[ Page 903 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

On the Budget

Mr. Mowat –– 903

Mr. Cocke –– 903

Mr. Campbell –– 907

Mr. Nicolson –– 911

Mr. Michael –– 914

THURSDAY, AUGUST 18, 1983

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

MR. MOWAT: It's my pleasure to introduce a very good friend of mine, Mr. Warren Brant. He is with Dale and Co. Ltd. and has come over to see this House in action. I ask the House to make him welcome.

Orders of the Day

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

MR. MOWAT: It's my pleasure to address the budget speech today and to talk about the budget. I've looked at the budget and I feel that it is dedicated to the financial accountability of this government, which is a government of the people. I also firmly believe that the commitment of the financial budget is the responsibility of the government through the Financial Administration Act, and I also believe that the budget brings us the principle of fairness. I think the government is very strongly committed to the role of supporting the private sector so that we can get the private initiative going. This will lead to permanent and rewarding jobs in our province and will help to build and secure a prosperous economic future for British Columbia and its citizens. We must get across and talk to the people about the signs of recovery. We note that the employment growth is already beginning to pick up, with 67,000 jobs created since January 1983.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

We think the compensation stabilization program introduced by this government last year has led to the start of the recovery across Canada, and particularly in this province. We note that within the budget we have an overall increase of 12 percent. The Ministry of Education has an increase of 7 percent, which will give a lot of funds to continue the educational programs and provide the educational services needed for the children of our province.

We also note that the Health Ministry is up 7 percent. The 7 percent increase in the Health budget will greatly assist in the provision of health care services for the citizens of our province, continuing the expansion of many of our hospitals, such as St. Paul's in the city of Vancouver and the new Shaughnessy Hospital complex on the Shaughnessy Hospital grounds.

Some of the most desirable programs I found in the budget are those under the Human Resources ministry. We will be increasing the Human Resources budget of $1,368 million. In these times of very difficult economic restraint, this is an increase of 13.9 percent. Many of our citizens out there are having difficult times when they can't find employment, and when their unemployment insurance runs out they have to look to the Ministry of Human Resources to receive the dollars to carry on with until they can find gainful employment. We are going to be spending a great deal of money in that area of Human Resources. Those three areas — Education at 7 percent, Health at 7 percent and Human Resources at 14 percent — are taking up the major portion of our increases in our budget.

The province of British Columbia was the first one into restraint. Our Premier could not find a seconder in February 1981, when he asked other governments across Canada to follow the lead of British Columbia in showing restraint. Consequently he had to come back, and this government started the Compensation Stabilization Act and the 6-and-5 program. We are now seeing signs of recovery.

One in four British Columbians were employed in 1982 in the public sector. They were employed by the taxpayers in either municipal, provincial or federal areas. We now see that we have to curb some of those areas; we have to be very restraint-minded with the number of people working in the public sector. In 1982 there were 146,854 British Columbians working in the health and education fields — they were not directly employed by the government. I think we must continue to practise our restraint program.

In 1982 we had a deficit of $1 billion. This year we have forecast a deficit of $1.6 billion. Those two deficits put together, totalling $2.6 billion, will have interest payments of $270 million for this year alone. That pays nothing back on the principal; that is for interest payments alone. If we continue deficit financing, which we're trying to get away from, we will continue to have increased interest payments each year. It's essential that the government of the province put on restraint and slow down this massive spending through deficit budgeting. Otherwise, we will be mortgaging our province, our children and grandchildren.

When we look at a budget of $8.4 billion, it's astonishing for a new back-bencher to see the kind of money we have the responsibility to handle. As a government, we must make sure that every penny is accounted for, and that it goes to help the citizens of our province.

I have reviewed the budget. We've had briefings with our Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), and I must say that I strongly support the budget. We must all work together — both sides of the House. This province is a wonderful province. It needs jobs now. The private sector must be stimulated. We must get the people back to work. The government has no funds of its own; it only receives funds from the taxpayers. When the taxpayers are not working, they cannot pay the taxes. I encourage all members of the House to support this budget very strongly, and I would thank you for this.

MR. COCKE: What a surprise! Here we are discussing the budget 29 or 30 days later. I welcome the fact that we are finally getting back to it. I believe we are now on day five of the budget debate that started on July 7, as I recall. In any event, the budget was put forward by this government that was talking restraint and giving us a budget with a 12.3 percent increase. I'm not complaining about some of the increases that are found within this budget. I'm just complaining about the rhetoric we keep hearing: the talk about firing one-quarter of the civil servants of the province of British Columbia; about how we must restrain government spending, at the same time putting forward a budget with a 12.3 percent increase. What, however, could we derive from that suggestion?

[10:15]

I charge, Mr. Speaker, that the revenues are underestimated and that the expenditures are overestimated. This makes this budget a document probably attracting the same amount of respect that every other budget we've seen from that Finance minister since he's been placed in that office has

[ Page 904 ]

garnered. Each time the budget has been totally out of whack. Now these have been tough times. But that doesn't indicate to me that people who are estimating for the politicians are in any way inhibited, except possibly for political reasons. Won't it be a surprise to everyone when we get to the end of this fiscal period and we find out that, lo and behold, the suggestion that we're going to be in the glue a billion and a half or more is not true.

MR. MOWAT: Good management.

MR. COCKE: Good management, my foot! That is already built into this document — the document that lies, the document that does not tell the truth. Why not come out and say that the deficit will be less, if that's in fact what the government plans? Why give us a document that does not show the kind of restraint that the rhetoric we keep hearing shows — the underestimation of revenues and the overestimation of expenditures?

This has been a wily trick. There are some people — as a matter of fact, one is coming in the door at the present time — who have been around here long enough to remember a chap by the name of W.A. C. Bennett, who consistently provided us with this kind of entertainment: overestimating and underestimating, and coming out smelling like a rose at the end of a fiscal period.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, that expert on everything will no doubt get up and give us his testimony in due course, but at the present time he cannot raise his voice in defence of this budget in what I'm saying other than to say that I'm likely wrong.

Interjections.

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

AN HON MEMBER: It's probably a sign.

MR. COCKE: It is a sign. But you'll note the one thing the light is not doing: it is not creating a halo around that member's head. All it is doing is emphasizing the fact that he's in his chair.

Interjection.

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

Mr. Speaker, there are one or two things I would like to talk about just before I get on to some of the things that have happened recently affecting a very large number of people in B.C. I want to talk about something that affects a very small number of people in our province directly: that is, this whole question of privatizing that has led the government to go wild with the notion to the extent that they're in the process of selling off Beautiful British Columbia magazine. That, as far as I'm concerned, is not only a shame but a shocking display of stupidity. No magazine in our province has ever had the effect that that magazine has had on tourism and on advertising the beauty of our province. Turn it over to private industry and it will be a conglomeration of cigarette and whisky ads in order to make it "profitable."

I contend, no matter what the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips).... Why he's selling it I have no idea, because it's the responsibility of the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Richmond). Their selling this magazine has to prove that they have totally lost sight of some of the good things occurring in our province as a result of the fact that people know our province all over the world. They're not going to get the readership with a bunch of Seagram's ads interspersed with the odd picture and the odd little squib about B.C.

That magazine has been totally dedicated to the promotion of our province. It has always been that people who once see it want to see the next edition, because not only is it beautiful but it tells the whole story, and it has told the whole story of B.C. for lo, these many years. It's a loss. No matter who takes it over, whether it's Maclean's or Evergreen, they will not do the kind of job that has been done by that little group down on Wharf Street, who have so ably put together a promotion package that has cost very little, and has gone worldwide. Mr. Speaker, what a shocking lack of understanding of the prestige that that magazine has provided this province.

I can remember that magazine, before I came to this chamber, as one that I used to pick up and look at, and it made me proud of my province. What's it going to be in the commercial field? I'll tell you what it's going to do. That magazine will not promote British Columbia; that magazine will promote every two-bit article you can think of, and not build B.C. What a lack of understanding, of knowledge about what's been going on.

Interjection.

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

Mr. Speaker, this tells me that we have a government totally out of control, totally without sensitivity, and totally without understanding of what they're doing to our province.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: I'm out of touch with reality? I hope that member for Surrey (Mrs. Johnston) stands in her place and defends the government's putting out to pasture one of the best promotion pieces ever devised in this country. I have been across the country many times, and in places other than the North American continent, and often you will hear people who have never been to B.C. say they'd like to come here to see some of the things they've seen in this promotion booklet. It's not the kind of piece that promotes a particular government enterprise, that promotes what the government is doing. It's the kind of magazine that promotes the beauty of B.C., and it does so in all comers of the earth.

I brought to your attention during the throne speech two copies of a magazine that's produced by the automobile association. One was produced immediately after the election, and none immediately before. I pointed out that just prior to the election, virtually half of that magazine had been used for promoting the government. I can see that when Beautiful B.C. is sold to private enterprise, the government will do the same thing again with that magazine. They can't now. It's a piece that promotes the entire province, and on that basis I suggest that they should see reason today to pull that magazine off the market and put it back where it belongs. The

[ Page 905 ]

Ministry of Tourism has so ably handled that magazine for a number of years. It's first class, and anybody who can argue that you should give up that magazine has to make some pretty specious arguments, in my opinion.

Forestalk is also being sold out, along with a number of other government magazines. Well, I’m not going champion them all. I think Forestalk has done a good job, but if you want to privatize it or do whatever you want to do, maybe you ought to do it. But not Beautiful B.C., because it's been the pride of the province. I'll tell you right now that previous Social Credit governments understood that, and previous Social Credit governments were never in any way tempted to get rid of this particular magazine. Who's it going to? I don't know. There are rumours of David Brown and other people being involved. I don't know. All I hear are rumours. I hear that we're very close to making a decision about the sale, and that worries me.

Let me read to you an editorial in the Victoria Times-Colonist: "If the provincial Tourism ministry's Beautiful British Columbia magazine was poorly read or a financial horror story, there might be some sense in the current rumour that the government is considering selling the magazine to private industry." It's no longer a rumour; it's official. "But Beautiful B.C. is neither. On the contrary, it's an outstandingly successful publication with the kind of circulation any publisher might envy and, more important, the tourist drawing power is of incalculable value."

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: The magazine's importance to B.C.'s tourist industry was emphasized in a two-page spread in the December 1981 issue of Tourism B.C. Newsletter. Tourism is booming today and has become B.C.'s third largest industry, the newsletter noted. The magazine, which has grown with the industry, now has a circulation of 450,000, with subscribers from almost every country in the world. The total readership per issue is estimated at 2.5 million. The magazine has the fifth largest circulation in Canada, behind only the likes of Macleans, TV Guide, Reader's Digest, Time and Chatelaine. It has the second largest regional publication in North America, behind only the publication Arizona Highways.

The newsletter gives a helpful breakdown of the magazine's worldwide readership. In any event, the government is obviously not taking this seriously. I thought the government House Leader would probably have enough sensitivity to appreciate what I am saying, but he doesn't have that sensitivity. Maybe I am fighting a lost cause, but let me tell you very clearly that if you do give it away, the day will come when another government in power will put that magazine back where it belongs — under government supervision and under the Ministry of Tourism.

[10:30]

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: No, it "ain't" going to be me, said the Forests Minister (Hon. Mr. Waterland) with his quaint little utilization of the English language. I was paraphrasing him just for the sake of Hansard.

Interjection.

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

I would like to comment about some reading that I have done in the last few months. Here is an order-in-council resume, for example, on the Environment and Land Use Committee, which was appointed on June 23. Actually these are resumes of June 3, 7, 10 and 13 of 1983. On the Environment and Land Use Committee are the Minister of Highways (Hon. A. Fraser), the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Schroeder), the Minister of the Environment (Hon. Mr. Brummet), the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Ritchie), and the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland). The Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Neilsen) is missing. I am not sure how much good that particular minister would do on the Environment and Land Use Committee, but I will say that that position should be maintained on the Environment and Land Use Committee.

The Minister of Health has far too much responsibility for the health of the people across the province, including environmental health, not to be on that committee. That is just a word to the wise. It will not be accepted, because they are not wise. Mr. Member, you have probably noted that in the time that you have been here.

I also look at all the changes in Treasury Board, and it makes me wonder what is happening. In any event that is their government, and they can do whatever they like.

I would like to touch on some little matters that I think we should be reminded of from time to time. This is a headline from the Vancouver Sun, dated April 9, 1983. It was my statement that was picked up by that paper, and by a number of other papers, and it talks about the fact that I charged, during the election campaign, that based on government documentation, there would be increases in user fees, and that the government, once elected, would implement that particular process. No less than the Premier and the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) suggested I was lying. No sooner were they elected, no sooner were they sworn into office than that's precisely what they did again to the people of our province. It was not only the indexing which would normally have taken place in any event, but they actually increased over and above the indexing, which means future indexing is based on a higher plateau than before.

Mr. Speaker, I claim that that government thrives on taxing the sick, the poor. Everything they do suggests that I'm quite right. The fee hike for the hospital user fee was 10.9 percent. That government preaches restraint, but restraint is never thought of in terms of their decisions on how to treat the people in our province. No restraint there. Increase fees, increase the cost of government services....

MR. REID: Increase the budget.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

MR. COCKE: If you believe that. Seven percent, possibly. Mr. Speaker, some day I'm going to give that member a lesson in common numbers — a little arithmetic.

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

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

[ Page 906 ]

You talk about increased governmental expenditure with respect to health care. I say that's absolute beeswax! This government takes credit for a $2.29 billion budget last year for health care. Let me tell you, of that $2.29 billion of that budget last year the federal government participated to the extent of $969 million. They got no credit, but that was their participation. Medicare premiums threw in another $200 million, so we already have over half being contributed from outside the provincial government's coffers — $969 million from the feds, $200 million from medicare premiums and roughly $150 million from diverse user fees, etc. Now it becomes bite-size, doesn't it? Not quite the budget or the expenditure that you would like the public to believe this philanthropic government is producing.

It's a lot of hogwash. What this government does, Mr. Speaker, is move in on every department of government where a human service is provided, and squeeze, squeeze, squeeze.

Interjection.

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

Back to the situation, Mr. Speaker. The budget is wide open, and I understand that; however, I was dealing with the fact that during the election campaign the Premier and the Minister of Health had the audacity to suggest that the papers I had shown publicly were not authentic, and that I personally was lying.

MRS. JOHNSTON: The election is over.

MR. COCKE: Yes, the election is over, and I now ask: what were they doing during that campaign? Immediately after that campaign they did in fact increase those fees across the board. It's not very kind or useful for me to get up now and make the statement that I am, but I must because I feel there may be somebody in that back bench with some kind of conscience. I say to that person, this is whom you're working with. Think about it just once. These are the people with whom you have associated, and in that association I don't think you can hold your head too high.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Sure, the election's over. There are others to come, I would hope, although the way we seem to be going in this province, one would wonder sometimes. But there will be elections in the future, and I hope the people of this province understand that this government is capable of lying. They have proved that they're capable of lying.

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

MR. LAUK: On that point of order. Mr. Speaker, it is long-held parliamentary practice to accuse, where supported by the evidence, a Social Credit Party or a government generally of falsehood. It is unparliamentary to accuse any individual member. There was nothing in the remarks of the hon. member who is speaking in this debate to focus on any individual member. The reason that I want to bring that carefully to your attention is that in the last two or three days when Your Honour has been in the chair you have on the mere intervention of an interrupter under standing orders allowed their objection to any kind of reference as an offence. I urge Your Honour to consider that only unparliamentary expressions focused on individual members entitle a member to ask the Chair to intervene.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I do think standing order 40 bears reading because it would certainly complement and correctly support the position taken by the hon. second member for Surrey. I'll quote it to you: " (1) No member shall speak disrespectfully of Her Majesty, nor of any of the Royal Family, nor of the Governor-General or person administrating the government of Canada, nor of the Lieutenant-Governor or person administrating the government of this province. (2) No member shall use offensive words against any member of this House.... .. Then it carries on about speaking beside the question in debate, etc. The position essentially taken by the member for Surrey is that there was a disrespectful statement about people administrating the government of the province, and he considered the words to be offensive and asked for withdrawal. He's perfectly correct in requesting withdrawal.

MR. LAUK: I thank the hon. House Leader for pointing out the actual standing order. It says: "...or person administrating the government of this province." That's precisely my point, and that's been held several....

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

MR. LAUK: No, the rule is clear. The hon. member for Surrey rose and said that they offended him. The standing order says: "No member shall use offensive words against any member of this House...." The key words are "against any member of this House," not that someone may find words offensive. I find the whole budget offensive. Are you going to order the government to withdraw it? The point is that under standing orders any words that offend a member that are stated against and concerning that member must not be used, nor any disrespectful language about a person administrating the government of this province.

By the way, that's really a reference to a high bureaucrat. It really doesn't mean anybody in this chamber. It's been interpreted to mean some high official, because this chamber takes care of disrespectful and unparliamentary language about individual members anyway.

[10:45]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I thank all hon. members who have spoken to this point of order. In my opinion, the reference as made, if it's made against a political party per se, is, under the rules, acceptable: but if there's any inference that it might have been made against those people who sit in government as that political party, I think it takes on a different aspect.

I would like, just for the information of hon. members, to read from Beauchesne, chapter 7, section 324. It says: "It is impossible to lay down any specific rules in regard to injurious reflections uttered in debate against particular members, or to declare beforehand what expressions are or are not contrary to order; much depends upon the tone and manner, and intention, of the person speaking...." And then in section 326, subsection 2, it says: "Words may not be used

[ Page 907 ]

hypothetically or conditionally if they are plainly intended to convey a direct imputation." Putting a hypothetical case is not the way to evade what would be, in itself, disorderly.

Hon. members, I think the debate has been going quite well up to this point. I had intended to remind members that the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) did have the floor. There were quite a number of interjections actually coming from both sides of the House. So I would like the hon. member to rise to his feet again, and we'll continue with the debate on the budget.

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

I'm going to quote from the Province for July 10. It's talking here about increased user fees: "He promised" — and we're talking about the Premier here — "explicitly in Cranbook on April 12 that it will not be our policy after May 5" — election day — "to raise user fees for hospitals and doctors services.' "

MR. LAUK: Who said that?

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

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

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

Then the fee hikes came: 10.9 percent — or up to $12.75 a day for hospitals — and a 150 percent increase for emergency and minor visits. I just bring that to your attention. I suggest to you that this is not the kind of behaviour that one would expect from a party that has governed this province for some length of time. I would just like everybody to know that I have noticed. I particularly want everybody to know that I have noticed because it was I who was explicitly pointed out during that campaign to be, in fact, misleading the people of this province.

MR. LAUK: You were accused of lying.

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

MRS. JOHNSTON: What were the figures you used?

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

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

MR. COCKE: Less than honest? Do you think that that report came from anybody's desk other than the minister? Come on! There would have been firings all through that ministry if it hadn't been actual policy. Of course it was policy, and it was proven to be policy after the election. Don' t give me that kind of stuff. Of course it was policy, and is policy, and that's all there is to it. Naturally they did not want it to become public during the campaign. There were a lot of other things they didn't want to make public during the campaign. A lot of the legislation that we see before us they didn't want to make public prior to that campaign.

What we have seen today in this budget is a budget that's anti-consumer, because they're closing down and reducing funding to consumer advocates and consumer organizations. It's anti-people-with-health-problems, because of what I've been talking about. It's anti-renter, because for budgetary purposes we're knocking off the rentalsman, etc. For that matter, they're also doing the landlord an injustice as well. I have talked to many landlords who have valued the intervention of the rentalsman in disputes.

Government's purpose is to provide services for people, to stand up for people. We're living in a very complex society. Why should we, just because somebody suggests it's not a great idea, put up with this service being dismantled? Services to children across the province — our total future, Mr. Speaker.... In that particular area, the most vulnerable of children are having services withdrawn. I'll tell you who is going to pay for that; we're all going to pay for that in the criminal justice system in the future. A stitch in time does save nine, and for us to turn our backs on those young children with a need for counselling and community support is most stupid. We're turning our backs on women in need, women who have been bashed around by a husband of unsound mind and have no transition house to go to, no one to lean on.

We've done some very stupid things. Here we are, a province suggesting that our third largest industry is tourism, and we say: "Tourists stay away, because we're going to tax your meals." Mr. Speaker, I see I'm out of time, but just one more word: another stupid move was getting rid of the motor vehicle inspection. It should have been expanded as opposed to being taken away.

MR. CAMPBELL: We're now speaking to the budget debate and the budget increase of 12.3 percent. It amazes and astounds me when I listen to the opposition complaining. Even after the cuts that we have put forward with the 12.3 percent, we still receive no cooperation from the opposition. They don't seem to understand that the revenues of the natural resources have dropped and the money is not there to spend. On one side they criticize us for increasing revenue, and on the other side they criticize us for increasing the deficit.

Human Resources has increased 13.9 percent, and yet we hear all this rhetoric about how this government is trying to oppress people. Imagine, in a time of restraint like this, with a 13.9 percent increase, the opposition feels this is oppressing people. As the people of this province listen to the news media and to what's going on in this House, I'm sure they must shake their heads and say: "What is going on down there? What is the opposition saying?" An increase of 13.9 percent and we're oppressing people! What kind of truth is this that they're trying to put forward? I don't know whether this is Victoria politics or whether they really believe this stuff. I don't believe that they can believe it, because I know these people are very intelligent. I know that they want to do what is right for the people of B.C., so I've got to believe that this is just politics being played.

We sit in this House day after day through the hoists, the tabling motions and the time wasted. It costs $20,000 a day to run the House. They're well prepared to spend this kind of money and to allow it to be wasted, and yet they say it isn't enough when we're paying 13.9 percent more to Human Resources. I say get on with the job down here and there'll be

[ Page 908 ]

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

When we look at Human Resources it's true there have been some cuts. Maybe there are people in this province who believe there should be some cuts. For instance, the Vancouver Women's Health Collective received a grant from the Ministry of Health for $119,654 in 1982-83, and the support is being discontinued on September 8, 1983.

Interjection.

MR. CAMPBELL: What did they do? I'm glad you asked that question, hon. member. This centre is run by an independent society which provides services for women such as birth control counselling, and, according to the Ministry of Labour women's section, provides a drop-in centre for lesbians. I think it's time this government took a look at where some....

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

MR. CAMPBELL: That's right, the taxpayers are paying for this. We don't want to sit here ruling on the morality of people, but surely that's their morality and not that of the taxpayers of the province. In my area most people don't want to pay taxes to support this. If these people wish to live like this, that is their business, but don't ask the taxpayers at large to contribute to this.

With the decrease in revenues the corporation tax from 1979-80 to 1983-84 is down 15.1 percent. As I talk to accountants in my area I say to them: "How are things in the business community? How are the people doing?" And they say: "Well, you know it's very tough." Of course we realize in government that it's very tough. Remember that taxes earned in 1981-82 are paid in 1982. Because of such a downturn in 1982, a lot of these companies are filing for refund in 1983. When they're filing for a refund, the government is in revenue in 1983 because they collect the taxes after they're earned.

There's one thing more that must be brought out here. Not only did these companies not earn money in 1982 — for instance, the ten major forest companies lost $665 million in 1982 — but they're also filing for refunds. That's like the man who went out to work in 1981 and got paid his salary, in 1982 he paid his tax, and in 1983 or the tail of 1982 he was laid off in the forest industry or the mining industry, or whatever is affected by the downturn. He's been told by his boss: "I'm sorry, there is no job for you. You're laid off." He said: "That's terrible." The boss said: "That's only half of it. We also want you to refund what we paid you last year." The man said: "How can this be? How can I refund what I've already spent?" That's my point: the government collected the taxes in 1982 on the income of the companies in 1981, and in 1983 part of that money is being refunded to these companies that lost all this money in 1982 because of the downturn in the economy.

[11:00]

I don't know if the opposition realize the seriousness. They keep on talking frivolous talk as if they were opposed to everything. This is serious. One-point-six billion dollars is serious. It's time that this Legislature realized that, took these actions and got on with the job of doing the government's business that needs to be done and that the public out there wants us to do.

The natural resource revenue dropped 24.5 percent. That's a fact of life. We have to recognize this; we have to be responsible people here, and we have to take this into consideration when the budget is being drawn up. We have to act responsibly, and I would call on the opposition to act responsibly and get on with the job.

Our forest industry revenue dropped 51.2 percent last year.

HON. MR. GARDOM: How much?

MR. CAMPBELL: It dropped in half: 51.2 percent. Yet during the campaign we heard the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) say he would dismantle the stabilization program so that costs could increase. Open the floodgates, hon. member. Imagine opening the floodgates and letting the costs increase when the revenue has dropped in half. What kind of a responsible opposition would talk like this? I'm astounded at this type of thinking. I know they don't think this way. This is strictly political talk. This is rhetoric that they're feeding to the media because it sounds good and makes them look good, but surely they don't believe this. We know they don't because, as I said earlier, they're very intelligent people, and they know better than this.

The rentalsman's office will be discontinued. That is true. The rentalsman's office offered a short-term benefit to people because of the rent controls back in the early time when there were very few apartments, and there was a shortage. The rent controls also aggravated this problem and stopped the investors from investing. Why would people invest in housing if it doesn't pay enough return to pay the payments to the mortgage companies they have to mortgage to to invest? Most of the landlords are reasonable people like you and I, like the opposition. Yes, I have to go that far because I do believe these people are reasonable people. I believe they've been caught up in this rhetoric in the media, and they've been sold on this idea. But they're not unreasonable people. I believe within a very few days they're going to realize this. They're going to say: "This is not the way the government.... We're not the ones that will have spent $20,000 a day extra in this Legislature." We're going to pass this legislation. We're going to do what they know that we as a government have to do.

In the marketplace of apartments, the only way we're going to have more apartments built is when the return on investment is there. Subsidized housing is paid for at the expense of the taxpayers of the province. I believe that most people in B.C. realize that they have a responsibility to look after themselves. That responsibility is to provide housing for their wives and children or their husbands, if it may be that it's the lady who's working, and to provide food for their families. That's a basic responsibility of everybody in Canada, as well as B.C. The people are prepared. I believe that if the government keeps out of the marketplace, they will provide that.

Interjection.

MR. CAMPBELL: That's right. The people out there want to be able to provide for themselves. The people in B.C. are hard-working people, and they want to provide for themselves. But because the government has got involved in the

[ Page 909 ]

marketplace so many times, it has destroyed the initiative of the people, so today they don't know what they should be doing. This government has to get out of the marketplace so that these people can provide for themselves.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The new apartments that are going up are not under rent control. We hear them saying that if they're not under rent control, it has nothing to do with the rentalsman. It does have something to do with the rentalsman. If their rents are too high because of the increased cost of building, of money, etc.... They have to have a return. If their rent is above what some of the others are, they simply become holding tanks for the people who move in there for two, three or six months until they can move into a place covered by the rentalsman, where the man cannot show a rate of return and is locked into that.

Mr. Speaker, if you have been to New York you will have seen blocks and blocks of apartments with stores in the bottom and apartments on top. I was there three years ago. As I drove in a cab down to the centre of New York, I was utterly amazed at all the burnt-out premises. I said to the cab driver: "How come these premises are burnt out like this?" He said: "Well, we made a mistake here. We implemented rent controls. As the rent controls were implemented, the people couldn't pay for their apartment buildings. The cost escalated on one side but the rents were fixed." What did they do? They let the places deteriorate because they had no alternative. That was not a benefit or an asset to the landlord or the tenant. Surely the tenants are entitled to reasonable premises that the landlord can keep up to the rents they are paying. But when his rent is frozen, he cannot upgrade his premises. As they became further locked into this socialistic approach, the landlords couldn't pay the taxes any more. After a while, through unknown causes, there were fires in these apartments, and they were gutted. The man was trying to recover a portion of his money. He says that the tenants may have set them; they say the landlord. Who knows? I was only through there on a tour. The buildings remain standing, gutted, empty. This is of no benefit to the city, because it can't collect the taxes; it is of no benefit to the tenant who needs the premises to live in; and it is certainly no incentive to the investor to invest his money there.

AN HON. MEMBER: Everybody lost.

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

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Any time the marketplace is stifled, the people who invest the money.... That's not the rich people. It's the working people who have their money in pension funds and the union people who have their money in pension funds; the widows with $1,000, $2,000 or $5,000 in stocks or bonds, as a nest-egg against their retirement. These are the people who are being destroyed through this.

When we talk about looking after people, surely the people who have invested their pensions, who have worked many years, are entitled to some protection against this type of treatment. It's a farce to suggest that this is all being done by the so-called rich people — "them people," "them guys." Who are these mysterious "them guys"?

Last night I was talking to a gentleman from the Aluminium Co. of Canada. He said that 8.5 percent of their stock is owned by a pension fund out of Quebec. Those hard-working people put their money into pension funds for their retirement. These are the people who invest the money. They are the people who own the corporation. Who owns the corporation? Every person who wishes to go out and spend $500 or $1,000 or $2,000. The hon. members across the way, with their pensions. Good for them. We need their money and we need the socialists' money. We need to invest the money of the working people in this province, so there can be production and jobs created. That's great that they're putting their money up there.

When the testing stations were being eliminated, the hue and cry went up. There have never been any testing stations in Okanagan North. The people of Okanagan North know how to look after themselves. I suggest that the people on the coast and in the lower mainland also want to look after themselves. We have to give them the opportunity to do this. When these testing stations are closed, these people will go to the private sector, where they had to go, anyway, to get their vehicles fixed.

There are a great many things in this budget. When we see that the tax that small business people pay on equipment has been eliminated.... Some 15,000 businesses won't pay taxes on equipment. Mr. Speaker, these people are finally being given a break. The small business people have felt this crunch in the last two years, when the government has still kept on spending money and the private sector has been cut back and cut back. There has been a decrease in employment because they simply didn't have the money. They simply were not showing a profit. That's why they couldn't pay their taxes. That's why they had to lay off some of their people.

We look at the school budgets, and the hon. member from Prince George, who is bringing in the new program for the schools — a great program.... He's bringing it in, and he's increased their budget by 7 percent. The education system is being looked after, and still we hear the cries about how they're being strangled. He has asked them to cut back the student-teacher ratio to 1976 levels. In all the years previous to that, when all these people here got their education, I don't believe they suffered. I think most of the people.... I don't think they'll suffer after this change. As far as trying to muzzle local school boards, that's not true, and the opposition know it's not true. The only place they can't move the money into is into administration. They can move within the other.... They can move it out of administration.

Mr. Speaker, are we a government that wants to build palaces of administration, or are we a government that wants to provide services to the people out there? The people out there who are working in the marketplace, the people who are paying the taxes to run these school boards — those are the people out there who are working and who are providing the tax money to run these systems. They're entitled to some guidance from Victoria so that the administration of some of these places can be trimmed back to a reasonable level, where it should have been in the first place. It never should have got out of a reasonable level. But because we went through good times, the governments of the day perhaps had money to provide a little extra service. Wanting to provide a better service to the public, we perhaps all got caught up in this. But

[ Page 910 ]

we have to realize that times have changed. The revenues have dropped. As the revenues have dropped so much, we cut our expenses like we would in the home.

I believe that every hon. member sitting across there, if their income dropped by $5,000 or by $8,000.... I don't believe they'd go out and keep on spending like they have in the past. I don't believe that for a second, because these are very intelligent people and they understand that you don't spend more than you make. The people of my area understand that, the people of this area understand that, and I believe all the opposition members understand that. But because it's politically expedient they tell a different story. That is the problem we have here today.

During the election it was stated many times that there was going to be downsizing of the government. This is nothing new that has come out after the budget. This was the whole thrust of the election: restraint and a downsizing of government. To try and suggest that this came out after the election, to suggest that this came out in the budget and that the people didn't know about it.... I'd suggest that is not true. That's why the people voted for Social Credit, because they wanted a downsizing of government. They knew they had to have a downsizing of government, because they can't afford what we've got here today. They can't afford it. The people in the galleries know that, Mr. Speaker. They know that they can only pay so much in taxes and that they're paying to the limit now. The limit is not enough. The limit is still 19 percent short of enough to balance the budget. It's still short. Even after all the taxes they're paying, it still isn't enough to provide the services that this government is providing today.

That's the story that we have to tell them. We're not proud of this deficit, Mr. Speaker. I'm sure every member on this side of the House would like to see a balanced budget. But we also have to act responsibly.

[11:15]

MR. BLENCOE: Fire the child-care workers!

MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, this member for Victoria keeps on nattering away today as he's done many days in the past. That's why this House goes on day after day at $20,000 a day, $100,000 a week, of taxpayers' money wasted. I'm sure these great people in the gallery up here, as they sit and look down upon this and hear that rhetoric going on over there, say: "Are those the people we've got sitting down in Victoria representing...wasting this kind of money?" I'm glad the galleries are.... We've got a lot of people in here today. I'm glad when the people come here to watch the goings on in this House so that they can go back to their constituencies and say: "I couldn't believe it. I can't believe what the opposition is trying to do down there, stalling that good legislation day after day after day. They keep on and on and on." Mr. Speaker, they're looking for headlines in the media. If they've got the headlines in the media they feel they've got their twenty-thousand dollars' worth that day. But the taxpayers up there don't feel they've got twenty-thousand dollars' worth. The people up there and the taxpayers out there don't feel they've got their money's worth. When I go back to my constituency, they say: "How long is this farce going to go on down there?" I say: "Listen ,the government opens the debate, the opposition closes it.': Who knows how long they're going to go on with this?

Interjections.

MR. CAMPBELL: It's all right, Mr. Speaker; I don't mind them heckling me. They can only sit and listen to these facts so long, and then they get nervous. They get concerned. They can't sit still anymore. Then they start jumping and heckling. But it's all right, don't worry about them. I don't mind them heckling me. I don't mind them at all. It's quite all right. Go ahead.

I would like to ask members of this opposition to reconsider their position and reconsider what they're doing in this House. Take another look at this budget. Seriously look at it and say: "If we were in government" — which they haven't been, and if they carry on like this they will not be — "what would we do? Would we raise money or would we borrow it?"

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on!

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

MR. HANSON: Just like you're doing.

MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, we saw that going on in Ottawa; they keep on borrowing — it's $30 billion this year. The hon. member says: "Just like we do." Yes, we're going to have borrow $1.6 billion, and I say shame on us that we can't balance the budget. But because we have a conscience and compassion for the people out there, we know that we do have to provide services for them during this time of restraint. We have compassion, and so we have to take a look at it and say: "Do we run a deficit for a year or two until our revenues pick up so that we can show compassion to the taxpayers of this province, the people who are out there and who have aspirations in this province?" After weighing both sides, we have taken the least of the two evils and we've said: "Yes, we'll have to run that deficit." But we're not proud of it.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Shame on us.

MR. CAMPBELL: Right. We hope that with the upturn in the economy coming — with the upturn already in progress, Mr. Speaker — it won't be long until we have enough revenue to balance.... Then we'll have the funds to provide even more services to our people, and we won't have the debt that we have to pay interest on. That's what good government's all about.

Mr. Speaker, in closing I would ask the members of the opposition, once more, to reconsider their position. Look at this budget and say: "Yes, the government has to do this. The government has to trim back a little bit so that government deficits don't become too large." They know that we're going to have pay interest. They know that the taxpayers in their constituency are going to have to pay the interest on this just like all the taxpayers who are sitting up in the gallery have to pay interest on this money. They don't want to pay interest on it any more than any of sitting down here, but I'm sure they realize the government has an obligation to provide some measure of security to the people out there. They have compassion for the people out there who are less fortunate. That's why we're running the deficit.

MR. BLENCOE: How much do human rights cost?

[ Page 911 ]

MR. CAMPBELL: The man asks how much human rights cost. A lot more than the people who are out there and the labour that's being spent.... It's the people who are being harassed; it's the Hunky Bills. It's the Hunky Bills who put in time in the courts for the frivolousness that some of the cases Human Rights provided.... How much did it cost, Mr. Speaker, for the aggravation of some of the people who took claims in there and waited five or six years to get their claims heard? I don't know how you put a cost on the anguish that has been dealt to these people. Maybe the opposition can put a cost on it, but on this side I don't see how we can put a cost on the anguish that has been inflicted on some of these people.

MR. NICOLSON: We certainly know now — as we always know fresh after an election — where this government stands. It is only in the months and maybe the year leading up to an election that this government hides like the lowest form of fauna under a rock, and won't come out with where they stand. That is when they hide. Now, flushed with victory, after once again having used deception, a party that has lied, a party that has deceived, a party that has done absolutely nothing to be upfront with the people about their policies....

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

MR. SEGARTY: The second member from Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) has again shouted across the floor that our government didn't tell the truth to the people of British Columbia. I find that remark personally offensive, and I would ask the member to withdraw it.

MR. SPEAKER: The member has been ask to withdraw. The Chair cannot insist because it cannot find that the remark in itself is offensive under the definition. Nevertheless, one hon. member has asked another hon. member if he would withdraw a remark. I would ask if the member, in keeping with some of the traditions of this chamber, would so do.

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

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

MR. SEGARTY: On the same point of order, it is a tradition in this House that when an hon. member finds a remark of another hon. member personally offensive, the hon. member withdraw that remark. I would ask that the member withdraw the remark.

MR. SPEAKER: Notwithstanding the offence taken by one member to another, the Chair can only rule when such matters are of an unparliamentary nature. I regret, in this case, that the Chair cannot so rule. Offences taken against a party are one thing; offences taken against a member of this chamber, specifically, are another. On the latter the Chair may rule, on the former the Chair may not.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Shame!

MR. ROSE: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, I agree with your ruling. If, for instance, the member from Victoria had described the member for Kootenay as being intelligent and the member for Kootenay found that offensive, and asked him to withdraw, would that be a point of order?

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

MR. NICOLSON: I am sure the member wouldn't have found the word intelligent offensive. He might have found "intellectual" offensive, but not "intelligent." The member and the government are now saying that parliament and democracy are a waste of time. The institution of parliament might be a cumbersome instrument, it might often miss the mark, but there are people who are willing to give up their lives this very day in countries in Central America to strive for some form of democratic representation. There are 14-year-old children caught up actively as participants in this struggle in countries like El Salvador. A member from the Ottawa press gallery who was visiting here, a former editor of one of the Victoria daily papers, related to me the kind of price that is being paid in that struggle, where he went out on the death count in the morning and saw a young, pregnant woman who had been crucified to a piece of plywood and was disembowelled, caught up in that kind of a struggle. My goodness, you don't have to pay a very great price to sit here and listen to some debate and have a government held accountable for actions that are placing thousands and thousands of people out of work, but more importantly, are creating the wrong economic climate in this province.

This budget is based not on Reaganomics, not on Keynesian economics, not on monetarism, not on Friedman economics or any other type of economics other than something that was tried in the 1830s in Britain and found wanting: laissez-faire economics. Yes, it was popular in 1830 to say that no government was good government. It was H.L. Mencken who said that for every problem there is a solution which is simple, neat, plausible and wrong.

This is a government of clichés, but one with no fundamental understanding. Most people knowledgeable in economics, whether they be in the conservative camp or in the left-wing camp, are looking for a consumer-led recovery at this point. There's a very fragile balance. But this kind of a budget just kicks the slats out of a consumer-led recovery.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

A few areas of business were relatively unaffected by the recession. People talk about recovery, as if recovery has already started. If you're going to look at every little dip, every peak and valley on this road to recovery, it's very difficult to say even today whether we have bottomed out, whether we have seen the worst. One thing that everyone is agreed upon is that recovery is very fragile, if it's taking place at all, and that draconian measures such as this destroy confidence in this province. The people who do have secure jobs are scared, afraid to make investments and to put people to work. Last winter I took about $10,000 of personal savings and created my own winter-works project. I didn't get any government grants for it either; I may or may not have qualified, but I didn't apply for any. I had a construction project done on my home — I built a large garage and shop — and put money into the economy. That is the kind of thing we've got to encourage in this province, and we are not

[ Page 912 ]

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

[11:30]

I spoke the other day about the value that some people place on democratic government, and about the courageous action of King Juan Carlos I of Spain in standing up to the military junta that marched into parliament with pistols held up. I was shocked yesterday by the cavalier attitude that the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith) of this province took toward French-Canadian migrant workers — a child has a broken collarbone after having the boots put to him. Mr. Speaker, this budget is the dismantling of human rights in this province, and we now have the example of a newspaper editorial which actually encouraged and abetted that kind of hooliganism and racism. Except we're all the same race, I believe; I think the French.... Well, we're not all the same race, are we? We're a very mixed bunch of people in British Columbia and in Canada. But I understand that the people involved in that conflict were of the same race; I believe they were all Caucasians. But still it was racism, as most people would understand racism. These are the things that we are giving up, and that some people are willing to give up so lightly.

This budget has some notable omissions. It claims there are going to be tremendous cutbacks. We've been told there will be a 25 percent reduction in the public service. I see that this would happen sometime. It's already happening, and this budget runs until next March 31. Yet when one looks at the salary estimates in the budget, one finds they're pretty close to a zero growth position. Some of the big ticket items, like the Ministry of the Attorney-General, have a 1.6 percent increase in the allowance for salaries. In another ministry of almost equal size, Forests, there's a 6.1 percent decrease; in Health, the largest of all, a 1.2 percent increase; and in the Ministry of Human Resources, now the third largest employer in terms of salaries, a 1.4 percent increase. If we're going to cut back the number of public servants by 25 percent — and of course I realize that we're halfway through the budget year — how is it that this is not reflected in the budget in terms of allowances for salaries?

I agree wholeheartedly with my colleague from New Westminster that this budget is not upfront. Last year when I called the budget dishonest the author, the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), got up in high dudgeon and said it was the most honest budget ever been brought into the province. Well, that budget was a budget for a balance. What happened? Now, by the words of the second member for Vancouver-Little Mountain (Mr. Mowat), that budget of last year led to a $1 billion deficit, and this year we're budgeting again for $1.6 billion.

But these things didn't happen just overnight. This has been going on for some time. To suddenly discover that we are in debt in this province is very ironic to me. The New Democratic Party has been pointing out the growth of certain areas.

In the 1979 election I warned the people in my riding that if the Social Credit Party was elected they had secret plans to reorganize the Ministry of Forests. I predicted that it would become top-heavy, bureaucratic, ineffective and very expensive. My warnings were borne out when there was a massive upward movement in terms of reappointments as a result of that reorganization.

The most telling thing about that reorganization — and this is something that those back-benchers should listen to — was that three budgets ago the budget to put a roof over the head of the Ministry of Forests was $3.5 million. In one year after reorganization that amount rose to $10.5 million. Just imagine, a 300 percent increase in one year, and that wasn't enough. Even I, this suspicious member, thought that they had padded the budget that year; but no, they managed to spend that 300 percent increase in that one budget item, and the next year they submitted a budget of $19.5 million. Only this year has that figure ceased to grow at such an alarming rate. This year it's only up another $400,000, to $19.9 million; you might as well say $20 million. So in three short years the cost of putting a roof over the Ministry of Forests has risen from $3.5 million to $20 million. That's why you're in financial trouble over there. You have to look at $5, $10 or $20 million at a time. You've got to look through the budget and look back to see where you went wrong.

Government is contracting out all kinds of services which were formerly done by people hired within the ministry of public works. I know that in my area boilers that simply needed an O-ring replaced were improperly handled and led to having to replace a whole new heating system. It's leading to thousands and thousands of dollars in repairs, because you don't have the hands-on day-to-day maintenance that we had in the old Public Works system. Talk to anybody who works in government buildings, and they can relate their own stories. You don't have to go to Nelson. I'm sure if you go to Revelstoke, Salmon Arm, Vernon or wherever, the same kind of story will be told. What is the price now? I agree that certain things should be contracted out — quite often renovations and so on. You can get very good competitive bids from good contractors. But these long-term contracts for maintenance tend to create an even worse type of bureaucracy than the one that we seek to remedy by contracting out to the so-called private sector. It's not a private sector. It's a pseudoprivate sector that you have contracted out a lot of this to. But it is an area that is open to abuse, patronage, overpayments and people looking aside and not even questioning the quality of the work that is being done. These are the things that have led us to this sad and sorry situation.

As I say, it didn't happen overnight. The symptoms of this disease with which we are faced today were sown when the present Minister of Finance took over from the previous Minister of Finance, Mr. Evan Wolfe, a long-time member of this House. When he took over in 1979-80 we had a closing balance of $1,961,000,000 in this province. We had almost $2 billion in this province in terms of special purpose funds and cash in the bank. It was divided almost evenly with almost $1 billion of each. In 1980-81, while I think the minister budgeted for a surplus, there was actually a deficit in terms of net revenue. We spent $256.7 million more than we collected in revenue in this province. We dipped into some special purpose funds. We dipped into the bank account, and we reduced the closing balance to $1,703,000,000.

Mr. Speaker, the next year, 1981-82, was a very good budget year. But even then we managed to spend $184 million more than we collected in revenue. That left us with a closing balance now down to $1,520,000,000. As the second member for Vancouver-Little Mountain (Mr. Mowat) pointed out, in 1982-83 we spent $978.2 million more, and we reduced our balance of liquid assets from $500 million to $542.1 million. If the current budget forecast holds true, at the end of this fiscal year, March 31, 1984, we will be in deficit in the closing balance by $1, 060,900,000.

[ Page 913 ]

This is not something that suddenly came up. It is not something that was not predicted. If the hon. members opposite would read the speeches of the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) in reply to the budget, going back to those budgets of 1981-82, they would see that the caution was sounded, but it was not heeded. This has always been an arrogant group. The only time this group ever tries to show some humility is close to an election, and then they revert to their ways. This government has been great at closing down businesses, closing down towns. The Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) should be called the minister for ghost towns. He has created a ghost town at Ocean Falls. Lord knows he's tried to create ghost towns in Nelson and Creston, but the people there, with a little bit of luck and a lot of determination, have managed to fend off some of those things. I participated in a committee that sought to get our major industry reopened, and I think we were finally successful. B.C. Resources Investment Corporation had virtually abandoned the city of Nelson. Today, as a result of the committee in which I participated — and, I might say, that Mr. Howard Dirks, the Social Credit candidate in the last election, also participated as nominee from the city of Nelson — and not because of anything this government did, we managed to salvage some of the jobs at Kootenay Forest Products.

[11:45]

This government has abandoned employment bases all over the province, including Ocean Falls and Nelson. They've turned their backs on communities like Port Alberni. They've turned their backs on many things. We talk about going out and creating employment by creating employment where there is an investment. If you go out and spend money doing some silviculture treatment, can't you capitalize the value of that silviculture treatment? Couldn't that be put into the books? I'll tell you, it would be a lot better on the books of this province than the debt of the B.C. Railway, which will never be able to pay off its debt. That's put down. We put down as assets many necessary Crown corporations, but to view some of these things as assets is absolutely insane.

It was interesting to hear the member for North Okanagan (Mr. Campbell) say something to the effect that government has to get out of the marketplace. This government has gotten into maybe the second largest marketplace in the whole province. This government has gotten in not ankle deep, not knee deep, not hip deep, but this government has gotten us in so deep that we are drowning in debt due to the northeast coal agreement. This government has invested $1.5 billion to create 1,500 coal-mining jobs. That works out to $1 million a job, and yet I see the headlines in my papers about the southeastern comer of the province where the Balmer mine has shut down and we've lost 400 coal-mining jobs. So we haven't created 1,500 jobs; we've only created 1,100 jobs.

Then I see that there are further cutbacks. I see that the Japanese are negotiating cutbacks not only in price but in volume. We're losing even further coal-mining jobs, so all we've done is displace jobs from one place to another. The northeast coal project may very well be spending $1.5 billion to create no net jobs at all. But let's give them the benefit of the doubt: $1 million to create one coal-mining job. Of course there are service jobs that follow from it. I realize that the coal has to be taken to a port on a railway, and handled at the port. But we're talking about something that could be going on in other parts of the province, without government interference. I think this government has interfered in the marketplace on a scale that no government in the western world would have contemplated — the proportions of this interference and the price we're paying. Then we see $450 million now being borrowed — the government has approved it — for the British Columbia Railway.

From the minister's own admission, we know that the extra fee being paid by the Japanese for the transportation of coal won't cover the cost; it will never pay for the railway. By the minister's own figures, we know that instead of shipping 7.7 million metric tonnes, it will take more than 18 million metric tonnes; so we'll have to triple the amount. If we read B.C. Business Magazine or many of the other journals in this province — which if not totally independent are possibly biased towards the government — we know that there isn't a hope of that kind of market take-up; if there is, we already have the capacity to supply that market increase from southeast coal.

This government has gotten into government enterprise in a larger way than the previous NDP government with its socialist philosophy ever dreamed of doing. We were interested in creating jobs, and seeing people continue in their employment.

Something else these members opposite should look at is the economic analysis of the budget. Don't just read the budget; read what the B.C. Central Credit Union has to say about the budget. One thing they show is the debt as a percentage of gross provincial product. Guess in what years debt dropped as a percentage of gross provincial product. It almost went out of sight. It dropped down in percentage terms in 1972 from about 27.4 percent to about 26.6, and by 1975, when we left office, it had dropped down below 22 percent. Since that time....

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: We didn't have to loan money, and we never had trouble getting money if we did need it. But unlike....

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: I have an interjection from the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Brummet). Mr. Speaker, one is tempted. But I'm not going to go back in comparing....

By 1975 it had dropped down to below 22 percent, but in 1976 it jumped up to 24 percent, and there has been a rise and now in 1983 we're right back where we were in 1971 before the NDP government brought in sound fiscal policies. That's why we're in trouble in this province.

This government has done all kinds of things to hide the real cost of government. They've sold off the ferries. If we kept books in this province by any reasonable accounting practices.... You always notice in an auditor's report that the auditing has been done on a basis comparable with the previous year's audit. But this government has changed the bookkeeping method every year. You can't compare the budget today to what it was in 1975 because in 1975 we paid for things like ferries and new government buildings out of current revenues. This government sells off the ferries, recovers that money and calls it income when it isn't really income — when they're incurring a debt. They do it by a leasing system, which means that all they have to do is pay the interest but not carry the capital of the debt on the books of

[ Page 914 ]

the province. They've mortgaged the buildings of this province. Now they are doing the same thing with the buses. I noticed the other day that they are now leasing buses instead of paying for them. Well, you know, there's a price that has to be paid. It's just like going out with a credit card. This government is an irresponsible user of a credit card. Only this credit card obviously has a credit rating up to of about $16 billion, because that's where we're going to end up in this province at the end of this year. We're going to be in debt $16 billion. It took this province over one hundred years, from Confederation until 1975, to accumulate a debt through many different governments — Conservative, Liberal, Social Credit and NDP — of $4 billion, but this government has quadrupled the debt since 1976.

That's why now you not only want to kill the services that you have in this province.... You feel that there is only one way of balancing this budget and that is to cut down expenditures. We've proposed cutting down certain expenditures — Lord knows we have.

MR. KEMPF: Which ones?

MR. NICOLSON: You were here; you know what we proposed. We proposed cutting back on office furniture expenses. Obviously we were right, because this year you finally did cut back on office furniture expenses. You cut back on it in your budget this year by 54 percent, but we said you should have done it years ago.

We said you could cut back on government advertising. Lord knows, it's immoral to have political advertising paid for. I certainly, as a New Democrat, very much resent, as do thousands and thousands of British Columbians, having to pay for Social Credit advertising just because Social Credit happens to be the government of the day. We saw false advertising. We saw them talking about creating thousands of day-care centres or placements. When it all came out, it was something like 16, or 300, or whatever, but it was certainly off the mark by thousands and thousands.

The government is in trouble because it has only one solution. It has no imagination and can only look at cutting back on government expenditures, some of which are very productive, in terms of both providing very necessary service and feeding the economy. It's been proven time and time again that money spent in health care has the most stimulative effect on the economy for government money. But that isn't the direction we see this government taking.

Mr. Speaker, this government is not looking at ways of increasing government revenue. Their only way of increasing government revenue is to bring in some counter-productive tax measures — like putting 7 percent taxes on restaurant meals. I'll tell you that most people I know are avoiding meals over $7 when they go to a restaurant. I'll tell you that most people....

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, I don't come from a big enough city to have a McDonald's. We don't have a

McDonald's in Nelson-Creston. We have good, local free-enterprise — not international chains sucking the money out of this province and taking their profits and reinvesting them elsewhere. We've got local free-enterprisers in my neck of the woods who run their enterprises. We don't need McDonald's. We've got dammed good nutritious food, and until this government brought in its draconian measures, it was affordable.

This government is driving away tourists. This government is placing a tax on long-distance telephone calls so that people can't phone their mothers as often as they used to do.

MRS. WALLACE: They're against motherhood.

MR. NICOLSON: That's right. This government is against motherhood. Well, this government has never thought, in all of their planning, about stimulating the economy of British Columbia. They have even disregarded the very negative effect of this whole budget, and that's why one can't support it.

One of the things pointed out by the B.C. Central Credit Union is the fact that the budget failed to provide forecasts on B.C.'s unemployment. This is a pretty weak document that really doesn't look at the future, set a plan, or provide a platform upon which we can start to rebuild this province. No, it is a retrenchment to nineteenth century and early nineteenth century laissez-faire capitalism. That was the thinking of the Liberal Party of the day, Mr. Speaker, that brought that in. It failed. And I can say that the countries that are succeeding right now are the countries that have planned economics. The countries that have weathered this economic storm the best are mostly led by democratic socialist governments. These governments....

Interjection.

[12:00]

MR. NICOLSON: Well, Austria, yes. I.... Sweden bounced out the Socreds after a six-year flirtation with them. Australia has bounced out the Socreds after a six-year flirtation with them. I hope that British Columbia, after maybe a 10- or 12-year flirtation, will do the same.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that if the members opposite don't vote against this budget they will at least listen to what I've said and read some of the things in the previous three and four budget debates. Read the comments of the member for Nanaimo, and then maybe next year, if you have any input into the budget, you will see that it is aimed at stimulating the economy of British Columbia, not strangling it.

Mr. Michael moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:02 p.m.