an eminently reasonable proposition, since a collective agreement is an overall compensation and working conditions package, and each clause relates to the other. The Employment Standards Act, on the other hand, recognizes that should the employee not have a collective agreement covering this multitude of factors, then he is entitled at the very least to the minimum standards of termination and notice which are set out in the act.

Although the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) stated to the House that he was unable to so recognize it, the throne speech was in my opinion a blueprint of hope. The citizens of the province of British Columbia must surely have had their hopes buoyed after hearing the benchmark speeches to date. They clearly enunciate, at least on the part of the government, a commitment that they are prepared to make those farsighted, long-range, often difficult but essential decisions to ensure that the destiny of British Columbians is realized.

If, as we have heard, the sheltered public service is one of the villains precluding economic recovery, then it is only the government, not the public service or the individual employee, who should be blamed. It is my generation of the post–Second World War baby boom that has been given the silver-spoon treatment and has, quite frankly, evolved North American society to a degree of waste and inefficiency that may well not be far behind the level of decadence that led to the collapse of what was once considered the infallible Roman Empire. Undoubtedly the public service has constantly demanded a better compensation package at the bargaining table. But the fact remains that it was done at the bargaining table. If the civil service has made gains to the extent that it has, the only conclusion I can draw is that too much was left on the table.

[3:00]

The current dire economic times have, in my opinion, illustrated the necessity for government to recognize the error of its past ways, and equally so the necessity to alleviate those errors. The program initiated last fall by Premier Bennett and the Minister of Finance was but a start in re-evaluating the balance between the public and private sectors. Looking at the extent of the projected budget, and the further measures of the compensation stabilization program amendments introduced by the Minister of Finance, citizens in this province should have every confidence that their government understands the realities of today's economic climate and is prepared to exhibit the leadership necessary to ensure the quickest possible economic recovery in the most stable of terms, with the least detrimental impact on any particular segment of the economy.

Although it is this government's intention to reduce the absolute numbers of the public service, I hope we are not going to experience a disproportionate reduction of staff at the lower levels of the various departments in our civil service. Frequently it is the front-line troops — the clerks, stenos, police and prison guards, counsellors, men and women who are actually extending government services to our citizens — who may be terminated under the auspices of restraint. It is my concern, which I trust is shared by our ministers, that in looking for increased efficiency the administration of each and every government department will be reviewed to ensure that the reduction in numbers will be equally and equitably spread throughout the department.

On May 5, the citizens of British Columbia soundly endorsed our government's format for recovery, and yet the programs initiated by this government last year are not in themselves sufficient to continue our province on the road to recovery. Our recovery to date is tentative. Although jobs have increased in recent months, unemployment unquestionably remains high. Likewise, although government revenues have increased in various sectors, they continue to remain weak and, unfortunately, seem likely to remain so for the foreseeable future. Understandably, the private sector, which in my opinion is the only sector that can create permanent jobs through investment, expansion and development, has not had sufficient time to regain its former buoyant status. It is within this framework that the Minister of Finance has been given the Herculean task of establishing a budget. I wish to commend the Minister of Finance for the budget that is before this House.

Further, I unequivocally endorse this government's policy that public service salaries must be based on the employer's ability to pay, and on proven increases in productivity. The good times are over and our expectations for the foreseeable future must be re-evaluated to reflect the reality of these times. The world economic order has changed. Technology in all areas has taken a quantum leap forward, and we must modernize our business attitudes. Quite simply, the markets for British Columbia products are becoming more competitive and we must meet that challenge.

Relying on the feedback I received as I went about knocking on doors in Maillardville-Coquitlam during my election campaign, I think it needs to be reiterated that the direction our government is taking is not merely restraint for the purpose of cost cutting; rather, what is required is a total rethinking of the role of government in our society. Needless to say, there is a vital integration between the private and public sectors. Both have their roles, both are vital, and neither can be done away with. However, over the past number of decades, I would suggest that the public sector has seen

[ Page 232 ]

an unwarranted expansion in areas where clearly, in my opinion, our society could be better served if they were left in the hands of the private sector. I trust I'm not going to drive them all out when I keep mentioning private sector.

The marketplace controls — such as bankruptcy, unemployment, lay-offs, low or nonexistent wage increases and, in some cases, decrease — are the very controls that ensure the viability of the free enterprise system. Those controls operate on a much more direct basis in the private sector, compared to their impact on the public sector. Unfortunately, it appears to have taken a catastrophic event, something akin to the depression that we are just now taking the first few fragile steps away from, to make all of us realize that the public sector has developed an insulated, non-real-world position in our economy. The time has come when that misconception must be addressed, and I'm very proud to be a member of a government prepared to address that issue.

We have an opportunity to continue to be a forerunner government, one which has recognized this necessity to re-evaluate the role of the public and private sectors in a social democratic state. I believe our citizens have progressed beyond that terribly naive stage where they assume that in order to have a social conscience, one must be a socialist. Rather, in today's real world our citizens are beginning to realize that in order to have a social conscience, one must ensure that government is able to afford to provide those necessary levels of social services. Clearly, having experienced the most difficult of economic times during the past two years, we now understand that government does not create revenue in a vacuum. Government — and ours is no different from any other — can only expect to receive revenue if its economy is healthy. We have come full circle and returned to the necessity of having the private sector adopt a confident, expansionary attitude, which in turn results in expanded plants and inventories, long-term jobs and the resultant revenue for the provincial coffers.

The massive coal development projects currently underway in the northeast and southeast of British Columbia illustrate the government's active commitment to resource development through the private sector. I note that the impetus and coordination for these programs has come from the Social Credit government. These projects are turning untapped resource potential into a new area of growth and tremendous opportunity for the citizens of our province. These are the types of projects, working within the dynamics of a free enterprise market system, which will tremendously strengthen our province's economy.

There are other necessary and exciting government-sponsored projects going on in this province at this time. They are providing thousands of jobs for British Columbians in every occupation and region, Two of those projects are of special interest to me. First, we have underway the construction of the first phase of the ALRT project. Not only is it in the process of providing well in excess of 3,000 jobs, but the boost it will give to high technology in our province is of tremendous long-term benefit. Speaking of ALRT, I noted with interest that both members for Surrey referred to their desire that ALRT be extended to Surrey at the earliest moment, with construction to hopefully commence prior to 1986. I also noted the response from the hon. minister, when she was quoted as saying that she is truly enthusiastic about the extension of ALRT into its second phase. At this time I would merely ask the hon. minister to keep in mind the necessity of including an extension to Coquitlam.

Interjection.

MR. PARKS: Whether or not the loop goes elsewhere…. We'll let other members take care of that for their own constituencies.

The second example I wish to note, Mr. Speaker, is cause to greatly applaud our government for, and that is its government-sponsored B.C. Place. As a director and executive member of our community-owned B.C. Lions football club, I certainly understand the benefit of this new facility for all professional sports in this province. It is not only the finest facility in Canada, but probably one of the finest, if not the finest, in North America.

However, one might ask what the relevance is of such a comment when we're discussing tough economic times in this government's budget.

Interjection.

MR. PARKS: That's good. No, I'm not asking for more season tickets.

Might I suggest that not only has the construction of the stadium resulted in the creation of hundreds, if not thousands, of jobs at a very critical moment in our economy, but now that the stadium is operational it has also created, in effect, approximately 1,000 new permanent jobs.

However, of even greater importance is how the stadium fits into the entire B.C. Place development. I understand that it is estimated that the total employment which will be created by that development is equal to approximately 40,000 person-years. Not only are we going to see False Creek redeveloped into one of the finest inner-city areas in the world, but we are also going to see B.C. Place create approximately 2,000 permanent jobs for the rest of this century.

MR. REID: Good stuff. That's leadership. That's good government.

MR. PARKS: I agree with the hon. second member for Surrey: it is indeed good leadership and good government. The spinoff which we will see created by this monumental development will long be a legacy of the leadership shown by the present Social Credit government.

As the Minister of Finance said in introducing the Employment Development Act program: "While there are promising signs in the economic outlook, a full recovery will be gradual and will not take place until the private sector regains its former strength. It is important therefore that the government make funds available during this transition period to help create jobs in the months ahead." Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend this government's action in implementing the type of program which recognizes the special type of capital works and job creation programs which can help to bridge the gap on the road to recovery. Because it will take some lag period before the private sector can truly be effective as it once was and surely will be again.

I also wish to take this opportunity on behalf of the constituents of Maillardville-Coquitlam to thank the Minister of Highways for the tremendous improvements that we have recently seen initiated in my constituency and, for that matter, in neighbouring Moody-Mission. I'm sure when all of these are completed they will greatly alleviate the significant traffic congestion in our part of greater Vancouver.

[ Page 233 ]

[3:15]

I understand that within the last five years the Ministry of Highways has expended almost $50 million in improvements to the Lougheed Highway and the Mary Hill bypass.

As the parent of two young children, I perceive the importance and significance of a healthy education system. We are extremely fortunate in Coquitlam School District 43, having earned a reputation that our school system is truly efficiently administered. Also, it has long been recognized that Coquitlam School District has the finest French immersion program in the province. I shall also note at this juncture, Mr. Speaker, that it was my ten-year-old daughter who tutored me on my French pronunciation. She has been enrolled in the French immersion program since kindergarten. My wife and I are convinced that such a program adds a quality of education that I wish I had had the experience of when I was passing through the school years.

It is undeniable that our youth are our most precious natural resource, and therefore the education system must retain its priority status. I was pleased, in reviewing the comments of the Minister of Finance, that in fact that position of priority has been acknowledged in this budget; I note that its spending is second only to health care. Notwithstanding that recognized position of priority, we must recognize the necessity of restraint in the education system. I believe that those individuals involved in the system will understand the necessity of these steps and will work with our government to ensure that we get the highest quality of education for every dollar that we invest in the system.

In discussing privatization of certain government facilities, I note that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) has announced that his ministry is moving out of the consumer complaint mediation business, In endorsing this action I would urge the hon. minister to give the Vancouver Better Business Bureau an opportunity to expand its program of mediation without cost to the consumer. Merchants are, in effect, self-policing the private sector. Admittedly its scope is not as broad as that of the ministry, but I understand that the board of directors of the Better Business Bureau are interested in expanding their efforts and service to the community. Not only should that type of self-policing be acknowledged as acts of responsible corporate citizens, but also I feel it should be encouraged.

Although we have already heard criticism of the Minister of Finance's plan to privatize a number of government publications, I share with the hon. minister a comfortableness in turning over these publications to private publishers. Undoubtedly it would be nice to have these publications maintained in-house, but it would also be irresponsible for us not to appreciate the severity of the economic dilemma we find ourselves in — an economic dilemma not created by either party in this House. However, the dilemma is upon us, and we must take those steps that reasonably lessen our overhead.

In the same vein, the modification of the assessment cycle, as introduced by the Assessment Amendment Act, recognizes a very positive improvement in the assessment roll process. One of the annual complaints we had while I was serving on municipal council was the relatively short period within which we had to react once the assessment figures were received from Victoria. The roll now being authenticated by December 31 should give municipalities an ability to more effectively react to assessment changes in their budgetary and planning process; likewise, in reducing the expense of creating new assessment rolls every year, we again are reducing our overhead or our expenses by 50 percent. This again, I trust, is a method of showing leadership to the overall economy.

In the area of deregulation, I also applaud the actions of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs for his introduction of the new Residential Tenancy Act. Once again the marketplace, left to govern itself, has brought about an equilibrium between affordable rents and accommodation. There is simply no need or justification to expend precious tax dollars on a bureaucracy to review something that the marketplace will take care of in its own right.

A prime example, Mr. Speaker, illustrative of how superfluous departments or agencies can be eliminated, is the abolition of the B.C. Harbours Board. I note that when it was given its task in 1967, it was asked to give our province two new modern facilities in order for us to take advantage of the growing Pacific Rim trade. The expansion of Roberts Bank and the construction at Ridley Island were necessary and for all intents and purposes now have been completed. The function has been completed, and hence, quite understandably, the board can be done away with.

Commenting on the Municipal Amendment Act, I note that at this time the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Ritchie) has not addressed the issue of compulsory joint bargaining by the members of the regional districts — in particular, the Greater Vancouver Regional District. Although I support the amendments pertaining to regional planning, based upon my experience in the GVRD, particularly the labour relations function, I believe that it is advisable that the problems of the past pertaining to leapfrogging and whipsawing, which a highly coordinated and solidified municipal employees union was able to carry out, should not be allowed to continue. The employer should be given the same collective clout as its employees.

An example of the negativism and destructive criticism that comes from the opposition side of this House is the attacks on the introduction of the 7 percent sales tax on prepared restaurant meals in excess of $7. It amazes me that the opposition can attack this method of raising money. Surely even the members of our loyal opposition can understand the significance of a progressive tax, whereby those who have the money to buy the more expensive meals are going to be those who pay the bulk of the tax. It seems to me an extremely reasonable, fair and equitable method of raising tax.

Just as I can wholeheartedly support the progressive tax on restaurant meals, as one who smokes I am not in good conscience able to speak out against the tax increases in tobacco. By my way of reckoning, smoking is a luxury that everyone agrees is a blight on our society. If we can raise taxes and also serve as an inducement to reduce smoking, then again, Mr. Speaker, what better way of raising taxes?

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you going to quit?

MR. PARKS: No, I'll pay tax.

Mr. Speaker, we see a budget and supplemental legislation that has been forthcoming with a very clear focus: to preserve essential services, to keep government spending within constraints imposed by the taxpayers' ability to pay, to foster a healthy business and investment climate by reducing government impositions on the individual and business, and to ensure that British Columbians can take full advantage of the opportunities that recovery will present them, without the

[ Page 234 ]

restrictions that excessive government debt or taxation could create.

In my concluding remarks, I would be remiss if I didn't stress how proud I am of the leadership role being exhibited by our Premier. The road to recovery is undoubtedly uphill, windswept and pitted, with many potholes filled with negative reaction and destructive criticism. Mr. Trudeau and his federal cohorts have shamefully bragged about the success their program of 6-and-5 has contributed, or rather how it has been solely responsible for the general minimal level of recovery on the federal scene. Having said all that, their deficit continues to blossom, federal spending continues to increase and restraint in fact turns out to be merely a result of the falling interest rates, not a reduction in government spending at the federal level.

In British Columbia we are fortunate to have a government led by a Premier who is prepared to make those difficult decisions and to stand tough when shallow, unsubstantiated comments of criticism are hurled from all sides. But I have yet to hear one constructive criticism of the legislative program already initiated by this government. I have yet to hear one logical alternative plan to this recovery program. I support this government's bold plan for recovery, I support this government's vision of a B.C. future, I support our Premier's leadership and I enthusiastically support this budget.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to digress from addressing only the budget speech. I look forward to serving this Legislature and the citizens of Maillardville-Coquitlam.

MRS. DAILLY: First, I would like to congratulate the newest member to this House for a very well-delivered maiden speech.

Now to some of the older members. I as a member of the NDP opposition would like to discuss with the House my impressions of the 1983 Social Credit budget. This budget reveals the true face of the Social Credit Party philosophy. It is a mean, cruel face. It is not only mean and cruel; it also shows signs of semi-fascism. Those are not words that a person uses lightly. But when a government decides to take away from the people of British Columbia human rights which are known all across Canada and in many other places of the world, except countries ruled by fascists, then one has to question what road we are being taken on.

In this morning's Times-Colonist, Gordon Fairweather, who heads the Canadian Human Rights Commission — and is a Conservative — made the following statement about the shocking removal of the human rights branch: "There is no way the government of Canada can intervene, but who should intervene now is an outraged public." I want to assure you that an outraged public will intervene to the best of their ability. Two-thirds of the branch's employees were fired. Fairweather said that the new legislation has hobbled and wounded human rights in B.C. by removing education programs and watering down guarantees against systematic discrimination.

[3:30]

Can you imagine that in 1983 we have a government in this province that, instead of enlarging the rights of people so they will not be discriminated against, is restricting those rights? Fairweather went on to say: "We have international obligations; all the provinces in 1976 agreed to the ratification of the international covenant on civil and political rights, which is the child, the creature if you will, of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights. Canada reports on a regular basis to the UN to point out whether Canada is fulfilling its obligations. "Now," he says — and I say shame on the Social Credit government — "there'll be an asterisk beside B.C., singling it out as a lesser place for human rights." I am ashamed to have to say that I come from a province where human rights are treated in a lesser way than anywhere else in Canada.

Fairweather went on to say: "The bookkeepers have taken over the province." When Premier Bennett was asked to comment on that, he said: "I have no comment." Of course he has no comment. I suppose he would perhaps suggest later on that they're only fulfilling their mandate. I'm sure we're going to hear that from other members of the Socred government. As the year goes along, this is going to be the most inventive mandate we have ever seen. Every new policy brought in by the Social Credit government is now going to be defended on the basis of this so-called mandate. Do you know what it is really all about? It's simply a blatant political attempt to legitimize its neanderthal policies, and that's what they are.

I intend to go through here and discuss the policies enunciated through this budget. I know that speakers on the other side often say: "Let's hear something constructive." In discussing this I would like to point out, first of all, how destructive many of these policies are, and then what the NDP believes would be more constructive.

The people over there, led by Premier Bennett, are power holders. They're not leaders, they're simply power holders. Many of them have been sitting for seven years now in positions of power, and unfortunately I think they have become completely remote from what is basically their job — to serve the people of British Columbia to the best of their ability. It does not mean serving just a select few. The cutbacks in the Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs symbolize more than anything else the thinking of the Social Credit government. I notice that there is an increase for the corporate affairs section and a decrease for the consumer section. If that isn't symbolic of the thinking over there, what else do we have to look at?

People services reductions are used, and the smokescreen for these reductions is those terrible public servants who are responsible for our increased debt and all the problems that we have today in British Columbia. Isn't it interesting that it is never mentioned that many of our economic problems today are not the responsibility of the little people, who work every day as hard as they can in this province. Many of the corporations of this province, and of course across Canada, who went into enormous debts of expansion during the 1970s, are far more responsible for the economic situation than are the so-called little people of this province. Yet it's the little people of this province that the Social Credit government has decided to penalize. The peoples' services reductions become, to the Social Credit government, just a matter of budgetary imperatives, despite studies which show, and keep showing, that higher social costs will be incurred from such mindless neglect. It has been proven in the United States and England that these dogmatic, stupid policies encourage and increase the social costs that all of society has to bear.

It is not just myself as a member of the official opposition and the New Democratic Party who feels this way about this stupid budget; it is also the feeling of some of our well-known papers. In the Vancouver Province, which certainly can't be considered to be a social democratic party organ, the editorial — which is not written by Mr. Allen Garr — states that the

[ Page 235 ]

rhetoric is clear in the Social Credit budget: "a strong emphasis on the private sector as the best source of job creation and a program of restraint to foster economic recovery. Everybody wants to see some of this but," it says, "the government seems to have gone about doing what they say is their objective in exactly the wrong and opposite direction."

"The government says it wants to help small business, but its new tax measures will unquestionably hurt many small firms.

"It says it wants to encourage the now-growing return of consumer confidence and spending, but it imposes tax increases that will invariably slow that growth down, especially for the big-ticket items.

"It says restraint is to be undertaken only because of its importance to recovery, but the programs that are being slashed look suspiciously like those that the Socreds have opposed on a political and philosophical basis for years."

That's really what it's all about. It's not about restraint; this budget is based on a dogmatic political adherence which belongs back two centuries.

The people of British Columbia are going to be forced to suffer because of this unthinking power-hungry government. I want to go through and point out some of these unthinking policies, and talk basically about the NDP and our constructive policies. Just speaking generally on that, I notice that when the member from West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Reynolds) spoke, he had a great time belittling the social democrats and citing some strange facts — I don't know where he got them from — which pointed out that the only social democratic province in Canada, Manitoba, was inferior in its economic performance to other provinces. I think if you'll check his figures — he can check this through various statistics, and I'll be glad to give him some — unemployment in Manitoba in 1982 was well below the B.C. and Canadian levels. This situation will persist through 1983. Manitoba's social democratic party — not Social Credit — outperformed virtually all the provincial economies in 1982. That was the government of Premier Pawley, based on social democratic policies. The Manitoba government has to be given credit for this, with their policies, particularly — and I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you and other members of the Social Credit government will listen to this with great care — for keeping unemployment down by stimulating housing and by investing in public works. Those are the policies which the New Democratic Party espouses, and we have tried to explain to the Social Credit government that these are absolutely necessary to get the economy moving; and they turn away from them. Yet the province of Manitoba, which put in many hundreds of millions of dollars to stimulate housing and public works, is showing the positive results of that policy. What do we have in the province of British Columbia? We have increased unemployment and the economy slipping.

I listened to the Minister of Finance making comments in his budget speech, and I've heard almost every backbencher say the same thing in this debate: "We're on the road to recovery." If you're going by the prices in the stock market, it would sound so: a 70 percent increase in stock market prices. No wonder you're saying that things look pretty good. But do you know something interesting, Mr. Speaker? Do you know the last time there was such an increase in the stock market prices? It was in 1933 — 50 years ago. Do you know the next time there was one? In 1937. Now I think that if we think back — I know that there are not too many in this room besides myself who can — to 1933 and what followed 1933, we would realize that the stock market may have had this gigantic increase in prices, but what happened to the economy? We got into the deepest depression that we have ever seen, if you follow the years from 1933 to 1939. The economy did not recover after 1933 or after 1937, so don't get up your false hopes. This government had better start doing something positive themselves about unemployment in this province and about creating some positive public construction if they want to get us out of this mess.

The only time, of course, that the economy and the Depression ceased, tragically, was in 1939, and we all know why. It was because of massive government expenditures. Unfortunately the governments did not decide to inject any moneys into the economy to help the unemployed, but they certainly found it necessary to put massive sums to work because the Second World War had been declared. Suddenly everyone was working. Everyone had a job to do; it took a war. My God, I know none of us want to have that happen to create an economic recovery — but that's another subject, because we can't even think in terms, today, of a war. We'll discuss that at another time.

I would just like to go through some of the things in the budget that have me so exercised when I see that this government is mean, cruel and unthinking. If we start looking at the actual budget and estimates — and without going into too many details because I know the time will come for that — let's first of all look at the Ministry of Intergovernmental Relations, because the minister is sitting right here. Now I've known the minister personally for many years; he and I came in here in 1966. I would hate to see him go, Mr. Speaker, but I must say that if I can see any ministry — or any minister — that could be eliminated without anything really suffering in this province, it would be the Ministry of Intergovernmental Relations. It's $2,423,000 for what? I am not saying that the work that is being done by that ministry should be completely removed, but, my goodness, couldn't it be absorbed into another department? Why all this expenditure for a ministry, an office, and everything else that goes with it? It's not necessary. What is he there for as a full-time minister? I remember when there were ministers without portfolio, and so does that minister, I'm sure. There were three in 1966, and even they at that time had more specific jobs than this minister has under Intergovernmental Relations. So there's our first positive move. Eliminate that ministry and save over $2.5 million.

[3:45]

How about the Housing ministry? It's exactly the opposite with the Housing ministry. We are sorry that that is not a separate ministry. I must admit, if money's going to be spent, we want to see it spent in the area of housing to help the people of British Columbia. Instead, what do we see, Mr. Speaker? We see that the Housing ministry's estimates for increasing housing in British Columbia and stimulating the economy have actually taken a drop. Can you imagine that at this time, a time when people still are having struggles to buy and build their own homes, here we have this ministry…? Instead of having enough understanding of the importance of stimulating the economy by creating construction and building, they have decreased that area. The NDP would not. The NDP would follow the same philosophy as Pawley's in Manitoba, and they would increase, aid and abet housing construction in this province. It's funny, you know, when you walk around downtown Vancouver and when I walk around

[ Page 236 ]

in Burnaby, there's always money for luxurious condominiums, luxurious apartments and office buildings and Safeways, but we never seem to be able to find enough money to build affordable, reasonable housing for the people. This government has never been able to.

I wish that the minister in charge of highways were here — the hon. member for the Cariboo (Hon. A. Fraser). This one I really am concerned about. I cannot believe that any government today, which speaks out of one side of its mouth…. And I know that the House Leader is listening to me very carefully on this because he has made good speeches on this. He is as concerned about traffic safety, I know, as I am. He made his contributions, positive ones, when he was Attorney-General. Yet we have the cabinet that he resides in, and the minister who is in charge of the motor vehicle branch, actually eliminating the motor vehicle inspection branch.

The point is, Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the minister being interviewed on this. Do you know what he actually said when somebody said: "How on earth can" — I think it was the head of the B.C. Automobile Association — "you actually defend the removal of something that was promoting car safety?" Do you know what he said? He said — and he can correct us later, but this is my understanding from listening and reading what the head of the B.C. Automobile Association said…. He defended it by this: "We believe in the policy" — listen to this one — "of getting off citizens' backs. Government must get off citizens' backs." So what did he do? He removed one of the most important ways we have of attempting to keep down traffic accidents. Now if he believes that's getting government off the people's backs, why does he not also remove the driver's test? Why doesn't he remove all the safety programs and everything else that has been done through the Attorney-General's ministry?

That is one of the stupidest, most callous moves I've seen. Mr. Speaker, when we leave this building, and most of us drive back to our ridings…. I don't feel very comfortable that I know now…. I knew before that there were a lot of cars that didn't go through the test, but at least I knew that the ones in the lower mainland and in Victoria had to go through the test. Now when we all travel we don't know what we're meeting on the road. What a stupid callous government. How much money are they saving?

MR. LEA: It's more stupid than callous.

MRS. DAILLY: Do you know why it's stupid? They're putting people out of work. What is it based on? It's based on a philosophy of the Minister of Highways that we've got to keep government off the backs of the people. That was his answer, after this gentleman came to him and expressed concern about the increased traffic accidents.

It's a great way for restraint, isn't it? You know, what is really short-sighted about it — and it's being kind to use the phrase "short-sighted" — is that we're going to have more accidents and more people are going to end up in the hospital, either injured or tragically dead because of this stupid move, and the province will have to pay for it. All through this budget, practically every move made by the Social Credit government in the terms of "restraint" is done not to help the people of British Columbia; they are dealt with and made rather simply on a stupid, dogmatic, philosophical adherence to a political slogan: "Get government off my back and put the people on welfare." Put the people off work instead of putting the people back in work: that seems to be the philosophy of the Social Credit government.

Look at their employment development program. From everything I read in the estimates, the most I can really see of new money is approximately $40 million. The other parts are highways, construction and so on, some of which was already allocated or not used up, and is being brought forward. Where is the real initiative by this government to create employment in this province? It isn't there.

Then we come down to the human condition, the young people of our province, whom I know you are very concerned with as a former school trustee. In a time of high unemployment, when I'll bet there isn't one of us in this chamber who doesn't know some young student who's desperately looking for work, knows he can't find it because it isn't there and will have to apply for a student loan, what do we find? This great government decides this year, of all years, to cut back on student loans, to cut back on student aid — in a year when they can't even find jobs out there. You know what we are getting down to? Again, we are getting into the philosophy that's always been espoused by the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer), who really has an elitist approach to education. We are getting down once again to something that we fought many years to eradicate; those who have rich parents or rich sources can get to university. Many deserving students in this province are no longer going to get there. This government should hang their heads in shame because those people are going to be wasted. We are going to lose a lot of bright, intelligent, competent young people who are going to end up on the welfare rolls, when they probably have the ability to go on and get professional training; and, hopefully in time, when a New Democratic Party government is elected, they'd have work.

The Crown corporations reporting committee is actually being eliminated. I think I spoke on this in the throne debate, so I don't intend to repeat my words, except to say that I was on that committee and I felt it was excellent. When the Premier brought it in we praised him for doing so. Now it is going. Do you know what that means? No more accountability. For all their fine talk about "We are going to handle those Crown corporations…." Instead of setting up an accountability process and keeping it, as we had with this committee, they are going to take the hatchet and eliminate it. The NDP would not because the NDP wants full accountability; they want to keep a watchdog on the Crown corporations of British Columbia. But this government obviously is not concerned about checking into whether or not the Crown corporations are performing properly. They have taken away the one mechanism which we had. Another very short-sighted approach.

Also the ombudsman. We talk about human rights. I listened again to that member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Reynolds), who said that he would vote against appointing the ombudsman again. Can you imagine that? His own government, which he's now joined, somewhat belatedly, has trumpeted to the public for many years how proud they were of creating the ombudsman. The former Attorney-General was the one who kept talking about it, and we gave him credit for the fact that the ombudsman was created. If we had time, I could read the many speeches of the Socred members who were so proud of it. Now this member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound says he would vote against it. An ombudsman was established in the province to help the people of B.C. They take over in areas where an MLA

[ Page 237 ]

cannot. They do not supersede or take over from the MLA. Witness the fact that MLAs, since we've appointed the ombudsman, have certainly been as busy as ever and the ombudsman has had a tremendous load. But I'll bet there are many people in this province who would write as witness to the fine work done. Do you know why the Social Credit government is not happy with the ombudsman? Because he is a courageous ombudsman. Because he did his job well and had the courage to criticize where it was necessary. Shame on a government that would remove the ombudsman! I'm hoping that the House Leader and Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) will rise up and join us and vote against this budget just on this basis. You wanted the ombudsman in, and this government that you're part of is now attempting to cut back and eventually eliminate the ombudsman from British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, I hope all those "hear, hears" to my left are going to be able to explain to the people who have been served by the ombudsman, and served well, their reasons for eliminating him.

The Premier's office — half a million dollars for salaries. And you say what would we do. You compare that to the time when we were in government — I don't have the figures, unfortunately, but I know one of my colleagues who will get up later will have those figures. The comparison between the salaries when the NDP premier was in office and those the Premier has today is absolutely ridiculous. Half a million dollars' worth of salaries for the Premier's office alone. We cut out the motor vehicle branch, we cut out legal aid — we could go on and on — but the Premier still rolls along with increased aid. Surely we don't even have to mention the Doug Heal fiasco again, and the hundreds of thousands of dollars that are being wasted on government PR. That relates to the Premier's office, and that's why I'm referring to it now.

The agriculture. I know our agriculture critic will be doing a considerable amount of discussion on this in the House, and I don't want to trespass too much on my other colleagues. When we see that the Land Commission has been actually cut down, we know that that is the start of the breakup of saving farmland in British Columbia. It is already on its way with the whole Spetifore thing, which is a disgrace. The Social Credit government puts developers and their profits against meeting the food and agricultural needs of the people of British Columbia.

Interjections.

MRS. DAILLY: I hear somebody saying: "Negative." Not negative. I'm telling you that if the NDP — and the time will come…. The NDP created that on a positive basis. They are known all across the world now as pioneering the saving of farmland. I don't believe the people of British Columbia are going to sit back and let that power-hungry government turn away that very great idea so that the people of British Columbia are denied their farmland. I'm looking forward to the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Hon. Mr. Schroeder), who has a responsibility…. He's the steward of that whole area, and I'm telling him now, I hope you're fighting to preserve the farmland. If you don't fight, as Minister of Agriculture, it's going to be very difficult for other people, unless you give the leadership. It will be tragic. Already we can see that some of this has happened.

[4:00]

The Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Smith). I could go on and on. That, again, will be discussed in detail. But that is really an interesting area. It really shows where this government is at. It's full of people services — needed people services — legal aid, you name it, community policing. Here is an example. Do you know what the community policing program provides for? It provides for the promotion of behaviour and attitude changes at all levels of society in regard to drinking and driving through a combination of police enforcement, education, community action, research and information programs. Do you know that that budget has been put down? It has lost, from my figures, almost a third of what it had last year. Talk about being stupid and short-sighted. If those kinds of programs go down the tube, we are going to have more people ending up in our prisons because of drunken driving, we're going to have increased traffic accidents, which are all going to cost society — including this government — more and more money. Yet they are cutting back on it.

This is a nightmare budget. At times I cannot believe that I am living in a province that could produce a budget as machiavellian as this one. Family community services cut, probation services cut, in a time of recession when more and more families are breaking up, unfortunately, because of the strain of economics and being unemployed. They are going to need counselling and guidance, but instead this government, which has helped create the situation, is cutting back on the very services that these people are going to need.

Criminal Injury Compensation Act. I remember mentioning in the throne speech debate that in times of recession when the economy is bad, unfortunately crime goes up. Yet this government is cutting down the Criminal Injury Compensation Act at this time — an act which was there to give assistance, as we all know, to the victims or families of victims. It's incredible.

Consumer and Corporate Affairs I mentioned before. We find money for the corporate end going up, Mr. Speaker, and the money for the consumer going down. That tells us where this government's at. They're not for the people of B.C. They're only for a very select few.

The Ministry of Finance. That really tells a lot about the Socred bumbling and incompetence in handling money throughout their last seven years in office. The public debt is up to $181 million in interest. Last year it was $18 million — up from $18 million to $181 million. I think we'll have to have a full explanation from the Minister of Finance as to just what projects have been involved in that debt. If we could see it involving something that was helping the people of British Columbia, fine. But who is it helping? We don't see any benefit for this increased debt. And firing the public servants is hardly going to put a wrinkle in that massive debt, I can assure you.

Earlier today in question period our Finance critic mentioned that we were faced with four phoney budgets by this government. This is all part of what concerns me. Not only have we a machiavellian, mean, cruel budget, but we also have a budget which, if it follows the tradition of all the other budgets the Socreds have brought in for a number of years, is another phoney budget. The government is not levelling with the people of British Columbia. In 1980-81, for example, do you know how much the budget was out? It was out $563

[ Page 238 ]

million. Can you imagine if the NDP had been out that much at the end of their first year? Do you know how much money the 1981-82 budget was out, had not estimated correctly? It was out by $650 million. In 1982-83, $1,242 million — another phoney budget. In 1983-84 it's expected, according to our Finance critic — who by the way, if you look at his predictions, has been pretty well on — that the budget will be out by over $600 million. How can we expect people to have respect for a government that even plays around with the figures in a budget? How can they trust a government that has not come straight with the figures in a budget?

I want to end up today by discussing the Health ministry particularly. I want to leave many of my remarks for the estimates, but I would like to make a few points on the matter of the Health budget. If anything, that too shows the philosophy of this government. It shows, number one, that this government endorses and believes in, user fees. That again shows the basic difference in philosophy between the New Democratic Party and the Socreds.

Let's just look at user fees. User charges for health run counter to the basic premise of public health insurance. Under medicare, patients have already paid for their health services. They've already paid through their taxes — even, in a few provinces such as ours, through premiums. Our people have already paid. I remember when Mr. Bennett Sr. brought in the sales tax increase. It was to help pay for hospital costs. User fees, no matter how reasonable their amount, still tax the sick and so undermine the principle of prepaid health care. We keep hearing: "Oh, but they're not very much." User fees amount to a regressive illness tax. I want to go into more detail on that when I have an opportunity during the Health estimates. I want to discuss the extra billing and the bill, which of course we will have an opportunity to do.

I also want to say very quickly that the other cutbacks in Health are absolutely appalling. Health education is cut back. Nutrition is cut back. Dental programs are cut back. Home nursing care is cut back. Homemaker services are cut back. Adult day care is cut back.

Mr. Speaker, as I said before, this is almost a nightmarish budget. Any government that would present a budget like this in the province of British Columbia today does not deserve to be government.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Mr. Speaker, before I come to the remarks I have prepared for this afternoon, I can't help, in the normal course of debate, but respond to some of the remarks that I've been listening to here this morning and this afternoon.

I'd like to commend you on your elevation to the chair, sir, and would you convey those same sentiments to Mr. Speaker. I think I understand what I'm talking about when I say I wish you well.

The remarks I've heard today seem to be in conflict with themselves. I was listening to the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) talk about debt and interest rates and interest that will have to be paid from general revenue in order to cover debt that exists. But at the same time I heard her decry those areas in which the government has taken some bold steps to try to reduce the amount of shortfall in a given fiscal year so that debt could be avoided. In spite of all the cuts she enumerated, the resultant shortfall for the forecast year, which we are one-third of the way through, is $1.5 billion, which, by the way, becomes a debt next year and translates into an interest-bearing loan. The interest next year is going to be $150 million greater than this year. I can't believe the lady said that…. Interest in the year previous to the one just concluded was $18 million, and then she looks at the year we have just concluded and says: "My word! Holy mackerel, it's jumped $180 million! " I've got news for you: in the next year, thanks to the expenditure of this government over and above its revenue, the interest bill is going to be $150 million over and above the $180 million that you've experienced in the past year.

I cannot believe the irresponsibility of that opposition. During all the time they are talking about cuts, cuts, cuts, they seem to harken back only to the days when they believed in shovelling money out of the back of a truck; when they believed that the money was always there, that somewhere there is some great repository of cash into which you can go endlessly and dip bucket after bucket and that you never have to repay it. Those days are gone. Let me tell you that the taxpayers out there have said loud and clear that those days are gone; they have said that it's high time that government pays some attention to affordability. They have said it's time that we look at what burden of taxes those people out there can bear. They have sent the message loud and clear. I can't believe that you didn't get the message. The message was loud and clear: enough is enough already. It seems to me somebody else used that slogan in 1972, the day I arrived in this place: enough is enough. Those taxpayers said: "We can't stand any more."

I don't know about you people, but I can tell you that in my constituency I've had to attend meeting after meeting in which the constituent has said to me, loud and clear: "No more tax load." This came from homeowners, small businesses, corporations and farmers, who said: "No more, Harv." I stood up, with a red face, and said: "I'll try to do what I can." I have tried to do what I could.

We have tried to reduce the expenditure of this government so that it could be held to a manageable level, and I've got to confess to you that we haven't done too well. We've still got a $1.5 billion deficit in the year we're now facing. Shame on us! But in light of that, how can I listen to this drivel from the other side that says: "Oh, keep spending!" I've got to tell you, they are still talking about shovelling the money out of the back of the truck. They haven't learned.

I have an idea that some of the myths I want to reveal to you in the remarks I've prepared are still subscribed to by the unlearned over there. I have to tell you that this is a recovery budget. I don't know whether you people understand recovery. Not too many years ago I had to be laid aside; I think all members present remember the day. I had a period of recovery. When you're recovering you decrease the demands on that entity, whether it be a body like mine, a family or a government; you reduce the demand. Can you believe what might have happened if, following my radical surgery, I got up smack-dab off that slab and they'd said: "Okay, Harv, right back into the Speaker's chair. Get in there and do your thing."? No, whenever you are in a period of recovery you reduce the demand on that entity. We are in a period of recovery. It doesn't mean it's forever; thank God I didn't have to stay on that slab forever, and thank God I wasn't in recovery forever. But in a period of recovery you reduce the demand and you wait for strength to come back, and when strength comes back you can then return to full flow.

[4:15]

This is a period of recovery, and when you are in a period of recovery, these things, I would submit to you, Mr. Speaker,

[ Page 239 ]

are some of the things that we must consider doing. We must stop moving in the direction which contributed to the need for recovery in the first place. That's one of the things we've got to do. Secondly, I think we have to stop and analyze and determine what the new direction should be, and this takes a little time. It's not knee-jerk, something that comes to you overnight, or some divine intervention by which you get up the next morning and say: "Aha, we've got the answers and we're going to move in that direction, devil take the hindmost." No, it takes a little time to determine what that new direction should be. Then, number three, we have to have the courage to move in that new direction even though it may be unpleasant. I want to expand on that a little later.

Number four, we have to develop a confidence in the people that recovery can happen, because if we don't instil that confidence in the people, we will never encourage them to get involved in the activity in which they must be involved if recovery is to happen. We've got to get them on side, and to believe in themselves, and to be willing to take money out of savings accounts and invest it. We have to get them to start the economy moving that will generate the dollars, because if they don't do it in the private sector we can't possibly do it in the government sector. We in government are non-productive. We are part of the problem; we are not part of the solution. We must get the economy moving through the private sector. So if you'll permit me, Mr. Speaker, I'll go through them one at a time — four points.

We must stop moving in the direction which created the need for recovery in the first place. What are some of the contributing factors? I don't know that I've got them all or even that I've got all the right ones, but can I share with you the ones that occurred to me? I've just jotted them down for your consideration. I believe that one of the contributing factors….

Interjection.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: I think that if the member from Comox would stop and listen she may learn something.

We need to stop moving in the direction that created the need for recovery in the first place. These, I think, are some of the contributing factors. If the expectation is greater than the ability to pay, then you've got disappointment at both ends of the spectrum. You are not going to realize your dream, demand or requisite. Your expectation is beyond the ability to pay; therefore you're going to be disappointed. In the next place, society is going to be disappointed because if they even begin to meet that expectation, they are already going to overextend themselves financially. There is disappointment at both ends of the spectrum if the expectation is beyond the ability to pay. In recovery we have to pay strict heed, for the period of recovery, to the ability to pay. I've mentioned it a little earlier, and I have to tell you that the electorate — the people of the province; society; British Columbians — have given us the message clearly: they do not have the ability to cover the cost of the expectations of some of the segments of their own society. It's just not possible. I think it is one of the contributing factors.

Here's another one. I think that the built-in assumption that seems to exist in every negotiation and contract that says costs are naturally going to increase…. If we have that built-in assumption, then we can't possibly gain control of an economy that has already shown it has to have a period of recovery.

Here's another one — I think this is a contributing factor. If we always believe that we must catch up with inflation, then we are going to contribute to the need for recovery. We are going to contribute to our own deficit if we believe that we are catching up with inflation. Why don't we catch on — instead of catch up — to the fact that whenever we create a new settlement, whenever we think in terms of catching up with inflation, whenever we draft a new contract with an increase over previous contracts, we are developing and creating the next phase of inflation. So I believe that the myth that says we are always catching up is one of the directions that we have to change during a period of recovery.

Here's another contributing factor: decisions based on need instead of on affordability. If we run our business this way, we can dream up all kinds of needs, we can rationalize all kinds of needs. I've listened to them in this House in these last few days — legitimate requests for need. No problem about it, no argument. I wouldn't put it down, not for a minute. There are legitimate needs. If we design our budgets only with regard to what we need, we will constantly overextend ourselves. I say we must put something else into that mix, and that ingredient has to be affordability.

Here's another factor. Budgets that are established always and only on a percentage increase over last year can't help but be a contributing factor to a deficit which will require a period of recovery. The end result of budgets that are always designed on a percentage increase over last year…. The problem with that is this. Managers within that budget simply say: "I have got to spend all of the budget that was allocated to me in the last fiscal year. If I don't, that apportionment might be deleted from my budget next year and I will not get my percentage increase for next year." It becomes a mind-set. "We've got to spend everything that we've got in our last year's budget." When it comes close to the end of the fiscal year, the items of expenditure can be reasonable or unreasonable, but they're made so that the dollars are spent and the budget zeros out, so that the percentage increase will give those managers the extra dollars in the next year. It's a direction which must be changed during a period of recovery.

There's another myth. There is a belief which says that an increase in wages and salaries will naturally accrue just because we've been around a little longer, without any reference to productivity. It is a mind-set that has to be altered during a period of recovery if indeed we want to realize that recovery.

Here's another contributing factor: the belief that regulation doesn't contribute to cost. Just give us more government, you say. Just give us more boards and commissions. Just give us all of the regulation we need so that we can virtually stifle the creativity of society. Regulation does not contribute to costs? Come on!

Here's another myth that I think is a contributing factor: the desire that says big government should render every citizen unharmed, even from his own thoughtless action in the marketplace. That's got to be turned around during a period of recovery.

Here's another one: the idea or notion that says rights mean more than protection, that they mean provision. It's an idea that's got to be turned around during a period of recovery. When people say, "It is my right that my children should ride on a school bus," when people say, "It is my right that I should have unlimited health care," when people say, "It is my right to be defended by the Crown," when people say that

[ Page 240 ]

their rights mean more than protection, that they mean provision, I have an idea that that notion has to be turned around during a period of recovery. Please remember that I said recovery is not forever — thank God. But during the period of recovery that notion must be turned around.

And there's another one. There's the notion that says those who don't work must be supported to the same level — or at least a comparable level — as those who do work. That notion has to be turned around during a period of recovery.

Here's another one. There's a belief out there — particularly across the way — that says real costs can somehow be camouflaged by simply not meeting them. If you don't pay them, then the cost hasn't been realized. I was never more conscious of the fact that that mentality rests on that side of the House than I was when we were talking about ICBC premiums back in the years of '72 through '75. They said: "We'll just reduce the premiums, and we will pretend that the premiums that we charge are the real cost of operating an insurance scheme. We'll have society in their premiums just cover part of the costs, and that way we can camouflage the real cost and nobody will ever know whether we paid it or not, or whether it was charged out or whether it was a social cost or whether it was part of an extra fee on gasoline." Can you believe what gasoline would cost today at the pumps with this scheme in place? Nonetheless, they believe that real costs can somehow be camouflaged by simply not meeting them. That has to be turned around during a period of recovery, because if we don't turn it around we will have a deficit which will stagger the deficit that is already built into this budget, of $1.5 billion — for which interest, Madam Member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly), will have to be paid next year.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

What is the result of not changing direction? The result in the last fiscal year was somewhere near $1 billion in deficit. It's going to be $1.5 billion this year — far too much, in my opinion — but unless we turn it around, we commit ourselves to the federal model, where they don't even blush about a nearly $30 billion deficit upon which, Madam Member for Burnaby North, you're going to be paying interest beginning this year. We have to stop moving in the direction which created the problem and the need for recovery in the first place.

Second, we have to determine that new direction. It's not easy. It takes a little time. It's simple for a group of gentlemen to sit around an oval table and say, "This is what we should do; let's do this; let's do that," walk away from the table, come to some agreement and then leave it there. Determining a new direction itself is not the answer; we must have the courage to move in that new direction. We must show the leadership that's necessary. We must be willing to bear the stigma of making some unpopular moves if we're going to get this thing under control. If recovery is to be a fact, that is what we must do. We must measure carefully taxpayer strength. We must curb expenditure in government. These are the new directions we must go in. Government is non-productive; it is non-generating; it doesn't create wealth.

MR. MACDONALD: Nonsense!

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Nonsense nothing. Let me ask you a simple question. If I were to pay you, a civil servant, your salary out of taxes and you were the only taxpayer, how much would I have to tax you in order to pay your salary? I'd have to take from you every penny that I wished to pay you. Government is a non-generator of real wealth. They encourage, yes, but they are a non-generator of real wealth. We have to….

[4:30]

Interjections.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Is it okay if I continue, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: If the member addresses the Chair.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Good shot. To the front of the class.

What we need to do in determining our new direction is make private-sector activity easier. They are the ones who are going to generate the bucks that are going to close the gap between what we wish to spend and what we are actually taking in in taxation. In addition to that, they are going to have to generate the bucks to pay the interest on the stuff that we expended over and above our revenues in the past years. It's going to be the private sector, make no mistake about it.

In taking our new directions, we need to remove the roadblocks to investment. The signs are already there. It's beginning to happen. The bond issue is oversubscribed. Money is coming out of savings accounts, and it's moving into risk investment. As government in our new direction, we need to provide advice, not restriction.

I think that we need to make it easier for the organized and unorganized workforce to go to work. I know some bargaining units who would gladly have gone back to work, and would gladly have taken a little less of a draw, but were not permitted to do so. We've got to make it easier for them to do that. We have to make it easier for people in the organized sector and the unorganized sector — sometimes in the same area; maybe not on the same job but in the same area — to work in harmony together. We need to make it easier for people to go to work. I think we should not assume for one minute that only those who are organized have the right to go to work.

In taking our new direction we need to restore the competitive edge. In my own ministry the bane of the agricultural industry is that we are non-competitive. Land, packaging, labour, equipment, services and utilities cost too much. Lo and behold, when we add it all together and get a price on a quart or a gallon or a litre of milk, it's more than it is anywhere else. We are non-competitive, and if we're going to turn this baby around we'll have to return the competitive edge. We're going to have to find ways. I don't have all the ideas. Mr. Speaker, I'm going to call on you because I know you've got some.

We need to build pride in production if we're going to turn this thing around. No longer should an applicant for work say, before the description of the job is given: "How much do I make here?" Production should be first and foremost in the mind, and the reward for production should flow naturally from production, not from non-production. We've got to turn that around.

If we're going to have a recovery period we'll have to spend less time in meetings and more time at work. When I see a budget that talks about a government direction that's going to reduce the number of councils, boards, commissions

[ Page 241 ]

and meetings…. Can you believe that in the approvals process, if someone wished to invest some risk capital in order to generate some dollars so that we can close the gap between revenue and expenditure, and can pay the interest that has already been incurred, there are 52 approval steps? And for every one of those approval steps a meeting, and another meeting yet, and another meeting. I support any kind of direction that reduces and takes away the restrictions and that provides advice, help and assistance in getting the job done. It's the way we'll have to go if we're going to have recovery.

We are going to have to make services affordable, not just now, but also in the future. We'll have to put the brakes on growth in cost in some of our major social expenditures. Let me give you an example. When I came to this House in 1972 the entire provincial budget was $1.4 billion. Do you remember it, Mr. Second Member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk)? You and I came to the House together. At that time the total budget was $1.4 billion. In ten years the health expenditure has grown to $2.5 billion, which is nearly twice the total provincial budget just ten years ago. Unless that pattern is turned around, it is reasonable to assume that ten years from now the health budget could be twice our total budget right now. It's just as reasonable to look into the future ten years and draw that conclusion as it is to look in retrospect ten years, and find out that that's a fact.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

When I arrived here in 1972 the total budget was $1.4 billion; now Education has grown to $1.4 billion. In ten years the education expenditure has grown to a size which represents, exactly, the total provincial budget of 1972. Unless we change the patterns of expenditure we could forecast that that trend will continue, and that the expenditure for education, although enrolment is dropping, could be as high as $8.3 billion ten years from now unless we turn it around. In our new direction we must make services affordable, not just now but also in the future.

Further, in taking our new directions we must privatize for the sake of efficiency. Let me give you an example — it's not just something that rolls off the tongue. In my ministry I had a farm called Colony Farm, where they milked 230 cows, with 24 staff. Just east of my house is a farmer who milks 180 cows; he has a family and one hired man. I say it's time we privatize for the sake of efficiency.

I am glad to see that provision is made in this budget…. Announcements have been made to the effect that in taking its new direction government is going to get out of competition with the private sector. Some ski slopes are going to be privatized. I think that it's about time for that privatization, particularly when government, with all its power, runs in competition with the private sector. If they subsidize their own operations, then it's reasonable to assume that those in the private sector should expect the same, but it's not kosher to do that.

We need to get out of competition with the private sector. I think we need to rationalize the compensation levels in the public service. We have to do it if we're going to get this under control, and I'm glad to see it's going to happen during this recovery period.

We have to keep a lid on property tax, and I'm glad to see that it's going to happen.

My third point: we have to stop moving in the direction that creates the problem. We have to take time now to analyze a new direction. We have to have the courage to move in that direction, to take on those unpleasant tasks that are going to create recovery. Downsizing is no fun.

Can you believe there is any feeling of elation in having to say to anybody: "Your position is no longer required; therefore you are going to have to find another job. You need to be upgraded, reclassified or re-educated, but the job you have grown accustomed to is no longer there"? Do you think it is fun to say that to anybody? The answer is no. There are unpleasant tasks that have to be done. Naturally every person affected will react, and we have seen it in the last week. The opposition has thrived on it. Please remember that when we first arrived in this place, I sat in opposition for a little while and I know what it feels like. You can thrive on it, but that doesn't make it better.

Every person affected will react; it's predictable that that will happen. I think every segment out there in society is expecting that they would react. Because man is a territorial individual he doesn't like to have encroachments onto those areas where he has become comfortable, and the reaction is predictable. Nonetheless I believe the remedy must be applied, and applied now. The alternative is to let 'er go. The alternative is to join the federal model. The alternative is to follow the route of Italy, Mexico, Argentina or Chile and let ler go. That's the alternative.

We have a choice: we can do corrective surgery now or radical surgery later. Although this is an unpleasant time — a time I don't enjoy; I don't relish it one bit — it is recovery. And it takes a little while to recover.

It's a critics' heyday. If you want to be part of the problem rather than part of the solution, it's a critics' heyday. I say: better we should have a critics' heyday than an economic mayday.

I say we must adjust the established practices to which we have grown accustomed; even though it's uncomfortable, we must do it now. In spite of all the steps taken, we still face a $1.5 billion deficit this year. Nobody seems to talk about that. We must do what we must do.

My last point: we have to instil confidence in society. We have to have them believe that they can recover. There have to be signs that it is a fact and a realistic expectation. In the first quarter of this year we have record housing starts; some signs are there. People are moving money out of savings accounts; it's a good sign. The bond issue is oversubscribed; it's a good sign. This is the right government; the people made that statement just two months ago. This is the right government, which is already a sign of confidence.

Every one of those individuals out there wishes to participate in a program of recovery. Every one of them wishes that recovery was already a fact. No one stands with the goal in sight and reduces their effort. Everyone says: "Let's do our share." I think that we have seen that kind of an attitude in the public service; we have seen that kind of an attitude in the teaching profession; we've seen that kind of an attitude in municipal workers; we've seen that kind of an attitude in the private sector; we've seen that kind of an attitude in society as a whole. They all wish to participate in a recovery that they wish was already complete.

[4:45]

I'm sorry that the members opposite find it in their hearts to oppose absolutely every measure. They have given us few, if any, recommendations for recovery — I don't remember

[ Page 242 ]

any, but we'll give them credit. I don't know that they understand recovery is necessary or how to achieve it. Rather than do that, they wish to seed discord. Rather than become a part of the solution, they wish to remain a part of the problem. It's either that, or their insistence on continued unfettered expenditure is simply insincere.

Mr. Speaker, this is a recovery budget. We need to stop moving in the direction that created the problem. We need to analyze and determine new directions. We've taken some. Maybe they haven't all occurred to us as yet. We must have the courage to do the unpleasant things and we must take the people with us. We must have them believe in themselves that recovery can be a fact, and let's endure till the end.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: You know, Mr. Speaker, almost every speech made by government members during the throne speech debate and now, during the debate on the budget, is really refighting the 1975 election campaign, the 1979 election campaign and the 1983 election campaign. You guys are ten years behind the times. You're not coming up with any positive programs, just a lot of negative programs.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Tell that to the people.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: We did. Talking about telling it to the people — and I'll be talking about this in a few minutes — what you said in the election campaign and what you're actually doing are two different things. But we'll get to that in a few minutes.

What this government is doing overall in this budget document is basically a ploy used successfully for 20 years by a former Premier of this province, God rest his soul, W.A.C. Bennett, who always overestimated expenditure and underestimated revenue, and then in the next budget he would come in and say: "Look what good managers we are. We've come in with a surplus." Sometimes it was a hundred million or a hundred and fifty million, whatever, but they always had a surplus. And this government is now, again, resorting to the same tactic in this particular budget. That is to make them, of course, look good next time around. They say: "Times are difficult now, but we're such good managers that a year from now we're going to start doing this and this with more revenues, etc., etc."

But the fact remains that this government is predicting, I believe, a $1.6 billion deficit. I think the interest on that debt, to the taxpayers of this province, will be approximately — if we are to believe what we read here — $180 million per year. I don't hear them mentioning that over there too often.

This budget, Mr. Speaker, will not lead to recovery, as the previous speaker said frequently throughout his presentation. No way will this budget lead to recovery. When you fire people, take away their jobs — those kinds of things — obviously you are taking money out of the economy. When you increase taxes — sales taxes and those kinds of things — you are taking money out of the hands of the consumer. This is money that will not be spent, as has been pointed out in this House by many previous speakers, money that will not be spent at the local businesses or whatever for purchases, thereby also depriving government of revenues from sales tax and these kinds of things. So you are really hindering recovery when you take those kinds of measures. When you increase user fees for health care and a whole host of other services, as is proposed in this budget, once again you are taking a great deal of money out of the economy — money that people won't have to spend. This kind of money management is particularly hard on low-income people and working people.

As I said a few minutes ago, this government was not candid. I don't want to use stronger words at this time because I am not going to get all upset. I know the House is in a milder mood now as compared to about two hours ago. I'm being very polite when I say "not candid" with the electorate out there, prior to the election which was called last April. First of all, if the government had been honest with the people we would have seen this budget in February of this year. There was no reason why the government could not bring in that budget in February, as has been the parliamentary custom in this province for many years. Do you know why they didn't, Mr. Speaker? I know you are a new member of this House, but you'll see. There was a very good reason from their point of view why they didn't bring in the budget last February or March, so we could examine the budget, and so that the people of this province could have some idea of what was going to happen, with the kind of thing that's happening now. The reason is that the government — the cabinet; the people on the treasury benches — knew that they were going to call that election in April of this year and that polling day would be May 5. They didn't have the guts; they didn't have the nerve to go to the people of this province and tell them that they were going to do all the things that are contained in this budget speech, as has been well-documented here in this House.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: The interjection across the floor about my smoking…. I'm going to tell you that that's a very regressive tax. I'll speak to that under the bill. Now that you've got the federal government on my back I may have to quit. You may force me to quit — smoking, that is. Nothing else.

So what the government has done is not tell the electorate the truth. They knew very well what they were going to do. You will recall that during the course of the last election campaign certain documents were discovered or leaked, but made available to us through the Ministry of Health, suggesting that user fees for certain health services would be increased. The Premier, out in the hustings, said: "No way. Never, never. Trust me. No way will we increase user fees in the health service field, nor will we increase taxes." But we didn't know whether he was, or was not, telling the truth. How would we know? There was no budget before this House or before the people of the province. So here we are, about two months later, with a budget. And what have they done? They have increased user fees in the health service field, increased taxes and sales tax on a number of items that have not had sales tax on them before — meals and telephone calls, and these kinds of things. It's a government that we find, on this side of the House, very difficult to take seriously or to believe.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: We take you seriously, all right. I think you are very serious about the measures that you have proposed; in fact, some of your backbenchers, if they had

[ Page 243 ]

their way, would go a lot further than the Premier and the Minister of Finance have gone on this budget.

This government looks after its own very well, I don't see their so-called restraint program applied to friends of the government. I see friends of the government get very high paid positions as government agents, large increases in their salaries, while other people who are covered under the restraint program are forced to take very slight wage increases in spite of 6 and 7 percent inflation rates. The government looks after its own friends very well. So they're only applying their restraint measures to the working people of this province, and the poor people of this province, and not to themselves. That's usual. We're used to that. Had you been here over the two previous sessions, Mr. Speaker, you would have seen where we proposed, in vote after vote, reductions in government spending for travel, propaganda, ministerial offices, and they were all rejected by this government. In the meantime, they were cutting back on education and health services to people in this province.

Let's just have a brief look. I know some of these things have been discussed before, but I want some of my own constituents to be able to read in Hansard that I raised some of these issues as well. None of these issues are in any particular order.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I hear some chirping on the back bench. I thought you were asleep.

MR. SEGARTY: You've just about put me to sleep. Thanks for waking me up.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Well, go out and have a smoke.

Let's start with the rentalsman's office. Right there is a major change in policy and philosophy of this government at this time. The rights of tenants and landlords will be gone — completely removed. Once again we'll have people being evicted from their homes for whatever reason. If the landlord doesn't like the colour of somebody's eyes or skin, or their manner, or anything else, those people can be evicted. Once again we'll have the kind of regulation in apartment buildings where children won't be allowed. This government has opened that whole bag. Rent increases — totally uncontrolled, eventually.

Human rights. We know where this government stands philosophically. A government that would abolish the Human Rights Commission — can you believe it? This particular piece of legislation has literally shocked the rest of this nation by abolishing the Human Rights Commission. And we heard this afternoon, and yesterday, how it was abolished: swooping down on people in the middle of the night; swooping in to get the keys and their papers. Oh, boy, what a government! It's 1938-39 Europe revisited. You must have read the book.

The Crown corporations reporting committee. It's not going to be abolished, you're just going to take away any possibility of that committee's examining the Crown corporations of this province. Those corporations will be ruled directly from the cabinet room with no accountability. We won't know what they're doing. No recommendations will be able to come forward to this Legislature after the members of the Crown corporations committee have made their investigations and recommendations. All of those things are gone.

AN HON, MEMBER: They were ignored anyway.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Well, they were ignored, but at least we were able to focus public attention on some of the shortcomings and changes we felt should be made within certain Crown corporations. I know that the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. A. Fraser) agrees with me on this one. I can tell by looking at him, right across the floor there, that he agrees with me that this particular important committee should not be, in effect, abolished.

[5:00]

The ombudsman. No question, the ombudsman's funding has been reduced significantly in this budget, thereby making his work — his really fine work — much more difficult. I heard Mr. Friedmann this morning on a radio program suggesting that they are now going to have to turn away many people who come to them for help, advice and assistance on many problems that ordinary people out there in the province face when they can't get to a cabinet minister, or through a government agency in the way they feel they should. It makes me wonder.

The auditor-general's budget has been reduced somewhat as well in this budget. I wonder how far they're going to go, because I know that this government is not very happy with the auditor-general either, Mr. Speaker. So there's a distinct possibility that the auditor-general's work could be hindered as well by this so-called budget.

One of the areas that I'm really concerned about is the fact that regional district planning functions are now being removed from regional districts. I want to remind those backbenchers applauding because of the statement I've just made that it was a Social Credit government, under W.A.C. Bennett once again, some…. I'm just going from memory; I believe it was about 1958 or 1959 when they brought in legislation setting up regional districts in this province. There was a reason for that, and our party voted for that at that time. Part of the reason was that it gave people access to local government where they could make decisions in their own areas on matters affecting them. However, this government has seen fit, because — I would guess and it would appear — they're unhappy with, particularly, the agricultural land reserve decisions being made in certain regional districts about how that agricultural land should be treated. That's the only reason, as far as I can see, that this function is being taken away from regional districts.

What I'm telling you is that all of the agricultural land in British Columbia will now be in jeopardy when this legislation is finally passed — I'm not talking about legislation, because it's specifically referred to in this budget document, and we'll get to the legislation eventually, I hope. In any event, I think that this government is really doing a great disservice to the people of the province when they take away the functions of regional districts. As far as I'm aware, every regional district and municipality that I know of has condemned this proposal as put forward in this 1983 budget.

The Alcohol and Drug Commission is abolished — another very important part of our fabric in society. The thousands of human beings whom that organization has assisted in leading productive lives…. It will no longer be available to those people. The social costs will be horrendous to this province over the long run, and it's just more false economy. I might add at this point that we were just in the process in Powell River of finally, after discussing with the Ministry of Health — and the Minister of Health, on my part

[ Page 244 ]

— after all this time, of getting permission to have a drug and alcohol counsellor replaced in Powell River. A year and a half without a drug and alcohol counsellor, and we're finally in the process of getting that person, and now this legislation, I suspect — I'm not sure at this point — will do away with that position and that'll be the end of that.

HON. A. FRASER: Don't be so suspicious.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Boy, when we're dealing with you guys, we'd better be suspicious. Watch your backs and watch your pocketbooks.

Renters' tax credits are to be abolished. Well, that's one promise….

Interjections.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: They're asking me who supports our leader. I won't take an official position at this time, but if I could choose a leader for our party at this very point in time, right now, this minute, I would seriously consider running if I had more than three people who would vote for me. [Laughter.]

Mr. Speaker, the government says we never say anything positive over on this side of the House. Well, I want to point out to you one promise the government has kept. The government has said they would do away with tax credits and, by God, they're going to do it. They're going to hit the low-income people again; they're going to keep that promise. It's the poor people again — never the big guys, never the rich. Do away with the tax credits; that's okay. What do they care? There's no election in sight for another — what? — three or four years. You're not going to tell us?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Five.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: No, no.

So there is one promise they've kept.

Home purchase grants are down the tube. They'll be gone. The effects of that, of course, will be that, particularly for first-home buyers, our young people starting out will have to reconsider the start of the construction of their new homes. The federal government program, as you know, is just in the process of expiring. I think it's been extended another three months. I'm just going from memory. I'm not sure about that — the $3,000 federal grant.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: It's expired.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. LOCKSTEAD: The minister tells me it's expired, so I guess it's gone. That grant is gone, and the grant for first home buyers is gone. The effect, of course, is that the young people, first home builders, will have to reconsider the start of construction on their homes, which will affect small and local contractors in every community, as well as people in logging and lumber, the sawmill industry. All of these things will be affected by that measure.

The list goes on and on. I don't think I'll go through all of it. We'd be here the rest of the day. It is a very regressive and repressive budget, and certainly will not lead to recovery, in my view. It is a budget that has taken direct aim on the working people of this province. The firings now taking place in the public service will obviously cause a great deal of dislocation in many communities. I mention this because in communities that I represent we have people in the Forest Service, in Human Resources and every field of government endeavour. They're very short-handed now in some departments; those positions will obviously not be filled, and further layoffs and firings will no doubt take place. This will hamper the economy in these communities in a very significant way.

Furthermore, it's quite possible that the government's action could violate written agreements signed in good faith at the time by the working people in the public sector. I know very well that people in the unions signed those agreements in good faith, but good faith is something that this government obviously knows very little about, as witness the legislation that was brought into this House just a few days ago.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: We've got the legislation here. All 26 of these horrendous bills are sitting here. We've read them and gone over them, and we'll give you a good taste of them tomorrow.

Interjections.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I hear a chirping from a new member whose name I don't recall at the moment, but we'll get used to each other. I suspect that this government is not finished yet in bringing in anti-working-people legislation. I suspect that during the course of this session, possibly within the next few days for all I know, we will see anti-labour legislation of a kind that this province or country has not seen in a hundred years.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Oh, I hit a sore spot.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: On a point of order, I'd like to ask the member speaking where he gets his information.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is not a point of order.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: If I told him he'd close off my source, wouldn't he? So I don't think I'll tell him.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I just want to tell you that you're wrong.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I could almost make a bet that I'm right. If I had any money I'd bet him.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, the member for Mackenzie has the floor. Perhaps we can let him proceed.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: That's all right: I don't mind. I'm getting back what I deserve. Quite frankly, we do heckle each other in here once in a while.

I want to quote very briefly from the speech by the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) because I want the unemployment figures of this province to go into the record. It's very short. I'll put these in very quickly and then we'll get back to the main point of my speech.

[ Page 245 ]

The member for Nanaimo, our finance critic — and these figures have been well researched so I know they are reasonably accurate — says that in 1982 there were 64,000 jobs lost in British Columbia. Unemployment was pushed beyond 200,000 and the lost wages of the 64,000 people translates into more than $1.46 billion. Local economies lost about $2 billion that would have been generated if all these people had been employed. In 1982 employment insurance benefits exceeded the payrolls of both mining and forestry in this province. An average of 163,000 people were receiving unemployment benefits. This ranked the UIC payroll as the number two industry in the province, in terms of equivalent employees on the payroll, behind retail trade, and just ahead of accommodation, according to the B.C. Central Credit Union.

In the mining industry, just for the record, 30 to 40 percent of the workers are unemployed in the producing sector. Exploration is down about 40 percent also, and the outlook for 1983 is for a further 30 to 40 percent decrease. I just want to remind those members over there that when we were the government and there was a slight slump in the economy and world metal prices, particularly in copper, which dropped from approximately $1.30 per pound down to 46 cents per pound, they said it was all the NDP. That's all you'd hear. Now what do you hear? Now it's the world economy. Now that we're in a far worse situation in terms of mining than we ever were under the NDP, it's nothing to do with them, not their fault at all. It's the world economy. It's this, it's that, but it's never their fault. Well, I'm telling you that the mining industry is rapidly losing confidence in that government, and I doubt that it'll support them in another election.

The government, of course, has said — once again during the election campaign — that they're going to create all these wonderful new jobs while every economist in the country, particularly in British Columbia, is suggesting that unemployment rates will remain just as high through 1983 and into 1984 as they are now, in spite of some slight increase in the economy at the present time. I do genuinely hope that the economy does improve for the benefit of the people in this province. I know the government will take all the credit for it with this budget which isn't going to help the economy at all. But what has this government done? What are they doing? They refuse to assist the federal government in the EBAP program.

[5:15]

AN HON. MEMBER: They don't know what they're doing.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: No, they don't know what they're doing.

This employment-bridging assistance program had a lot of administrative bugs, and as MLAs many of us had to work to assist people in receiving their funds on time, and all kinds of things. Nonetheless, it employed about 6,000 people over a six- or seven-month period, provided work for these people and also assisted them in maintaining their UIC payments. But this government has withdrawn from that program for a measly approximately $4 million, while the federal government was coming up….

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Well, you spend that much in travel every year, for goodness' sake — travelling off to Mexico or Japan. Where do you go, anyway? Nobody knows, but wherever it is you go, Mr. Minister….

HON. MR. CHABOT: Sit down and I'll tell you.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I'll be sitting down in a couple of minutes.

In any event, this is very serious stuff actually, because what this government is doing…. It has had the opportunity, along with the federal government, to create perhaps another 5,000 or 6,000 new short-term jobs, and they reneged. They wouldn't come up with the money. They can find plenty of money — $45 million — to pump into B.C. Rail to hide those debts. They can do all those things. They can find funds for those purposes but they can't find jobs for job creation programs at a time when we have about 200,000 people unemployed in this province. It's shameful, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to turn for a moment to the forest sector. I see the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) has gone, but I'm sure he's listening. I just want to say a few words because it's such a major industry in my riding, and I am shocked. Maybe if you were eaten by a budworm…. No, that's not…. That shocks me too.

Interjection.

MR, LOCKSTEAD: Just an interjection for Hansard, Mr. Speaker.

I'm shocked that the government has seen fit to severely cut back on silvicultural programs throughout the province. Site preparation, tree planting, thinning programs are all down the tube. I know that some of the slack may be taken up by the federal government. They announced it would, but we'll see what happens. But this government has, in effect, jeopardized the future of our most precious and number one industry — our forest sector.

One major forestry engineer in this province, whose name I have here, has suggested that by not spending this money on reforestation, tree planting, etc., 20,000 jobs could ultimately be lost here in British Columbia through that one program alone. As was stated earlier, there are approximately one million hectares of land in British Columbia at the present time that require reforestation or some kind of silvicultural work. This is the future of our province we're talking about — very serious stuff. The government couldn't find and wouldn't come up with the funds for this very important program for this province. But more than that, once again we're talking about jobs. I know the hon. Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot) is very interested in jobs, because he talks about it all the time. But here's one program that could create 10,000 jobs for British Columbians, for the future of our province.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Tell us about the three lost years.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: We've had eight lost years under your government, Mr. Minister, and unfortunately we've got four more to go, I think, before there's another election, unless we can force you out of office somehow — unless the people force you out of office.

[ Page 246 ]

Small business programs are down the tube. The economic development commission is now not being funded. While there may have been some problems with some of these commissions, the fact is that they were able to work with people and create many short-term jobs in the community — some long-term jobs as well, in some programs. Their funding has gone down the tube. The minister over there has said: "Well, they can fund themselves. Regional boards can fund them." But you're taking away the power of the regional boards, so it's catch-22, isn't it?

If the minister were here I would discuss very briefly but I certainly will get into this during his estimates…. As a matter of fact, most of this correspondence I've received regarding employment in the forest industry is addressed to the minister. It deals with such things as the small business program — no personnel to operate the program in various forest regions in my riding. I'm sure the same thing applies in other parts of the province.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: You'll get a new one in your riding pretty soon. Of course, you're going to gerrymander your riding, aren't you, at the first opportunity?

They'll have two of you. Imagine! Two ministers like that would be too much, wouldn't it?

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: You should have him cloned.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The House will come to order. If there is going to be conversation carried on, perhaps it could be carried on in the halls. Perhaps we could be courteous enough to listen to the member now.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Well, that's all right. I'm used to government discourtesy.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I would point out to the minister, if he were here, because of the firings and the fact that the Forest Service is not able at this time to hire the people to administer these programs…. For example, it has been stated by the minister that in some areas 25 percent of the annual allowable cut in an area — in this particular area I'm talking about — would be given to the small operators. That has never happened, because it can't be administered. They don't have people to administer the program in this particular area. I'm going to save this material for estimates, but the fact is….

What I'm pointing out here is that it's another example of false economy perpetrated by this government. And the list goes on.

One last item for the Minister of Finance which I think is quite serious.

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell us who you're supporting for leader.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: You'll find out.

Mr. Speaker, I've just about concluded. I just want to get this one last item in. It has been brought to my attention over the last three months or so that approximately eight assessment offices will be closing throughout the province. I don't know why — restraint or whatever. The one assessment office which is located in Sechelt serves all of the Sunshine Coast, Powell River, Texada, that whole area, and we have a large number of appeals every year. This is going to force my constituents in those areas, if they can, through long distance telephone calls, which have the 7 percent tax on now, to phone some office, wherever it is located — Richmond, Vancouver, Abbotsford or wherever — making it almost impossible for my constituents to properly appeal their property assessments. So I'm asking the minister to give us a clear answer — to answer my correspondence, in fact — and give me assurances that that particular office in that large rural area will not be closed.

Last but not least, this is a very cynical budget. This kind of budget will not lead to recovery. I'm sure the people of this province will let you know that in due course.

The one example I can think of is when the Ministry of Human Resources receives a large increase in its budget. That is fine; we don't want people out there to starve. I have no objection to that. But wouldn't it be better, Mr. Speaker, if we have to borrow these large, large sums of money anyway, to borrow for job creation and not for welfare? I suggest to you that the majority of people I deal with who are forced to go on welfare would rather be working. It is a cynical budget, and I'm going to vote against it — maybe twice if I can.

HON. MR. HEWITT: It's a pleasure to rise, Mr. Speaker, for the first time in this first session of the thirty-third parliament of British Columbia. In doing so I would like to compliment you, sir, on your appointment as Deputy Speaker, and of course the Speaker, the Member for Delta (Hon. Mr. Davidson), on his appointment to that high office.

Before I get into the main theme of my speech, I would like to welcome both old and new members to this House. Interestingly enough, we have all the new ones here on this side, and we've sort of expanded into that area over there.

The latest member in our caucus and the last member to arrive, the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Parks), made an excellent speech in the House today — his first speech. I would like to compliment him on that and also to tell him that I appreciated his comments concerning my ministry. I can assure him that I will research what he has said. Hopefully working together, we can bring some assistance to the consumer through such organizations as the Better Business Bureau.

I am going to miss those who retired as well, the members who are no longer with us. I guess it's all right to mention their names in the House now. Mr. Williams, who was the Grey Owl of our caucus, is a gentleman who will long be remembered in this House and by the people of this province. Mr. Mussallem, the man from Dewdney who could always drink Fraser River water, was a great gentleman. We will miss him — a great Whip. Mr. Wolfe, our first Minister of Finance, I can remember in 1976, after the '75 election….

Interjections.

HON. MR. HEWITT: You know it's terrible when you get heckled by your own side.

When Mr. Wolfe stood up to make his first budget speech, the first words that came out of his mouth — and some of us remember that on this side — were "Mr. Spooker." If you will recall, he was a little nervous that day. And, in fairness, there's gentleman from the other side of the House who is no longer a member of this assembly, but who in his own way contributed a great deal. I was often impressed

[ Page 247 ]

by his eloquence. That was the former first member for Victoria, Mr. Barber, who, although I didn't agree with his philosophy, I must admit could speak in a very informed and impressive manner.

I also want to thank the people of Boundary-Similkameen, my constituency, for supporting me for the third time and bringing me back with a larger majority than ever.

I'm going to take a moment or two to read from the budget speech itself, because I think sometimes we in this House tend to get carried away and maybe not relate back to the speech. I want to put on the record some statements that were made which I think are important, and if nothing else my comments will be recorded in Hansard today for my constituents to read.

[5:30]

The Minister of Finance, speaking about tax dollars, said: "Each one of those dollars belongs, of course, not to the government but to the people of the province." We must remember that; we are only the administrators and custodians of the tax dollars. They are the people's dollars and we must be accountable for how they are spent.

Under "Economic Challenge" it's stated that in past times the public sought more containment and regulation of business decisions and governments responded, often too eagerly. Regulatory laws, commissions, tribunals and related government activities expanded into a tangled regulatory web, which began to envelop the economy." That is a failure of all governments today: they have tended to respond to minority demands, bringing in more regulations and commissions, literally throttling the economy to the point where we don't get the productivity that we should. We're moving out of that era, and thank goodness for that.

The budget speech went on to say: "In British Columbia today the public sector — federal, provincial and local — accounts for one of every four jobs." That has to be turned around, and this government is the one government leading Canada in making that turn to ensure that what we have out there is productivity and activity in the private sector, not ever-growing public-sector strength.

Under "The Budget Framework" the minister stated: "My overall fiscal objective is therefore to achieve a balance between the restraint which is essential for longer term recovery and the provision of funding to stimulate employment in the short term." He identified this budget as one which indicated restraint through to recovery, and I compliment him on that. He indicated that core social programs would be preserved. It's important to note that the budget before us today indicates that approximately 70 percent of that total budget has gone into people services: Human Resources, Education, Health, the Attorney-General's ministry, Universities, Science and Communications. Over 70 percent of the total expenditures has been earmarked for that sector of government. To refer back to my opening quote from this speech, the money to provide those services comes from the taxpayer, from the private sector, and we as government must ensure that the private sector is healthy and has the ability to expand and grow to provide those funds for services to people.

A final quote: "On a consolidated revenue fund basis, expenditure is estimated to exceed revenue by $1.603 million in 1983-84." For the record, that is after all the changes in policies, the reduction of programs and staff, etc. It's difficult, as I believe the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Hon. Mr. Schroeder) stated earlier, to live with that kind of deficit, but that is after all the hard measures this government has had to take in order to bring that budget within a realistic figure. Hopefully, as through our actions we assist the economy to recover, we'll be able the reduce that deficit, to pay that deficit off. We all know the economy moves in cycles, and it would be imperative to clean up that deficit position and end up in a balanced position before the next downturn in the economy, whenever that may come.

Moving from those quotes from the budget speech, May 5, 1983, was a private enterprise day for British Columbia. The silent majority spoke out. The Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) stated in her comments on the throne speech that through economic success we will have social success in this province and this country. The silent majority recognized that the collective "we" of socialism does not allow for individual opportunity. When ownership is gone, the only people who have the ability, and seem to do very well, are the leaders of those governments involved in the socialist sector.

That silent majority spoke out because they agreed with the statements made during the election campaign regarding industrial democracy. They agreed that employees should have the equal right to certify and an equal right to decertify. The NDP had a platform of policies that were weak, which were really meant to buy votes during the election campaign, not to lead a province. They were somewhat contradictory. I would like to quote a few for the record.

We can look back and remember the former member for Burnaby-Willingdon, Mr. Lorimer, who stood before the TV cameras and said: "Scrap ALRT." Within a few hours the Leader of the Opposition was saying: "Well, that isn't what we wanted to do. Mr. Lorimer was wrong." There was conflict in policies in the election campaign. Then we can look to Mr. Kanary singing in Omineca. I wish the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) were here, because he'd get a chuckle out of this. There was a chap by the name of Kanary who happened to be the NDP candidate in Omineca. He was waving around one set of mining policies while the Leader of the Opposition was meeting with the mining companies, giving them the other set of mining policies. Unfortunately, neither one agreed.

Then there was the classic during the campaign, when the NDP candidate in South Peace River was on the stage with the member for South Peace River (Hon. Mr. Phillips). I'm told that the NDP candidate got up and said: "Northeast coal is the greatest thing that's ever happened to South Peace River." He also said: "We tried, as the NDP, to negotiate a deal with Japan to put northeast coal into operation, and we couldn't do it." But the member for South Peace River, the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development, did it. He also went on to say that they got the best price for coal that could ever be negotiated with Japan; and the member for South Peace River did it. At the same time, the Leader of the Opposition was talking in Cranbrook about that terrible, great big hole in the Peace River country, and that we were giving the coal away. They couldn't get their act together. Interestingly enough, if I'm not mistaken our member for South Peace River was kind enough to use the NDP candidate's comments in his election commercials to show that he was supporting the gentleman from South Peace River, because he was right that the northeast coal development is one of the major economic developments in this province today.

[ Page 248 ]

Even in my riding the NDP candidate was going around to the candidates' rallies saying that this compensation stabilization program should be expanded, while at the same time the Leader of the Opposition was somewhere saying we should scrap the whole thing. That was the biggest mistake that he made, of course, during the election campaign. But it was interesting that even the candidate in my riding couldn't get together with the policies that the Leader of the Opposition was spouting throughout the province.

It's fair to say that the people of this province responded on election day. They acknowledged the leadership of the Premier of this province, how he dealt with constitutional matters, how he went back to Ottawa and dealt with the first ministers' conference and said restraint was the name of the game. We had to cut government spending. The people of this province recognized what the Premier was trying to do. They recognized that we had a problem in the economy, and they acknowledged the leadership of the Premier by supporting this party at the polls on May 5.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: They'll be in opposition forever.

HON. MR. HEWITT: The NDP will be in opposition forever. I think that's fair to say, Mr. Member.

The people of this province acknowledged the policies of this party as government, recognizing that tough measures had to be taken because of the economy, and they certainly recognized the need for restraint. They recognized that we couldn't buy or spend our way out of the recession, that we had to control those dollars that government administers on behalf of the taxpayers. And what did they do? Well, they returned us with an enlarged mandate. They gave us a message. They gave this government a message that said: "Get on with the job. We know it's going to be tough. We recognize that you're not giving us a free ride, but we're prepared to go with you provided you take some action." And we've taken that action with this budget, Mr. Speaker, and with the legislation that's been introduced in this House.

Just for the record, and for the opposition members who may think that it was a lucky break that this party got into power, I can remember when there were…. The campaign was on, and there were three ridings that they were telling the news media that they had in the bag. I can remember that the riding of Dewdney…. "Yes, we've got this one in the bag," and interestingly enough the silent majority spoke out, because when you look at the record of returns, Dewdney had the second or third largest turnout in this province — over 80 percent turnout. That's with a campaign that was run by the NDP leader — Mrs. Cocke — who went there and performed to make sure that they were going to win that riding. Yet the silent majority in Dewdney spoke out. "We've got Columbia River," they said. Interestingly enough, it had one of the largest turnouts in this province — 83 percent, I think Columbia River was. The silent majority spoke out and they went out to the polls and they said no to socialism. They said no to the NDP and they returned the member for Columbia River (Hon. Mr. Chabot). In Saanich and the Islands they said they had the riding of my good friend the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis). Isn't it strange that the silent majority spoke out? I think Saanich and the Islands had 80 percent or over 80 percent turnout at the polls. Those people in Saanich and the Islands said: "We want to have a government that can recognize the problems of today. We don't want a free ride. We want action."

Mr. Speaker, the people wanted us to perform. I think it's fair to say that the budget and the legislation that is being introduced responds to the mandate we were given on May 5. True, some of the decisions made in this budget are going to be difficult in the short term. I know because some of my employees will be affected to a great extent. But in taking those short-term moves we are dealing with areas that we feel are either no longer needed or are not suitable or cannot be afforded today. They may be useful; they may be desirable to some, but they are not essential. If we can deal with those items then we will benefit in the long term. As I say, my ministry has been affected to a great extent — probably more so than other ministries.

Let's deal with the rentalsman's office and the fact that it has been affected. That came into being in 1974 when there was a zero vacancy rate. Rent controls were there and they have been carried on, but you know and I know and I think the opposition must admit that economists around the world state that rent controls are detrimental to the housing markets and to the consumer as well, in the long run, because when you have control, the ceiling becomes the floor. It's an automatic thing. If the rent control is 4 percent, rents will go up 4 percent. If it's 5 percent or 10 percent, rents will go up accordingly because that ceiling becomes the floor. We have at this particular point in time, in the government's opinion, a window in time, because the economic downturn in this province has provided us with an opportunity to move from that detrimental policy of rent controls into a situation where the market will determine rents, not just at an arbitrary percentage deemed right by politicians. We've had that window in time. We have 3 percent-plus vacancy rates in Vancouver and in Victoria, so it is a renters' market, and they can shop around. We have between 5 and 15 percent vacancy rates in other parts of the province — an ideal opportunity to move out of rent control. It's a renters' market today. Landlords have to sharpen their pencils to ensure that they can fill those apartments that they've invested in. If they don't do that, if they think that they can keep charging higher rents, then the apartment dweller is going to look around for better accommodation at the same price or the same accommodation at a lesser price. So it is to his advantage. If that strategy works, as the recovery occurs — and I think the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Hon. Mr. Schroeder) said earlier, "Let us not always be in recovery" — developers, knowing that they won't be hamstrung by government and politicians saying, "Your rent increases will be arbitrarily set," will look to build new accommodation, and the competition of the marketplace will determine what price a person pays for an apartment. That's the way it should be. The marketplace should be allowed to work.

[5:45]

We were affected in consumer offices in my ministry — a desirable service to some, a useful service to others, but not an essential service. The legislation that we have in place hasn't changed. We still have a Trade Practice Act, a Motor Dealer Act, a Consumer Protection Act. We are the lawmakers. We determine the needs of the people. Both parties to a contract know whether they are within the law or outside of it. Since we have the legislation, does that necessarily mean that we must force government as a wedge in between the consumer and the retailer, the automobile dealer and the man who purchases the car? I say no. Let us have the law, but let the marketplace work, and if you break the law you pay the price. But let us not force ourselves between the two parties

[ Page 249 ]

to the contract. It's fair to say that over the years our consumer offices have provided a service whereby consumers have become aware of their rights, and merchants and retailers and car dealers have become aware of their obligations in the marketplace.

I feel very strongly that now is the time — that window in time — when we can step aside and let the marketplace work. We know that the legislation is in place, that both parties to the contract have the opportunity to say yes or no to a contract, that we have very capable organizations like the Better Business Bureau and the Consumers' Association of Canada out there that can work with consumers and retailers. We know those are out there, and we know that the consumer is far more educated because of the legislation that has been brought into place and because of the services that our facilities have provided. They've served the public well, Mr.

Speaker, but they are not an essential service. As I've said before, they're desirable to some and useful to others, but not essential. Now is the time when we must address ourselves to essential services in health, education and elsewhere, and look at how we can trim government to make it lean and efficient for the people of this province.

I would now like to move adjournment of this debate to the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:49 p.m.