[ Page 2969 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Finance estimates. (Hon. Mr. Curtis)

On vote 34: minister's office –– 2969

Mr. Howard

Mrs. Wallace

Mr. Blencoe

Mr. Davis

Mr. Cocke

Mr. Lauk

Mr. Skelly

Tabling Documents –– 2980

TUESDAY, JANUARY 31, 1984

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to take this opportunity to introduce to members of the House my new executive assistant, Mr. Mickey Perret, who is in the gallery along with my secretary, Mrs. Joan Burleau. I'd like the House to welcome Mr. Perret to his new job.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I would say that over the years a number of members have made some quite cogent observations about the lack of light in this assembly, perhaps for reasons other than electric, but this morning we seem to have it a little bit differently with the electricity of the lights. Perhaps you could find somebody to put an appropriate finger on a button to increase it slightly.

Orders of the Day

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(continued)

On vote 34: minister's office, $172,432.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, last evening I was engaged in talking about the Public Accounts Committee and the examination of government expenditures. It seems to me we are always too far behind times in that examination. Attendant upon introduction of the budget, the Minister of Finance brings in a motion that refers the preceding fiscal year's public accounts to thePublic Accounts Committee. At the very best, that means we are examining the expenditures of more than a year ago. We are always sort of behind the times on that.

In this modern day and age, with electronic gadgetry ahold of all the things we do, the Ministry of Finance is able to produce, within five or six weeks following the end of a particular quarter, a quarterly report about incomes and expenditures of government over that preceding quarter. Obviously somebody has tabulated the expenditures, looked at the vouchers and said: "What is the total of all cheques that have been written, and what have they been written for?" They have also tabulated the levels of income over that particular period of a quarter. Instead of, or in addition to, going back more than a year on examination of public accounts, I am going to suggest that the Public Accounts Committee be authorized to examine the quarterly reports, and the vouchers attendant upon those reports, as soon as the report is made public. In other words, the Legislature would then, through thePublic Accounts Committee, whether or not the House was sitting.... It would need to have authority to sit while the House is not sitting. That's not under the jurisdiction of the minister, Mr. Chairman, but I throw it in as a necessary explanation of what would have to occur.

The Public Accounts Committee would then be dealing with matters on a current basis and not on an historic basis of expenditure activities of the preceding fiscal year, at the very best. Sometimes, depending on when the budget is presented, it may be a year and a half or up to two years after the actual expenditures have taken place, and really is not germane to current things. I'm sure it is not beyond the capabilities of the Ministry of Finance to be able to provide the Public Accounts Committee.... And this is apart from what I was talking about yesterday: the restrictions that exist. That's another matter that can be dealt with in another context. But it should be within the capacity of the Ministry of Finance to be able to say as soon as the quarterly reports for the current fiscal year are available and made public....

The minister said that's usually within five to six weeks after the end of the quarter. It should then be possible for representatives of the general public — that is, MLAs who are on thePublic Accounts Committee — to have access to the documentation about those expenditures.

We would then be moving into the current age and taking full advantage, on behalf of the general public, of the electronic wizardry and gadgetry that exist with computers and the like — providing to the general public, as quickly as we possibly can, and as soon after the event as is possible, an explanation of the expenditures. I urge the minister to look at that. I'm sure it can be done without a great deal of difficulty. Bring that to the attention of the government as an alternative to the present antiquated and obsolete method, which really doesn't satisfy too many people when we are dealing with current matters. To go back two years and say "What did we do two years ago?" seems sort of out of whack with the demands of today.

[10:15]

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I am subject to correction, but I think that is a topic which could be discussed by the Public Accounts Committee, possibly with the auditor-general. I recognize that what I am about to say would prompt the member to say: "That was all right years ago." But a fairly lengthy process is involved, and I'm informed that it is about January, around the start of the calendar year, that the audited public accounts for the year, which are then presented to thePublic Accounts Committee through this House, are made available by the auditor-general. Whether the auditor-general can accelerate that process....

I appreciate and acknowledge that it is not solely attributable to the auditor-general. The delay is not exclusively to be found in that office and I wouldn't want the committee to misunderstand me. The quarterly report is not audited by the auditor-general. It is a document produced by the Ministry of Finance and the respective Crown corporations to provide as much up-to-date information as we can, not only to members of this House but to the people of the province. If there is some opportunity for accelerating that process, then I think the Public Accounts Committee could discuss that. I believe it would be within their mandate to review that and to bring recommendations back to the House. I have no fundamental objection. But I do caution the committee that the public accounts as presented are finally and fully audited by the auditor-general. I wonder if the Public Accounts Committee would not find it somewhat difficult to be dealing with unaudited accounts. But I have no philosophical or hard-nosed resistance to that which the member has spoken of.

MR. HOWARD: I may not appreciate fully the complexity of accounting and bookkeeping and what's necessary, but it seems to me that an audit as done by an auditor, or by the

[ Page 2970 ]

auditor-general in this case, looks at the totality of things and says: "Are the accounts kept accurately? Is this happening properly? Does it all add up?" When the audited public accounts for the fiscal year are referred to thePublic Accounts Committee, the committee generally does two things: it has as a witness the auditor-general to talk, usually, about the general picture; it also takes the course of examining specific vouchers for which expenditures are authorized.

I wasn't talking about the audited position of the public accounts, but the opportunity on a current basis for the committee to have access to the documentation authorizing the expenditure. They are two separate things. When the formal, lengthy process of auditing is completed.... A previousPublic Accounts Committee did examine this in a superficial way, I think, but it did examine the possibility of dealing with current fiscal year matters as distinct from or in addition to those which had been referred by the House for the preceding fiscal year. That information was provided, I believe, by the comptroller-general's office. I'm not sure whether it was that or the auditor-general. But that time-frame was provided to the committee, that it took that length of time to get matters all sorted out, to get the final thing audited and sanctioned as approved as an audited account by the auditor-general.

But I'm putting that to one side and saying that access to the foundation for expenditures — the vouchers, the authentication for that expenditure — should be made on an immediate or forthwith basis, which doesn't deny the committee the opportunity to look at and examine the auditor-general about the total picture when that is available. I'm saying separate the two. If the quarterly reports are the subject matter of referral to the committee and they are not audited, obviously the committee could not call the auditor-general as a witness about that particular quarterly report, and if they did, the auditor-general would obviously say: "This is unaudited; I can make no comment about it." That would be quite the proper thing for the auditor-general to say and to do, and the committee would have to accept that. I would think that the committee would have enough sense not to demand or insist upon the auditor-general's commenting upon a document which is not audited, but they would have access to the vouchers of expenditure. That's my interest in this regard.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the member's clarifying the point he made earlier. I misunderstood him in that one context.

The books for any given year are closed in approximately May following the fiscal year. The interim statements, which are unaudited, appear in the late summer or fall in the Financial and Economic Review, the document to which I referred yesterday, and with which all members are familiar. Then the process of auditing by the auditor-general will have commenced and again continues until December or January.

I would look to others to comment, but it seems to me that a change in the process of viewing vouchers for a given year could well be addressed by thePublic Accounts Committee with a recommendation which would come to this House. I would be reluctant to usurp the legislative authority assigned to the auditor-general with respect to vouchers, prior to the....

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Nor could I, I believe the House Leader interjected.

We have appointed an auditor-general to review, to the extent that she considers necessary and appropriate in the fulfilment of her mandate given by this Legislature, and as we discuss it I would think that it would be very awkward for the auditor-general to be answering questions which would inevitably be posed by the Public Accounts Committee on specific expenditures which she or her staff have not yet finally reviewed. But insofar as the Public Accounts and Economic Affairs Committee wants to examine ways in which the process can be accelerated and improved, then I would think that is in the committee's power.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, the comments of the minister simply reflect an attitude that if you don't want to do something, you can find all sorts of reasons not to do it. All I'm asking is that they examine the possibilities of doing it, and I ask why can it not be done instead of saying: "Here are all the difficulties we have to deal with." That's all I'm asking for. There is nothing to stop the Public Accounts Committee from looking at the possibility. I was hoping we would get from the minister a general agreement of thought without approving the thought or the idea. It does seem rather awkward when you put forward an idea that immediately makes everybody on the other side grope for reasons why it can't be done, instead of examining the possibilities of doing it.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I will undertake to discuss this point with the auditor-general. She can then communicate with me and with the chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, a member representing the official opposition. I think the bottom line is that we are obliged to ensure that the auditor-general is comfortable with any change in procedure. I shall raise it in writing with her and ask for a response.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 34 pass? On vote 34, the Member for Cowichan-Malahat.

MRS. WALLACE: I don't wish to deal with any real specifics under this particular estimate, but I do want to take this opportunity to deal generally with the financial direction of the government and to do it under this minister's estimates, because after all he is the chief financial officer of the government and the man charged with doling out the taxpayers' dollars to the various ministries which form the government. In that context I want to make a few general observations and perhaps issue a word of warning to the minister.

During the years when the present Premier was Leader of the Opposition, he coined the phrase, "Not a dime without debate." We still hear it, but it has become utterly meaningless in today's context. Here we are on the last day of January — the day, incidentally, when the government runs out of interim supply....

HON. MR. GARDOM: How do you know?

MRS. WALLACE: We passed a bill, Mr. House Leader, that took you through until January 31.

The great percentage of the money that we're talking about today is already expended. The tax measures that have raised the money which the government says it needs have been in force for ten months in the main. Some of them didn't go into force until July 7 because of the lateness of the budget,

[ Page 2971 ]

but some of those were retroactive. So it is certainly in a strange atmosphere that doesn't compare one iota to the "not a dime without debate" concept that was proclaimed so loudly and for so long when that government was in opposition.

MR. SKELLY: It's no longer operative.

MRS. WALLACE: Yes, you're right.

I think I would like to draw to the minister's attention the results of his financial policies. Although that minister may not want to take responsibility for, say, the problems that are being faced in the ministries of Education, Health, the Attorney-General and others, the very fact that he is the holder of the purse-strings and restricts the money that goes to those areas makes him just as responsible or more responsible than the minister who may make the actual decision as to what particular spending pattern his ministry is going to follow, because if you don't have the money you can't spend it. It's the Minister of Finance who is responsible for doling out that money, so I think that minister has to take that responsibility.

We've heard a lot about the need to restrain our spending, to hold ourselves back, to be very careful with our funds and to try and keep taxes down — all those kinds of things. Do you know, Mr. Chairman, what is happening out there? The people whose children are being deprived of the right to an adequate education are beginning to squirm a little bit. They're beginning to realize that it's as a result of this government's fiscal policies that their children are not able to get the proper training, or the proper help if they need special education because of being disadvantaged.

[10:30]

I think we have the highest unemployment among young people ever in British Columbia; yet there is a curtailment of opportunity for those young people to advance their education when they can't get work. We find tuition fees going up. We find the number of admissions being reduced. Those things are all a direct result of the policies of the Minister of Finance. People are becoming very concerned about this, Mr. Chairman. They find that they are on long waiting lists for health care, and other facilities have been cut or reduced, and they are beginning to realize that it's not the local hospital board, that it's not really the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen), but it's this government.

[Interruption. ]

The sun has risen; the lights are on. That's great! Maybe now, with all that brilliance, some of these arguments will be seen over there. Yes, maybe even that government and that minister will begin to be able to see what I'm talking about.

We've seen some very short-sighted fiscal policies. The bottom line is the thing that people are concerned with. Certainly the lack of opportunities in education and lack of admissions in health care are going to be more costly in the long haul. We're building up an unseen and unaccounted deficit today that we will have to face tomorrow, and that's in addition to the most extensive borrowing that this province has ever undertaken. Every week I get the minister's little notes telling me that he has borrowed another $60 million. We the taxpayers are beginning to realize that the interest on that, as well as the principal, is going to have to be paid back somewhere down the road.

Certainly with the lack of funding in the ministry of the Attorney-General we could go through a multitude of things, but one of the gravest errors of that minister's way — it has to be that minister, because he's the one that has reduced the amount of money that the Attorney-General has to provide the services.... Yesterday we heard about the problems with legal aid and help for the Status of Women.

I'm concerned about what we are doing as far as young offenders are concerned. The minister is going to review the Victoria young offenders program in March. The money is going to come from the Minister of Finance. Will that Minister of Finance be prepared to assure the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith) that those young offenders will have these kinds of services, or is he going to say no, with the result that we then come to a spot where we are paying $40,000 a year to keep those people in prison? Those are the kinds of....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I must now remind all members of the committee that we have digressed to some degree and we have accepted a lot of latitude. But we are discussing the estimates of the Minister of Finance; we must discuss the administrative actions of that ministry only. Other estimates are yet to come, and I'm sure all hon. members of the committee are aware of that. Items that might be better dealt with by another minister should be dealt with during those estimates and not during the estimates of the Minister of Finance. If we could relate our remarks and be relevant in Committee of Supply to the administrative actions of the minister, then the committee will be well served.

MRS. WALLACE: With due respect, Mr. Chairman, the administrative actions of the Minister of Finance relate very closely to what I'm talking about. They relate to tight-fisted financial programs today with long-term costs that are inestimable for future generations. I have simply drawn three or four very quick examples as to how that is the case. The reason I have done it is that if there is any purpose in debating estimates at this time of year, after they are five-sixths spent, it surely has to be to try to encourage that Minister of Finance in preparation of his budget next year to change his direction, to see the error of his ways, to recognize that the costs of this kind of policy on which the government has embarked are far more extensive than would be some programs today to avoid those costs in future. The old adage: an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Another adage is that if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. I think that that has also been very definitely demonstrated. We've seen — back last summer when the House was still in session, I'm sure some of these quotes were used — that restraint is part of the problem, not the solution; that Statistics Canada has reported that incomes are being squeezed and there are worrisome signs that could choke off economic recovery. This is Phil Cross of Statistics Canada, who is saying: "In 1982-83 labour income as a whole grew only by 3 percent, while inflation was at 6.6 percent." When you take that money out of the economy, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Minister of Finance, you are becoming part of the problem because you are restricting the ability to stimulate the economy when incomes fall behind.

George Pedersson, a Vancouver economist — and this is an August quote; he's a consultant for Pemberton, Houston and Willoughby — has indicated that this budget that we're talking about now and this Minister of Finance's estimates for 1982-83 have hampered the economy.

[ Page 2972 ]

The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. McClelland) is in the House. One of his own officials in a report within his ministry has indicated the same thing: that the government's programs have reduced the likelihood of the economy turning around. Statistics have been quoted in this House earlier in this debate which have indicated that the economy in B.C. is lagging behind the rest of Canada. If you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem, Mr. Minister.

I guess my advice to you is to change your direction, to bring in a budget for 1984-85 that will reflect that kind of thinking and recognize that we have to take some action now rather than delay and retrench to the point that the economy spirals further and further downward. The warning is that public opinion out there is beginning to recognize this, and if there's enough pressure put on the Premier, you may well find yourself out of a job, Mr. Minister. That's the habit with this government: when they get into a problem, they simply try to put the blame on someone. And who better than the Minister of Finance, who is responsible for all these programs? He's not really one of "them"; his background is a Conservative background. It would be very easy to make him the fall guy. That may well happen, Mr. Minister, and I would suggest that you change your direction, look to the thinking out there and start B.C. on a road to recovery, rather than further down the tube — which is exactly where we're going under the policies you've been advocating.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, very briefly, I heard the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace), particularly with respect to her latter remarks on the fiscal policies of the government. I am compelled to observe, as you did a few moments ago, that I believe it is inappropriate to discuss expenditures or proposed expenditures by other ministries under this vote or the votes of the Ministry of Finance. The administrative responsibilities of the ministry are quite clearly identified.

If the theory advanced by the member for Cowichan-Malahat at the outset of her remarks were followed to its ultimate conclusion, then you would have two or three votes. One would be legislation, one would be the estimates of the Premier, and the other the estimates of the Minister of Finance. I don't believe any member of this House would like to move to that particular model. I certainly would not. Ministers of any government at any given time are responsible to answer for the expenditures within the ministry for which they are responsible, and to respond to criticism in the traditional way. I don't intend to respond to comments with respect to an expenditure in this ministry, that ministry and another ministry, but I note what the member has said in general terms.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point is well taken. Hon. members, the Journals will show that we have had adequate opportunity to discuss the budget in the House. We are now in Committee of Supply, and dealing with the estimates of the Minister of Finance; if we can be relevant to that particular department, the committee will be well served.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, right from the start I would like to direct a very pertinent question to the minister pertaining to the overall provincial debt. Figures do get bandied about and no one is quite sure exactly what the total provincial debt stands at. I have done some calculations, Mr. Minister, that show the total provincial debt, as of January 24, 1984, standing at $15.3 billion. Perhaps the minister could comment upon this astronomical figure. Does he have any figures which show a lesser amount, or even more? I think it would be useful this morning for the minister to comment about the overall provincial debt. It is one that concerns not only British Columbians, but deeply concerns financiers across North America and, of course, major investment opportunities for our province.

My first question is: could we have some discussion of the overall provincial debt by the Minister of Finance?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I would refer the member to the last quarterly report issued following....

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Unaudited; nonetheless, I think reasonably accurate. The last quarterly report for the six months ending September 30.

I disagree with the member, and I'm sure he will have views in response. I meet regularly with investment bankers in Canada and the United States, and from Europe, and I do not detect the concern which the member alluded to just a few moments ago. Quite the contrary. I think the majority recognize the undertakings made by this government in managing its direct debt and debt of Crown corporations. I'm very satisfied, and can so assure the committee, that the view of those who examine sovereign credits around the world is one of confidence in British Columbia, and one of confidence in our policies through this very difficult period of an extremely bad recession.

I think the numbers that the member seeks are shown in part on page 10, as well as on other pages, of the quarterly report. I will, when this House considers it appropriate, be able to report more specifically and on a more up-to-date basis with respect to the debt of the province, projected revenues and expenditure of the province in something called a budget. I trust that will be happening this spring.

[10:45]

MR. BLENCOE: So I can assume, or presume, by the minister's answer that he really is not arguing with my particular figures this morning: that close to $15 billion is the current provincial debt. It's a figure, I think, that is not generally known in the province of British Columbia, given that there always appears to be the public perception that the Social Credit Party is a good manager of taxpayers' money. It would appear that we are in somewhat serious problems with the finances of this province. I would also add, again, that the provincial debt has quadrupled in nearly eight years — somewhat of a mammoth task, I would say, by any government, but it has been achieved.

So I would again ask the minister if perhaps he will reflect on what some credited and respected economists are saying about British Columbia in terms of its ability to see a recovery take place. The minister says that in his estimation there is trust and faith in the financial institutions in North America and that British Columbia is on the way. Yet — and maybe the minister can comment upon this — there have been a number of very learned ladies and gentlemen who have commented in the last few months on B.C.'s recovery.

Let me very briefly say this, Mr. Chairman, preceding my question to the minister. In January of this year the Bank of Montreal financial experts predicted that recovery in B.C.

[ Page 2973 ]

will continue to lag behind the rest of Canada throughout 1984. Indeed, according to Mr. George Neal, a well-known economist and certainly not a progressive economist in terms of some of the economic structures we would say would bring the economy back, but a gentleman who perhaps would be more akin to this current government's philosophy, is basically saying that the recovery that was predicted by the minister in his budget is not taking place. Indeed, the opposite is happening. I'd like the minister to comment about that kind of discussion brought forth by the Bank of Montreal.

I now refer to the Employers' Council of British Columbia. "British Columbia," it says, "is facing another year of slow growth." In a study that was released the council predicts that the B.C. economy will only grow by 2.8 percent, well below the national average of 3.3 percent which was forecast by the Conference Board of Canada. The council sees the jobs in B.C. rising only 1.7 percent, while unemployment is only marginally down from close to 14 percent. The council is pessimistic about the outlook. Even Mr. Matkin says that the predictions for the B.C. economy, despite what the minister and this government say about their policies, predicted by the minister are nowhere in sight. As a matter of fact, the opposite appears to have happened in terms of the statistics that are being put forward by those who keep such statistics.

Another three B.C. economists made a very important statement in the Vancouver Sun on January 10, 1984. Mr. George Pedersson and Richard McAlary said that B.C. lags behind the rest of North America on the road to recovery. These economists are highly regarded and highly respected, not only in British Columbia but I think in Canada as a whole. Mr. McAlary said he could not consider the B.C. economy back on its feet as long as the unemployment rate remains in the 14 percent range.

Other concerns, of course, have to be the uncertainty that pervades the B.C. economy, and, therefore, the uncertainty that pervades the financial world in North America, about the reaction and the attitude of the last budget and the minister's policies. Back in November it was stated that less than six months ago Canada's major banks were predicting a rosy future for British Columbia. However, they have now changed that opinion and believe that because of the incredible rise in bankruptcies and the continuing rise in unemployment, particularly in the young age level, the predictions by the minister that the economic recovery was on the way in this province have not transpired and the province is in deeper water.

In light of what he said back in the middle of last year, can the minister comment on his budget and his policies being a panacea for this province? Can he comment about the comments made by such learned professional economists? I think it would be useful. Perhaps the minister would say that maybe there were some mistakes made. Maybe there has to be a different tack taken this year if indeed all British Columbians are to participate in what appears to be an economic recovery that is virtually illusion, Mr. Chairman. Perhaps the minister could comment about that.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, yesterday we discussed at some length — I don't know if the member was in his seat; I'm sure he was in the building — the variety of forecasts for economic growth in Canada and in British Columbia. I think we spent a fair amount of time on that. I recognize that economists are going to have varying points of view; that is of particular assistance to a government and to those who are interested in the health of a province or a region or a nation. When I spoke with Mr. McAlary most recently — and I have conversations with him from time to time — I think his latest number for economic growth in British Columbia in 1984 was in the vicinity of 3.5 percent. Yes, there are those who will forecast lower numbers and higher numbers. I hope I will have the opportunity in two or three or four weeks of laying out in greater detail for members of this House precisely how we view the short- and medium-term future of the province of British Columbia and the financial health of its people.

MR. BLENCOE: I know it's very difficult for the Finance minister and for anybody in government to admit that perhaps the course they took was a little too dramatic and a little sheer. It impacted on the economy to the point where very little has happened in terms of economic development in this province. However, it might be useful if the minister could perhaps be candid enough with this House and the people of British Columbia that the statistics before us — and I will give some of them again in a minute, in terms of unemployment and bankruptcies — do show that in British Columbia we are ahead in these areas. We are the leading province in the country in unemployment and bankruptcies. That has to have some impact and must make the minister and his cabinet colleagues reflect on their policies.

For instance, unemployment. Let's go back, to October 1983 — that was a number of months after the budget came down — when the unemployment figure in Canada was 11.1 percent; in British Columbia it was 13.5 percent. The number of bankruptcies, I think, is a telling figure in terms of what's happening to business, particularly small business in our province. From October 1982 to October 1983 bankruptcies in Canada fell by 21.6 percent; in B.C. they grew by 8.4 percent. From January 1983 to October 1983 bankruptcies in Canada fell by 11.3 percent; in British Columbia they were up by an astronomical 37 percent. That's got to send a message to the minister and to the government that perhaps they really should review their policies.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Again, I know it's difficult for any government to admit that perhaps there were some wrong decisions made or that they went a little too far. But given the statistics, particularly in the bankruptcy area, with B.C. up 37 percent between January 1983 and October 1983, does that not give you some concern about your policies? I know you may not wish to comment, but can you give us any indication that you will be bringing in some policy that may start to reverse that very unfortunate trend in the province of British Columbia?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend today, or for so long as my estimates are before the committee, to indicate what I propose to be advanced in the budget for the 1984-85 fiscal year.

The member has spoken of two or three indicators which are of concern to any thinking British Columbian. But also I think the member will understand and admit that in terms of employment we reached the depth of this particular measurement in mid-1982. We see that employment in British Columbia in 1983 was just fractionally below that of 1982. We

[ Page 2974 ]

have an employment forecast for 1984 which is stated in the positive, and which may well be exceeded once the impact of the forthcoming budget is digested and analyzed by the people of the province. The other side of the employment question, unemployment, has been debated at length in this House. If I heard him indicate that ours is the worst in the country, I would suggest that that is not the case. It is not an unemployment percentage in which I can take particular satisfaction, but I am encouraged by the likelihood that we shall see improvement through 1984 — probably not dramatic improvement, but on the right side of the ledger and with indication that it will continue into 1985. The recovery is occurring. As I indicated before, it is perhaps not occurring as rapidly at this moment as it was in the first half of calendar 1983, but I believe it is more a pause than a structural change in the economy of the province. I will be providing the House with a variety of data at a more appropriate time.

[11:00]

MR. DAVIS: The hon. member opposite is being very selective in his use of statistics. I note that he is quoting private sector sources which he says are currently pessimistic. He wasn't reporting them last year when, as he said, they were more optimistic.

I also want to comment on his reference to the debt of the province. If it is in fact in the order of $15 billion, some $12 billion is due to the operations of Crown corporations. The remainder of $3 billion is due to several recent budget deficits — in other words, on operating account. I would assume that as good socialists, they would have us operating more Crown corporations like B.C. Hydro, B.C. Ferries, B.C. Systems Corporation, etc. If they had been in power, the capital debt of the province would have been many times the current capital debt. It would be substantially higher. I think that it's at the very least facetious to comment on the capital debt as being inordinate, unusual or exceptional. In socialist countries it is many times the debt of this province because more private sectors in this province would be in the public domain. So the $12 billion figure, which can perhaps be criticized on the grounds that Ontario Hydro has expanded facilities too rapidly, cannot be criticized on the basis that socialistic activities of that nature are peculiar or unique to British Columbia.

MR. LAUK: What country?

MR. DAVIS: Take Sweden, for example. Take any country in which industry is more highly socialized or owned by the government.

Had the socialists — and they admit the socialist approach, obviously — done it, the $12 billion debt would have been much higher. Let's take the current operating deficit of the order of $3 billion. The members opposite time after time have advocated more spending in the people program areas. They're always asking for greater expenditures and are occasionally critical of more taxation. They would have run greater deficits in recent years. The current $3 billion current operating deficit figure would have been much higher. I think it's two-faced. It's inappropriate for members opposite to be critical of the debt of this province.

MR. COCKE: I thought that I might put off my discussion with the Minister of Finance until the next budget, but he is clutching at straws, and then that resolute member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) got up and gave us some marvellous statistics for an engineer. He talked about Sweden. Sweden has less nationalization than most countries in the world. That member knows it if he knows anything about Sweden. Sweden has a planned economy, but their economy and their businesses are owned by the private sector.

It is interesting that the member supports this government of nationalization. It nationalized the only two corporations in this province that have ever been nationalized: the B.C. Electric, which became B.C. Hydro, and the Black Ball Ferries, which became B.C. Ferries. Nobody is going to argue about those particular nationalizations. They were not fairly done, but you couldn't expect that. The fact of the matter is that since this little group has become the government, it has set up the B.C. Systems Corporation and the B.C. Buildings Corporation. It's had a marvellous time. All it does is duck behind their corporations. That is where the debt is. This piddling bit of debt that we've got right now in terms of operating is nothing to what we would have if we had kept the public service in charge of the public buildings, for instance. But no. We have moved it into a Crown corporation. It is the same with the ferries. Their operating costs used to be paid on a regular basis; now, of course, they're out there as a Crown corporation. I don't know why that member jumped up and made the points that he did, but they were pretty hollow, to say the least. I suggest this, since I'm on my feet. I keep hearing the minister saying: "When we get to the next budget, then we're going to discuss how things are going to improve in this province." We saw what your last budget did to this province, and God forbid the next one is going to have those same characteristics.

We see, for instance, in a national magazine, this week's Maclean's.... Where do they go to find the breadline? They come all the way to British Columbia for their picture. They didn't find it in Toronto, in Nova Scotia, in Newfoundland. They found it here in this province, and much more the shame to this government, who have taken advice from that game-playing bunch, Poleconomy babies, down at the Fraser Institute, who are an absolute sham in connection with proper economic theory and certainly proper economic policy. That's the government that clutched the Fraser Institute to their breasts, that took us down the road to "recovery." This is the kind of recovery that we've got out of them; this is what the Fraser Institute and this government stand for. A government that's taken us down the tube. Not the laughing-stock of Canada — who would ever laugh at so horrendous a situation? — but the shame of this country nonetheless. And they get up and make fatuous comments like the member for North Vancouver–Seymour about those terrible socialists and what shape this province would be in if we had been government. I'll tell you something: we wouldn't have all this unemployment. We would have a vibrant economy compared to what you've got, compared to this bunch of people who know nothing at all about planning or progress. Long-term planning for the Bennett government, for the Socreds, is two and a half weeks: if we can just get by the next two and a half weeks, we've got it made.

I heard a remark yesterday that pretty well characterizes that group. The member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) was talking about a need for a debate on that town that has been absolutely devastated by government policy. And what did the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) say? He said what they have up there is a political crisis — sitting in his

[ Page 2975 ]

chair. If he admits that it's a political decision because they have elected a member from the New Democratic Party, then shame on them for eternity. If they've ruined one of B.C.'s oldest and finest towns for political reasons — and he said it's a political crisis, I didn't — then shame on that bunch.

I'm looking forward to the next budget just to see if there's anything that might stimulate the economy, but I don't want the Minister of Finance jumping up and down here saying that we shouldn't be saying a word about this budget and what it has done to the economy. The fact of the matter is, it could have been all over a long time ago had we had any kind of satisfaction, without a long recess and all the rest of it. Now we're back, and certainly the proof of this pudding is in the eating: it's a pretty lean, meagre pudding.

So, Mr. Chairman, having said that, I suggest that we don't get any more of this talk about how marvellously we're going to do because of the advice we've had from the Fraser Institute. It carried us right down the tube. Clutching those people to your bosoms is like clutching an adder. You know, they bite. The trouble is, they don't bite them.

Oh, the Premier sits there and laughs and smiles, but the Premier doesn't laugh and smile if he has any kind of conscience about what's going on in this province. This province is in tough shape because of your misguided policy. It's always been and always will be misguided, because you seek your advice from the wrong people. Too bad for us, not for you.

MR. LAUK: I notice the member for Vancouver-Seymour (Mr. Davis) has vacated the House. Whenever the member stands in his place the truth shudders for fear of what is going to happen to it. Indeed, the member invariably uses statistics in the most elastic and uncomfortable way — uncomfortable, that is to say, from the point of view of accuracy. He said that debt in democratic socialist countries far exceeds debt here, which is a totally false and inaccurate statement.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: The Premier says: "What's the debt in the Soviet Union?" I would think that he would have more access to his totalitarian brothers than we would, and he should know those figures very well.

It would seem, Mr. Chairman, that the member for North Vancouver–Seymour does not do his research; he's a gentleman who hides behind this facade of research and elaboration in his speeches. Yet obviously throughout the course of events in the last several years in this chamber we have heard time and time again, and we have seen demonstrated, how a man can be educated far beyond his capacity to understand. The misstatement made to couch his rhetoric against the social democratic philosophy of this party gives a clear demonstration of the tactics that the Social Credit Party use in attacking another party's point of view. The tactics are misstatements and rhetoric rather than using facts. Whenever that is done, members in this House should rise, and will rise, to correct these people and eventually try and set the record straight so that these propagandists hiding behind the "brazen institute," and other propaganda-like outfits have to be called to question for their misstatements of information in and outside of this chamber.

[11:15]

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, I didn't expect such a reaction from the member, who has now left the chamber, on the government side. When I was asking questions about the debt, I was just trying to ascertain if the Minister of Finance had some accurate figures to give this House. Obviously when one states certain information that is apparently quite correct, it gets a reaction from the government side, and the truth does indeed hurt: we have over a $15 billion provincial debt in British Columbia. He says that if we were in government it would be far worse.

I would again remind that side of the House that when we were in government we left the provincial debt at $4.4 billion. That was a total debt of 104 years of all provincial governments, including your father, Mr. Premier. Since 1975 you have wound up, through your mismanagement and not seeing the recession coming and heeding the words of learned economists that you should start to take some serious measures to control your spending.... We now end up, Mr. Minister and Mr. Premier, with a total provincial debt of over $15 billion — quadrupled in eight years. There aren't many governments that have done that, and basically it's because you did not heed the warnings. You continued to spend on pet projects that have got this province into serious problems, and we see no indication by the Finance minister what his strategy is to remove that debt off the backs of British Columbians in the next few years. There is no strategy in this province on economic planning. Certainly there's no strategy in terms of removing that debt and eradicating it as quickly as possible.

I might also add, Mr. Minister, that when we were in government we had the best record in many a year of debt servicing.

AN HON. MEMBER: Baloney!

MR. BLENCOE: The facts are there; the figures are there, and if they want me to I will indeed table those figures.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I would remind you that there is a Chairman in the House.

MR. BLENCOE: The truth, my hon. friends across the chamber — and you know the truth, and the minister knows the truth — is that you have done an incredible job, beyond the expectations of any economist who tries to give you advice. You have quadrupled this debt in the province of British Columbia in eight years. That's a serious reflection on Social Credit policies and your apparent ability, as you say, and you tell everybody that you know how to manage dollars.... In 104 years of all governments in British Columbia the debt was only $4 billion in 1975. That's a fact. That's reality. That's the truth. What you have done, under this minister, is build the debt to over S15 billion. When everybody else was taking heed of what was happening in North America and in the western world in terms of the economy, you did not cut back; you continued to spend, to deficit finance and build it up, and you have gone far beyond expectations in terms of a government trying to keep an economy rolling.

So that's the issue and that's why the government and that minister reacted: because he knows, and the Minister of Finance knows, that that's a reality he has to deal with.

[ Page 2976 ]

Hopefully, Mr. Chairman, the minister will deal with that in this next budget. He will bring forth a package of recovery and economic planning — maybe a three-year or four-year proposal that will show how he is going to eradicate this debt.

I would like to leave that particular issue and ask some questions about a local Crown corporation that I think is very important to this area: British Columbia Systems Corporation. I believe the minister is responsible for this particular Crown corporation. Because there is some haze and doubt about the status of this Crown corporation, I wonder if the minister would relate to this House what exactly the government is selling. Is it the buildings alone? Is it the buildings and the equipment? And what plans has he or the government for the employees in that particular Crown corporation? Perhaps the minister can give us the background as to the state of the B.C. Systems Corporation.

HON. MR. CURTIS: With respect to the British Columbia Systems Corporation, all business activities of that corporation are available for proposals from organizations and interested groups. Incidentally, today is the closing day for receipt of proposals, but I would tell the committee that one should not expect, within a matter of one or two weeks, any specific announcement with regard to the ultimate disposition of that corporation. It will take many weeks to review the complex proposals which I believe are forthcoming. Then we will be in a position to make a report.

With respect to the employees, there is the law and there is the contractual arrangement with the employees, both of which obviously are to be taken into account.

The member spoke on two occasions this morning regarding the direct and guaranteed debt of the province, and I would refer him to Table H-2 of the 1983 budget document. I think it is time we put to rest some of the allegations which have been made regarding debt in the province of British Columbia. If one looks at Table H-2 one will see that from 1971 to 1983 the debt, as a percentage of gross provincial product, is virtually identical; that is, the net direct and guaranteed debt. In 1971 it was 27.4 percent, as a percentage of GPP, and in 1983 in the budget, with admittedly some minor variation by the time the year is closed off, it is 27.3 percent. I will be speaking about that in greater detail later. Interest expenditure for 1983-84, the fiscal year coming to a close, represents 1.8 percent of total provincial spending, compared to 0.3 percent in 1982-83.

By comparison, Mr. Chairman, it might be of interest to the committee to note that the federal government allocated 21 percent of its expenditure to debt service charges in 1982-83, and 19.8 percent in 1983-84. If we are to debate the seriousness of debt as it affects British Columbians as residents of Canada, then I think we could have a far more productive debate with respect to the magnitude of the federal debt, which has grown so dramatically in the last little while. So I speak of net direct debt: 1971, 27.4 percent, 1983 estimated, 27.3 percent. That takes into account the severity of the recession from which we are now emerging.

MR. BLENCOE: It still does not escape the fact, Mr. Minister, that we have a very serious provincial debt in this province, and it is not being dealt with. You can give all the figures and say the federal government is far worse, but you should take care of your own back yard and not turn to somebody else to say they are worse or whatever. Take care of your own backyard, because what you have done in eight years really is quite scandalous in terms of financial management in any private or public sector, and that's a fact, Mr. Minister.

Interjections.

MR. BLENCOE: I was trying to ask a few questions about the B.C. Systems....

Interjections.

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

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, I was trying to ask some questions about the B.C. Systems Corporation, and I take it from the minister's lack of response that both building and equipment are for sale. Correct? Okay.

Mr. Minister, one of the concerns, of course, is the current debt of the B.C. Systems Corporation. I believe it is around $60 million, and maybe you can give me an accurate figure or correct me on that. I think the taxpayer would like to know whether that debt will remain with the taxpayer of British Columbia when you sell this particular corporation, or will the buyer be taking on all or some of that particular debt? In other words...

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: ...what is your intention, Mr. Minister, in terms of the incurred debt of the B.C. Systems Corporation of close to $60 million? Will it remain, and what is your intention to remove that?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I couldn't hear the member's last comments because of an interjection elsewhere on the other side.

MR. BLENCOE: From the Premier, actually.

HON. MR. CURTIS: No, elsewhere on the other side.

I didn't hear your concluding question.

MR. BLENCOE: Basically, I'd like to know what your intention is in terms of the $60 million debt of the corporation. Is there any opportunity for the purchaser to take some responsibility for that debt, or will that debt remain within the public sector? And how do you intend to deal with that $60 million?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, the sales advisory committee, which I appointed and which was announced some time ago, will analyze the several proposals with respect to that debt. It is comprised essentially of the mortgage on the building and leases on the equipment. Quite clearly the sales advisory committee will want to satisfy itself that any proposal or proposals will be taken into account in order that the interests of the taxpayers of British Columbia are protected to the greatest possible extent. I cannot forecast what proposals will be advanced by the proponents, inasmuch as I indicate today is the closing day, and it will be some time before I have an opportunity to see those and to receive the report of the sales advisory committee.

[ Page 2977 ]

MR. BLENCOE: I am wondering, Mr. Minister, whether you have a policy, or have considered this: will you be trying your best to see that this corporation, or the particular building, equipment and expertise that is developed behind this building, remains in Canadian hands first?

HON. MR. CURTIS: The answer is yes.

MR. BLENCOE: How do you intend to achieve that? Is that in the proposal call or is that just an unwritten policy that you're trying to bring about?

[11:30]

HON. MR. CURTIS: It is a subject which I discussed with the sales advisory committee which is or will be advising me on this at the outset to the greatest extent possible. I would hope that it will be a British Columbia or a western Canadian proponent which is successful. There is a preference stated in the documents which have been distributed to interested parties, and I think that I also said last year that, as one would expect, the decision to return the Systems Corporation to the private sector in no way suggests that we are compelled or feel compelled to accept any proposal. I trust that we will receive a proposal which is acceptable to the government and is responsible to the taxpayers of the province, but should that not be the case we would examine our circumstances at that point. It is premature for me to say much more inasmuch as right now we are just about to....

Late this afternoon, I suppose, the advisory committee will have the packet of proposals, and then they will start their exhaustive review. But clearly there is a preference stated in the documentation which was distributed some time ago; the preference makes reference to employment in British Columbia.

MR. BLENCOE: My last question will be on the B.C. Systems Corporation. There has been some concern expressed, Mr. Minister — and I'm sure you have read about it and probably heard about it.... Much of the information kept by the B.C. Systems Corporation is of a confidential nature — health records and such things. Of course, there has been some concern that if this particular corporation is sold off to the private sector, as is your intention, many of those records will fall into the private sector; they will not be protected as they are under the public domain. Mr. Minister, perhaps you could answer that particular concern. Will the records currently maintained by the Systems Corporation be going along with the sale? Can you, perhaps today, give assurances to the people of British Columbia that much of the confidential material kept there will indeed remain confidential?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I think it would be correct to say that the security of data in the entire industry is of concern, whether private or public. I was not the minister responsible at the time, but I recall the same fears being expressed in the mid-1970s when it was proposed to establish the British Columbia Systems Corporation: that a wealth of information with respect to British Columbians would be vested in the hands of a particular group, albeit officials and employees of a Crown corporation. So the argument was used then and is being used again. Quite clearly, on a contractual basis we will want to be fully satisfied with regard to the security of the information which is stored in the Systems Corporation. I will be exhaustive in my pursuit of that security.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. BLENCOE: I really do have to emphasize this, because obviously, if this corporation does go into the private sector and these records go along with it, you know and I know there is incredible competition by private entrepreneurs, companies and institutions to get hold of certain information, for whatever reasons, to be used as background material. Much of this information is very delicate to people. It's known now that there are private institutions collecting information and selling it off, for whatever reasons — for background information or delicate material on people. Many people in our country are concerned about what is being kept on computers and what both government and the private sector have access to. With the private sector there may be incredible pressure there because of the opportunity, I suppose, to gain financially from selling of information. That is done now in the private sector. Mr. Minister, how do you intend to guarantee that that doesn't happen if you do sell this Crown corporation? It's very hard once it's out of your hands.

HON. MR. CURTIS: As I indicated a moment ago, that is a very major concern, and one to which I have addressed myself in the months since the decision was made. I will be reporting on that in greater detail in the event that we have a proposal for the acquisition of the Systems Corporation which in all other respects is acceptable. I will be speaking of that at that time.

MR. SKELLY: In the minister's response to one of the questions he mentioned that the B.C. Systems Corporation was being returned to the private sector, and that was probably a slip of the tongue. People should know that the B.C. Systems Corporation was developed by the government of British Columbia with government funds. All of the development costs that went into that organization were development costs paid by the taxpayers. I don't imagine that when the corporation is dismantled and sold, or sold as a piece, that those development costs will ever be recovered by the citizens of British Columbia. So what we're doing is taking a corporation that originated and was developed and perfected in the public sector and now turning it over to people who had no responsibility whatsoever for the development and perfection of that corporation and the services it provides to government. I doubt that we'll ever recover the costs that the taxpayers put up to create that corporation in the first place. So we're not talking about a return to the private sector of something developed in the private sector. Clearly this is something that the taxpayers paid for and are now going to continue to pay for in order to generate private profit.

My question relates to the government payroll. Each year in the minister's annual report he publishes a graph which shows the government payroll as a percentage of total expenditure of government. On page 29 of the report for 1981 he shows a graph which indicates that for January 1981 to December 1981 the total government payroll is $914 million as a part of total government expenditures, which were $6.632 billion. I worked out the percentage, and the government payroll in 1981 was about 13.7 percent of the total government expenditure.

[ Page 2978 ]

In the 1982 ministry annual report he shows total government expenditure increasing by 18 percent, well over the increase in the consumer price index or in all of the indicators that the government claims to relate the budget to. Government expenditures increased to $7.851 billion, an 18 percent increase over calendar 1981. Total government payroll increased by only 9 percent, and represents 12.71 percent of the provincial budget. So as a percentage of total government expenditures the government payroll, in recent years at least, has been declining. Yet the government seems to have targeted those who work for the government as the cause of all our economic problems, the cause of runaway government expenditures. When the facts come out in the minister's own annual reports, this is clearly not the case.

I'm wondering what the situation is for calendar year 1983. In his budget last year the minister stated that he intended to cut back on the size of the government service by about 25 percent. Or was it 33 percent? It's hard to tell now. He was going to do that in order to reduce these runaway government expenditures on public employees' wages. I'm wondering how much the government payroll has decreased this year. In 1981 the minister indicated that we were paying out an average of about $80 million a month in government payrolls. What are we paying out per month in government payrolls now? And if the government payroll has decreased, then has the total government expenditure decreased as well, and have those savings in government expenditure been passed back to the taxpayer, who seems to be paying an increasingly heavier burden of taxes in this province, even though the government claims to be cutting back on the runaway expenditures of government? The fact is that government expenditures are increasing, taxes are increasing, and I'm just wondering what the minister has achieved in the way of payroll reduction and how that is translated into any benefit to the taxpayer at all.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, the member has raised a couple of questions which I will commit myself to provide answers for to him in the course of the next few days. But I think the fundamental factor at play, with respect to government payrolls, of course, is the compensation stabilization program which covers some 220,000 to 225,000 employees. That has certainly been fundamental to our activities over the past two years. It was two years ago that CSP was introduced. The specific questions that he asked I do not have readily available, but I can provide them before the end of the week.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, my main concern is that the government seemed to indicate in its last budget speech that one of the most serious problems with runaway government expenditures which imposed a burden on the taxpayer was the payroll paid to provincial government employees. Clearly the facts of the matter are that provincial government employees get a very small, and a decreasing, percentage of total provincial expenditures, so I do hope that the minister can come back and demonstrate what the changes have been in the total government payroll, and also if any reduction in payroll has been translated into any benefit to the taxpayers, because it seems that total government expenditures are increasing regardless of any cutbacks in the civil service. There are more people on welfare and more social service costs as a result of the damage that the government is doing to the economy as a result of the unemployment that you're creating.

So I'd like to know if there's been any benefits turned back to the taxpayer from the cutbacks in government employees.

It seems that the attack on the public sector employees has no economic rationale; it is ideologically based more than anything else. I don't see any change or reduction in the tax burden on our citizens. All I see is a decrease in the services available to the citizens and in the revenue returning to the government because of inadequate supervision of companies operating in the resource sector.

It was mentioned that debt has increased in this province from approximately $4 billion in 1974 — in that case, I guess, it was guaranteed debt — to a direct and guaranteed debt in 1980 of approximately $15.3 billion. The minister then sought to relate the debt figure to gross provincial product. What is the sense of comparing debt to gross provincial product? It doesn't seem to make any sense at all. We know that gross provincial product is a composite of many transactions that take place in the economy. Even when you have a car accident and take your car to the claim centre, it contributes to the gross provincial product. Is the minister saying that if the gross provincial product increases as a result of a lot of car accidents, we are entitled to increase our debt so that we can maintain that 27 percent ratio? It is a statistic that makes no sense at all. It is simply a way of abusing statistics to try to create some semblance of equity between what was happening in 1971 and what is happening in 1984. It is a kind of newspeak using statistics. The simple fact is that regardless of how you strike the comparison, the comparison makes no sense at all. The simple fact is that we have gone from a $4 billion debt in 1974 to $15.3 billion in 1984. Every month this province is being forced to pay something like $75 million to service that debt, if the debt is at an average of 6 percent. It costs the taxpayers of this province much more in 1984 to service that debt, whether it's serviced through B.C. Hydro bills or directly through taxes. The comparison between debt and gross provincial product is a specious comparison. It is simply statistical newspeak and doesn't make any sense to anybody.

[11:45]

I'm also concerned about the leaseback arrangements that the province is involved in and that the minister provides guarantees for. Over the past few years we have sold most of the ferry fleet to eastern trust companies, and we lease those ferries back. We sold even those ferries that were built for cash under previous Social Credit and NDP governments. We are now forced to lease those ferries back. The ferries are now operating at a curtailed level. There is only one ferry every hour. I can remember when I was running against the Socred candidate in my constituency in 1975; he was promising that they would run the ferries around the clock. Now the ferries are tied up around the clock. Yet we still have to pay those lease fees. I want the minister to tell me how much it is costing us to keep those ferries tied up. How much are we paying to those eastern trust companies while those ferries are tied up?

HON. A. FRASER: Is this your leadership speech?

MR. SKELLY: You'll hear my leadership speech. I'm just asking the minister how much we're paying to keep those ferries in port. How much money is going out to those eastern trust companies that we sold the ferries to and are leasing them back from? Even though those ferries are not operating, not generating revenue, not carrying passengers and not

[ Page 2979 ]

improving tourist travel between Vancouver Island and the mainland, we're still paying those lease fees, and I'm wondering just how much those fees are. How much money is being wasted by paying those lease fees while the ferries are tied up?

I understand that we also sold buses of the Urban Transit Authority to companies like Laurentide Finance, so every time you get on the bus and pay your fare you are making a payment to Laurentide Finance. When those buses are not operating, as the transit buses in Vancouver in some cases now can't operate, we're paying lease fees on those buses — even though they're not operating, not collecting fares and generating revenues. It's a dead-weight charge against the operations of those companies. So I'm asking the minister how much we are paying in lease fees for those buses, whether or not they're operating.

The minister recently announced that the new electric locomotives we bought for the electrified section of the B.C. Rail system between Anzac and the coalfields have been sold to Royal Trust Company, and we're leasing them back. Now we have to pay lease fees on those locomotives. So even if the Japanese cancelled their coal contracts, even if we didn't run those locomotives across that electrified section of B.C. Rail's lines, we would still be paying the lease fees for those non-operating locomotives. I'm wondering how much that is going to cost us on a monthly basis, whether those engines are running or not.

It seems that this government has spent a good part of the last eight years selling off the assets of the province and leasing them back, so that the province is almost a hollow shell. Some corporations do that; they lease everything. Nothing is held by the owners of the corporation; it's all leased. Really, the province is nothing but a hollow shell now and we're paying for everything to finance companies, holding companies and trust companies.

There was a time, Mr. Minister of Finance, when the people of this province were proud of their achievements. Maybe this is part of my leadership speech. They were proud of that ferry fleet. They were proud of B.C. Rail. They were proud of the accomplishments in opening up the north. And they were proud of the development of hydroelectric power in the north and in the Kootenays. I agree with it. Some of it was done under Social Credit; some of it was done under the NDP. In spite of the differences in political parties, people were proud of the achievements that this province made over those years from the 1950s to the 1970s. This government has sold it all off. They've created a hollow shell of a government in this province. We're now a have-not province.

The minister talks about the federal debt. A lot of that federal deficit goes in transfer payments to the government of British Columbia. When the minister isn't complaining about the size of the federal debt, he's going cap-in-hand to Ottawa asking for more money for intensive forestry projects, for B.C. Place, for Expo 86.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Even your leadership speech can't help the Liberals in Ottawa; you know that.

MR. SKELLY: Because the counterpart of the Liberals in Ottawa are the Liberals across the floor here in British Columbia. You're a combination of the Liberals and Conservatives. I don't want to help the Liberals in Ottawa any more than anybody else does. To me, Liberal, Social Credit, they're all the same.

What this minister has done is to turn this province into an economic eunuch that's absolutely powerless. It's nothing but a paper corporation. The citizens of this province used to be proud of the achievements of governments under Social Credit and under the NDP. They used to be proud of the assets of that government in terms of the ferry fleet, the railways, the hydro corporations, the development prospects of this province. Now people in British Columbia just don't see an economic future for our citizens under this kind of government. In fact, in many cases they feel ashamed that we're no longer a have province, that we're a have-not province. I believe that the Socreds, under this minister, have intentionally dismantled the economic power of this province, so that if the NDP or any other government ever takes power again, all those economic levers and buttons that we could use on behalf of the citizens in British Columbia to make this province a much better place to live, to provide better services to our people, to increase the standard and quality of life of those who don't enjoy an appropriate standard and quality of life.... You have dismantled that power in order that nobody can exercise it again on behalf of the citizens of British Columbia.

I'm ashamed of this government. Thousands of people in this province are ashamed of this government. If the information came out about what you have been doing to this province, as it will come out, then we're going to see changes. You've totally dismantled it. You've totally tom it apart. You've done it on purpose. You've done it to serve your masters, the same people who finance the Fraser Institute.

Some people believe that the Fraser Institute is financed through private subscriptions. When you look at those people who support the Fraser Institute, they're the same people who donate money to this government and to this political party — the chartered banks, the distilleries, the resource companies, the major holding companies. Not only that, they've created the Fraser Institute as a charitable organization so that they can deduct the donations that they make to the Fraser Institute from their taxes. I remember going out to lunch one time with Michael Walker. He bought his lunch and I bought mine, because he said that greed was the engine of the economy and he said there is no such thing as a free lunch. Yet the Fraser Institute is financed out of the taxes of citizens of this country.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Perhaps we could return to the minister's estimates.

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: Yes, that's really where it's at, because this minister is in charge of dismantling the economic power of this provincial government and this province so that the people of this province can never stand up with pride in this country as a positive contributor to the Canadian economy. We are now a have-not province thanks to the Socreds and thanks to that particular minister.

HON. A. FRASER: I'm all for Passarell.

MR. SKELLY: I believe that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Minister of Finance.

[ Page 2980 ]

MR. SKELLY: He's supporting somebody who isn't running for leader.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate now that we have in fact heard two or three leadership speeches in the course of debating my estimates. I assure the member that I will make every effort to circulate the remarks of the last few minutes in order that the people of British Columbia can understand his views.

Let me speak about leasing in that a large part of the member's remarks dealt with that. I support the leasing of a variety of equipment in British Columbia which has a relatively long life in what I believe to be the best interest of the people of the province. I think we have several choices, don't we, with respect to a vessel which is used in our ferry fleet, a locomotive, some relatively expensive pieces of equipment — yes, and buses. We can (a) not purchase them (b) we can borrow to cover the cost of that acquisition at higher rates than leasing, or (c) we can increase taxes — or fees in the case of the Ferry Corporation — to try to pay for the acquired item in a given year or two. We've had this debate before in this House.

The other side, the socialists, are opposed to leasing. They think somehow that it's an inappropriate approach. But every single undertaking we have made with respect to leasing equipment for the people of British Columbia has been done at less cost and more effectively. I don't expect those on the other side to suddenly roll over and understand the advantages of leasing, but so far as I am concerned, when the opportunity presents itself we shall lease that type of equipment. We shall lease ferry vessels, locomotives, rolling stock and transit vehicles. That's my view. From time to time I may be overruled by my colleagues in the executive council, but I believe very firmly in the financial advantages of leasing that type of equipment. In due course, Mr. Member, very early, I will be able to report on those lease costs in the various sectors that have been debated.

I assume that others have points to make with respect to my salary vote. Therefore I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. Mr. Brummet tabled five reports forming the basis of the wildlife management program, together with a brief summary.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:58 a.m.