[ Page 915 ]

CONTENTS

Oral Questions

McKim Advertising. Mr. Cocke –– 915

Planned Parenthood Association grant. Mrs. Dailly –– 916

Funding of BCAMR for volunteers. Mr. Barnes –– 916

Attitude of Victoria council to preserving local industry. Mr. Blencoe –– 917

Mr. Lauk

Orders of the Day

Budget Debate

Mr. Michael –– 917

Mr. Macdonald –– 922

Mr. Davis –– 925

Mr. Barnes –– 927

Hon. Mr. Brummet –– 933

Mr. Howard –– 935

Mr. Pelton –– 938

THURSDAY, AUGUST 18, 1983

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, there are two very special guests and friends of mine on the floor today. First, the minister who gave the prayer, the Rev. Bill van Druten, is a long-time friend of mine and I'd like this House to recognize him officially.

We have a very special guest before the House today, Mr. Speaker. He's my counsel, my mentor, and he taught me everything I know — and some still say I know nothing. They've always sent gentlemen — and continue to send gentlemen — to this House from the famous riding of Dewdney. I'd like the House to welcome the Whip emeritus of this House, the hon. George Mussallem.

MR. BARRETT: In welcoming our very special guests on the floor: I thought that the problem with the marble peeling off the wall was only down in that comer, but today it seems to be spreading through the House.

It's a rare occasion when we get the opportunity to say some kind words about a Whip. This is not one of those occasions [laughter], but I do say that I'm very happy to see the good reverend here in company with the former Whip because it's important that wherever Whips go they still have a hope — although it'll never come out that way. I want to welcome the Whip back today and thank him for spending one of his masochistic days with us again.

MR. PELTON: Mr. Speaker, it would be very remiss of me at this time if I didn't echo the comments that have been made about the gentleman whom I have had the honour of replacing in this House, As I mentioned in my maiden speech, he's a man who has contributed a great many years of his life to the community in which he lives and to the community of British Columbia as a whole. As I said at that time, and would like to repeat — as my friend across the aisle says that famous one-liner — he was indeed and still is a most amayonnaising" person.

I would also like to introduce two people to the House: Mrs. Shirley Ridley, who is the vice-president, and Mrs. Pauline Good, who is a director of the Esquimalt–Port Renfrew B.C. Social Credit constituency office. I would ask everyone here to welcome them, please.

HON. MR. ROGERS: The Miracle Whip is not allowed to speak in this House any longer, but he asked me to bring along the fact that in the interests of aviation safety today he left his airplane at home and came by car.

MR. REYNOLDS: I'd like to introduce a couple of ladies who are sitting in your gallery, Mr. Speaker: a special lady in my life, Mrs. Yvonne Johnson, and her friend from Victoria, Elaine Niven.

MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today are three friends of mine, three true free-enterprisers from my constituency. The first one is Art Holding, the former owner of the Holding sawmill in Adams Lake, and the other two are Jim and Jean Van. I would ask the House to welcome them today.

[2:15]

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to join with me in welcoming two old friends of mine from North Burnaby: Maurits and Greta Mann.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, in the members' gallery today are two long-time friends and supporters of mine. I would ask the House to join me in welcoming Ernie and Esther Hogg.

MR. REE: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery above me here today we have three people from West Vancouver. Brian and Wendy Hanna are endeavouring to become sailors this year. Brian is a renowned architect in the greater Vancouver area, and with them is Wynne Clucas. I would ask this House to welcome them to Victoria and the House today.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today is the former chairman of the Labour Relations Board, Don Munroe, along with his wife. Don is now teaching law at the University of Victoria and enjoying a summer vacation with his son. I would ask the House to welcome them.

MR. MOWAT: Mr. Speaker, in our House today I would ask you to welcome two very close friends of my wife and myself. Sitting in the gallery with my wife Ann are Pat and Margaret Mabee, the owners of Mr. Pat's Family Restaurant in the Champlain Mall in Vancouver South. I would ask the House to welcome them.

MR. STRACHAN: Let me join with all members in offering my best wishes, and once again a welcome to this House, to the honourable George Mussallem, our miracle Whip. I'd also like the House to welcome one of the best cooks in Fairfield, if not on Vancouver Island or in the western world — a very good friend of mine, and I guess a better friend of Mr. Charles La Vertu. Would the House please welcome Mrs. Kate Crowcroft.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, a few people in the gallery remain unintroduced, but I have two friends to introduce today: Dr. Charles Clayton, a former Oak Bay alderman, and Mr. Ed Nicholson, educational administrator from Prince Rupert.

Oral Questions

McKIM ADVERTISING

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question first to the Provincial Secretary. Will the Provincial Secretary confirm that McKim agency was reappointed as agent of record for the government after the auditor-general's report was tabled in the House?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask you a question. How often can a member ask the same question in the House after the question's been taken on notice and a commitment made that the reply will be brought back as quickly as possible?

MR. SPEAKER: The point raised by the Provincial Secretary is a valid one. Again, hon. members, if the Chair were

[ Page 916 ]

to strictly enforce the rules of question period, it would be very short.

MR. COCKE: Assuming, Mr. Speaker, that I know the answer, I will ask a question of the minister: can the minister explain to the House why one minister read the report and called the cops, while the second minister read the report and reappointed the subjects?

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Subject, object, whatever, of the report.

HON. MR. CHABOT: It's a confusing question, and very iffy. It's a hypothetical question which I have some difficulty with until such time as I give a response to the first question.

MR. COCKE: Will the Attorney-General clarify what he was saying yesterday with respect to the parameters of the investigation? Will it go beyond the period that was reported on by the auditor-general or will it be restricted to that?

HON. MR. SMITH: There are no such restrictions on the investigations of the commercial crime department of the RCMP, such as the fiscal year restrictions that restrict the investigations of the auditor-general.

PLANNED PARENTHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT

MRS. DAILLY: I have a question for the Minister of Health with reference to the Planned Parenthood Association and the cancellation of their grant by the government. Given the fact that this association meets all the government's criteria for funding community organization — it uses volunteers, it raises a substantial amount of their budget from the private sector and it meets definite community needs — would the minister therefore give us an assurance that he will reconsider this grant?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The Planned Parenthood Association was advised recently that their funding would be terminated as of a certain date, and that has not been reconsidered.

FUNDING OF BCAMR FOR VOLUNTEERS

MR. BARNES: I have a question for the Minister of Human Resources. With reference to the closure of the Tranquille facility in Kamloops, the minister has said that it is her intention to develop a network of decentralized services at the community level that will enhance the quality of life of mentally retarded individuals. In view of this commitment, will the minister explain why she has decided to eliminate a $50,000 grant to the B.C. Association for the Mentally Retarded which was used to fund training for volunteer organizations working with the mentally retarded?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for the question. The question was preambled by reference to Tranquille, and there is absolutely no connection between moneys granted to the Association for the Mentally Retarded and the opportunity to decentralize the services of Tranquille into community-based programming.

MR. BARNES: Nonetheless, the concern is that the minister has decided to cancel the funding for the Association for the Mentally Retarded, which was an organization providing training for volunteers. The concern is that that program will now stop, which will make it difficult for volunteers to be prepared to pick up the decentralized program. Perhaps you could explain it from that point. How will the volunteers be trained?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: The ministry's support for services for the mentally retarded totals in excess of $50 million a year. That amount of money is spent throughout the province. The moneys to which the member refers are for an organization's office program. The ministry has decided to no longer fund those organizations whose revenue can come from community resources. We are putting our dollars into more decentralized, community-based resources throughout the province.

MR. BARNES: Could the minister specify which of the community resources will provide the volunteer training that is necessary? We're speaking of specialized training for people who are not ordinary volunteers in the strict sense of the word, but people who have to have certain skills and abilities. Does the ministry have in place any agreements or arrangements with any local community organizations who will be providing this service without the support of provincial funding?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: We continue to do so. May I explain that the community resources that will be developed to take the young people and the clients from Tranquille will be developed by our ministry in conjunction with the staff people at Tranquille and various members of the Association for the Mentally Retarded throughout the province, depending on where those clients will move. We would be at all times working with the community-based Association for the Mentally Retarded, or any other organization that would devote its time to both training and volunteering on behalf of those clients whom we both serve.

MR. BARNES: Madam Minister, I appreciate the problem you're having in trying to live within your plan, trying to operate within your plan, but I wish you could specify the organizations which will actually be picking up this very major program. As you know, there are some 300 people involved at Tranquille alone.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Well, Mr. Speaker, the question should then more rightly be: how will the Tranquille institution be decentralized? The answer to that is: through a process which is very much in place. It has already been undertaken. We've had one meeting. As you know, further meetings were interrupted by sit-ins at Tranquille, but our first meeting, which was initiated by the ministry, was begun approximately four or five weeks ago. To have the staff working with our ministry…. Our ministry has as well worked with the regional directors throughout the province to identify the services where these young people will be moved. I can give without any difficulty, but without taking the time of question period, the areas where each of these young people will be transferred. Some will return to the areas nearest to their homes. Some 80 young people will be placed in resources around the Kamloops area, which is

[ Page 917 ]

perhaps the area in which the member is interested. Some 23 or 24, I believe, and I'm only going by memory, will come to the Vancouver Island area. The Kootenays and the north also receive some who are going to those areas because they are closest to their families. We're working with the associations in 100 Mile House, for example, and with the mental association of Kamloops. We're working with them, in conjunction with our staff, to put together a plan for each and every one of those young people who will be moved out of the institution, which will close a year and a half or twenty months from now.

ATTITUDE OF VICTORIA COUNCIL
TO PRESERVING LOCAL INDUSTRY

MR. BLENCOE: I have a question for the Provincial Secretary. In response to a question I asked yesterday, the minister gratuitously insulted the city and council of Victoria and the community associations by saying they had driven industry out of this community. I ask the minister today if he is prepared unconditionally to apologize for those remarks and those comments.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the question is not in order for the question period. It will be taken at another time. However, if it is the wish of the minister, he has the right of reply.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I'd like to respond, Mr. Speaker, by saying that I stand by my statement, and I'll give the evidence now that what I was saying was, in fact, correct. On December 12, 1972, the Times said: "Local 1947 president Owen Williams criticized absentee managerial decisions and failure of local government to spur industrial development. 'Successive councils have failed to do anything to keep industry here or to attract new industry.'" He went on to say that Bapco Paint was one industry which the municipality essentially ran out of town. An article in the Colonist of December 13, 1972, said: "Parochialism and apathy on the part of greater Victoria's municipal politicians are largely responsible for the decision by Bapco Paint Ltd. to phase out its Victoria operations, according to Larry Ryan" — your friend — "secretary-treasurer of the Victoria Labour Council."

Interjection.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I'm talking about industry that's been run out of town, whether yesterday or in 1972. Ryan laid the blame for the loss of industry squarely on the doorstep of the great superfluity of municipal politicians. If greater Victoria's seven mayors, along with all the aldermen and members of the regional board, had taken steps earlier to provide for adequate industrial sites, Bapco Paint might have been able to relocate in the capital region.

A brief editorial in the Daily Colonist of December 15 says: "It is a remarkable occasion when….

MR. SPEAKER: At this time, hon. member, I think we are into a situation where the Chair must draw to your attention that the answer is becoming rather lengthy. It goes beyond the scope of question period.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr., Speaker, that member from Victoria suggested that I wasn't correct and that I owed an apology to the city of Victoria for my statement that they'd run industry out of this community. They haven't made provisions for alternate sites for industry in the city of Victoria. They've treated industry very badly in the city of Victoria and I don't apologize. I'm sorry for the actions of the city of Victoria, its former mayors, its aldermen today and its aldermen in the past.

MR. BLENCOE: I have a supplementary. I would first remind that member that city council has been controlled by Social Credit members for many years in this region, and they are the ones who are removing those people.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BLENCOE: In view of the fact that the city of Victoria recently reduced the tax rate on industrial property, met with industrial leaders to develop a special industrial strategy for Victoria and made up provincial government cuts in funding to the economic development commission, will the minister consider his answer and apologize to this community and this city council?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, the member babbles quite a bit. It's quite obvious that the city of Victoria has taken no steps in the past to keep industry in this community. In fact, they've encouraged industry to leave the city of Victoria. Essentially there's no industry left in the city of Victoria, because there was a preordained mission on the part of the city of Victoria to make this a tourist-oriented community. They didn't want to see industrial development here. They didn't make provisions for industrial parks and attempt to keep industry in the city of Victoria. I'm sorry, as I said before, for the failure on the part of the city of Victoria and other surrounding municipalities for their short-sightedness in creating jobs for the people who want to live in Victoria. That's a shortcoming of former councils in the city of Victoria.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the second member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. LAUK: On behalf of the families and estates of Sir Joseph Trutch, Sir James Douglas and Matthew Begbie, I ask the Provincial Secretary to apologize for blaming them for the lack of industry in Victoria.

Orders of the Day

ON THE BUDGET
(continued debate)

MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to rise and speak in support of the budget brought in by the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis). I would like very much during my address to cover areas where, in my opinion, there have been a lot of half-truths, innuendos and lies told by those people supporting, and the leadership of, Operation Solidarity and other organizations circulating literature in the province of British Columbia, such as the Public Service Alliance of Canada. I've read the literature put out by Operation Solidarity and that put out by the Public Service Alliance of Canada, and I have never seen such utter rubbish, such utter half-truths, lies, innuendoes, hyperbole, and pure fabrication as I have read in these documents.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

[ Page 918 ]

I have had the research department and various ministries do some research into some of the statements made by these organizations in dealing with the restraint budget of the province of British Columbia, and I would like to read into the record some of those lies, half-truths and innuendoes.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the House please come to order. It's awfully noisy here, and it is hard to hear what the speaker is saying.

I'll also remind the hon. member for Shuswap-Revelstoke that expressions such as he's been using are unparliamentary. If he could maintain temperance of language and moderation of debate, then the parliamentary tradition will be well served.

MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, I will cover some of the quotations and give the facts as I see them, and as I have researched them, and will let the House and the members of the public decide for themselves.

One of the statements in an Operation Solidarity bulletin reads as follows: "Changes to the Medical Service Act encourage doctors to opt out of medicare or extra-bill." The facts are that the provisions relating to opting out are identical to the existing provisions under the current act and regulations.

Another quotation from Operation Solidarity: "Victoria assumes the right to overrule doctors on whether specific care is necessary for individual patients." The facts are that this is no different than the present situation and does not reflect a policy change.

Another statement made in the bulletin: "Health fee increases range from 11 percent to 150 percent." While that is a fact, on a percentage basis, they don't go on to give the relative amounts; nor do they go on to explain that the average price of a hospital room in the province of British Columbia is slightly in excess of $300 a day; nor do they explain that it has been some years since any other increases have been made in user fees; nor do they explain that the only change in the user fee for the acute care per them service has been from $7.50 a day to $8.50 a day, a 13 percent increase.

It bothers me, in that particular area, when I hear members of the opposition speaking about things that were promised or not promised in the last provincial election campaign. Today a speaker from the opposition made a statement that our government was not telling the truth when it came to telling the people during the last election campaign what the increases were going to be regarding user fees. I've gone to the trouble of getting a copy of the New Democratic Party of British Columbia's press release dealing with this issue, and I intend to read into the record the relevant quotation from that document. I've also gone to the trouble of getting the reply of the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen). I will read this into the record and the members can decide who is lying and who is telling the truth.

The news release is from the New Democratic Party, 517 East Broadway, dated April 9, 1983. The relevant clause reads as follows: "If the NDP is elected, it will scrap the Health ministry 1983-84 plan. There will be no $20 per day hospital charges, as proposed by the Socreds." That's what they said. Our Health Minister made the following statement: "It appears that the NDP will do anything to try to get elected. They have such a lust for power that they are prepared to ride on the fears of the sick and elderly to achieve it." The release goes on to say: "Dave Barrett and Health critic Dennis Cocke have set in motion a totally unnecessary and unfounded wave of concern and fear among the people of this province. They have done it under the guise of leaking draft legislation. The statement that there is draft legislation to increase health user fees is an absolute lie, said Nielsen."

On the one hand we have the NDP in a press release saying there was going to be a $20 a day fee; the Minister of Health says there was no legislation prepared to increase the fees. And when we look at the budget and at the facts we see the first increase in a number of years, increasing the per-day user fee from $7.50 to $8.50, a 13 percent increase, one dollar bill, and the first increase in a number of years. Mr. Speaker, I leave that subject to the discretion of the members of the House to make their own decisions and draw their own conclusions.

Getting back to the Operation Solidarity bulletin — inflaming people throughout this entire province, not telling them the facts about economic conditions, and not giving any explanation whatsoever to the masses at these rallies. They prefer to distribute literature that is far from the truth. They say the Alcohol and Drug Commission is abolished. The facts are that the answer is misleading. The alcohol and drug program of the ministry continues unchanged. The estimates provided $18,505,000 for this program for 1982-1983, and the estimates for 1983-1984 are $18,676,000. I would submit to you that it is far from the truth when they lead their people — the masses, the union members and the unemployed — to believe that the Alcohol and Drug Commission is abolished.

Operation Solidarity goes on to talk about the fact that 3,000 teaching positions are to be eliminated. Again, did they go on to explain that from 1976 to 1982 the total cost of school district budgets in B.C. rose by 19.34 percent in real terms? Did they try to rationalize with these people what we're up against in trying to hold the expenditures in line and work towards a balanced budget? No, they prefer not to do that. Did they go on to explain to the masses or the public that the annual per-pupil costs in British Columbia in 1983 range from a low of $2,983 in Delta to $3,920 in nearby New Westminster, a variation of 31.4 percent? Do they explain that to the people? No, they don't. They prefer to leave those kinds of facts over on the sidelines. They would rather drum up the masses and act irresponsibly. The members of the opposition are a part of that irresponsible action in whipping up the current frenzy throughout the province of British Columbia.

[2:45]

They talk about the Human Rights Commission and Human Rights Code being abolished. Many members have made statements about this government taking away human rights in British Columbia. If doing away with the Human Rights Commission means that we're not going to have any more "Hunky Bill" stories in British Columbia, then I support that action. If it means that we're not going to have people driving through the interior investigating such trivialities as ads in newspapers asking for a young man to work on weekends to pile wood or a lady required for babysitting services and things of this nature, I support the abolition of that particular commission.

Look at the facts of the matter and examine the activities of that commission and see the vast amount of time that has been wasted — cases taking two, three, four, five and as long as six years with no resolution and no answer. I say that justice delayed is certainly justice denied, as the Minister of

[ Page 919 ]

Labour (Hon. Mr. McClelland) has stated on many occasions.

I suggest to you….

AN HON. MEMBER: It's another exaggeration.

MR. MICHAEL: It's another exaggeration, and it's very typical of the opposition and very typical of your friends in Operation Solidarity. Your friends the union leaders have made fantastic contributions to your election campaigns. The Building and Construction Trades Council gave $100,000 to the New Democratic Party coffers in exchange for a whole raft of promises.

MR. CAMPBELL: How much?

MR. MICHAEL: The Building and Construction Trades Council gave $100,000 to the central committee of the NDP in exchange for a whole raft of promises from the NDP that if elected they would provide for all of the government employees and sub-trades and that all the contracts issued would be unionized. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that this is a bad group which is mischievous and trying to stir up the people in British Columbia without telling them all the facts or giving them the full truth.

I could go through this entire document outlining Operation Solidarity's falsehoods. They talk about the social services that are going to be eliminated. "So far the following programs have been eliminated and their staffs fired: child-abuse team, family and children's services, mental retardation services, Consumer Affairs counselling and Shelter Aid for Elderly Renters." Mr. Speaker, to one degree or another these are all outright falsehoods. There are no cutbacks to our services to the retarded. None whatsoever. But that's the inference and falsehood contained in this document. They say the Shelter Aid for Elderly Renters program is going to be eliminated. This program has not been eliminated; it's still in place. Why do they insist on these falsehoods? Why doesn't the opposition go and visit their friends and tell them to quit telling these outright lies?

They talk about the ombudsman and legal aid budgets being slashed. What are the facts? The facts are that the ombudsman's budget was reduced, but it was only reduced by 8.01 percent. But does anyone tell that part of the story? No. "They're slashed!" They make it sound like it's out the window and we have no more ombudsman's office. They say the legal aid budget is slashed. Well, if this is a slash, I don't know. The 1983-84 legal aid budget was $13.4 million, the same amount it was in 1982-83. Do they tell that part of the story? No.

Then they talk about the rentalsman. "With abolition of the rentalsman's office, renters lose accessible and inexpensive services." Do they go on to say that rent review remains in effect for one more year for units up to $500 per month? Do they tell that story? Do they tell them that if your increase exceeds 15 percent you still have the right to appeal for that one-year period? Do they explain that the government is extending the notification for rent increases for mobile homes from three to six months in its bill? I don't find that in any of these documents.

Do they go on to tell their people that apartment vacancies are the highest level they have been in ten years? They're very silent on all that kind of stuff. They go on to say in their document: "Renters may be evicted without any reasons being given. It may be for racial, religious, political or any other such reason."

Interjection.

MR. MICHAEL: I hear a member across the floor saying "It's true." I would refer that member to section 5 of the Human Rights Act, which prohibits such forms of discrimination in tenancy premises. Section 5 states:

"(1) No person shall (a) deny to a person or class of persons the right to occupy as a tenant space that is in any way represented as available for occupancy by a tenant, or (b) discriminate against a person or class of persons with respect to a term or condition of the tenancy of the space because of the race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, religion, marital status, physical or mental disability or sex of that person or class of persons, or of any other person or class of persons."

Did he explain that to them? No. Did he explain to them that the provision for three months' notice of eviction will be phased in gradually over the one-year period of rent view, starting at nine months on October 1, 1983, and declining to three months by April 1, 1984? I haven't seen any mention of those kinds of facts in any of their bulletins or literature, Mr. Speaker.

They talked about public sector employees, and I quote:

"Employees can be fired at any time without being given any reason whatever. This means the unspoken reason can be anything: something said years ago, favouritism, political or religious beliefs, race, a person's opinion…. This removes the most important protection unions offer; through intimidation all other contract rights disappear."

Mr. Speaker, I would submit they failed to tell their members that with Bill 3 amendments, and the regulations which the government will be bringing in shortly, the types of security based on the present wording of contracts and seniority will be provided. I submit that the people will be treated in a fair and equitable manner.

Section 7 of the new Human Rights Act, which replaces the previous Human Rights Code, specifically prohibits layoffs or firing based on race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, political beliefs, religion, marital status, physical or mental disability, sex, age, or criminal conviction unrelated to the person's job. This legislation applies to all B.C. employers, including the provincial government. The government is honouring fully all existing collective agreements with its employees.

Mr. Speaker. when dealing with the public service, the members should be reminded that one person out of every four working in the province of British Columbia is employed by the government. Twenty-five percent of the entire workforce are government employees, whether they be municipal, hospital, school teachers, provincial employees, federal employees or what have you. What this government is trying to do is bring that number down. We feel there are too many employees in the public sector in relation to those who are producing in the private sector.

It is important at this time to reflect on a couple of speeches given in this House by members of the opposition. The member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) and the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) gave very similar speeches, at

[ Page 920 ]

different times, regarding the downsizing of the public sector. They went on to explain that by the time you look at the wages being paid the public sector employee, then take into consideration the amount of tax that person pays while working, and take into consideration the cost of social assistance or unemployment insurance, it doesn't make sense to lay people off. It almost sounds as if, rather than this ratio being four to one, they would like it to be two to two — fifty-fifty. Better yet, in their opinion, perhaps we should have four public sector employees for every private sector employee. If that theory holds true and if that's the kind of economics they're trying to sell to the province of British Columbia, thank God, Mr. Speaker, the Social Credit Party was elected on May 5 and not the opposition.

In talking about public sector employees, I thought — again, through a little bit of research — it would be wise to state to the House some of the benefits enjoyed by those in the public sector. How many people are aware that public sector employees enjoy a 35-hour week? How many employees in the private sector enjoy a 35-hour week? The B.C. government employees' contract calls for three weeks' paid vacation after one year of service. I would ask you to examine union contracts in the forest industry, the pulp industry and the mining industry — all the prime producers of this province — and find out how many private sector employees enjoy three weeks' paid vacation after one year of service. I suggest you would find very few.

Let's go on to the dental plan of government employees. They have a plan that provides for 100 percent of dental surgery and 60 percent for dentures. None of the plans that I'm familiar with — and I'm familiar with all in the forest industry — have the generous benefits laid out here. Forest industry benefits are 80 percent, not 100 percent, paid for by the plan. The government have 100 percent coverage, no cost whatsoever.

MR. REID: Paid by the taxpayers.

MR. MICHAEL: Paid by the taxpayers.

Let's talk about group life insurance. In their plan the employer pays the premium on the first $40,000 of insurance. Again I would ask: how many people in the private sector enjoy benefits such as this?

Let's go on to income protection for illness and injury. They have a plan that provides for six days a year at full pay and the remainder of the time off, up to six months, at 75 percent of the person's normal earnings. Do you know what it is in the forest industry? The primary producers in this province don't get six days at full pay. If they're sick, they're required to lose five days' pay before they collect one penny. Then they go onto a plan that provides for 54 percent of the base rate — never mind the highest rate, it's 54 percent of the base rate of pay. The government employees have six days at full pay and 75 percent for six months. What happens after six months? I know what it is in the forest industry: it's $1,200 a month, with certain deductions. That's the maximum for everybody. The long-term plan of the government is two-thirds basic pay. A person could be off up to age 65 and get two-thirds of his basic pay. I submit that the terms and conditions that the government workers enjoy, as well as the 35-hour week, are far in excess of those in the private sector.

[3:00]

Let's talk about death benefits — statutory benefits. In addition to group insurance coverage, there is a death gratuity of one month's pay for each year's service to a maximum of six months' pay. This is on top of the life insurance. Who in the private sector has those types of benefits?

Let's talk about retirement allowances for a while. An employee with 20 years of service is entitled to a special allowance of from one to three months of basic salary depending on the years of service. Very nice! I don't deny them this; it's wonderful. All these benefits are wonderful. I wish we could all afford it, that's all.

Let's talk about the pension plan. I'm familiar with pension plans in the forestry industry. An employee, after eight years of service in the forest industry, gets $15 for each year of service, providing that he's age 65. Let's say he's got his eight years in and it's $15 a year; that's $120. If he retires at age 60, that's discounted by 18 percent. The government plan goes on to say that an employee with at least ten years of service receives 2 percent for each year of pensionable service multiplied by the average of the five highest annual salaries prior to retirement. I would suggest that you could check this plan with every single pension plan in the private sector in the province of British Columbia, and I would challenge you to find 5 percent, 3 percent, of the plans that are as good as, or better, than that enjoyed by the government employees. The capper is that it's indexed. How many private sector employees enjoy an indexed plan?

When the opposition speakers and the labour leaders and those in Solidarity meet with the government employees, how many of them have ever bothered to explain these benefits to them for five minutes? How many have spent two minutes explaining to them the fact that there was a Treasury Board order — Order No. 57 — which was passed by this government on July 9, 1980? How many of them have explained the generosity of this government since that time in dealing with employees who happen to be displaced because they were extra on the workforce? I would suggest that at all of the rallies held in the province of British Columbia not one minute or one second of all the time has been spent in talking about the generosity of the government in dealing with employees since July 1980.

Let's talk about one of the sections from Treasury Board order No. 57. The section is entitled: "Retraining for Supernumerary Employees." Item 14 says: "Employees selected for training under this part shall receive their basic pay for the period of training." Compare that to the private sector, Mr. Speaker. I think this government has been more than fair.

Item 15 reads:

"Employees selected for training in accordance with this policy shall be paid a monthly allowance as agreed to by the principals as total reimbursement for out-of-pocket expenses, provided such training is not available within 35 miles of their permanent or normal place of residence. No other expenses will be reimbursed. The employer will pay costs of tuition fees, examination fees and required texts."

MR. REID: That's fair.

MR. MICHAEL: That's more than fair, Mr. Speaker. But how much time has been spent at these rallies explaining that to the people? It's wonderful legislation. But who's taken the time to explain it?

Let's talk about the people affected, the people referred to as " supernumerary employees" — extra employees who are asked to take early retirement. What has the government

[ Page 921 ]

done in this particular instance? Again, I read from Treasury Board order No. 57, item 16:

"A regular employee who is aged 55 or older and has completed ten years of service as a regular on the date to be applicable for this purpose and who:

"a. is offered a position involving a relocation;

"b. is offered a position at his-her present location, but at a lower classification;

"c. is declared to be supernumerary; or

"d. refuses job offers as outlined in sections 5, 8 and 9 of this policy "may choose to take early retirement within the time limits established for that purpose and be entitled to recognition of additional pensionable service under the Pension (Public Service) Act based on the following formula…."

If a person had 10 years of service they would get an extra 2.5 years of pension credits; if they had 15 years of service, they would get an extra 3.5 years of pension credits; if they had 20 years of service, they would get an extra 4.5 years of pension credits; and if they had 25 years of service, they would get an extra 5 years of pension credits. "Benefits under this section would not exceed the time that would be necessary to reach the maximum retirement age."

Mr. Speaker, I submit to you and I submit to the opposition that government has been more than fair with this legislation, with this Treasury Board order No. 57. It has been a legal document since July 9, 1980.

It goes on to say: "Payout of sick leave. (17.) Where an employee aged 55 or older opts for severance pay or early retirement he-she will also qualify, in accordance with the master agreement, for an amount equal to 50 percent of accumulated sick leave credits on the date of severance or retirement." Mr. Speaker, who in the private sector — what company, what firm, what business — would be prepared to pay 50 percent of accumulated sick pay on retirement? The government has done it and, I think, has been more than generous.

They talk about severance pay in this document. I think it's interesting reading this into the record. 18 reads as follows:

"Within 30 days of:

"a. being informed that he-she is supernumerary to the ministry; or

"b. refusing job offers in accordance with sections 5, 8 and 9, a regular employee who has been continuously employed will be entitled to resign with severance pay based upon years of service as follows:

"i. for the first year of completed employment three weeks' current salary;

"ii. for the second year of completed employment, three weeks' current salary;

"iii. for each completed year thereafter one-half month's current salary.

"The employee will not receive an amount greater than six months' current salary nor will an employee receive more severance pay than he-she would have received in salary had he-she remained employed from the date of severance to age 65."

Mr. Speaker, the document goes on to talk about setting up arrangements with the union, and I think it's worthwhile again to read this into the record to show the way this was handled, in consultation with the union. The union is well aware of this document, but I suggest that it has not been revealed to the members at any of the rallies being held throughout British Columbia. Item 19 reads:

"The specific application of this policy to individual ministry reorganizations as it affects employees whose positions may have been declared redundant or whose positions have been relocated, and the time limits for job offers without relocation, shall be the subject of discussion between the employer and the union, taking into consideration the number of employees involved, the manner in which they are involved, the extent of the reorganization and the establishment level of the ministry."

The document concludes with No. 20, headed, "Supervising Joint Committee," which says:

"A special joint committee composed of equal representatives of the union and the employer, with a chairman acceptable to both sides, shall be charged with the interpretation of this policy and the resolution of problems associated with its application to specific ministry reorganizations."

My information is that all the cases handled by this committee have been resolved to the satisfaction of all concerned. But how many of these points have been explained to the public of British Columbia? How many points have been explained about how fair this government has been and how fair it will continue to be with the employees caught in this economic downturn?

It's well known that things are tough all over. Economies are down in Europe. Japan is not experiencing the dynamic economic upturn that it's been used to for many years in succession. The United States is just coming out of a quite severe recession. Things have been tough in Canada and British Columbia. Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to you and to the members of the opposition that you give this government two more years. Give it the opportunity to put its restraint program and its policies into practice, and you'll look back two years from now and say what a tremendous job the government has done in the province of British Columbia.

To give you an idea of some of the things that are going on in other countries, let me read an article from Time magazine, August 15, 1983, on the subject of state budgets. I'd like to read into the record quotations from this article about our neighbours to the south:

"'If we continue to borrow from the future to pay for the present, we risk destroying the present.' 'If we're not willing to face up to more taxes and make the decision soon — we can kiss the recovery goodbye.'

"Eleven Democratic Governors signed a letter to the Vice-President that complained: 'We are weary of self-serving statements calling for reduced spending and taxes without public-serving statements of how to accomplish such things.'

"The combination of the recent recession, cutbacks in federal grants to the states and the balanced-budget requirement in nearly all state constitutions has forced many Governors to take politically difficult belt-tightening steps. In the past 18 months 32 states both increased taxes and cut spending. In 1983, thus far, 27 states have approved across-the-board budget cuts, up from 17. Hiring limits have been imposed by 42 states, government workers laid off by 22. Between January 1981 and March 1983, 11 states increased their income taxes, 19 their general sales

[ Page 922 ]

taxes, 18 their alcohol tax — Utah raised its levy three times in 26 months — and 14 their cigarette tax. Increases in gasoline and motor fuel taxes occurred in 31 states. Both higher income taxes and sales taxes were passed by Indiana, Mississippi, Minnesota, New Jersey and Nebraska.

"The Governors fear that more such drastic remedies may lie ahead, with unknown consequences for their political futures. Lamented Tennessee Republican Lamar Alexander: 'It doesn't matter if you're Republican or Democrat, the deficit is too large.'"

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to you that the government of British Columbia will be proven to be among the leaders, as we were the leaders in implementing a restraint program some 18 months ago. We will go down in the record as being among the leaders in cutting back the government service, to provide a more economic government in the province of British Columbia. Mark my words, two years from now the public will thank us for the bold, tough decisions that we're making today.

[3:15]

MR. MACDONALD: We're in the dog days of August, debating a budget that should have been presented before March 31.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: And we're having a nice bit of repartee from the second member for Surrey (Mr. Reid) in the corner. I don't know what we'd do without him.

I want to say a few things before I say something else about what was said by the speaker who has just taken his seat. He said we're in trouble all over the world — I think he was speaking of the western world — and so we are. Governments are firing people. There's unemployment, and unbelievable hunger and deprivation, in some of the big cities of the world. That is not a social democratic plot or the result of failure of democratic socialist policies; it is the direct and very serious and grave result of the failure of the policies of people like Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher and Bill Bennett….

AN HON. MEMBER: Thank goodness for strong leaders.

MR. MACDONALD: We hear it from the corner again: "Thank goodness for strong leaders." It is a major tragedy for the western world that while some of the free democracies of the western world have embarked on social democracy, a planned economy of plenty, and jobs and fair distribution of the product, the United States is showing the most alarming signs of a rich aristocracy of unbelievable wealth and privilege on the one hand, and long lines of hungry people outside St. Glide United Church in the city of San Francisco: people who want to work and can't work. We see in this budget today the same tendencies that I am talking about. You can call it Reaganism, for want of a better word. We are seeing a budget that robs the poor to reward the rich, and I will give examples of what I am talking about in the few short remarks I want to make today.

The member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. Michael), at one point of his remarks, said: "What's a dollar a day?" He was referring to the increase in actual figures from $11.50 to $12.75 for extended long-term care. That increase is $1.25 per day; it is closer to between $40 and $50 a month. It does not mean very much to a great many of the people of British Columbia, but it means an awful lot to those near the poverty line. That extra $1.25 means an awful lot to the people who depend upon public services, who are retired, who are trying to get by on an inadequate pension.

AN HON. MEMBER: Half a pack of cigarettes.

MR. MACDONALD: I hear from the comer that it is half a packet of cigarettes. There is no heart whatsoever in this budget or in the kinds of comments we are hearing from the Social Credit members in that corner of the House. They do not understand what $1.25 per day extra load means in terms of want of amenities to a great many of our citizens in the province of British Columbia.

The budget does nothing about the pockets of privilege that exist in our society. There is no movement toward job creation in a planned and orderly way, or fair distribution of the bountiful resources that are available if properly used. I would like to mention two examples of how absolutely absurd this budget is even in terms of restraint. The member who took his seat mentioned the rentalsman's office. There is a side to that office, which the NDP set up in 1974, where all that multiplicity of disputes between landlords and tenants could be solved through the rentalsman's office in an expeditious and inexpensive way. Dispute resolution was extremely successful, given the multitude and complexity of the problems involved.

In this budget we see the whole of that burden of dispute resolution being thrown over to the courts at what will undoubtedly be a greater expense to the taxpayer in terms of the extra judges that will have to be provided, the courtroom costs, the clerks in the court, the paperwork, the technicalities, the lawyers. Is that a saving, or is it a false economy?

The government says that we have saved because we have abolished the motor vehicle testing stations. They have saved, and they are proud of this because they are downsizing government, and they have been able to terminate no less than 150 employees in the motor vehicle testing stations. Those employees, it's true, will join the ranks of the unemployed. They may, I hope, in time find alternative employment. There will be a great deal of suffering among their families; they may very well have to relocate and tear up their roots where their children happen to be in school. How can that, when we look at the good of British Columbia as a whole, be boasted of as a saving? What will be the cost of releasing faulty cars onto the highways of the province, causing accidents through mechanical defect? What extra bills will flow into ICBC, resulting, in terms of their payments out, in additional auto insurance premiums to the people of the province? What will be the cost in death and injury on the highways of this province, caused by having faulty cars that have not been properly checked running around on our highways? I know many citizens of the province will make sure their cars are in order, but vehicle stations are to catch those who don't, and there are lots of them.

Quite apart from the human costs involved in death and injury to the people concerned, what are the actual bottomline costs set out in this budget? A saving of 150 people,

[ Page 923 ]

thrown on the scrap heap of unemployment, and very substantial additional costs loaded upon our hospital and medical services. That is not an economy at all.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Apart from the false economies in the budget, let me mention two cases of the budget being so without heart that it is difficult for us to call it a budget that can be supported on the basis of any ethical considerations. You had a CIP program which gave disabled young people an opportunity to go to a workshop. I know one paraplegic who worked about 20 hours a week at the Richmond opportunities centre making labelling tags, which are used in industry for various products. He got the $50 over his welfare, which covered his bus fare to and from and the incidental expenses of working. He wasn't really gaining anything more except within himself, because it gave him a sense of self-worth to be able to do something, to make a contribution. It gave him an opportunity to hone his job skills, limited as they were because of his disability. How can anybody, without using the word "callous," explain the cutting of that kind of program, when the same government that did it cut out succession duties on rich estates, at a cumulative cost to the treasury from the time it was done in 1977 of at least $500 million by this time, money passed on to heirs to perpetuate the inequalities that are rife in our society? Yet in spite of that, in spite of all the other pockets of privilege involved, $50 comes off some of these young people who wanted to work and be given that opportunity.

I think — and I won't go into too many details about it — that the elimination of the child abuse team is something that cannot be defended on the basis of any kind of ethical considerations. It's all very well for us in this House, many of whom have a pretty comfortable life, to think of our society out there in terms of a mom and a pop and — what is it — 1.7 children. Happy family units. But there are also, with the stresses and strains of modern life, a great many broken family units; there are a great many abused children; a great many severely retarded or disturbed children; a great many battered wives. And to cut out that kind of team, the only place they could turn for assistance, for someone with skills, for counselling to try to effect reconciliation…. And if all else failed, for the very life and health of the child, they could take that child into the custody of the superintendent of child welfare. The only place that many of these families in trouble had to turn to, particularly the women and children, were these teams, and the government that eliminates that kind of thing, while the other kinds of privileges are allowed to roam free in our society, is a government without cause and without heart.

I recognize, in talking about Reaganism, that the democratic socialist alternative is a little bit on the defensive these days, and yet I'm rather bucked up to think of Italy, the latest addition to the now eight social democratic governments, although the socialist presence there is just a foot in the door; there's a socialist premier but he doesn't have a majority in that government. Australia, Sweden, some of the others — while this social democratic alternative is on the defensive at the moment, through Reaganism and everything else that's happening in the world, and the greed and fear that's out there, it is by no means to be counted out of the struggle in the next short while.

I know it's important for us in the NDP to say: "What do we stand for?" Someone I met very fleetingly was Tony Crosland, who died three or four years ago. Before his death he was sitting around with his friend Roy Hattersley, who is now running for the leadership of the British Labour Party, playing a word game. The game was, how do you define socialism in one sentence? Crosland came up with: "Socialism is about the pursuit of equality, the protection of liberty and the understanding that until we are all equal, we shall not be free." I'm a realist. When you talk about equality, I can't think in the terms of George Bernard Shaw, of equal salaries or wages for everybody, because given the human being that we know, we're a long way from that. But the rampant inegalitarianism of the world in which we live today is a lasting affront to all of us.

[3:30]

Back in the 1930s we had a commission under Harry Stevens, I think it was, on something called price spreads. We don't give any thought anymore, or we don't seem to, to what I call income spreads: to the vast discrepancies between those in our society who have too much, very often unearned, and those who have too little. But it's time we did begin to think in those terms. Sometimes, when you see somebody who's very well off and drawing a big salary, such as $91,000 as the administrator for a city like Vancouver, you say "fine." But you must remember that our society is like a poker game. There are only so many dollars in the game, and what one person wins, another person loses. Oh, you can correct the game by inflating, but then everybody loses, and the poor usually lose more in that situation than those who are well off. But basically it's a zero sum proposition.

Where you have pockets of privilege, you have losers too. We have a great many losers, even here in this very bountiful province of British Columbia. I'll look at the private sector and give a couple of examples of what I'm talking about.

There was a nice little place, Crofton Manor, I think on West 41 St. It had 162 units and it was a rental unit for elderly citizens. It was sold by Neil B. Cook at a pre-tax profit of $6 million. He sold the whole thing to Skalbania for $10 million. The reason he was able to make such a good windfall on this old people's retirement home was that they gave the old people six months' notice. They were going to convert it into condominiums, and I've think they've done that. He sold it to Skalbania; then Skalbania listed this housing on the market for $16 million. That kind of windfall comes out of other peoples' pockets, although sometimes the connection seems very remote.

When the cabinet of the province of British Columbia releases land from the agricultural land reserve by the stroke of a pen, and land that was assessed and paying taxes on the basis of, say, $400,000 suddenly becomes worth $16 million — I'm just picking a figure out of the air; sometimes it could be more than that — you have money that is going toward privilege at the expense of fair dealing among all of the citizens of the community.

We have income spreads in the public domain — and I'm going to mention the medical domain — which are totally unjustified too. I could mention the kinds of abuses that are taking place in law where a custody case took 95 days in court. I know it got out of control, but nevertheless it's typical of what's happening. Imagine the cost to the public of solving something which was certainly not better solved by the lapse of 95 days, with lawyers and experts on both sides, and all that brain-scanning. I see a contingency fee of $350,000 in an

[ Page 924 ]

accident case and I say to myself that that is not justified in the circumstances. Nobody could put in that many hours of work even at $350 an hour.

Some of the salaries in the field of education are out of line with what ordinary people make working for a living in our society. The spread is too high. I'm thinking of school superintendents. I could give examples where the school districts are overstaffed and top-heavy at the top, and teacher-aide poor at the bottom. Teacher aides are people who should not be on welfare or on UIC; they should be able to make a living. In other words, there should be more job sharing and more equity in terms of the returns that people get.

In the medical field the payments from our Medical Services Plan are up 22.9 percent — these are two medical practitioners in the year ending March 31, 1983 — over the previous year in a period when many people were suffering dire privation. Many others were on UIC or trying to get by because of unemployment. Some of the rewards under that Medical Services Plan going to top doctors are so astronomical as to amount to social larceny. The gross payouts from the plan, which do not include the little blue books — such things as services to the Workers' Compensation Board, accident reports that are made available in lawyers' offices and so forth — are topped by an eye specialist who makes $684,000 in this time of so-called restraint. That was a 54 percent increase over the previous year. We're told that the doctors' offices consume 30 to 40 percent in overhead. I've run an office myself — it wasn't a medical office; it was a law office — and I know that the overhead goes down as the income increases in terms of the percentage of overhead to income. I think 30 to 40 percent is way out of whack.

I can think of some specialists — and I pay tribute to them in terms of their professional skills — like skilled surgeons who have a nurse and a phone, but their overhead is absorbed by the public. Some of them make anywhere from $250,000, $275,000 to $300,000 a year. If money were in bountiful supply, fine. But why is that kind of a thing allowed to happen when other people are in desperate poverty? I don't think it should. I know when you scan the blue books, which report the gross medical incomes, you also find some, mostly general practitioners, who are probably making too little. Their gross might be $80,000 or $90,000 a year; their overhead is reasonably high; their hours of work, fuelled by a great deal of dedication, are very lengthy. So I don't complain in most of those cases; in fact, I pay tribute to them.

But at the same time, with the kind of medical expenses we are having, it seems imperative that we begin to look at new medical models — to look beyond the fee-for-service medical care and begin to look at clinics, preventive in nature where positive health and well-being can be promoted, and illness can be prevented before it becomes too expensive. Here we could employ — because this is going to be terribly important in the future — more of our people, paramedicals doing useful work and receiving appropriate training, and not leave it all to qualified physicians and surgeons. Our public health services, which are treated now like the poor cousins in our health planning, could be upgraded with a view to the promotion of general well-being and public health.

Dr. Jory has had his hearing on charges which have been set out in the newspapers, and I make no comment as to whether the charges are justified, whether service was needlessly supplied, whether the service was adequate, or whether the rewards were justified in this particular case. But that kind of examination into the medical system should have been held in public. I do not know any of the ordinary people of this province who can have their trial, whether it's a civil or any other kind of trial, behind closed doors. The Jory case was one where the public, who foot the bills in this medical scheme of things, had every reason to be concerned and interested, and to see what kind of probing and examination was taking place. Trials and hearings of that kind behind closed doors are, in my opinion, not called for and are matters of great public importance and interest.

I am shortly going to take my place, Mr. Speaker. The Premier sitting there will be relieved, and so will I, and the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen), and my colleagues. But to come back to what I was saying earlier, the old solutions are not working: priming the pump to try to create employment and then, when inflation rises, running up the interest rates and depressing the economy, creating price stability…. The rate of inflation has been brought down very substantially, at the expense of employment and the general impoverishment of the whole of our society. Those old free enterprise solutions are not working anymore.

What we have to turn to is something that we can no longer ignore. We have to think in terms of social planning and planned income policies. I don't mean some kind of governmental czar sitting there with a sharp pencil checking everybody's salary, but I mean in terms of general planning for the fair distribution of income. I think there will have to be general planning if we are ever to absorb and give useful employment to the young people who are pouring out of our high schools. I think we have no alternative but to look toward things like work-sharing. I do not see any alternative but to follow in the general direction of the social democratic policies, which, whatever is said by right-wing rhetoricians and the rest, have been successful in Europe in holding inflation down to at least half the level of ours, in keeping their unemployment rate down to at least half the level it has been in North America. All of this talk of the Premier's — which he means, I suppose, in good faith — that we have to downsize, to privatize and to get rid of public servants, more people, if they're in the public service, into the ranks of the unemployed, as if you've accomplished something by that, as if, in the case of the 150 people in the motor vehicle testing stations, you've accomplished something by having them unemployed when they were doing a useful job and saving dollars in the total picture of things….

I have the terrible feeling that many of the people in the government and in the Social Credit Party say that for every job lost in the public service there's a social gain. It may not be a social gain at all. I hear the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. Michael) stand up here and say that they have severance pay, a pension plan, etc., as if there was something wrong with that. Is that not the goal — to give working people who do the useful, hard work of society enough to send their children to school properly clothed and with a future, to be able to send them on to college and a good living? Don't sound so sad about somebody who's making enough to bring up a family. That's the way it sounds to me. You seem glad when a job is lost in the public service, and you say that's a victory for whatever you might call it.

MR. REID: Not so.

[3:45]

MR. MACDONALD: You seem glad.

Anyway, I sit down. I have faith in the social democratic future.

[ Page 925 ]

MR. REID: Have faith in Social Credit.

MR. MACDONALD: I have no faith whatsoever in Social Credit. I have no faith whatsoever in the kind of monetarism that is being followed under the leadership of people like Ronald Reagan. I do have faith in a planned economy which can produce employment for all on a shared basis in some cases, with a fair distribution of the product, and which can use the abundant resources that nature has made available to the human race to produce an era of prosperity for all.

MR. DAVIS: The hon. second member for Vancouver East made an interesting comment. He said that social democracy was on the defensive these days. The main reason why it's on the defensive is twofold: in social democracies, or in democracies which have known socialism, there's a high level of both unemployment and inflation. Reaganomics, Thatcherism, monetarism: if they have a substantial difference in message for these times, it is that at least you can cure the inflation problem; you can do something about inflation. You may not be able to solve the employment problem overnight, but you can lower the rate of inflation. That has a social message as well, because inflation is probably the most savage way to reduce the incomes of many people, the great majority of whom are relatively helpless in those circumstances — the elderly, those on low incomes or, worse still, unemployed. So a society in which both those evils are tackled is perhaps the ideal one. A society in which, first, inflation is tackled effectively and, subsequently, unemployment is at least a society better than those in the so-called social democracies, which have become unpopular around the world, which have suffered from both unemployment and savage inflation.

Basically, the message has been the message of the socialists and social democrats to the people at election time. It is this: we, your government, ourselves as government, can spend our way out of unemployment. They imply they can spend their way out of inflation, which of course doesn't happen, because printing money, if it does anything, reduces the purchasing power of the currency of the land and adds to the fires of inflation. Inflation is typical of social democracies, and with inflation all the upset and the transfer of incomes, which really defies the objective of a social democrat, and that is equality.

The hon. member said that you will never have freedom in any country until you have equality, until everyone is equal, until we're all clones. We're not identical one with the other. We're not equal in every way — physically, intellectually, in appearance, in terms of background, whatever. There are bound to be differences. And God forbid that we ever reach the time when we have a government in this land which believes that we must be equal in any way, have equality imposed from on high. That's not freedom as I understand it. It's not freedom at all.

We've got a problem in this country; there's a problem in the western world. We've got problems of unemployment, admittedly, and we've got problems of inflation. One of the reasons we still have a measure of inflation, although the rate of inflation has been going down, is that there is still a substantial gap in government between income and spending.

In the United States the Reagan administration is spending $120 for every $100 it's taking in. It has a 20 percent deficit. In Ottawa the deficit is even larger. It is of the order of 25 percent. In this province, until very recently, we had a balanced budget. We spent $100 for every $100 we took in in income. In the great majority of states in the United States, they are required by law to balance their budgets. When income falls off, when tax revenues flowing into the state treasuries decline, spending has to decline in line with that decline in income. We are fortunate here; we're not tied by law to our level of income. Our income has levelled off in some areas. Resource income, for example, has fallen by half; it has declined substantially. Our spending curve has continued upwards. Our income curve has flattened. As a result we now have a deficit.

We had a modest deficit two years ago, a deficit in the last fiscal year of the order of $1 billion, and have a projected deficit of the order of $1.5 billion. That $1.5 billion represents a 20 percent shortfall. In this year that we're living through right now, we are spending $120 provincially for every $100 we're taking in. We've caught, momentarily I hope, the disease which has been common in Ottawa for years — certainly since the early 1970s — and has been general worldwide, has been typical of the social democrat or socialist countries. We have to work our way out of this problem. We have to narrow the gap. It'll be narrowed, because revenues will rise as the economy of the western world improves, as our export markets improve because the economy of the United States improves over the next 18 months to two years.

So our income curve, which has flattened, will begin to turn upward. But we're spending at a rate which cannot continue. We've got increases in expenditures which we cannot fund.

I really can't believe much of what I read in the press these days. I can't believe much of what I see presented by the media. They're talking as if we have in this province an uncaring — right-wing, they call it — punitive administration. But what in fact do we see for this year? What do we see in the budget we're examining today? We see spending up again another 12 percent — not a flat expenditure relative to last year but a 12 percent increase. If we allow a couple of percentage points for this slowing inflation trend, we have a real outlay by the provincial government which is up of the order of 10 percent.

Where is that money going? It's going to increased spending on health care, increased spending on hospital construction and equipment, increased spending on education, and a major increase in expenditure in the area of human resources or welfare. Now admittedly there are more people working through their unemployment insurance, etc., but can you believe there is more health care out there, there is more money for education out there, there is more money flowing out to people in need? You wouldn't believe that if you read much of the press of recent days. There's a certain amount of hysteria. There's hysteria particularly in one area. It is the area of the public service, where there is an intention to do some trimming; not dramatic trimming but trimming of some order. One person in four in this province is a public servant. One employed person out of four employed persons is a public servant. There has been a declared intention to cut back.

But clearly the cutback doesn't apply to all of that one in four, that 250,000. There isn't a cutback in health care. There are 50,000 employees or more. There's no cutback there. There are more jobs there because of the increased spending.

[ Page 926 ]

There is no substantial cutback in education, because education spending's up. Education salaries and wages are up. There may be some trimming in the primary and secondary school areas because our school population is continuing to drop, but I'd be surprised if the number of teachers out there was less than the number out there last year. There's worry and concern because their role in those particular categories of education is being diminished by demographics. But still, there's no major layoff contemplated in the area of education; there is none in health. There is increased spending in public works. There is increased spending on public transit, for example. This increase in spending has to add up to more jobs, because 80 percent of that money pays salaries and wages. So automatically the budget means more employment on balance rather than less. The cutbacks in employment are in the old-style ministries, the ones we have known to be around for a long time. There may be a cutback of a few thousand out of 250,000.

Allowing for all this additional spending out there, there is an upside as well as a downside, and that upside is of the order of 10,000 or 15,000, so the downside losing 2,000 or 3,000 public servants — many of whom have only been employed for a matter of months or a year or two or three and many who will be retiring anyway — is not sufficient to offset the stimulative job-producing impact of the budget. That is an important message to get across: this budget is in deficit: this budget spends more than income: this budget is producing more jobs. On balance there are more jobs out there this year as a result of this budget than there were last. You can't call it a negative budget; you can't call it a budget which is punitive to people on balance. That is certainly true.

I would like to turn briefly to the income side. I don't share all of the pessimism of the Minister of Finance, but understandably he has to be careful in a period like this. He must be conservative in his projections of income. If he comes in with figures which turn out to be somewhat on the low side, at least he is in a happy position of being able to announce quarter after quarter that income is up and that he has budgeted cautiously and in such a manner that the province doesn't have to borrow any more than was otherwise necessary.

Just a moment on borrowing. For the first time in our history a large chunk of our deficit is money going to pay interest on recent debt. About a quarter of the projected deficit is earmarked to pay interest on this debt. It is a large amount — of the order of $150 million. Think of other countries, of other economies and think of the federal deficit. A very large proportion of the national budget of this country now goes to pay interest on accumulated debts. They have accumulated over many years; we have accumulated debt essentially over the last 18 months. Hopefully this deficit position will disappear, our debt problem will phase out, and interest payments won't continue to be a sizeable item in our income and expenditure account for this province.

[4:00]

I believe that now is the wrong time to substantially increase taxes. Certainly we must practise restraint in spending, but I believe that at this moment in time to increase taxes that will upset the confidence in business is the wrong thing to do.

Let us remember that our B.C. taxes on business are already high relative to those in competing provinces like Alberta and Ontario. They are much higher than similar taxes on industry and commerce in neighbouring areas in the United States — Washington State, Oregon and so on. We already have the highest corporate income tax — that is the tax on large firms — anywhere in Canada. It is 16 percent of taxable income here in B.C., 15 percent in Ontario, 14 percent in Saskatchewan and 11 percent in Alberta. It is 5½ percent in Quebec, compared to 16 percent here in B.C.

Clearly we tax industry heavily. We tax large industry more than other provinces. Our small business rate is sensibly placed at 8 percent. It is marginally below the rates charged in Saskatchewan, Manitoba and the maritime provinces, but our small-business rate is well above Alberta's rate of 5 percent, Quebec's small-business rate of 3 percent and Ontario's, where the provincial corporation tax as a result of recent budgets has been held at zero until, now, January 1, 1985. We discriminate in favour of small business by charging a half rate as compared to large business, but we still charge higher rates on all business, including small business, than most of the other provinces of Canada.

I was glad to see that the budget has now put a cap on the water rental tax. It will keep our hydro power rates from going up for the rest of this year through to 1984. This is certainly good news to our power-intensive industries, those doing much of the resource-processing in the province, those exporting semi-processed forest products and mineral products to other parts of the world.

I'm glad to hear that the property tax exemption on machinery and equipment paid by small firms will also be raised. It will help small entrepreneurs throughout the province. Still, it doesn't give them an advantage, because this tax is the exception rather than the rule in other provinces in Canada, and a rare exception in the United States. We shouldn't tax capital anyway, especially when it's used in production, because production means jobs. We're concerned about unemployment.

One move that concerns me very much — and I have had discussions about it with the Minister of Finance and some of his staff — is the redefinition of our provincial tax on ships' bunker oil. The minister is changing this tax to an ad valorem tax of 20 percent, enough to drive all of our ships' bunkering business to U.S. ports or overseas. It means a virtual end to bunkering in the port of Vancouver, and it writes finis to plans which the private sector has had for ships' bunkering in our new and expanding port of Prince Rupert. That's wrong. I hope the minister will do what he said he may do: that is, to take a good, hard look at this particular tax. It will certainly drive business away. It will prevent new business which we might otherwise have had in northwestern B.C., and that certainly would be too bad.

I think we should do away with the corporation capital tax. I for one have said in three election campaigns that this was likely to be the outcome of the election of a Social Credit government. I hope this comes about shortly. There is really no reason why we have a tax of that kind. Essentially it's a tax on production. It's a tax on investment. It's a tax not only on plant and equipment but also on inventories and on borrowing. A firm may be small, but if it has to lay out $1 million or more for inventory, it attracts this tax. Regardless of whether or not that firm subsequently makes a profit or is able to make a go of its business, it still pays a tax — one that is unusual and rarely charged in other parts of the country.

The outlook is encouraging. We see recovery being reported generally throughout the western world. There is a decline in unemployment and an increase in purchasing power. There is an increase in spending in the United States

[ Page 927 ]

and throughout western Europe. Recently the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development said that in its view the Canadian economy would recover faster and more markedly than that of any other country in the entire western world. That's the opinion of observers who have had some success in making forecasts. If Canada is recovering more rapidly than other parts of the western world, certainly British Columbia will lead the Canadian recovery. It has done so in the past, and there's every reason why it should in the future. We should see an improvement not only in the revenues of the government but in employment, in more jobs.

There are several tangible reasons for being optimistic about improved employment in the province. One has to do with railway investment. I think it is likely now that the Crow rate legislation will be passed in Ottawa by Christmas, assuming it's passed; I gather that both the Liberal government and the official opposition, the Conservatives, will support it in a somewhat amended form by then. We'll have in this province the equivalent of a northeast coal project every year for the next half-dozen years. It will fit in nicely with the northeast coal investment. The manpower on northeast coal will be able to move down to the CNR and CPR expansion, the tunnelling which the CPR is going to do, the trackdoubling, the straightening of track and so on. The railways are talking about many hundreds of millions of dollars a year being spent in British Columbia over a period of time. So here is a sustaining type of investment which will keep our heavy construction industries occupied through the middle 1980s.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Interjection.

MR. DAVIS: Well, that one is a 90 percent probability; that's not facetious.

Another megaproject which will come off in the late 1980s, with preparatory work beginning in the next year or two, will relate to the export of natural gas in liquefied form overseas. That gas won't be entirely from British Columbia; indeed, most of it will come from northern Alberta and perhaps in the longer term from the Beaufort Sea area. But that gas will go out of the port of Prince Rupert to Japan and other countries. It will require the construction of a major pipeline system across British Columbia and of course the construction of liquefaction facilities in the Prince Rupert area. That's a multibillion-dollar project. It's a project of a type that will have an important spinoff in terms of employment in the province. I think there's a 50 or 60 percent probability that it will happen, given the right political and other climate in this country.

Another project that I would like to see go ahead is one which has been advocated in modified form by the Aluminium Co. of Canada. That great Canadian firm should have an opportunity to do more resource-processing in this province — in this case, processing a resource imported from other parts of the world, bauxite, and where possible some further fabrication of light-metal products in the northeastern comer of the province. The Aluminium Co. of Canada has been doing its best to try to sell its project to the people of the north. It's having some success. It must tailor it in such a way that the unfavourable impact on the environment is minimized. It's another megaproject. It's a big one. It can mean continuing jobs, after it's completed, running into the hundreds. All of these jobs involve high rates of pay — big income consequences for the province.

In the longer term, I think we're going to be seeing some of the coal wastes in the Kootenays utilized. We've got many resources which in the fullness of time and given a relatively free-trade environment — good relations between countries…. We'll see job-producing projects here — good ones. clean ones, certainly ones that pay well and will employ a lot of British Columbians. The outlook in the long term — that is, beyond the next few months — is good. The outlook is excellent if the essential, broad-brush programs of the government continue.

Mr. Speaker, I'm going to vote for the budget. Obviously I have reservations about the proposed tax on bunker oil; I would like to have seen the capital tax removed; they're reservations of that kind. But I don't see how the Minister of Finance really could have done anything else.

The opposition is saying: "Don't restrain, or at least don't cut back the kinds of programs we've come to like. Admittedly they're programs introduced by your government, but we've come to like them. We don't want them cut back at all." The vast majority of those programs, certainly the people programs, are being expanded in dollar and, on balance, in employment terms. I can't see how the opposition can vote against the spending side of the budget. On the income side, there is very little we can do about it until the economy recovers. So, Mr. Speaker, I'm going to vote for the budget with, admittedly, a few reservations, but it's the only budget we could have under the circumstances.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to have a chance to make a contribution in opposition to the government's budget, if you wish to refer to it as a budget. We really haven't had a budget in this province for some time — I think it's been about a year and a half.

It's interesting that the government is trying to tell us that they're on a restraint program, when they're budgeting for something like $1.5 billion that they don't have. So much for their fiscal acumen and management of the economy.

Before I proceed to talk about the budget, I would like to reflect a little bit on the state of affairs in the province of British Columbia today. I've been here a long time, and I hope to be here a little longer. During the rally a few weeks ago, a number of public sector employees and others in the community joined to protest this budget and to protest some 26 pieces of legislation that the government had introduced along with the budget. They were very disturbed by the thrust of the budget, the completely new approaches by the government as far as its mandate was concerned and the kinds of programs that it was attempting to implement. In fact, there were some 26,000 people standing on the lawn in front of the Legislature, and they requested that the Premier give them a few minutes of his valuable time, and he was unable to do so. This was only a month or so after he had just won an overwhelming mandate in the May 5 election.

I notice there are a number of members in the back benches who are thumping their desks, obviously applauding that great day.

[4:15]

The problem is that those people were angry because Mr. Bennett, now Premier, had told them that he would be concerned about their welfare, and that they should trust him and have faith in him, and that with his overwhelming majority he

[ Page 928 ]

would be able to carry out a program that would improve the economy and make more equal opportunities for more citizens. Those were promises prior to the May 5 election that those people were demonstrating against because they hadn't been fulfilled. As I recall, there were a number of security guards throughout this precinct trying to protect the government, I suppose, and the cabinet from those people, for fear of someone taking matters into his own hands. That hasn't happened in this Legislature during the years that I've been here, to my knowledge — that we've had to virtually protect the government from the people who had elected it.

Now we find that we are still being advised that the security is tight, that even at this moment procedures are being taken to protect the government — I don't know what from, but I think there is a message there that things have really changed in this province. This government has provoked people from all walks of life and has caused the members of the Legislature to be advised by the hon. speaker of the Legislature — the seat you now sit in, Mr. Speaker…. I suppose, as a temporary Speaker, you have no formal title; but here is what the senior Speaker has to say:

"For the next short while the RCMP will be assisting the office of the Speaker in conducting a review of building security and safety procedures for all staff in the legislative buildings. Members of the force will be contacting offices throughout the building to discuss security and to answer questions which staff may have relating to security procedures. It is hoped that members will offer their usual cooperation in this undertaking, and any members and staff wishing additional information should feel free to contact these officers, who will be temporarily occupying Room 021 in the building basement."

The Speaker claims that this requires our usual cooperation, but I have never, in 11 years, had such a memorandum from the Speaker, and I don't know why we should have to have one now, except that the government seems to have lost its courage.

About a month ago I said that I didn't like to call people names, that I believed we were mature members of the Legislature and should be able to conduct our business with respect for one another, and deal with the problems at hand. But I feel somehow that this government deserves to be called a coward. I know that is not out of order; but if it is, I'll use any substitute which the members opposite wish me to use that would mean the same thing, because "coward" is the way I see it.

MR. KEMPF: Point of order.

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF: We'll go through it again, Madam Member, because, Mr. Speaker, I've listened very intently….

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. member started to speak before he was recognized.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, I don't need the microphone. I've listened very intently for the last six or seven minutes to the debate of this member, and I have yet to find anything in what he's saying which would relate to the question before us. The question before us is the budget. I would ask you to call that member to order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, it is my understanding that it has always been a courtesy of this House to allow a great deal of latitude when discussing the budget. So I would ask the hon. first member for Vancouver Centre to continue.

MR. BARNES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I certainly feel that what I'm saying is relevant to the budget. I can appreciate that member's attempt to admonish me for referring to his side of the House as cowards. I've been around for quite a while, as many of the members know; I've been in a few battles in my day, and I know when I'm in a fight and when I'm not. I would say that with this budget this government has struck the first blow against the people of British Columbia. I say that it is a coward because now that it has struck the first blow, it has gone out and virtually destroyed people's homes, people's lives and livelihoods and opportunities after they have worked so hard and trusted this government, have committed themselves to contracts and tried to do something honourably. They have gone out and taken advantage of defenceless people by decreeing that they shall cease and desist: the handicapped, the infirm, the aged, people who are in no position to defend themselves. And they have done so by violating constitutional rights, fundamental rights and freedoms. We've just celebrated the first year of our new patriated constitution of rights and freedoms. We've been so proud, after all these years, to have the British North America Act become a Canadian document. Yet the very first thing this government does is to go out and offend not only the people within this jurisdiction, but people throughout Canada and, in fact, all over the world.

So when I say this government are cowards, I say that advisedly and with great thought. I have not said that lightly. I say it because they have gone out and struck everybody out on the streets right in the eye, and they sit here smugly with the police protecting them. Then they have the gall to accuse me of being irresponsible by defining, as succinctly as I can, the characteristic that describes that group over there, and describes the budget.

Mr. Speaker, this government does have options, but interestingly they don't wish to use the option they really have, because they are cowards. They want to give the impression that they are respectful of the democratic rights of the people of British Columbia, respectful of the parliamentary system and the rights of the members of this Legislative Assembly and, therefore, do not wish to break tradition and use their authority.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege. I take offence at the word "cowardly" and would ask the member to withdraw.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, the Chair accepted your usage of the word. I suppose it's fair to say that on one or two occasions it's acceptable, but in all fairness, hon. member, it has been used a number of times now, which in my opinion could make it offensive. If you would be so kind, maybe you would withdraw the use of it the last time.

MR. BARNES: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to indicate to me how you determine when a person is a coward: one time, two times, three times? How many times does it take before a person is or is not a coward? I called them

[ Page 929 ]

a coward once; I called them a coward twice. What's the difference?

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, we did hear what you had to say and the Chair has been very reasonable. Would you please continue and desist from using that word.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, I don't wish to dwell on that point. I'm not that concerned about whether the members are offended; I'm merely stating an observation. If they are offended by that, then I will be glad to withdraw the word "coward" if they will withdraw their legislation.

The point I'm trying to make is one that I don't think anyone in this House has made for fear of getting themselves into some kind of box. As I said earlier, I've been in fights many times, and when someone strikes the first blow at me, I feel no obligation whatsoever to deny any power that I have to lower the boom on them. This government has struck the people of British Columbia very hard with this legislation. They have created ripples all over the world. We're getting protests from all over the world: from the clergy, from social workers, from school teachers, from the universities, from private citizens with their own businesses; people all over the world who care about having a society that respects the delicate nature of a democracy, upon which we all rely and expect from each other in order to ensure that we can walk the streets safely and enjoy our lives and the things we have worked hard to win through our efforts and our honest labour. Now they are beginning to tear that apart, tear the people apart and demoralize them. I think that's a cowardly deed for the government to do.

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: I will withdraw it, but I will continue to say it, because that's exactly what it is — cowardly.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. member will take his seat, please.

MR. PARKS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, if I may assist, standing rule 40 says: "No member shall use offensive words against any member of this House." I would suggest that my hon. colleague has continued to use the term "cowardly, " and Sir Erskine May, nineteenth edition at page 445, makes specific reference to that term as unparliamentary.

Interjection.

MR. PARKS: Yes, against a group as well as an individual.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I must respectfully call to your attention the fact that in chairing debate it is difficult at the best of times. It is true that if the member is referring to a single member as a coward, then indeed standing order 40 would be applied and the member would be required to withdraw. However, in describing a deed as cowardly, the member is within his rights. If another member interprets the authorship of a cowardly deed as being himself, that cannot be defined in section 40; that's only left to one's conscience.

So if the member sticks clearly to defining a deed as cowardly, he's certainly within the standing orders of this House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. I would, for the last time, I think, ask the hon. first member for Vancouver Centre if he would please continue, and refrain from using the terminology that he has used.

MR. BARNES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I shall do my best. But you realize that just as the government has done what it feels it must do in good conscience, I must respond in kind. So when I make that statement, it is because I sincerely believe there is no other way I can describe their actions.

[4:30]

Consider what the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) had to say when she withdrew a $50 monthly grant to people who are physically handicapped; people who are acting as volunteers by putting in some 20 hours a month of their time for something like $1.25 an hour; people who are living on incomes of less than $400 a month themselves, and who had to use that $50, incidentally, just to get transportation to go and provide a service for people who are in need. She said it wouldn't matter much; I think that's an offence to those people. This is the kind of thing I'm talking about.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Let's break it down. We had a program called a community involvement program. In some jurisdictions it's referred to as a community incentive program. In any event, it's a very small amount of money, $50, but that $50 has been withdrawn from some 2,600 people in this province who relied upon it in order to maintain a subsistence existence, who were themselves the kind of people this government claims it cares about: the volunteers, people who are willing to give up their time and do something on behalf of the community.

So they withdraw that program. What has it done?

AN HON. MEMBER: One bottle of wine.

MR. BARNES: One bottle of Pouilly-Fuisse, $37.50. They get a little change.

This is a very serious and sinister problem. I won't bother to accuse the government or call them any names, but I still say that your deeds have provoked a great deal of anger and unrest in the community. You have now had to tighten security. Can you imagine tightening security in a free and democratic society where everybody works together? Why are you tightening security? Why did we get a memo from the Speaker telling us that we're going to have to cooperate with the RCMP? What's the reason for that? We've never had that kind of problem before. Why doesn't the Premier go out and talk to these people when they come to him? He didn't have any trouble talking to them prior to May 5, but now he has no time. He even cracks jokes. He says: "Oh, I even get that many people out to my garden party. I don't care anything about 25,000 or 30,000 people." We get 50,000 people in Vancouver out to a rally, and he says: "Oh, that doesn't make any difference. Those people are all a bunch of lefties, a bunch of commies, " or whatever he likes to call them. That's the kind of Premier we have in this province, absolutely disgraceful — and you say you don't want me to call him any

[ Page 930 ]

names. They attack the clergy; they attack people's fundamental rights and freedoms, people's sense of integrity, people's willingness to cooperate.

You know what happens when you demoralize a person, when you take everything from a person and push him up against the wall. You force him to over react or to try to protect himself. You force him to go back to his native instincts, his survival instincts. The reason I say this government deserves to be called a naughty name is because they must know that. They must have realized that they were provoking the people. It must be part of their economic strategy to force people out of this province one way or the other: ride them out, frighten them to death, scare them to death, get rid of them. "We don't want anything to do with you. Just leave." The Provincial Secretary says: "Well, if they can't find jobs, let them leave town." That's the attitude you have. Your strategy is a fundamental, very tragic throwback to an age that I cannot describe, when you believe that in this day and age when we have centralized society — societies have become so highly industrialized that they are interdependent…. You have the gall to say that we're going to send them back to the extended family, who can look after their needs. You know that there are no institutions existing today that can afford to take such a burden on. There are no resources, no matter how well meaning or well intentioned individuals, churches and service clubs are. They all need help.

That's why I say you have offended this society in a way that has crippled it and has demoralized the people. The people are hurting. I say you are naughty, naughty. Imagine that: naughty, naughty. You know what? You could get this budget passed if you really had the courage. You don't need to try to tell the people that it's the opposition that won't let you pass the budget. You didn't have any trouble passing all kinds of retroactive legislation. You've been running this government on borrowed money, treasury bills, for over a year. You've been doing all kinds of things through orders-in-Council. Why is it that all of a sudden now you're trying to create a situation that will make it appear as though the opposition are causing all your problems? Hogwash! We're not causing you problems; you're causing the problems yourselves. You're trying to set us up.

In the parliamentary system filibustering is a right of the opposition. You know it's our democratic right. We have the right to filibuster, but we cannot pass legislation. We're not the ones who pass it. You have the mandate and the big numbers. If you're not cowards, why don't you go all the way. You've already destroyed the economy, the society, and taken away all the fundamental rights of the people. Now you say you're democrats and don't want to do anything that's unparliamentary or undemocratic. So you're not going to close anything on anybody. Big joke. You guys could close off, all right, but you're scared. You want to find an excuse. You've got to get out the back door now. You've got to find a way out.

MR. REID: No, we don't.

MR. BARNES: Yes, you do.

MR. REID: No, we don't.

MR. BARNES: Yes, you do.

MR. REID: No, we don't.

MR. BARNES: Yes, you do. You haven't got the courage to do what you started off to do. You're starting to get chicken.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. member for Maillardville-Coquitlam rises on a point of order.

MR. PARKS: Standing order 43, Mr. Speaker, says that we shouldn't have to go through tedious repetition. I sat here and heard that hon. member say: "Yes, you do. Yes, you do. Yes, you do." That's getting darn tedious.

MR. REID: And repetitious!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: On the same point of order, the Chair recognizes the hon. Leader of the Opposition.

MR. BARRETT: When a member has the floor, it is the rule of this House that constant interruptions from one person would demand the expulsion of that member from the House. On frequent occasions the half-member from Surrey — standing order 20, Mr. Speaker — is constantly interrupting with mindless words that seem to be repetitive, but at times are indecipherable. It is important to keep decorum in the House, and it would be appropriate to ask the member to leave the chamber if he is unable to control himself, no matter what function he's having difficulty with.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: On the same point of order, the member for Kootenay.

MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Speaker, if you are to enforce that rule rigidly, all eight members of the New Democratic Party who are in the House would have to leave.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, the Chair is…. The second member for Surrey on the same point of order.

MR. REID: I take offence to the member who got half as many votes as I did in the last election.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That's not a….

MR. REID: He called me half a member when I got twice as many votes. I should be called two members in one.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. We'll deal with these one at a time.

With respect to standing order 43 raised by the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam, the members are all aware of what constitutes tedious and repetitious debate. I'm sure the hon. first member for Vancouver Centre is well aware of that. I'm sure he's going to progress in his debate with new material and carry on in a parliamentary fashion.

With respect to the point of order raised by the hon. Leader of the Opposition, standing order 20 clearly indicates that a member who is grossly disorderly must be asked to withdraw from the House. The Chair has not found that to be the case at this point, although I will remind all hon. members that it is most unparliamentary to interject when another member is speaking.

[ Page 931 ]

Finally, though, the hon. second member for Surrey has found an expression used by the hon. Leader of the Opposition unparliamentary and offensive to him as a member of this House. Therefore I will ask the hon. Leader of the Opposition if he will withdraw that term that was found offensive.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I'm sure that in May or Beauchesne there is no description that I would define as unparliamentary in describing a member as half a member.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, that is unparliamentary, hon. member. It reflects upon his integrity and his ability to….

MR. BARRETT: Under May and Beauchesne it's described as half-wit.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No.

MR. BARRETT: Yes. And the definition is…. However, if the member finds it offensive, I will withdraw.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. The hon. first member for Vancouver Centre will continue uninterrupted on the budget debate.

MR. BARNES: Thank you very kindly, Mr. Speaker. As you can appreciate, I had considerable notes compiled — hoping to be able to share these with the members of the Legislature — dealing with all of the grievances that I've been receiving from all quarters of the province. It just became so unbearable to deal with all of these frustrating letters and representations and petitions from social workers, organizations and individuals who are suffering as a result of this budget. This so-called government of fiscal responsibility claims that it and only it has the ability to manage the affairs of this province fiscally, and that the other people in the province are best to do the complaining and to act as opposition, but not to have any responsibility.

Mr. Speaker, how long has it been since we've had a budget in this province? How long has it been since we've had legislation in place that this government can use with statutory authority? Do you know how many acts this government has taken without statutory authority? We have legislation on the order paper before us to be debated that is over a year old and that this government has used — all retroactive legislation. Practically everything that this government has done this past year and a half will have to be retroactively approved. What kind of government is that? What kind of management is that? When is it going to end? When are we going to get some statutory authority for the actions that this government is taking? And now they say we're stalling. The second member for Vancouver–Little Mountain says that we are stalling. How can that possibly be?

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: Look, let's take some action.

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: Are you prepared? Are you prepared to withdraw that legislation?

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BARNES: Are you prepared to withdraw that repressive legislation that you've brought in denying people their rights in this province? Do you realize that if….

Thank God we do have an opposition. What do you think would happen if we had no opposition whatsoever to you people? What would you do if there was nobody over here at all? You would have trouble trying to protect yourselves against your own acts.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BARNES: We're probably doing them a great favour, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

MR. BARNES: We're doing them a favour, because they don't seem to have the ability to protect themselves from themselves.

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The hon. second member for Little Mountain will come to order immediately.

MR. BARNES: I'm going to refer to a statement made by the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy). She says that some things can't stay "all in the family." This is from an article in the Victoria Times-Colonist. I received it on February 5, so it's approximately of that date. This minister states: "Now if we're talking about a family's religious practices, cultural habits or lifestyle, then I completely agree." In other words, it's all in the family, if that's what we're talking about. She agrees. She says:

"But if we're talking about a family's treatment of children, then I take issue with that attitude. I believe that children, because of their dependence, their innocence and their inability to defend themselves, require special protection beyond that which is given to adults in our society."

I agree with her. That is the reputation that she has led us to believe she has lived up to over the years.

[4:45]

"I am not going to mince words here or skirt the issue. The issue is that adults do not have the right to brutalize children, to break their arms, to hang them up by the wrists, to sexually abuse them or to perform any other kind of cruel, sadistic punishment. When this kind of thing takes place — and it does happen — then as a society we have the responsibility to do something about it."

That is the present Minister of Human Resources.

"In fact, as a society we are doing something about it. In British Columbia we have a Family and Child Service Act. In this way the ministry and the court system act on behalf of us all to protect children

[ Page 932 ]

in our society from abuse and neglect. Our experience indicates that evidence in child abuse cases is often cumulative."

Something that has to be prevented and worked at. In other words, it is not something that just happens and goes away.

"Most of us do not think about child abuse. It is easy to turn our heads and pretend that it doesn't exist, that it doesn't happen in our community. But figures show that it does. In British Columbia last year my ministry investigated 3, 504 cases of probable child abuse. Of these, 2, 886 reports proved to have some foundation for concern. In 673 cases children were removed from their families, 35 children were hospitalized as result of abuse, and six child deaths were attributed to abuse. Criminal charges were laid in 133 cases. I would rather face controversy on this issue than risk the life of one more child."

As she says, "when it comes to children it is not 'all in the family' as the TV serial states."

This is why I say there is something wrong. I say the government is naughty, and you know what that is equated with if you go back to the earlier statements I made in my speech — which I will not refer to again, because I want to be parliamentary; this is a serious debate and I do not wish to offend any of the members. I am suggesting to you that something has happened to that hon. Minister of Human Resources. Something has happened to her integrity and her concern for children, her concern for the family in British Columbia — and her concern for her own self-respect, when you come right down to it. She has campaigned on this most of her career. I have listened to the people talk about that hon. member and they have said: "One thing we know about that minister; no matter what else, she loves children and she cares." What has happened? What has happened to the child-abuse teams? What has happened to those people? What has happened to those specialists who used to go into the homes and look after the battered children and try to counsel the family and keep them together? What happened to the integrity of the family that we cared about so much? What is going down, anyway? You know what is happening? We are facing an ideological showdown with those people over there, and they are calling it restraint. There is nothing to do with restraint here. It is incredible. You are going to tell me that I am out of order for using a word like "coward, " and I won't refer to who that should fit. Here is someone calling what they are doing restraint. This is almost the same thing that Hitler did when he was taking the Jews to the gas chamber.

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: You are calling it restraint, but this is a diabolical plot to deny people their fundamental rights and freedoms in this society. It is about time we started to fight back.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The members will come to order, please. As I mentioned earlier, interjections and heckling are out of order. If the hon. member now speaking could use more temperance and moderation in his language as we are advised to do, then we could maintain order in the House.

MR. BARNES: I will do my best to be moderate and temperate, Mr. Speaker; but you must appreciate that this is not a situation that makes that easy.

HON. MR. WATERLAND. On a point of order, the first member for Vancouver Centre drew a comparison with a very unfortunate indident that took place in Europe in the 1940s. I think the comments he made are an affront to every citizen of this province and of Canada. I would certainly hope that he would withdraw that rather intemperate remark.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The members will come to order.

The member used a term that the Chair would find offensive if it been directed to an hon. member, but it was not directed so I do not find that term offensive. But I would ask the member to use moderation and temperance in language.

MR. BARNES: I don't intend to offend anyone. I merely wish to exercise my rights and privileges as a duly elected member of the Legislature by coming here and telling things like they are. I am not interested in offending anyone. I'm not the government; I'm representing the opposition. I'm trying to protect the people of this province. I'm also trying to protect that government from itself. So I have no cause for any kind of apology or withdrawals. What am I going to withdraw? I didn't put the bills on the order paper; you put them on the order paper. You withdraw the bills

You seem to be offended by the comments I'm making. Why aren't you offended by what I consider to be an indescribable sense of self-righteousness on the part of you people? Have you any idea of what you are doing to the people of British Columbia with your legislation, with this irresponsible kind of attitude you have towards the people? Do you think I'm making up these stories? You can come and see them for yourself. We've got correspondence from all over the province. The Premier said that 50,000 people can gather in Empire Stadium but it doesn't mean a thing, that they're all a bunch of crypto communists. What are you? What gave you the right to come in here and do what you're doing? You never said a word about it before May 5.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: Would you feel better if it were 45? Are you denying the figures that were printed in the media? What would you call them, Mr. Second Member for Little Mountain?

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, hon. members. The House will come to order immediately. The member continues. Please address the Chair.

MR. BARNES: It's very interesting, isn't it, Mr. Speaker, how these people seem to try to grab anything they can get that will divert one from the subject at hand? They do not intend to defend that budget. They do not intend to go to some of those community resources and talk to the people who are suffering. They don't want to hear what's really happening on the street. They're not concerned. I'll bet you that not one of them has gone into any of those places to find out what's happening in the homes where they've destroyed

[ Page 933 ]

those people. Even I didn't know what post-partum depression was until I got this job as the critic for the Ministry of Human Resources, but I can tell you that it's a very serious problem that women have in this culture and in this society as a result of stress, strain and of abandonment and the difficulty of trying to survive. Females in any case are having a hard time in this society, so when they are abandoned by men who are not able to support or sustain what they start, many of these women become frightened and want to hurt themselves or their children. All kinds of things happen. This minister who cares about children and families is saying: "We're going to cut off programs. We don't care what happens, just get lost." Fundamentally that's what she's saying. I say it's wrong. And you know it's wrong. You have no resource in place to do anything about it.

Today I asked the minister to tell me her plans. What do you have in place, Madam Minister of Human Resources, to deal with those people in Tranquille, those 300 mentally retarded of all ages who are going to have to go into the community. She said: "Well, the volunteers will take care of them." I said: "How? These people require specialized attention and specialized care. In most cases they're going to have to have round-the-clock attention. What are their prospects?" She said: "Well, it will be taken care of." I said: "Would you specify how you're going to do it?" You people plan what you're going to do; you don't do things ad hoc. You don’t just let things happen and make a decision. I found out that she didn't even know she was going to do this during the election. They just decided to do this after getting the results of the polls. They found out that there are a lot of people out there in British Columbia who were desensitized as a result of hard times and selfishness, perpetrated by those people who would exploit them. So they have become careless in respect to our system of democracy and of individuals' rights. So they've allowed themselves to respond in an affirmative way to some of those polling questions and have said things which do not truly represent what they really feel. They have been misled. So this government has drawn up a program based on that, and now they are finding that the people are upset, and they don't know why. They say: "Well, we won the election."

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I'm going to have to ask the hon. member to discontinue his speech now. The time under standing orders has elapsed.

MR. BARNES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate your patience.

I do hope the government will change its mind. I will definitely be voting against this legislation and most of the rest unless they do change their minds.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Speaker, it's a pleasure to get into this budget debate and support this budget — a responsible, realistic budget that will serve the needs of the people of this province both now and in the long run.

I think the previous speaker, the first member for Vancouver Centre, (Mr. Barnes) made the point very well about the rights of an opposition to filibuster, to call names, to slander by innuendo and implication, and about how the technicalities of the House rules, which were intended to allow freedom of speech and full debate and not to stifle responsible debate, can be used to do all sorts of nasty things. That member and some of his colleagues supporting him gave us a perfect example of how the House can be used to attack in any way, shape or form, as long as you can word it right. That's unfortunate. I would like to suggest that the intentions….

Interjection.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Certainly you have the right to filibuster, delay and repeat the same debate over and over again. You seem to be so concerned about what money is available for the people, but not one bit concerned about the $80,000 a day that can be used by prolonging the debate in this House.

No one questions your democratic right to speak in a debate. What we're talking about is when all of your members spoke in a debate and, in what they had to say, used technicalities to call us all the possible names you wanted to, and then moved a hoist motion so that you could use the technicalities of this House to repeat all those speeches once again, saying the same things over and over again. Yes, you have that right. I'm suggesting that it may be time that the opposition learned that until they start acting responsibly, socialism will never again gain a foothold in this province.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: To the budget, please, hon. member.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Oh, yes, I'm getting to that, Mr. Speaker. I was simply responding to the budget debate that that other member gave.

Okay, to the budget. That member made much of the services that have been cut in this province. By implication and innuendo, again, he's saying that services and human rights have been cut in this province, that services to seniors and the handicapped have been cut. I'd like him perhaps to think about what has been cut. The delivery service has been cut. In Human Resources — and that's the example that was used — there were over 5,900 employees. With all of the drastic cuts, as you like to put it, there are still 5,400 people in Human Resources. Yet you have the audacity to try and convince the public of this province that those 5,400 people are going to abandon all protection of human rights, of services to those people…. How can you dare say that? What you're protecting in all of your long-ranging debate here and all of your innuendos, implications and insinuations is those 500 people who guaranteed they would vote for you because you guaranteed them jobs or increases if you ever got elected, and that is that.

You talk about rights. Let's talk about rights. What about the rights of the taxpayers of this province who have made the choice…? We've been accused of not saying what we were going to do during the election campaign. I beg to differ. Long before the election campaign, and during it, the statement was made that we were going to cut the civil service by 25 percent and that it was necessary in order to preserve the economy and the financing in this province. We said we would do that. We didn't name those people during the election, so you can say: "Well, you didn't say you were going to do this and do that." That's not done. But we did say that those cuts were going to be made, and we did say that there would be some very hard decisions. I think this budget reflects the fact that despite those hard decisions, human rights have not been cut in this province. Human rights will be retained.

[ Page 934 ]

But I'll tell you, what we are cutting back on is the number of people that are employed — those people who have been getting jobs to do that and who have been taking that money in wages, which could have been going to services and to the people who needed it. I would venture to say that the cuts that have been made in the seniors' program, as small as they have been, have been made in funding to centres.

MR. BLENCOE: Why are you so defensive?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I'm not being defensive. I'm trying to teach you the facts of life even though you might not even get the message.

Interjections.

[5:00]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: "What and why?" is the big cry. It's the executive directors, the salaried people, who have been using that money instead of giving it to the seniors. Those are the people who are hurt and are saying: "It's you seniors that they're hurting." Any seniors' organization in this province can elect a chairman, secretary and treasurer at no salary and be served better than they are by this high-paid help that they're spending the money on. The cuts are not to the seniors; the cuts are to the employees. The services have not been cut. The concerns of this government for people are reflected in the increased amounts for human resources, education and health; our caring and concern for people is reflected in those amounts. But that does not mean to say that we have to keep everyone in this province employed in the public sector, just because they were there once, whether or not the work is there or whether or not it is necessary. So let's not talk about that.

The first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) was questioning why all of a sudden we needed security, and he's trying to lay it all in the laps of the government. I think I can tell you why there may be some security measures necessary in this province. That ex-Leader of the Opposition stood up in this House, and has said to the press: "I don't condone or promote violence, but the people will have no other choice than to use violence. But I'm not promoting it; I'm simply saying, what else can they do but react with violence?" If that is not planting the idea….

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, it is unparliamentary to suggest that any member of this House has condoned or advocated violence. Under standing order 42, the hon. Leader of the Opposition can later correct the minister's statement, but he made no such statement as reported. The accusation is unparliamentary, and I ask that the minister withdraw it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point of order is well taken, and if the hon. minister did impute any false or unworthy motive to the Leader of the Opposition, I will ask the hon. minister to withdraw it.

Perhaps I should read to all hon. members. "There are many rulings on the subject of parliamentary language as applied to a member in debate, and any expression derogatory to a member's character as an honourable gentleman, or to his honour and personal character as a representative of the people, is out of order and will require a withdrawal."

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I think, Mr. Speaker, that it's a case….

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Unqualified, please.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: So you're saying I have to withdraw the point I was trying to make.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: If the member has imputed any dishonourable motive to another member, I will ask him to withdraw.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: All right, Mr. Speaker, I'll withdraw that.

The point I was trying to make is that when any person and I was referring to the fact that the Leader of the Opposition and several union members have said at rallies: "We don't want violence…. So presumably he's not promoting it. But when they make statements to the effect that, because of what the government has done, this may generate violence because people have no other alternative, the point I'm making is that it may not be intended that way, but it suggests to those people, or at least to some people out there, that violence is the only method of solution, and in that way I consider it irresponsible.

MR. HOWARD: A shameful….

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) will come to order. I am about to recognize the member for Prince Rupert — with no interjections.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, the hon. minister is trying to do something through the back door that you ordered him not to do through the front door. He's still trying to leave an innuendo there that the hon. Leader of the Opposition condoned violence. I don't personally believe that any leader of any party in this province would do that.

I remember during the 1975 election there was a death threat against the present Leader of the Opposition. The Premier, then the Leader of the Opposition, said he deplored it, but said: "He only brought it on himself." I would ask you to ask the minister to withdraw again because he's trying to do it again through the back door. I don't think it parliamentary, and I don't think it's good for the people of this province.

MR. REYNOLDS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, in reading standing order 42, "No member may speak twice to a question except explanation of a material part of his speech…. Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is not in this House, and if he wants to correct the minister's speech when he's finished, he can come back into this House. But I think we're having unnecessary delays by other members of this House because they're upset at what the leader of their party said in this House in debate.

MR. LAUK: The hon. member for West Vancouver does not know the rules of this House.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

[ Page 935 ]

MR. LAUK: The point of order being raised by myself and the hon. member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) is that the minister's suggestion is unparliamentary. It has nothing to do with standing order 42. I said that the leader can subsequently, under that standing order, correct any statements. However, the minister has suggested that an hon. member would condone, or has indirectly or directly condoned, violence. That is unparliamentary and he must withdraw.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes. And with respect to the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Reynolds) and the subsequent comment by the hon. second member for Vancouver Centre, the Chair is aware that the hon. Leader of the Opposition has not yet spoken in debate so there would be every opportunity, and standing order 42, as suggested by both hon. members, would not apply in this case. However, once again it has been brought to the Chair's attention that an offensive motive has been imputed to another hon. member. I will ask the hon. minister if he will withdraw imputing any offensive motive to another member.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I have said, Mr. Speaker, and made it clear, that that member has said that he was not condoning violence.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: And you're withdrawing any imputation of offensive motivation?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Well, I can withdraw an imputation to that member. Let's leave it at that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. If the member withdraws, then the member will continue on the budget speech in order. Please proceed.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: A comment was made earlier…. I don't know whether I dare refer to it, but one of the opposition speakers said something about there being abundant resources in this province to create jobs for all. I agree with that. But those resources will not create jobs, nor are they worth much, until they can be marketed. It is the concern that we not price ourselves out of those world markets, either by wage increases or by horrendous tax increases, if we hope to use those resources. You can have as many trees standing in the bush as you like, and that is of no actual value until you can sell it as a tree or as lumber. We have to avoid higher taxation. We have to take measures here so that we don't ruin the economy of this province, and market those resources. That is one of the things this budget is trying to do to hold down taxes.

I would like to comment just briefly that the hammering, if you like, that we're getting in the House here for how this budget has destroyed faith and confidence of the people in this province seems a little contradictory or strange. I think it goes to show that actions do speak louder than words, because across this province you find statements and statistics showing that car sales are up for the months of June and July; a headline in the paper that in July there was a 68 percent surge over last year in house sales…. Furniture and appliance sales have gone up. People have been spending, buying, building, doing things since the budget was announced. So I would suggest that maybe those people, as taxpayers, have decided that this budget has finally come to grips with what has to happen in this province to cut the huge spending of government and leave that money in the hands of the people. They believe, and they are showing that belief in their actions.

I know much has been made about the cuts not doing much. If you compare apples to oranges, I guess you can make that case. The budget does not show that great a saving in salaries this year over last year. But if you do a little statistical analysis and a little bit of arithmetic I think you find that yes, in the 1982-83 estimates — let's compare apples to apples — some 46,000-plus full-time equivalents for a salary had a direct cost to the province of over $1 billion. In the 1983-84 present budget estimates, we see 39,960, or 40,000 for round numbers; just $16 million less, but still over $1 billion in salaries.

So not much of a saving this year — a point well made. However, I think you have to remember that it's only part of the year that is affected; that when you take into account salary increases that have been added onto, and the increments, it's not surprising there's not much of an increase this year.

[5:15]

Nevertheless, I would like to point out that the 6,841 difference in numbers represents an approximately 15 percent cut — I've rounded these numbers off to the nearest whole number. If you work it back to average salaries of $22,200 in the previous year, just dividing the numbers — I know that all kinds of other factors creep in, but just staying with apples to apples — average salaries went to $25,690 in 1983-84. Take that $25,000 figure and multiply it by the 6,841 people who would be here had this government made no cuts, and you come up with a nice little saving of $175 million. If you take that and project it, that's 40,000 direct people; there are 214,000 public sector employees in this province without even considering the federal people. Multiply that over and over again, and you get a figure of over $500 million saved. Multiply that by another amount that will be saved next year by another 4,000 reduction, and multiply that by the cumulative effect it has over the next years. Add to that the NDP philosophy that nobody should be cut and that salary increases should be given to all those people who ask for them, as they promised during the election campaign, and you can easily see that you've got a billion-dollar difference.

How would you get that difference? There would have to be an over 50 percent increase in personal tax; it would almost double the sales tax. It would also double the resource revenue from all our natural resources. It would be about four times the corporation income tax. What would that do to the economy? I think the taxpayers of this province know, and that's why, given the choice, they did not accept socialism and socialist theories. They accepted responsible financial management, which will be best for them in the long run.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I made a number of notes while I was listening to the Minister of Environment and of Lands, Parks and Housing, intending, while making those notes, to reply. But I threw them in the waste basket, where they appropriately are designated to go, which is where the minister's speech should as well go. If I can make a passing comment in a gentle way — not like the minister — if he's not able to listen to the remarks intensely felt or reflecting an intense feeling by the member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes), who spoke before him…. If he doesn't have the capacity to appreciate the emotion felt by the member for Vancouver Centre when he was talking about human beings

[ Page 936 ]

in this province, the minister's got no bloody business being in the cabinet.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I will ask the hon. member for Skeena to withdraw that statement. I find it unparliamentary and it reflects upon the member's character. Will the member now withdraw?

MR. HOWARD: All right, I will withdraw it. Certainly. No question.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will advise the hon. member that we've had a couple of statements from the Chair today with respect to commenting and applying to a member in debate any expression derogatory to their character or their personal character, which is out of order. If there are any more incidents of that type of unparliamentary language or decorum, then I will have to invoke standing order 20.

MR. HOWARD: I unqualifiedly withdraw any imputations about the character of the minister.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I am entitled under standing orders to explain. I was not talking about his character. I was saying that if he did not have the capacity to listen and appreciate and understand the emotion felt by the member for Vancouver Centre when he was speaking, then he doesn't have any business holding that particular office. A person holding a cabinet post should have the understanding and humility to appreciate when someone feels strongly about something, and not engage in the type of debate that he engaged in. That's what I was saying. It casts no aspersions on the character of the minister, on his personality or anything else, Mr. Speaker. I don't say that in a way to chide the Chair, because I unqualifiedly withdrew whatever it was the Chair felt needed to be withdrawn. But at no time, and with respect, did I cast any aspersions on his character.

As I said, I made notes as he was speaking and confined them to the waste basket, where his speech should have gone as well in its preliminary way. One of the questions we have to ask about the budget is, where is the Minister of Finance? It's his baby; it's his budget — so he claims. After having put the budget in limbo for some long period of time, it is now revived, and the author of it hasn't even got the interest to show up in the chamber to listen to what is happening. Perhaps the best way to designate the budget — because it had been interrupted and the minister is now absent from it — is to call it a Curtis interruptus budget. Why not? It's been interrupted more than once.

AN HON. MEMBER: Withdraw!

MR. HOWARD: Someone obviously took my remarks in an inappropriate way.

This budget — and I want to say this very clearly — is a falsified budget. It is a falsified document. It contains….

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Minister of Environment on a point of order.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I think this term "falsified budget" imputes motives of falsification on the part of the person who drew up the budget. I think the member should withdraw that.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of Environment is so upset — that poor delicate soul of his — I'll withdraw it. I don't need to, but I will.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order. The member had not been recognized. The member for Skeena withdraws.

MR. HOWARD: That's the kind of document it is. It contains statements that I think can prove the contention that I made just a moment ago.

Let's look at page 10 of the budget speech. The Minister of Finance talks about consolidated revenue fund expenditures, expenditures by ministries, government offices, initiatives, etc. "This represents a 12.3 percent increase over last year." That figure is false. An examination of the budget later on will show that it is false. Budgetary expenditures in the budget, presented by the same minister for the preceding fiscal year, 1982-83, were $7.232 million, rounded off. The expenditures in this budget, shown on page 36 of the budget, are $8.454 million. I ain't very much at arithmetic, and so I had my friend from Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson), who is a whiz with these things, confirm that my computations were accurate. The budgetary expenditures contained in this budget represent a 16.7 percent increase over the budget of last year — not 12.3 percent as the minister says on page 10. That, I maintain, is a false statement from the Minister of Finance. That is a false statement in the budget.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon-members, I will advise the House — and please hear me out — that we can share contrary opinions, but we can't accuse members of dishonourable motives.

MR. HOWARD: I'm not accusing him of motives honourable or dishonourable. I am, reading what he said in this House. I'm pointing out to the House that that is a false figure, 12.3 percent. I don't know why he mentioned 12.3 percent, unless it was to indicate to the public that something exists which is not in fact in accordance with the truth. It's a 16.7 percent increase in the budget this year over last year. When we look at the record of this minister in presenting budgets, we see that he has budgeted to tax and squander the taxpayers' money of this province to the extent of having an 85.1 percent increase in government spending in the mere four years that he's been in office. That's an incredible record. It's no wonder the Minister of Finance doesn't want to come into the House and listen to or defend his budget. He's imposing a 16.7 percent increase this year, and he tells us something otherwise in the budget — there's a false figure in there — and under his ministership alone government expenditures have increased by 85 percent. That is a disgraceful record.

It's this government, in the face of that record of taxing and squandering the taxpayers' money, rubbing its hands in glee at inflation, exhorting the federal government to have a high interest rate policy, as the Premier did…. It's this government that now turns around and says that the poor, the unprotected, the single parents, the women and children and low-income families that the first member for Vancouver Centre talked about a while ago have to pay for the extravagant, stupid excesses of government expenditures.

How about all those back-benchers who were chortling a while ago? Where are they now? They're silent because they're ashamed of the facts of this budget. They don't mind

[ Page 937 ]

heckling. They don't mind shooting from the lip or the hip or wherever it is. They don't mind being gutsy hypocrites. They don't mind being a lot of things. But where are they now?

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The term is offensive. Will the member please withdraw it.

MR. HOWARD: Certainly, Mr. Speaker. I thought it was "gutless hypocrite" that was offensive, but whatever you say.

In any event, they're silent now, chattering amongst themselves, because they're unable to defend a budget that contains false information. Those who were in the past parliament are ashamed of the fact that they stood up in this House when we were proposing the saving of public money, for vote after vote after vote, and voted against cutting back on any government expenditures. We were only talking about lavish living things like office furniture and couches — chesterfields, whatever they use to recline upon in their offices — advertising budgets and all those sorts of things. That is all we were seeking to do.

[5:30]

It's very significant that a bill that we have before the House — and I can talk about it because it is referred to in the budget as well — seeks to take away the tax credits and the renters' tax credits. The Minister of Finance said in this House that it would cost the taxpayers $82 million a year. It is interesting to note that in the 1981-82 fiscal year, when we in the NDP, concerned about the taxpayers of this province, contrary to declarations of the escaped Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Brummet), who said that we weren't concerned about them — I mean escaped from the chamber…. Contrary to opinions expressed by him and others in this chamber when we attempted to save the taxpayers' money, when we moved motion after motion in this House, and every cabinet minister and every back-bencher in the Socred party at that time voted against it, in 1981-82 the amount of savings that we would have effected for the taxpayers was $82 million in one year. Because the Minister of Finance led the negative parade in 1981-82 against those, savings that we proposed in this chamber, he now is turning around and saying: "I blew it then. I could have saved $82 million if I had just had the courage to follow the NDP lead." But now he is going to take it out on the poor people and tenants. He is going to get the $82 million back by cutting out a tax benefit to people in low-income brackets.

That is the blatant, outright, absolute, offensive, vicious hypocrisy of the Social Credit government. Just looking at the simple things of dollars and cents, is it any wonder that the people in this province are upset and concerned?

Last year's budget. You know I keep hearing comments from Socreds who say: "What would you do? Where would you find the money? What would you do about it?" We've put forward ideas before. I'd tell the Minister of Finance, if he only had the interest to come into the chamber and listen to this — he's been absent all day — that he and government members will find the answer to that question if they only had the common sense to go back and look at the budget introduced in this chamber on the 5th day of April 1982. Last year.

Here's some comments from the Minister of Finance. He talks about high interest rates. I just need to make a passing comment about that. He talks about one such group that has benefited by high interest rates that his government advocated should be in place in any event. Remember when the Premier went back to Ottawa, closeted himself with Pierre Trudeau and said: "Pierre, you're on the right track. We in the government of British Columbia support absolutely the high interest rate policy of the Bank of Canada. Keep it up. That's what we need." That's the legacy as we are living it now. One such group, the Minister of Finance said last year, is Canada's chartered banks. Since 1977, for example, chartered banks have realized an average after-tax return on shareholders' equity of more than 21 percent, significantly and consistently higher than any other financial institutions and industrial sectors. Then he goes on to say that they don't pay their fair share of taxes either. He said:

"As a result, some of Canada's banks have recorded very large net incomes and yet have paid very little federal or provincial income tax. For example, in 1976 income taxes paid to British Columbia by the chartered banks totalled $15.5 million. In 1980, in spite of large profits, these banks paid only $5.8 million in British Columbia income taxes."

Then he went on to say that they were going to tax them some more in the province.

That was a pre-election budget. Now we've got a post-election budget and not a whisper in this budget before us now about the banks — and their profits have gone up. The spread in the chartered banks in Canada traditionally is at…. Well, it's a variable 2 percent, 2.5 percent or something of that sort; that's how they make their money. The spread the chartered banks are operating on about this period of time in our history is 4 percent. That means they'll charge you 4 percent more for borrowing money than they'll give you if you deposit it with them. There's a 4 percent spread and not a whisper in the air — this great friend of the banking institutions. Do you want to look for more money, Mr. Minister of Finance, wherever you are and whatever you're doing with yourself today? You can find it in the chartered banks.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

It's passing strange to me that in 1982 he made a great case in the budget about the banks paying such an insignificant amount of money in taxes to British Columbia, and now when we apparently need the money he's quite content to let the chartered banks hang on to every ill-gotten penny that they can get. Friends of the banks, that's what you are.

Mr. Speaker, I don't intend to go on at any tremendous length here. There is a notice of motion in my name on the order paper if you'd like to sign your name to it. There's a notice of an amendment of mine on the order paper, where it can be found if anybody wants to look at it, but I also need to do it in a formal way. If my hand can just reach far enough behind me, we'll find it.

I would like to move an amendment, seconded by the hon. member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell), that the motion that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair for the House to go into Committee of Supply be amended by adding the following:

"But this House condemns the government for presenting a budget which is unfair; which discriminates against people in all walks of life; which does nothing to promote the creation of jobs" — I wish I could underline some of those words in there and they would appear in Hansard as underlined — "which

[ Page 938 ]

reflects the general mishandling and falsification of the province's finances since March 11, 1980; and which, in conjunction with other government actions, will move this province towards having a centralized, authoritarian and dictatorial government; all of which are negative" — a word that the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) loves — "and contrary to the democratic interests of the people of this province."

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I will need some time to consider whether or not the motion falls within the necessary confines. I will reserve my decision on this and permit debate to continue.

MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think there might be some confusion inasmuch as you say you have reserved decision but are allowing debate to go ahead right now on the…. On the amendment?

MR. SPEAKER: Yes.

MR. NICOLSON: Then the seconder would be normally expected to follow the mover of the motion.

MR. SPEAKER: That would be….

MR. NICOLSON: Let me put it this way. Would the seconder then have lost his position if he didn't speak at this point?

MR. SPEAKER: Under no circumstances, hon. member.

MR. PELTON: Mr. Speaker, to begin with I would like to extend my personal congratulations to the hon. Minister of Finance on the outstanding budget speech which he delivered to this House on July 7. His preface was thoughtful and his presentation was dignified and completely sincere. He told it as it is, and in a way that the majority of the voters of British Columbia want it to be.

The majority of British Columbians don't want handouts. They're not interested in having a benevolent government shepherd them from the womb to the tomb. They would much prefer to be independent and make their own way. But they do — and I repeat, they do — want a government which is financially accountable, supports personal initiative, strives to provide an economic environment which will create permanent — and I stress the word "permanent" — and rewarding jobs, and is dedicated to building a future open to the aspirations of the over two million British Columbians. British Columbians want a government that is fair and compassionate, which provides in an equitable way, taking into account the ability to pay, those medical, educational, humanitarian and legal services which every citizen has a right to expect.

This budget we're debating is not, to my mind, the entire solution to the problems facing us. But I do believe it represents an amalgam of the very best efforts of, as the Minister of Finance stated, our Premier, the members of cabinet, senior managers and many dedicated people throughout the public service. It certainly is not only a financial plan for today, but also one that has application at least in the immediate future. During the past weeks I've had the opportunity to discuss our budget with a number of my constituents. While they saw it as strong medicine, it was in fact well received. Its content did not come as any great surprise to very many people. Even at the local barber shop where, as the in-generation says, it all hangs out, I felt no cause for alarm when my tonsorialist started to sharpen his straight razor.

It is a supportable budget. The good citizens of this beautiful province are, I am sure, as determined as we are that it be supported and that it work. People of all ages, I have found, have come to realize, as our Finance minister said, that prosperity must be earned and that every dollar that the government spends is a dollar from the pockets of the people.

There are some areas that involve increases in user fees and taxes, and the cancellation or curtailment of some programs, where I believe it is absolutely mandatory that we communicate our intentions to the public in the clearest possible way, to ensure beyond any reasonable doubt that especially those suffering from physical infirmity and who are living on a limited income, or others in similar adverse conditions, will be accommodated regardless of their ability to pay. To many people, particularly the elderly, not hearing precisely what the rules are or where they stand in relation thereto can be a difficult and possibly frightening experience. We all have a responsibility to ensure that this does not occur.

Now I will take just a moment or two to speak to some specific initiatives contained in the budget. First, I believe the proposal for a unified borrowing approach to capital markets on behalf of the government and Crown corporations is an excellent one. There is little doubt that this will result in lower interest rates for all concerned and a saving to the taxpayer, either directly or indirectly.

[5:45]

In this same context, I would like to take the opportunity to mention the superb service at minimum cost that the Municipal Finance Authority provides to local governments and, through them, to the people of British Columbia. The Municipal Finance Authority's knowledge of and ability to deal effectively within the national and international money markets contributes in no small measure to the ability of municipalities, regional districts and others to provide those essential services to their people which require large outlays of capital.

Having earned my living from the retail automobile industry for a number of years, I cannot in all honesty become ecstatic over the proposed increases to the social service tax. I suppose one should be entitled to at least this small degree of parochialism. Heaven knows that over the past two years, at least, it has been anything but easy to break even, never mind make a profit in the automobile business. However, I sustain tile budget in this amendment, as do the colleagues I have talked to who are involved in the auto trade. It will be one small way in which they can contribute to recovery.

The tax on meals of $7 or more is another matter of concern to many people. I do not think that this tax, like the tax on long-distance telephone calls, poses any particular burden on the less fortunate. On the contrary, I would suggest it will impact principally on those best able to pay.

The matter of divesting regional districts of certain planning functions does not cause me any particular concern, and I did speak to this previously. I don't see it as an emasculation of regional districts per se; neither do I see it as a move to play into the hands of the developer or to set the stage to reverse prior decisions of district boards. This action was needed and was one of the aspects of the previously proposed Land Use Act which was applauded and supported by more than a few.

[ Page 939 ]

From my personal experience with the Dewdney-Alouette Regional District, I would say there will still be a requirement for a planning function within regional districts, for they do, as a matter of responsibility, provide planning services on a contract basis to electoral areas and to smaller municipalities or other jurisdictions which cannot afford to hire their own planners.

There is also a requirement for interface planning between various jurisdictions, for there are services which, by necessity, spill over from one autonomous area to another: services which, in fact, are much better handled in this way and which were part of the original rationale for the development of regional districts in the first place. Many other planning functions have been undertaken, at least at the Dewdney-Alouette Regional District. These planning functions are things such as providing research for regional hospital districts; being involved in the review and processing of applications under the agricultural land reserve; being involved in the planning for regional parks, in the regional base-mapping programs and in the regional land-use inventory programs; in the development and establishment of a regional data base, useful for a variety of purposes such as regional public works planning and monitoring regional development trends for various activities — for population forecasting and for input into provincial corridor planning; official sediment plans is another one; and finally, but by no means least, they are involved in the administration of the Soil Conservation Act.

For a number of years I have held the view, and it is shared by many, that technical planning committees had outlived their usefulness. Rather than being helpful, they have become more of an impediment to ongoing orderly development of land in a manner consistent with the expressed wishes of municipalities or similar jurisdictions. Decisions affecting land use within local communities should be made — must be made — by those have been elected to conduct the affairs of those communities.

To formalize the variable tax rate and the proposed increase in the property tax exemption insofar as it concerns commercial and industrial taxpayers is most laudable. The variable tax rate has already provided municipalities with limited ability to ameliorate some of the inequities in the property tax system which have come about through the erratic fluctuation in the value of properties and improvements, and which reflect in assessments which are based on market values. There appears to still be a requirement for some added flexibility within particular property classes, but I am confident that the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Ritchie), in a continuation of the determination he has taken to this date, will continue to support municipalities and other like jurisdictions in their appointed task of providing first-class services to their citizens at the lowest possible cost.

Other initiatives contained in the budget that relate to municipalities, such as the adjusted timing of the assessment roll, are most welcome. This, along with expressing tax rates in dollars per thousand dollars of assessed value, will go along way toward helping the taxpayers more readily understand the property tax system.

Mr. Speaker, this would be a good juncture in my budget debate speech to break off, so if I may, I'd like to move that this debate be adjourned until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:52 p.m.