[ Page 3429 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Ombudsman's report on log-scaling. Mr. Macdonald –– 3429

Mr. Barrett

Mr. Reid

Transfer of funds to BCR. Mr. Stupich –– 3430

Lobbying of White Rock council by MLA. Mr. Blencoe –– 3431

Budget debate

Mr. Passarell –– 3432

Mr. Segarty –– 3434

Mrs. Wallace –– 3437

Hon. Mr. Brummet –– 3440

Mr. Gabelmann –– 3444

On the amendment

Mr. Cocke –– 3448

Mr. Mowat –– 3453

Tabling Documents –– 3453

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

MR. KEMPF: It's my pleasure to introduce His Worship Mayor Bill Gilgan and Mr. Jim Pierce, the administrator of Burns Lake, who are in your gallery this afternoon, Mr. Speaker. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

MR. REE: In the gallery today we have three businessmen: Trevor Neate, whose business is conducted in my constituency, and he resides in the constituency of West Vancouver Howe Sound; Leo Hagel from Victoria; and Jim Connolly from Vancouver. I ask the House to welcome these three entrepreneurs.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I'm very pleased indeed today to welcome a gentleman in the company of my assistant Miss Nina Gray, Ray Nestman. Ray was recently elected director for Sooke. With his long experience in that area. I'm sure he is going to contribute a great deal to that board at the CRD. Would the House please welcome him.

MR. MOWAT: In the members' gallery today we have members of the College of Dental Surgeons: Dr. Ron Markey, president; Dr. Serge Vanry, vice-president; Dr. Roy Thordarson, registrar; and Mr. Ken Croft. They've had meetings with the government. I ask the House to make welcome the members of the College of Dental Surgeons.

HON. MR. ROGERS: There is a visitor to the press gallery today from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Would the members please welcome Joel Connolly.

Oral Questions

OMBUDSMAN'S REPORT ON LOG-SCALING

MR. MACDONALD: I have a question for the Minister of Forests.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Apologize first.

MR. MACDONALD: I will never apologize for asking legitimate questions in this Legislature. This government is dancing to the tune of big financial interests. They and you are determined to block an inquiry. I don't see why big business shouldn't pay its taxes the way ordinary people have to do, down to the last red cent. I will never apologize.

AN HON. MEMBER: How about unfounded attacks?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Say it outside, then. If you accuse them of lying out there, go ahead. Get out there and say it.

MR. MACDONALD: And stay out.

Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Forests. Mr. Williston. a respected former Minister of Forests, in answer to a question as to whether the independent loggers had been unjustly treated, said: "Well, unless a fellow with the integrity of Tommy Thompson and some of the others are completely wrong — and I have never found them to be wrong — then I would say they have, from the evidence I was able to verify by Tommy Thompson. I came to the conclusion that they better get the goldarned thing straightened out." Asked whether they got it straightened out, he said this: "No, they haven't done a thing and I was wrong. I said that if they put it out, they'd get it straightened out. Well. they didn't get it straightened out, so I'm the guy they can laugh at." In this case, of course, it's all the more reason why the ombudsman should be doing his job. My question is: will the minister order a full public inquiry at once?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members. as was mentioned yesterday, the Chair tries not to bring these matters into question period, but yesterday the point was made that the reading of telegrams, letters or extracts from newspapers in the opening to an oral question is an abuse of the rules of the House. I would commend that to all members.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, when the member for Vancouver East gets his rather jumbled thought process straightened out and can properly ask a question, I might be able to answer it. But I have no idea what that member was mumbling about as he proposed a so-called question.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, in another place — and I hope the minister will listen to this; I'm sure he heard the first question too, but he doesn't want to answer — Mr. Williston said this: "It was probably three times as bad as the ombudsman said." He said this to Barrie Clark, and it's public knowledge. Now I ask again: will the minister, before he goes off to Germany or wherever it is — his Black Forest Cake junket — order a full public inquiry into the allegations in the ombudsman's report."

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, if the member who just asked the question had any credibility whatsoever, I might attempt to answer that mishmash of misquotes and isolated quotes that he just put forth. In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, I cannot lower myself to even reply to such a stupid bunch of nonsense.

MR. SPEAKER: Order. please.

MR. BARRETT: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Forests. Can the Minister of Forests inform this House whether or not he has any confidence in Mr. Williston?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, I can certainly advise the House.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, can we assume that the minister has full confidence in Mr. Williston as an employee in his ministry, related to the matters at Ocean Falls? Do you have any confidence in Mr. Williston?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, I don't know where that member has been. Certainly he hasn't been around here. Mr. Williston is not an employee of my ministry in any capacity, nor has he ever been since I have been a minister.

[ Page 3430 ]

MR. BARRETT: Is it true that Mr. Williston is a Crown employee related to Ocean Falls?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is as well aware of the answer to that question as I am.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Williston, an employee of the Crown and related to forestry matters — a former forestry minister — has said publicly that the financial matters involved in the ombudsman's report may be three times greater than what the ombudsman has stated. Do you think that those statements by Mr. Williston are accurate or not accurate?

AN HON. MEMBER: Go ask him.

MR. BARRETT: Well, let's have a public inquiry to ask him. Bring him to the bar of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: The second member for Surrey.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the minister was getting up to speak.

MR. SPEAKER: The second member for Surrey may defer to the Minister of Forests, who may wish to respond. If not, the Chair recognizes the second member for Surrey.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Attorney-General relative to a news release published today by the ombudsman and dated February 23. Can the minister tell the House what in fact is the truth relative to the statements made by him yesterday and the inference of the ombudsman, who makes reference to the fact that he did not have sufficient information and that he didn't know that criminal investigations were underway — or a copy of a letter of the Deputy Attorney-General which he made reference to in his statement the other day? The date of the letter was February 15.

[2:15]

Interjections.

MR. REID: I did it myself, unfortunately. I didn't have to steal it from somebody else.

To the Attorney-General: would you please answer, if you are in receipt of the news release, what is the truth as has been printed today by the ombudsman in his news release?

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, it is impossible to understand quite what was in the mind of the ombudsman when he received the letter of February 15 telling him about the criminal investigation, but he has attempted in a press release today to give his version of that. It would appear from that version that he doesn't believe that at the time he was warned it was clear there was a criminal investigation underway. That may well be what he thought.

The difficulty I have in responding to you is that I have Mr. Hughes' letter, which I tabled with this House, in which Mr. Hughes did tell him that the RCMP were asked to examine the matter to determine whether any criminal conduct might be present. "I'm advised that that requested examination is now in progress," he wrote. That would seem to be a pretty clear indication to anyone that a criminal investigation had already been launched.

1 notice also that in the ombudsman's reply the following day when he decided to publish, he referred in that letter to an examination. He said that he didn't think he would jeopardize the RCMP examination into allegations of criminality. He also said that he didn't think that the publication of his report would jeopardize the RCMP investigation. So it appears that he treated it as a criminal investigation. I'm just at a loss to understand the statements that he made....

MR. MACDONALD: You're at a loss, period.

HON. MR. SMITH: You're at a loss, hon. member, to have the courage to stand up here and acknowledge that you went after the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) on unfounded allegations and apologize to the House.

I think you have to read the letter of February 15 and the ombudsman's reply to it to find out what he thought, and not some statement issued yesterday.

TRANSFER OF FUNDS TO BCR

MR. STUPICH: A question to the Minister of Finance. The minister explained in the budget that the $470 million to be given to BCR is not for direct repayment of debt but will go into the sinking funds controlled by that company. Will the minister confirm that BCR sinking funds have been used in the past to purchase bonds issued by related provincial Crown corporations?

HON MR. CURTIS: In order to be completely accurate, I will take the question as notice and return to the House with the answer.

MR. STUPICH: Another question on the same topic, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister able to give any assurance whatsoever that the $470 million given to BCR cannot be used to acquire bonds issued by related provincial Crown corporations?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I think the question might be regarding future government policy.

MR. STUPICH: Another question, Mr. Speaker, along the same subject. It might bring forward the same answer as the previous one, but I'll try anyway. Is there any reason that these sinking funds cannot be used to purchase bank paper which could be used to finance the Tumbler Ridge railway line?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I suppose we are now getting to the nub of the series of questions from the hon. member for Nanaimo. I would refer that member and all members to the very clearly stated views with respect to the Tumbler Ridge line in the budget document presented here on Monday. I want to again make it abundantly clear that the transaction which is proposed and which is dealt with in a bill now before this House.... There is no intention whatever to use that fund with respect to the Tumbler Ridge line. The B.C. Railway is expected, and knows that it is expected, to carry that cost on its own, as stated in the budget.

MR. STUPICH: This is a supplementary. The audited financial statements for the B.C. Railway — the latest we have, December 31, 1982 — have notes to the effect that

[ Page 3431 ]

interest and repayment of the $455 million cost of construction of the Tumbler Ridge line has been guaranteed by the provincial government. Is the provincial government now withdrawing that guarantee?

HON. MR. CURTIS: No, Mr. Speaker, not at this time.

LOBBYING OF WHITE ROCK COUNCIL BY MLA

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, I have a serious question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs: what investigation has the minister undertaken into the actions of the first member for Surrey (Mrs. Johnston) in lobbying for a rezoning proposal in which she holds a beneficial interest, after the public hearing and before the final vote?

AN HON. MEMBER: What was that again?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member continues.

MR. BLENCOE: I'll ask my question again. It has been alleged that the first member for Surrey tried to lobby White Rock council. I wonder if the minister can indicate to this House if the government has a policy to prevent this type of activity on the part of developers.

MR. SPEAKER: Further questions, hon. members? The member continues.

MR. BLENCOE: A supplementary question to the minister, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister aware that when aldermen are influenced by lobbying between the public hearing and final vote, the council decision may be challenged in court, and will he advise what action he is taking with regard to the involvement of a government MLA in such lobbying?

MR. SPEAKER: Further questions, hon. members? The bell terminates question period.

MR. PARKS: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to standing order 26 on a point of privilege. I have just asked my learned colleague, the second member for Surrey (Mr. Reid), for a copy of the information he was referring to in his question to the hon. Attorney-General. As I understand it, the office of the ombudsman is a position retained by this parliament and in fact is responsible to this parliament. As I have heard the assertions put forth in the representation of his press release today and in particular the assertion contained in page 3 of it, it states: "In effect, I was given virtually no information to assist me in making my decision."

In hearing the response of the Attorney-General to the question of my colleague, I would suggest that there has been a clear attempt to mislead this House. If in fact you concur that there was an intention by the ombudsman to mislead this House, then I would suggest that there has been a terrible abuse of the office of the ombudsman and, I would suggest to you, a breach of privilege to all members of this House. I would ask you to rule on that question.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, on the matter raised by the member, the Chair will undertake to review the matter and return to the House with a response at the earliest opportunity.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, under standing order 26....

MR. SPEAKER: It's not a point of order, hon. member; it's a point of privilege.

MR. BARRETT: He mentioned standing order 26.

MR. SPEAKER: It's not debatable, hon. member.

MR. BARRETT: I want an interpretation of standing order 26, used by the member. The member referred to standing order 26 — is that correct?

MR. SPEAKER: That's right, hon. member. All members who raise a matter of privilege do so in essence under standing order 26, whether or not the particular number of the standing order is referred to. It does not allow members to get up and enter into debate. Therefore, hon. member....

MR. BARRETT: I'm asking on a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: You have a point of order?

MR. BARRETT: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: And the point of order is?

MR. BARRETT: Under standing order 26, whenever a matter of privilege arises, it should be taken into consideration immediately. What I am suggesting, Mr. Speaker, is that to take the matter into consideration includes a response to the allegations made in the matter of privilege.

MR. SPEAKER: No, hon. member, that is not the case. The matter of consideration is one thing; the matter of a ruling is another.

Hon. members. earlier today the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) rose on what he alleged was a question of privilege. The member complained of the circulation of a document by the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis). The member took issue with the content of the document. Differences between members over fact arise frequently and are the subject of debate. However, differences of opinion or any dispute over facts do not in any way impede or interfere with any member discharging his responsibility in this House. It is to be expected that there will be disputes over facts, but that does not in any way constitute a matter of privilege. Further, the matter complained of is in a document that is not before this House and, as such, has no status except in debate.

I would refer hon. members to citation 19 in the fifth edition of Beauchesne's Rides and Forms and page 70 of the twentieth edition of May. The House is presently engaged in a general debate about the budget, and the member may wish to raise his grievance in that discussion. In short, I can find nothing in the matter raised by the hon. member for Skeena which would constitute, even remotely, a valid question of privilege.

[ Page 3432 ]

Orders of the Day

ON THE BUDGET
(continued debate)

[2:30]

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. PASSARELL: To continue on the budget debate that I started this morning, another issue I would like to discuss that was not addressed by the budget was Crown land. I think the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) and I share concern on this aspect. When you look at it, approximately 85 percent of the residents of British Columbia live in the metropolitan areas. If we're looking at this high unemployment rate that we have in this province — the 225,000 people.... I don't know if it's proper for more and more people coming to the cities to try to find work when the work does not exist. I think we're going to have to start looking at the hinterland for the change that some economists talk about. More than 50 years ago, during the Depression, the federal government allowed homesteading leases to residents who would move out of metropolitan areas. I think this government has forgotten how difficult it is to secure Crown land for homesteading in the areas where my friend from Omineca and I live. While bush life does not suit everyone, I think that opportunity should be allowed for individuals who now live in urban areas, where there is very little hope for employment, so they can go off and homestead. If it's to get agriculture leases, timber leases or just homesteading leases, it's a chance for some type of future, because there's very little in the cities right now. Fifty years ago, Mr. Speaker, when the homesteaders moved out from the urban areas, they brought their skills into the rural areas of this country and into this province. They had employment benefits. We took at the Peace River as one example. When the homesteading leases and timber leases and the agriculture leases were granted to people to come out of the cities during the Depression, we saw issues being developed that helped the province and the country through public works.

That's something that the government has fallen down in: public work programs to benefit the unemployed. A quarter of a million people in this province are unemployed. We also can look at the small business that developed in the Peace River region and into the far north with the development of the Alaska Highway during World War II. Small business flourished.

My old friend, old Bob, up in the far north had another question relating to bank profits, to go along with the budget here. Old Bob wanted to know some issues concerning bank profits, which wasn't really addressed in the budget either. We're seeing more and more bankruptcies and foreclosures in this province, and he wanted to know why chartered banks are making larger and larger profits in this province and across the country — hundreds of millions of dollars — and nothing is being done. If you took back in history, Mr. Speaker, prior to you and me being born — I don't know, maybe my friend from the Cariboo was around at that time — when the CCF, the NDP, and the Social Credit Party formed, they had identical policies in both of their manifestos concerning the banks. That's something that we've lost in the last 50 years. I don't think the CCF/NDP have forgotten about it, but certainly Social Credit has. They had identical policies regarding the profits and powers of the chartered banks in this country. It is surprising that two political parties that sit....

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL Oh, I'd like to, but I'm so bloody sick that as soon as I finish this thing in 15 minutes I'm going home.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Moderation and temperance of language is always a hallmark in parliamentary debate.

MR. PASSARELL: Oh, yes. I always try that, Mr. Speaker. It's really the budget that is making me sicker.

If you look back on these two political parties, they have such differences — as the gallery saw today just during question period with the yelling back and forth. Just 50 years ago both of these political parties, when they were forming within a close area of each other on the Alberta-Saskatchewan border, as their number one issue believed and stated in their manifestos that the banks were too powerful.

Another issue that old Bob wanted to know about was the cutback in the Highways budget.

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: He takes an extreme interest in what's going on. He takes a good interest in even you. You're one of his characters that he enjoys. He wanted to know if I could get a picture of you to put into his outbuilding — an autographed picture.

Mr. Speaker, another question is the Highways budget cutback. As we've seen in the budget highlights, the only ministry that hasn't been cut back is Health. One of the concerns I have, living in the far north, is roads and how roads are important to the tourist trade, which is probably the number one industry in this province today, with the recession, depression and the problems it has caused with the forest and mining industries. Tourism now is our number one industry.

One of the concerns — and I know the Minister of Tourism agrees with me — is that....

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL Oh. well, probably it is. We're going to find out for sure this summer when we see more and more tourists come to our province. But the concern I have is with cutbacks in road construction in this province. As the critic for the hon. minister, I have a concern. If we're going to encourage tourism in this province — and that's something that just can't wait until Expo 86 comes along two years down the road — we have to have an excellent highway system in this province, not just on the lower mainland but right across, up through Prince George and the centre of this province, one of the fastest-growing areas in all of western Canada, and into the far north. Prince George is often referred to by northern residents as the gateway to the far north. We need an excellent system, whether it's the Alaska Highway, which is subsidized to a certain extent by the federal government, or Highway 16 connected to Highway 37 into the Yukon and through my

[ Page 3433 ]

riding. We can't cut back at this stage, when more and more people are unemployed. We have to turn money into road construction. Public works, as was done in the United States during the 1930s, is a similar process. This has to be happening now in the far north to build our roads and benefit society.

Another issue going on, as I mentioned, is Expo 86. I see the minister is in here right now. I was wondering last night, as I was watching television, about that new spokesperson for the government — is his name Ernie? — the guy with the flashing lights on his face.

MR. REID: Expo Ernie.

MR. PASSARELL: I hope Expo Ernie is not going to become the government spokesperson. Is he programmed? Or does he just say what he feels like saying if you ask him a question?

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: I saw him spinning around there. Maybe he even moves too fast to be a cabinet minister.

One of the other concerns I have about the debt, one that arouses my personal animosity against the budget to a certain extent, is the one issue.... As I said earlier today, there are some good points about this budget. But the one I just don't understand — and it'll probably be one of the few times that I ever agree with Mr. Michael Walker of the Fraser Institute.... We both share the same concern for the $470 million to eliminate the historic debt of B.C. Rail. Michael and I, who are sitting on different sides of the fence, both have to agree on this. It's pretty hard to understand, particularly when Mr. Walker of the Fraser Institute, who in many respects likes to look upon himself — and I think the government likes to look upon him — as some kind of financial guru in this province.... Why at this time spend $470 million — almost half a billion dollars of taxpayers' money — to relieve this debt of B.C. Rail? I don't understand it, Michael doesn't understand it, and if we've got to where Michael and I don't understand it, who really does?

If you want to retire a long-standing debt, and if you're really going to get into this mode of retiring long-standing debts, I would give this government one suggestion. Another debt you should retire, and probably the longest-running debt in this country, is aboriginal rights. Complete the aboriginal title. As the Nishga have said many times: "Our land is not for sale." We're not talking about relieving a debt in this province and across this country for money. You can't buy it out, but you can acknowledge it. I think it's about time this provincial government and we as a Legislature acknowledge that there are aboriginal titles and claims in this province that should be resolved. The B.C. Rail debt is a relatively new debt in this province, while the aboriginal title owes the first citizens of this country a debt that reaches back over 114 years.

I've got to keep on chewing this candy, Mr. Speaker, so I can talk. My throat is very sore.

Another question that old Bob wanted to know about was welfare slashes and cutbacks in the government.

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: No, Bob is 80-some years old. He worked for a long time. He's on a pension now. I guess that in some regards you people might call people who are retired on pensions welfare recipients, for what they're given. Old Bob has a concern, too, with some of the welfare cutbacks. Of course there are certain scam artists who rip off the system for welfare incomes. but there are also tax evaders who rip off the system too. My concern with forest companies.... A lot of people rip off different things, and it doesn't have to be just young, single people. Living in the far north, I have seen some young people who would like the opportunity to work. That's why there is such a high unemployment rate among young males in this province and this country — between 35 to 40 percent of young people can't get jobs. I don't think this is the time to go right across the spectrum, across the board, and say, okay, because they're young. single and male they should be cut back in their welfare. They wouldn't be penalized at this time. There should be some type of mode to get the deadwood out, but I don't think it makes up that many people. It's just like the tax evaders. The majority of people go through and pay their taxes: as much as we dislike doing it, we have to.

There's another concern I want to raise. Old Bob doesn't drive any longer, but he shares my concern as Highways critic. It's something the budget didn't really address either, and that's the vehicle testing branches. All vehicle testing branches in the province will be totally closed in another few weeks — March 9. I wonder when we're hearing more and more, whether from ICBC or the health organizations across this province: "By cutting back on the vehicle testing program you are encouraging people to drive with ill-equipped and unsafe cars, which can only lead to more and more accidents on our roads." It's bad enough having the drunks going around. I think this government has taken a strong position against drunk drivers, and I appreciate that. It was a long time in coming, but there's a long way to go too. We can't allow unsafe vehicles to be driven around on our public highways. By cutting back on the vehicle testing branches in the lower mainland, we are encouraging people to drive unsafe cars.

Before the program was cancelled by this government, it cost $5 to have your vehicle inspected. It came out that if the figure were raised to $5.50, the government would break even.

MR. REID: Not true.

MR. PASSARELL: My friend from Surrey says it's not true. When you have your chance to stand in this debate, then I'll listen to you. But don't interrupt me.

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell him you'll punch him out.

[2:45]

MR. PASSARELL: Not today. If I was feeling better I might do that.

But if we did raise that.... Some experts said that if we raised it 50 cents, we'd break even. Why don't we raise it to $6, $7 or even $10 to inspect a vehicle? The government would make a profit on it; it might be small but it would still be a profit. There would be jobs for the vehicle inspectors, who have been transferred to other positions in the government or just laid off, given their walking papers. If we did raise it $3 or $4 — or 50 cents, as some experts have said — the government would be making a profit. They wouldn't be subsidizing people to have their vehicles kept in I me. By the same token, what price can we put on unsafe vehicles on our

[ Page 3434 ]

highways? The government really doesn't have a plan yet for what they're going to do with vehicle inspections. They say they are going to turn it over to the private sector. But look at the Ontario program, where you can pay anywhere from $50 to $75 to have your vehicle inspected. A lot of times that vehicle isn't even inspected. You just come in, lay the 50 or 75 bucks on the table, they give you a little decal and you drive off. I strongly recommend that the government....

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: Not northern guys. We've never had a problem with keeping our vehicles in good shape up north. That's where the vehicle inspection is needed. To allow it to be privatized and allow people to charge $50 or $75 for the decal is wrong by the same token too. That is why the committee must sit and come back to this House with some strong recommendations.

Mr. Speaker, I can see that the green light is on, and I am ready to go home myself and allow others to continue here.

I'd like a closing thought on this budget, particularly for the community of Stewart, which saw its main source of income, Granduc, go out of business and lay off hundreds and hundreds of people that live in that far north community. I see that Stewart is becoming similar to Ocean Falls. I would leave this thought with you: next election.... I don't see any cabinet ministers in here now who were in Stewart in May for the election.

MRS. WALLACE: I don't see any cabinet ministers here, period.

MR. PASSARELL: Oh, there are two: the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Schroeder) and the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Richmond), but they didn't deal....

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I will close now, but it would be encouraging that if next time the election comes up, if you are going to come up and start talking about pro-development, you help the people when the mines do close and don't just let them walk off and lose their homes, as is happening in Stewart.

MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to follow the member for Atlin, who always represents his constituents quite well in this Legislature and is one of the more reasonable members of the New Democratic Party in this assembly.

Before I get on to the budget debate, I would like to say a couple of things that affect our country. This basically is a reflection on a resolution that I put on the order paper. As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, I have a resolution dealing with the use of nuclear weapons and the efforts made by the Prime Minister of Canada in telling the story throughout the world on the nuclear weapons issue. I think all Canadians realize that the earth and its inhabitants, the sea and the air are not the ownership of one single power group or one nation. Therefore it is my belief that the efforts of the Prime Minister of Canada have shown the power groups throughout the world that Canadians are legitimately concerned and want to play a role in the reduction and non-deployment of nuclear weapons. In the words of John Kennedy: "Peace is a daily, a weekly, a monthly process, gradually changing attitudes, slowly eroding old barriers, quietly building new structures. However undramatic the pursuance of peace may be, the search must go on." Whatever little contribution the Prime Minister of Canada has made in that effort needs the full endorsement of every member of this assembly and every individual of British Columbia.

It is a pleasure for me to rise today and debate the budget brought down by the Hon. Minister of Finance just a few days ago. Basically it reflects a position taken by the government of British Columbia and the Premier of our province going back to February 1982 after his historic meeting in Ottawa with fellow premiers of Canada and the Prime Minister of Canada.

It is interesting to note that at that particular time the Premier of British Columbia went down to Ottawa to urge governments to reduce their spending, and he didn't receive the support or endorsement of another provincial government or the government of Canada at that time. Since then many governments across our country have followed the example of our Premier and the government of British Columbia in a variety of ways. The budget brought down by the Minister of Finance the other day clearly is the result of an effort put forward by an entire team of ministers, including himself, to reduce government spending by 6.2 percent in the fiscal year 1983-84. Indeed all of the ministers of our government are to be congratulated for the efforts that they have put forward in developing that budget along with the Minister of Finance.

This is the first government in British Columbia in 31 years that has brought forward a budget with reduced expenditures. It is a budget that clearly puts forward the priorities of the government and will protect those areas that are of vital importance to each and every member of this assembly — and that, of course, is the health, education and human resource needs of our citizens in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, there are a few areas that I'd like to touch on in the budget. I'm pleased to see that the expenditures for the Ministry of Health have increased. I'll be talking more about that during the Minister of Health's estimates. As the minister is well aware, we've been trying to develop a new D and T centre in Elkford, and the ministry is currently looking at providing funds for the planning and the development of that facility, along with a new psychiatric ward at the subregional hospital in Cranbrook.

Like my colleague, the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf), I am disappointed that the rural airport development program has been taken out of the budget. Living in a rural area of British Columbia, an area that provides a great deal of the support resources for all of the people of British Columbia — and I agree with our government's statement in that regard, that the resources of British Columbia belong to all of the people of British Columbia and that one community of British Columbia should not get special benefits from those resources.... It would be nice for the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. A. Fraser) to come up with some new and imaginative program to help us with rural airport development in British Columbia. I look forward to working with the Ministry of Transportation and Highways to maybe come up with a more imaginative approach to the development of small rural airports in our province.

Coming from southeastern British Columbia, I am also pleased at the number of exemptions there are from sales tax in the new budget. I know the Minister of Finance has consistently worked at that over the past few years — the exemption of children's car seats, portable fire extinguishers, bicycle and motorcycle helmets, along with a number of other items which are now basically exempt from sales tax. It

[ Page 3435 ]

is a step in the right direction. Believe me, coming from southeastern British Columbia, I am pleased to see the reduction in the budget. It always worries me and, I'm sure, my colleague, the member for Columbia River (Hon. Mr. Chabot), along with the members from the northern area of our province, because the temptation is there all the time to go out and raise new revenue and increase sales tax and gas tax and so on. Living in a part of the province where people have easy access to markets in Alberta.... It basically provides a very unfavourable business climate in those areas of our province. So I am indeed pleased that the Minister of Finance has not gone out and increased sales tax at this particular time, as this would have been a very regressive step as far as the people in southeastern British Columbia are concerned.

I am pleased, too, to see that the government of British Columbia has decided to retire the debt of the British Columbia Railway Company. This has been suggested by the Committee on Crown Corporations and the auditor-general as far back as 1976. I'm pleased, too, that it is the government's stated policy that all new developments and expansions with respect to the British Columbia Railway will be financed the same as the line flowing from the northeast coal project to Prince George. It's my opinion that resource development today must pay its own costs. I'm pleased to see the government of British Columbia taking a major step in that direction. One of the criticisms that you hear with respect to the British Columbia Railway is that there are huge subsidies to coal producers or to lumber producers, potash producers and so on. I'm pleased with the government's stated policy of having user-pay on our British Columbia Railway.

We should go back a little bit in time and see why continuing restraint is necessary. As you are aware, pulp producers in Portugal, Chile, Brazil and Argentina are increasing their pulp capacity and making steady inroads into British Columbia's and Canada's traditional markets. The current selling price for pulp delivered to customers in Europe is $440 a tonne in the southeastern United States. The break-even point of manufacturing a tonne of pulp is $360 a tonne. In the British Columbia interior it is S460 U.S. a tonne. Clearly we are in a very uncompetitive position at the present time. By the end of this year it is estimated that the non-Canadian pulp producers will have increased their share of the world pulp market by 2 percent or 750,000 tonnes, which is equivalent to 12 percent of all Canada's pulp production in 1982. There is a very real danger of the loss of our competitive edge in future markets. That, of course, is the core consideration of this 1983-84 budget.

[3:00]

British Columbia must reduce the size and the cost of government. Indeed, governments all across our country must reduce their size and cost to allow industry an opportunity to compete favourably in the future. Reducing our overall costs will attract new industry to our province, will provide new investor confidence in our province — confidence necessary to expand current pulp production, develop new mines and factories, and invest in new plants and equipment. This policy will provide job opportunities for those who are young and for those who are displaced by automation and technological change in our mining industry today. Indeed, I'm disappointed at the leadership shown by the pulp union of Canada and its current president, Jim Sloan, who would take the attitude that basically we have no problems in our economy, who would refuse to look at it in a realistic way like the president of the International Woodworkers of America, who has demonstrated some sort of modern-day leadership in this regard. The attitudes of people like Jim Sloan are outdated. If we need to make changes today we need people who are not bound by the traditions of the past, men who are not blinded by old fears and hates and rivalries. We need people who can cast off the old slogans, suspicions and delusions. In short, we must move into the twentieth century in terms of labour-management climate. I'm pleased to see in the throne speech where the Minister of Labour intends to bring in, through a consultative process, new changes to the British Columbia Labour Code that I hope will see the unions in British Columbia have more power over their own affairs and over their presidents and executive officers.

Why we need continuing restraint is demonstrated by other areas in our economy and our competitiveness in the world markets. The Transvaal Coal Co. of South Africa has agreed to price cuts from their West Witbarik coking-coal project. They've taken a reduction of 6.7 percent in the cost per tonne of coal delivered to market, which now stands at $41.50 U.S. per tonne. The Electric Power Development Co. of Japan plans to import additional coal from Australia to its plant in Japan, and they are also taking reductions in price. Current Canadian suppliers say that they need an increase from their current price of $69.81 per tonne in southeastern British Columbia. Clearly. Mr. Speaker, there is a possibility there of a loss of competitive edge. We must take great care that we don't make any changes in taxation or in legislation that would disrupt that competitive advantage. The government of Canada and the provinces and municipalities must recognize the competition that exists throughout the world. Basically the window of opportunity is narrower for all of us. The loss of one coal contract because our price is too high in southeastern British Columbia, for example, would mean simply that we wouldn't get an opportunity to bid on that contract again for another 15 years. While I see members of the opposition continuing to say that we should pay increased salaries to special-interest groups, I would never take the position that we have to go out and increase taxes on miners and woodworkers throughout our province and have them in turn need to increase their salaries and lose the competitive edge altogether. We must be very careful that we don't do anything to disrupt that.

Mr. Speaker, I listened this morning to comments made by the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen), and I enjoy his comments. Basically, I associate myself fully with the comments made by the Minister of Health in his speech this morning on the budget debate. The minister was talking about recent discussions surrounding the city of Vancouver and the position they have taken with respect to an invitation that was given to Dr. Henry Kissinger to make a speech in Vancouver to an organization that was trying to raise funds for charity in that city. The comments made by the mayor and some of the aldermen in Vancouver are indeed very unfortunate — that the leader of the major city in our province and indeed our country would make such statements. It is an affront to all British Columbians and all of Canada to attack the motives of those people who would want to express their point of view. It challenged the very right of people to speak frankly anyplace in our country, and it's a strike against the foundation of the democratic principles of our province and our country. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, it's an affront to the thousands of Canadians whose graves are all over Europe in

[ Page 3436 ]

defence of freedom and defence of freedom of speech. The mayor and the city of Vancouver should be highly condemned and criticized for their actions. It's the same when we look at the city of Vancouver and those members of the New Democratic Party in that city. I would have expected some of those members of the New Democratic Party who are currently seeking the leadership of that party to call to question some of their members in the city of Vancouver. I'm disappointed that some of those leaders in the New Democratic Party who had the insufferable gall last year in this Legislature to call this little British Columbia Social Credit Party Nazis and fascists and so on didn't have the courage to stand up and say to the mayor of Vancouver, "Shame on you," and ask him to apologize. That is indeed unfortunate. I would have expected those leaders of the New Democratic Party, would-be Premiers, to come up with some new ideas on where they stand on different issues, but I don't see any changes in those areas.

Earlier we talked about the development of resources in our province, and about what a non-competitive situation would exist if we priced those industries out of the market. We all remember what happened to the mining industry in our province when the New Democratic Party were in government. We remember what happened to the oil and gas industry when that New Democratic government was in this province. All three industries went into serious decline, and the economic health of this province followed suit. The NDP took the ridiculous position that oil and natural gas would be left in the ground. We know where the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) stands on the issue of resource development in our province, and we know where the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea), the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) and the former member for Shuswap-Revelstoke stand on that issue. But we don't know where Mr. Vickers or Margaret Birrell stand with respect to resource development in our province. The people of my riding would like to know what their position is with respect to resource development, because that constituency depends very heavily on it.

Interjection.

MR. SEGARTY: She talks about no giveways. The NDP took the ridiculous position that the resource heritage of our province should be handed over to Pierre Trudeau and Ed Broadbent to manage. The New Democratic Party took the ridiculous position that resources should be owned by the government of Canada. The Leader of the Opposition, then Premier, even went on record in support of resource ownership. He said: "The province of British Columbia is prepared to surrender the ownership of its natural resources to the government of Canada if the government of Canada is prepared to assume control of the country's natural resources, related revenue, ownership, production, processing and distribution." Fortunately for us all, that leader was thrown out of office before he had an opportunity to give away British Columbia's resource heritage.

The same New Democratic Party has always been against natural resource development in our province, and we can assume that all of the new leaders of that party are still against natural resource development. We all know that there are 10,000 known mineral occurrences in British Columbia, with many more waiting to be discovered. You will find oil and natural gas by developing resources and going out and finding them, not by adopting a policy of non-development.

That's what this budget is all about; it's establishing a policy of development. I find it incredible that the New Democratic Party would want to give away British Columbia's resource heritage to Pierre Trudeau and Ed Broadbent, trusting them to look after the interests of British Columbia and western Canada. That would be like a fox looking after a chicken coop.

The New Democratic Party would do away with the commitment, initiative and active involvement by the private sector in developing British Columbia's resource heritage. If events in the energy sector are any indication, especially events in the last few years, that would be a terrible mistake. Despite that, the New Democratic Party seems willing to sell this province down the drain in order to achieve its political objectives.

Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you that the path our government will never choose is the path of surrendering to a philosophy with which we cannot agree. Our programs must be aimed at expanding British Columbia's industrial and productive capacity at a rate that shows the vigour and vitality of a free economy. This is not a time to abandon the drive, the optimism and the imaginative creative energy that have characterized our country for the past 113 years. It's a time for boldness and energy; it's a time for stout-hearted men and women to turn dreams into reality and to make our province a great place in which to live.

How can those members of the Solidarity organization and the New Democratic Party fail to recognize all the great programs that have been provided by the system of free enterprise: the social benefits we enjoy in the area of health care; human resources programs; new colleges in every region of our province; programs for the handicapped; revenue-sharing to assist municipalities to provide services for their communities; infant development programs; this beautiful building we sit in, with all its marble; the ferries that go back and forth from the Island to the mainland. These things were provided not from the profits of government but from the hard work of individuals who are willing to invest their money and pay their taxes. The reason we enjoy the benefits we enjoy is that we have a good Premier at the helm of our government and have created investors' confidence in this province and have thousands of hard-working British Columbians who, on their own initiative, are willing to take up the pick and shovel and do a hard day's work. They expect rewards, and they will return what is needed to be returned so that we as government can provide more programs for those people in British Columbia and Canada who are less fortunate than we are. We must show our people that this government can provide more programs under an enterprising system and that socialism really doesn't have a corner on the marketplace of caring for people. In fact, free people, working together and showing initiative, can provide more programs on an ongoing basis than any heavy-handed socialist government.

It would do some of those members of the New Democratic Party well — especially Mr. Sloan — to return for a while to the country of their origin. Perhaps it would do us all well from time to time to visit other parts of the world, and perhaps we would come back to this country far more appreciative of what we have to offer and the opportunities that are available to us under an enterprising system. The NDP's commitment is a commitment to the status quo: spend, spend, spend. Today there can be no status quo, for we are at the turning-point in our history where we must prove all over

[ Page 3437 ]

again whether our country can survive and whether a province like British Columbia, with its range of alternatives, its freedom of choice and its breath of opportunity, can survive. That is the real question: are we equal to the challenge and up to the task? That is the choice we must make. It's not just a choice between two men and two parties; it's a choice between public interest and private comfort, between national greatness and national decline.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand up in support of this budget, because I believe it is in support of national greatness.

[3:15]

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy listening to the member for Kootenay (Mr. Segarty). He has such a beautiful Irish brogue that it doesn't really matter what he says; the brogue is just so beautiful I could listen to it hour after hour. I hope he never returns to his country of origin.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Free vote!

MRS. WALLACE: Speaking of a free vote, Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member for Kootenay for placing the motion that he has placed on the order paper. I hope that he and every member of this Legislature sign the petition that is presently being circulated around this province and across this country: the peace petition and caravan. This petition is being circulated right across Canada and is being carried back to Ottawa; that's the reason for the caravan. I hope that member for Kootenay and every member in this Legislature sign that petition, which calls on Canada to become a nuclear-free zone and calls for a free vote in Ottawa on that issue. I hope that the signature of every legislator from British Columbia is on that petition, and I certainly hope the member for Kootenay signs it.

He made some interesting remarks about pulp and somehow indicated that we would have a better pulp market if we kept the cost of government down. I don't quite see how the cost of government is going to control the cost of pulp.

It was interesting that he perhaps divulged more about what the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. McClelland) is proposing in his purported legislation that is coming before us than has the Minister of Labour, when he talked about bringing in legislation that would, in effect, place governmental controls on the internal operation of trade unions. That is in effect what the member for Kootenay said, and if that is what the Minister of Labour is proposing to do, then indeed we are going to have some hot times in British Columbia.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

There's not much to talk about in the budget. Certainly the things that I am concerned about are completely overlooked in the budget. I think I would like to begin my remarks by quoting from a recent column by Mike Tytherleigh entitled "Food Bank Economic Symptom." He says: "How do we put the Vancouver food bank out of business'? If we have the answer to that question, then we'll have the answer to the critical social problems of today." Then he quotes Sylvia Russell, executive director of the food bank:

"'The fact that it exists is a terrible statement on the state of everything in the country.' It's today's soup kitchen for hundreds of families on welfare, many for the first time in their lives, for whom the Canadian dream has become a desperate fight for survival. Today there will be a run on the food bank. It's four weeks since welfare was paid out. The lineups will form early at six depots in the city, as families wait for a grocery bag to be handed out at 1 p.m. On hand will be volunteers with 2,400 bags of groceries packed and shipped from the bank's warehouse. The food bank began in November 1982. Today the bank is stocked up every week by donations from some 400 collection boxes, supplemented by gifts from food companies.

"'It's not enough to look to the emergency. We exist as a symptom of something else. Just giving people a bag of groceries to survive on is not a longterm solution. I have a lot of problems with that. I think we have to look to better solutions. We're not dealing with the traditional unemployed, but a whole new group who never dreamed they would find themselves in a food line.' The grocery bags show the community cares, but for those getting them the recession is not over, and there's no daily work. The crisis is still there. There is distress and despair in the food line. There is also dignity and courage, because it takes courage on the part of those who have fallen out of work into the welfare lineups to accept basic help in a grocery bag. But it can’t go on. They will gradually be lost to us unless we tackle the problem of unemployment. We must offer something besides despair and a little relief in a grocery bag. We must sustain the food bank as an emergency, but plan to put it out of business as soon as we can."

That's a sorry commentary on where we have come in British Columbia in the last few short years — a province rich in resources, both natural and human.

They talk about 2,400 hampers in a week in Vancouver. There are three food banks in my constituency. One serves the south end: Cobble Hill, Mill Bay, Shawnigan Lake. Lately I had occasion to write to the United Way in support of a request for some funding, because they were running short of funds. They average about five free hampers a month in that small area. At Christmas they send out 20 additional hampers. They sell groceries at cost. Their average weekly stock is about S500 to dispense to the families in that area who are looking for help. Lake Cowichan averages about two free food hampers a week. Their weekly grocery turnover is $900. They're serving about 50 families in that area, which represents something like 175 people. In the Duncan area they have requests for something like four free food hampers weekly. They have over 21,000 unemployed people registered at the Duncan unemployed centre. They had 150 new registrations last month.

This morning I was talking to my constituency representative. There were two calls this morning from people who were out of food and desperate, asking where to go. Yet this budget and this government would tell us that the recession is over and that we are on the road to recovery. I'd like to believe them, but I don't see the signs of that. If there is a return to recovery, it is very small. Even the Minister of Finance indicated that it is very fragile. If we are to recover, then certainly it is the responsibility of government to stimulate that recovery, not stifle it. It seems to me that this budget will stifle the recovery.

The move by the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), for example, is something that.... The disheartened and discouraged unemployed who are talked

[ Page 3438 ]

about in this column are now, if they are employable, going to have their food allowance reduced by a further $50 for the first month. If they are single, that's going to then be reduced by $25 for a subsequent eight months. They are already in a situation where they're lining up at food banks at the end of the month, and now they're going to face a further reduction. In addition to that, if they go out and earn anything — this is supposed to encourage them to go out and get a job — if they go out and manage to find something, whatever they earn is deducted. A single person under 26 years old is presently receiving $175 per month to cover their food, clothing, transportation, cleanliness — to buy soap, anything like that. If they have any recreation at all.... That's going to be cut by $50. In addition to that, for the first eight months they will not be allowed to earn one red cent without it cutting back on that allowance. That's an incentive to encourage people to go out and get a job? That's not an incentive, Mr. Speaker.

We see nearly half a billion dollars — $470 million — going to retire the debt of B.C. Rail. My colleague from Atlin mentioned that even Michael Walker of the Fraser Institute can't understand the thinking behind this. If we have a fragile recovery, then this could well be the thing that breaks that recovery. Just a portion of that $470 million would have made it unnecessary for this stringent attack on single people.

This government told us at one point, when they brought in a rather — as I remember it — convoluted piece of legislation.... In among it all was a little section that talked about $45 million to B.C. Rail. We were told at that time that that was it, that there would be no more taxpayers' dollars going into B.C. Rail. Now we have $470 million this year. That's 70 percent of our natural resource revenue. Next year it's going to be 100 percent. The member for Kootenay (Mr. Segarty) talked about resource-revenue sharing and seemed to indicate that was an invention of this government. I would like to remind this Legislature that it was the New Democratic Party that brought in revenue-sharing with municipalities. They were the ones who introduced that. This government is moving to put our natural-resource revenue to pay off a debt, a debt that they said would not be incurred, and that would not become a burden upon the taxpayers of this province.

This government, in its period of office, has spent not only its current operating revenue and other forms of revenue, but it has recouped every fund that was ever set up by the Premier's father, or by the Leader of the Opposition when he was the Premier — millions and billions of dollars in special-purpose funds that were established to do a certain job, to provide funding for a certain function, and they've all been recouped. They've spent it. On top of all the normal revenue, and in addition to that, the debt has continued to grow. The operating debt grows at $60 million a week. They have proven to me not that they are good financial managers but that they are a disaster as far as financial management goes. They are mismanagers.

[3:30]

The main reason the Ministry of Human Resources is required to meet such phenomenal costs — that program has increased something like $300 million — is because there are more and more people with fewer and fewer jobs. You can't fault a person who is on UIC, who runs out of UIC and has to go on welfare, if there are no jobs — and there are no jobs. The government talks about the jobs it has created, but they are a pittance in comparison to the number of unemployed in this province. As long as you have fewer jobs than people unemployed, no matter how you move people around you're always going to have those unemployed. This government is apparently unprepared to do anything about that. The only thing they're doing is increasing it by their so-called lean and mean government. They're getting rid of another 4,000 public servants this year. A public servant is just as unemployed as is anyone from the private sector. They're doing this in the name of cost saving and stimulating the economy.

When I look at the figures in this budget and see the money allocated for professional services and contracts and outside services, I see that amount increasing. They're just moving it around. They're going to pay it out to people who bid, or perhaps don't even bid. When you hire a private firm, a consultant, a contractor or whoever, they have to hire people. They have to make a profit if they're going to stay in business. They have their overhead, their administrative costs. That's all stacked on top of the cost to the government. The government still has the cost of administering all those contracts. If it does it properly it has to have a bid system. It has all those costs that are hidden costs. We're duplicating the administrative costs, we're having to add in a profit, and in the long haul it's going to cost the taxpayer more to contract these things out than it would to have kept their own employees doing their own jobs. That's exactly what the budget shows. It's just moving it around and putting more money into those areas than it's cutting off the salary sections. That's exactly what it's showing. It's a gravy train...

AN HON. MEMBER: For their friends.

MRS. WALLACE: ...for their friends. Absolutely. No necessity for bids. We've seen some rather strange things happening relative to how various things are handled. That's the government's business, but it doesn't spell a lower cost for the taxpayer, and that's the mismanagement I'm talking about.

In my area — and I think it's fairly general — about 30 percent of the people under 25 are unemployed. This is the time when we should be encouraging those young people to go on with their schooling, to take special training and to look ahead to the needs of tomorrow so that we don't have to bring in people from other parts of Canada or the United States or Europe to do some of those skilled and technical jobs — as happens. I'm sure the Minister of Finance can tell you that. I remember seeing an article in the paper when he was advertising for 50 employees outside this province for his own ministry because there were no qualified people within B.C. This was a few years back. That's the kind of thing that's happening. At a time like this, to be cutting out student loans, to be raising tuition, to be making the standards higher.... Enrolment is down; they have to curtail opportunity, so the standards have to be higher in order to get in, making it tougher and tougher for young people to go on with their further training. It's utter insanity. No jobs. If they're on welfare, we're going to cut them back by $50 and not let them earn any money for eight months. That's supposed to encourage them to find a job, when there are no jobs. At the same time we're downgrading every educational opportunity right across the board. No opportunity.

Basically, as a result of this government's policy, over 60,000 jobs are eliminated in British Columbia. At the same time we've had the largest increase in unemployment in any province in the country. That's the result of these programs. We've seen them in effect for a while now. That's the kind of

[ Page 3439 ]

results we're getting. That's why we're having such difficulty getting out of these tough economic times.

I don't want to repeat things that have been said too much, so I'm just trying to go through some of these notes that I have. I've talked about privatizing and Human Resources.

I want to deal now with my specific critic role relative to this budget: that is, the area of environment. Certainly what I have said about professional services and contracting out is very true in that ministry. We have seen a terrific change in supplies and services, from $29.8 million up to $40.5 million — a 35.8 percent increase in those outside services. As far as I can see from surveying the budget, that is going to replace something like 100 employees who presently work for the government. I would expect that if you look at the dollars — there's really no reduction in the overall budget for the Ministry of Environment — you will find that in effect we're going to pay more for less. We're going to pay more for protection of our fresh water. If I am right, then the persons who work in the standards and data unit of water management are going to be or have been pink-slipped. The minister will just not spend the budgeted money or else he will hire outside consultants to do the necessary tests and maintain the data base, relative to our freshwater standards.

That is something that we should be really concerned about. We're fortunate in B.C. and in Canada — to this point in time — that we still have pure water. But we're getting close to the point where we could lose that. We're getting more and more industry and more and more pollution. If we do not follow through on a program that has been very sketchy, to say the best.... I'm thinking of one area in my own constituency relative to Shawnigan Lake, where we have had a lot of problems, because of development around there, with septic tanks draining into the lake from schools, hotels and various developments. Basing our water studies on data that has been collected some five, six, seven, eight years ago, and never being able to persuade that ministry that it should be a priority.... It's always put on the back burner because there's something more important.

With the particular section relative to water quality being so decimated and leaving it to contracting out, I am afraid it is not only going to be on the back burner; it's going to be pushed right off the stove. If we come to a point where that water is no longer potable, we're in a serious situation. We're into a very high-cost situation of bringing piped water into a very thickly populated suburban area.

The economics don't make sense. I think that if this government, the Minister of Environment and the Minister of Finance would look a little longer and a little harder at the basic economics of good environmental programs, they would find that a lot of their problems would go away. Those programs are job intensive and labour intensive. Those programs are protecting us from some pretty expensive future costs, and it's critical that they stay in place.

Assistance to recycling is gone. A lot of the recycling depots are just managing to struggle along. What is going to happen? We're probably going to have some private company come in, and they will accept anything they can make money out of — but nothing else. They'll accept aluminium or something they feet they can capitalize on. That's what private industry is all about. Private industry is not about ensuring that all those other items are utilized in a meaningful way, rather than left to cause more pollution or costly disposal. The private company will get the profit, but the taxpayer will pay for the disposal. That's not good economics or sound financial judgment.

The soil quality lab at Kelowna. I understand that is going to be closed down. That is an important service that is provided to the people of this province. We have a lot of conflict over our land use. As long as you have a multiple land-use policy. which is something that we have to have, one of the most critical ways for deciding what is the best use of that land is to know what that soil is and what it can do. Without that lab, we are going to embark, by guess and by gosh, in directions that could well be the wrong ones. Research is one of the things that is most important to any economy, and that is one of the reasons why we in B.C. are doing so poorly. We put less into research than almost any other province in Canada. We are about half of the national average, and Canada is only about half of the national average of countries like Germany, the United States and Japan. It is no wonder that we are falling behind. It is no wonder that we remain hewers of wood and drawers of water. We have never had the foresight or the determination or the commitment to put money into research and development to encourage industries in this province that will provide jobs that are environmentally acceptable — that relate to our forest industry, basically. That is what we should be looking at. That is our number one product, and we should be doing as much processing of that forest product as we can.

A few years ago I visited a friend up in Crawford Bay, in my friend from Kootenay's riding. She had a nice little home there. I said: "You know. I really like your house." "Oh," she said, "I bought it in Calgary." I said: "You bought it in Calgary?" "Oh. yes," she said, "they have a factory there that builds modular homes that fit together, room by room, wherever you want them, and they will transport it for you."

[3:45]

What do we do here? The mobile home was designed as a mobile home. Because of the high cost of housing in British Columbia. the mobile home has become the only affordable home — and that barely so for young people in this province. Have we ever looked, ever spent any time, in trying to see whether or not, with all our forest product right here, we couldn't come up with some modular design whereby people could buy three rooms and a bath, with an opportunity to add a dining room when they needed it or an extra bedroom as the family grew? Have we ever even looked at those kinds of things? I doubt it. No research. No development. No time spent, no money spent in looking towards the future, in looking to other opportunities. And that's simply not good enough.

I want to deal next with health care. We have heard a lot about health care — and the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) is in the House at the moment. There are two kinds of health care — health care and sickness care — and I submit that this ministry, this minister and this government are caught up in a syndrome of sickness care. All their money is concentrated on acute, extended or intermediate care in a hospital. They have done nothing but withdraw the funds from the kind of low-cost programs that are preventive in nature. There is a great list of them. The homemaker service has been cut back about 15 to 20 percent in the last two or three years. That was a service that saved this province thousands and thousands of dollars because it kept people happy and well in their own homes. We hear the minister talk about the tremendous costs of hospitals. Sure, it costs a lot if you're in hospital. It costs a lot less if you can keep a person

[ Page 3440 ]

in their own home. That homemaker service did exactly that. It has been cut and cut to the point where more and more chronically ill and older people in British Columbia are being forced to leave their homes and go into an institution. That costs dollars, and that's poor management. Adult day care is another one that's down. That's down about the same amount. Speech and hearing — oh, Mr. Speaker, speech and hearing. I've raised this so many times. I picked up my weekly paper, The Cowichan News, February 21, and I couldn't resist bringing it into the House. On the front page there is a story: "Hospital Facing $200,000 Deficit." That's just for a starter, as a result of the very stringent rules and regulations of this minister and this government. That's the Cowichan Hospital for the year 1983-84 — a $200,000 deficit.

On the same front page: "Psych Unit Out of Cash." Just before the election last May, the minister announced that the psych ward was finally going ahead. And it went ahead. It's practically built and is very nice. I doubt it will ever be used because there's no money to operate it. No operating funds. What kind of financial judgment is that, to build a unit and then not provide any funds to operate it? How does he think it's going to run? Are people going to volunteer and go in there as psychiatric nurses? Are they going to cook the meals at home and take them in? Are they going to take the linen home and do it in their own laundry? It's ridiculous that they would spend money to complete that psych ward and then not provide any funds to operate it. That doesn't make good financial sense, Mr. Speaker.

On page 7 of the same paper: "Doctors See Danger in Ambulance Changes." If you want an ambulance in Duncan now, you phone Victoria. I understand that that special line from Duncan to Victoria is costing $400 a month. The RCMP did the dispatching previously, and it cost $150 a month. But do you know why they did this, Mr. Speaker? It's not quite that straightforward. The RCMP, when they got a call, dispatched the ambulance closest — there are three ambulances, one in Lake Cowichan, one in Duncan and one in Mill Bay — to the scene of the accident. When they're called out, ambulance workers, who are all volunteers, have a guarantee of four hours minimum, which seems reasonable. The ministry wanted to do it through a centre in Victoria where they would know which ambulance was on callout. If the one in Mill Bay had been called out and the crew still had a couple of hours' time, and if they'd had an accident in Duncan, then rather than call the Duncan ambulance they'd call the one from Mill Bay, because it was cheaper. What price human life, Mr. Speaker? It could mean a 15-minute to half-hour delay. Is that restraint? Is that the result of restraint?

Another in that article: "Ear Doctor Hard To Find, Claims Health Ministry." They're saying they can't find an audiologist. Two years they've been looking and they can't find one. I go right back to my original contention that if we are in fact so short of ear doctors, we should have been doing some training and planning so we would have people qualified.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: It's a privilege to take my place in the debate. Rather than deal with isolated instances of errors or problems that come up, I think we should take a look at some of the basic principles in total context. I don't care what system you deal with, there are always going to be some glitches in it. Someone can always pick out an isolated instance, a specific situation, and try to use that to leave a impression of something wrong. Certainly the member who just spoke, and is leaving, has used that technique. Many other members have used that technique. As an example, the ambulance service in this province has been very much extended and very much improved. It is doing a good service and is recognized by the people as an excellent service. Yet all you point to is the odd example of a 15-minute delay and things of that nature. You don't consider that people throughout this province are now being served by that ambulance service. We deal with a specific, isolated criticism to try to give the impression that generally the ambulance service is bad. I think that's a disservice to the people who run the ambulance service and certainly to this government, which supports it fully.

Regarding some of the basic principles of the budget, I think this budget reflects the policy and direction of this government. That direction was indicated last May by the people, in various ways certainly.

I think you have to recognize some basic points. You need economic revenue to maintain social service spending. I don't think anyone anywhere will argue with that. You've got to have money coming in in order to provide those services. We have seen in many cases excessive growth in health, in education and in the Ministry of Human Resources, yet this government recognizes those as the most essential and needy services. If you look at the estimates contained in the budget speech, you will note that there are cutbacks throughout government. Two years or one year ago many statements were made that you cannot maintain services if you cut spending, that you cannot maintain services if you cut staffing, yet those services.... Certainly there are isolated examples, but by and large those services are continuing. As far as I'm concerned, we still have the best health system in North America, and it's still improving. I don't think it is unrealistic to ask that health system to try to cut out some of the spending that isn't essential. With all that, and despite these times, you still have a 2 percent increase in the Health budget. That certainly indicates the priority. You only have small drops in education and in the Ministry of Human Resources. Certainly those are the ones that we consider essential. The cuts in the other ministries are far greater. I think that certainly points out the priority.

[4:00]

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I might mention that in order to generate economic revenue — in whatever form, whether from resources or through taxes generated by jobs and so on — you need economic activity. Without that economic activity, you don't have the necessary revenue to maintain the social services that people have come to expect. In order to generate that economic activity, you need spending on economic development. Much of that has been and will continue to be done by the private sector. If anything, perhaps government has neglected the amount of spending that has gone into economic development in order to maintain the accelerating pace of increases in social services. Perhaps we have to look at that. Yet the things we have done in the name of economic development, the things we have tried to do.... The members on the opposite side have attacked virtually every single one of these. They are economic investments. They have produced jobs in the construction phase. They ensure jobs in the future. Need I mention northeast coal, where, if the opposition could have accomplished it, they would have stopped the development.

[ Page 3441 ]

It turned out to be the one major project during a recession, with the 6,000 or so people who got direct jobs in that — the continuing people, the money it brought into the country. Much was said about the government's portion of that economic investment. Very little was said about that being far exceeded in multiples by what the private sector put in, because of some government input into that. Yet had the opposition had its way they would have stopped that development.

Talk about B.C. Place — opposition from the time it was conceived to when it went into development, and even now in this new session we have had sniping about the money that's put into B.C. Place. I just visited the home show at B.C. Place last Sunday. I think that, if anything, proved the versatility and the value of the B.C. Place Stadium. It's not strictly a palace built for sports events. That is something, and certainly the Grey Cup brought a lot of money into the province, and the activities in there will bring a lot more in, but B.C. Place has assured continuing jobs. I believe there were 19,000 people who went through the B.C. Home Show on Saturday and another 21,000 on Sunday. It's been setting records. In a couple of days this year, because of that B.C. Place Stadium, there has been more activity than there has been in years past at any B.C. home show. Add up all of the displays that were put in there — and they had to be put in by people, and many of them paid for — and the attendants who attended to those crowds of 19,000 and 21,000. Those are ongoing jobs. That B.C. Place Stadium is a versatile, fantastic investment, and yet we hear this constant sniping at it. Without those jobs and that revenue I'm certain we would be a lot worse off in this province.

We get the same sort of sniping at Expo 86, and yet that has already created many jobs. It's going to continue to create many jobs, and it's going to bring millions of tourists into this province who are going to spend money here. It has already brought in many countries who are going to spend money in here. Yet we get sniping: "This is what government shouldn't spend money on. They should spend it on education." I'm not arguing. We still have the priorities — health, education. social services and the Attorney-General's ministry — but surely if those people on the opposite side stop to think, there would be less money that we could spend on that if we didn't have some of this economic development. We have industries in this province that depend on markets. We have a great deal of talk from the socialists opposite that what you should do is keep people working. "Keep the factories rolling, but don't built any factories, " they say; and: "Don't worry about whether you can sell the products." No factory — no production of any kind, in the long run — makes any economic sense or any sense in any other way unless you can sell the products.

We're very dependent on a world market. You don't sell to the world by sitting here in Victoria and reading articles and newspapers. You've got to go out there and talk to those people. So we're spending a few thousand dollars in having our ministers travel out there to market the products that we produce in British Columbia, and our jobs, our employment and our industry depend on those markets. Yet every trip that a minister makes to try to sell some of our products in the world is sniped at by those members opposite. What would you have them do? Stay in their offices here and hope that the buyers will come here when salesmen from every other country are going to them? You have to recognize that travel is a good investment. You snipe at that and you snipe at everything that is done to increase jobs and revenues in this province. Yet you say you represent the people who want jobs.

In forestry, again, you're saying that we should keep planting trees, we should keep the jobs open, we should keep the mills open. and basically you neglect that other part: you can’t keep the mills open if nobody's buying the lumber. That you have to recognize. By all means, some of the members opposite will snipe at some of these things continually and repeatedly, but how about some of the basic principles? You can't have economic activity if you don't have somewhere to sell the products.

Let me touch on another area. We've heard a great deal about the budget, deficits, not deficits, there should be more borrowing and so on. In any basic debt-counselling services.... Of course, the opposition members would support that we should hire more debt counsellors — anything that you hire. But the basic principle any debt counsellor will tell any individual is that if you want to improve your situation, first of all you deal with cutting expenditures to the necessities. They will tell any individual that the next step would be to clear off your debts and not to borrow more. To borrow more is only getting yourself in worse. I think most members would recognize that you have to cut expenditures down to necessities. You've got to clear off debts, because they do hurt and make your situation worse. You do not charge up things; you try and pay as you go to the extent possible. Even in difficult circumstances they would recommend that you try and save some money so that you can get into a cash-buying basis. The upshot of it is that these counsellors will basically say that you cannot recover by increasing debt. So what are we as a government to say to those people: do as our counsellors say but not as we do? I think that applies in individual circumstances. Certainly the same basic principles apply to governments, and this government has recognized that and is moving in that direction.

When we add up the deficits that have been accumulated in the last year and this year, we're looking at, say, an accumulated direct debt of some $2.6 billion by March 1985. That requires interest payments of $237.6 million. That much is going out in interest. It could have been a great deal more, without the restraint measures in the last couple of years. So that means we could have been looking at $350 million or $400 million. If we took the advice of the opposition to just keep borrowing, then progressively we would be paving more, from whatever recovery is possible, on unproductive interest charges. Yet that is the advice they are giving. When we embark on a plan to get rid of those debts that have been incurred because of difficult times, we get sniped at and told: "No. that is the wrong way to go." In other words, ignore all the basic principles of money counselling. Just keep borrowing and buy a few more votes — as they would — and never mind what happens down the line. Certainly the federal example is right there before us if we need any proof of how it just gets worse. It does riot get any better.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I'm very fortunate that even the sniping I .... I don't hear it, so that helps a bit.

Then they turn around and say: "Even if the debt turns out to be less.... .. For instance, last winter you could not estimate the amount of natural gas that would be sold, because even in Environment we can't predict what is going to

[ Page 3442 ]

happen months ahead in the wintertime. But that revenue increased and so the debt load is even less than estimated, and I think anybody in his right senses would always be happy that the debt is less than you anticipated. Yet we get accused of something wrong in that. Quite frankly, any time a debt is less than what you had expected, that is good, not bad.

There has been discussion of the debt repayment of B.C. Rail. Again, I go back to the basic principles of money counselling that I was talking about. The government recognized some four years ago that they could continue their operations with B.C. Rail, that they could actually operate in an economically sound way. They had not been in the past, but that was brought about by good management. They could operate, but they could not operate economically if they had to include past debts which had been incurred because of resource development. In other words, some of the measures were not strictly economic measures; they were to try to open up the country and to try to open up resources. I certainly would not apologize for that. We would not have a lumber industry, we would not have sulphur coming out of Fort Nelson and we would not have fuel being transported up there by rail in a much cheaper fashion if it were not for B.C. Rail. That industry has brought back, as far as I am concerned, far more than was ever invested in it. But B.C. Rail accumulated the debt, so the government recognized that if they were to give them $70 million a year to pay off old debt, they could operate on a businesslike basis and carry on.

Having recognized that, we are now faced with a choice. Certainly anyone can say you should have put off the choice or that you should have done this, that or the other thing. The choice has really boiled down to continuing to pay the $70 million a year on this old debt, letting them go further and further into debt so that the interest charges would continue to increase, or to do something about it. The Minister of Finance has chosen to do something about it. The $470 million that is being added to the $113 million that is now in sinking funds will allow the interest and principal to be looked after until the debts are fully paid off, and they happen to be in agreements to the year 2005. So that will look after that. Now the railway can operate on a rational, businesslike basis.

Let me put it in these terms. Without that injection of $470 million, it is estimated that it would have cost well over a billion dollars to satisfy that same debt the way we were going. If that represents a saving of almost $600 million dollars by the year 2005, that does make some sense. In other words, it goes back to try to clear off your debts so that you can operate in a much better fashion. In effect what happens is that the government, representing the people of this province, will save that interest money which can then go into social services instead of being pumped out on unproductive debt, and the BCR can operate as it should, as a business.

There are so many things that have come from the opposition that it is not easy to select the ones that one can try to straighten out. Let me refer to the progress in the last couple of years. Things are being done more effectively, more efficiently and at a lower cost than they were a couple of years ago. The services are being maintained, and yet there were a lot saying that it couldn't be done. Services are being maintained. People are looking for imaginative ways to keep up the service to the public, and certainly in my two ministries I am getting quite a few reports of people maintaining those services and doing the job.

[4:15]

I think the people in this province have accepted that government can't do everything for them. They have accepted the need to help themselves. You hear such statements from the opposition that people on social assistance are not allowed to earn a cent. That is ridiculous! People are being encouraged to earn their own way — to earn any part that they can.

MS. BROWN: That's not true! You don't really know what goes on with social assistance.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I would like to differ. I am sticking to the truth.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. All hon. members in this assembly tell the truth, and to indicate otherwise to anyone in this assembly is unparliamentary. With that said, I will ask the House to remain courteous.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: It is a distortion of a situation, because you don't mention the whole situation. I heard a member say earlier that these people are not allowed to earn a red cent. People are allowed to earn. Some members of the opposition don't bother to tell the rest of it. They say: "Then that is deducted off the social assistance payments they get." Correct. What you are saying is that social assistance....

MS. BROWN: You don't even know that. It's not all deducted. They're allowed to keep the first $100.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Would you like to await your turn, Madam Member? I'll give you the information in a little while and give you some classic examples.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: You don't want to hear the truth.

Let's use the example of someone who is getting $1,000 a month in social assistance. You're saying that if he can earn $200 of his own, that assistance should go up accordingly. I guess that's socialism all the way: if someone earns $1,000 a month, he should then get $2,000 from the taxpayers. You don't want to increase self-sufficiency; you want to encourage people to stay on social assistance.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann), the member for Burnaby Edmonds (Ms. Brown) and other the members will have ample opportunity to join the debate when the minister has finished.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I guess, Mr. Speaker, that while they are so steeped in this socialist tradition they will always believe that when you help a person who needs help — this is a basic principle — if they then can partially help themselves, you should still continue the same level of help. That is really where the issue lies: if someone can help himself, you should still keep giving him the same amount of help he needed before he could help himself. That, I guess, is socialism, and that is why socialist governments insist on

[ Page 3443 ]

borrowing and killing the economy in order to keep paying out. But it has to come from somewhere. They sort of take the attitude: "Just put on enough pressure, and somehow the government will look after everything." They neglect to mention that the government represents the people.

I know they hold themselves up as representing the people — that they represent the people and that the government is against the people. What nonsense! Somehow or other last spring, when we said we were going to go on restraint and cut government spending, the people said yes and gave us a bigger mandate. Somehow or other the losers in that election represent themselves as representing the true will of the majority of the people in this province. What nonsense! They resort to this business of attacking anyone and everything in the House, using isolated examples, as I mentioned earlier. They paint a picture of people starving in this province, and that's not true. They paint a picture of people being turned away from hospitals, and that's not true. People who need food in this province are not starving, as they are in some of the socialist countries. Certainly they are not well off, but they are not starving. I don't think you can show me one example of starvation in this province.

MS. BROWN: Why do they go to the soup kitchens, then?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Again, I guess it's a matter of connotation. How many people have starved? I'll accept the fact that people are in difficulty, but certainly people have not starved. Neither will I apologize for the fact that sometimes friends will look after friends and not entirely depend on the government to do it. Don't tell me about hardship. Our area was as hard hit as any other area in this province. But those people are resourceful and have never been used to being dependent on the government, except for some of them, so they found ways to help themselves. I'll hold up my head in pride for those people. Don't tell me about hardship. People have lost a lot of their life savings, their life work, their initiative up there, but they don't go around crying — they try to find some other way to do it.

Let me get back to my point. We have the NDP, inside and outside this House, painting these pictures of doom and gloom. No wonder someone once called them the negative, doubting people. They talk about a forest crisis. They talk about pressure against development. They would like to stop all development in this province. They try to block anything that smacks of development or investment: northeast coal, B.C. Place. All these things create jobs, economic activity and revenue. They have tried to stop all of them, and have maligned this government for doing that. The fact that these are not true.... Then they say things like: "Things aren't happening and are not recovering." I would say they are the greatest detriment to recovery that this province has ever experienced. They broadcast across the nation to anyone who will listen: "Things are awful in British Columbia. People are starving. You can't get health service. You can't get this. All these things are not true. They go out there and in that way try to discourage anyone from investing in British Columbia. You are the greatest detriment to recovery that this province has ever seen; you were when you were in government and you have been ever since. You are doing everything possible to hinder our economic development and recovery. I think you sometimes lose sight of that. In your enthusiasm to attack us in government — by the will of the majority of the people in this province.... In your enthusiasm to attack anything and anybody, you lose sight of the damage and the harm you do to the recovery process. You might do a little introspection in that regard.

Even in this last situation, someone mentioned here earlier this afternoon that the ombudsman should be doing his job. I don't think any one of us could agree more. It was one of your members who said that. Is it not his job to be sure of the facts? Is it not his job to act carefully and responsibly, considering the effect of his position? Certainly that is something that these people should consider once in a while and act a little bit responsibly. Check out your research and check out your facts before you go to the attack.

Let me give you a few examples of what has happened and the message that they try to get out. The member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich ' ) has to attack the budget — I guess it's just standard procedure — and make statements such as:

"Because of the artful reorganization in spending estimates, it will take many months to determine the impact on British Columbia society of expenditure proposals tabled yesterday."

He said it very delicately — "the artful reorganization" — but there is a pretty awful insinuation in that.

MR. COCKE: The truth!

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Let's examine some of it. Listen and you might learn something for a change. You never research anything properly. You've made so many accusations in this House that have turned out wrong, you should be ready to be quiet at all times.

The member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) is not so delicate. He said, "Mr. Speaker, that's hokum," and he was applauded for that statement. Anywhere else it would be libelous. In an unprincipled way, he keeps making accusations and allegations that are not true. "Take, for instance, the office of the Premier." He points out that the estimates for 1983-84 were $742.000. He said: "That is not true." Yet in the estimates, when he refers to it as $660,000, etc.... If he had taken the time to read properly what was going on there, I think he might have learned something. The member for Skeena keeps referring to "a false figure contained throughout." If he had taken care in reading the estimates, he would have noted the following standard statement, which appears on the lead sheet of each special office and ministry and accompanies most tables. It says: "For comparative purposes only, figures shown for 1983-84 voted expenditure have been restated to be consistent with the presentation of the 1984-85 estimates. Schedule A presents a detailed reconciliation." Since this statement is repeated more than 30 times throughout the estimates. It is both wrong and insulting to suggest that the Minister of Finance is attempting to mislead the Legislature. More than 30 times throughout those estimates there is the statement: "In Schedule A you will find the comparison of apples to apples and oranges to oranges." Yet he has the audacity to stand up, in the hope that so much is said in this House that perhaps no one will read on and find out what has really gone on.

Let me give you one or two examples of what actually happened. If the member had made the effort to look at schedule A on pages 227 and 230, he would have seen the numbers from last year's estimates that he referred to. For example, in the Premier's office, it says total voted expenditure, '83-84 estimates, $660,799; transfer of employee benefits charged back, $81,681; total voted expenditure,

[ Page 3444 ]

'83-84 estimates, $742,480. Yet he said in this House, on the record, that the figures are false. He didn't read the rest of it. He jumped quickly to conclusions — his standard procedure.

There are many more examples. I would recommend that the members perhaps read schedule A and take a look at that, and then accuse us of not telling the truth when they have the actual facts and figures before them. I think it's irresponsible for those members to constantly stand up here and make accusations of misleading, false, dishonest and untrue statements when the statements are true, honest and proper.

[4:30]

One could go on and quote that member indefinitely on I some of the false allegations and false accusations he has made. Certainly we have seen a lot of examples of how they have jumped to conclusions on a number of these issues and then not even had the decency to apologize to an individual when they're proven absolutely wrong.

Mr. Speaker, let me conclude by just saying that this budget is honest, realistic and responsible. It's a courageous budget because it does not take the easy way out; it takes the correct way out. Sometimes it is far more difficult to take the correct and honest route than it is, as some of the members opposite do, to just attack on any slight pretence or any rumour or anything that they find. It is a plan for economic recovery. It is a plan that says that we can't do it this year without great harm, but we can, over a period of a few years, bring us back into spending what we earn, not more than we earn. I believe the people of this province are highly supportive of that. They said so last May, they keep saying it to us, and I think they will keep saying it indefinitely. It meets our election promises, and because it was put out there it certainly meets the will of the people of this province. I certainly cannot accept that the opposition members are the ones who represent the people of this province. They represent some, but never let it be accepted that those of us on the government side don't represent what the people of this province understand and really want.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, just before recognizing the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann), the minister made some statements with respect to another member's statement, and the word "false" was used. Although the Chair didn't rule on it earlier or now, I think it's incumbent upon all hon. members to avoid that type of language, because it does have a certain implication. We may have differences of opinion, but we should always be parliamentary in our debate.

MR. GABELMANN: We no doubt have a lot of differences of opinion in this House, and that's not a false statement, I can assure you.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

I want to pick up on a couple of things that the Minister of Environment and Lands, Parks and Housing mentioned in his comments. I must say that I'm glad he continued at some length, because I've cooled down a little bit. I was pretty angry about some of the statements he was making, particularly in reference to this alleged individual who might be getting $1,000 from social assistance. He may well have meant a family with a number of children, who would have been receiving up to $1,000 or even more in the odd case if there were enough kids. But the individual that he's talking about is probably receiving $325 or $350 a month, not $1,000.

Then he talks about what we socialists would allow these people to earn on top of their social assistance. Well, at least hey should be allowed to earn up to the poverty level. Wouldn't that be fair?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Let them earn as much as they like.

MR. GABELMANN: They can't earn as much as they like without having the money deducted from their social allowance cheque, beyond the $100 figure. What we would argue is that if you aren't going to do the humane and proper thing, which is to bring those social assistance allowances up to the poverty level, if not beyond, then at least allow those people who are able to to go out and earn a few bucks to supplement that meagre allowance with earnings of their own. Don't discourage them from doing that.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: You do discourage them from doing it, because every dollar they earn beyond $100 is deducted dollar for dollar. You go further than that in some cases. I had a case in my constituency of a person on welfare who wanted to make some pottery at home and sell it.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Did anybody stop her?

MR. GABELMANN: Yes, welfare stopped her because she's a small businesswoman. She's not allowed to set up a business to supplement her social assistance in the form of making pottery in her house to sell, because she's then a business person, and business people aren't eligible for welfare. What a policy!

AN HON. MEMBER: She can earn her own living with it.

MR. GABELMANN: No, she's not able to earn her own living with it. She wanted to try to feed her kids properly. She loses her entire eligibility for social assistance if she sells her own pottery.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: I'm saying that if a woman at home on welfare wants to take some time to earn a couple of hundred dollars extra a month, she can't do it if she sells those goods. That's the kind of policy we have from that government. I'm not talking about the fact that they are prepared to say to 200,000 or more people in this province: "We don't give a damn that you have to try to survive on an income lower than the poverty level — less than what is needed to purchase the kind of food you need to have a nutritious diet." I don't quarrel with the basic premise on the other side that we have to develop industry and jobs. I don't quarrel with any of that side of it. But there's another side to the human equation: that is, that there are in this province 200,000 people who do depend upon the rest of us for their livelihood at the present time. There are another 230,000 to 250,000 people collecting unemployment insurance who are also, to a certain extent, depending upon the rest of us. There are many, many

[ Page 3445 ]

more who fall between the cracks of whatever meagre systems exist at the present time.

The kind of claptrap that we heard earlier from the minister of many portfolios is a little hard to take. He said: "Debts are bad. Don't borrow. Pay as you go." That's the motto of this government. That's from a government that is deeper in debt per capita than even Trudeau's government. They have borrowed.... When you add together the operating debt and the Crown corporation debts, the per capita debt is higher in British Columbia than it is nationally under that lousy Trudeau government in Ottawa. It's higher in British Columbia, and they talk about pay as you go.

They talk about pay as you go to students. Students are now supposed to go to university for four years and come out of that four-year training with $18,000 to $20,000 in debt. They don't have any problem at all saying to an 18-year-old: "We are going to teach you what life is all about. It's not pay as you go, it's borrow. Borrow $18,000 or $20,000 in order to get an education." No grants anymore. Purely borrowing.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nothing wrong with that.

MR. GABELMANN: Where's the pay as you go?

AN HON. MEMBER: I paid as I went. I worked for it.

MR. GABELMANN: I paid for my way through university too, and I borrowed some money. I borrowed $3,000 under the Canada Student Loan program. I had to pay my way too. I went out and worked every summer. I remember that one summer I had a choice of four jobs and I took the best-paying one. It happened to be setting chokers. There were three other jobs that I could have had that summer and I took the best one. Do you know that now, in the month of January, there are 70,000 people between the ages of 15 and 24 who don't have work? Several hundred thousand students will come into the labour market in May and June and will not have work. Those kids don't have the opportunities that I had in the sixties. There aren't any jobs for them.

Yesterday the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. McClelland) announced this big summer employment program for young people between 15 and 24, and older if they're students — a total of $10 million; 8,400 or 8,500 jobs of 40 days' duration, or perhaps more. Eighty-five hundred jobs at most, $10 million — when there will be several hundred thousand people in that age group looking for work this summer and unable to find it. They say we should tell those kids that if they want further education they should go out and borrow money. Those same kids, once they've got their BA or their training from BCIT, won't be able to get a job and pay back the loan. Would you, Mr. Speaker, as an 18-year-old today, make a calculated decision to wind up as a 22-year-old with $20,000 in debts and no job prospects? Of course not.

They also talk about pay as you go. Is it pay as you go in northeast coal? Is it pay as you go at Expo 86? Is it pay as you go in B.C. Place? Is it pay as you go in B.C. Hydro? Is it pay as you go in the B.C. Systems Corporation? Is it pay as you go in the B.C. Buildings Corporation? No, it's not. They adopt the same principle there that I and my family adopt when we borrow money to buy a house. We recognize that some things in life need to be paid for ahead of time. One's home is an example of that. Future prosperity in this province is another example of that, but they don't accept that. They won't accept that something they should be concerned about is people cutting trees seventy years from now and processing those logs into lumber and more, They're not at all concerned atoout borrowing for that investment.

Fm not an advocate of unlimited borrowing. Just five minutes ago I was criticizing the massive level of debt in this province. Where we fail as a society is in not sitting down and deciding which areas of our economy warrant that borrowing, which areas of our economy can sustain borrowing in order to assure future jobs and future prosperity. We don't do it. We don't do it in forestry or in fisheries. We have the potential on this coast — the west coast of British Columbia and Canada — for a multimillion-dollar industry which could provide thousands of jobs, and produce good exports to help our balance of payments. What's the provincial response to developing the marine resource on this coast? In the budget it's exactly the same as their response to unemployment: don't mention it. Don't invest in the future of this coast. Don't invest in the future of the land in this province. Just invest in future projects that look good for the next election. I admit B.C. Place looks good for the '87 election, or the fall of '86 election, as does Expo 86. Whose grandchildren are going to benefit from that when there are no trees left in this province to sustain the economy in British Columbia? So the minister's lecturing about pay-as-you-go. It's all right to say "Pay as you go" when it comes to the poor people, the unemployed, social programs, health care and education, and when it comes to forestry and the fishery; but when it comes to monuments and little gimmicks to win the next election, there's nothing wrong with borrowing.

I don't think that members on that side of the House have any comprehension of the levels of unemployment in this province. They don't have a clue. What puzzles me is they talk about their policies being helpful to their community — to the people who vote Social Credit, the small business community. I've had more bankruptcies and foreclosures in North Island than there are now businesses operating. Why is that? In some cases it's because of poor planning and poor management on the part of the business people. But for the most part it's because too many people aren't working. For the most part it's because there is no consumer spending. Even those people who are working — and I cite the example of the people who work in Port Hardy at Utah Mines....

MR. REID: Is it working yet?

MR. GABELMANN: Those people are making good money. That mine hasn't had a day off in decades.

MR. REID: What's the other one up there that's out of work? Western Mines?

MR. GABELMANN: Well, there's a strike on there. I wasn't talking about that one.

MR. REID: How long is that going to last? Are you doing anything about that?

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, the member....

MR. REID: Are you going to answer that?

MR. GABELMANN: I would if it was an intelligent question.

[ Page 3446 ]

The people in Port Hardy who make good money working at that mine — there are 900 of them in the two bargaining units — aren't spending their money, because they have no confidence in the economy of this province. They know that they, too, may join the tens of thousands of people who are on unemployment insurance or on welfare.

[4:45]

One of the things I find really curious, Mr. Speaker, is that we talk about having 13.2 or 13.4 percent unemployment, and then this month, in January's figures, we're talking about 15.2 percent unemployment in B.C. When you count up how many people that is, based on the labour force, it works out to somewhere around 20,000 to 30,000 people fewer than are collecting unemployment insurance — and that's after you've deducted from the UIC rolls those people who are seasonal or on maternity or on retirement, or any other of those categories that aren't truly an unemployed state. We've got more people collecting unemployment insurance than the government of Canada tells us we have unemployed. Now how can that be? The reason we have that is that the unemployment levels in this province are not in fact 15.2 percent, but are more likely 20 to 22 percent.

We're talking about approximately one person out of every five who does not work. When you look at the age group 15 to 24, the official figures are one out of four not working. That doesn't include any students who might be needing summer employment or employment between terms. It doesn't include people who have gone home and quit looking. We're probably talking about in the order of one out of three, not counting students. What kind of lesson is that if the lesson the government wants to impart to young people is one of the work ethic and one that argues that people should be self-reliant? How can you be self-reliant in an economy where young people are unemployed at the rate of one out of three? We don't live in a society any longer, Mr. Speaker, where the church, the family and the extended family provide the support. We don't live in that rural nineteenth century society. Members on that side of the House forget that the extended family is a thing of the past. You can't go home to grandma. Parents can't go out and have grandma look after the kids, because that family doesn't exist anymore. When you have emotional problems, psychological problems or other kinds of problems related to the fact that you don't have an income, you can't go and talk to your priest or your minister, because we've become a secular society.

AN HON. MEMBER: What if you happen to be grandma?

MR. GABELMANN: You don't live with the grandchildren if you are.

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if members of the House recognize the extent of the involvement of the private sector in providing what should be a collective responsibility? I'm talking here about the extent that trade unions and other interested citizens are involved in providing basic food services to people who would otherwise go hungry under the meagre allowances provided by this government. In a single week in British Columbia, somewhere in the order of 35,000 people — that's not the children; that's people who come through the facility — are taking advantage of soup kitchens and food banks in this province. That's an ordinary week in February 1984. I see more panhandling on the streets of Victoria than I did in Mexico City last fall, and that's a reality in this province that we've never.... The member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. Michael) raises his eyebrows. I'm saying that as a fact. Ten years ago it wasn’t true in Mexico City, but I was there in November. We see more panhandling here in Victoria than we did in Mexico City on some of the main streets or boulevards.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: Somebody behind me says he's never seen a panhandler in Victoria. There are 35,000 people having to supplement their meagre social assistance or unemployment insurance — almost in all cases social assistance — by going to the private sector, those people who care. We have a responsibility to collectively provide for the proper welfare of all of our citizens in this province, and we are not doing it.

One thing really bothers me about the transient unemployed. We're told by various levels of authority that we can expect for the next two, three or four years to have the same levels of unemployment. But it's different people becoming unemployed. We're changing the nature of the kinds of people who are unemployed. In the month of January alone, 70 percent of the increase in unemployment was accounted for by women. It's women, more so than men, and young people who are being forced into unemployment. I have a hunch that if the government was truly forthright in its defence of its programs, it would say: "We don't want women in the workforce. We want them at home where they belong — if not barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen, at least at home." By government policy, everything they are doing leads to the conclusion that more and more of the people being forced onto the unemployment roles are women. It's a direct result of government policy. They don't have the courage to say it directly, but you hear it by inference again and again if you listen to the speeches in this House. They would prefer that we went back to the old kind of society where women knew their place. "Their place isn't at work; their place is at home. Whenever you have any trouble, you can just go down to the corner and talk to the priest or the minister and everything will get all solved again." That's the kind of society they want. They haven't quite got the courage to say it, but it's sure there by inference.

Mr. Speaker, I mentioned this earlier, and I'm just briefly going to deal with it again. Yesterday the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. McClelland) — I see him in the House — announced the 1984 jobs for youth program. I refer to it again because he is here and I just want to ask him: what about the other 200,000 students this summer who won't be able to be part of this 8,500-person job program? What about the other roughly 200,000 people who will not be working this summer?

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: I did. You'll get your chance.

Interjections.

MR. GABELMANN: Unlike some of the members back here, I know the rules. I know I'll lose my place.

MR. REID: Oh, yes. If you ask a question, you want a decent answer.

[ Page 3447 ]

MR. GABELMANN: Lovely new gimmick! These students and these young people are going to have calling cards, Mr. Speaker. Ten million bucks, when there are going to be a couple of hundred thousand people unemployed, and they can find 47 times that amount to pay off a debt for B.C. Rail that's been there for years, if not decades.

AN HON. MEMBER: The member doesn't agree with paying it off.

MR. GABELMANN: I don't disagree with paying off the debt, but I'd wait until the province is in a surplus situation before I did. I wouldn't do it at a time when the most important thing that a government can do is to prime the pump, to put some money into the hands of consumers, and to provide jobs for students so they can go back to school. How many kids in this province are going to be able to finance an education by the expenditure of that $470 million? Not one. Even Michael Walker, your guru, doesn't like that one. Even the Prince George Citizen has a headline in its editorial: "Young and Adrift." Doesn't the government care about what these young people are learning? They're learning how not to work. I can't think of a very much worse lesson than that for young people.

Why is it that the Conference Board would say that British Columbia is the only province that has not and can't expect to feel much of that elusive recovery which is alleged to be happening? Why is it that the government can't take advice from a respected institution — a non-socialist one, at that; one that believes in the full flow of the private sector and private enterprise — that says that in 1983 the service industry output fell by nearly I percent and that in 1984 the increase will be limited to slightly more than 2 percent? That would sound good to those people who adhere to the Club of Rome suggestions in the late 1960s and early 1970s that growth was bad. This government is an adherent of that Club of Rome philosophy. They believe growth is bad and do everything they can in our economy to make sure that there is no growth. In fact, as the Conference Board points out, the growth rate in the service sector is minus 2 percent. And the service sector isn't just public service, it's a heck of a lot more than that. It is engineering services and a whole range of private activities.

Headline: "B.C.'s Outlook Still Not Bright." Why? Doesn't anybody on that side of the House ask themselves why our outlook is so bleak? They don't understand that when they say to 20 percent of the people in this province: "You will not contribute to this society because we don't want you working, because we believe the inflation rate percentage is a more important target than is the unemployment rate."

You know, 20 or 30 years ago Daniel Bell wrote a book entitled End of Ideology. For some time during the sixties and seventies, in terms of western democratic societies, his argument had a lot of merit. I'm not sure he was totally right. but I think he made a good argument that ideology in fact had gone. We haven't ever had an ideological government in British Columbia, as far as I know, until now. Even this government, until its reincarnation on July 7. was not what I would describe as a government motivated purely by ideology. W.A.C. Bennett's government was certainly not. He was prepared to nationalize B.C. Hydro or the B.C. ferries if the public good would be benefited by it. But this government and this political party now in power has for the first time in the history of this country imposed an ideological, philosophically motivated regime in office for the first time. Whatever charges were made about the NDP in office, we didn't do things because they were part of an ideology. We did them because we thought they were right. It may well be that the public didn't agree in some cases. It may well be that we were possibly even wrong in some cases in our judgment about what was right or what was wrong. But we didn't do it because it was the ideological imperative. We did it because we thought it was right. Things are not being done in British Columbia, for the first time, because it's part of an ideological imperative.

[5:00]

1 think the people of British Columbia will begin to learn, as they watch this government in office, that if they want a group of people in power who will reflect and respond to public wishes, they cannot elect ideologues, and that's what they've done. It's ironic, coming from this side of the House, I suppose. In terms of the way history has been portrayed in this province, but in fact it is the Socreds who are the philosophical ideologues. It's not the social democrats.

Richard McAlary, an economist whom I don't know but read of frequently — he works for the B.C. Central Credit Union — proposes that in order to maintain our unemployment at its existing levels of 13 percent to 15 percent, we need to create 2,500 new jobs in British Columbia per month. How many are we producing now? None. In fact there's a net shortfall. The government proposes, in its ideological straitjacket, that the private sector should do that. For the most part I agree that the majority of permanent jobs that will be created will come from the private sector. That's the way a mixed economy works. It's not an economic structure that we would wish to change in that respect. But if they don't provide the economic climate — if the government doesn't adopt economic policies that encourage private sector job creation — by setting as their primary goal a consumer response as the engine of the recovery, they will never achieve their cherished goal of a private sector-led recovery.

The only private sector recovery that's been available in British Columbia under their term has been where they've pumped public money. Northeast coal is the best example. Probably $1 billion or $1.5 billion worth of public money, federally and provincially, to create 3,000 jobs — 6,000 at a peak — many of which were not even British Columbian jobs.... It was public money. There will not be a private sector recovery.

There will not be new jobs created through the private sector in this province until we get our society back to work again. If the budget had dealt with the current problem in the appropriate way. It would have spent at least half of its energies and its efforts dealing with the problem of unemployment. Yet what was in the budget? Not a single mention of unemployment and only indirectly some mention of employment — those mentionings, curiously enough, using public funds to help the private sector.

The government doesn't understand that a non-productive economy and a non-spending public produce stagnation, preclude job creation: they don't understand that basic fact of economics. They don't belong in power. Their response has constantly been purely to the ideology of free enterprise. It doesn't matter whether a particular service costs more money if it's delivered privately. All that matters is that it's delivered privately. That's ideology at work, Mr. Speaker — not good

[ Page 3448 ]

government and certainly not good leadership, to my friend from Surrey.

Before I conclude my remarks I'm going to propose an amendment to the motion in front of us which has been on the order paper for a couple of days. There are two other things I want to talk about first.

In 1982 we had a discriminatory policy in British Columbia with respect to welfare rates. Age categories were included in the computation of rates, and as a result of that if you were a certain age you would receive less from social assistance than if you were another age. That issue was dealt with by the ombudsman in his 1982 annual report to the Legislature. The government, quite properly and quite admirably, responded to that report and eliminated the age discrimination that was built into the social assistance levels. They deserve to be commended for responding to the ombudsman's report in a positive way. Yet less than two years later we again have age discrimination built into the social assistance rates. This time, if the ombudsman — and I hope he will take this up once again — can't persuade the minister and the Finance minister to reverse this odious principle, then I hope it goes to court and the government is forced to renege on this particular policy. It is wrong in principle. Why, if you're under 25, should you be provided with a different rate of social allowance than if you're 26? What possible difference could it make in your food intake and your costs of shelter and clothing? Does food cost less if you're 24? Does the minister say, as she did, that you should go to Fort St. John and find work?

MRS. WALLACE: How do you get there?

MR. GABELMANN: Apart from getting there — say you hitch-hike — when you do get there you'll find 1,753 unemployed people in Fort St. John, as of January. Yet the minister wants these people under 25 to go to Fort St. John to get work.

Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to dwell on it. The issue is clear: it's age discrimination, and in my understanding of the new Charter of Rights in this country, age discrimination is no longer to be allowed. It should not be allowed. When you have age discrimination, flying in the face of an earlier policy reversal, because the ombudsman had brought to the government's attention the need to reverse that policy, and the government responded.... For it now to go back is somewhat incredible. I won't deal with that any further.

I want to conclude, before I move the amendment, by talking a little about a study done by the Canadian Mental Health Association — not your typical left-wing organization. The report was entitled "Unemployment: Its Impact on Body and Soul." I'm not going to go through reams of material; it's a long report, one that I would recommend to every member of this House, particularly those members of cabinet who are involved in designing economic policy. Let me paraphrase a few of its conclusions.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

What happens as the unemployment rate rises, Mr. Speaker? Domestic violence, marital breakdown and excessive drinking all increase substantially. Unemployment results in children's problems at school. Children coming from unemployed families don't perform as well. Why? Partly because they don't have an adequate diet. You don't perform as well if you're not eating properly; it's well-proven medically. Saddened by family stress, these kids in school who are not doing so well because they come from unemployed families feel guilt at being a financial burden to their parents. Often they're not suitably dressed for the weather in many parts of this country. They live with uncertainty, restraint and tension. What does it do? Obviously it dampens enthusiasm, optimism, energy and the ability to learn.

There is evidence that school-leaving, which comes with unemployment — if your family is unemployed you are more likely to leave school than if it is not — combined with an inability to find employment is highly related to drug abuse, suicide, vandalism and crimes of violence. All those things produce not only dreadful conditions for the individuals involved but also costs to society which later have to be met by the Attorney-General or the Minister of Health. There is no question at all in the conclusions of this report that health costs increase substantially as a result of high unemployment. Wherever the unemployment rates increase, health costs go up with them.

I have run out of time, Mr. Speaker, but I will have an opportunity during estimates debates, I suppose, to pick up on some of the specific elements in the budget. I want to conclude by saying that the failure to deal with employment in this budget is, in the view of the opposition, the single biggest failing of the budget. Somewhere on my desk I had a motion which was.... Did the Page take it already? I had it moved and seconded, and I think it got picked up.

Mr. Speaker, I want to move, seconded by the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) that the motion that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair for the House to go into Committee of Supply be amended by adding the following: "...but this House regrets that, in the opinion of the House, the hon. Minister of Finance, by his failure to even mention, much less address, the most obvious problem of record unemployment, has denied many of our citizens the right to participate in our society and has thereby condemned them to a life of subsistence."

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The amendment is in order.

On the amendment.

MR. COCKE: With respect, I believe that I am still on the budget speech. I lose my place as a seconder to speak to the amendment other than just whatever I want to throw in, but I still have the latitude of the budget debate.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Oh, come on, what do you know about this place!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I can give you the citation in a moment, but my understanding is that you are considered to have spoken on the budget and also on the amendment.

MR. COCKE: I would just like to say a few words of comfort to the Socreds. I would like to compliment them, but I can't think of what to say that might be complimentary. I would like to indicate that, having spoken on the budget debate a number of times in this House, this is probably the first time that any of us have spoken about a budget that is so

[ Page 3449 ]

bereft and so terribly hopeless that it is very difficult for anybody to speak on this budget.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, that little member from Little Mountain continues to make his statements without his having asked the Speaker for recognition. He makes about as much sense when he is making his catcalls as he does when he is making his speeches — which is zero. Your complimentary remarks are much appreciated, and I guess we'll go on.

[5:15]

1 guess that the thing we have to look at here is: what is the inspiration carrying this government along? My friend from North Island said they are ideologues. I guess they are, because ideologues who are disciples of the Fraser Institute have to have more faith than almost any fundamentalist in any of the religions, either great or small, on the face of the earth. They are, however, disciples of theories that have been promulgated ever since the 1800s. I guess the guru of that whole ideology is one Milton Friedman, and I'll deal with him shortly.

I want you to think, Mr. Speaker, about some of the phrases we continue to hear, the pet phrases and terms — not phrases to indicate any sense, not phrases to prove a point, but phrases that promote a myth. If they believe in that myth....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Your uncle Milton, Mr. Minister. Milton Friedman.

Anyway, I want to change the name of a phrase that we continually hear: privatization. Think about it. We hear it and hear it until we get sick. I'll tell you what sounds better, because it's far, far more in keeping: Socredization. That's exactly what's happening. Give it to your friends. Whatever you have, let's give it away in the name of the people. Let's sacrifice the people.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: You're one of the worst.

Mr. Speaker, that's exactly what they do. That brilliant member for Kamloops (Hon. Mr. Richmond) says: "Let's nationalize things." Only one government in this province ever nationalized anything. W.A.C. Bennett's government nationalized the B.C. Electric and the Black Ball Ferries. The only one!

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. COCKE: Never nationalized insurance.

Anyway, stop whining! Why don't you pay attention and maybe you'll learn something, you give-away artist. Play your trumpet and maybe you'll make more sense than you do when you're yapping from your seat.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'll ask the hon. members not to interrupt, and I'll ask the hon. member for New Westminster to address the Chair.

MR. COCKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And you have every right to do so.

Socredization is the art of giving to Socreds the assets that belong to the people.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: My philosophy is to keep it in here, and I've managed that for 15 years, which is a better job than you'll be able to do, I can tell you that. After this display that you've made in the last couple of days, I'll tell you, Mr. Minister, I'd be running to the Black Forest in Germany too, as quickly as I possibly could.

Mr. Speaker, that's what Socredization is: give it away. Give it to your friends and call it privatization, and you have a great, huge thieving halo around your head for doing it. Come on!

HON. MR. CHABOT: Who do you back?

MR. COCKE: Well, I think I'm on record as backing Vickers. Have you ever heard that name? You're going to be hearing it a lot in the future.

AN HON. MEMBER: They don't like that name.

MR. COCKE: They're the ones who fear him most.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: My friends over here.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, yes, as a matter of fact, yours are something else again, I'll bet.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: No I haven't, and I never will either. I have never been a Conservative. I've never been a Liberal. I've always been a New Democrat, and that's something you can't say. You're like a chameleon; one week this, one week that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Perhaps we could return to debate. Order, please. Just one at a time. Please proceed.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, there is something about this Socredization that goes even further than that. Let me tell you something about Socredization that we see around here. Last year I mentioned what I considered to be a very, very dangerous practice around this building, We've contracted out what used to be public servants' work, and that's cleaning the windows of this building. Now I suppose that we're able to get young people at $4 or $5 an hour to climb ladders, without a safety belt, up to the third storey of this building....

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

[ Page 3450 ]

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Highways doesn't give a hoot about those young people who are climbing all over this building. They are in jeopardy.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: Or the Minister of Forests, or whoever. He's not....

MS. BROWN: Why doesn't he go collect some revenue?

MR. COCKE: He doesn't even know the etiquette: that you are not supposed to catcall from anywhere but your chair.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, you saw it yesterday, if you were looking out your window. These private window cleaners were crawling all over this building. Those are young people doing a job, and they could very well kill themselves. That's part of this privatization: B.C. Buildings, B.C. this and B.C. that. If we're going to do that sort of thing, why don't we safeguard the workers around this place as workers would be safeguarded by compensation inspectors in a lumber mill, or in a workplace anywhere else? Yet, for three or four years running, I've seen these young people climbing all over outside this building with very long ladders and jeopardizing their future. Socredization, indeed. Socredization has occurred with Beautiful British Columbia. That Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Richmond)....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Do you know how they're mailing it out? It can't be done, eh? This is the way they're mailing it out, Mr. Minister. They took it over months ago, and they're mailing it in your wrapper, with your return address on it.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: They're paying for it.

MR. COCKE: So what? What right have they got to use government crests?

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: Why don't you sit in your chair, loudmouth?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members.

MR. COCKE: Why don't you sit in your chair?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Once again, will the House please come to order.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Burnaby Edmonds (Ms. Brown) and the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) will come to order.

MR. COCKE: The Minister of Forests is so upset. Ray Williston is out gunning for you.

Social services have been Socredized. It goes on and on. I'm not going to go down the litany, but I will show you something that I feel very badly about. This is more Socredization; it's not privatization at all. This is a letter that went to one of my constituents. It was written by James A. Nielsen, Minister of Health.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: It says "James A." Anyway, he may not know what his name is.

This is a "Dear John" letter. This is a letter saying that "after all your good years of service on the Royal Columbian Hospital board, you're booted out." Down the tube. It's very complimentary all the way through. There is a new board to be set up, and that new board will be composed of Socreds.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: Did you hear that? That member said: "Why would we appoint NDPers?" Let me tell you this, Mr. Member with the big mouth. In 1972, when I was appointed Minister of Health, the man who ran against me was John Edmondson. John Edmondson was a Socred. He was also a hard worker on the Royal Columbian Hospital board. I reappointed him. I kept on reappointing him all the time I was Minister of Health. It wasn't politics that determined whether or not you should be on a board; it was because you were a good worker and interested in the cause. But that is not the way with this government. It's not the way at all. Every appointment, everything that we see, is another appointment of a Socred. It's common knowledge. Ask Muni Evers. He carries no political card. They booted him off the PNE board. He was the hardest worker on the board. They dumped him because he didn't carry a Socred card. He was told that that's the way you stay on the board. How do you like them apples?

AN HON. MEMBER: Rubbish.

MR. COCKE: That's not rubbish, and you know it's not rubbish. You're the most partisan bunch of brutes I've ever heard of in my life.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Brutes without roots.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: You've got all the time in the world to get up and give a speech.

I am determined to see to it that everybody in our community realizes just how you brutalize people in the scheme of things. It is an absolute shame that hard-working people on our hospital boards would get this kind of treatment from a government that hasn't the least bit of wit. Wait a minute, they're nitwits.

[5:30]

As far as I'm concerned, I find that letter insulting. I find it stupid. Do you know what's more insulting than anything? Who's the member for New Westminster? Does anybody know, or can you care?

Interjection.

[ Page 3451 ]

MR. COCKE: I'll tell you who the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam is. This is sent to a person who lives in New Westminster. It has nothing to do with Coquitlam, and yet a copy of the letter, for heaven's sake, was sent to John Parks, MLA, Maillardville-Coquitlam. That's from the Minister of Health. It has absolutely nothing to do with him, except that he will be the person who will be doing the recommending of the next members for that board — good Socreds in our area.

AN HON. MEMBER: There's no such thing as a good Socred.

MR. COCKE: That's right. There's no such thing, except a dead one.

AN HON. MEMBER: Mentally.

MR. COCKE: Mentally dead.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Shame on me.

MS. BROWN: You'd better withdraw.

MR. COCKE: I withdraw.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why don't you apologize, for the last time?

MR. COCKE: I apologize.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: That's right — in your mind. But there are a lot of other people there who think: "Well, you know, a lot more votes....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: A lot more votes than you get up in your neck of the woods.

I'd like to talk about the Socreds' monetarism theories for a moment.

AN HON. MEMBER: Wreckonomics.

MR. COCKE: Wreckonomics, and of course Socredization. They get most of their material, their gospel tracts, from Milton Friedman, through the Fraser Institute. You know, Walter Block and some of the boys pass them along. But Milton Friedman — let's hear about Milty. One of the world's most respected economists has this to say about Milton Friedman. Professor David Hendry, who is putting out a paper right now for the Bank of England....

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Labour Party.

MR. COCKE: No, Oxford. Not even from the London School of Economics. He's from Oxford. Hendry's paper will be published, and may be published by now. The Bank of England is not exactly a haven of pinkos, nor is Oxford University, I wouldn't think. Let's hear a few quotes from Oxford. I say that he proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Milton Friedman is just as bad and as poor a guide as the Fraser Institute, which has led you people down the garden path and has thousands and thousands of people in our province suffering as a result of your stupid economic policy. This is what this article has to say:

"It has been a very long time since there has been any bombshell from Oxford University quite like the one that Professor David Hendry has just dropped on Professor Milton Friedman. Friedman, the emperor of international monetarism, is roundly declared to have no clothes on. The implications for business, economists, market dealers, students, academics and governments are quite simply shattering, for no single piece of research that I can remember has so effectively undermined the monetarists' conventional wisdom that inflation is always caused by too much money chasing too few goods. What is more, the critique of Friedman comes from a scrupulous econometrician who is widely respected throughout the profession and who has in the past delivered shafts in equal measure at both monetarists' and Keynesian camps.

"Professor Friedman has dedicated his energies to resuscitating the ancient quantity theory of money. It's a very simplistic view of the world, which is one of the reasons it has proved so attractive to governments and voters. It has been easy to popularize."

That's exactly what these people know.

I'm not going to go through all of the proofs. If anybody wants to read this, I recommend it to you. But to go on:

"Yet it's precisely these propositions that Professor Hendry has devastatingly undermined. Indeed, he undermines them even on the basis of Friedman's own data. which is subject to manipulation."

Friedman's own data is used to prove Friedman wrong.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Let Graham use that stuff.

[Laughter.]

MR. COCKE: He's not here. I mean to give it to him later.

Mr. Speaker, I need say no more. They base their theories on exactly that kind of rhetoric, popularized because it is so simplistic. Yet when you get right down to it, its simplicity is its downfall. We've been telling this group that for a long time. I don't want to reiterate this again, but I think it should be said. Do you remember Dr. Block with the Fraser Institute? Do you remember what he said when he was asked about sexual harassment in the workplace? "Block states that the pinching the Secretary receives from her employer is not coercive action but part of a package deal in which the Secretary agrees to all aspects of the job." That's the kind of mentality.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's not a joke?

MR. COCKE: No, that's no joke. You see, the boss owns the office, and he owns the people who work there, I guess. Anyway, that's part of this whole Fraser Institute sort of mentality.

I haven't forgotten Socredization for a minute. We know that Pacific Coach Lines is now down the tube. We know where it has gone as well — ConMac. Friends of the Minister of Finance get part of it. It's interesting to me that the

[ Page 3452 ]

management of the Vancouver end of PCL — remember, the employees were bidding for it — were doing the work on the bids and so on. Wonder of wonders, guess who winds up with it? Management.

In terms of more of this Socredization, if B.C. Systems is sold it will be a travesty beyond travesties. There was a day in this government when departments had their own computer systems. Medicare, for instance, had its own computer system. When it was all put together under B.C. Systems, all of them came into that bloc. Can you imagine the medical histories of people all over this province in the hands of private capital? Nobody's privacy will be theirs any longer. This government spent millions upon millions of dollars putting it together and are now, in the name of this stupid Socredization ideology, threatening to sell it. I think that's an absolute shocker. The most sensitive area that we can imagine. Good Lord! It just makes your mind boggle to think that they would do a thing like that.

AN HON. MEMBER: What mind?

MR. COCKE: I have one. I can't say the same for you.

Mr. Speaker, we are being led down a very bad and burnpy road if we're going to do those kinds of things. I suggest to the government to use whatever sense they have left to change the course with respect to that particular privatization, Socredization, or whatever you want to call it. It would be a major mistake.

I'd like to say a word or two about my constituency. Here's another great history of marvellous Socred planning. When we lost government in 1975, all the land had been acquired and the pre-architectural work done on moving ICBC headquarters to Royal Avenue in New Westminster. They decided "oh, no," despite the fact that there were two major reports that they had access to that indicated that that was precisely where it should go. Certainly the Vancouver Regional District was totally in support of it. But oh no, they wanted to change everything. So out it goes. The land had been acquired for Douglas College, up on the north end of the old pen lot. But they're not going to move it there. They're going to move Douglas College downtown to create a parking problem. Unfortunately there are not too many kids at Douglas College, so it's not too much of a problem yet. In any event, it's in the wrong place; ICBC should have been there.

But the government said: "Okay, we're going to propagandize the people in New Westminster for the next few years." So they drew up beautiful pictures of what our waterfront was going to look like: a grand and glorious scheme. Mind you, it was all going to be done by private developers, but the government was going to cooperate. They cooperated, all right. That whole area has been devastated; it's no good for anybody any more. Now they're talking about how it may be small developments instead of these major developments they were talking about. The fact of the matter is that they goofed. What that town needed was a major commercial enterprise to give a new source of life to its core. They wrecked it, as they would wreck anything that isn't politically in their back yard. What a vindictive government! No people deserve this government, but unfortunately we have to live with you. I predict that New Westminster will go along, still waiting hopefully for something to happen down in its core.

[5:45]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

One word about the seniors' bureau. For years we've had a group of people caring for senior citizens in New Westminster. It all started back in 1971. That group, which started with a small federal grant, over the years has taken women on welfare and given them this work. They've regained their confidence; their history of re-entry into the workforce is absolutely fantastic. Meanwhile the seniors have been well served. This has had a grant from the provincial government for years. Now suddenly, in this year of austerity — call it whatever you like — they are cutting off the grant. They're doing that to groups all over this province, and many of the people involved are volunteers. The Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) has often said: "Let the volunteers participate." You have to have a catalyst. That was the catalyst, and the volunteers were participating until this government shoved a knife in their back. It's not good enough. This government is the most inhospitable bunch I've ever heard of, in terms of its population. They don't care about the young people or about the seniors. They don't care about anybody but themselves. Their greed is beyond belief.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to bring one little detail to your attention just to give you an idea of how people are treated. I got a letter not long ago from a woman whose husband is confined to a wheelchair. They're right down there at the poverty level — senior citizens, but with a wheelchair. They made a request to Human Resources for assistance in purchasing the wheelchair. They were finally told, after weeks of waiting, that their request was not granted and it was recommended to them that they take a tax deferral on their home. How cheap can you get? Take a tax deferral; pay for your wheelchair out of the money that you'd normally pay your civic taxes with. When people are at this age....

MR. VEITCH: Who set up tax deferrals?

MR. COCKE: We did. That's right. To assist old-age pensioners if they wished.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: All right, the member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Veitch) goes along with this policy.

AN HON. MEMBER: We copied it from Reagan in California.

MR. COCKE: We copied it from Reagan in California, and you're one of his greatest respecters.

Take a deferral, they were told. That is pretty cheap. But what can we expect?

I want to go through one or two things in the budget. I want to suggest that there's a fantastic mentality at work when you can get rid of the criminal injury compensation money. The act will be amended "to limit the government's financial exposure. Provision will, of course, be made to ensure that persons now receiving payments awarded under this act will not be affected." Isn't that marvellous? So anybody who was shot last week by a deranged criminal is okay under this, but anybody getting it next week or after April 1 is subject to different rules. I think that is shortsighted and stupid and indicates a government without a heart.

Legal services. I don't need to say any more than that we all know that people who cannot afford it do not have access to lawyers, except those who are in terribly serious trouble.

[ Page 3453 ]

MR. SEGARTY: Call Macdonald.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Brilliant.

The provincial government's contribution to training municipal police and firefighters is also tubed. How short-sighted can this budget get, to go after some of the most important parts of our provincial government — those parts that serve people? Oh, there's lots of money for B.C. Rail. There's lots of money for everybody else.

Mr. Speaker, I see that I've only got two minutes, and I've got probably another two hours of speech. In any event, there is one thing I would like to talk about. Reverse your position with respect to auto inspections before it is too late. That is a very serious situation, Mr. Speaker. There are people in jeopardy on the roads.

HON. MR. CHABOT: That's rubbish.

MR. COCKE: It is not rubbish. There are more old wrecks every week, because they don't have to worry any longer.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I've never had an inspection in my part of the world.

MR. COCKE: He's never had an inspection of his car. In any event, I say change that.

As far as tourism is concerned, I'll deal with that later on. I noticed the minister hasn't got very much going for him at all in the budget any more. He can still give away nice wrappers for Beautiful British Columbia, however.

Education. They are saying: "Take it back to the 1976 level." Has anybody given that any thought at all? Remember, this is the government that talked of mainstreaming in 1976, 1977, 1978 and so on: the disabled, victims of illness. Mainstream right into the schools, you say. In doing that you increase the number of teachers needed, because a lot of those children need individual attention. So to mainstream and then turn around and say you want to go back to the pupil-teacher ratios of 1976 is absolutely stupid.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Your light is on.

MR. COCKE: I know my light is on and yours is always out, unfortunately.

Mr. Speaker, another area that I would suggest that the government should get to work on is this whole question of thinking about....

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: Listen to me. Next time think about this. There's an echo boom coming, and that echo boom is children born of the children that were born in the post-war boom.

I think I'm finished. The red light says I'm finished. I'm very disappointed to have to say I'm finished, because....

AN HON. MEMBER: Would you like leave for....

MR. COCKE: No, I don't want any leave.

MR. MOWAT: Mr. Speaker, I speak to reject that amendment. I will make that motion. I can't believe the waste of time we have by having such an amendment put forward. I'm amazed to hear a member who has been in the House that long give such a speech. That's losership if that's a speech. I can't believe it.

It's going to be my pleasure to speak tomorrow in support of this budget and a very dynamic government with a good record.

I move that we adjourn the debate until the next sitting of this House.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Waterland tabled the five-year forest and range resource plan for the Ministry of Forests.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, I move the House do now adjourn.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, prior to that, the Leader of the Opposition seeks the floor.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, under standing order 26, there was a request by the member for Coquitlam. Under our standing orders, those matters should be taken into consideration immediately. I'm just wondering if the Chair has come down with a ruling yet.

MR. SPEAKER: No.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that the House do now adjourn, from the acting House Leader, whoever he may be.

MS. BROWN: Or she.

MR. SPEAKER: Or she. So ordered.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:55 p.m.