[ Page 995 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Petition

Okanagan Bible institute. Mr. Campbell –– 995

Oral Questions

Government advertising campaign. Mr. Hanson –– 995

McKim Advertising. Mr. Cocke –– 995

Termination of community involvement program. Mr. Barnes –– 996

Province's credit rating. Mr. Lea –– 996

Budget Debate

On the amendment

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 997

Mr. Lauk –– 1000

Mr. Parks –– 1002

Mr. Lea –– 1004

Mr. Campbell –– 1009

Mr. Stupich –– 1011

Division –– 1018

On the main motion

Mr. Ree –– 1018

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, present today in our galleries is the better half of one of our most well respected members of the press gallery: none other than Mrs. Josephine Stanton, the wife of Mr. John Stanton, and their daughter Jocelyn. I'd ask all members to bid them a warm and gracious welcome.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today we have about eight volunteers from our community office, shared with the second member for Victoria. They work handling the constituency problems in our community of Victoria. I'd like you to join us in welcoming them.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Would the members join me in welcoming a former member for Vancouver South, Mr. Gerry Strongman.

MR. CAMPBELL: In the gallery today are two people from that great riding of Okanagan North, Carol Holweg and Harold Thorlakson. Harold Thorlakson is an ex-member of Vernon city council who did a tremendous job there. I'd like you to give them a welcome here today.

MR. PARKS: I'd ask the House to join with me this afternoon and welcome a long-time friend of my wife and I, a lady who resides in the Speaker's constituency. I know he's sorry that he's not here today to welcome her also. Please join with me in welcoming Mrs. Barb Philbrook.

MR. LAUK: May I introduce some friends from Vancouver who are in the members' gallery: Leonard Lauk Jr. and his friends, Murray and Bob Cameron.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today are a group of young people who have spent part of their summer working in a constituency office and doing yeoman work. I'd like to introduce, from Oak Bay-Gordon Head, Scott Andrew, Rob Thomas, the inimitable Mario Erlic, Alex McLean, Brian Miller and my constituency executive assistant, Lynda Dickie.

MR. BLENCOE: I'd be pleased if the House would welcome my father, Rev. Charles Blencoe. Perhaps the House would give him a warm welcome.

Presenting Petitions

MR. CAMPBELL: I beg leave to present a petition.

Leave granted.

MR. CAMPBELL: The petition of the Okanagan Bible Institute prays for the passing of an act intituled An Act Respecting Okanagan Bible College. I move that the rules be suspended and this petition of the Okanagan Bible Institute be received.

Motion approved.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING CAMPAIGN

MR. HANSON: I have a question for the Provincial Secretary regarding the provincewide advertising and media blitz announced by the Premier last weekend. Has the government or his ministry authorized any expenditure of public funds leading to the production of ads to be shown throughout the province?

HON. MR. CHABOT: To be precise on that question, I'd have to take the question as notice and bring information back to the member at the earliest opportunity.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I have a new question. The production agency that did the province reports and has done previous work for the government is Jem Productions Ltd.

AN HON. MEMBER: What's the name?

MR. HANSON: Jem as in David Brown. Jem Productions is headed by Doug Heal's predecessor, Mr. David Brown. Will Mr. Brown be doing the production work on the series of ads?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, that's supplementary to a question I've taken on notice. Under those circumstances, I have no alternative but to take that question on notice, and bring the information back as early as possible for the member. I'm not aware of Jem Productions being involved at this time; however, I'll seek out that information. I know the member is very anxious to find out whether it's Jem Productions or Jim Productions. I'll do my best to get the information for him.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, a new question. Has the government decided to go to tender on this advertising blitz, or to stick with the tried and true?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Is that the Trident II? Oh, tried and true. Okay.

Mr. Speaker, I know the member really wants this information, so once again I'll take that question as notice and bring the information back as quickly as possible.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I hope the first member for Victoria doesn't hold his breath, with the track record that minister has for bringing back answers.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Don't be facetious now.

McKIM ADVERTISING

MR. COCKE: I'm going to ask him a question anyway just to show that I'm in good humour.

Records at the chief electoral office in Ottawa show that McKim Advertising donated $5,400 to the Progressive Conservative Party during the period that it was employed as advertising agent for the B.C. government. Has the minister decided to investigate to determine whether any of these funds came from secret bank accounts containing British Columbia taxpayer dollars'?

[ Page 996 ]

[2:15]

HON. MR. HEWITT: What sort of a silly question is that?

HON. MR. CHABOT: That's a fairly facetious question. Really, if the member wants to ask that kind of a question.... I can't start delving into private corporations in this province. If he wants to ask that question he'd better phone, write, telegraph or telex McKim Advertising and find out where the funds came from that they made available to the Progressive Conservative Party, if that is the party you're saying they made funds available to at the national level. Get in touch with McKim Advertising and stop wasting question period time. I'm sure your members across the way might have some urgent and pressing questions to ask the ministers of government.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I think the answer is now sufficient and I'll ask the minister to discontinue. I would remind the House that our question period guidelines advise us that a question must be within the administrative competence of the government.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, we've been asking many questions, and a major one is, of course, why the company that is now under police investigation is the agent of record for this government. So I have to ask the other questions that make us wonder about the relationships. For instance, can the minister provide us with assurance that McKim's continuing relationship with the Socred government is not being used to finance the Progressive Conservative campaign in Mission-Port Moody?

Interjections.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, the answer to that question is no, not directly. If McKim Advertising — incorporated, limited, or whatever they are — make a profit out of any contractual arrangements they have with the provincial government, as a Minister of the Crown I'm not prepared to tell them what they should do with that profit; that should be left entirely up to them. Whether they made a contribution to the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada is their business, not mine. As I said earlier, if you have a question of that nature you should ask it of McKim Advertising, not of me. Stop wasting question period time.

TERMINATION OF
COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Human Resources. On August 9 I asked the minister under what authority she was unilaterally cancelling the employment contracts signed in good faith by employees of the community involvement program. She took the question on notice, and I'm wondering if she is now in a position to advise the House of the status of those contracts.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I'm very close to getting an answer for the hon. member, and I think I can bring that information back to the House this week.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, I hope that the minister realizes that some of those....

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: What seems to be the problem? I'm trying to advise the minister of the urgency of the information, keeping in mind that August 31 is the date the minister indicated the contracts would be ended. Unless we have information.... What's going to happen to those people? They would like to know, I'm sure, within the next week.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, question period allows us to ask questions and not enter into debate. Does the member have a question?

MR. BARNES: I was asking the minister if she would be bringing information back within the week.

It is unfortunate that on a matter which requires urgent action the minister doesn't seem to be prepared to advise us when we'll have the information.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Could we have a question, hon. member.

MR. BARNES: The city of Vancouver council has requested that the minister review her plans to withdraw the CIPs under the city's responsibility, and they have requested an opportunity to meet with the minister. I would like to ask if the minister intends to honour that request.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I'll respond to the city of Vancouver when I get a request from the city of Vancouver.

PROVINCE'S CREDIT RATING

MR. LEA: I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Earlier this month Standard and Poor of New York announced that there would be a downgrading of our credit rating from triple-A to double-A. Did Standard and Poor of New York communicate with the government at the time that was happening, and if so, what was the form of the communication? Was it by letter or telex?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Standard and Poor, as the member for Prince Rupert knows, and as members of the House will know, is one of two firms which rate governmental or corporate institutional bonds, of one kind or another, and related investments. Standard and Poor were in British Columbia as part of a very careful review of the province's finances, and they also met at that time with representatives of a series of Crown corporations. They dealt with some ministries, not the least of which was the Ministry of Finance, but not exclusively with that ministry.

If the member's question is — and I will seek clarification from him if I've missed the point, or perhaps he could clarify it — whether the decision to alter the rating of British Columbia Hydro was communicated to us after that decision was made.... A series of meetings occurred in British Columbia, the review team returned to New York and then the decision, after some considerable review on their part, was communicated to us through the Dow Jones wire in the usual way.

MR. LEA: Did Standard and Poor outline to the government or to the minister the reasons for the downgrading?

[ Page 997 ]

HON. MR. CURTIS: I think the member would have access to that information as easily as anyone else. The reasons were not communicated to the government as such when one appreciates — I am sure the member does — that the purpose of a firm such as Standard and Poor is to communicate to the investors who subscribe to its service reasons for confirming a rating or increasing a rating or lowering a rating. Therefore those reasons were made public through the usual publications: Standard and Poor's credit watch and Standard and Poor's documents which go to their investors. They are dealing with the rating of a particular jurisdiction, in this case British Columbia. We learned of it, not surprisingly — and I make no critical comment — through news wires and subsequently through a document which was distributed to their investors.

MR. LEA: Would the minister be willing to table in the House or make available to the House the information that Standard and Poor's made available to him in regard to the downgrading.

HON. MR. CURTIS: It is public information released by Standard and Poor. There is nothing additional that I could bring to this House or to the table that is not already public information in terms of Standard and Poor's views of the province of British Columbia and its Crown agencies. There is nothing in addition.

MR. LEA: Standard and Poor has said publicly that the primary reason for downgrading our credit rating was the lack of diversity of our economy in British Columbia. Can the minister tell us what he has done or what his government has done to allay the fears of Standard and Poor and others who are watching British Columbia? What has this government done out of the 1983 budget that would indicate that the government is indeed serious about diversifying our economy?

HON. MR. CURTIS: It would take longer than the few minutes remaining in question period to outline for that member the initiative taken by this government, particularly over the last four or five years, with respect to diversification. The member and this House should know that while the credit rating was downgraded by Standard and Poor, we did not return to the rating we had prior to the upward movement to triple-A, but rather to the next available notch below tripleA. I am still extremely proud of the credit rating of the province of British Columbia.

MR. LEA: This topic that we're discussing — and I'm sure the minister will agree that our credit rating is a very important topic for British Columbians.... Has the minister decided to speak in the debate on our amendment, to outline to the people of British Columbia the position we're in . the fears that the moneylenders have about British Columbia now, and the consequent downgrading? In speaking to the amendment before the House, will the minister go into detail on the reasons for Standard and Poor — along with Moody's — downgrading the credit rating?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Let me advise the minister and the member that Beauchesne advises that questions should not anticipate a debate scheduled for the day but should be reserved for that debate. That citation from question period rules is clear.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I will follow your guidance in that regard.

It is important for the members of this House and for the people of the province of British Columbia to know that the member has referred to the fears — I paraphrase slightly, but the Blues will show it — which investors have with respect to British Columbia. Just last week we moved to the United States market in the amount of $250 million (U.S.) for British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority. I want the House to know that that was an extremely successful issue. It was probably one of the best in terms of pricing off U.S. Treasuries that has been recorded in Canada in recent times. That speaks more for confidence in the province of British Columbia than the doom and gloom peddled by that side.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The House will come to order.

Orders of the Day

ON THE BUDGET
(continued debate)

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Before lunch I was speaking to the ridiculous amendment to the motion that was brought forward by the opposition members, in which they said that the Minister of Finance has in effect failed to make sufficient provision for diversification of the economy, and thereby to protect the citizens from extreme economic fluctuations and increasing hardship. I was pointing out to the members in the Legislature that everything we are doing in the legislative package now before this House, and in the budget, is completely oriented towards resolving those problems.

I was saying that the single most important factor we have to look at in diversifying our economy is to make sure that we as a society are cost-competitive and dependable suppliers of the highest quality products and services that we deliver to both the domestic and export markets in which we trade. In order to accomplish this, we have to make sure that we have a regulatory climate in which the private sector can operate and manoeuvre so as not to be tied up by red tape and regulation emanating from all levels of government. The private sector has to have room to move so they can take part in a diversification of our economy, and a diversification of the markets in which we trade. In addition to a proper regulatory climate, we have to have a proper tax climate in which the people of British Columbia, in which investors, entrepreneurs and doers can operate without having any profit they may make taxed away by governments. In order both to accomplish the deregulation and to provide the proper regulatory and tax climate, we must downsize government. We must bring government to a size that doesn't restrict the private sector but, rather, will help them to accomplish the things that have to be accomplished.

Both of these things are absolutely essential to ensure that we can diversify our economy in British Columbia, and in order to be sure the people will not suffer the hardships that are brought around by extreme fluctuations in our basic resource industries.

[ Page 998 ]

[2:30]

An equally important fact that we have to consider — and one I mentioned this morning as well — is the fact that we must improve the labour climate in this province. In my rather extensive travels to our international trading partners over the last few years — I'm sure the experience is shared by many of my colleagues who have been trying to deal in the international marketplace — wherever we go we are accused of having a very volatile labour climate in this province, and accused of being unreliable suppliers of goods. Whether or not that is a fact, it is the impression that exists out there in the world marketplaces in which we trade. We have to overcome that image.

The Minister of Labour, as I mentioned this morning, has indicated that he will be bringing forward changes to our labour legislation in British Columbia; changes that will foster the cooperative approach between labour and management, rather than the confrontative approach that is almost dictated by some of the provisions in the current Labour Code. It's time that people in the private sector had the opportunity of speaking to and talking with their employees, of finding out directly what it is their employees want to do, rather than having to deal through the union bosses, and rather than being accused of unfair labour practices should they talk about certain things to their employees. That type of confrontative approach has to be eliminated, and that is one of the things we are trying to do.

The second member for Victoria.... Or the first member; it doesn't matter. One of the members for Victoria kept saying this morning the government doesn't have "the jam" to stand up to big companies in British Columbia, or to any of the companies that wish to go out there and create activity. I guess he's referring to the type of jam that Bob Williams, the former Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources had when he in effect scared right out of the province every entrepreneur and investor who wished to come to British Columbia and invest, whether they were in the forest industry, the mining industry, or any other industry. They were scared to death of the jam that that guy had, because every time anyone moved, the big arm of government would come in and help itself to whatever someone in the private sector had put together.

Mr. Speaker, we must improve these three things in British Columbia — the tax climate, the regulatory climate and the labour relations climate — if we are to diversify our economy to the extent that we should. In spite of the drawbacks that we've had over the years, and particularly the labour and regulatory climate, we've had a lot of things happen in this province. All the things that have happened have been opposed by the opposition, the party that cries so much about creating opportunities for people in British Columbia and says we have to create jobs and provide opportunities for large and small business. Every time something comes along that creates such opportunities, they somehow seem to be against it. I guess the one that they've been most continuously against over the last few years has been the tremendous development in the northeastern part of this province, a resource development that has inspired the construction of a new community, new rail service, hydro lines and highways into that northeastern part of B.C., but also the upgrading of our major railway across northern British Columbia, and the establishment of a world-class seaport at Prince Rupert. All of these things, as they were developed and brought to the attention of the people in the opposition and the people of British Columbia, were all somehow negative in the view of those people who sit opposite. And yet they're for employment.

They're talking about a diversified economy in which we can have a manufacturing and a smelting sector, secondary and tertiary industry, and yet every time a proposal for power development comes along they're against it. Yet it's this very power that is needed to develop the secondary and tertiary industries in the province. How can you be for diversification and for expanding the economy of British Columbia, and against every power development and resource development that comes along, and still be in favour of what the people of British Columbia need in the way of jobs and opportunities?

The members opposite said that we somehow didn't level with the people of British Columbia as we led up to the election held just a couple of months ago. I would point out, as I did this morning, that it was on February 18, 1982, that the Premier addressed the people of this province advising of the very serious economic times we were in at that time — times which, as a matter of fact, for the next year got continually worse. The revenues for the province of British Columbia over that year were about $100 million a month less than had been anticipated, and yet the members opposite say that government should continue to borrow money to spend their way into prosperity. You can't borrow your way into prosperity. They're saying that we should hire more civil servants and keep all the civil servants we have in order to make sure that the economy doesn't falter. Well, government employees — those working directly for government, hospitals, schools and so on — are consumers of wealth, not providers of wealth.

Most of the services provided by government are necessary, but it is also necessary, as we provide these services, that we provide them in the most efficient, cost-effective manner possible. That is what we as a government are attempting to do. A year or two or three from now we will look back and think — all those members, even those in the opposition, if we still have an opposition, Mr. Speaker.... All those people will be saying yes, the government was right.

I travel around this province a great deal, as do most of my colleagues, and it's strange that the message I get from the rank-and-file British Columbian out there is not the same as the message I get here in the House from the opposition. It's not the same as the message we get via the daily newspapers in Vancouver and the television and radio stations emanating from those centres. When I go around the province I have people coming to me endlessly saying: "Tom, we know it's tough, but hang in there; you've got to continue on the program, the course and the direction that you as a government have set out." They realize that we have allowed the services of government to get too expensive over the years, that the the taxpayers in British Columbia can't afford it, that there's a need to pull back, and that it's going to be tough. Even most of the civil servants whom I run into in my daily work say: "Tom, look, we know it's tough. We know that there's been too much overlapping of government involvement in various sectors of the economy. We know it can be done better, and we're willing to play our part." They say to me: "If a service is not required at all, then no one should do it, least of all a government employee, because if a service is not needed, those people are better released to find employment in a productive sector of society. If the service is needed and is done by the government but can better be done by the

[ Page 999 ]

private sector, then the private sector could do it. And if we are displaced as employees of the government, and the private sector takes on the function, then we have the opportunity of working in the private sector performing that very function we used to perform as government." As a matter of fact, they say to me: "You know, maybe there's an opportunity out there for me as an individual entrepreneur to take up and deliver that service that the government has been providing all these years." Some of the moves that we are planning on making in privatization and downsizing government are looked upon by many government servants as an opportunity to get out there on their own and provide those services to the private sector, industry, individuals or government, if the government really does need that service.

Starting on February 18, 1982, this government has been on a path of government restraint which was forced upon us by the state of the international economy in which we deal. We have seen the private sector tighten its belt, trim its fat and get down to a lean operating condition. Because we had so many years of continuing better times, the private sector has allowed itself to get top-heavy. But the recession that we've just come through has forced a tightening-down and a streamlining of most corporations in the private sector. The people in the private sector are saying to us, "As government you must do the same thing, " and we are. We went to the people and told them before the election and going into the election that we have to reduce the size of the public service by at least 25 percent in British Columbia. There is no secret about that. It was common knowledge and a major part of our election platform. But all of a sudden, once we are elected, it seemed to come as a great surprise to the labour bosses and their lackeys over here, the opposition, that in fact we are moving toward reduction of the civil service in this province by 25 percent. I suppose they thought that suddenly there was going to be a magic wand waved and with no pain, dislocation or disruption we were magically going to have far fewer public servants.

It is painful. It does provide disruptions to personal lives, and it does provide reductions in services in some cases. In some cases it provides the elimination of services which, although they may be nice, are not necessary. We have been working toward these objectives, which we still have, for well over a year now. I don't see why it should come as any surprise to members of the opposition, Operation Solidarity or to the union bosses, whether they be in the public or private sector, because we are doing what we set out to do. We are doing what we said we were going to do when we won the election in May of this year.

All we have to do is look at some of the things that have taken place in British Columbia over the last few years. I mention the northeast coal development and the thousands of British Columbians who are employed there. We will be providing an increasing percentage of the total Japanese steel industry's metallurgical coal requirements over the years. We'll have a new sea port in Prince Rupert that will not only provide the infrastructure to ship that coal to world markets but also to ship many other products. They won't only be shipped from British Columbia but from this entire nation. We in Canada will finally have two real world-class sea ports serving the Pacific Rim rather than one overcrowded port and one restricted overland transportation system. This northeast coal has been only one of the things that has been happening. We have a small wheel manufacturing plant being put in by Toyota, which is a first tentative step into perhaps the automobile manufacturing or assembly business in British Columbia.

The expansion of our tourist industry is a result of Expo, which we're working toward now, and the whole B.C. Place concept with our new stadium and the downtown revitalization that's taking place there. The tens of thousands of people who will be continuously employed between now and Expo, and those thousands and thousands who'll be employed during Expo, are people who would not be employed had this government not had the foresight to seek out that exposition and make it possible for it to happen.

[2:45]

Remember our friend Mikey, and how much he was in favour of Expo? When we went to Paris to try to talk the people responsible for expositions into having that exposition in British Columbia, what did Mikey do, even though he wasn't the mayor at the time? He sent a telegram off to them saying: "We don't want that; it's going to provide too many opportunities for the people of British Columbia." Well, Mr. Speaker, this is the case with most of the socialists here in the chamber. As long as I've been involved in politics — and I'm sure for long before that — they have been against every development that comes along, except for the one very brief period of time when British Columbia was unhappy enough to have that bunch as government, Then all of a sudden the Revelstoke Dam was a positive thing, even though it wasn't leading up to that point. As soon as we became the government again it was no longer positive, but during that very brief, dismal three-year period, all of a sudden that Revelstoke Dam was okay because they were the government.

The same party came forward just before they called the election in 1975 and said: "We're going to develop the northeast coal in British Columbia, although we have not explored markets, costs or infrastructure." Their pre-1975 election announcement was that they were going to see that the northeast coal was developed. They were very positive during that brief period they were government, but they've been very negative ever since we've been the government with the guts to go ahead and promote that development, and provide those tremendous opportunities for people in B.C. They say: "But you only have a basic resource industry in this province."

The first member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) this morning talked about the fishing industry. I don't know how he allowed himself to wander into this, Mr. Speaker, but he started talking about all the tremendous service industries supplying the fishing industry. He talked about boatbuilding, electronics and all those other services that go to support the fishing industry in British Columbia. Yet somehow he doesn't seem to think there's a need for service and supply industries to provide that type of service backup for the mining, forest or tourist industries. These are basic industries in British Columbia.

The thousands and thousands of people who are working in small manufacturing plants all over this province today because of the northeast coal development could not be even thought of by the members opposite. They seem to think that if you're in the mining, forestry or tourist business, that is something that doesn't count and doesn't require services to those industries, when in fact they know the multiplier effect is roughly three to one. For every person involved in these industries, there are another three in British Columbia servicing those industries. That is why we continue to support our

[ Page 1000 ]

basic resource industries; the service, supply and secondary industries will of course expand as well. That's not to deny the fact, Mr. Speaker, that we must continue to develop other unrelated industries in British Columbia.

We've had many companies come to look at British Columbia, including those in various parts of high-technology areas of endeavour. They look at the labour and regulatory climate in British Columbia, and they say: "No, it's too risky to come to British Columbia. We can't even talk to our employees in British Columbia because somehow that's against the Labour Code." Mr. Speaker, we have to make sure that employees and employers can talk together, that we can provide a cooperate labour climate in British Columbia, that we can untangle some of the red tape which has bound entrepreneurs for so many years. We can gradually, through reductions in government over time, reduce the tax burden that both employees and employers have to pay and thereby provide real opportunities for British Columbians.

It's going to be a difficult period of time — nobody said it was going to be easy. We told the people of British Columbia exactly what was coming. For more than a year leading up to the election we've just had.... The people of British Columbia, I don't think, really focused on some of the pain that was going to be a part of the problem, but they did recognize that we have to do that. The things we have to do are going to be painful. Sure, there's going to be some screaming and hollering; in fact, I guess there is. In my travels and our members' travels — I'm sure if the opposition party were to be completely honest with itself, they would have to admit it too — many people are saying: "Look, it's tough and it's painful, but we have to do it; otherwise we're going to destroy even those jobs and opportunities that exist today."

Mr. Speaker, the motion before us is a ridiculous motion. I am opposing this motion. I am fully and wholeheartedly supporting the budget — a very difficult budget brought down by the Minister of Finance. Only through doing the things set out in our legislative and economic package can British Columbia look forward to maintaining its preferred place in the Canadian fabric; indeed, in the fabric of the entire free world. I must oppose the motion.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I stand in favour of the amendment to the budget debate.

The member who just took his seat said that it was a ridiculous motion. Let me reiterate to the House what the motion is: it's an amendment based on the fact that the raters of our credit in the financial capitals of the world have decided that our credit rating in British Columbia is poorer in the last year or so than it has been previously. They did not just reduce the credit rating from triple-A to double-A. They said why. They said that it was specifically because the government of British Columbia — and I can see how seriously the Minister of Forests takes his own remarks; he doesn't want to hear the reply — has not taken its responsibilities seriously enough and taken economic and fiscal moves to diversify the British Columbia economy. It's very simple. That's what they said. You read it yourself. Did someone read it to you?

MR. R. FRASER: I say the government is serious.

MR. LAUK: So they have seriously not taken their responsibility to diversify the economy? As you wish.

The Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) has said that we on this side of the House advocate borrowing to create prosperity. We've heard that from a number of members of the Social Credit Party. But it should also be pointed out that in the last ten months this government has borrowed an average of $60 million a week just to pay for the groceries — $60 million a week on treasury bills. Never before in the history of this province have we had to borrow money to pay for operating costs, except under this administration. They have quadrupled the debt since 1976. Five thousand dollars per man, woman and child is now owed by the government of British Columbia. They talk about borrowing ourselves into prosperity. What utter nonsense!

The most serious part of the minister's speech was when he stated: "....if we still have an opposition." In the face of the legislation that is now before this chamber, it won't be because of the ballot box that we won't have an opposition; it'll be because of the legislation of this province. I fully expect that that minister's sombre warning to the New Democratic Party is that they're going to bring an electoral reform act before this chamber which will have the effect of eliminating any opposition. Let's have that for a sober reflection for the afternoon, at least.

They talk about privatization. On the one hand they want to privatize some aspects of hospital care, the education system, Human Resources and community workers, and the rentalsman. On the other hand, where the private sector can do best — in commercial office space, mining, forestry and so on — they're heavily involved. Where it is expected in a free and democratic society that the government should be involved — which is education, hospital care, the rentalsman and human rights — they're getting out; in that sense, privatizing. Where the private sector should be involved, they're heavily involved. The BCR is subsidizing the development of the northeast coal project. Tumbler Ridge is not privatizing; that's government investment. B.C. Place in the great city of Vancouver. The very thing.... If the private sector can do anything, it can build an office block. Why are we heavily involved, through the Crown, in subsidizing an established commercial office space in B.C. Place? I don't understand it. Yet they call for the privatization of all the rest of the traditional areas where the government should be involved.

This motion is a motion to bring to the attention of the House and the people of British Columbia that the restraint package of this government has not worked. It had the general good will of this party prior to May 5 and shortly afterwards. However....

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: You can chuckle all you like. I don't know what battles the hon. members chuckling went through, but the idea of restraint has never been opposed. The idea of restraint is a wise thing. The idea of an incomes policy, if it's even-handed, fair and just in a society as pluralistic and diversified as ours, is not bad. As a matter of fact, it's the kind of thing we've been talking about. However, the restraint package proposed is based upon this thirteenth century idea — almost feudal economics; well, it is feudal economics which states that when times are bad, make them worse. It's Calvinistic: make the people suffer more. Somehow, through that kind of restraint package, we're going to have a recovery in the province of British Columbia. Well, it has failed here. The economists with Statistics Canada — and I seldom like

[ Page 1001 ]

to quote economists, as you have heard me say in the past have indicated that it's a failure.

The problem with a recession in 1982-83 is the question of interest rates and the competition for capital. That is not the time for a government — particularly in a provincial jurisdiction — to withdraw from its traditional role of providing services, education and health care to its people. If they need to cut back at all, they should be cutting back on the megaprojects. Michael Walker of the Fraser Institute — or at least someone in the Fraser Institute, rather early on — criticized the megaprojects as being ineffectual.

MR. LEA: The Fraser Institute fired him for doing it.

MR. LAUK: Is that what happened? Was he fired with or without cause?

It seems to me that even when the right-wing economists criticized the megaprojects in the way they did, we were justified too, from our point of view to criticize them as well. What we are making here is a judgment on the goals and values an economy should pursue. That is the essential difference between this side and that side of the House.

[3:00]

If you want to look at a planned situation, a very careful situation, over two years ago the city council of Vancouver began to go on a pay-as-you-go basis in the city of Vancouver. They had an all-party finance committee under the leadership of Mayor Mike Harcourt and other members of council and obtained a triple-A rating for the city of Vancouver. While the province has been reduced to a double-A, the city of Vancouver has maintained its triple-A rating.

That's why we have this motion on the paper today. What is the difference between this government and the city of Vancouver? A New Democratic Party mayor is there with a progressive council predominating. One should also point out that an all-party finance committee on the city council planned the finances of the city. It was, if you like, the politics of conciliation. In this time of extremism, when the government of the day is moving towards the extreme right and calling for radical right solutions to our economic problems, one should take a look at the city of Vancouver and at the degree of cooperation between the council people on that city council.

I see it disturbs some people on the other side of the House. Not very many, but there aren't many there. But it is true. Vancouver had its credit rating increased to triple-A in the latter part of 1981, and the rating has been maintained throughout 1982 and 1983 despite the downgrading of the British Columbia rate. What is the answer for that? Don't take my word for it — call New York; they will tell you. They will say. "The city of Vancouver is well managed, it is on a pay-as-you-go basis; the province of B.C. has had to borrow $60 million a week, putting us further in debt, and they have failed to diversify the economy to give some future confidence to investors in this province." That is the reason Vancouver has a triple-A rating.

I will tell you how the government of British Columbia can get another triple-A rating. It is not through mindless unjustified restraint; not through firing people without cause; not through abolishing the rentalsman; it is not through doing away with rent controls and human rights legislation in this province; not through raising hospital user fees; it is by sitting down in a spirit of cooperation, by understanding the politics of conciliation and working out some kind of social contract between the major parties in our economic system. Instead of sitting down with the major parties in our economic system, they are bludgeoning them. Not only bludgeoning them; you saw draft 34 of the Labour Code. I heard it is not getting any better; draft 35 is worse, and draft 36 may be still worse.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: It's draft 37 you are on now. The hon. member for Maillardville-Coquitlam is a right-to-worker.

I will tell you something; we are not going to solve the economic problems of British Columbia until the politics of moderation take over in this province. The extremism of this government has to be rejected and thrown out of public office. What is the New Democratic Party's answer to Social Credit? The New Democratic Party calls for a new social contract between government, labour and business; the NDP calls for a planned economy based on a fair and equitable incomes policy; the NDP calls for stabilization of prices and incomes, as well as for full employment. Remember full employment? Otherwise, the goals of your economic system are fraud. The goals of your economic system are to enrich the few at the expense of the many.

It is through this amendment that we say your triple-A rating can be increased. We can plan an economy that will be more diversified and will rival other economies in the world. It is not through a total laissez-faire economic system in Japan that they've maintained a fairly high standard of production and standard of living throughout this recession. It is through a planned economy. It is through long-term contracts. It is a social contract — yes, in their own cultural and historical context — that has enabled them....

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: That's right. Technical advancement. Thank you. I'll defer to the hon. member. He's saying it better than I am. Technical advancement through cooperation with the worker. That's an excellent proposal. That's what we propose, and we've proposed it for some time. The hon. member says that's what he proposes. Well, I admire his courage, because to stand up in that neo-simian background of the Social Credit Party for something other than thirteenth century thought is refreshing indeed. The hon. member for Dewdney (Mr. Pelton) agrees.

MR. LEA: But they won't vote for it.

MR. LAUK: No, they won't vote for it, nor will he speak for it. I would say, Mr. Speaker, that if the Social Credit Party adopted any one of these proposals it would be a good thing, but they won't, because they are lock-step in their inflexible ideological belief that their views must prevail, They are inflexible and doctrinaire when it comes to any degree of cooperation with labour, and they are patronizing and ignorant in dealing with industry and business leaders in this province. Business leaders in this province hold their noses and vote Social Credit. But they cannot cooperate with this government from day to day. How many business leaders have come to you day after day after day: "I can't reach that minister. I can't talk to that minister. We didn't know about this policy. What are we going to do?" They were happier than clams that the Social Credit Party was returned to office

[ Page 1002 ]

on May 5, but when the budget came down they stood in the back and wrung their hands and worried about what was going to happen to the labour-management situation. Finally some of the business leaders had to speak out; not as individuals, but under cover of the Employers' Council.

But I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, this budget is a serious threat to the social and economic stability of this province. It's a much more serious threat than.... Still the government does not understand it.

What about the programs that the NDP are proposing? Can they be achieved? The answer is yes, they can be achieved. It's not going to be easy. But I want you to look at the social democratic experiences in other countries. I've quoted Japan, which is not social democratic, but it's planned, it has a social contract. More in keeping with our cultural and historical backgrounds, what about the examples of Sweden, Germany, Austria and Norway? Throughout this recession unemployment has been very low, comparatively speaking. Their standard of living is very high, and social programs are maintained. They have a civilized society that will not scapegoat and savage sectors of its own community for political reasons under the guise of economic reasons. Can it be achieved? The answer, of course, is yes. But not through extremism and not through this kind of polarization that's deliberately fuelled by these regressive steps taken by the current administration.

I was deeply wounded when the Minister of Forests described the amendment as silly. We propose it as a constructive suggestion. We had hoped that the government would respond. But because of this doctrinaire, inflexible, ideological right-wing stand of the government they cannot be reached. They are marching to the beat of a different drummer. They cannot hear the people; they can only hear themselves. So I would urge everyone to support the amendment.

Hot off the press. The Conference Board of Canada, the most distinguished and independent group of economists in the country, unlike the right-wing doctrinaire, inflexible Fraser Institute, has said:

"The producer-led recovery the Conference Board of Canada predicted for B.C. Is fading fast in the face of high interest rates.... Gilles Rheaume, in an interview Monday from his Ottawa office, said the board predicted in May the lumber industry would pull B.C.'s economy out of the recession. But... the forecast was based on a continued surge in U.S. housing starts."

This surge has lagged behind. No matter what restraint package this government brings into play, you're not going to sell any more lumber to the United States.

Your priorities are just as bad as Reagan's priorities. It's the same economics. Somehow providing an egalitarian society in the United States is less of a priority than spending over 40 percent of the national budget on armaments. Somehow it's okay to spend trillions and trillions of dollars on new atomic missiles, but God will strike you dead with a lightning bolt if you raise the incomes of single parents on welfare or if you try to desegregate a school in the south or see to some other priority. That kind of sickness, that kind of isolationism, that kind of divisive, poisonous attitude in the United States is, I charge, available right here in the bosom of Social Credit.

As I said, and I'll conclude, I urge all hon. members to carefully consider our amendment. To adopt it, of course, means to withdraw the 27 bills that are so offensive to us, but it would be a tremendous step forward, and the first step of the Social Credit Party's recovery, in the eyes of the public.

MR. PARKS: Mr. Speaker, it is my task this afternoon to rise and speak in opposition to the amendment before this House. In so doing, I wish to speak clearly in favour of the budget and of the package put before this House by our government.

I find some difficulty in understanding the actual amendment put forth by the hon. first member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson), in that it suggests that the Minister of Finance and, of course, through him the government has not provided an economic plan for the recovery of this province. I think it's fair to say that this province saw a plan for economic recovery introduced for the first time in its first phase in February 1982. It was called the restraint program, the compensation stabilization program, and was introduced by Premier Bennett and this government. Clearly, it showed the first steps of a government of a jurisdiction in North America that it was time to re-evaluate the role of government in our society. For the past few decades — probably for the last 30 years — we have seen an almost insidious creeping of government into our personal lives, constantly eroding the personal freedoms that this western society was based upon. That trend seemed unstoppable. In fact, in some jurisdictions it still is taking its insidious route towards total elimination of personal freedoms. Yet, without anyone else leading the way, it was this Social Credit government that showed tenacity and boldness, and in February 1982 it brought about CSP-1, as it's now called: the compensation stabilization program. This government said: "Stop. Look at what we've got." Clearly we've got a society where government is being asked to provide far too many services, where government is constantly eroding our personal freedoms, and where government is doing things it should not be doing. It's doing things that are not required. Ten, twenty, thirty years ago governments weren't doing the types of things that many of us take for granted today. We shouldn't be taking them for granted.

[3:15]

The hon. first member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson), in attempting to support his amendment, drew reference to a number of industries that have left Victoria. He drew reference this morning to the fact that Labatt closed down a plant here in lower Vancouver Island and have consolidated their operation in New Westminster — I believe that's what he said. He also referred to the fact that E division has consolidated its operations in Vancouver. He also referred to the fact that CN had consolidated its operations in the lower mainland, but he said that as if there were some great harm there. What we saw there was a terrible kind of secular, parochial socialism. My understanding is that we represent all of the people of British Columbia. I think it's unfortunate when the opposition fails to recognize what in fact those types of consolidation moves mean. When private industry and, for that matter, Crown corporations in the form of the Mounties or CN see fit to consolidate their operations in another centre in this province, they are at least finally beginning to see the necessity for making their operations efficient — not as efficient as I personally would like to see them grow, but a lot more efficient than they were when they were spread out over a number of geographic locations. But I do think it's very wrong to have a member of this House, particularly a member of the opposition, suggest that because a company is

[ Page 1003 ]

attempting to make its operation more efficient it should be condemned. I think it's fair to conclude that when an operation takes the step of consolidating operations in one of the major metropolitan areas in this part of the continent, it's meant to be an efficiency-motivated move. There's nothing wrong with that. It's part of the downsizing of the public sector that this government sees must be done at this time.

The fundamental tenets of this downsizing program are going to be (a) the ability to pay, and (b) productivity. No, it's not laissez-faire in its purest and, at times, most difficult form. It's not laissez-faire at all, because if you look at the budget of this government, well over one-third is being spent on health care, education and social services. These areas have all increased in this budget. Let's not forget that the budget itself will increase some 12.7 percent, I believe — just under 13 percent. Yes, the restraint program and the measures being cut back are going to save us some money, but the fact remains that we will be left wit a $1.6 billion deficit. Almost one in every five dollars that we spend in the upcoming fiscal year will be funds for which we do not have the offsetting revenue — a clear one-fifth. That's not something we can be terribly proud of; rather, it's a sign of the times that in order to maintain the necessary and essential levels of social services we have to make that difficult decision once again to go further into debt. We all know how much this government abhors the thought of going into debt, but it is a political reality in 1983. It was a political reality in 1982, and it may well have to be a political reality in 1984. I hope to goodness it will not be a political reality in the years thereafter.

Unless this government continues to show leadership and to encourage the downsizing of government, encouraging the private sector as well as the public sector to look at those fundamental tenets of ability to pay and productivity, the economy will not recover.

MR. LEA: What does productivity mean?

MR. PARKS: Productivity, and an increased productivity in particular.... To me, increased productivity means that management is utilizing high technology, working with its employees and bringing about a greater efficiency, a greater productivity. Productivity does not mean the reduction of jobs. Productivity should mean and can mean, and I expect will mean, increased efficiency.

The difficulty in many instances with trade unions today is again reflected in something like the Labatt's shutdown here. Clearly there are technological changes in industry, including the brewery industry, and if the unions don't agree to work with management, management will have two simple choices: (1) they will maintain their operations and lose money, or (2) they will shut down the operation. It's pure folly to expect management to continue to pour money into non-efficient, non-profit-making ventures, and unfortunately that is what happened at Labatt's here in lower Vancouver Island. They could produce the product, bottle or can it, as the case may be, and deliver it more efficiently by consolidating their operations in Vancouver — more particularly, in New Westminster. That's not something to complain about; that's the way our economy must move. If we do not move in that direction we're going to have continued difficult economic times, and this depression that we hopefully are taking those few fragile steps away from, away from the brink.... We will slip back and fall back into total depression.

We just heard the hon. second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) say that the Conference Board of Canada suggests there's some difficulty with the demand for our forest industry. Anyone who thinks that economic recovery is a simple problem with simple solutions surely can be considered nothing but a fool. Economic recovery has stumped more brilliant economists and even more brilliant politicians, and to this date surely has not been resolved. But the path that this government took its first step on last year, and is taking its second step on this year, I would suggest conclusively has been shown to be the correct path. There is clearly an increased consumer confidence that what the government is doing is what is necessary. In numerous critical letters we see in letters to the editor columns in various newspapers, almost without exception the initial paragraph reads: "Although I am able to be totally understanding about the need for restraint, I'm not able to agree with this or that program, or how the government is implementing this or that program." But almost without exception. there is very strong support in our province for restraint and for downsizing of government.

That's not the economic plan that this government has in its simple form; there are many other components to a strong dynamic economic plan for recovery. Probably the most significant one is what we call the megaprojects. We heard again this afternoon some of the hon. members of the opposition suggest that the northeast coal project is not contributing to economic recovery. May I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that also is folly. In the northeast coal development project alone we have almost 13,000 man-years of employment.

MR. LEA: It's good for Alberta.

MR. PARKS: The hon. member suggests that's good for Alberta. It so happens that it's very good for British Columbia, because that means that there are 13,000 man-years of work. And that means that those employees, whether they come from Ontario, Newfoundland, Alberta or British Columbia— wherever they come from — those individuals will be paying taxes. Those individuals will be contributing to that new infrastructure called Tumbler Ridge, literally a new instant town. Those individuals will be buying their groceries, and purchasing their gas, liquor and all the other things that take place at a typical infrastructure that is created by a project like northeast coal. Those are positive jobs; there's nothing negative about that.

I think of even greater importance than the development of an instant town like Tumbler Ridge is what the northeast coal project is going to do for the north of British Columbia. You have the infrastructure being put in place, not with B.C. government funds but with federal funds.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair I

The infrastructure in particular that I'm referring to is the extension and expansion of the railway. Without the railway into that area. development and opening up of B.C.'s northern two-thirds is next to impossible. We are now going to have that, and at this moment have part of that infrastructure already in place. Part of the funds are from incentive programs of this government, and part are from the federal government. and a great amount of money being injected by

[ Page 1004 ]

private industry is bringing about a dawning of development in the north of British Columbia.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: You've never even been there.

MR. PARKS: The hon. member for Mackenzie suggests that because someone hasn't walked up and down every square foot of this province, he or she cannot have an understanding of what's going on in this province. The problem is so simple that one really doesn't have to walk over that area of this province, or even fly over it. All one has to do is pick up a map and look at it, and look at how very few of the square miles of this province are actually being either inhabited or worked. The vast majority of the so-called hinterland has been up there since day one and would continue to be up there in its virginal state unless we have programs such as a megaproject of the nature of northeast coal. I'm surprised that someone who comes from Mackenzie, Mr. Speaker, could have anything but great things to say about the northeast coal project. It is equally amazing when I hear the hon. member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) make derisive comments about what's happening to Ridley Island, the phenomenal development that is taking place in his constituency with megaprojects and government funding and incentives. Yet it's the type of project that keeps that particular city viable at a time when there's no doubt that we have come through, and we probably still are, in some very tough economic times.

There are specific programs that this government has seen fit to instigate, and I would like to remind the House of three in particular that I think should certainly be reiterated for the benefit of the House. First of all, I refer to the small manufacturers' assistance program. What is particularly good about that program is that it is being aimed specifically to assist high-technology firms. The first member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) condemned the government's economic program because it didn't foresee how to diversify from the essential and primary industries that this province has grown with to this moment in time. They still are, and hopefully always will be, an integral part of our viable economy. We do see from day to day and from month to month, almost with alarm, the amount of technological change coming into our society. It's frightening to one who doesn't come from a technological background; but even more so, it's exciting. High technology is certainly no longer the future; it is today. This government has a program to assist firms. To date, there has been somewhere in the vicinity of 150 to 175 loans approved and in place to assist high-technology firms. There are over 300 applications before the ministry at this time. It's something we can be proud of and which will bring about strong, positive, new industry and jobs to our province.

The discovery enterprise program is something that the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) is obviously very proud of and something we all can be very proud of. It is also is going to enhance the development of high technology in our province and create incentives for the so-called sunrise industries, not the primary resource industries.

AN HON. MEMBER: Sunrise?

[3:30]

MR. PARKS: Do you like that term? You may use it.

The small manufacturers' development assistance is only one of three parts in the government's Low Interest Funding

Today program, or the LIFT program as its commonly referred to. There are two other parts, Mr. Speaker, and I would like to draw the House's attention to them. First is the low interest loans assistance program; the other is the B.C. small business development program. Both of these are administered by the B.C. Development Corporation and are proving to be extremely successful. The small business development fund alone — a sum of $170 million — is being funded through the proceeds of this year's sale of B.C. development bonds, a series of development bonds that were sold with great ease and at a relatively low cost.

There is little doubt in my mind — in fact, there's no doubt in my mind — that the only path for recovery for this province is the path that this government charted, first of all, in 1982 with the CSP program and, secondly, this year with the second stage of the CSP program. We must downsize government; we must remove government from an active role in society. If we don't do that, Mr. Speaker, we're not going to have economic recovery.

I urge the hon. members of the opposition to reconsider their position. I don't do it facetiously, because I think that if they did stand back and look at the program without trying to be purely negative, without trying to be fearmongers and without trying to bring out the bogeyman in the various pieces of the legislative program that this government's bringing about, they may well be able to see the benefits of the program. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, if the program were not to go forward, I'd hate to think of the cost of not having an immediate recovery — not just to the current citizens of British Columbia but to future generations. We've all heard the expression: "We don't wish to mortgage our children and our grandchildren." I certainly don't wish to do that, and I don't think it's realistic or fair when we have members from the opposition actually smirk at the thought of mortgaging our children's and grandchildren's stake in this economy. It wasn't done to you and me, and I don't think any of us should feel we have the right to do that to them.

Interjection.

MR. PARKS: That's true. I am reminded by the hon. first member for Surrey that, thank goodness, the opposition only had three years to attempt to go the wrong way on the path of economic development.

Be that as it was, Mr. Speaker, I will conclude by saying unequivocally that I don't see how the amendment has any merit. Also, I don't see how anyone who thinks through the economics of where we are can do anything but endorse and support this budget.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, times are changing, and those who don't change with the times are probably doomed to remain behind. We in this House are not only members of political parties with that difference, but beyond that we are all citizens, all for the most part raised in the same era, give or take a decade, so we are essentially the same in many ways. Many of our values and many of our shared experiences are the same, and it is easy for us to make mistakes together as well as making our own apart.

I would like to begin my speech by just reading a short paragraph from an article from the Atlantic Monthly entitled

[ Page 1005 ]

"The Declining Middle." It is really what we are talking about today, Mr. Speaker.

"The industrial west as a whole is coming under heavy pressure, both from technology and from trade, to lower its wages. If machines are available to replace most human production jobs and if unemployed women in the orient are eager to take the remaining jobs producing for western markets at 90 cents an hour, then the postwar social contract that developed in western Europe and North America is in severe jeopardy. That social contract included high wages, job security and a costly welfare state. It enabled the west to defy Karl Marx's prediction that under capitalism the labour force could only become worse off. Now, paradoxically, one hears that in order to maintain our standard of living we much first lower it.

"To remain competitive the west must jettison the very social baggage that has assured a comfortable passage. This conclusion somehow defies common sense. From the viewpoint of the entrepreneur, wages are an unfortunate cost of production, but from the perspective of the entire economy, however, they are the stuff of social stability."

This article, Mr. Speaker, deals mainly with some of the things that are happening in the world around us that those of us in this chamber have very little, if any, control over. Basically the only control we have here is setting our provincial budget, doing a bit of spending, but even the controls that our nation has are not available to us in this province. We can't control interest rates, which is a big lever in controlling your own economy. We can't control much of the economic slippage from our economy, federal taxes....

MR. HANSON: Point of order. Mr. Speaker, there appears not to be a quorum in the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is correct. It is common practice to ring the bells and summon the members.

MR. LEA: I draw them like flies to honey.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. member for Prince Rupert will proceed; we have satisfied the standing order.

MR. LEA: What this article is saying is that we cannot compete in some areas that we have traditionally been the leaders in, namely the manufacturing of goods for western society. There are now competing geopolitical spheres in the orient and other places that can get away with paying 90 cents per hour or $1 per hour, and there is no way that anyone in this House, on either side, wants to compete in that kind of a wage downturn. None of us wants our workers to work for $1 per hour in this province. We would very much like to maintain the standard of living that we have become accustomed to.

MRS. JOHNSTON: What is the point you are raising?

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, this budget does not begin to take us in the direction of diversification of our economy that we should be going. Not one budget can take us to any panacea, but this doesn't begin to take us on the first initial step towards some of the problems we face.

The member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Parks) spoke about productivity, the Premier speaks about productivity, and they are putting forward the notion by inference that if we had better productivity, then everything would be better in this province. Mr. Speaker, it is possible in the changing world of today to increase our productivity twofold and yet have higher unemployment and more destitution than we had before. Higher productivity and the furtherance of wealth creation does not necessarily mean that the products and the wages will be distributed equally, or near equally; it doesn't mean that the new wealth that we derive from this new productivity is going to be a wealth that is going to help the citizens of any jurisdiction. As a matter of fact, there is ample evidence now to prove that the new technologies we apply, for instance, to our forest industry do put people out of work.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: It's been going on for a long time. That's right, Mr. Member.

The microelectronics industry that the minister of technology talks about so often is an industry that has a few highly paid people in it and a great many people at very low wages. That's the history of the microelectronics industry. I'm not saying that for that reason it's necessarily bad. A job's better than no job. But the fact of the matter is that the kinds of jobs we have become accustomed to in our industrial era, in the 1900s — those middle jobs — are disappearing quickly. The kinds of jobs that are needed to run our industrial complex are just not going to be there. The middle class is disappearing. The jobs are disappearing.

MR. KEMPF: What's the reason for it?

MR. LEA: The reason for it, my friend, is that times are changing, and we are leaving the industrial era, as we have known it, and we don't know exactly where we're going; but we suspect that this new world is going to be made up of being able to produce the goods in society with automation, with robots, with new technology, with computerization, and that we won't need the kinds of people we've needed in the past. And the jobs that pay the middle amount of income are very quickly disappearing out of our economy and out of our society.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: No, that's exactly why we want to vote against this budget. We do not want to go backwards. But the thing is, if we would candidly admit to each other in this House that we are not sure of the answers, that we don't exactly know even what the problems are at this point.... But we sure do — I think, all of us — want to go forward. We want life to be better, even better than it's been in the past. But I get the feeling that those on the other side of the House are, as my friend from Vancouver Centre said, absolutely sure of what they're doing, that they are more ideological, more rigid — of necessity, out of an ideology — that they honestly believe that the way to get economic recovery in the province of British Columbia is to go in the direction this budget is taking us. I believe that.

Interjection,

[ Page 1006 ]

MR. LEA: I don't say you're badly motivated, Madam Member. I believe that you believe that.

Mr. Speaker, almost all of the economists today, except for a small conclave of ideological people like the Fraser Institute, are telling us that those problems are existing today. They are quite candidly admitting that they don't really know how to get out of the problems were in. For the last three or four decades what we've done is adopt a mixture of classical economics and Keynesian economics. We've used monetarism to curb inflation and we've used Keynesianism to pull us out of the troughs. That's what we've done — one and then the other. And we've gone up and down, up and down. But for he most part it's been more stable than previously, in the 1920s and before. So when members look at the nineteenth century with some sort of nostalgia, and look at laissez-faire capitalism in Great Britain, believe me, it wasn't a nostalgic time for those who went through it — if they could look back at it. My uncle is old enough to look back at some of that. It isn't the time they look back at with nostalgia.

[3:45]

What happened when we went from about 1750 to about 1950, the Industrial Revolution as we've known it? Before that we lived in the agrarian society. As we went into the Industrial Revolution with mechanisms, with steam, we found out that we also had problems. We had problems of unemployment. Before that everybody worked from age 6 to 100 just to make a subsistence living in the feudal agricultural system. Then we went into the Industrial Revolution. The beginning of that Industrial Revolution is not like the end of it. In the early 1800s, people who worked in the factories of Great Britain didn't have any safety standards. They didn't have good wages. There were no hospitals. There wasn't a public education system. How did those come about? They came about through trade unions, and also through progressive politicians of a number of different stripes. But the real reason that they came about was the efforts of those people extending the franchise, so that more and more people had the right to vote and had a say in how their country was going to be run. The actual enemy of laissez-faire economics was democracy. Democracy became the enemy of laissez-faire capitalism, and democracy will again become the enemy of the laissez-faire capitalism being put forward by this budget. People will not put up with it. They will say: "Well, it seems good. If restraint will cure economic problems, then I'm for restraint." That's what they say, and I don't blame them. If they think restraint is going to bring about economic recovery, why wouldn't they be for it? They'd be stupid not to be, right?

The only thing is that restraint is not going to be the ticket that gets us to economic recovery. As a matter of fact, we can see now reports coming out from the Conference Board of Canada and Statistics Canada. Statistics Canada, by the way, in my opinion have probably been closer on than most other organizations in the country, even when they had to take on their own government, and they've done that a number of times. Even when they've taken on the federal government, I think they've come out with a closer analysis of the problems and some of the solutions than many of the other economic bodies around.

Statistics Canada is telling us that the restraint programs of both the federal and provincial governments may be an impediment to economic recovery if carried to extremes. In this province I think there's no doubt that we're seeing it being carried to extremes. For instance, it appears that we have two problems. We have a problem of our short-term economy, and we have a much bigger problem in the long term of how we're going to diversify and what we're going to produce that we can compete with in the international marketplace. Can we produce and be cost-effective and competitive? But if we're talking about full employment out of the production side of the economy, we're talking through our hats. It just isn't going to happen, because the production side of the economy is going to be needing fewer and fewer people as it becomes more automated. As high technology is applied to extraction and manufacturing there are going to be fewer and fewer jobs with greater and greater wealth — we hope. The problem is, are we going to let that wealth escape? Are we going to let it run across our borders and go somewhere else? Are we going to allow the wealth of this province to be generated by new technology, automation and robots, and have it go somewhere else, or are we going to keep that money here to produce jobs in the non-production side of the economy to bring around a better and more civilized British Columbia? Those are our choices, really.

The Premier himself said that consumer recovery is not what this government wants. The Premier says that the only kind of economy that is going to count here is resource development. But that's in the long term. Whether those resources are developed in the usual manner that we've developed them over the past 50 years, or whether we develop those resources utilizing new technology and automation, the fact of the matter is that is that not going to be here tomorrow or next year. It's going to take research and planning, and it's going to take a long time to turn our economy around and get it on the long-term economic road to recovery through diversity of our economy. We're looking down the tube a long way.

What are we going to do in the immediate sense? In the immediate sense almost every politician, every jurisdiction and every economist is calling for a consumer-led economy. On the other side of the House they themselves even talk about consumer confidence being an important factor in economic recovery. We all agree with that. But you cannot get consumer confidence when you take money out of the consumers' pockets, and that's what this budget does. How in the world....

HON. MR. GARDOM: You want to borrow it and put it in there.

MR. LEA: Garde, I'm talking with these other people about economics, and maybe later we'll all explain it to you.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Oh, clever response!

MR. LEA: Well, it's an accurate one. You have never, in my 12 years here, made a speech on economics.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. LEA: Nor does he intend to. I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker, I shouldn't have done that, but it is the truth. The member for Point Grey, in all the years that I have been in this House, has never taken his place to talk about economics. Not once.

Interjections.

[ Page 1007 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I'll ask the minister and the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith), not to interject, and I'll ask the hon. member to return to his speech.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, what this government is asking us to do is to support a budget that takes money out of the consumers' pockets, raises taxes, raises the sales tax, takes away from any sort of consumer spending, and raises the tax on food in restaurants, which takes away from the tourist industry and from the average British Columbia family going out to eat on a Saturday night. It takes away from all of that. On the one hand they talk about consumer confidence being needed to get economic recovery, but on the other hand the steps they take in their budget are directly attributable to an impediment to a consumer-led recovery of the economy. They can't have it both ways. On the rhetoric side they talk about consumer confidence, but the real side is their budget, which taxes consumers more and more and takes away from consumer spending.

To get back to what the Premier said in reaction to the Statistics Canada report that the restraint program of government is actually hurting economic recovery, the Premier said: "In this province we don't need consumer-led economic recovery; what we want is resource-development economic recovery." Out of one side of his mouth the Premier said that this government — and I think this budget gives truth to the Premier's statement — doesn't really care about a consumer led economic recovery. That can only be because they have not looked at the statistics on where the wealth is being generated in this province in 1983.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Most people in this province work in the service industries. By far the largest workforce in this province are people who work in the service industries — in retail and wholesale, in the tourist industry, in the financial centres, in real estate. That sector of the economy hires the most people and pays the most wages. B.C. Is no longer the resource-based province we once had. At this point it seems to make sense to stimulate that part of the economy. Obviously most people in the western democracies agree with us that that seems to be where economic recovery in the short term should take place. But this government has gone exactly the opposite way.

Across the aisle, the minister of whatever said: "Where are you going to get the money? Are you going to borrow the money in order to give consumer spending a little shot in the arm?" We're talking about priorities in spending; that's what we're really talking about. The kind of money that's going to be raised by these tax increases in this budget is what these people are spending in three weeks through treasury bill borrowings. Three weeks of treasury bill borrowings would pay for the tax increases — about $170 million in sales tax. The increase in the sales tax from 6 percent to 7 percent will raise about $170 million; that's equivalent to three weeks' borrowing of treasury bills. But the fact of the matter is that you don't lose it all. You have to look at how quickly a dollar turns around in the economy, and how much of it comes back to the provincial treasury.

Even more than that, we have to look at the kinds of people we're trying to defend in this House — the indigenous small and intermediate businesses of British Columbia, a great many of which the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Richmond) is responsible for in his portfolio. The Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. ML Phillips) is responsible for a great many more. The Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland is responsible for some of them. In fact, it's hard to find a minister over there who isn't in some way responsible for the small and intermediate business sector of this province. If they're doing their job — and I think they probably are, going around and getting information — they know that that sector of the economy is in real trouble. The minister agrees that it's in real trouble. It is the biggest sector of our economy, and it is in trouble. I think it behooves us as legislators and as government to give them some help when they need it. If we don't help these very experienced business people in British Columbia to remain afloat, a great many more of them are going to be gone. A lot of them are gone now. If we lose many more, we will lose the entrepreneurial and managerial skills of our small business sector, which are almost impossible to replace. Is it worth a little investment to make sure that these people are in place, with their experience, skills and knowledge, to help bring about economic recovery and make sure that it is maintained once it arrives?

The short-term economic recovery of this province is short indeed. It is almost entirely dependent upon the housing market in the United States. If housing starts in the States rise dramatically, our economy is going to get better; but even that is short-term. Through automation and new sawmill technology in the forest industry, even to supply the lumber that will give us more wealth in this province will not get us the jobs. I refer back to this article from the Atlantic Monthly. It says: "From the viewpoint of the entrepreneur"- that's the forest industry — " wages are an unfortunate cost of production." I'm not saying that there's anything evil in that; it's true though that wages are an unfortunate part of production. If you can put a machine in that will take the place of ten people and do it more economically, you're a pretty stupid business person if you don't put it in. But at the same time, the government and this Legislature are not only responsible for those citizens while they're working in the forest industry; we are responsible for them when they're out of work. We are responsible for the economy of this province whether we like it or not. We make the rules. We do the budgeting, and we are responsible. I cannot see this government, through this budget or through the rhetoric, moving anywhere near a direction that's taking into consideration some of the real problems that we're facing in the economy. It's not a matter of government spending a bit less money, and everything is going to be a panacea and wonderful and we're going to have economic recovery. We have some structural problems in our economy in this province that are going to be devastating to us unless we deal with them.

[4:00]

I am not hearing one speech from the other side of the House talking about the problems of modern technology and automation and what it's going to do to our society. With it can come good. I'm not saying "Stop it." We would be stupid to stop, because if we did that it would be like people in days gone by saying not to bring on the wheel, steam or gasoline engines. I'm asking how we are going to make this new technology work for all of us and not just the few. How are we going to make sure that the new wealth coming from this new technology remains in our jurisdiction, in British Columbia, and is reinvested back into our province, both in the service sector and in more production jobs?

[ Page 1008 ]

If we as legislators think that we're going to get full employment out of the production side of the economy in the foreseeable future, we're whistling in the wind. That is not, as I see it, going to be the case. The only way we're going to reach full employment is by having an automated, highly technical production sector of the economy. But the proceeds from that are going to have to be brought through transfer payments into the service side of the economy in some cases and, in others, a service sector in the private sector growing up to meet the demands of the people and the industries that are bringing us that new technology and that new wealth.

History is repeating itself as the people in nineteenth century Great Britain had to fight politically and through trade unionism to get a civilized society and some of the money from that Industrial Revolution to come into the social side for education, hospitals, safety in the plant and all the things that make life civilized. Just as they had to fight to get those social services during the Industrial Revolution, as we go into the information and high-tech revolution we are going to have to fight to maintain them. The people who supply the capital from the private sector do not see it as their responsibility. If they can keep all that wealth that they make from high-tech and from automation, they are going to keep it. They are not, through charity, going to share that with the rest of the citizens. It is the role of government to bring equity economically and socially to our society. It is not the role of government to stand by passively and watch people hurt socially. It is not the role of government to stand by and watch people hurt economically; the role of government is to take the extremes out of life. We don't want people acting in a socially extreme way, and we don't want a socially or economically extreme citizenry and life. We do not want people to have absolutely nothing, while some people have too much.

We're not naive on this side of the House. We are not shooting for everybody getting the same money. We believe that there is an incentive program that can be used and different skills that are going to be paid differently in society. We don't believe that people all want to live in the same coloured houses. Those on the other side honestly believe that on this side of the House our ultimate goal is that we would have grey people living in grey houses on grey streets, listening to grey music coming out of grey speakers on grey walls. They really believe that, in some cases. Any thinking person knows that's not true. All we would like to do is to make sure that there is a more equitable distribution of wealth.

We are, in my opinion, heading out of the industrial era as we've known it and heading into another era that for want of a better term I'll call the informational technical revolution. I do know one thing, though: that unless we are vigilant as legislators, the people who invest capital in that new technology will not share it with us voluntarily. That's true. In other words, we will have to tax those profits. We will have to. Hopefully those profits will come.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: That's right, and I see nothing in this budget to stimulate the private sector in that direction.

Mr. Speaker, if we are going to take part in the international marketplace, we first of all have to find out how to apply high technology to produce the goods that we can sell there competitively. Does anything in this budget talk about research? There isn't a thing. Do you know the last amount spent in this province per year to look into what new products we could produce, what new technology we could use to help us create wealth and productivity? Ten million dollars. That was it.

Another problem is that when you give tax incentives to bring around research for development, you end up giving it to the big companies, who are just as bureaucratic as government itself. If you want to get that money out where it's going to do some good, then get it to the small operator, the small entrepreneur, the middle-level entrepreneur. You're not going to get innovation out of the private bureaucracy any more than you're going to get it out of the government bureaucracy. Both are bureaucratic, both are big and inefficient, and you're not going to get it. This government would make W.A.C. Bennett turn around in shame, because this government has climbed into bed with the private bureaucracy. They are the friends of the big corporations, not the friend of the small. They have taken their campaign funds from the biggies and they've got to pay it back, and the way they pay it back is to bring in legislation and budgets that satisfy the big private bureaucracies.

MR. REID: You take yours from the unions.

MR. LEA: You want to talk about the unions? I'll tell you something: the unions have got a surprise coming for them too.

MR. REID: You better believe it!

MR. LEA: The unions are no better or worse than the rest of us in society. They are another vested interest in society, one that has done good, that has done bad. Who do the big corporations hire? The people who work for the big corporations are the trade unionists, and both of them are afraid, They can see new technology coming along that's not going to call for big, it's going to call for small, and the trade unions are wondering: "Where do we stand in this new world of small and efficiency?" And because they don't know where they stand, they're afraid. But the big corporations are in the same boat. In many instances I see the big corporations and the big unions together in their fear of not knowing where things are going. Anybody is as afraid of the unknown as they are of the known that they know will hurt them.

I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that maybe we're all just a little bit afraid. We are charting new seas. We don't know where we're going.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: As a matter of fact — and I'm not going to say this facetiously — as an individual I would trust the first member for Surrey (Mrs. Johnston). I don't believe she wants a different outcome than I do for this province. What we are talking about is how we're going to achieve it. I think probably we differ there. But I would be very much surprised if all British Columbians don't really have the same goals. They want an adequate income. They want to be able to go out to a dance on Saturday night. They'd like to take a holiday. They do want their camper. They want their lot at the lake. Maybe we want too much, but why don't we look for ways to try to maintain our standard of living, as opposed to taking the negative attitude and saying, "There's no answer. Government cannot be involved."

[ Page 1009 ]

That's basically what this government has said. They have said they have no answers; that all the answers are going to come from the private sector, and as a government we have to tighten our belts, use restraint, downsize government and just wait and hope that the private sector does something to bail us out. Basically that's the story. What we are saying on this side of the House — and the hon. second member for Vancouver Centre pointed it out very ably, I think — is that maybe there are some answers, but the only way we're going to find them is through a spirit of cooperation and consultation. We do have to get working people, business people — notice that I didn't say the trade union movement, I said the working people; I didn't say the big corporations, I said business people — and all levels of government to work cooperatively to try to find our way through the maze. We are in trouble. I don't think we have to be pessimistic about it, because life goes on. But, Mr. Speaker, if we don't first of all decide that we want to find an answer together, then that answer will be forever elusive. We will never find it.

I find myself in rather a strange spot. On my left I have the rigidity of the communists; in this House I find myself with the rigidity of the right. I find that ideologies and rigidity many times preclude common sense. I believe that this government, even if they knew a government action could help everybody, might not take it, because they are philosophically and ideologically opposed to the government doing it. That was not the government of W.A.C. Bennett. The government of W.A. C. Bennett gave us our ferry service in this province. He saw something he felt government could do more efficiently, better, and he did it. He wasn't hung up. W.A.C. Bennett was a populist. This government is not a populist government; it is a very doctrinaire, neo-conservative group. They are going to have the fate of being hoisted by their rigidity. They cannot see on either side of them. They have blinders on and they believe that they are absolutely right. The first mistake they made was believing in absolutes. We have people believing in absolutes on our left; we have people who believe in absolutes on our right. I believe both of those ideologies preclude the use of common sense and using shared experiences to try to solve our problems.

Mr. Speaker, if we don't start dealing with those kinds of problems in British Columbia — of how we apply new technologies and, even more important, after they're applied, after there is wealth being generated, of how we share the products of that new wealth with our citizens.... In conclusion, I would like to leave the members with this thought: if it were possible through modern technology to have productivity boiled down to all machinery, all technology, and possible to run it with one person in the private sector, would that one person be the only person who shared in the wealth of that industrial complex? Or would we all? Those resources belong to us all.

AN HON. MEMBER: He should share a little bit more than those who don't.

MR. LEA: He should get a fair profit, a fair return. But at the same time, the people of this province should get a fair return for the resources they own.

Mr. Speaker, our big problem in the future, should we succeed in bringing about wealth through modern technology and automation, will be: how do we share that wealth? That is going to be one of the bigger problems we're going to have to face. I don't see this budget doing that. I see our amendment for diversification of the economy being very timely.

[4:15]

MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased to be able to rise and speak about this budget for the second time because of the amendment to it. I'm glad there are so many people sitting in the gallery today to listen to this; I'm glad there are people who come down here every day to listen to the debate on this budget, so that they will really know what's going on in this House. They will know this House keeps going day after day after day, with the opposition filibustering. It costs the taxpayers in excess of $20,000 a day, over and above the ordinary cost to run this House, because they feel it's advantageous to them. They can buy those $20,000 headlines in the news media and they say that that makes it worthwhile sitting here.

Mr. Speaker, with a budget increase of 12.3 percent this year over the previous year, and with an operating revenue increase of only 4.6 percent, there is an anticipated deficit of $1.6 billion. We're trying to trim the costs of government, trying to downsize government so that we don't have to borrow funds or go to our citizens and raise taxes — ever raising taxes higher than the taxpayer can afford. The opposition sits here day after day and obstructs........ Certainly the opposition are entitled to put their philosophy forward; in fact, it is their duty. But after they have put their position forward and forward and forward, it then becomes a filibuster that accomplishes nothing for this House and costs the taxpayers many hundreds of thousands of dollars.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Taxpayer's money.

MR. CAMPBELL: That's right, it's taxpayers' money. As the revenue drops.... For instance in forestry, the revenue in 1982 over 1981 dropped 51.2 percent, but they say: "Don't cut down those services; just go out and borrow the money." That's their answer: keep on borrowing. That's the socialist philosophy. The natural resource tax is down 24.5 percent, but that doesn't mean anything. Just keep on borrowing the money and spend it. When you talk about cutting down, it's never here, it's there. It's like quicksilver; every time you reach for it, it's gone.

I am glad the hon. member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) is sitting here. He is the only one left sitting here, and I am very pleased. He has seen fit to stay here this afternoon. I would like to quote from the Hansard Blues; page 817:

As I pointed out earlier, there is no economic plan. So we just lost the fish processing capacity and the fishing fleet because of a lack of plan, we lost the brewery because of a lack of plan and we lost the RCMP headquarters. We lost the CN Express, a relatively small operation of 40 to 45 jobs. It made money on the link between Vancouver and Victoria, but do you think the provincial government made any kind of representation to the federal agencies to maintain that service? They just handed it off to the CPR. We lost the CN Express, which was a major service to be provided the capital city. There we are. So the RCMP headquarters, the CN Express....

That is a quote from the hon. member for North Island.

MR. GABELMANN: It was the first member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson).

MR. CAMPBELL: For Victoria? My apologies, sir.

[ Page 1010 ]

I would think that the opposition would put more time into research before they make these irresponsible statements. These are the kinds of statements that frighten the people out there. These are the kinds of statements that frighten investment away and frighten business away.

After this was said this morning I took the effort to contact CNR through our research department. I want to give you the answer that came out of CNR this morning, and I quote:

    "According to CN's public affairs officer, CN freight express operations had been losing about $50 million annually nationwide."

Unfortunately the people at CN don't understand it when they hear about all the money they have made.

This has meant contracting out to other carriers in areas where freight volumes were low, such as Victoria. The Victoria freight express office was gradually phased out from a staff of about 12, and the remaining one position was eliminated two years ago February."

MR. REE: Not 40 or 50?

MR. CAMPBELL: No, not 40 to 45, as stated by the hon. member this morning; it was one.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: OH, oh!

MR. CAMPBELL: These are the types of irresponsible statements that frighten people out there.

AN. HON. MEMBER: It's just slightly wrong.

MR. CAMPBELL: Yes, one in 45 is just slightly wrong. I would like to go on quoting from the CNR report:

"The Victoria freight express office was gradually phased down from a staff of about 12, and the one remaining position eliminated two years ago February. Some employees went into the rail operation, while others were offered jobs in Vancouver. The LTL service — less than trailer load — was contracted out to Sidney Freight.... . "

It wasn't the CPR, Mr. Speaker. They not only don't know how many people they are talking about, but they don't even know the outfit that took over the service — wrong again.

"... an existing local carrier who now acts as the CN agent locally. They took one of the CN operations employees, but the continuing low volume of freight was such that he was not kept on permanently."

That is the thriving operation with the 45 people they were talking about. After they took on the one remaining employee, there wasn't enough to keep him going so they had to lay him off after a while. I continue to quote:

"In essence, the reduction of jobs in freight-handling locally is a matter of straight economics reflecting the general recession and its impact on demand for these services."

The NDP alternative appears to be to continue to employ people regardless of any demand for their services. They'd keep the hypothetical 45 when they didn't need the one. "CN is still losing money on its freight express service, and as of September I will be amalgamating this division with its trucking division to save on accounting and other administrative overhead, and to share facilities." I think it's very irresponsible for the opposition to come out and make these statements trying to frighten people, with no research; they just come out and shoot from the hip. I'm glad there are people here in the gallery to hear this. This is the type of filibuster we get, which is costing us $20,000 a day. These are the types of facts being put forward. That's the price of these facts today.

The health of this province is the number one priority of this government. I want to quote some further facts. In 1955 the daily hospital costs were $14.08. That was the average daily cost of the ten largest hospitals in the province. Out of that $14.08, the co-insurance charge was $1, which made the co-insurance charge, as a percentage of the daily cost, 7.1 percent. That was 1955. In 1965 the daily hospital cost was $25.83; the co-insurance charge was still $1, which brought it down to 3.9 percent of the daily charge. In 1976 the daily hospital cost was $118.92; the co-insurance charge had gone to $4, which was still 3.4 percent of the daily cost. In 1980 the daily hospital cost was $182.00, from $118.00. It had gone up about $60 dollars per bed in that five years. The coinsurance charge went up 50 cents to $5.50; it was now 3 percent of the daily cost. In 1982 the daily hospital cost was $294.54; the co-insurance charge was $7.50, 2.5 percent of the daily cost. In 1983 the daily hospital cost is $328.52; the co-insurance charge, including the extra dollar this government added on that this opposition has felt to be so evil, is 2.6 percent.

This opposition has complained bitterly about this, talking about how the poor people of this province can't afford the health care costs and how the average people out there are suffering because of these user fees. When you think that the taxpayers of this province are paying $328 a day hospital costs, and the co-insurance charge is $8.50........ I ask you, is this unreasonable? Is that not a bargain that the people of B.C. are getting? It is a bargain, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: And those who can't pay get it free.

MR. CAMPBELL: That's right. If the people can't pay for it, they'll get it for free, and the people who can afford to pay are paying $8.50 out of $328 a day in costs.

AN HON. MEMBER: Unbelievable.

MR. CAMPBELL: It is unbelievable, but the most unbelievable part that I see about it is that the opposition keeps hollering and saying: "This government doesn't care for the poor. This government doesn't care for the sick. This government is trying to pick on the people who are sick." How can this opposition, in all good conscience, take up days and days talking like this, costing this House hundreds of thousands of dollars, when the people are being treated like this — when the people are paying $8.50 out of $328 a day?

AN HON. MEMBER: What percentage is that?

MR. CAMPBELL: It's 2.6 percent. That's what they're paying.

The school budget, where the opposition says that this government's trying to take over the school system....

The school budget is increased in 1983-84 by 7 percent over

[ Page 1011 ]

1982-83. Here we are — we came through a recession and we're trying to trim costs, but we realize that health care, education and human resources are essential services to the people. This government has compassion. It's trying to provide these human services to the people, and what do we get from the opposition? Fear tactics. They're trying to drive fear into the working people of this province. The working people of this province are the people who are paying the taxes out there. They're the people who are paying the $320 a day, over and above the cost, for the health care. That's coming from the taxpayers of the province. Those people working on the pipelines, on the ferries, in the civil service, in the municipal service, in small business and in all various segments of this province are the people who are paying for this, and they have paid and paid. The taxpayers of this province are hurting. They are sick of paying. On May 5 they said: "We agree with this government on downsizing."

[4:30]

It is essential that this government downsize. This government is committed to downsizing and cutting the costs. After I've said that, you may ask where the government is cutting costs with a $1.6 billion deficit. Obviously we haven't cut it enough. Because this government has compassion we've decided to borrow, and that's no credit to us, I say it's a shame that we can't balance the budget. It's a shame that we do have to borrow the money, because as the opposition have said so many times, next year there will be roughly $160 million interest on that deficit. And they're absolutely correct: it will cost us $160 million on that deficit that we're not able to balance this year, but if we didn't have a downsizing of government....

HON. MR. GARDOM: Then what?

MR. CAMPBELL: Then what? Then it would probably be $320 million that the taxpayers who are sitting here, the taxpayers all over the province....

Interjection.

MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, one percentage point of sales tax equals $200 million. That is right. If we had a deficit of $2 billion, we'd need 16 percent sales tax to balance it.

It is essential that this government take measures to downsize and restrict costs so that they are affordable to the taxpayers out there who are paying for it. This government has to instil confidence in the people out there who are paying the taxes, in the people who are working and in the people who are using the social services that are being paid for by these people. They want to know that health services and education are going to be provided, and that Human Resources will have funds to support the people who are less fortunate than those of us who are working. But while they're entitled to this, the government must also look at the costs of some of the various projects that are great but are perhaps not essential in these times, unless we're prepared to go out and borrow more money, like the federal government has. This year the federal government will have a $31 billion deficit. The opposition think that there is nothing the matter with this. They say it's fine to borrow to keep on providing these services.

In the education system with that 7 percent increase and with a decrease in pupils, the only change in the budget is that they'll not be allowed to put money in the administration.

You'll be able to move money out of the administration section but not put it in. Then the opposition says the school system is being treated unjustly. To reduce that pupil-teacher ratio to 1976 levels during these times of restraint is just a sign of responsible government. It's time the opposition took a look at this, reconsidered their position and said, listen....

Interjection.

MR. CAMPBELL: No, not resign, Mr. Speaker, because these people, I'm sure, in the next three or four days, or a week, are going to realize that they've made a mistake, and they're going to say: "Yes, I have confidence in them." I have every confidence that the opposition, after they have reconsidered their position, will say: "It was wrong; we should have gone for that budget; those are good bills; this government is putting forward good legislation." I believe they will agree, because I know that once they've reconsidered their position they'll realize that the government has no alternative but to embark on this program.

This government is trying to promote confidence in the economy. We have to promote confidence so that the private investors will invest: the people with the pension funds, the union people who have invested in their pension funds and who are investing in new housing for citizens and in shares, stocks and bonds for companies which wish to invest in B.C. and in the rest of Canada. That's where their funds are being put, and they would be very well advised to provide confidence in that economy, not fear, Mr. Speaker.

In closing, I would like to say that I am opposed to the amendment of this budget. I believe the budget is right the way it is presented. I would ask the opposition to reconsider their position, withdraw their amendment and support the budget.

MR. STUPICH: I have a point I'd like to make, and I'm pleased the Minister of Finance is with us at the moment. I certainly don't mean to suggest that he should be sitting here all the time during this debate, by any means. But there is a matter that I raised once on a previous occasion when I believe he was not in his chair. It had to do with garbage, cheques and mail found therein. At the time I raised that matter, it was as a result of something that had been going on for a number of years. It was something that had been brought to the attention of the Ministry of Finance several times. It was something that had been brought to the attention of the Ministry of Finance by the auditor-general in every one of her reports, with specific reference not to the garbage and the cheques found therein, but to the breakdown, or at least the absence of any reasonable degree of internal control within the Ministry of Finance. It has nothing to do with the amendment. I don't want to belabour it now. But I do have a point to make. Since I raised that matter, it has come to my attention that the attitude of the Ministry of Finance would seem to be that they must find the person who delivered those cheques to my attention rather than try to deal with the problem itself, and that is internal control.

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to hear the Minister of Finance tell me that that is not the case. I would ask him to check with the people who are doing the investigating, because I have had staff members come to me and ask for some help in trying to persuade someone that they — individually — were not the people who had anything to do with bringing that material to

[ Page 1012 ]

my attention, because to the best of my information, certain individuals have been grilled unmercifully for several days in an attempt to identify the messenger rather than to deal with the problem.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) is raising the same question: who is the messenger? Mr. Speaker, the problem is not who the messenger is, but what the Ministry of Finance is doing about the real problem. May I simply say that the messenger and other people who knew of this tried for years to persuade the Ministry of Finance to tighten up its internal control. They tried unsuccessfully, and finally chose this method of bringing it to public attention in the hope that internal control would be tightened up. Apparently, rather than embarking on a program of tightening up control....

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I intended this as a serious appeal to the Minister of Finance.

Rather than attempt to tighten up internal control, there would seem to have been something of a witch-hunt to identify the messenger. To me that's distressing. The messenger did what that particular messenger thought was a public service after years of exasperation.

Interjection.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I'm being asked what they did.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'll ask the hon. members to come to order.

MR. STUPICH: I'll tell something of this. Supposedly empty envelopes were being delivered to people who were removing the stamps and sending them to the cancer society. One of the people doing this has a sister who very recently underwent a cancer operation. They have been doing what they thought was a public service in removing stamps and sending them to the cancer society in order to raise funds for the work of that society. For several years they have found items in supposedly empty envelopes and have returned them to the Ministry of Finance without any publicity at all. But this had been going on for several years. They had not been able to persuade the Ministry of Finance to tighten up their procedures. They finally decided they had to do something to bring it to public attention so there would be better control in the Ministry of Finance. The auditor-general tried for several years through the Minister of Finance — not just Mr. Curtis, but through several Ministers of Finance....

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I'll ask all hon. members to come to order, and remind the hon. member for Nanaimo, as he's already correctly observed, this might be a matter better dealt with under the estimates of the Minister of Finance.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I accept your advice. At the moment I'm simply asking the Minister of Finance to please check with the people who are doing the investigating and call off what I can only call a witch-hunt, from the way it was described to me. I'll talk about this further with the minister privately, but I do wish something could be done to take the heat off.

To get to the amendment presented today: "But this House regrets that in the opinion of the House, the hon. Minister of Finance has failed to make sufficient provision for diversification of the economy and thereby protect the citizens from extreme economic fluctuations and increasing hardship." There can be no question but that that amendment is deserving of the support of everyone in the House. I'm not suggesting it's going to get that support, but privately I would think that all 57 members of the House would agree that the Minister of Finance has not provided for sufficient diversification in the budget presented to us. As a matter of fact, it's very hard to find any provision for diversification in the budget.

I listened with care to the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) when he spoke on this amendment. I took note of something he said after lunch: "We should not be surprised that we" — meaning the government — "are doing what we said we were going to do, and we won the election." We shouldn't be surprised that the Social Credit Party — as has been their habit for some years; certainly during the last three elections — lied itself successfully back into office, There's no question about that. During the election campaign that party promised that there would be no tax increases; that tax increases at this particular point in our economic position were no way to get diversification of the economy. They made that promise, and we should not be surprised that they broke that promise.

During the election campaign the Social Credit Party promised that there would be no increase in user fees for health services.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. McClelland) said: "That's a lie." I'm not going ask him to withdraw that. I saw the Premier and the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) on TV when they said that the memos that were turned over to our Health critic at the time were simply meant for discussion within the Ministry of Health, and that the government had no plan for increasing user fees for health services. During the campaign it certainly was a lie for the Social Credit Party to say they had no plans to increase user fees for health services. That was a lie.

[4:45]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, let me interject at this point. I find the comments made by the Minister of Labour and the member for Nanaimo to be unparliamentary, in the sense of the language being used. No withdrawal is required, but perhaps the Chair should caution members to remember that we should at all times use parliamentary and courteous language in our debate.

MR. STUPICH: During the election campaign the Social Credit Party promised there would be no mass layoff of staff. It should be of no surprise to anyone in the province that they were not telling the truth when they made that promise, even though that promise was written into a collective bargaining

[ Page 1013 ]

agreement with the B.C. Government Employees' Union, and even though the Premier himself intervened in the negotiations and was one of the instrumental parties for getting that agreement with the B.C. Government Employees' Union that there would be no staff layoffs without consultation; that any cutbacks in staff would be an orderly process, in line with the terms of the collective bargaining agreement. As I said, it was the Premier himself who intervened to make that agreement a success. It should be no surprise to anyone in the province that, as has been their pattern in the past, when the Social Credit Party promised during the campaign to live up to the terms of that agreement, that there would be no massive staff layoffs, it was not telling the truth. None of that should be any surprise to anyone in the province, because it's something they've been doing for the last three elections.

The Minister of Forests talked about the diversification that has already taken place. He told us, for example, about the increased supply of coal from the northeast coal development. He didn't bother to tell us that up to this point in time we have been completely unsuccessful in every attempt to extract from the big wind from South Peace River exactly how much that is going to cost the taxpayers of British Columbia. How much are we taxpayers paying in order to persuade the Japanese to buy more coal from us? We have no answer to that, and we never will get the true answer until the NDP forms the government in the province of British Columbia. That is the only example of diversification he could present to the House. He said that that is reason itself for turning down the amendment proposed by the NDP.

He went on to say that we now have two ports for shipping coal, rather than one — or rather will have when this process is complete — courtesy of the federal government, and the Alberta government had something to do with it as well. That's diversification? We've been shipping coal from the southeast. The government's definition of diversification is that instead of shipping a lot of coal from the southeast, we're going to ship a little bit from the southeast and a little bit from the northeast, and end up shipping less coal in total. That's their idea of diversification. We will be shipping it from two different points: that's diversification.

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. McClelland) will come to order.

MR. STUPICH: I have not attended the House all of the time while this is being debated, but certainly the minister who has so much to say from his seat right now has not, to the best of my knowledge, participated in this debate, and he is the Minister of Labour. Certainly he should be contributing something to the debate. What diversification is the government proposing? What is there in the budget that would lead to any feeling of security in the community that something is going to be done toward providing some measure of diversification in the economy? I certainly don't intend to speak for 40 minutes, and I would hope that the Minister of Labour will have something worth saying.

I think it is significant that the Minister of Forests, in speaking about our basic resources — mining, forestry, tourism and fishing — completely left out agriculture. Of course, that's simply a measure of the feeling of his administration towards agriculture, one of the largest basic industries in the province. I'm distressed that agriculture doesn't rate even a mention when he's talking about the four basic industries in the province.

As our economy expands in the future, we should and must try to diversify. He's been a minister in this cabinet since January 1976, seven and a half years. He's saying we should try to diversify. It's because they haven't done anything to diversify that the amendment before us now is being discussed in this House. In saying that today, he admitted to the complete failure of his administration to do anything by way of diversification in the province. Not only have they done nothing, they have no promises, nothing at all to reassure people that they have some plans.

But then he said what the problems are. The biggest problem is that we have too many people working for the government, according to the Minister of Forests. All we have to do is fire a bunch of people. They'll go on unemployment for a while — most of the money will be coming from the federal government — and then they'll be going on to social assistance, and some of the money will be coming from the federal government. That will be progress.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Negative, negative, negative.

MR. STUPICH: Yes, that certainly is a negative way of looking at diversification. That's all which that minister had to contribute to a debate about diversification, to say let's get rid of government employees who are imposing rules so that the Spetifore land, for example, which the government wants released from the land reserve so they can build more houses.... That's diversification? There are millions of acres in the province where houses can be built. They don't have to be built on a chunk of farmland, That's not contributing anything to diversification in the province of British Columbia. But he says: "Let's get rid of some civil servants. We won't have as much red tape. People will be able to rape our resources in any way that they choose." That will be diversification: to build more houses on farmland.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Negative, negative, negative.

MR. STUPICH: Yes, Mr. Speaker, negative. Let's get rid of red tape. Let's have everybody do as they will, and then we'll have diversification.

He then goes on to say that one of the main benefits of cutting back in the size of civil service.... To give him some credit, at least he didn't say it's going to be a great advance to lose any human rights protection. He didn't talk about the loss of services. He simply said: "Let's get rid of a bunch of people, off the payroll, and by doing that we're going to be able to reduce taxes and that's going to lead to diversification." He hasn't quantified the tax reduction. When we look at the budget, we find out that despite all this machiavellian program, instead of a reduction in the cost of government, costs are going up higher than for any other province in this whole country. That kind of increase, with the program that they have before us.... We're going to cut staff, and instead of increasing the cost of government by 20 percent per year as we have done over the last four years, we're going to increase it by only 16 percent. That is going to lead us toward diversification. If the ministers to follow that minister in speaking in this debate have nothing further to contribute, it's just as well that they speak from their seats, rather than from their feet.

[ Page 1014 ]

The third point he made: the improvements to our labour climate. Strange that last year, the year before and the year before that, they talked about how well we were doing in respect to the minimum number of days that were being lost due to labour-management disputes, and they credited the Labour Code and their administration of it. Now they're saying that we have the worst labour climate in the world, and that's why people won't buy from us. That's why the Japanese, for example, insisted on having an alternative supply of coal: instead of buying all the coal from the southeast, they want to buy some from the northeast, because they don't trust labour in the southeast but they do trust labour in the northeast. It's the same trade union. Is that kind of diversification really going to reassure people buying our raw materials, our resources, that by simply moving from one area of the province to another they're going to feel more comfortable and more secure? Mr. Speaker, how ridiculous can that minister be in making that kind of argument?

There are things that can be done and that could have been done in this budget — not the kind of things that would scare away investors or persuade Standard and Poor, for example, that we have no plans at all for diversification. As a warning our credit rating has been reduced. That's the first step. If we go on and blithely ignore their advice to the effect that there should be more diversification in B.C., in all likelihood there'll be a further reduction of our credit rating. This is not the end of it unless we pull up our socks and do something better with the administration in the province of British Columbia. There are no signs of that in the budget before us; hence the amendment that we have.

They say that those who are not prepared to learn from history are going to relive the mistakes. In British Columbia, over 40 years ago, the government of the day recognized the need to do something. The war was still on, but they knew it was coming to an end. They knew that there would be tremendous economic problems after the end of the war and that there would be unemployment, but they also knew that, playing the cards right, there would be tremendous economic opportunities. The government of the day didn't say, "Well, let's fire all of the civil servants" — not just civil servants, because the program today before us, the budget and the legislation, calls for cutbacks in what the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot) said was a total of 300,000 public sector employees. That was the figure he used in debate. They're talking about cutting back some 25 percent in that size of a workforce; that can have nothing but a bad effect. That's certainly the defeatist way to go, to say: "Let's cut back, let's not spend any money, and let's hope that somebody else will spend it and get something going."

The government in office during the war didn't take that approach. They might well have — certainly the war was costing a lot of money and certainly things were going not too badly during the war — but they were prepared to plan ahead. In 1942 legislation was approved that provided for the establishment of a Postwar Rehabilitation Council. That council made an interim report in 1943 and a supplementary report in 1944. The council was made up of members of the Legislature, approved by order-in-council — members from all parties. That council travelled and held hearings around the province; people with ideas and proposals were invited to appear before that travelling council of MLAs to bring forward suggestions and make recommendations for exactly the same sort of thing as we're talking about in this amendment today: diversification of our economy so that we would not be so completely dependent upon the extraction and export of raw materials, and so that we would be in a position to provide economic and employment opportunities for, in those days, the returning veterans, and in these days the large number of unemployed people. They anticipated there would be an influx of population as well as the returning veterans; they knew that they had to plan for those people as well. The government of that day was optimistic and chose the positive way out. It established a Postwar Rehabilitation Council made up, as I said, of members from all parties; a council that travelled around, that made recommendations in its interim report delivered in 1943 and in a supplementary report delivered in 1944.

[5:00]

It was a very interesting report, Mr. Speaker. Some of it is worth looking at even today. The headline in the Sun on February 4, 1943, when the interim report was first tabled: "Vast Coast Hydro" — that has been done — "Government Steel Mill." Note the emphasis. The council of the day, composed mainly of members from the government side of the House, but with opposition members on it as well, recognized the importance in the economic development of British Columbia of having a steel mill in the province of British Columbia. That's over 40 years ago. When we were in office we did everything we could to get a steel mill established, and were well on the way to getting that when Social Credit was elected and all the plans were scrapped.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. McClelland) says: "You've got to be kidding."

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: I'm not sure what he said then, but apparently he doesn't realize that we had these negotiations.

I had the opportunity to visit the NKK plant in Japan and talk to the manager, who was destined to become the manager of the plant in British Columbia. He told me they would prefer to build another steel mill in Japan. He's shaking his head. He prefers not to listen. It's an old truism: there's none so deaf as he who will not listen.

I talked to that manager in Japan. It was done through an interpreter because I don't speak his language and he didn't speak mine.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I know it's a joke with that minister. Any talk of diversification in the province of B.C. Is a joke to him, any idea that 41 years ago the government would consider a report recommending that in the event the private sector was not willing to invest money in a steel mill in British Columbia, the government itself should invest in it to get it going because of its importance to the economy of British Columbia. Over 40 years ago the government thought that suggestion serious enough to consider it. It didn't come to fruition, but the report was supported by a post-war rehabilitation council on which the government had a majority of the members. It was a good report. That minister might well advise, or ask someone in his ministry to read at least the recommendations to him. He might have time to listen to that.

[ Page 1015 ]

To get back to the steel mill for B.C., the manager told me he would prefer to build in Japan because labour is the most important ingredient, but the government didn't want any more steel mills on the east coast of Japan. Their second choice would be to build in Brazil because that's where the iron ore for this steel mill would be coming from. I said: "Why are you coming to B.C.? Why not your second choice?" He said: "Because we need the coal from B.C. for this steel mill." I said: "Well, why not import the coal to Brazil?" He said: "Because in B.C. we're dealing with a government that believes in the value-added factor."

Mr. Speaker, the minister's laughing. He chooses not to believe me. The minister asks what I've been smoking. I am telling of a conversation that took place between myself and the manager of the NKK plant in Japan. I went on to say to that man: "You're dealing today with an NDP administration that believes in the value-added factor, but we may not be there tomorrow." His response was: "We recognize that, but we have to deal with the situation as it is today because we do want those coal contracts. And if the price of that is to establish a steel mill in British Columbia, then we are prepared to pay that price." There was an election, we're no longer there, and now we are paying the price. The taxpayers of British Columbia have agreed to pay something in excess of $1.5 billion to persuade the Japanese to buy coal from B.C. — no more than they're buying now, but to buy it from two different sources.

The report of the Postwar Rehabilitation Council didn't recommend just a steel mill. They made many positive recommendations about industries and what could be done. With respect to the steel mill, had the election not taken place in December of 1975, steel being used today for construction in the province would have been produced in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I'm having trouble with that minister. He chooses not to believe me. Of course, that's his choice. I chose not to believe him when he had to make an out-of-court settlement with someone in the Duncan area on a welfare fraud case. I'd like to convince that minister, but as I said, there's none so deaf as he who will not listen. His attitude is that if anything is done by a government then it costs money and is not serving the needs of the people of the province.

Mr. Speaker, we're talking about diversification — for example, selling Beautiful British Columbia magazine. What difference does that magazine make to the economy in the province? Beautiful British Columbia is known all around the world and has done a lot for tourist promotion in the province. It did not come into effect when the NDP was elected; it was there before we arrived. It did a good job to promote tourism when we were in office and it has continued to do a good job since that date. I expect that most members of the House purchase subscriptions to that magazine and send it to friends in many parts of the world. I send one as far away as South Africa, and I send other subscriptions to other places. People appreciate getting them, and many visit British Columbia. It's doing a good job for B.C.

Is it really going to save anybody any money if we put this out to private ownership? Perhaps some friend of the government will have an opportunity to buy it at a good rate. Is it really going to save anybody any money if the price of that magazine goes up and the quality goes down? Certainly anyone taking it over from the government, at whatever price, is going to be more concerned about maximizing their profit from the production of that particular magazine than about doing a service for the people of British Columbia. Their concern is not going to be how to improve the tourist industry, or how to diversify, from the point of view of increasing tourism; their concern is simply going to be how much it is going to cost them to produce that magazine, how cheaply they can get it done, how much can they get away with in cutting back, and how much they will be able to charge for it.

The idea of promoting tourism is not a new one. It didn't come with this government, although they appointed a minister of tourism; it didn't come with the NDP, who were the first administration to appoint a minister of tourism; nor did it come with the Social Credit administration that was elected in 1952. I suppose it's hard to say just what government first started talking about tourism, but the Postwar Rehabilitation Council report did talk about tourism. This report was commissioned over 41 and a half years ago, and in travelling around the province the all-party committee saw many opportunities in different parts of the province where tourism could be promoted to advantage for the people of British Columbia. Once again, this all-party committee didn't shy away from the idea that a dollar spent out of the public purse is any cheaper or dearer or any different from a dollar spent by private people. It's what it's spent on that counts. If $1 or $100 or $1,000 or $1 million is spent to develop a tourist facility in some hot springs area, or some other public attraction, if it brings tourists into our province, and if indeed tourists are good for our economy, then it doesn't matter a bit who spends that money.

The important thing is that if the money is spent then we do get that amount of diversification. We're not getting it from this administration and there is nothing in the budget to persuade us, by any stretch of the imagination, that the government believes in having any input into this. As a matter of fact, we were told over and over during the campaign — and this is one of the things they said which has proven to be true — that they were going to cut spending on activities that would create job opportunities, and indeed they have done that. That was one of the threats they made good on.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: I've been asked who said that: by the very nature of the attack on public services, by the threats to privatize certain activities that were being done by government to advantage in the province to promote tourism; that were being done by the government to promote agriculture, to sell our products abroad, to improve the use of our raw materials and to develop them to a higher state before they're exported. In the words of the 1943 report, we should be looking not just for more markets for our raw materials — and they admitted that was still something that should be done — we should also be looking for opportunities to do more work here with the raw materials that we have.

The NDP caucus did something about this last year. We sent a committee of MLAs all round the province, meeting with and listening to people in many communities in B.C. At every one of those meetings people came before us with ideas as to how they could diversify the economies in their communities with a modicum of government assistance. In some cases there were the kinds of problems the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) talked about; there were red-tape problems. I'll admit that. But most of them weren't concerned so

[ Page 1016 ]

much about red tape. Many of them wanted a good deal more assistance with research and development that they had already started. They weren't looking for grants, but some of them were looking for loans at reasonable interest rates. Some of them came before us with contracts to supply manufactured articles that they had already constructed and had samples of. In some instances they were assured that they had the support of the Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development, only to have that support disappear when they had their plans ready.

These were things written about in that report forty and a half years ago. I appreciate that this was written during the war, when there were different problems than we have today. They were concerned then with the returning vets. But it's still a report that's well worth reading. Why not the same kind of thing today, instead of leaving it to the opposition to send two or three MLAs around the province and to have hearings? Why not an all-party committee? Why not something equivalent to the Postwar Rehabilitation Council, but now call it a post-depression rehabilitation council? Why not bring in legislation to set up an all-party committee that would be instructed to travel the length and breadth of this province and really listen to people talk about their plans for diversifying the economy? If the government really is interested in any diversification, as opposed to simply taking revenge against people they feel campaigned against them in the last election, if the government is interested in living up to any of its responsibilities to do something, as the Lieutenant-Governor urged us, for the people in the province of British Columbia, then they must look seriously at this idea of diversifying the economy.

There is absolutely no indication in this budget at all that they intend to do that. Rather, they have said: "We are going to proceed to withdraw the services that up to now have been available. We are going to withdraw services that have been available to people who need them most. The most distressed people in our community are going to have to do without, to an even greater extent than ever before." That is no way to lead to recovery or diversification. There is nothing in the budget that would persuade anyone in the House that the government is considering diversifying our economy.

Interjections.

[5:15]

HON. MR. HEWITT: On a point of order, for clarification, I wanted to speak because I had missed my position in the budget debate itself, and I was looking for the opportunity to speak on the amendment. Could I ask the opposition if they would allow me a few minutes before they....?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: There will be ample opportunity, hon. member, before the question is called.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I believe not. It's my understanding that this is the designated speaker for the opposition.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm not aware of that.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, the minister will have ample opportunity after this amendment to go back on the main motion.

HON. MR. HEWITT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker and that's the reason I rose in the beginning — if the opposition will recall, I was speaking in the budget debate. When we returned to the budget debate I was unavoidably absent and I lost my place.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. HEWITT: I wanted the opportunity, and would ask the member for Nanaimo if he would give me that opportunity to speak on the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, maybe I could ask leave — if the opposition would allow me the opportunity to speak.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, the Chair cannot rule on discussions that the Chair is not aware of.

Debate continues. I would ask the hon. member for Nanaimo to continue. He has a few minutes left. I will advise that I had the clock stopped while that little discussion was going on.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, very quickly on a point of order, I would hope that the member for Boundary-Similkameen would cease making these tedious and frivolous interruptions of the member for Nanaimo. It's quite possible the member for Nanaimo could have finished his speech right now, and the member for Boundary-Similkameen could be on his feet.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That's a good point.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I can appreciate that you, of course, have no knowledge as to any agreements made by Whips. However, if that were not the case, if you were in your chair as the member for Prince George South, then I could tell you privately that the Whips did have an agreement as to who the speakers were this afternoon, and by some chance — perhaps that's something he should take up with his own Whip — the hon. minister was not included on that list of speakers. However, Mr. Speaker, if that member would care to take it up with his Whip.... I would suggest that when we do get around to discussing the estimates for the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), he'll have all kinds of opportunities to tell us what he thinks about this government's complete abdication of its responsibility to do anything for diversification in the province of British Columbia. I have no great desire to try to convince that minister of the logic of what I'm discussing at the moment.

HON. MR. HEWITT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I noticed a moment or two ago that the light was green, and I've accepted some of the comments across the floor in good humour. However, I now notice that the light hasn't changed from green to red, but is now off.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That's correct.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Therefore, I'm assuming that the Chair now acknowledges this man to be the designated speaker — and I have not received the acquiescence of the opposition to allow me to comment. Is that correct, Mr. Speaker?

[ Page 1017 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Perhaps I'll ask the minister to take his place. I'll remind all hon. members that a leader of a party, or a recognized member of a party, may be a designated speaker, and has no time limit.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, I don't want to question you, but I asked the question, and I gather now, without you replying directly, that the designated speaker is the member for Nanaimo.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That's correct.

HON. MR. HEWITT: And the opposition did not acquiesce to my request. That indicates to me the type of opposition they are, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order that the minister raised, in the same tone, I would suggest that an agreement had been made. We had a member ready to speak. Then all of a sudden their Whip decided to move that minister in, and we said: "Not on your life. Our member is designated."

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That's immaterial to the Chair and the carrying out of our standing orders.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, the minister suggests that I'm afraid to hear from him. If I thought he was going to have anything constructive to say about this, then I'd love to hear from him. However, Mr. Speaker, I expect nothing from him other than a political diatribe. I'm afraid I don't even expect him to listen to me when I talk about the equivalent of a Postwar Rehabilitation Council. I am the designated speaker, and it is because I want to try to persuade the government to do something positive that I am urging them to look at history. Take a page from history and consider the advisability and the importance to British Columbia of doing something constructive for a change. Everything that they have brought into this budget and the attending legislation is destructive.

The Minister of Forests talked about the labour-management climate in the province. The degree of the public reaction and the attention that the legislation and the budget is receiving from many groups in British Columbia, groups that have had nothing to do with politics, people from all over Canada and internationally.... The budget and its attendant legislation will do nothing for diversification; rather it will hurt British Columbia for years and possibly decades to come in the eyes of people all over the world.

Something positive could be done towards diversification. Because I really believe that perhaps one or two over there will listen.... I don't expect a positive reaction now. I don't expect them to vote for this amendment, as much as they should. As much as they may believe that something worthwhile could be done, I don't expect them to support the amendment. But I would urge them to look at this report. Copies of it are in the library. If you don't want to read the report, newspaper stories are in the library telling about the work of this council. You can read the history of the council and its travels around the province by getting a look at the newspapers of the day. You can read about the comments and suggestions that were being made all over the province. You can take a look at the statutes and read the act, chapter 33. It's an act to make provision for advanced planning of rehabilitation measures, industrial reorganization and employment projects designed to meet postwar conditions.

That same act could be brought in today. That was assented to on February 12, 1942. With the exception of the last phrase "postwar conditions, " that same title could be used to bring in a bill today that would get the support of all members in the House, a bill recognizing the importance of doing something in the province of British Columbia to plan for the future, a bill setting up something equivalent to the Postwar Rehabilitation Council.

Section 2 of that act defines the Postwar Rehabilitation Council: "For the purposes of this act there shall be constituted a board of not more than 12 persons, to be called the Postwar Rehabilitation Council" — why not a post-depression rehabilitation council today? — "and the members to be appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council and to hold office during pleasure."

Section 3: "One of the members shall be appointed to be chairman of the council." Naturally, Mr. Speaker. a government member was chairman. "The remuneration of the chairman and of the other members of the council shall be determined by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council." Standard legislation. "The existing or continuing members of the council shall have and may exercise all the powers, duties and functions of the council, notwithstanding any vacancy in the membership thereof." I'm talking about legislation assented to forty-one and a half years ago.

Section 6: "The powers, duties and functions of the council shall be as follows: (a) to form an estimate of the probable number of persons... who will, on the termination of hostilities, be released from the defence forces and become available for and in need of civilian employment in British Columbia." Mr. Speaker, it wouldn't be appropriate to refer to the war today, but we could certainly say in subsection (a): "to form an estimate of the probable number of persons who will become available for and in need of employment in British Columbia." We can arrive at that figure very easily; that would not be a very difficult task for the council.

Subsection (b): "to form an estimate of the number of returned men who already have training that fits them for civilian occupations, and to classify them according to occupations." All we need there is to delete the words "returned men" and make it "men and women."

Subsection (c): "to formulate plans for training so as to fit for civilian occupations such of the returned men as may require, and would be benefited by, such training." Again little change there, Mr. Speaker, other than to make it read "men and women." This government, with the spending plans before us, has threatened, in this time of need, to decrease rather than increase the amount of training available. They have cut back on the community colleges, of all places. People all over the province have access to these community colleges. Some of them have courses that are offered in communities far distant from the actual college facility. There are opportunities for training....

HON. MR. HEWITT: Dave, I should have been asked to speak, you know. See how the light's shining in? I should really have been the next speaker.

[ Page 1018 ]

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, the minister is indicating to me that he's listening, and I do appreciate that.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Is this cause for concern in this House? Are you people concerned? There is a light coming in here that says I should be speaking right now.

AN HON. MEMBER: How can you be in the spotlight and in the dark at the same time?

MR. STUPICH: He says that he is seeing the light shine through. Perhaps he is listening to some of these recommendations from the Postwar Rehabilitation Council.

Subsection (d) says: "to make a survey to estimate to what extent persons will be thrown out of employment by reason of the cessation of war industries in the province." Well, now we should say: "To make a survey to estimate to what extent persons will be thrown out of employment by reasons of the legislation introduced in the House on the day the budget was presented." According to the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot), there are 300,000 people working in the public sector, and the government goal is to reduce that by 25 percent. That would be an easy task for the council on the basis of the government plans.

Subsection (e) says: "to take action (so far as such action may be deemed necessary) similar to that indicated in clauses (a), (b) and (c) in respect of persons thrown out of employment by reason of the cessation of war industries." Now it's not war industries, but certainly people have been thrown out of employment by government action and, in other instances, by government inaction.

[5:30]

Mr. Speaker, listen to this one: "to make a survey of the natural resources and of the industries in the province, and to confer with operators of industries, agriculturists" — contrary to the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland), who left agriculture out altogether; here it receives top billing — 11 organizations of employers, organizations of employees........ .. The Minister of Forests, when he was speaking, blamed all of our economic woes on trade union organizations. In 1943 they recognized that trade union organizations, as well as organizations of employers, might have something useful to contribute, given the opportunity. "... municipal councils and others" — it's a wide scope, Mr. Speaker, with all kinds of opportunity — "with a view to the creation of opportunities for the reinstatement of returned men" — again, remember this is dated — "and of persons displaced by cessation of war industries" — now we're talking about people who are unemployed — "in useful and gainful occupations."

Mr. Speaker, I commend to the government the reports of the Postwar Rehabilitation Council, and urge them, if they really believe in diversification of the province of British Columbia, to take some advice from forty-one and a half years ago and act on it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, pursuant to standing order 45A (2) concerning the budget debate, I must now call the question on the amendment proposed by the hon. member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann), seconded by the hon. first member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson).

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 17

NAYS — 27

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

On the motion.

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I rise under standing order 42(l). Earlier, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) asked leave of the House to speak twice on the main motion, having spoken on an earlier occasion, on July 13, I believe it was. I think the House should be quite prepared to give him that leave.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, that would take a change of our standing orders which I'm not prepared to....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, standing order 42 is quite clear. Those are our rules.

The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs on the same point of order.

HON. MR. HEWITT: The comment made by the House Leader of the opposition indicates the type of opposition they are. I wanted to speak on the amendment, Mr. Speaker, not on the main motion.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. HOWARD: When the minister spoke earlier, I think contrary to what he has just now said, he made specific reference to the fact that he had already spoken and that he had adjourned the debate and then the government moved on to something else, and when it called the budget back he was not here to be able to continue, regretfully. I just suggested that if he wanted to speak, the House should afford him that opportunity. Obviously it was just a ploy....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point is well taken.

MR. REE: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to stand here and speak in support of this budget, which, I think, is an

[ Page 1019 ]

excellent budget for the province. I sat and listened intently to the last speaker in this House, and I had an opportunity to listen to him during the election campaign at an all-candidates meeting. The story has not changed. The fairy story I've heard in this House this afternoon is the same fairy story I heard during the campaign. If the NDP had been in government, they would have spent the people's money lavishly on all types of activities. We would have new steel mills built. In fact, as far as steel mills are concerned, they have dreamt that so often, they now honestly believe they heard a story that someone would build it in this province.

How could anybody in his right mind in this time and place and country, in North America and in this world, be building a steel mill when we have steel mills going out of business around the world? I believe steel factories are now operating at about 35 to 40 percent capacity. There is adequate capacity for the production of steel. There just is not the demand for it. But that is the sort of enterprise the opposition party would institute — the same as building or rebuilding the car plant in Squamish. Railway car plants in Canada and in the United States are likewise operating at only 35 to 40 percent of capacity, yet during the election campaign we had promises that this is the type of business that the NDP would get into: in order to create jobs they would build railway cars.

MR. LAUK: Why are we going ahead with northeast coal?

MR. REE: To the second member for Vancouver Centre, northeast coal is proceeding under existing contracts for coal, and it's the private sector that is doing it. The government is supporting only the infrastructure; it is the private sector that is developing the coal plant. The public sector is not building and developing it, nor will it be mining the coal. Your comparison with respect to the railway cars would be analogous to having the government build the railway cars, which you did during 1972 to 1975. At that time you could not sell the cars.

As far as northeast coal is concerned, and contrary to the suggestion of, I believe, the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) that there is no diversity in developing northeast coal when we have southeast coal.... It's the buyers of the coal who are looking for diversity of production because they do not wish to be under the control of one supplier out of Australia.

Interjections.

[5:45]

MR. REE: I'm talking about Australia.

At any rate, they would spend the taxpayers' money on these enterprises, with no opportunity for success at this time and in this place. Maybe at a time in the future a steel plant will be successful, and desirable, in British Columbia, but certainly not now. The market is not there for its product, and existing producers are running at considerably less than 50 percent of capacity.

Mr. Speaker, in the hope that I might have an opportunity to speak tomorrow, I move adjournment of the debate until the next sitting of the House,

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:46 p.m.