[ Page 3417 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Budget debate

Mr. Reynolds –– 3417

Mr. Mitchell –– 3418

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 3421

Mr. Passarell –– 3425

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 1984

The House met at 10:06 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege affecting this House and its members. Last evening, after the House had risen, an activity was brought to my attention which could have a tendency to impair members in the discharge of their duties. This, therefore, is the first opportunity I have had to raise this question.

The question of privilege is that the agency of government identified as government information services and the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) are sending through the mails, at public expense, written material about the budget currently before the House. That written material is misleading, both with respect to what it contains and what is omitted therefrom, and is false insofar as some of its content is concerned.

Budget documents show that the level of employment has decreased and the unemployment rate doubled, but no mention is made of these facts in the material being sent through the mails at public expense. Those budget documents also show that the provincial gross domestic product, housing starts, value of building permits, business incorporations and the volume of timber scaled have all declined, but the material being sent out ignores those facts as well.

Information contained in the document is misleading and distorts the facts. For example, the claims that the total cost to the province for universities is $315.2 million, that the total cost to the province for acute care is $1,270.4 million, that the total cost to the province for long-term care is $202.5 million and that the total cost to the province for the Medical Services Plan is $512.7 million distort the fact that more than half this money comes from the federal government.

By mailing such misleading material the government information services and the Minister of Finance are conspiring to present a case to the general public which tends to impair members in the discharge of their duties, and the publication is a distorted version of the proceedings of this House.

The written material which I referred to is called "Fiscal Facts: Budget '84-85, Province of British Columbia," and I submit that material for Your Honour's perusal. If Your Honour finds that I have a prima facie question of privilege, I have an appropriate motion ready which condemns the government for issuing false and misleading information and for using, in this time of restraint, public funds for that purpose.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, as is the procedure, I will undertake to review the matter brought forward by the member for Skeena and bring information on the matter back to the House at the earliest opportunity.

Orders of the Day

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

MR. REYNOLDS: It's interesting to watch the New Democratic Party get up on questions of privilege. In my opinion, some of these things are an abuse of the privileges 4 this House, and we have to listen to those types of activities in this Legislature. It would seem to me that the member has forgotten that he lost the election last May 5.

MR. COCKE: On a point of order, the Speaker has not come down with a ruling in this case. The member is alluding to it, and as far as I am concerned, there should be no argument unless there's a debate that the Speaker rules.

MR. SPEAKER: It's a valid point. The member continues.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, I see the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland), and I know he has to leave for a meeting, but I think that all members of this House.... [Applause.] I'm so happy to see that applause for the minister. I noticed that not too much of it came from the New Democratic Party. In the past number of days this New Democratic Party kept on yelling across and asking the Minister of Forests to resign over an accusation that's since been proved false by an ombudsman who has apologized to this House and to the Minister of Forests. Where are those members of the NDP, Mr. Speaker, standing in this Legislature today, to get up and be the men and women they should be and apologize to the Minister of Forests? I would suggest that the people of this province would expect the members of the New Democratic Party, who went after this minister and demanded his resignation, to stand up and say: "We apologize for saying that." They may not agree with his politics, but as decent human beings they should be up on the floor of this Legislature. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) should be the first one up. Instead we sit here and see four of them in the Legislature this morning in this very important debate.

The member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) is here. I wonder why she is not up in this House congratulating the minister on the fact there is a new sawmill at Chemainus. She's been asking him that question. We're going to employ 150 people in her constituency. Why isn't she getting up to congratulate the Minister of Forests? The man has had a tough few days in this House. No, there's no common decency in the New Democratic Party. They're not going to get up and say what a great job the Minister of Forests has been doing in this province...

MR. COCKE: You're absolutely right, because it's lousy.

[10:15]

MR.REYNOLDS: ...because they just don't have that inside them.

The member for New Westminster's sitting there saying it's lousy, it's this and that. Why can't he stand up with a little common decency and apologize for all those taunts across the floor to the Minister of Forests? The Minister of Forests is a decent human being. He told this House that he didn't make those statements, and they should have accepted that. He's a man with a family, and he's had to go through unfounded accusations in the press. No, the New Democrats don't get up and say, "We apologize for making those accusations," because they just like to mire in the dirt. That's why that party will never, ever form a government again in the province of British Columbia.

It's not surprising to me that the New Democrats have to go outside this chamber to find a leader. That's because the members of the New Democratic Party see the way these people operate in this Legislature and say: "We'd better get somebody new or we'll never have a chance to form a government in this province." Why is it that this New Democratic Party, that demanded the resignation of the Minister of Forests on the basis of a statement made by the ombudsman,

[ Page 3418 ]

haven't demanded that the ombudsman resign for making c that mistake? No, we won't hear that from the New Democratic Party, because they're good socialists. They wouldn't do those things. No way.

MR. COCKE: He didn't make a mistake. He was misinformed, and you know it.

MR. REYNOLDS: Listen to this, Mr. Speaker. They're saying that he didn't make a mistake, he was misinformed. Isn't that nice socialism? Well, if the ombudsman was that misinformed and wants to ruin a man and his family's reputation, he should resign.

You people love your muckraking. It's your party that got those 400 people out screaming in the streets of Vancouver last night — jumping on people's cars, damaging their cars. It's New Democrats who support that kind of action in the city of Vancouver. They like to muckrake. Your Uncle Mikey is the man who would have liked to be your leader, until he made the biggest goof of his career. The only good thing I can say about this kind of activity in this province by the New Democrats is that it ensures that this province will never, ever have a New Democratic government again.

In finishing I would just like to say again how much I support this budget, this Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) and the ministers in his government who have worked so hard to pare this budget and get the deficit down. We have shown good government, and in the years to come....

And these members know it, because before that next election a lot of them will never be back again. I can certainly look at the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) sitting down there at the end, a pretender to the leadership of his party; he's one of those demanding the resignation of the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland). Why isn't he up apologizing in this House? He's been here a long time — another muckraker, Mr. Speaker. The members of his own party will see where he stands when they vote for the leadership of the New Democratic Party.

I see my time is up. I look forward to the next time I get up to speak in the chamber on some of the great bills we are going to be bringing forth over the next few months.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Apologize!

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, I wish you'd bring this House to order. I really have to....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Apologize!

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

MR. MITCHELL: I'm really impressed with the selective recall of the member who preceded me. The one thing he forgot to mention was the letter that came to the Minister of Forests in 1982 outlining the problem that it took until 1984 for the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith) to do anything about. Over those two years, companies were bringing vital information to the ministry's attention and the minister and the government did nothing about it. This is the important part. We in the New Democratic Party do not apologize for anything. We are fighting for the small contractors. We are fighting for the loggers who work for those contractors. We cannot afford to see companies go down. Now political brownie points are trying to be made. Maybe the ombudsman did read something into a report, but let us remember what Williston said this morning when he was speaking on the Webster show. He said the ombudsman was doing his job. That is the important part.

The Ministry of Forests, the government, did not do their job in 1982 when it was brought to their attention. The Attorney-General took until 1984 to institute criminal proceedings which were not the basis of the original report. I know something about criminal investigations. I know when they are needed. Why was that sat on from 1982 until 1984, when it was released? That is the only issue that we in British Columbia should be looking at. We have no reason to apologize. I think it's important that you review all the facts.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. At some point during this debate the member has the right to be heard.

All members will have an opportunity to take their place in debate. At the present time the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew has the floor and, as such, is entitled to be heard.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's got the right to apologize.

MR. MITCHELL: If anyone has the right to apologize, it's the government. It must apologize for sitting on this report since 1982 — I think this is the important part of our work in this Legislature.

We should look at some of the problems we have and the reason for this Legislature. This Legislature was set up by the people of British Columbia and the people of Canada to run the government of this province in an orderly manner. As the 57 people elected in British Columbia, if we as individuals can't conduct ourselves in a mature and positive manner, if we can't lay out some formula for doing the people's business, then we should not be here. I call on this government to review the manner in which they ran this Legislature last year. We jumped from throne speeches into budget speeches; we jumped into bills; we had all-night sessions; we went into estimates; we jumped out of estimates. I am calling on this government and the House Leader, and those who are going to run this Legislature, to lay down something in a positive manner so that the back-benchers from both sides of the House can review some of the material — some of the estimates — through committees, so that we can know down the line when the estimates for a particular ministry will be coming up. I am not asking that just for my particular privilege, but I feel that the people of British Columbia should know when the Minister of Forests' estimates are going to come up. Forest companies, professional foresters and others who work in the business should know that on the week of March 10 that ministry is going to come up; then they can be here. If it is deemed that certain estimates should go to a committee hearing, those who are on the committees should have an opportunity to meet with or ask questions of the various officials — the deputies who are working in the field.

I believe that when the estimates of the Minister of Municipal Affairs come up, there are other elected people in this province who have a deep interest in the legislation or the estimates coming from that ministry. They should be able to know that those estimates are coming up at the end of March, April, or May, and the people then could make arrangements

[ Page 3419 ]

to come down and listen to how we behave or how the minister behaves. I think if we, as mature people, can't run our own business in here in an orderly, constructive manner, we are missing the responsibility that I say we were given when we were elected. We cannot afford to continue to play these political games that the House Leaders and the cabinet play. We cannot afford them, because we have that responsibility. I call on the House Leader, the government and the party Whips to lay some long-range guidelines so the House and the members can know what's coming up. I say this seriously. I know the government House Leader sits there and makes these snide little remarks. The majority of parliaments in a democracy run this way. I think it is not unfair to the younger members of this House to know that they are going to have a summer recess, that they can plan ahead for their families.

People in this House should be able to plan ahead. I've said this each session that I've spoken, and I'm going to repeat it: there should be a spring session, there should be a summer recess, and there should be a fall session. The public has a right to know somewhere in that scenario what time which estimates and what bills are coming up. We cannot afford to run a democracy in a political showmanship manner and attempt to gain brownie points. We have a responsibility, and the government should give some leadership that they haven't given.

Going into the throne speech, I feel that there are two or three points I would like to bring to the attention of the government.

HON. A. FRASER: We're in budget debate now, not the throne debate.

MR. MITCHELL: I stand corrected by the Minister of Highways. I am in the budget speech, and I apologize to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the House that I made that slip of the tongue. I have been known to have a slip of the tongue and I do not claim to have a halo above my head, and from my view over here I don't see any on that side of the House, either.

[10:30]

I'd like to bring to the attention of the House — and I'm sorry that the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Richmond) isn't here, because I feel he should be supporting this and bringing it to the attention of his federal counterparts — some of the problems of commercial fishing in this province: the effect it is having on the tourist industry, and especially how it's affecting my particular riding. Maybe you can say that I'm a sport fisherman, but I think it's important that the governments of both British Columbia and Ottawa realize the impact the sport fishing industry has on our economy. Do you realize that the economic impact of sport fishing — with fishing gear, bait, lodgings, etc. — works out to $120 million a year, and that the investment in the sport boats is close to $1 billion a year, which is nearly twice as much as the boats used in commercial fishing? Sport fishing in this province generates 37 percent of the total employment in the Pacific fishery. Sport fishermen utilize approximately 4 percent of the catch, while the commercial fleet takes 91 percent of the catch and the remaining 5 percent is caught by native fishermen. When you compare the $120 million to the $145 million that is generated by the commercial catch, sport fishing as a utilization of one of our natural resources generates far more per capita than the present methods of commercial fishing.

I would like to see a study made by the Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of Tourism, and a complete review of the methods of commercial fishing in this province.

We should not only review the various methods, but we should review some of the studies made by biologists and those who are actively engaged in the fishing industry. When I talk about the 4 percent catch made by sport fishing, I think you should realize that the bulk of that is two particular species: the chinook and the coho. The bulk of our commercial fishing is confined to the sockeye, the pinks and the chums. When the commercial fishing is at its best, these are the three species they are harvesting. But when the seine boats are harvesting either of the three commercial species, the incidental catches they make with the methods they use are decimating the two particular species that make up the bulk of the sport fishing catch. Those who are involved in the seine boats and have travelled with the seine fleet not only catch commercial fish, but they also destroy the young salmon, and they are lost forever. It is not harvesting. They are caught in the commercial seines, hooked up into the nets, and they end up being washed overboard. The methods of the seine fleet are going to kill the sport fishing industry in this province. I think the government and the tourist industry should take a strong stand on it.

The commercial trollers do play a large part in our export of salmon to Europe. The main catch when the commercial trollers are working on the outside of the so-called blue line is that the spring salmon they are catching out there are largely the salmon that are exported at a premium price to Europe and our American neighbours. It is the fish that are harvested in the open sea that get the best price. But when they are harvesting that particular fish, from biologists' studies that were made in the southwest end of British Columbia, for every keeper that was kept and sold there were anywhere from 1.2 to 1.9 shakers. For every one that they kept they threw more than one away — dead. These are the young, immature salmon.

The time to look at both of these particular methods of fishing and how they are going to control and protect the stock is fast coming to a head. The only method by which fish can be harvested in a reasonable, controlled environment is the gill-net fleet. They can be harvested, and the type of fish they catch can be controlled and monitored. By the size of the net, they are not killing off the small. Immature fish. By the depth of the net, because chinook, coho and the daytime fishing go deep.... The sockeye, the chum and the pink stay closer to the top. Those three commercial fish can be harvested without disseminating the sports fishing and destroying the junior stock.

I know there is going to be a howl and cry from those who have invested capital in the commercial fleet, the banks and the trust companies who have gone into partnership — I think we should say that they have gone into partnership on some of these half million dollar seine boats.... If you're going to say that your method of harvesting the resources of this province is outdated, they are going to scream. But I say that the banks and the mortgage companies went into partnership with these fishermen, and they have a responsibility to take some of the blame.

I say, Mr. Speaker, through you to the government, that a study should be made of our resource and of changing the method that is now utilized in harvesting salmon. We should seriously look at not only the gill-net fleet on the inside waters but the gill-net fleet on the high seas. The Japanese fishermen

[ Page 3420 ]

are now using gill nets out at sea, and they are harvesting the catches without killing the young. It is the fish that are harvested out at sea beyond the blue line that are going to bring to the commercial fishermen a higher return for the fresh-fish market in Europe and in the States. I think if we are going to protect the salmon, as the Governor of Washington said, so they are here for our enjoyment and our children's and grandchildren's enjoyment, we have to stop the method and the incidental catches that are being taken by trollers and by the seine boats today.

I believe that the minister of fisheries, speaking on the Jack Webster program, stated that any four seiners today could harvest the total catch for the next year. But it's not so much that we want to wipe out.... I'm not advocating that we wipe out all the fishermen, but I think that the boats today that are being used for trollers and the boats that are being used for seiners can be adapted to gill-net fishing. They can be adapted, and there is still, from people I know in the industry, a place for anywhere from 3,000 to 5,000 commercial boats to harvest the resources. Properly managed, they will protect them, and then we can raise our 4 percent catch that is going to the sports fishermen to 10 or 15 percent. If the economic impact that the 4 percent is generating is allowed to enlarge, then we will have a new industry and an enlarged industry that is going to create more employment in this province. I think this is where this government misses. They are missing the opportunity to create new jobs. They sit with their blinkers on. They are so locked into protecting the super-large multinationals....

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. R. FRASER: That's a bunch of hogwash, and you know it.

MR. MITCHELL: I know it's true. They are still locked in. The only industry we are going to protect is in the exploitation of our present natural resources. They are not looking to create labour-intensive industries. They are not looking at the creation of new jobs. They are only looking at a balanced budget. They are only looking at the shell game that they play with the budget. They are not listening to innovative ideas that are brought to this House and to the government by people from all walks of life. This is what I've been trying to say in every one of my speeches. If we use the committee system, committees could go out into the community; they could meet the experts; they could meet the people who have the problem of unemployment and who have some new ideas that will create additional jobs. We should be developing that approach, not thinking that we who are sitting here, or the 20 who were selected by their peers to sit in cabinet, have all the answers. You do not have the answers. You do not even have the commitment to look at new ideas, at the principle that we must develop in this province and in this country a belief in full employment.

We must get away from the idea that we in this country can tolerate a situation of 5, 10 or 15 percent unemployment as part of the new technology. This country cannot accept it. The youth of this province will not accept it. Those who are working will not accept it. It's the most disgusting thing that in a rich country like British Columbia we can say to 25 percent of the youth of this province that we're going to cut their standard of living. I heard the Minister of Finance say in this House that the people of British Columbia must lower their expectations. As one who grew up in the Depression and worked through the war, was part of the armed forces....

We had expectations, For those who joined the forces, put on uniforms and went to fight for this country.... I say this because a large part of my riding went to fight for this country, and many of them are in uniform today for the defence of this country. They have expectations. They have a right to those expectations. They have a right to be able to look down the road and see that they are going to get employment, that they are going to have an opportunity to raise a family. With all the inflation we've had for the last two and a half years, we've had no increase in the minimum wage that we give to people on welfare. Then we have a government in a rich country saying to these youths that we're going to cut it a little more and, if they don't like it, they can hitch-hike to Tumbler Ridge. I talk to people weekly who have come back from Tumbler Ridge, and there are no jobs. I know people who have gone down to get work on the ALRT construction in Vancouver, and there is no work. Why use words to twist and ridicule the people who have come out of our education system, who are products of many of us in this House, and say that we're going to cut them down a little further? I know this attitude and this outlook have got to change — put forward by the government and by those who run this particular province. We must look....

[10:45]

I don't say I have all the answers; I know the government has none. But we must have a commitment that we are going to change our outlook and that we are going to develop our secondary and service industries and the facilities that are needed with the human and natural resources that we have. I know that if there were a war tomorrow, the government of British Columbia and the government in Ottawa, with the resources and with the economists that we have, would create a situation of full employment. I say, Mr. Speaker, through you to the government and to every member in this House: until each one of us in his own heart believes and accepts that every British Columbian, every Canadian, has a responsibility to work, has an opportunity to earn a living and has hope, we cannot sit in this House and make fun of these people. This is a commitment that we must give. We can play our political games. We can have the snide remarks of where is the money coming from and where is the bottom line — I've heard it all. It was the same terminology that we used in the thirties to my parents and the parents of my friends and to youths who were a few years older than I. But when Hitler unleashed his army in 1939, there was full employment. We did a job. Canadians can do a job.

Ridicule is the attitude of this government. They failed to take the proper responsibility that they as the government had. They started on their so-called "privatization." Let's remember what they privatized. In 1978 the leader of British Columbia's Social Credit government, with his advisers, said: "We have a problem, and that problem is inflation. To solve that problem we are going to raise the interest from 10 to 18 1/2 percent." That minister went to Ottawa from British Columbia and advocated that we should raise the interest rate to 18 1/2 percent. This was going to solve the problem of inflation.

Mr. Speaker, when we had a war that Canada was involved in through 1939-45 we had inflation. But what was the method of solving that inflation? Was it to give the banks the responsibility of doing the job that government was elected to

[ Page 3421 ]

do? Governments looked at taxes. They looked at such innovative methods as compulsory savings, and they skimmed that money off the economy to protect and stop the problem of inflation. But what did we do? We abrogated our responsibility. We privatized that responsibility, gave it to the banks, and said that they could take that money out of the economy. Then we turned around and borrowed it back at 18 1/2 percent. The Premier was right. The biggest economic millstone around our neck is the high interest that we.... I say "we" very loosely. The government of British Columbia jumped on the bandwagon of the Reaganites and the Thatcherites, that the way of solving inflation was by high interest.

What happened to the governments of Canada in the 1939-45.... After the war, when a lot of commodities were available, they released their compulsory savings. The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) was correct and 100 percent on mark in his budget speech when he said that the consumer spending in the States is bringing them out of the depression. We are looking at it today. If that consumer money was available in British Columbia and in Canada, we could be coming out of the depression. We are afraid to look at an approach of full employment. We are afraid to utilize the responsibilities that governments have to control some financing. We stumble on, and the boom and bust psychology that has gone on the past.... The trouble with so many of us is that we fail to read history. Consequently we make the same mistakes as our predecessors. High interest — and I don't say it's only British Columbia's economy — is killing the economy of the free world. We sit and laugh and giggle. You think there is no other answer but to see our economy go down the tube. Economics is not something that is either capitalism or socialism. It is the driving force of any country. When you destroy that economy, have it sucked dry by high interest or misuse of our resources, then we have a problem with job creation, with our fishing industry, because we have not looked at new ideas or changes.

I'm sorry the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) is not here, because when I talk about high interest, I talk about another problem that came through my constituency office, and from that, with a lot of hard work, it is now before the courts. It is a problem created by Royal Trust in the issuance of one of their mortgages. Many people in my riding came to me when interest rates started to go down; they wanted to get out of the 18, 19 and 20 percent mortgages that were breaking their families. Many times they signed up for the high interest when both husband and wife were working and they could make their payments. But when the interest started going down they wanted to get out of it.

With some study I found out that there is such a thing as the Interest Act. This act basically says that if you have a mortgage of five years or over, you could pay a three-month penalty and get out of it. So I phoned a lot of banks and credit unions and they agreed to drop the mortgage and rewrite it. The only one was Royal Trust. When we studied that we found that Royal Trust has a special section in their mortgage that says that when you sign it, you sign away your rights under the Interest Act. No company should deny people the statutory protection that the federal Interest Act gives. We have an action before the court. It lost the first round and is now before the appeal court. I think there is a need in this province for legislation similar to that in Ontario and Manitoba which gives to those who have a five-year mortgage the protection that is guaranteed by the Canada Interest Act. I call on this government and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to look at that type of legislation and bring in similar legislation in British Columbia, to give those who are caught in this high interest sphere some protection. If we are going to protect families and homes, we in this Legislature must take a positive stand to protect our resources, our economy and the homes that many of us live in.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to stand in the budget debate for 1984-85. It was most interesting to hear the debate which has taken place so far and to pay some attention to that which has been reported outside of the chamber in response to the debate and to the budget.

It's a privilege to be a citizen of our province and see the responsible attitude the government has taken toward the costs to the taxpayer in running government. I think it is a privilege to see that any government in Canada has the courage and conviction to reduce a budget from previous expenditures in a time of extremely high costs and rising costs. What a convenient opportunity it is for those involved in politics, in their attempts to please everyone, for eventual reward of perhaps high office, to continually tell people that there is an opportunity for everyone to receive everything they want from government because, in effect, it is basically insatiable.

[11:00]

There are those who would suggest to people that all they need to do is ask, and the money will be found somehow. There are those who constantly advocate that the government should continuously borrow more money, go into greater debt or continually increase taxes — particularly income taxes of all kinds and other forms of taxation — simply to satisfy not necessarily the needs of citizens but the wants of citizens. Over and over it is repeated: why can't you come up with the money to satisfy the wants of a particular organization, group or individual?

I know that there is a tremendous amount of interest in the B.C. budget of this year. I heard quite a bit of interest last night in Ottawa when I was speaking before the House of Commons committee on the Canada Health Act. Many of the Members of Parliament were quite interested and quite intrigued that any government in Canada not only could reduce expenditures but would reduce expenditures. There is no question that the government of B.C., through the Minister of Finance in the budget, has shown the way for politicians and governments in the country to do something about the problem — not to continue adding to deficits and debts and taxes, but to do something about it — to actually have the courage to say "no" to some demands from some of the citizens. They are not necessarily justified at all times.

We hear numbers and statistics constantly offered to us. We know that the revised deficit for the previous year — the current year — is now S1.37 billion, with an anticipated deficit for next year of $671 million. As the Minister of Finance pointed out in his speech, that is not acceptable. It is certainly an improvement over the previous year, but a $671 million deficit is still not acceptable in British Columbia, and he is working towards a balanced budget.

It is a particularly interesting contrast to the budget brought down by the federal government a week prior, and I see that the opposition today have not hurriedly gone to their research department — the daily newspapers — and picked up an item by a professor from the University of Victoria this morning with respect to the two budgets. He said that the

[ Page 3422 ]

federal budget was political. The B.C. budget appeared to be an honest attempt to bring down a realistic budget. We haven't heard that reported as yet. Maybe the member who follows me will refer to it — even quote from it. After all, that party on the other side pay a great deal of attention to what is reported by the media and reach tremendous and very quick conclusions, quite frequently, based on reports in the media.

I am not suggesting that the article I referred to by the professor from the University of Victoria is absolutely correct or the professor's attitude or conclusions are correct. What I am saying is that it is strange that the opposition hasn't referred to it, since each day we are constantly being referred to negative articles which appear in the media or somewhere else.

The people of British Columbia should feel quite proud that their government is prepared to take action to try to reduce the debt of the province and to try to reverse the trend of continually high budgets, high deficits and high debts. Someone must do it. It is a matter of following. I have indications from other governments that indeed they will consider following B.C.'s lead, as they did with respect to fighting inflation and compensation for the public service a couple of years back when the legislation was introduced in British Columbia, to be followed by other provinces and by the federal government, more or less, with their 6-and-5 program, which they recognize today was far too rich and which they have revised somewhat. I think it is of interest to note that while British Columbia comes down with something very specific and definite in its attempts to control the cost of government, the other governments in Canada look at the idea, flirt with the idea, and in some very cautious way adopt some of the policies. I can assure you that when you talk to these people privately, they say: "We just wish we had the guts to do what you've been doing."

I am most pleased, of course, as Minister of Health to see in the 1984-85 budget that the government of B.C. and the Minister of Finance has approved an increase of approximately 2 percent in the expenditures in the Ministry of Health as shown in the blue book. I think it must be recognized that it is the only ministry in government to receive an increase. Mr. Speaker, the Premier, Minister of Finance, myself and others have repeatedly stated to the people of British Columbia that health is the number one priority. I know the New Democratic Party a year or so back stated that education was their number one priority. I have no argument. You each choose your number one priority, and who is to say who was right? We say health is this government's number one priority.

Mr. Speaker, as you know, health represents in excess of a third of our budget, growing each year — tremendous amounts of money. Our figures indicate an expenditure anticipated next year in excess of $2.5 billion. Actually more is spent — well in excess of $3 billion. Because of the nature of reporting in the estimates, moneys received and expended in the Medical Services Plan and elsewhere do not show up in those estimates, but indeed they are spent.

The government has indicated in no uncertain terms that we will continue to protect the integrity of our health care system, as evidenced by the budget under review and by previous budgets. The growth has been phenomenal. The service to our people has been exceptional. But that is only one section of the budget. It should be noted, I hope, by so many people, as I think some of the socialists before have indicated, that in their minds big is not always better. We just heard the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell) discussing the multinational corporations and the big, giant corporations. I think he was suggesting that big is not always best. There could be a grain of truth in that. Big budgets are not always best. Big increases are not always best. It can't go on indefinitely. The people of the province of British Columbia, who foot the bill, recognize there must be a limit to government expenditure. You're not going to buy your way back to prosperity by continually increasing the cost of government.

Of course, everyone recognizes there are essential services. We're spending in excess of $8 billion for services in British Columbia. The vast majority of that is for social services. But there is a limit to the capability of the citizens to generate the necessary funds. Governments must take upon themselves the responsibility of being responsible and fair. But politically it's not difficult for any political party to simply accede to the demands of all and say: "Aren't we wonderful people? We're not spending our money, we're spending those other people's money and your money. But if that's what you want.... If you come back and say you'll support us in some way, perhaps it's worth increasing the debt, increasing the deficit, increasing the costs of government to all." The attitude so many have is that as long as you never say no, you are going to retain that political support from some people. That's fine. If that's the way they wish to do it, so be it.

Criticism constantly comes from the other side. Some members attempt, on occasion, but very rarely, to offer alternatives. It's wonderful to have a group in the opposition who are well-schooled in the use of buzzwords. All the solutions are a matter of using the right buzzword. "Full employment." Terrific! Who can fight against full employment? I don't know whether anyone can define full employment, but it's motherhood, of course. The cliché-ridden rhetoric we hear from that side leaves a great deal to be desired, because they aren't offering solutions or resolutions. They're frequently recycling the rhetoric of the 1930s to which Canadians have been subjected for many, many years.

Mr. Speaker, it was a pleasant opportunity for me to be in Ottawa last night, because it just makes our Legislature appear to be that much more sane — appear to be. It may have something to do with familiarity. But while we lament, as citizens of the province, the tough times we have and the tremendous decisions and actions which must be taken to resolve it, you should see the situation in Ottawa and in Canada and the approach the federal government is taking to try to resolve some of the problems. It's obvious that the priorities are very, very different. I think you will find more and more people standing up and speaking out about the responsible attitude the government of B.C. has with respect to the cost of government to people.

Mr. Speaker, I couldn't and wouldn't expect — and I wouldn't even suggest — that an opposition, particularly one in complete disarray, should be able to concentrate on alternatives that are practicable and reasonable. The NDP has never displayed that capability in the past, and I guess it's fair to ask why they should change now. When an opposition, or any political party, is in the throes of a leadership race....

I'm not criticizing a leadership race, because that's a very important part of the system. But when you're in the throes of a leadership race, as the lame-muck leader — as my colleague referred to him this morning — said, there must be pain and blood and all the rest of it. That's the system; that's

[ Page 3423 ]

fair enough. But when all else is lost to an opposition simply because they're in the throes of a leadership race, it leaves a great deal to be desired. We had a display this morning of an incredible inability to at least appear to be doing the right thing.

There's been a great deal of criticism and comment about the office of the ombudsman in the past while, with respect to our colleague the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland). But I notice that the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith), last evening or this morning, complimented the ombudsman for quickly apologizing for an apparent error. The Attorney-General commended the ombudsman for taking that route. The ombudsman is a public servant. The office of ombudsman is non-political. But what about those people who put themselves forward as possible candidates for government in British Columbia? How quickly do they come forward to apologize when they make an error or mistake, particularly when it's damaging to another individual in this chamber, or another individual anywhere? On Monday afternoon there was a debate in this House on a motion with respect to thePublic Accounts committee, and the people who are absent today took part in that motion for an amendment. They were talking about the need for the Minister of Forests to resign right now. Little chirpy in the corner there, one of their leadership hopefuls....

AN HON. MEMBER: Where's he from?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) in the corner was chirping: "Resign, resign, resign." He didn't have possession of the floor, but he said: "Resign right now." The report was then amended, and the ombudsman, to his credit, said: "I was wrong, and I apologize for any of the difficulties and personal hardship you suffered because of that report." That's not asking any decent human being to do too much. It's so frequent and so casual and so easy to simply stand up and throw some mud, and call into question the integrity of any member in this House, based on third-party information which may prove to be inaccurate. That's fine; that happens. When you find out, indeed, that it happened, you stand up and say to the House and to the member: "I'm sorry. I apologize. I was wrong." The stature of the individual then rises, and so does the stature of this chamber and every member in it. It's not the first time it has happened and presumably it won't be the last, because for public people to make quick judgments prior to any investigation, calling into question the capability and conduct of the police force.... "What good is a police report?" you say. Well, let's not reach the situation in British Columbia where we as elected officials publicly tell people we don't trust the police. Where would we be then, if we said that we don't trust the police? The judgment of individuals in this chamber who, without taking one moment to investigate anything, have reached a conclusion prior to the justice system concluding its own investigation.... It has happened before, and I think it'll happen again.

[11:15]

A non-elected official of this government, the Deputy Attorney-General, was libelled and slandered one night on television. The next day the same muckrakers were calling for his resignation. They went to a justice of the court and they wanted to seal that Deputy Attorney-General's office and his files because the CBC had found him guilty. That man, they said, must resign. There was an investigation and there was a libel case, and the courts found that the CBC broadcast was false — a $120,000 judgment. I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, what an uplifting feeling it would be if those members who previously called for the resignation of the former Deputy Attorney-General would simply stand and say: "We were misled, and we apologize for the personal punishment that Dick Vogel went through because his integrity was brought into question by members opposite."

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

AN HON. MEMBER: Did they apologize?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Of course they didn't apologize. It's not in their character. Socialists are immunized at birth with stupidity.

I'm sorry to report with great regret that it is not confined to the members who are in this chamber. I had the opportunity of listening to a couple in Ottawa last night, and they must all drink the same soup, because they certainly all sound the same. They spew the same stuff out. So it isn't just provincial.

Mr. Speaker, the budget we are considering is of utmost importance to the citizens of our province and to the future of our province. It's a responsible document, a responsible budget. It is a budget which is envied by other governments in Canada. It's an honest budget. It's an honest attempt to do something about the high cost of government to the taxpayers. Seldom do we hear in this chamber from those opposite what it is like for people who are working people or for others with income of some kind who are paying the taxes to foot the bills. We don't hear about them. We hear about somebody who says: "I didn't get my grant." We don't hear about the people who are paying that bill and may themselves be unemployed. Wouldn't they like to get an $80,000 grant for some make-work project to determine someone's attitude about somebody else's attitude, or whether the former Secretary of State of the United States should have some fellow representing some guerrillas in the jungles of Central America standing beside him to monitor his very words in a free, open country?

Just because the city of Vancouver put some money into some building at some time, those turkeys — I can't say that — those members on city council decided, "We, Big Brother, will have some type of civic censor," and they can go and sit down and appoint someone to listen to Mr. Kissinger to make sure that, should he have an opinion, it can be balanced. George Orwell, even though he was a socialist, didn't realize what he meant about 1984. The reason Orwell has had such an impact over the years with that novel is because he could see into the minds of the socialists, because he was one himself.

But I'm sure that even Orwell wouldn't have gone as far as even suggesting, with a free border.... Can you imagine the irony? We brag about the free border between Canada and the United States — the longest unguarded border in the world — and we welcome millions of visitors each year, and we take advantage of that by simply driving across the border and telling them where we're going, and no one hassles you for the period of time you're down there. It's the same with Americans coming to Canada. We consider that to be very important. We mention that with pride to other people. What a wonderful example of harmony! However, are the socialists going to replace the unguarded border with a personal censor

[ Page 3424 ]

for every person of importance who comes to Canada? Remember, we're not talking about this group here. But we're talking about a man, the mayor of Vancouver, who wished to be leader of this group until he realized, no, a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, because he thinks he has a better chance of being mayor of Vancouver than leader of the NDP, and even if he were leader of the NDP, so what? Then where would he be?

So, Mr. Speaker, the attitude of the socialists is freedom of speech, provided it's balanced by our appointee. Well, I know the mayor of Vancouver has egg on his face, and I know he's recognized that it was a dreadful thing to do. But I think it's disgraceful in our province when the Lieutenant-Governor arrives at a function and is mobbed by protesters who have been urged to be there by the ridiculous motion that the city of Vancouver passed. I don't care what Mr. Kissinger takes back as a memory of the city of Vancouver. I would hope that it would be much more positive than perhaps it's been, but Kissinger's been around. He's seen it all before. He probably recognized some of those demonstrators last night from his last trip to Central America.

I think the point is very important, as we discuss the budget, that we recognize that while the opposition is quick to condemn, quick to bring about judgment, they're not always correct. That's human nature. You can make a mistake, you can make an error, you may be wrong. Or in the words of the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) today: "He wasn't wrong; he was misinformed." That's fine. So someone was misinformed. But surely there's nothing wrong with being civilized and standing to say: "Listen, I really apologize if I did you any personal damage or caused you any difficulty. I apologize. I made a mistake." Mr. Speaker, I think that's what we tell our kids to do, isn't it? If you're wrong, admit it and apologize. It's good for the soul.

How many of you remember the night Stanley Knight was fired on television? Probably not too many. Talk about swift justice — bang! The member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) remembers.

For the last number of decades the people of British Columbia have always indicated that they believe in the future of this province. There's no question of that. There are always going to be difficulties because it's a growing province. It's a province of vast size and sparse population, with the difficulties that are common in such situations: difficulties in transportation, difficulties of providing service on an equitable basis across our province. But they recognize that. People with different attitudes respond differently to those problems, but I can tell you that most of the people in the province of British Columbia understand reality. They recognize that times have been difficult. They also recognize that there is a way out. The way out is not simply to make the matter worse. The way out is to be responsible, open and honest, and not afraid to make decisions which obviously must be made.

Over and over we receive that type of support from citizens throughout the province. Let's not go back to the last provincial election, which is a formal way of having the people criticize your policies. We were aware of their endorsement prior to that, because the people make it obvious wherever you go in the province. There are several more hectares in B.C. than in the provincial legislative precincts. There are other parts of the province where people have things to say, and they say them. The attitudes of the people of the province of British Columbia are not confined to those of two or three columnists in the major newspapers — hardly. The attitudes of the people in B.C. are diverse, quite different from what one would believe if one confined oneself to reading the major dailies or watching some of those dreadful television channels. The attitude of the people can be understood very simply by speaking to the people. If you sit in Victoria for a long period of time, you develop certain attitudes about specific problems. When you go into the interior of the province, the people wonder what has come over you, particularly when you relate to them how you view their problems. They say to you: "I'm sorry, but you're looking at it from the Victoria point of view. That isn't the situation here at all." All members recognize that, because they come from various parts of the province and know what's going on at home.

The enthusiasm of the opposition in the debate on our budget is astonishing. The enthusiasm of the opposition to debate in a responsible way is almost non-existent. We hear about attitudes. We hear stories and reminiscences and various other things. Perhaps they're quite interesting and have a place in debate at some point in time. I guess it's asking too much for any opposition to simply say: "Well, good for you guys. At least for once you're doing something about it. Maybe it's not what we would do precisely, but you're heading in the right direction." It's a sad situation when you produce a budget. Subjective analysis suggests it's a good budget, but you can't get anyone on the opposite political side to even acknowledge that somewhere in the budget there is something worthwhile. I know it came as a shock and surprise to my critics that Health increased its expenditures. Only a week before we heard: "What's going to be cut out of Health?" One member who is aspiring for leadership said: "Will they stop cancelling open-heart surgery? Where are they going to find the money for cuts in health care?" I recognize that the increase in health care is relatively modest in comparison to previous years, but an increase in expenditure of public money in today's real world is a responsible accomplishment.

I want to acknowledge my appreciation of my colleagues in cabinet. If you look in the budget you will see the decreases in the ministries of my colleagues. I'm sure most colleagues took at Health and think: "There they go again." But cabinet colleagues recognized that health is our number one priority. They took it upon themselves to assist the government in producing the necessary revenues by freeing up some from their ministries so that our number one priority can be maintained. I appreciate that very much.

MR. R. FRASER: So do the people.

[11:30]

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Of course they do.

Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity of speaking to people in the health professional field the other night, and they recognized that they themselves are put into a difficult position once in a while, because the opposition would like to use them to get at the government. They were telling me: "You know, it's been a tough time over the last couple of years; it's been quite difficult. But we really had very little to complain about, because we've been treated fairly, openly, and we've been asked to take part in trying to resolve the problems." They appreciate that. They're not simply going to stand up and take shots, because they want to act in a responsible way. They have done an excellent job over the past few years. I've

[ Page 3425 ]

acknowledged that, and they understand that they have done a good job over the past few years.

One of the criticisms and comments made was: "How can you possibly maintain the same level of health services when your increase may not match inflation?" Questions such as that come from people who do not understand, appreciate, or believe in such words as "management," "efficiency" and "productivity." Of course it can be done. A person who is ill is not going to feel any better if you cover him with money. The doctors are not going to be any more skilled because their fee is higher, nor is a hospital going to give any better service if you give them more per day per patient. We're dealing with an area in health, fortunately, of very highly skilled professional people. Integrity is something they understand, even though certain unnamed groups may not.

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity of speaking in this debate. I would like to share with my colleagues an incident which occurred in our capital of Ottawa last night, which I found to be most interesting. Ministers of Health from various provinces were invited to appear as witnesses before the House of Commons committee on the Canada Health Act. I was asked to be there last night, and I appeared before the committee. I appreciated it very much. Scheduling had been a difficult problem, but they worked it out so that the ministers could appear. The minister from Ontario was following up at 7:30 last evening and the minister from Prince Edward Island had spoken immediately prior to my arrival. I must commend most of the members of the House of Commons committee on health for their interest, their understanding, and their genuine concern about the difficulties the Canada Health Act could bring to Canadians. To share a moment with you, I thought it was most intriguing to hear a question and a statement made by one of the members on that committee last night. Breaking away from discussions of the Canada Health Act, the member became very political. Being a very gentle soul, I wasn't quite sure how to respond, so I sought advice. I said: "Dare I be frank and open and rude in this committee, because this is a House of Commons committee?" It was suggested: "No, take the high road. You're a guest; you're a witness." I usually find doing that no difficulty, so I answered the member's questions as honestly and completely as I could. Then I thought: "You know, you can't really ignore these political shots." The federal NDP member for Burnaby said: "Your budget has threatened the most vulnerable group of people in British Columbia, and they are frightened." The member was correct. Our budget has indeed frightened the most vulnerable group of people in British Columbia — the New Democratic Party of B.C.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just before I recognize the next speaker in the budget debate, I would like to bring something to the attention of all hon. members. Over the years, hon. members, there has been compiled a list of words and expressions that are considered to be unparliamentary and that are not permitted to be used in this House. Over the last day or two the terms "muckraking", "muckraker" and, "muckrakers" have been used on several occasions. The Chair would like to make it clear to all hon. members, for their information and edification, that the use of the term, "muckraking" is in order; however, the use of the terms "muckraker" and "muckrakers" is not in order, is considered unparliamentary and will not be accepted.

MR. PASSARELL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I certainly won't talk about raking here today, but I've got a couple of things that I'd like to say before we adjourn for the lunch break.

The first is about the suggestion by the hon. Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) regarding apologizing. In the five years I've sat here.... Before you leave, I hope you listen to this, my friend. I would certainly hope that we could sit sometime and start apologizing right across this floor for some of the.... I don't know if I can use this — it'll probably be in that book that you quoted from. We can use it up north, but I don't think we can use it down south here. I would like to see a little bit more when statements go across the floor...for people to start apologizing. It's a sign of maturity and a sign that this House could....

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: Angus, be quiet. We've got 25 minutes before lunch.

There are a couple of things the hon. minister mentioned that I take exception to. First, he said the opposition never says anything decent about the government and the budget. That'll be changed here in the next 40 minutes because I will say a number of nice, decent things about this budget. By the same token I'll talk about a lot of things I'm opposed to in the budget, I certainly won't come down and just say it's all negative. Criticism, yes. There's always criticism; that's part of why political parties exist. When you look across the spectrum in this province, one of the problems, and why this continues, is the fifth estate, which I think here in Victoria is probably one of the worst group of individuals when it comes to reporting that I've ever witnessed. If you really want to get some decent reporting, I think you have to go over to Vancouver, and forget about certain columnists here in Victoria.

After attacking the fifth estate for the poor job that I find they're doing in this capital on reporting from both sides of the House, I'd like to go on and take some of the budget highlights which I find acceptable. I've had the flu for the last couple of days, so I'm chewing on some lozenges here so I can speak.

The first thing I agree with in the little statement that the minister passed out, "1984 Budget Highlights," is: "First time in 31 years provincial budget has been reduced from previous year." I agree with that. It's about time. Second: "Deficit of $671 million, down from the revised 1983-84 deficit of $1.307 billion." I always like to see deficits drop. I think last year's $1.307 billion was a little exaggerated, but it's still coming down. The minister responded to an article in this morning's Times-Colonist which says: "Budgets: B.C. 'Realistic,' Ottawa 'Dishonest'." He used this statement as a cure-all. I certainly don't agree with what Ottawa is doing with my tax dollars, your tax dollars and my constituents' tax dollars, but I think a couple of comments from the article are worth noting here. This is Mr. Jim Cutt, a university professor here, "But he questioned the spending of $470 million from that fund to retire old B.C. Rail debt. Ideally, revenue surpluses should be used for that purpose. 'What they are doing is paying off debt by running up more debt.'"

That gets back to a question one of my constituents asked me to raise here. Old Bob wanted to know when, if they can come out and spend this $470 million to.... They say in their own statements: "Extraordinary payment of S470 million to British Columbia Railway to eliminate the historic

[ Page 3426 ]

debt burden." Bob wanted to know when they were going to finish off the Dease Lake extension. As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, the Dease Lake extension is probably the longest sidewalk in the world, with the railbed there. I would certainly like to have some kind of statement from the government. If they're going to pay off B.C. Rail, by having one debt upon another debt, what are they going to do with the Dease Lake extension?

I'd like to praise the government on another aspect, to a certain extent, but it's kind of hard. It says: "Except for Health, all ministry budgets below 1983-84." Well, I like to see Health go up, but one of the things that concern me, and I will get back onto it later on in my speech, is the special income tax that has been put on to subsidize health to a certain extent in this province. It was an interesting comment made yesterday. It said, "B.C.'s per capita debt is greater than Ottawa's," meaning the federal government's. I find that quite interesting, because we've heard so much about how poor Ottawa's doing. And they are doing a poor job. But B.C.'s per capita debt is greater than the federal government's debt. I find that interesting.

But onto the budget itself, because I don't want to make a tirade like the Minister of Health; I want to deal with the budget. I refer to certain pages here of a news release put out by the hon. minister, Hugh Curtis. Page 2 — this is something that I mentioned earlier: "The first payment will see $470 million go to the British Columbia Railway to eliminate its historic debt, a move which will save the railway some $1.034 billion in interest alone over the next 21 years." Further on: "The deficit for the coming year is projected to be $671 million, a reduction of $636 million from the 1983-84 forecast of $1.307 billion." I doubt there are very many economists in this Legislature, but I wonder why at this time, when we are seeing 225,000 people unemployed in this province, we are spending $470 million — almost half a billion dollars — to relieve the debt of the BCR, unless we're going to sell it. I could see putting $470 million into B.C. Rail if we were going to continue with the Dease Lake extension and work out some kind of a deal with the Yukon government and Alaska to have a northern railroad. But at this stage of the game, when we're faced with massive unemployment in this province, to give almost half a billion dollars.... To borrow money to pay off a debt just doesn't seem realistic at this stage of the game.

This is from page 3 of the news release: "A deficit of $671 million still represents almost $650 per household in this province and the interest payments alone for 1984-85 are equal to the combined budgets of seven ministries...." Curtis said the outstanding direct debt for government purposes is forecast to reach $1.9 billion by March 31, 1984, and $2.6 billion at March 31, 1985."

I wonder why, on one hand, the minister is talking about bringing down the debt in this province.... We see on page 2 that they throw around the figures I quoted of $671 million, and then on the next page they come out and say there is going to be a debt of $1.9 billion — not million but billion — by March 31, 1984, increasing to $2.6 billion — not million — by March 31, 1985. It just seems a contradiction in the statement itself: $2.6 billion is a lot of money to have as a debt in a province of 2.5 million to 2.75 million people, particularly when you have almost a quarter of a million people unemployed.

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: I'm reading from the news release that you talked about.

[11:45]

HON. MR. HEWITT: How much is the debt?

MR. PASSARELL: I'm just referring to what the minister says. As the Minister of Agriculture has stated.... I'll read again: "Curtis said the outstanding direct debt for government purposes is forecast to reach $1.9 billion by March 31, 1984, and $2.6 billion by March 31, 1985." You should read the minister's news release.

On to page 4. The next quote I'd like to read is about a concern of mine on what we're doing in putting a special surtax onto our personal income tax. "The surtax will be equal to 8 percent of British Columbia's personal income tax, payable commencing July 1984." Personally, I don't like seeing any kind of extra taxes put onto our personal income taxes at this stage of the game.

Another quote I'd like to read from the minister's budget: "New privatization initiatives, Curtis announced, will include real estate, insurance and securities licensing, travel agency regulation, selected forest management functions and laundry facilities." That's a real grabber there: "laundry facilities."

The next quote: "At the same time, the government will conduct a review of the impact of taxation on economic development and will consider innovative tax measures to stimulate investment by large and small businesses." Sounds good; I'd rather see it go for small than large at this stage of the game, particularly when I look in my own riding and find something like Granduc. According to yesterday's Province, the Granduc copper mine, the largest employer in the community of Stewart, is going down the drain and for the next three years is selling off all their real estate through a company called Universal Equipment.

I would like to say something positive about the budget's only tax changes. I'd like to praise the government on exemption of the sales tax on a wide range of safety equipment including children's car seats. I'd like to see the government take this one further step and make it mandatory for all parents, and all drivers in the province, if they're driving around with children under the age of 5 or 6, to have children's car seats in automobiles. Secondly, taking the sales tax off portable fire extinguishers: excellent idea. Bicycle and motorcycle helmets and oxygen used for medical purposes, effective midnight tonight....

One that I don't agree with is an increase in the minimum property tax, from $150 to $175 starting in 1985. I think northerners are already paying a high increase; we've seen our property taxation go up.

The last quote I'd like to make from the minister's news statement: "The tax measures, including the new health care maintenance surtax, will increase provincial revenue by $97 million in 1984-85." I would certainly like to know for sure, 100 percent, that that almost $100 million is going to go directly to health and not put into general revenue, as in the case so often with transfer payments.

The last sentence of this news release is an interesting one. It says: "As our goal, we should accept no less." It almost sounds like something that President Roosevelt would say. It's a good line. But I think that if we look at the facts and figures of what's happening in this province, when we find

[ Page 3427 ]

almost a quarter of a million people in this province unemployed.... Communities like Victoria — the capital city — are facing almost 25 percent unemployment. When we look in the far north, the area that I represent, we see almost 30 to 40 percent unemployment in small communities. That's much too high. Regardless of our political stripes, our goal should be to relieve the high unemployment we're facing in this province.

I don't understand why the Finance minister accepts higher and higher unemployment figures and rates in this province. It's much too high. We're too strong; we have too much in this province. We have everything imaginable in this province. We could be self-sufficient to a certain extent. What's happening? We're finding young people who can't get a job. They can't even afford to go to college because of some of the cutbacks that this government has made.

In the budget itself, Mr. Speaker, they have said absolutely nothing about young people, who have the highest unemployment figure right across this country. What type of future do 17- and 18-year-olds have, particularly in Victoria, where we see more and more government jobs being moved or cut right back? We're finding out that the 17- and 18-year olds can't afford university. They can't afford to go to UVic, Simon Fraser or UBC. By the same token we find that young people in this province, who have the highest percentage of unemployment, can't even attend a mining school. We used to have a mining school in this province, but it was closed a few years back. It was in Rossland. The Rossland Mining School once provided the technical training for one of the largest industries in this province, and what happened? That was closed. Instead of borrowing $470 million to reduce another debt, I'd rather see that sort of money going into a mining school or a forestry school — but particularly a mining school — to allow young people some type of technical opportunities that they could gain.

I was listening to the President of the United States on television the other night, making some statement about unemployment in the United States. After his speech the networks went to the opposition candidates and asked them for their comments on the President's announcements. One of the leading Democrat candidates for president of the United States said: "Wouldn't it be novel if we came up with the idea of declaring war on unemployment in this country." He said that if their citizens declare war, they put everything behind it — everything. They get the factories going and unemployment goes down. It is a massive effort by the public and the governments. Wouldn't it be something if we as British Columbians and the 57 lawmakers in this chamber declared war on unemployment and came up with every imaginable idea to take the horrendous number of 225,000 people who are unemployed in this province and give them some type of decency, some type of job? It might be a novel idea, but I doubt it would ever be done in this Legislature.

Mr. Speaker, as it is almost noon, with very few members in this house, I move adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved,

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, if the Government House Leader is going to say, as he just said with respect to the member for Atlin, "You're doing a good job," then that should appear on the record. That should appear in Hansard. I think the minister should stand up and commend the member for Atlin for doing a good job.

HON. MR. GARDOM: He's not a mudslinger. That's why he's doing a good job.

MR. SPEAKER: I don't really think that's a point of order, hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:55 a.m.