[ Page 959 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Government advertising campaign. Mr. Hanson –– 959

Money saved by cutbacks. Mr. Barrett –– 959

Government advertising campaign. Ms. Brown –– 961

Budget Debate

Mr. D'Arcy –– 961

Mrs. Johnston –– 965

Mrs. Wallace –– 969

Hon. A. Fraser –– 973

Ms. Brown –– 975

Mr. Kempf –– 979

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Prayers.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure to introduce to the House today a couple from the Central Fraser Valley. Would the House please welcome Mr. and Mrs. Frank Quiring from Abbotsford.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING CAMPAIGN

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. It was announced on the weekend that a major advertising blitz of television, radio and newspaper ads is going to commence around the province. My question to the Minister of Finance is: where are you going to get the money for this expensive program, and what vote will it be coming from?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I would answer the first question by indicating that there is an item in the 1983-84 budget with respect to advertising and publications. I think the second part of the question should be directed to some other minister.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I'm directing the questions to the Minister of Finance as president of the Treasury Board. Treasury Board clearly has embarked upon the restraint program, cutting back in all areas of need in the province. Will the minister indicate to the House if this campaign is to be of the same order as The Province ads with Fred Latremouille that we saw prior to the election, with Social Credit members being filmed and interviewed throughout the province at a cost something in the order of $1 million? Are we talking about a million dollars or more?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I cannot assist the member in terms of the actual costs, nor in the composition or content of the material he has described - if in fact it would follow the same content.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, can the minister indicate to the House the maximum expenditure for this project, including production and booking time? And is an agency going to be responsible for the booking of these times? Is McKim agency going to be involved?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, the member's questions really deal with future government policy. I have no idea as yet, as with any other expenditure, of the specific details of that expenditure. Treasury Board would at some point review that proposed expenditure, but the member is asking questions that have not yet been referred to Treasury Board, if indeed they will be.

[2:15]

MR. HANSON: I'd like to direct a question to the Provincial Secretary. Mr. Heal works for the Provincial Secretary. Has Mr. Heal been given guidelines on how much money he's to expend on this? And will the McKim Agency will be the agency handling the booking times, or will they be suspended while the police investigation is underway?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, the member for Victoria is premature in his fishing expedition. There have been no firm decisions as to what the advertising program is liable to be, or the proposed expenditures. So at the moment you are merely on a fishing expedition.

MR. HANSON: Again to the Provincial Secretary, did the Premier not discuss this particular campaign with you, or was it something he did on the back of an envelope on a Saturday evening? Did you give Mr. Heal any instructions to proceed to commence a campaign of advertising throughout this province?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, the questions that have been put by that member from Victoria are premature, because there have been no dollar figures arrived at as far as an advertising budget is concerned. I would be glad to share that future information with the member when it is available.

MR. HANSON: It is our information that prime-time bookings on the major television networks run in excess of $1, 200 for a thirty-second spot. How many of these spots, Mr. Provincial Secretary, do you expect it will take to clean up the image of the government surrounding the budget and the legislative package? How many of those $1, 200 spots is it going to take on prime-time television?

HON. MR. CHABOT: One.

MONEY SAVED BY CUTBACKS

MR. BARRETT: Can the Minister of Finance tell the House how much money he expects to save, taking into account all the cutbacks that have been made in this year's budget? How much money are you saving from all the cutbacks?

HON. MR. CURTIS: It is recognized, as we have indicated, that we have a projected deficit of S 1 –– 6 billion in the budget for this year. It is difficult to describe this early in the fiscal year how much money will be saved across government and in every area of activity. I suggest that the question is more appropriately asked at one of two times: either later in the year when we have a better feeling for our revenue and expenditure levels, or perhaps during my estimates.

MR. BARRETT: One would expect that the cuts were made with the figure in mind - not depending on revenue. I asked the minister how much money he was targeting towards. How much specifically do you anticipate saving on Programs that will be cut that have nothing to do with income?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I've indicated already that the question can be more satisfactorily answered later in the year

[ Page 960 ]

and can be dealt with at a time other than question period. I will happily deal with it to the best of my ability when the estimates of the Ministry of Finance are presented to this House for ratification.

MR. BARRETT: I choose to pick this time to ask the question. I would expect that if the government has conscientiously planned these cuts with the idea of budget saving and with the care that the government says it has put into it, it should have some ballpark figure. Do you or do you not have a ballpark figure of how much money you're going to save with these cuts?

HON. MR. CURTIS: The answer to the question is yes.

MR. BARRETT: Through you, Mr. Speaker, would the Minister of Finance share with the people of British Columbia how much money is going to be saved on these programs?

HON. MR. CURTIS: In the course of the budget presentation on July 7 of this year and in the course of presentation of the first quarterly report just last week - quarterly reports which were introduced by this government, which were not delivered by the NDP during its brief time in power . .

Interjections.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Members are calling for order. I'm attempting to indicate that we have shared as much as we possibly can with the people of this province. This is an open government. It is a government which reports on its financial status every three months, and which reported in great detail at the time of the presentation of the budget. The member is asking for information which I do not yet have finally confirmed in terms of . .

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: He said "ballpark." Yes, we have a ballpark figure. That can be more usefully shared with this House and the people of the province as we move through the course of this fiscal year.

MR. BARRETT: Every day members of this Legislature receive letters from handicapped people and others who have had $50 deducted from their living incomes by the government. Can the government tell us how much money it's going to save by eliminating this $50-a-month payment to handicapped people and other eligible people in the Human Resources department?

HON. MR. CURTIS: The member well knows, having served briefly as Minister of Finance - he couldn't even finish the term - that a question dealing with a specific expenditure is usually dealt with in this House by the minister responsible for that expenditure. Otherwise, the Minister of Finance, whoever that might be from time to time, would answer every expenditure question.

MR. BARRETT: Government statements have indicated that the government is concerned that the public is not getting a good picture of the restraint program. Government statements have said that they have done a poor selling job. To anticipate the selling, would it not be worthwhile for the minister responsible, the Minister of Finance, to tell the people of British Columbia how much money you expect to save? How do you expect people to understand the program unless they know how much you expect to save? Will you tell this House what that ballpark figure is, more or less?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I'm sure that opportunity will present itself in time to come.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I have the impression that the minister doesn't know the total of those figures. Having spent the last six minutes in trying to get an answer, I wonder if the minister would confirm that the family support program will save the government around $5 million. Is that correct?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, again, subject to your ruling, the member opposite, who has been in this House since 1960, is asking a question of the Minister of Finance with respect to a specific expenditure. It is, I believe, a firmly established tradition in this House that when there is a specific question regarding a specific program expenditure, it is directed to the minister responsible for that program or that activity.

MR. BARRETT: The Minister of Finance is responsible for an accounting to this House as to how much money is taken in, how much is spent and where. It is obvious to me that the minister has absolutely no idea of the total amount of suffering he is creating on an amount of money saved that he isn't even able to describe to this House. I ask the minister to tell us: what is the total maximum amount that you will permit, under the restraint program, to be spent on advertising to sell a program that will save an amount you're not able, or willing, to tell us? How much money will you permit to be spent on advertising this program?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I think the matter has been quite thoroughly canvassed, in respect to the question to the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot) and to me. I indicated, since the earlier question was posed in the context of Treasury Board, that as and when a proposal comes to Treasury Board for this particular activity, it will be reviewed. It has not been reviewed as yet.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, this government is prepared to eliminate child-abuse programs without knowing how much it saves, it is prepared to eliminate family support programs without giving a figure, and it is prepared to take away $50 a month from the handicapped people. I ask the minister why he is not prepared to state to the public, after seven weeks of budget debate, how much money he is going to save. I believe that the government has absolutely no idea, and that minister is simply hedging when it comes to that amount of responsibility.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, we know that a brief preamble is allowed, but one should not elaborate. Further, I will quote from Beauchesne and state that questions should not anticipate a debate that can be better reserved for that debate.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the answer was pure debate without any facts. The fact is that the minister has been completely irresponsible and doesn't know what he's talking about.

[ Page 961 ]

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The minister may wish to answer.

I recognize the hon. member for Burnaby-Edmonds.

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING CAMPAIGN

MS. BROWN: My question, Mr. Speaker, is also directed to the Minister of Finance. Is the $1, 500, 000 which is going to be taken away from 2, 500 disabled people in this province, going to be spent on advertising?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker. I think that the member is directing the question to the wrong minister.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, 23 activity centres for senior citizens are going to be closed at the saving of $2 million to the Minister of Finance. Is the Minister of Finance going to take the $2 million away from senior citizens and redirect it to be spent on advertising?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I think, Mr. Speaker, that the question is directed to the wrong minister.

Orders of the Day

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

MR. D'ARCY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm sure we'll hear more from you again in your other hat - the one that isn't three-cornered.

We have been hearing some interesting debate in this House on the budget. One of the more eminently forgettable speeches given, however, was by my friend who's not in the House today, the minister of tenured scientists and technocrats over there.

Interjections.

MR. D'ARCY: Is he here? Oh, yes, there he is.

We've all heard these horror stories about tenured people at universities who work a few hours a week and give the same lecture week after week, year after year. They only have one lecture and one speech. I thought those kind of people didn't really exist, that it was simply an irresponsible anti-intellectual attack on some university people. But when I hear the Liberal member for Vancouver-Point Grey give that same speech over and over again, I know that at least in some cases of those tenured professors it's true because I'm sure he gives the lecture over and over again when he's at UBC, as he gives the same speech here over and over again.

I mentioned that that person is Liberal member for Point Grey. I disagree with those people on our side of the House who say that the government House Leader and the minister for tenured scientists have changed their colours and become Social Crediters. I don't believe they've become Social Crediters; I believe they're still Liberals and still friends with Mr. Trudeau. I don't really believe there's a great deal of difference between the kind of budget that we've had presented in this House and the policies of the government and what we would see in Ottawa under a re-elected Liberal government, or what we'll see in Ottawa under a Conservative government. I also disagree with those who suggest that the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) or the member for West Vancouver-Howe Sound (Mr. Reynolds) are no longer Conservatives. I personally believe they still arc Conservatives and fully representative of that party nationally and provincially.

[2:30]

In any event. getting clown to the budget, Mr. Speaker, I hope some of the newly elected back-benchers are going to remain in the chamber today. Before I entered this House and saw how the Social Credit Party operates, I always thought the Social Credit Party was against deficit financing and debt. Interestingly, the largest single debt of this province, the B.C. Hydro debt, is now around S8.5 billion. In fact, with the $300 million that the Minister of Finance floated recently, or authorized the floatine of, it could be even higher than that by now.

I hope the newly elected back-benchers are listening to this. Say the government of B.C. continued to set aside into a sinking fund - in other words, to pay off the Hydro debt at the same rate that Social Credit has been setting money aside since Hydro's inception - and never borrowed another penny. Say the government never borrowed another penny, but continued to set aside funds into the sinking fund. Mr. Speaker, it would take 300 years to pay off the Hydro debt. This is as Loocl a reason as any why Moody's and Standard and Poor have downgraded this province's credit rating while they have left intact the credit rating of the city of Vancouver, which the Social Credit Rirty, of course, maintains is mismanaged. Well. Mr. Speaker. they have a different view of mismanagement down there in New York. They see the city of Vancouver as having good fiscal management, but the province of B.C. as having the rotten people who cannot handle a peanut-stand. let alone a provincial budget.

Interjection.

MR. D'ARCY: The member for Okanagan South (Hon. Mr. Bennett) is going to get a chance to enter this debate sooner or later. It , s nice to see him in the House. I also want to say something to the newly elected back-benchers.

One of the major problems of governments - this one in particular, but also those federal spendthrifts, with their huge deficits and debts with which they have saddled this Country is that senior government in this country, by and large. doesn't pay off its debts. When the rest of us borrow for a home or a business, or whatever, we take out a mortgage or whatever it is. When industry borrows, they have to pay off their debts - principal and interest - over a set period of time, This government, whenever a bond issue matures, instead of paying off the debt simply goes to another financial agency and floats another bond issue. In other words. they borrow money on a continuous basis and never pay off their debts. The B.C. debt mounts higher and higher, an~ it's soon to be - by the Finance minister's own admission - $18 billion. That's interesting. Mr. Speaker, because that has increased from a little over $4 billion just in the time the present Social Credit in maladministration has been in charge of the books of this province.

It's rather interesting that close to 80 cents of every dollar that's ever been borrowed by any government in the history of this province has been borrowed by this present Social Credit administration, with no commitment to pay it back -just an

[ Page 962 ]

agreement to pay the interest. No wonder Moody's and Standard and Poor have downgraded our credit rating.

I'd like to talk a little bit about job creation in this province. We are a resource-rich province. Of course, we'd all like to attract capital and have greater economic activity, greater diversification. But the fact is that a great deal of this province's already existing industry, already existing plant capacity, is idle. You know that very well, Mr. Speaker, because it's true right in your own riding. The fact is that one of the reasons many of these plants are down is government royalties and upfront taxation. We all know that international markets are poor. We all know that prices are low. But those markets do exist. It's just that many of our mines, logging operations, sawmills, pulp mills and manufacturing operations simply can't compete, because the prices are too low. But even in this atmosphere we have seen an escalation in property tax, and in water-licence royalties unprecedented in the history of this province, under the present Social Credit government and in the face of a savage recession.

Governments have all kinds of ways of getting money out of people and out of industry and businesses. But the money has to change hands. There has to be activity out there. In order to gain a relatively paltry amount of money out of additional property taxes, stumpage fees, natural resource taxes and electricity royalties, the government has forgone the opportunity not only to reduce considerably the level of human suffering but also to create a great deal of additional activity which is presently not taking place, by the simple procedure of allowing businesses and industry to operate when they're not operating now. The government would be more than repaid for doing this.

Radical situations require radical solutions. The only solution this government seems to have is to attack children and the elderly and public safety. It has been demonstrated over and over again, both in this House and through independent analysis in the media, that the cutbacks that have been made on the Holy Grail of restraint by this government have not been productive, have not helped the economy, and indeed have not even saved very much money. We have heard that the major reason for the cutback in our credit rating and hence a greater cost to the province in interest payments has been a lack of diversification in the economy. One of the fundamental reasons there is no diversification in the economy is simply that there aren't enough people working. There are not enough people working in basic industry, in secondary industry, in the service industries, and in all aspects - professional services, transportation - of the B.C. economy. Economists, whether they are right, left or centre, all agree that when people go to work in basic industry, there is a tremendous multiplier effect throughout the economy. But there is that same contracting that takes place when basic industry jobs are shut down.

We note that the government is borrowing large amounts of money for northeast coal, the only megaproject in Canada. I wish the people of the province every success in that venture. It is being done on borrowed money. But, Mr. Speaker, the bottom line on northeast coal or any project, as you know, is: is B.C. going to increase its market share in Japan? The Japanese coal market is finite. Are we going to increase our market share in British Columbia because of that project? If we are not, I have serious doubts about the value of the project.

What happened nationally with megaprojects, even internationally? We see that in Canada and, indeed, in North America both the private sector and the senior governments have gotten out of the megaproject business.

I see that one of the few people in the treasury benches is that faithful member for Yale-Lillooet (Hon. Mr. Waterland). He knows very well that in his constituency there was a very large project planned called Valley Copper, and that has been scaled down to one-third of its size, rightly so by that investor-owned company, Cominco. It's not that they have no faith in that deposit or no faith in the economy; it is simply that they could not justify borrowing millions and millions of dollars for a megaproject in the uncertain economic climate that we live in. They scaled it down by two-thirds. They have a project that they can live with and a project that can still be expanded in the future. That is the private sector's reaction to the recession, and it is a prudent and sensible reaction.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say a couple of things about my own constituency, a couple of things that I even appreciate from the government side. I note the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. A. Fraser) has left the chamber, but I want to say that that minister and his people have been very helpful to the people of Rossland-Trail. Over the winter we had some severe washouts and rainstorms in January and February. The highways crews were very quick with repairs and resurfacing. I want to give them full credit for that.

I also want to thank the people operating the provincial TIDSA program for the assistance they have given us in and around Rossland. That is a joint effort between the federal and provincial government. Provincially it is sponsored by the Tourism minister (Hon. Mr. Richmond) and the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), neither of whom are in the chamber this afternoon. I certainly agree with that kind of a self-help program, and I hope the TIDSA program is going to be recharged. Not all the projects they have done around this province are losers, like Whistler, and require the government to come in and bail out private land speculators. A lot of those projects require local participation and a lot of local help. It is kind of like a Tourism RRAP program. We have done some tremendous things in the Rossland area through the TIDSA program, and I thank the ministers and their staffs for being so helpful in that.

One thing I do want to put a plug in for though . . Mr. Speaker, I note the Health minister is not here either, but a very important issue in health care in my constituency is a CAT scanner for the Trail Regional Hospital, which is second stage referral, I might note, for all of southern British Columbia. Independent individuals, private individuals, businesses, social clubs and service clubs in and about Trail have contributed $300, 000 towards the purchase of a CAT scanner for the Trail Regional Hospital. That is not to come out of the local tax base. The local civic officials and regional board have already committed themselves to their share, which I gather under the formula used by the government would be 40 percent. That $300, 000 is to be applied against the government's share. It is a subsidy to the Ministry of Health. That is a lot of money for a community of roughly 15, 000 or 16, 000. I hope that the Health minister and the Finance minister, who is here, will take note of that in Treasury Board. There is a genuine need and a desire and a willingness to do not only their share but much more than their share at the local level for this important piece of diagnostic equipment.

Another word about my constituency. We have in the forest industry in my riding - as I am sure all those members who have a forest industry are aware - a collective bargaining situation which we all hope is settled reasonably and amicably. In speaking informally with people involved on both sides of the table, we find out that the most important things that everybody wants are stability, security, a guarantee of wood supply at reasonable energy cost and, basically, the ability to stay in business and continue to be employed. I note that the chairman of the B.C. Resources Investment Corporation, speaking in Prince Rupert the other day, alluded to exactly the same thing.

One of the most important things that the Ministry of Finance can do - that the government can do through its budget - is to provide that stability, that security that the rules are not going to be changed, that new royalties and taxes are not going to be put in place - to allow the basic industry of this province to get back on its feet again. I hope the Finance minister is listening when he goes to Treasury Board and discusses with his colleagues.

Mr. Speaker, on Friday someone who looked a lot like you made an interesting comment towards the end of his speech. He said that we should not be slaves to social services in this province. I don't believe that we've ever been slaves to anything until the present Social Credit Party got into office and made us all slaves to foreign banks. It's foreign financiers who control this province. It's foreign financiers who hold the mortgages on this province, and foreign financiers who are going to administer basic policy to almost any government for the next few years due to the borrowing profligacy of the present Social Credit administration.

[2:45]

Illustrating that a little bit, we note that when the New Democratic Party was briefly in office in this province, total provincial debt - direct and guaranteed; all the debt that the province was involved with - represented only 22 percent of the gross provincial product at that time. Under Social Credit B.C. debt is now 28 percent of the gross provincial product of this province. That's a 30 percent increase in seven short years - a sorry record.

One of the major weaknesses of the budget and the budget speech - and the papers attached to the budget - is that here we are in an economic crisis in this province and yet the Finance minister produced no estimates - hardly even any generalities regarding employment growth, unemployment, private sector investment or public investment. He doesn't seem to care about future interest rates. There is no economic forecasting - absolutely no involvement in the direction this province may be going in the future. We have a government that has spent when times appeared to be good. Even though growth and productivity were stagnating, they borrowed when times appeared to be good. When it became obvious that times were bad, there was nothing left in the kitty.

I want to go into some details of the deficits over the years that Social Credit has involved us in - not over the years; that would imply going back many, many years. I only want to go back to 1975. I would like the back-benchers to listen. When the present Socred regime took office, debt under Hydro was $3 billion. It's now close to $9 billion. That's a $6 billion increase - trebled in seven years. It's interesting. Mr. Speaker, you well know, coming from Prince George, that the two-river policy of the sixties and seventies - building those massive dams on the Peace and Columbia River - were virtually completed by 1975. That $3 billion debt included all the losses on the Columbia River Treaty and so on. Somehow Social Credit has run that debt up to $9 billion, and it's very difficult out there to tell what we've really got for it. We got an unused, uncompleted and unneeded transmission line to

[ Page 963 ]

Vancouver Island. It's cost $1.5 billion. Interest on that comes to more than $100 million a year, as the Finance minister well knows. We have a huge, nearly completed dam in Revelstoke, which is not going to be able to sell a kilowatt of power for the next few years, but we'll have to pay the interest on its nearly $2 billion cost during that time.

British Columbia Railway. We all know the history of B.C. Rail - all the royal commissions and the tax breaks. I'm always amazed that the Social Credit members that have B.C. Railway tracks in their tidings never go to bat for their city councils. B.C. Rail has a tax-free ride. They shouldn't have it. The government doesn't take a tax-free ride anymore. Hydro has a partially tax-free ride. The only people in this province who completely get out of paying taxes are B.C. Rail. The other railways don't; highway traffic doesn't. I never hear a Social Credit member get up and mention that point. I think that's a terrible thing.

Going back to all of B.C. Rail's losses before it was formed . . The government took it over in 1919 or 1920. Then in the late forties first the coalition government and then the W.A.C. Bennett government started to make extensions of B.C. Rail: from Squamish to North Vancouver; from Quesnel to Prince George and on to Dawson Creek, Mackenzie, Fort St. John, Fort Nelson and Fort St. James. With all those extensions - even a major part of the Dease Lake extension - and all those losses over the years of the Dirty Thirties and so on, when this Socred regime came into office, B.C.. Rail had a debt of only half a billion dollars. I say "only" - it looked huge then. But in retrospect we could say "only" half a billion dollars after all of that. What has Social Credit managed to do in seven years, since 1975? They have run that B.C. Rail debt from half a billion dollars up to $1.2 billion; $700 million has been borrowed by the railway, authorized by the government. Part of that is due to losses; a lot of it is in construction. What have we got for it? All those extensions that I mentioned were all done, yet the government ran that railway into debt to that extent. Woe betide this province if spending on that railway into Tumbler Ridge does not increase our share of the Japanese coal market. If as a result we do not increase our exports by a net amount, it will be very hard to justify it to future generations.

Let's go on a little further. Again, you back-benchers, when the government that you are backing right now, the party you ran for, came into office, this province didn't owe a penny on its buildings. Remember W.A.C. Bennett and pay as you go? Messrs. Barrett and Stupich had the same policies when they were running the finances. But in the seven years since 1975, the Social Credit have taken the buildings of this province, which were completely debt-free, and mortgaged them to foreign financiers to the tune of $500 million. Prior to 1975 we never had a buildings debt in this province; now we're mortgaged for half a billion dollars. That's what the Social Credit administration has done.

In 1975 the ferries were paid for - again, pay as you go. True, there were operating deficits, but there was no ferry debt. We're now carrying $120 million of ferry debt on the books. Those ferries are mortgaged to foreign financial interests, just as the buildings are.

The province had no direct transit debt in 1975 - unless you want to say that part of the Hydro debt had to do with transit; in any event, that was transferred out of Hydro. This province's transit system - buses and terminals - is now mortgaged to the tune of $370 million, again to foreign financial interests.

[ Page 964 ]

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

For all you people who like to wave the flag of free enterprise, here's a very interesting one. In 1975 we had no computer systems debt; we didn't even have a systems corporation. Under the New Democratic Party government the computer business of this province was contracted out to the private sector. There was no thought of taking that business away from the private sector and setting up yet another Crown corporation. But Social Credit did it; and they've mortgaged those computer systems for $50 million.

We did not have a university and college debt. Once again, it was pay as you go in 1975. The universities and colleges of this province are now mortgaged for $350 million. Under Social Credit it went from zero to $350 million.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did wages have anything to do with that'?

MR. D'ARCY: Stupid financial policies had to do with that.

In B.C. Place we have a pleasant facility. I like to watch footbal I games, and I hope to be able to watch baseball games and other events there. Had B.C. Place been built under the W.A. C. Bennett government, it would have been pay as you go. But we have a $200 million B.C. Place debt. It's a debt, along with all these others which, as I said earlier, the government has no commitment to pay back, but only to meet the interest payments, each year putting a small amount aside into a sinking fund. As I said earlier, even if a penny were never borrowed again, it would take 300 years to pay off those debts.

Expo 86 may be a great success. I certainly hope it is much more successful than Drapeau's venture, which is still costing the Montreal, Quebec and national taxpayers an incredible amount of money to meet his deficit. I hope Expo 86 is a success, but even before it's off the ground we already have a debt of $50 million - again mortgaged to foreign financial interests. I guess those are most of the hardware items. But in addition to that, the Social Credit government and their Finance minister have given us a bond debt of $450 million just since last year.

I have to be concerned about not only where this province is going economically, because I think there is such terrible mismanagement here, and a commitment by both the Social Credit Party and the national Conservatives to these kinds of anti-economic-growth and anti-recovery policies . . . . I think it is very significant that out of, I believe, 14 or 15 Conservative MPs in this province, not a single one has spoken out against the mismanagement by Social Credit. There is no question that they agree with the policies of the Social Credit government.

I said earlier that I believe, and our party believes, that government should be helping industry compete in a market where prices are so low that industry can't compete under the present kind of royalty situation. One of the things which the New Democratic government was criticized for - and I'm not going to go into whether it was right or wrong - was mining royalties. It is interesting that in 1975 those royalties produced only $12 million - I say only, but it seemed like a lot then. The water licence royalty alone, put on the mining industry in a depression by Social Credit, cost that industry $25 million last year, when most of the mines were shut down. Of B.C.'s 29 mines, 19 either shut down or ran at a loss last year. The losses totalled $239 million, and the government hit them for an upfront royalty of $25 million. Absolutely crazy! The industry itself said in its report - I'm not going to read at length from it: "Taxes on assets and operations were up considerably in excess of the inflation rate." Provincial property taxes, for instance, were up by 35 percent, while municipal property tax and school tax increased by 67 percent. And we all know who sets the formula for property taxation in this province. There is no autonomy at the local level for setting formulas for property taxation; those formulas are set arbitrarily by the provincial government of the day.

There could be mines operating today and people working, not on UIC or on welfare. There could be small businesses earning money and serving the people of this province. There could be secondary and tertiary industries operating in this province if the Social Credit Party was not so penny wise and pound foolish when it comes to such things as royalties, capital taxes and stumpage fees. We read an article not too long ago that the Forests ministry was quoted as saying: "Stumpage rates are going to soar." I think that is terrible. The fact is that we want to get the forest industry going again. Government will get more than its share when industry gets into production again. Social Credit even increased rural taxes on farmers in 1982, for gosh sakes.

[3:00]

To me, one of the most distressing things that has occurred, in a summer of a great many stupid and distressing actions by government, was the announcement on the weekend that the government was going to have any amount of money that it needed for advertisements and traveling.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who said that?

MR. D'ARCY: We saw there was an advertising program. That's what the Premier said.

Interjection.

MR. D'ARCY: You're going to flap around the province. That's right. Any amount of money for advertisements. In fact, when people asked the Finance minister today how much was going to be spent, he couldn't put a ceiling on it. He couldn't even put an estimate on it.

I find it very sad - as a human being; let's forget the partisan stuff for a minute - that the government has money for advertising and sending cabinet ministers around the province, but they have no money for children. They have no money for child-care counsellors, but they have money for the ads. They have no money for youth workers, but they have money for advertising. They have no money for family support workers, but they have money for advertising. They have no money for experts on child abuse to protect children, but they've got money for advertising. They've got no money for emergency homemakers for kids whose parents are temporarily unable to took after them, but they've got money for advertising. They've got no money for battered women, but they've got money for ads. They've got no money for alternate schools for children who need special help, but they've money for ads. Mr. Speaker, they've got no money to help consumers and business alike to get along well and be responsible to each other, but they've got money for ads. They've got no money for tenants and landlords to settle their disputes

[ Page 965 ]

in an amicable and reasonable way without the terrible expense of going to court, but they've got money for advertising. They have no money for human rights, either the branch or the commission, but they've got money for ads.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Have you read the budget?

MR. D'ARCY: Yes, that's what bothers me. I know you might have trouble reading, but you find somebody to read it to you,

Mr. Speaker, there's no money for senior citizens, but there's money for advertising. There is no money for diverting people who are first offenders away from the courts, but there's money for advertising. There is no money for the handicapped doing volunteer work, but there's money for advertising.

Can the Minister of Finance or the Premier tell us whether Mr. Heal, or whoever is going to be in charge of this open-ended advertising program, has called in people to be interviewed as to who's going to do these ads? Is it going to be open to competition? Have they contacted Environment Canada to invite all the weather persons from around the province to come in so they can pick one out as . . . ? Fred Latremouille did a great job, but is he going to be subject to open bidding in the free market? I certainly hope so.

The Social Credit government has nothing in this budget to assist in job creation. I realize that Social Credit is not interested in participating directly themselves, but maybe they could help the private sector. At least they could take some of the load off the private sector by participating a little bit. I'm quite sure that not only would the economy respond but people would also respond; hopefully. the people who rate our credit would respond and save this province hundreds of millions of dollars in interest amounts. All that we really want in this province is that people be given a chance, because what we say and do in here . . . . We're a relatively small group. The economy of this province and the 2.8 million who live here rely on their own resources, the resources of this province and their ability to compete with each other, their ability to get jobs and to get education. Mr. Speaker, the government is working against that.

I realize the hourglass is getting thinner up there. Statistics Canada - a non-political organization; in fact, they go to great lengths to be non-political - have stated that the fragile recovery . . . . We all know it is fragile. We have yet to get back to the economic levels of 1981, in spite of an increased population - which means that all of our wealth is less, our per capita income is less. They've said that this fragile recovery we have so far is not due to greater economic activities. People have been depleting their savings. Consumers are trying to get the economy working by taking their money out to their savings accounts. One of the few things you ever see go up in s al cs lately is real estate. The only reason real estate has gone up is that there's a bit of panic buying out there. People are afraid interest rates are going to go up again.

This government can't manage economic forecasting; it can't manage the economy; it can't manage its own massive deficit. All it can manage is advertising budgets and ministerial travel plans. This province will survive because it's rich and its people are imaginative. Clearly this is the worst government and the worst budget that we have ever seen in this province under any government at any time in the history of B.C. The people of this province will pay for years and years and years for Social Credit borrowing, deficits and mismanagement. For the next few years. or the foreseeable future, there will never be any control for the people of this province over their own destiny, regardless of who they elect to this chamber. because we are mortgaged to foreign financial interests. Everything's been mortgaged. They'd mortgage this building we're in if they could. Mr. Speaker, that has to change. Hopefully, three or four years down the road it will change.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker. I rise to speak in support of this budget. But let there be no mistake about it, there are areas of this budget that give me concern - I refer specifically to the proposed $1.6 billion deficit. I'm not jumping up and down about the formula change brought forward by the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs with regard to revenue-sharing and the municipalities, and about how they'll be affected. I'm not happy about the $50 that has been deleted with regard to the program for the disabled. I took at other ways of saving money or generating revenue, and I wonder if we shouldn't look at the $71, 000 paid by taxpayers to subsidize the members' dining room in this building. I don't know that we should be subsidized, allowing us to have meals at a lower cost while we're in session. I think we're going to have to look at that area. I believe we should be looking at other means of raising revenue. When our citizens go across to the U.S.A. to do their shopping and declare their goods on the way back. the federal government collects taxation on those goods, but the provincial government doesn't. I think it's time we started looking at other means of raising revenue so that we can continue to provide the services that our citizens have become accustomed to.

To quote the Minister of Finance: "The message in the budget is clear and unequivocal. Only by recognizing the necessity for restraint, by government taking on a role which allows the private sector initiatives to provide permanent and productive jobs, can British Columbia attain a secure and bright economic future." When one looks at a budget with operating expenditures of $8.4 million - and this, incidentally is an increase of 12.3 percent over 1982-83 - and estimated operating revenues for 1983-84 of $6.8 million, can any reasonable person argue the need for restraint? There is certainly no pride in putting forward a budget with a $1.6 billion deficit, but I have yet to hear our opposition come up with positive suggestions as to how we can do otherwise, with the taxation that is presently in place, and still provide the services that our citizens require.

The previous speaker suggested, in very vague terms, that we have removed our services to the seniors. If he would look on page 54 of the supplement to the estimates, he would realize that nothing could be further from the truth. We still have funding in here for the senior supplement. the SAFER program, the bus pass program, seniors' day centres. seniors' counselling services. I really have to wonder, after listening to some of the rhetoric put forward, whether hon. members in the opposition have taken the time to look at our budget. Page 121 of the estimates for the fiscal year shows $90 million for services for families and children, Look at the GAIN program, the Pharmacare program. services to seniors: how can any reasonable person suggest that we're making cuts in those areas? We certainly are still providing adequate funds to look after those people in the province of B.C. who are unable to look after themselves.

This year the government is spending about $3, 000 for -ach man, woman and child in the province. Just think of that

[ Page 966 ]

- $3, 000 for this year. We're spending $3, 900 for every student, as compared to $1, 700 in 1976, and opposition members suggest that we're making cuts, that we're cutting back on our education budget. They obviously haven't really looked at the budget, looked at the numbers. We're spending $900 on health for each man, woman and child, and the government is increasing its spending in Human Resources by about 14 percent this year. This year we're spending 38 cents of every dollar earned in the province. Certainly we can't be criticized for not spending enough. In my opinion, we're spending too much of the money earned by the people in this province. We're not allowing them to keep enough of it.

Even with restraint, this year alone we're borrowing almost $600 in the name of each man, woman and child in the province. That works out to $2, 400 for the average family of four. We would have had to more than double the income taxes paid by our people to achieve a balanced budget this year. Is this what the opposition is suggesting we do? We would have to triple the sales tax to 21 percent to pay off the debt we've incurred in just the past two years. These are not ideas pulled out of the air-, they're actually facts and figures. We are really practising a very mild form of restraint.

Many of the services that we are eliminating were not available five or six years ago, and even without all these services British Columbia was a pretty good place to live back then. But when the money was available we added to the services that were provided to the people of this province, and now that the money is no longer available we have to make those cuts, Even with restraint, our budget is not against the poor - Human Resources spending will increase nearly 14 percent - and anyone who would suggest otherwise is being less than honest. The real threat to the poor is an economic policy that would drive away business from our province and undermine our ability to provide these services.

A lot of letters and editorials have been read by the opposition, and these form part of our official record. I think it's time to hear some of the positive letters which have been coming in, and this afternoon I would like to go over some that I have here in my folder.

Here's a letter to the Premier:

"We are fully behind your restraint program. I am sure if you carry through with your program we will all be thankful somebody had the courage to do what had to be done. Keep up the good work."

This is signed by Mr. and Mrs. Wilson from White Rock.

[3:15]

Here's a letter that I've received:

"This is just to let you know our family is 100 percent behind the restraint program. We hope you will do all you can to get it passed in the House. Our young people are far too nice to be left with a heavy debt burden. We feet Premier Bennett is on the right track to get our economy straightened out. We wish you and your family well."

Here's one that's very interesting. I won't read the entire page. I'm sure every one of us has had an opportunity to read the ridiculous ads lately printed in the newspapers by the Solidarity group, and I think this is one to counteract them:

"In the beginning they went after big business, and I was silent. They went after transportation, and I was silent. They went after our mails, and I was silent. They went after our phones; I was silent (I had to be). They curtailed small business; I was silent. Now they went after our government. Is it too late? One little voice."

I would suggest that it's not too late. We're starting to hear from more and more people in this province who indicate to me that their main concern - and they appear to have one main concern - is that we're going to change our minds, we're going to buckle under and back down. They elected us on May 5 because the major plank in the Social Credit platform was restraint. We are attempting to put forward and carry out that program in the best way possible, and the opposition certainly should realize that this is what people have told us they want.

Last week a lot of members of the opposition referred to a member of the cloth in Victoria and to many of the editorials that were put forward by this gentleman. It's interesting that Mr. Jim Hume of the Times-Colonist has now received a letter from one of Bishop Remi de Roo's parishioners. I would certainly allow this to become part of the record, but I think it's important to read into the record the words that have been written:

"I am a Roman Catholic. I belong to what I believe to be a silent, very silent majority. I do not have a paid-up membership in any political party or union. I have, with my wife, raised seven children. I did not finish high school, all my degrees have come via the school of hard knocks.

"In my short lifetime of work experience I have been a manual labourer; I have worked and was promoted through the ranks to what one might call middle-class managerial capacity. For the past four years I have owned my own small business. I know the heartbreaking task of hiring people and then having to lay them off, or firing nonproductive people.

"I also know the other heartbreak of nearly losing all in a depression not of my own making.

"I have pondered for some time my duty to write you a letter. I could have written a private letter; however, since it has become fashionable to demonstrate . . . I have decided that to better impact what I have to say, I should come forward publicly. You see, as a small (free) enterpriser with my nose so close to the grindstone just to eke out a living, I do not have time to physically demonstrate. On top of that I hate crowds or those who would pontificate before crowds. Also, not being an academic, I am not eloquent in speech and am quite uncomfortable in the presence of elitists and academics. "In short I am just an average Joe Silent."

He goes on to suggest what has made him send this letter, and says:

"I could accept your statements" - and this is a letter to Bishop Remi de Roo- "as made by aprivate citizen, but not as a prince of my church.

"I perceive you to say you are non-political" he's saying this to Bishop de Roo - "and yet again I perceive you to say our provincial government has enacted evil policies. You speak of the arrogance of the Premier. Do I also perceive a sudden grave concern for the elitists and academics of this province who, suddenly, must face the same trials and tribulations as all the rest of us ordinary Joes in the private sector.? Do I understand that you have (more) concern now for the 1, 500 tenured workers being laid off than

[ Page 967 ]

the 10, 000 and more laid off last year in the forest industry?"

That's an interesting question, Mr. Speaker, is it not?

"I think I understand because you, being an elitist, would naturally be subject to the cries and woes of other elitists and academics who might form your circle of enlightenment. But your concern sounds hollow to me, and very political. You speak of the poor. Yes, we have the poor. We had them when the economy was booming and we shall have them forever. But I haven't heard of any cuts in social assistance payments for the poor and destitute; have you?"

This really goes on at length, but this gentleman is suggesting: "I would point out that most of us poor peasants realize that Bill Bennett's government is not perfect. In the history of the world there was only one who was." And then he invites the bishop to call him.

I think that's a very interesting letter. After some of the letters and editorials that have been read into the record, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that it was time we started listening to these people, who, up until very recently, have been very silent.

On the editorial page of the Delta Optimist, Wednesday, August 17, there was an interesting statement made by the Vancouver Board of Trade: "The Vancouver Board of Trade supports the intent of the Premier's move to reduce the size and cost of government. It is vitally important that this province maintain a fair reputation as a place in which to invest and with which to trade. On these depend our futures, yours, mine, those of the young, the old and the underprivileged." I underline those three categories, because it appears from comments made by the opposition that those are the three that this government has been attacking. These are the three that we have been attempting to ensure will have a future, and if we don't continue with the program of restraint I really don't feel that they will have.

In the Province of August 21 it says: "Bank Predicts Economic Surge in B.C. The Bank of Nova Scotia takes a refreshingly optimistic look at British Columbia in its latest economic review." They go on to say that because of the work being done, the capital projects being undertaken by this provincial government, and the budget that has attempted to pull in the reins of spending, the province of British Columbia is one of the few provinces that is certainly on its way to recovery.

It is really interesting to hear the comments made by our opposition with regard to the layoffs that have occurred and the pending layoffs. the draconian measures that we are taking . . . . We're putting people out in the street, and we're firing them left, right and centre, without any consultation. But I was interested in reading an article in the Vancouver Sun of August 16 that would suggest that we had a little happening on May 29, 1974, in the province of British Columbia. "On that day, Alex Macdonald, Attorney-General in Premier . . . . .. Is this out of order for me to be reading the names from the paper? The former Attorney-General in the NDP government in 1974" introduced into the Legislature Bill 122, called the Provincial Court Amendment Act." Incidentally, this had the support of all the NDP members of the Legislature. It was enacted within a week, on June 5, 1974, and not having been there I would wonder how they managed to get any legislation through that quickly. We don't seem to be able to get anything done that quickly in this term. I would have to think that they forced it through and didn't allow the amount of debate and freedom, like in the democratic process that the Social Credit government has been allowing on the bills that we have been dealing with.

Interjections.

MRS. JOHNSTON: I think I hit a soft spot. I've upset the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke). Oh, dear!

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I would further quote: "That hastily passed act" - and, my goodness, that was certainly done hastily - "introduced and passed without any consultation with, or notice to, any of the 94 judges of the provincial court, violated the sanctity of the terms of every judge's appointment and wiped out the tenure of their offices." Can you imagine the NDP government doing this? Maybe this isn't the truth, but it is in print. This further goes on to say that the bill was never part of the NDP's election platform and the party had no mandate whatever from the electorate to pass the act. Imagine. Doesn't that sound familiar? The bill was never part of the NDP's election platform, and the party had no mandate whatever from the electorate to pass the act. It undoubtedly wouldn't have been elected if its intentions had been known during the election campaign. Goodness! "Every previous B.C. government had scrupulously respected the terms of the appointment of its judges, but the NDP's legislation fired every judge without cause at age 65, even though some had previously been appointed to sit to age 75 . . . . .. And that is supposed to be respecting the sanctity of a contract. They fired every judge without cause. That phrase is very familiar: "without cause" at age 65, even though some had previously been appointed to sit to age 75, and all the rest to 70. "The only people who defended that incredible act were the judges, who for their pains received from David Vickers, the then Deputy Attorney-General - yes, the very same David Vickers who publicly protested Bill 3 at the recent Empire Stadium rally . . . . .. My, how times change. He sneered that "the judges were making his job difficult 'by writing speeches for members of the opposition.' " Isn't that something?

Then we even had an editorial in the Vancouver Sun that subsequently blistered the NDP government's draconian legislation in these very words: "Embodied in it is a cheapJack contract-busting device by which a government could rid itself of the mavericks regardless of fitness and ability, pack the bench with substitutes of its own persuasion, and by covert coercion make it mightily in the judges' self-interest that they stay in that government's good books." Isn't that interesting? That's the type of argument that we've been listening to here for two months, that you're suggesting the Social Credit government is bringing about at this time. My, my!

Sometimes people really don't want to know the facts, but it's interesting to hear the very small bit of comment that I could find in the newspapers on May 30, 1974. There was a comment from the Sun Victoria bureau that the Attorney-General introduced the legislation "that forces the retirement of 47 of B.C.'s 102 part-time provincial judges." It goes on to say: "The judges who must retire will each receive the equivalent of one month's pay for every year of service." The Attorney-General of the day - remember, this was the NDP Attorney-General - said: "The legislation does exciting

[ Page 968 ]

things with regard to the provincial court system." I don't suppose the judges thought it was very exciting.

[3:30]

Then we have another Sun editorial that says: "Some reservations may be in order over the Attorney-General's claim that legislation he has introduced will produce exciting things in the workings of the provincial court system. Retirement, in one sweep, of 47 out of 102 of the part-time judges is likely to raise problems of personnel replacement and readjustment of court schedules. Mr. Macdonald" - the Attorney-General - "is displaying noteworthy diligence in his approach to the problem of streamlining the workings of the courts. "This is another interesting comment. We are being criticized day in and day out for attempting to streamline the government process, for attempting to cut costs in whatever area possible, and we should look back and see how history reports the NDP term of office. "The Attorney-General's proposals are wide-ranging. Within the past month, for example, he turned his attention to the possibility of replacing court reporters" - imagine, replacing court reporters -"with tape recording equipment." I guess you call that automation, but I would suggest that that's putting somebody out of work. How could they ever do that? I don't know how they could ever take that step. "As well as tabling legislation to eliminate automatic jail sentences for people who cannot pay fines imposed" - which is another subject again . . . .

MR. MITCHELL: Who writes those speeches?

MRS. JOHNSTON: The Vancouver Sun, Mr. Member, wrote this speech for me.

I'm suggesting that these comments are really indicative of the hypocrisy of the statements being made for the past six weeks or two months by the members of the opposition. I think they'd better clean up their own act, put their own house in order, and really look at some of the actions that were taken when they were the government. Possibly they'd be less critical of exactly what is going on here today.

It's interesting to read those editorials and then to look at an information paper that I have received today from the National Union of Provincial Government Employees, from Cavendish, Prince Edward Island. "The executive board of the National Union of Provincial Government Employees today condemned the government of British Columbia for deliberately withholding from the people of British Columbia the real motives behind its recently announced legislative program and budget that are designed to dismantle social programs, repeal human rights legislation, fire workers without cause and override collective agreements with its own employees."

Here, on one hand, we have the National Union of Provincial Government Employees criticizing us for not giving any publicity to our intentions, for not publicizing our legislation, for not informing the public in British Columbia of just exactly what it is we're doing, what our intentions are and how our program will be put together. And then we have the opposition criticizing us, on the other hand, because we're going to be entering into a program of government MLAs going out into the community in an attempt to inform the public. You're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't. I think it's important, because of the misinformation that has been put forward by the members of the opposition, that we do go out into the community and make them aware of what it is we're doing.

It seemed to me for a while that there were some members of the opposition who were suggesting during question period that they would like to apply for the position to go out and advertise our legislation and our budget. With a little discussion and a little bit of education we could probably swing them around to supporting it. But at this point I think politics are still in control here, and the NDP are not interested in listening. They're just going to continue in their negative vein, having completely forgotten that the election was held on May 5. The election is over. I would suggest that we try to sit down together and get some work done here.

In 1979-80 the British Columbia government received $1.32 billion in natural resource revenue. In spite of the significant increase in water rental charges - which certainly made nobody happy - by 1982-83 this resource revenue had declined to $545 million. It has been suggested that it will further decline to $527 million this year. In other words, this fiscal year the British Columbia government will have less than 40 percent of the natural resource revenue available for social programs that it had in 1979-80.

When people continue to criticize us for our cutbacks and our attempts at restraint, they don't bother to look at the areas that we're cutting back. They don't bother to sit up and take notice of the fact that we are continuing with the social programs and with an increased budget for education and health, and that we're continuing to provide the services that the people have become accustomed to and that they require. There is no reason for the opposition, if they really take the time to study this budget, to be critical, unless they're prepared - and I could make the proviso - to come forward with some positive suggestions as to how we can otherwise accommodate the services in this province.

It's interesting to note that the federal government has failed to honour its historic commitments to cost-sharing programs. This has really become a problem. The federal reductions in cost-sharing for health and post-secondary education will cost British Columbians $725 million from 1983 to 1987. Do the opposition members suggest that we can go out into the orchards and pull these dollars off the trees'? We're going to have to make that $725 million up. In spite of a very difficult revenue situation, this budget provides for the largest expenditures on health care in British Columbia history: some $2.45 billion. This represents a 7.3 percent increase over last year's record health spending. At 29 percent, the share of the provincial budget devoted to health care is substantially above - this is an interesting figure - the 22 percent that was committed by the last budget of the NDP government, and they're suggesting that we're using less of our revenue for health services. The figures don't lie. Health care is our top priority. Twenty-nine percent of the budget under Social Credit is going for health care, and under the NDP it was 22 percent, even after elimination of a number of desirable programs which are not currently affordable. I'm not suggesting they're not desirable, but when cuts have to be made, as is the case in every household in this province, we have to look at programs that we can live without. But putting that comment aside, the Human Resources budget has been increased to $1, 386, 000, 000. This is an increase of 13.9 percent. How can anyone suggest that this government doesn't care about the people in the province, that they're spending on capital projects at the expense of the people who need help? There's no suggestion in this budget that those facts are accurate. I would ask the members of the opposition

[ Page 969 ]

to look once again at the budget, study the figures, and you'll know your comments are a little less than honest.

I think that it's important that we compare our financial situation in the province of British Columbia with situations that other countries are being faced with. This article was in Time on August 15, 1983. I'll just read one paragraph, but I think it's very important when one would suggest that it's because of mismanagement, of leadership that is not strong, that the province of British Columbia is in the financial situation it is in today. That is certainly not the truth.

"The combination of the recent recession, cutbacks in federal grants" - this applies to the United States - "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."

Certainly we in British Columbia are not alone.

"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 taxes, 18 their alcohol tax - Utah raised its levy three times in 26 months"

- Boy, I wonder what the uproar would be in British Columbia if we raised any tax 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."

They go on to say:

"It doesn't matter if you're Republican or a Democrat, the deficit is too large."

I would suggest that in British Columbia it doesn't matter whether you are a New Democrat or a Socred, the deficit is too large. So I would ask that we all work together in an attempt to approve this budget and get on with the work that the voting public in British Columbia asked us to do on May 5. If we work together, maybe we can come up with a program that we can all live with, and we can continue to care for the people of British Columbia in the manner that they have become accustomed to under the Social Credit government. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak in support of this budget.

MRS. WALLACE: After listening to the first member for Surrey, I hardly know where to begin in my comments about her remarks. It certainly is interesting to hear her defending the government's plan to go out and sell an advertising program to try to convince the public of what they are proposing to do. It's very interesting in face of the fact that in spite of repeated attempts in question period today, the Minister of Finance absolutely refused to answer any questions relative to the restraint program. It's interesting, Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the Premier of this province has come in and out of this Legislature on occasion during the many weeks that we have been sitting here and has said absolutely nothing. This is the place where they should be selling their program. This is the Legislature of the province of British Columbia. This is the place where the Premier should be making comments as to what his restraint program is all about, and what he intends to do, what he has in store for the people of British Columbia, without hiring a group of highpaid political hacks to go out and sell his program on the airwaves. What he's talking about is unbelievable. Not one word in this House, and yet he's saying that he's going to play a pivotal role in getting the message across. The role may include a province-wide television speech. He said his plan is a good one.

Interjections.

MRS. WALLACE: Yes! You know, this kind of expenditure of public funds for political image, in view of the fact that this Legislature is in session and we're not getting one word from the Premier or from the Minister of Finance as to what he's proposing, is simply unbelievable. And that member for Surrey gets up and supports that kind of program.

[3:45]

Her comments relative to the bishop's statement were interesting too. I just happen to have with me the "Ethical Reflections on the Economic Crisis, " put out by the Catholic bishops' conference in January of this year. On page 3 of that document they set out some of the problems, saying:

"We recognize that these proposals run counter to some current policies or strategies advanced by both governments and corporations. As pastors we have a responsibility to raise some fundamental social and ethical issues pertaining to the economic order. In so doing we expect that there will be considerable discussion and debate within the Christian community itself on these issues. Indeed we hope that the following reflections will help to explain our concerns and contribute to the current debate about the economy."

I certainly hope that the writer of that letter has an opportunity to read these ethical reflections and take some time to discuss the bishops' concerns and why they are making these proposals in those ethical reflections.

MR. REID: Table them with the House and we can all read them.

MRS. WALLACE: If you haven't seen these . . . .

MR. REID: I'm not a Catholic; how would I get them?

MRS. WALLACE: I'm not a Catholic, but I have it.

MR. REID: How did you get it?

MRS WALLACE: It's very easily obtainable. It was very public.

HON. MR. GARDOM: This isn't "Show and Tell." Carry on.

MRS. WALLACE: You're right, Mr. House Leader.

The member for Surrey made another comment about what she called -part-time" judges - actually Jay magistrates. The act was brought in on the recommendation of the Law Society of British Columbia and the police people, who felt that the lay magistrates were not sufficiently familiar with the law of the land and that there were a lot of problems occurring in the courts as a result. That's why that piece of

[ Page 970 ]

legislation was brought in. It was brought in on the recommendation of the people closely concerned with what was happening.

I want to deal with the budget in its initial stages relative to the economic aspects of the budget. We on this side of the House have been very concerned that the direction the government has been taking over the past several years - ever since I've been in this House, in fact - has been really taking this province in a direction detrimental to economic stability and economic recovery. It seems that we have now advanced to a stage where that is becoming very widely recognized.

My colleague for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy) mentioned briefly the recent statements from Statistics Canada. They have come to recognize that both the federal and provincial government program of wage restraint appear to be part of the problem rather than part of the solution. That's something that we on this side of the House have been saying over and over: when you take money out of the pockets of the consumer, you take that money out of the economy of the country or of the province, which has the effect of producing a downward spiral on economic recovery, rather than stimulation. What it means is that consumers have less money to spend. When you take it out of the pockets of the people who have the lowest incomes, which is what has been happening in B.C. . . . . The greatest proportion of the extra costs that the government is inflicting upon taxpayers affects the lower income groups. When you take it out of the pockets of those people, it means that that money is simply not available to go into the buying of consumer goods. It would have been available, had it not been taken away in these regressive taxes that this government is so fond of levying. When you're on a limited income, you spend what income you have. There is nothing there for saving. There is nothing there for anything else. When you take it out of the pockets of those people, it is not reinvested in the economy; it is not spent in the local corner store or local department store or at the local automobile dealer or wherever. I don't know if you people have noticed - certainly I have as I travel up and down this Island Highway - how many cars now have one light, or how many cars are stopped fixing a flat tire, or how many cars are stopped with a hood up, obviously in trouble. That is a sign that people are not able to afford to keep their cars maintained properly or to buy replacements, to turn them in on newer cars.

That's just one symptom of how this withdrawing of income out of the pockets of consumers is reducing the sales and the turnover of consumer goods in this province. It's been doubly affected in this province by both federal and provincial budgets in the past few years. Certainly this has now been confirmed by StatsCan in their most recent release, where they indicate there are already signs that consumer spending slowed in the second quarter, compared with the first quarter. This is by a man named Phillip Cross, who is the chief of Statistics Canada. "Economists agree that greater consumer spending is essential to a strong recovery. They say spending accounts for two-thirds of the country's gross national product - the value of a country's goods and services. There's no reason to expect a strong boost in consumer spending unless there are significant increases in wages or employment." That's not in the cards. Instead we are seeing wages restricted to an increase far less than the increase in the cost of commodities. We're also seeing more and more forecasts of continuing unemployment; there's no suggestion there will be an increase in employment.

They talk about what appeared to be the fragile recovery. They have now come to the conclusion that because it was touted that there was a fragile recovery, people who were in desperate need of consumer goods began spending their savings. That's where the money was coming from that appeared to be creating a slight upturn in the economy. Now they are recognizing that that's not happening. Savings, in part at least, were spent; there was a withdrawal. Therefore we are now in the situation where those increased spendings are not there - certainly in this latest report from StatsCan.

I want to talk a bit more about the effect of the budget on the economy. One authority comes to mind that hasn't been quoted: Pemberton, Houston and Willoughby, a well-known firm of stockbrokers who publish "Western Commentary." I have in my hand an excerpt from volume 9, no. 7, published July 1983. It's a commentary on the B.C. budget entitled, "B.C. Budget-Revolutionary Impact, " and it has some very interesting things to say. It says there are some good points, but it spends a lot of time dealing with the difficulties. It says that the government's resolve may be admired, but it goes on:

"There are some problems with the implementation procedures, and the period of adjustment could extact a greater toll on the B.C. economy than might normally be expected. In a similar vein, the budget is having a strong negative effect on the labour relations climate. The province is being further polarized. By government estimates, taxes will rise by $173 million in the current fiscal year, $173 million attributed just to the sales tax measures. These taxes amount to roughly 0.5 percent of personal disposable income. Consequently, retail sales are likely to suffer."

That's exactly what StatsCan have been saying has happened. "Most affected will be the large-ticket items." You get by with the old washing machine, with the old chesterfield and the old car; you don't do the landscaping that you had intended to do - all those kinds of things - because you just don't have the money to do it.

The report goes on: "While on the real side of the economy the tax increases are likely to retard growth" - in a time of fragile economic recovery, Pemberton, Houston and Willoughby are saying that these taxes are likely to retard growth - "they will also have another adverse impact." Listen to this, Mr. Speaker. "Inflation will be given a boost, as the tax increases are heavily concentrated in items in the consumer price index." So not only is this government contributing to a lesser amount of consumer spending; it is also contributing to a boost for inflation, the thing that we are supposed to be counteracting. Instead, according to this report, you are simply having an adverse impact on any attempt to restrain inflation.

The report continues: "The acts will be challenged in the courts, and in the interval the labour relations climate will deteriorate." This is in relation to - and I know we can't get into legislation - some of the legislation that is an outgrowth of this budget. This firm of stockbrokers is suggesting that these acts will be challenged in court - this is their educated determination - and that the labour relations climate will deteriorate. That is something that causes nothing but problems for everyone in B.C., and it is certainly something that we should try to avoid, not deliberately move toward creating.

"The polarization of the industrial relations climate is a backward step, the severity of which will

[ Page 971 ]

depend on the positions taken by labour and governments. Closer to home, the 170, 000 provincial public sector employees can hardly feel confident about their jobs. Morale is also bound to be low and any optimism about the improving economic conditions will be tempered. Moreover, the restraint of wage adjustments to minus 5 to plus 5 percent through the Compensation Stabilization Amendment Act will further hamper confidence. On balance, the higher unemployment and job insecurity, coupled with no wage increase in the current year, will reduce the economic recovery potential of the province."

[4:00]

That's a sad commentary on a right-wing government by a firm as renowned as Pemberton's.

"The Medical Services Act will have the effect of increasing the cost of medical care, and the act as set out challenges the accepted medicare system. Political fallout is possible, both provincially and federally" - and I think we all see that coming. "The provisions of the act and the elimination of the Human Rights Commission are sure to cause concern in Ottawa and will serve to worsen provincial-federal relations at a time when greater cooperation is desirable."

We have seen the Minister of Justice agreeing to come and assist the local human rights people here in B.C. if, in fact, there is a court challenge to what the government is attempting to foist upon us in the way of removal of our human rights protection.

In summary, the report says:

"The Bennett government has moved boldly, and perhaps too quickly. The near-term consequences are negative for the economy: unemployment will be higher, consumer spending will be weaker, inflation will be higher and the probability of labour disruption has been increased. There is a potential B.C. could suffer substantially if there is no room for accommodation."

Coming from the publication of Pemberton, Houston and Willoughby, I think that those words should be taken very seriously by the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) and by the Premier and by the government that sits opposite me. Rather than continue to attempt to force down the throats of British Columbians a budget and related legislation that has been questioned as to how accurate it is . . . . There is certainly good reason to question . . . . We have seen budget after budget presented by that Minister of Finance that has been far from correct. It seems that it is convenient before an election to present a budget that overestimates revenue, and perhaps it is just as convenient after an election, if you want to initiate restraint programs, to introduce a budget that underestimates revenue. That's not just what I have been saying, but what many people have been saying. Certainly the economic analysis put out by the economics department of the B.C. Central Credit Union has indicated that. They have come up with figures that expenditures have been overestimated by between $170 and $250 million, and revenues understated by between $300 and $400 million. On that basis they are forecasting that the deficit has been overstated by between $470 and $650 million.

It's a nice way to attempt to get people to accept a program that is supposedly a restraint program, but which appears much more like a revenge program in that it appears to pick on specific areas, and to move particularly on areas that have been critical of government or have not been the kind of program the government feels is in its best interests. A lot of programs going under the axe of government fall into that category because the savings involved are so minimal. Again I'm quoting from the Central Credit Union economics department:

"Much is made of government restraint, but spending is forecast to increase at double the rate of last year. The budget promises to reduce the 'excessive burden of government on the economy, ' yet increases taxes by over $200 million. It makes mention of job creation in the private sector but indicates little incentive to do so."

In this House we have gone from bill to bill to bill - and I'm digressing for a moment, Mr. Speaker - but never yet has the House Leader seen fit to call the one bill on the order paper that deals with employment development. This was a much-touted $500 million program during the election campaign. It's been watered down somewhat since then. There is a bill, but what's happened to it? We haven't seen it before this Legislature. It suddenly seems to have lost its importance.

Here is a government that has done away with both the human rights administration and the rentalsman. The Minister of Finance apparently doesn't know what that's going to save the government. The B.C. Central Credit Union seems to know: they say $5.7 million. If anyone cares to look at the estimates, I think they will find that's correct. That's a pretty infinitesimal sum for two programs so vital to British Columbians.

The Credit Union goes on to criticize the decision to increase taxes, and again it's in line with statements gave earlier:

"The economic recovery in B.C. has started, but it may not be strong enough to absorb without effect the tax increases imposed by the provincial government. Every family in B.C. will pay between $100 and $200 more per year in taxes because of the increase in sales tax from 6 to 7 percent."

Maybe that doesn't sound like very much to a person who sits in this Legislature with an adequate income, but $100 to $200 a year represents new shoes for school, or a raincoat for the wet weather, or warm sweaters, or food on the table for a family living on a limited income. And we cannot stress that too much, because that is what's really so wrong with the sales tax: it hits hardest at the people who can least afford to pay it.

AN HON. MEMBER: But you want us to spend more. You don't like the cuts we've made.

MRS. WALLACE: What we would like is curtailment in areas like advertising, which I've talked about, which is there for nothing less than to improve the government's image. We would like to see reductions in some of the unnecessary expenditures that this government is involved in, to ensure that the people who can least afford it have protection in the marketplace and that their needs become the concern of this government, rather than the government's needs. Some of the things that have been indicated in relation to the various ministries deal with the restraints - so-called. It's interesting to note that when you cut staff, what kind of dollar savings you get depends on who you cut. We find that in various ministries the cuts have certainly been far more drastic at the

[ Page 972 ]

lower levels of pay than at the higher levels. I don't want to use too many examples, but I notice that in Consumer and Corporate Affairs they are planning to eliminate 100 positions, which is a reduction of $13.4 million. This means that 15 percent of the staff of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is to be cut off, with a saving . . . . But what's the saving going to be? With 15 percent of the staff gone, there will be a saving of 2.8 percent of the budget; that is, of the salary budget.

That's what happens to the staff. What happens to the salaries in the minister's office? They increase by 32 percent. These are the kinds of things that we object to. They increase from $131, 000 to $173, 000 in the minister's office. At the same time they are cutting 15 percent of the staff with a reduction of only 2.8 percent. I think it shows where this government's priorities are when you go on to realize that in the total budget $500, 000 is cut from Consumer Affairs and Corporate Affairs gets almost exactly as much more: $446, 000. That's a massive increase for Corporate Affairs, but an even greater reduction for Consumer Affairs. That indicates to me where this government's priorities are, and I believe those priorities to be wrong.

We heard something about how the elderly were not suffering under the Health ministry. Well, the hardest hit under the Health ministry are institutional services to the elderly, which have been cut by $4.6 million. To say that they're not affecting the elderly is amazing. We talk about the extra money for welfare. Well, sure, when you don't create any jobs you have to pay welfare. That's where this government is at. That's a shocking admission, to say: "Okay, we don't know how to give you jobs. We're just going to put more money in the budget for welfare." People out there don't want welfare; they want to work. They want that human dignity. There's nothing more upsetting to me than to sit in my constituency office and have people come in who are not eligible for UIC, who are not eligible for disability pensions or WCB, if they have various problems with their health. People who have worked all their lives, who have supported their families, come in and you have to tell them: "Look, you have to go down and apply for social assistance." And they say: "Oh, no. No." Or they come in and you say: "Well, how are you managing? You haven't had any UIC for X number of months." And they lean over the desk and say: "Well, you know, I had to get welfare." It's a terrible situation that we're putting people in. It upsets me that this government will stand here and say: "Well, look at all the extra money we're giving for welfare." It's shameful that they're prepared simply to dish out money for welfare rather than to use that money to create jobs.

The elimination of the renter's tax credit will save nearly $20 million. That's not very much in a total budget of however many billion dollars it is. Yet the government is determined to go that route. A survey that was done not too long ago by one of the . . . . Well, it was published in one of the local papers; it was done, I believe, by Goldfarb. But of all the programs that people wanted to maintain, the highest percentage . . . . Between 67, 68 or 69 percent of the people surveyed wanted to keep that rentalsman's program. That relates not just to renters; it also relates to landlords. The government has made a big mistake on this one, in doing away with that rentalsman's office, because that was a value to both the renter and the landlord. I think that was evidenced by that survey that was done that showed just how many people really wanted that program left in place.

[4:15]

The Ministry of Finance is where the big increase is. And what's it for? It's for interest on borrowing. This is the government that was going to be debt-free. What a laugh. What a farce. This government has never been debt-free. They have had more debt hidden in their Crown corporations and budgets for the last three or four years. They always forecast a balanced budget, but always have a deficit. The figures speak for themselves. Overall we've had tremendous increases in our debt in this province - up and up and up. We've seen our total debt of something like $4.5 billion escalate to well over $13 billion or $14 billion. That's more than three times in eight years. Sure, when you have that kind of debt you have to pay interest on it. That's one of the biggest increases in this budget. That's being saddled on the backs of the taxpayers. They're standing here and saying: "We mustn't have any debt."

This is the government, above all governments, that has really gone in for debt in a big way. They are the biggest creators of debt. We had a $4.4 billion debt over a hundred years of operation in this province, and in eight years, a twelfth of the total life of this province, they have managed to more than triple that debt. They stand up here and say: "We can't have debt. We can't burden the taxpayers with debt." They're the government that have burdened the taxpayers with debt, They're the government whose policies have driven us into an economic recession that is greater than that of many of the other provinces across this country. We are going . . . . I have a green light? Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's amazing how quickly 40 minutes can go by. I'm like the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose) ; I have hardly passed the introduction.

I think in closing, rather than dealing specifically with the many problems that have been repeated many times here, there is something I would like to leave with the members across the way: a couple of quotations - and I'll try and make them brief - from the Anglican provincial synod of British Columbia, who issued a statement of concern on July 28 of this year. It sets out principles of liberty and justice:

"In terms of keeping power accountable to people, we are concerned that the manner in which some of the legislation centralizes authority in the cabinet threatens the right of those who are affected by decisions to participate in the making of them."

While this reads "legislation" it certainly also relates to the budget.

" In terms of protecting minority rights we are concerned that all minorities will not have adequate protection from the vagaries of shifting majority attitudes."

Then it deals with the principles of justice.

"In terms of due process, we are concerned at the power to dismiss employees without cause, and that the new Human Rights Act and Residential Tenancy Act subject individuals to the threat of arbitrary action.

"In terms of provision and care for the most disadvantaged, we are concerned that the provisions for reduction in the public service and changes in the provision for medical care threaten those who, like the severely handicapped and chronically if], are most in need of medical services.

"In terms of reasonably equitable distribution of burdens to be borne on behalf of society in times of

[ Page 973 ]

economic restraint, we are concerned that groups such as public servants and tenants are being required to bear the cost of a burden that properly should be shared by all.

"The Christian gospel speaks to us of love of our neighbour. To love our neighbours as ourselves must include the protection of the liberty of our neighbours and their right to justice in society. It is not necessary to place these principles in jeopardy in order to achieve economic restraint."

HON. A. FRASER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It gives me great pleasure to add a few words to the budget debate. Before I forget, I support the budget completely. I remember a former colleague in the Legislature who had to end his debate by moving a motion. He didn't do it, and everything went for naught, I'd like to get it in first that I very definitely support this budget. I am amazed at the silly socialists on the other side and the big commotion they're putting up about this wonderful budget.

MR. LAUK: We're not socialists-, we're just silly,

HON. A. FRASER: You're leaderless too. I don't know why you have to let all your frustration out on the government when you're leaderless and you lost the election. You're flopping all around the place - nobody knows where. But I have a solution to your problems. The member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell) is running for leader, the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) is running for leader, and I forget who the other one is,

Interjection.

HON. A. FRASER: Alberni, right. I'm all for the MLA for Atlin to win the whole bucket, and that's what he'll get: the whole bucket. I was talking to people in his riding over the last couple of days. They're all going to support him for leader, because they know that if he becomes leader it'll wipe out the whole gang over there. That's why I'm for him too.

MR. LEA: You're negative.

HON. A. FRASER: I might be negative, but this other member over here has committed a real sin against his party by running to grab a seat. An MP for . . . I forget the name of the place now but he has come out here and got elected as an MLA in the riding of Coquitlam-Moody. He's committed a sin against your party, because his federal seat is going down the tube next Monday. I think he should be chastised for that, but that's what happens when you're leaderless like your people are. The other observation I have about all the things that have been said about the government and their program and everything . . . .

MR. LAUK: Didn't you run for leader once?

HON. A, FRASER: No.

MR. LAUK: Who did you back?

MR. LEA: He backed McClelland.

HON. A. FRASER: I backed a winner. I don't back loses, I back winners.

The NDP always amaze me. For several sessions they've said: "Bring out your legislation. What are you fooling around for?" Well, this time we sure surprised them, and they've been flopping around ever since. They got our legislation the day of the budget, and they think that's terrible. I don't know just when we can bring out legislation or a budget to satisfy them. It's not our intent to satisfy them. That's not why we're the government. We're here to govern, and that's what we intend to do.

They will never learn. My colleague the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) says he's got how many elections they've lost all counted. They've won one of the last 22 in the province of British Columbia. They never accept defeat. They seem to come back to the Legislature on the basis that they're the government, and we have to do everything to satisfy them. As far as F m concerned, I can't really understand that, I'd like to remind them again that we did win the election on May 5, and we won it very substantially. As a matter of fact, a lot of statements have been made in our province that we didn't discuss certain issues in the election. We discussed a lot of issues, but the main issue was restraint, which we'd already been practising and we said we'd continue to practise. So many misleading statements have been made in our province. "Nobody told us" is a long way from the truth. They were told.

I want to tell you from this side that the election changed when the Leader of the Opposition came out and said that they would throw out restraint. He threw himself and his party out when he let that mouthful go. That's why he is a leader in limbo - on his way to his just retirement in the not-too-distant future. As far as the party is concerned, it appears that that is where they're headed, federally and provincially, according to all the opinion polls going around.

First of all, what we're discussing here is the budget that budgets for a $1.6 billion deficit. In other words, our government has to go out and borrow this money and pay interest on it to balance the budget. I might say, as one member of the government, Fm not happy about that. I know you aren't, and a lot of other people aren't, but it's a fact of life that we have to live with in order not to cut back drastically on programs or to increase taxes materially. By that, I mean we would have to increase the sales tax, as an example, probably by 10 percent - from 7 to 17 percent. Of course, that's not acceptable to our people-, neither would it be acceptable to the people of British Columbia to reduce a further $1.6 billion, because it would have to come out right across the board in services, There would be a lot more hue and cry if that pursuit was followed rather than the one that we tried to abide by in arriving at this budget.

I'm not happy with some of the cuts that have been made. They're a fact of life. The point I want to make is that if these cuts hadn't been made, we would be looking at a deficit of probably $2.5 billion. People should keep that in mind when they're talking about expenditures. Our government still has the priority spending ministries: Health at $2.4 billion, Human Resources - where a lot of screams and hollers are coming from - at $1.4 billion, and Education at $1.4 billion. Those three figures in those three ministries add up, ladies and gentlemen, to over $5 billion. in a budget of a little over $8 billion. So I don't think, when you look at that, we can be chastised for having our priorities wrong.

[ Page 974 ]

[4:30]

I would like to pass on to the Legislature that even practising some restraint, we ended up with approximately a $1 billion deficit for the year ending March 1983; according to the projections, we'll add $1.6 billion to that by March 1984. So more or less for debate reasons, discussion reasons, we're looking at a deficit of $2.5 billion by March 1984. I think you should sit down and think of future generations by March 1984. I think you should sit down and think of future generations on the basis of that amount if the deficit continues into the fiscal year 1984-85. If it stopped at $2.5 billion, we'd have to pay the loan at an interest rate of roughly 10 percent - $250 million a year on the deficit that we are more or less saying we will have by March 1984. That's without paying back anything at all on principal.

Somewhere along the road we have to start paying back. Using the figure of $500 million to start paying back per annum, you can see the load on the treasury; that is about $750 million a year in debt retirement alone. I hope this doesn't come to pass, but it looks to me as if it will. Of course, there are redeeming features to this: the economy will recover and we'll get more revenue to pay back than we've had in the past from, say, our natural resources and so on, but with that kind of debt to repay with interest, we certainly are not going to be able to generate a lot of government programs.

The opposition tries to say that we're not levelling with people and so on. I guess I've been around here too long. I remember quite well that in November 1975, when the election was called, everybody wanted to know the state of finances, but we couldn't find out. Since being elected on December 11, 1975, we have put in on the fiscal side public information programs that never existed in this province before. I refer to quarterly reports by the Minister of Finance, and to the appointment in 1977 of an auditor-general, the first in this province. So I don't really go along with the view that the public of British Columbia doesn't get a lot of information that it got before.

It has been said in the debate here that there is nothing in this budget for job-creating projects. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, there certainly wouldn't have been anything in here if the NDP had had their way. I could name a few projects on which people are at work now, thanks to this government. I refer to the ALRT project in the lower mainland, the northeast coal project, B.C. Place in the lower mainland, B.C. Rail's Tumbler Ridge branch line and the Crowsnest Pass freight rate. The reason I mention these things is that every one of these was violently opposed by the NDP But I want to emphasize that on all but the freight rate issue people are gainfully employed on these projects. It's certainly not all government money. In the case of northeast coal, more than $1 billion was put in by the private sector to create jobs. Do you know that this year 5, 000 people are gainfully employed on different facets of the northeast coal project, either building the railroad or the new highway in there, or on the Tumbler Ridge community itself and on the mines? I say to the opposition: what's wrong with that? As a matter of fact, it's the only megaproject going on in Canada. I'm happy to tell you that it is coming to a successful conclusion. The first coal trains will roll out of Tumbler Ridge on December 1, 1983, to look after orders from the world market, to say nothing of the extra jobs created on the B.C. Railway and on the CNR, and the amount of money expended and the jobs created at the other end at Ridley Island and Prince Rupert. I don't know why they don't say a few things about that. I think the main reason is that most of the opposition are from the lower mainland or Vancouver Island. I'm going to recommend to the government that we get one of the old buses the NDP bought w ' hen they were government and take them on a trip up to Tumbler Ridge, so they can see all of British Columbia. It would do them a world of good. It would surely do a lot of good for that newly elected young second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe). It would widen his perspective quite a bit - rather than his tunnel vision about the city of Victoria, which is the most preferred area in this province for government jobs and money being ploughed into it.

There's another discussion that's been going on in the opposition and in the media, those great experts on finance, to the effect that the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) and the government have estimated expenditures too high and revenues too low. My response to that is: if that's the case, I sure hope they're right. I think it's tremendous to budget for a $1.6 billion deficit, and if it comes out at a billion, all the better. I would say they did the best they could with the estimates they had. But don't give me that bunkum that they did it on purpose, because that's exactly what it is. They had to deal with the facts as they saw them. If our economy gets better - it is gradually getting better - certainly it will have an effect. As the Minister of Finance said the other day in a quarterly report, they still maintain there's no reason to change their minds on the estimated deficit of $1.6 billion.

Back to job creation in the budget. I have heard three different members misinform this House regarding job creation in this budget: the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea), the member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell) and the member for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy), who spoke today.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member is not imputing any dishonourable motive to another member, is he?

HON. A. FRASER: No, I just want to correct the record. Their statement was that there was no job creation in the budget before us, and there certainly is.

The other item, to which I have already referred and on which I'll give a little more detail, is the highway program that's going on all over our province. It has created 8, 000 jobs. They're out there working today, and they're in the private sector. Why don't you give us a little credit for that? You don't want to give us any credit. I was particularly upset about the three members I mentioned, because they're actually getting some of the effect of this stepped-up highway program in their ridings. To stand here in this House and say that there was no job creation is just not correct. It includes new permanent bridges, new paving projects, new roads into Tumbler Ridge and a lot of things people have been waiting for for a long time.

It's being done by tender in the private sector. I'm happy to tell the House that every contractor on that job is a B.C. contractor. He doesn't like to hear you people say that we have no jobs. Go and ask a bulldozer driver - Emil Anderson or Dawson Construction and so on - what they think about what you're saying. That's one of the reasons you lose elections, ladies and gentlemen. Go ask fabricators, cement plants and so on. The steel fabricators are in New Westminster, and that member there is listening. It affects everybody all over the province, so don't be so naive in thinking that people buy your line.

[ Page 975 ]

Interjections.

HON. A. FRASER: The member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) said that it was an election gimmick. I don't know whether it was that or not, but it created the jobs I just referred to and they're real happy about that. They didn't shut down on May 6; they're at work right today. You'll have a better road system for it as well.

I'd like to talk about B.C. Ferries for a couple of minutes, Mr. Speaker. It is the largest and finest ferry fleet in the free world, serving the coast of Vancouver Island - up the coast and across to the Queen Charlotte Islands. We've had our problems there because of the recession, but I'm happy to tell you that on some of our runs our business is coming back -the commercial ferry traffic from Vancouver to Victoria and Horseshoe Bay to Nanaimo. I think we could use that as an indicator of recovery. They're having their difficulties operating under restraint, and I think they deserve great credit for what they've been able to do in serving that part of our province. I'm sorry the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) is not in his seat, but I hope he's listening. The run from Horseshoe Bay to Langdale is dropping drastically because of economics; it's been going on for 18 months and something has to be done. I just throw that out. The runs from Vancouver-Victoria and Horseshoe Bay-Nanaimo are holding up, but the operation from Horseshoe Bay to Langdale is off 17 or 18 percent, even from last year. I don't know what the reason for it is, but the board of directors for B.C. Ferries are going to start to deal with that. I don't know what they'll come up with. Overall, the B.C. Ferries are surviving the recession and I think they deserve a word of thanks from us all for what has taken place and what will take place.

Back again to May 5 when we won the election and got a mandate to carry out restraint. Furthermore, we want to get the government off the backs of the private sector so they can get on and generate the jobs that are badly needed in our province. That really is the principle we're dealing with.

[4:45]

I might say, Mr. Speaker, that like everybody else in this Legislature, I'm an MLA first. In my riding of Cariboo I noticed some Solidarity and protesters up there and I got a great kick out of seeing who assembled. It was all the same people who campaigned against me up to May 5, including the NDP candidate, one of the front-runners. It was quite interesting.

I just say to you, as far as government is concerned, and as the MLA for Cariboo, that I again fully support the restraint and tell you that from what I hear from the Cariboo, the riding I have the honour to represent, the only concern they have up there is that they are worried we are going to back off. They have told me: if you do, don't bother coming back home to the Cariboo. I think you should remember that when we are talking about restraint and so on. The government has a mandate which we are carrying out through this budget and other measures, and we have no intention of changing that.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to support the budget. I am going to see if in the next 30 or 40 minutes I can cover some of the reasons I will not be supporting this budget. All of my colleagues who have spoken on this side of the House have given reasons why this budget does the very opposite to what the government says it is supposed to do. It doesn't create jobs or stimulate the economy; it does the very opposite. They have cited an article quoting the Statistics Canada economic analysis section which echoes this particular point of view. But I have another reason for not supporting the budget, and that is the one that I want to deal with specifically today: that is, what this budget does to the women of British Columbia. What we see in this budget is a dismantling of more than a decade of services to women in this province. The unfortunate result is that the people who need the service the most are the ones who are going to lose it.

Whether you look at the statistics of poverty in the province, look at the study done by Senator Croll on poverty in Canada and British Columbia, look at the research done by the Canadian Council on Social Development, or read the statistics that come out of this government's own Ministry of Human Resources, the one thing that is completely clear in every instance is that most of the poor people in this province are women and their children. That is the reason they needed these services. They needed these services to deal with that poverty - to try to climb out of that poverty. They needed these services in order to deal with trying to create jobs for themselves or preparing themselves for jobs. They needed these services for upgrading their education. They needed these services when they went before the courts in instances of separation or divorce, to ensure that their maintenance payments were enforced. They needed those legal services.

All of the services which are now being cut affected them primarily, and affected them the most. The only conclusion that we can come to is that the real problem we have with this government is that it really doesn't have any sense about what it is to be poor in British Columbia. It really buys the myth and the fallacy that this is an affluent society and that everyone who lives in this society is rich. well off and comfortable. It tries to create that impression, and it makes legislation and writes budgets based on that myth. It takes the attitude that when you wipe out something like the renter's tax credit or the personal tax credit you are not affecting very many people; therefore it is okay to eliminate that, despite the fact that the statistics show us that the very poorest people in Canada and British Columbia are women over the age of 65 living alone, whether divorced, separated or widowed. These are the very people who depended on that renter's tax credit and on that personal income tax credit. It makes legislation and designs budgets that wipe out services such as family support workers, despite the fact that the statistics show that most of the people who use those services are women on their own - women trying to raise families on their own, families in crisis, on the verge of being shattered, in which the woman will be left with the children, with no way of ensuring that the maintenance payments are made to her. It's when you look at the systematic dismantling of those services which were put into place ten, nine and eight years ago to be an infrastructure, to be a support service to these women, that you begin to realize how really callous and sadistic this government is in terms of this budget.

Let us look at one of the things that the government did. After the budget was introduced, on July 19 it issued a press statement which said: "The government's commitment to women’s programs is reaffirmed." And suddenly all of the women in this province who depended on the services were told that the government remained committed to their programs and that they had nothing to worry about, because the programs had proven to be an effective mechanism for representing women's interests, and "its existence reflects our

[ Page 976 ]

government's continuing commitment to the promotion of equality of opportunity for all women in British Columbia." On the very same day, or within a day or two after this press release was issued telling women not to worry because the programs which served them were going to be protected, the Vancouver Women's Health Collective was notified that its funding would be cut. The Vancouver Transition House was notified that its funding was going to be terminated, and, of course, all of the family support workers, something in the neighbourhood of 599, were eliminated. The child abuse service for the lower mainland and the Fraser Valley was wiped out, and the seniors' centres had their funding cut as well.

The office of the deputy minister who is responsible for women issued, in February of this year, a proposal talking about the government's 12-month activity plan for women in this province. It talks about the government's commitment to representing women's interests and to ensuring that their needs are being met. It breaks it down into a number of different areas, talking about services to women under the Attorney-General's ministry, and, of course, its policy and planning division, which has someone in there seconded to the women's office. It talks about the community liaison office and all these areas - Health, Human, Resources, Education - in which women's programs are going to be protected. That's its 12-month activity plan. If the members of the back bench haven't seen this plan, I am willing to either table it or xerox it myself for their benefit, because I think they should know something about what this government is talking about doing for women. What happened, though, is the very opposite of this.

The Ministry of Human Resources, to start with, talks about this being the age of responsibility. Let's see what the responsibility of the Ministry of Human Resources proved to be. The first thing that the minister did was to wipe out a program which is called PIRT for short: the provincial in-service resources team. These teams worked primarily with children who were severely . . . . We refer to them euphemistically as developmentally delayed. In other words, they were children with real problems - autistic children, children with problems in communication and children with behaviour problems. The PIRT program was a resource team specifically designed for helping families who had children like these - in many instances mothers on their own, single parents, with children like these - traveling around the communities and training staff to work with these children. That's one of the programs that was eliminated.

The mental retardation coordinators for each region - 20 in all - were eliminated. The volunteer-training grant of the B.C. Association for the Mentally Retarded was eliminated. These volunteers used to go into the home and relieve the mother, so that she could have a chance to have a bit of a break sometime. The funding for that was eliminated. And remember, Mr. Speaker, that that is coming at the same time the government is saying that its commitment to women's programs is protected and that it has a 12-month activity plan. Of course, we're finding out that the vaunted, so-called deinstitutionalization of the mentally retarded is a farce, that, in fact, all the government is going to do is shut down the institutions, put the mentally retarded into the community and have no services whosoever there to work with them or to assist them once they're in the community.

What's the other thing that's been wiped out by this government? The Vancouver and Fraser Valley family and child assessment team. Of what does this team consist? The team is staffed by social workers, psychologists and a psychiatrist in order to give a coordinated, multi-disciplinary assessment approach to children who are physically and sexually abused. It was designed to deal with - as happened in 1982-83 - 1, 142 cases which were referred to them. Of those 1, 142 children, 64.3 percent or 735 had been sexually abused.

The first thing that the team does, when a child is referred to them under those circumstances, is that a physician provides medical services for that sexually assaulted child. In addition there are psychological services for the child, and the social worker works with the family. That has now been eliminated. That has now been wiped out by this government which talks about its commitment to women and its care for children. Those 735 children will now have no resource, no medical attention, no psychiatric attention, no psychologist, no social worker to work with the family. Anyone who knows anything at all about sexual abuse of children knows that it leaves a scar on that child which, if that child is not worked with, will influence that child for the rest of that child's life right through adulthood and whatever. More and more we are beginning to recognize and understand the devastating impact of sexual abuse on children. At the time when we have more information about this than ever before, this government has decided that in order to have $17 million to spend on advertising, it has to wipe out this kind of service to the sexually assaulted and abused children in this province. That's the kind of priority that this government establishes which makes it absolutely impossible for any decent, rightminded, thinking person to support this budget and support this government's actions in this regard.

I want to tell you what the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) had to say in February of this year about these children who are sexually assaulted. I'm quoting from a statement made by the ministry which was reprinted in the Times-Colonist on February 5. She said:

"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 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 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 a the responsibility to do something about it."

This is what the Minister of Human Resources, on February 5, 1983, stated, in an article entitled "Some Things Can't Stay All In the Family." That was her commitment. She went on to say that figures indicate that child abuse does exist in B.C. and we have a responsibility as a society to put an end to it. If necessary, "I would rather face controversy on this issue than risk the life of one more child, " she said. That's what the Minister of Human Resources said in February. What happened between February and July, when the minister decided to eliminate this very vital service? What happened to that Minister of Human Resources, herself a parent? What happened between the time this statement was made - a matter of five months - and the decision that was then made that this service to children in our province had to be eliminated so that minister could have money to go and repaint bus stops,

[ Page 977 ]

buses and the SeaBus, because, as you know, she's also responsible for transit.

Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you a little bit more about what the minister said. Through her ministry, she published a book called: "Child Abuse-Neglect Policy Handbook." In the dedication to this book, she stated: "No child should ever suffer through our actions or inaction." I'm here to tell you that the children of British Columbia are at risk, and they are suffering as the direct result of the actions of that minister, the Minister of Human Resources, and her government.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Both action and reaction. The statistics on child abuse are so depressing because one of the things that is happening is that they're on the increase. That is the really frightening situation. For example, we found that in December of last year there were 79 cases on the lower mainland referred to this team, of which 61 were children who were sexually abused. In January there were 97, and in March there were 100. It's on the increase. These are tough economic times. People are under a lot of stress, and when people are under stress, they do a lot of dangerous and irresponsible things. One of the dangerous and irresponsible things that people do when they're under stress is sexually abuse children. That's one of the things we know they do. That's the time when the minister responsible for children in this province has decided to pull money out of protecting children who are sexually abused, so that she will have money to paint bus stops and buses and the SeaBus. That's one of the reasons why it is just not possible for me to support this budget. It doesn't end there, of course.

There are two kinds of support services to families in crisis: the mothers' help service and the home service. One is a preventive service, the mothers' help service, which is designed to relieve the overburdened family, in most instances the single-parent family - that single parent usually being a mother. This mothers' help service is designed to relieve her once in a while during the day, or from day to day, as she deals with some other crisis, so that she can have a break. It also teaches her parenting skills. It also counsels budgeting and nutrition, as well as housekeeping standards. That's been eliminated. The home service, which provides emergency homemakers who go into a home and give housekeeping, child care and personal care - that's eliminated.

What happens? I don't know whether you saw the TV program last night, Mr. Speaker; I think the program is called "On the Record." The Minister of Human Resources was being interviewed. When this question was put to her, do you know what her response was? She said: "Now is the time for all the grandmothers down the street to rush to the aid of families." What happens if you haven't got a grandmother down the street'?

MRS. JOHNSTON: That's not what she said either.

MS. BROWN: Well, let us run the tape again. I think all of British Columbia needs to see that tape again in order to understand the cruelty of that woman. I can assure you that I sat stunned through that entire display. I couldn't believe what I was seeing, and I sure as heck didn't believe what I was hearing. The cruelty and sadism in dealing with this kind of problem is absolutely unheard of.

I want to move on to the elimination of another service which is part of this support system for women: post-partum counselling. My colleague, in speaking last week, pointed out that he didn't even know what post-partum counselling was until he started to look at this budget. That makes sense to me, because unless you've actually given birth to a child yourself and gone into a depression, or been married to somebody or are living with somebody or know somebody, you probably don't realize the large percentage of women who suffer from post-partum depression. You think it's a middle-class or upper-class luxury, but the reality of the situation is that when you start to look at the statistics, you see that it's mostly the poor woman who has post-parturn depression.

MRS. JOHNSTON: That's rubbish.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I'm sorry that member has already spoken, because I wish that she would bring her statistics to bear. I am speaking . . . .

MRS. JOHNSTON: I know from personal experience.

MS. BROWN: She knows from personal experience. I have never had post-partum depression myself. In that she's ahead of me. But as a social worker with a large number of years of experience, I have worked with women with postpartum depression.

MRS. JOHNSTON: That's the problem: too many social workers.

MS. BROWN: That's right. There you have it.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. One at a time.

MS. BROWN: One of the things that I've learned from speaking with the post-partum counsellors in Vancouver is that . . . . Do you know that men apparently now can have post-partum depression too? I don't know whether this started before or after the election, but what happened is that in 1982-83 they reported that their clients were 476 women and 71 men. So even in this day and age - I don't whether it's an advance in technology or what it is - men are being hit with post-partum depression too. The next time my colleague rises to stand on the floor of this House, he may be able to challenge the member for Surrey and say that he's speaking from experience too.

MR. BARNES: I think I was suffering from it myself.

MS. BROWN: That's it; he didn't recognize that that's what he had.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

In any event, the public health nurses, volunteers and others who gave counselling to these people through the North Shore Health Department or the East Side Family Place, or whatever, have had their funding cut.

Interjections.

[ Page 978 ]

MS. BROWN: The member for North Vancouver says that it's a make-work program. Let me tell you something that some of the psychiatrists and public health nurses tell us about post-partum depression. There have been instances where some of the women - and apparently now men -who suffer this have been involved in infant abuse and even murder. They've considered suicide, and it has certainly affected most of their marriages. But to me the most interesting statistic is that they are now able to trace that 25 percent of women alcoholics and 30 percent of women drug addicts -that's prescription drugs - started during a period of postpartum depression. So the member for North Vancouver may think it's a make-work project, but I'll tell you, it's pretty serious. The only conclusion I can come to is that the Minister of Human Resources, like my colleague here who said that he didn't know what it was all about, probably didn't know what it was all about herself when she decided to terminate their funding.

What about the Vancouver Transition House, which has been in operation since 1973 and was the very first transition house to come into being in this province? For the benefit of those of us who may still not know what a transition house is, it's a safe house, a place of refuge for women and children who are battered, beaten, by the person they're living with, whether it is a spouse or some other relationship.

The other statistics that we had, tragically enough, happen right here in Victoria recently: the incidence of murders, of women who are actually beaten to death. As I said, I think it was in last week's Colonist where I read about a woman who had left Transition House here in Victoria and returned to her husband's house - not to live, just to clean the house for him, or whatever - and he beat her to death. The incidence of wife murders or spouse murders that result from battering show us the need . . .

MR. BARNES: He shot her and beat her.

MS. BROWN: He shot her and beat her.

. . . show us the importance that transition houses have for our society.

[5:15]

As a direct result of high unemployment, tough economic times, tempers getting frayed and patience wearing thin, there is an increase of violence within the family structure itself - right inside the family. It's not the safest place in the world anymore - certainly not as it used to be, and not as we would like to consider and perceive it to be. That's the reason why things like family support workers, post-partum counselling, transition houses and child abuse teams are so important: the family is going through a crisis experience at the same time as our economy is going through a crisis experience. In the same way that our economy needs support services to see it through its crisis, the family needs support services too. What this budget has done by taking out the support services has placed every member of the family at risk. It really has.

Everyone is in jeopardy at this time, The Vancouver Transition House does more than provide a safe environment; it also offers counselling; it refers many of the husbands involved to groups that can deal with them in terms of their violence and why they are not able to handle that; it gives medical information; it gives legal information; and it gives assistance in terms of referrals to other community groups and other services to help that particular family get its act together, or certainly that particular woman and her children. This is not the kind of service that a government which issues a press release reaffirming its commitment to women and publishes a 12-month plan talking about services to women should be cutting. It certainly is not the kind of service that a government which cared about people would cut.

"Elderly and Unemployable Hit" was the headline in one of the newspapers on July 22. It said: "B.C. grants vanish in two more areas." It was talking about the fact that the government had decided to terminate its financial commitment to 23 senior citizen activity centres in order to save itself $2 million. I want to remind you that this is the very budget that shows us that this government has set aside $17 million to spend on advertising and information. I am quite sure that some of the work being done by Mr. Heal and his employees is important and necessary, but is it more important and more necessary than the services which are being cut to pay for that advertising.

This new advertising program, which the Premier announced without remembering to tell the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot), includes the members going . . . I don't want to say "oozing" their way across the province. What is the word?

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Fanning out. The members are going to be fanning out across the province to explain the budget and their legislation to everyone. You know, Mr. Speaker, if the government were to put that advertising budget aside and instead restore the $2 million to the 23 senior citizen activity centres that have lost their funding the job would be done more effectively.

People would understand more clearly that the government listens, that the government hears and that the government still cares about people. If the government were to forget that advertising program and put the $1.5 million that it is taking away from the 2, 600 disabled people who are losing their $50 a month . . . . Instead of spending it on advertising, they could return that $50 a month to the disabled people to assist them with transportation and other expenses. People would understand much more clearly that this is a government that listens, this is a government that hears, and this is a government that cares about people.

It wouldn't be necessary for the MLAs to go oozing out around the province to explain the government's policies. Refunding that program to the disabled people would carry that message more clearly and more loudly than anyone or anything else that this government could do. If the government were to reinstate the lower mainland and Fraser Valley child abuse team so that they can continue to do the work -that essential important job which they do in terms of protecting sexually abused and raped children in the lower mainland and Fraser Valley - the message would be much more effective and much clearer and louder than having the MLAs out oozing around the province to try to explain what the budget is about.

There is no way that anyone can explain that it is more important to paint a bus stop or to paint a bus than it is to protect a child who has been sexually abused or raped. The statistics tell us that these children range in age . . . . The youngest child that team dealt with last year was I I months old. That is what we are talking about. Now is it more important to paint a bus stop, or to deal with the fact that an 11-

[ Page 979 ]

month-old child in this province is being sexually abused? Is it more important to run an advertising program or to continue funding disabled people who are already getting an inadequate income so they will get an additional $50 for their transportation and other needs to go and do 20 hours of volunteer work somewhere? Is that more important?

The seniors' activity centres: that is really cruel. One of the things we have learned as a direct result . . . . Medical science has resulted in all of us living longer than ever; in fact, the fastest growing segment of our community is made up of people over the age of 65. One of the most important things we've learned about aging is that if you keep active and use your mind, keep your body in good shape and eat properly, get a reasonable amount of sleep and stay involved with the community and with other people, you live longer and you live better. That's what these activity centres do. These activity centres are responsible for the programs that take single senior-citizen women and single senior-citizen men out of their bachelor suites and one-room apartments. They go to Silver Threads and meet with other people. They have square dances and do handcrafts. They study and develop and continue to grow. They're bright and sharp and alert, and they make a major contribution to the community and society in which they live. That's what those activity centres do. Can you justify terminating their funding in order to pay for an advertising program? This is what this government intends to do.

Is that my green light already? That's terrible; I haven't even started talking about the Ministry of Attorney-General and about health.

In closing, I want to talk a little about the services to children which are to be terminated so that the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) has money to pay for the painting of bus stops. A number of Vancouver-based facilities - 20 Vancouver resources - which offer residential and non-residential care to children in crisis and their families have been notified that as of March 31 next year their funding will cease. That includes Project Parent East, the Eileen Corbett home, the Graveley Street emergency home, Sutherland Place and Alma House. I can vouch for Alma House. When I first starting working as a social worker many hundred years ago at the Children's Aid, I used to supervise children in Alma House, so I know it does an excellent job. Alma House is for children between the ages of 13 and 18, the most difficult children to find foster homes for. Most people don't want to take a foster child between those ages. Also, there are the Fifteenth Avenue group home, Highbury House and others.

I really regret, Mr. Speaker, that time does not permit me to go into more detail about the ways in which this budget has really devastated and, in most instances, eliminated, wiped out, fractured and destroyed basic services which women in this province need - services which came into force because it was recognized by the community, and in many instances by the women themselves, that they were needed. There's always been a battle to preserve their funding. Every year without fail I have to stand on the floor of this House and fight for funding for the Vancouver Status of Women. for the health collective, for transition houses and so on.

I recognize that my red light is on. The only regret I have is that the red light is also on for so many of these vital and important services which are needed by the children and women of British Columbia.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, it's always a pleasure to enter into debate following that member for Burnaby-Edmonds, because that member is very rarely on the mark in any debate in this House as far as being in order. I'm sure you will give me a lot of room in the debate you will hear from me in the next few minutes.

It is with the greatest of pleasure that I stand in my place to support this budget. If I've ever supported a budget in my seven and a half years in this Legislature, I wish to support strongly the one before us today. We're all in in this House to represent those who sent us here. We're not here to speak on our own behalf; we're here to echo the words of those out in the constituencies who chose to send us here to represent them, and it is with that great pleasure that I stand today to speak on their behalf in support of this budget.

[5:30]

I've heard members opposite say time after time after time in this budget debate that they're disturbed. I agree that there are members opposite who are disturbed, but they are disturbed that the debate on this budget has been curtailed, that there's been intervening business. 1, on behalf of those whom I represent, do not share their concern. In fact, I feel just the opposite, In previous years a budget has been introduced into this House and immediately debated for the time allowed by the House rules. It's voted on and passed by virtue of the government's majority, without many people out there ever having an opportunity really to find out what that budget is all about. That is not the case this year. The people of British Columbia have had an opportunity to obtain, peruse and consider the budget that we're debating here in this House today. They've had an opportunity to find out for themselves, because of the time available to them, the real truth behind this budget. They've had the opportunity to consider the ramifications of a budget prior to its being passed in this House, and I think that's good. In fact, I believe that that should be the case from now on. Let's give the people of British Columbia an opportunity, prior to a budget being passed in this House, to get something of an idea of what it's all about, to learn for themselves the truth of that budget - not what has been suggested by the members opposite, not what's seen or heard or read in the major media, but the truth of what that budget is really all about.

Mr. Speaker, because of that opportunity on behalf of all British Columbians, particularly those I represent . . . . It's been very interesting indeed to hear the comments after the people of British Columbia have had the opportunity to consider the budget. The feedback from the people of British Columbia has been very interesting and very revealing. The word I'm getting - and, I'm sure, the word that every other member of this Legislature is getting from the majority of the people of British Columbia - is very positive indeed. I heard the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) say something a few moments ago to the effect that all they're afraid of is that we, as a government, might back off. What they're saying to me - and I'm getting that message loud and clear - is: "Don't back down." It's about time, they're saying, that governments got serious about their own size. They're saying: "We've given you a mandate." The members opposite can talk as they like about what happened on May 5, but their administration was given a mandate on that day to reduce the size of government. That's what we were elected to do, and that's exactly what we are doing in this budget.

MR. BLENCOE: How much are you saving?

[ Page 980 ]

MR. KEMPF: I'll get to that, Mr. Second Member for Victoria, and you'll be sorry when I do! We'll peruse that subject, maybe not today, because I don't have enough time, but maybe tomorrow or some other time in this debate, in other debates, in estimates or whenever. If you intend to keep us here on taxpayers' money until Christmas, you'll hear it many times, Mr. Member.

Mr. Speaker, we got a clear mandate on May 5. The people of British Columbia gave us a clear mandate, and that was to reduce the size of government. That's what they're saying out there now, almost to a person. I use the favourite word that the socialists opposite always use "person." Almost to a person, that is the feedback that I'm getting from my constituency. Those people are overjoyed at the prospect that finally government has had the guts to do what is necessary, Mr. Member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea). I almost forgot, but how could I ever forget where that member is from?

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF: All over the province, and you're getting it as well from your constituents.

MR. LEA: They hate you.

MR. KEMPF: Well, Mr. Speaker, that's almost universal, isn't it? But it's beside the point in this debate.

The feedback that's coming from the people of British Columbia is very positive in relation to this budget. The socialists opposite are either deaf or they march to a different drummer. They don't hear the people of British Columbia. But they're getting the true message as well, from some of those who supported them, and I'm getting that in my constituency, more and more every day. Even some of them that were misled and voted for the socialists on May 5 are now coming to say that they're 100 percent behind that which the government is doing. We've known for quite some time that the size of government has to be pared. I'm getting that from some of the few in the constituency of Omineca who voted NDP in the last election. While I'm on that subject, I must say that there were 10 percent fewer of those kind in my constituency than there were in 1979. Many of the people who voted NDP on May 5 in my constituency are coming to me and saying: "We never thought that there would be a government that would ever do it. We never thought that there would be a government that would have guts enough to look inward and to face the real problem that the citizens of this province have - the size of government." We're doing something about it.

Certainly we have the hard-core socialist organizers organizing small groups all over the province, and some larger groups where a preponderance of government employees exist - those who have a vested interest to make sure that government fails in this budget, that government fails in its program to cut the size of the bureaucracy to the taxpayers of this province; those with a vested interest to see this budget fail through adverse public opinion. But it's not happening. That ragtag leaderless bunch over there thinks it is, but it's not happening, and it's becoming clearer and clearer as each day passes. Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to them that they wake up, that they do as we've heard said many times in this House and quit while they're only that far behind and before they completely lose those half-hearted so-called socialist supporters of theirs. They're losing them every day, and I really have to feel sorry for that bunch over there. They can't afford to lose any support.

If there's anything that the people of this province want, it's less government. You need only stop people on the street, whether they be in socialist Victoria or not, and ask them if they want larger government. "Would you like to see smaller government?" I ask the members opposite to do that. Go on down on the street after 6 o'clock. Stop a few people and ask them. If they live in British Columbia, ask them if they want larger or smaller government. You'll get the message pretty clearly and pretty quickly.

What's happening in this budget is what I was saying in this House four or five years ago. The record will show. It's in Hansard. I stood in my place in this House and said governments have to look inward. We can no longer spend more and more and more of the taxpayers' money.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I hope you're making notes, Hugh.

MR. KEMPF: He doesn't have to. It'll be written in Hansard, Mr. Member.

Mr. Speaker, long before restraint was even thought about - long before even more than a fleeting consideration was given to restraint - I was saying that in this House. But there was no limit in those days; everything was beautiful. Spend, spend, spend. Everybody wanted more, They weren't getting enough. But the question was, and still is: what is enough?

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF: Oh, you can go on with your rhetoric, Mr. Member - your clappity-clap from the other side of the House. But I'll tell you that you may even convince me, but you won't convince the people of British Columbia.

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF: No, sir. It's not happening, and you need only . . . . Maybe they'll do a rerun. Fortunately - or unfortunately, I should say - the CBC saw fit to cut it out of their footage yesterday. But I was in the reviewing stand in the PNE parade on Saturday morning in Vancouver, and if you think it's happening, Mr. Member for Victoria, just ask one of those TV stations to rerun that part which showed the Solidarity part of the PNE parade. If you don't think what I'm saying is true, you want to check that out, because Mr. Member for Victoria, it's just not happening. What you say to be the truth is just not so.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: What happened?

MR. KEMPF: I'll just leave that to the imagination of the member over there.

Mr. Speaker, I knew, even further back than four or five years ago, that there had to come a day - and it has . . . .

MR. BLENCOE: How about Crown Corporations?

MR. KEMPF: We'll talk about the Committee on Crown Corporations, Mr. Member. We'll talk about it at length.

MR. BLENCOE: Do you support your government?

[ Page 981 ]

MR. KEMPF: You know, if you had the guts that you seem to have when you speak from your seat, you would know that I've given my government notice that I will speak against and vote against Bill 21. I've given that notice, and I intend to stand by it. If anybody over there has got that many guts, I'd like him to stand up right now.

[5:45]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: One moment, please. I'll remind the hon. member for Omineca that personal references are unparliamentary. Perhaps the member can withdraw the personal reference to another member.

MR. KEMPF: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I withdraw.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) will come to order.

MR. KEMPF: I knew, back in those days - and quite a way back - that there would come a day when we would price ourselves out of the world market and when our natural resources could no longer support the more and more that everybody wanted. That day has come, and that's why we've got the budget before us that we have today. The crunch has come, and the majority of our citizens out there know it. The longer the NDP keeps us in this chamber on the filibuster that they're on, the more they're going to know about it. I guess, on that note, that it's worth us being here for however many days the socialists wish to keep us here. Mr. Speaker, the people of this province know that something has got to be done about the size of government. They know that the frills that we have become used to in the last few years have got to go. We have got to get back to the basics in this province.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Fifteen million dollars for advertising?

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Member, I don't agree with that advertising program, and I'll tell you why we don't need it. The socialists and their friends are doing the job for us and they will continue to do that.

We have got to get back to the basics in this province. We have got to get back to the philosophy of the individual enterprise system. We have to do that, Mr. Member for Prince Rupert, if we have a hope in hell of surviving in today's economic world. The socialists in this House or in the media know full well that tough measures have to be taken. They are aware. They made promises to their friends, however, which don't allow them, in this debate at least, to say it the way it is; and that is their problem, Mr. Speaker. They know that the measures taken in this budget are necessary, and yet they play their little political games, attempting once again to fool the public of this province. But the members opposite are only fooling themselves. Those who were in or near the PNE parade on Saturday morning in Vancouver would know that. It was very, very apparent.

I have a whole lot more to say in this debate on all sorts of things. In fact, I'm probably going to run out of time. So, Mr. Speaker, considering the time of day, I would move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:50 p.m.