[ Page 3473 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

David Thompson University Centre. Mr. Nicolson –– 3473

Mr. Rose

Sale of Pacific Coach Lines. Mr. Passarell –– 3474

Mr. Blencoe

Transfer of funds to BCR. Hon. Mr. Curtis replies –– 3475

Budget debate

On the amendment

Mr. Nicolson –– 3475

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 3479

Ms. Sanford –– 3481

Mrs. Johnston –– 3486

Mr. Skelly –– 3488

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 3492

Mr. Howard –– 3494

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 1984

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the members to please welcome a visiting delegation from the province of Alberta, members of the Select Standing Committee on Senate Reform who are in our capital to engage in discussions and an exchange of ideas and opinions on senate reform. In the galleries today are members of the Legislative Assembly of Alberta, Dennis Anderson, Carl Paproski, David Carter and Ray Speaker; and two of the staff, Susan Elliot and Peggy Davidson.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, on February 81 introduced a 15-person delegation that came down to meet with the minister regarding David Thompson University Centre. Today I'd like to draw to your attention that in the precincts are about 150 people visiting and asking for some reconsideration of the decision to close David Thompson University Centre.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, I'd ask the House to extend a warm welcome to a group from the central Fraser Valley, students of the Mennonite Educational Institute, who are accompanied by their teacher Mr. Loewen. Would the House please welcome these students and their teacher.

MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Speaker, I would like all members to join me in welcoming Mr. Tony Goode, from Elkford, British Columbia, to the Legislature today.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, we have visiting us today Mr. Dudley Thompson, general manager of Sears in Victoria. With him are two gentlemen from my hometown of Toronto: Mr. Robert Knox, vice-president of public affairs for Sears, Toronto, and Mr. J.J. Michael Eagan. corporate secretary and vice-president of that firm. I'd ask the House to bid these three gentlemen welcome.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, also visiting with us today from San Francisco is a long-time friend of mine, Mr. Michael Creasy. I would ask the House to make him welcome, along with his friend Mr. Jeff Archer.

Oral Questions

DAVID THOMPSON UNIVERSITY CENTRE

MR. NICOLSON: A question to the Minister of Education. Hundreds of my constituents and students representing a cross-section of occupations and political stripes have travelled overnight to Victoria to present their arguments to the government on the closure of the David Thompson University Centre. Has the minister reconsidered the savage blow to the economy and to the people of Nelson?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker. I did meet with a delegation from the Nelson area some time ago. On at least three occasions during that particular meeting they were advised that the decision is final. They repeatedly requested that the decision be reviewed. The decision was, and the decision that was made remains.

MR. NICOLSON: Will the minister advise what studies are in his possession concerning the economic impact of closing DTUC, and has he decided to make these studies public?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: The decision which government made was a difficult one, and I can assure the member that of anything with which I have been involved in five years at the provincial level, I believe this to be the hardest decision. I think it is clear that the matter of the budget and the amount of available funding had to be addressed. When you examine the amount of money which is spent per capita in the Kootenays and Selkirk region of British Columbia, you will find that it is in excess of double, not including the cost of David Thompson University Centre. In other words, in excess of double the provincial average per person is placed in that particular area. I think the member is well aware, when you look at the number of full-time students at the centre, that the overall costs, even when we add part-time students based on a full-time equivalent or converted to that, is worth in excess of $10,000, when you take the cost of operating, not including debt service, which should not be included — that I agree with. It is a difficult decision, and it has been made.

[2:15]

MR. NICOLSON: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The community took the minister at his word when he suggested that they should come back quickly with a proposal, which he was willing to take to cabinet. They prepared such a document and had it prepared on that eighth day, when the minister announced that it was absolutely and totally dead. This proposal shows ways in which those objections can be met. Is the minister willing to read and consider this proposal, which would bring it within the funding formula constraints of the provincial government's program?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, upon the request made by some people at that meeting, and even prior to that, I invited proposals for the use of the plant and facilities. As I recall, I have not received any proposal. That information has been made very clear to those involved.

When you look at the total number of students attending the centre on a full-time basis — something like 256, which includes University of Victoria extension programs — it is pretty hard to justify the maintenance of that facility as it is now. The decision is there, and I regret it very much. But it is something that just had to be addressed. Selkirk College is something like 25 miles or so away. It's the same throughout the province of British Columbia. There are regional colleges located in every part of the province. It seems to me that it is patently unfair to all the other community colleges, wherever they are located, that that amount should be directed where in fact there are something like 256 full-time students, including the University of Victoria extension program — or something like 370 full-time equivalents. It was a tough decision. It is something that had to be addressed, and it has been.

MR. ROSE: In the case of the school board funds, where there was an extra $12 million as a result of the three non-

[ Page 3474 ]

teaching days, the minister, after suggesting the boards bring forward their ideas on how to use that money, later revealed I that he knew in advance that their ideas would not be accepted. So he rejected them before they even submitted them. In the case of DTUC, after agreeing to a committee request for ten days to come up with better funding or cost-saving ideas, the minister closed DTUC after eight days and hasn't even heard the committee's representations.

Can we expect similar behaviour from this same minister in future, or can we look forward to less deviousness and greater candidness?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. The member has been a parliamentarian long enough to know that the word "devious" in reference to another member must be withdrawn, and I would ask him to so do.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to withdraw "less deviousness, " but I would like "greater candidness" to remain.

MR. SPEAKER: The latter is parliamentary, the former is not. The Chair appreciates the withdrawal.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the first item involving the funding and the savings arising from the three-day withdrawal of services pretty well provincewide, I made it clear.... And it's a matter of record; it's incorporated within a letter which was sent to every chairman, superintendent and secretary-treasurer in every school district in British Columbia. In that press release and letter I said: "I am interested in your proposals, but you can rest assured that this is not a commitment." That was made clear.

MR. ROSE: You don't make commitments.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: The member is asking me to be candid and upfront. I was candid and upfront, and it is a t matter of record within that letter and press release.

On the second part of the question: the people with whom I met.... After that particular meeting, the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) repeated in this House that t there wasn't very much encouragement. Well, it seems to me I that there must have been some degree of candour at that meeting to have a member make that comment. When I  returned with the answer that there was to be no reversal, I communicated it — by way of telex, followed by a letter, all of it preceded by a telephone call — to His Worship Mayor Maglio of Nelson, because I cannot be more open and more e upfront than that.

SALE OF PACIFIC COACH LINES

MR. PASSARELL: My question is to the Minister of Human Resources, who is responsible for B.C. Transit and Pacific Coach Lines. The Minister of Human Resources issued a statement which states that the assets of Pacific Coach Lines have been sold to three bidders. Will the minister identify which assets have been sold to each of the three bidders and the purchase price for each of the assets?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I'd be pleased to give that information to the member and the House. I'm sorry, I'll have to take it as notice because I don't have that information in the House at this time.

MR. PASSARELL: It has been reported that the purchase price is some $5 million. Will the minister explain why assets worth $12 million have been sold for less than half their value?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I will give further detail as to he price when I bring the answer to the first question back to the House. Rather than leave the illusion that the assets have been sold for half the price.... First, all the assets have not been sold. There will still be other assets yet for sale. There will still be equipment that is saleable and will be sold. Secondly, the greatest saving to the taxpayer is that which will be a continual saving as the years go on. Since the government has been involved in the running of that service, we have subsidized that service to more than $50 million; this past year there has been $8 million to $9 million in subsidy. With the sale of the buses, that, of course, will not be a burden which the taxpayers will have to carry in the years to come.

MR. PASSARELL: Will the minister confirm that the lucrative Vancouver-Victoria run has been purchased by Wally Watson, former assistant general manager, and Bjorn Bjornson, former controller with the company?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I believe those are the names, and I think there is one other name. Again, I have already taken that question as notice. I'll be glad to bring the details back.

MR. BLENCOE: My question is to the same minister on he same topic. This topic is of deep concern to Vancouver slanders. Indeed, there is some resentment about how this whole matter has been handled by this government. What assurance will the minister give that the bus service on Vancouver Island, under the operation of Gray Line of Victoria, will continue without reduction or disruption, despite he withdrawal of all provincial financial assistance for this essential service?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: As I understand the negotiations. they were very good negotiations and the companies involved have given as much assurance as any private company can give. You know, the member is asking me to be clairvoyant as to whether the fares will be increased or service will be changed two, five or ten years from now. I assume that any business that purchases an organization, such as the group that he is mentioning, will be governed, as all free-enterprisers are, by the people who use the service. If they do not provide a good service, they will not be getting the business. It will be as simple as that. I'm sure that they understand that just as well as most free-enterprisers in the province.

MR. BLENCOE: That's a very weak answer. We don't ask you to be clairvoyant; we're asking you to give assurance o the people of Vancouver Island that they will continue a service that is essential,

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

[ Page 3475 ]

MR. BLENCOE: That is no answer to the people of Vancouver Island at all, Madam Minister. I want to know what type of performance bond Gray Line has posted to give assurances of the quality of service on Vancouver Island. This is an essential service, and you're giving no answer to the people on this Island, Madam Minister.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Order! Hon. members, the Chair repeatedly has advised the second member for Victoria about addressing questions to the Chair. This will be the last advice the Chair will give that member on the very same subject.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, the assurance that we can give the people of Vancouver Island is that we have successfully been able to find operators with experience who will be able to retain a service which was heretofore subsidized dearly by the people of Vancouver Island, and they will no longer have to subsidize it.

MR. BLENCOE: Transportation to be able to get to your own home is essential. Will the minister advise what consideration was given to the safety record of an affiliate company of Gray Line, Conmac Stages Ltd., in awarding the Vancouver Island bus service?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I will answer the association vis-à-vis safety because we, too, were very concerned, especially since the tragedy on Vancouver Island, that all safety measures would be taken into consideration in the sale of these companies. Perhaps not the member who has asked the question but certainly the members of this House will be pleased to know that that same safety operation — the same garage that was very successful in keeping a very good safety record for PCL — will be retained by the companies just as it was before the sale. I am also assured that the people in whose hands we have now placed these companies have a very competent record, and that only two of the directors of the company on Vancouver Island are associated with another bus firm, and they are simply directors.

TRANSFER OF FUNDS TO BCR

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I wish to answer a question taken as notice Thursday last. The hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich), who is not present at this moment, asked questions with respect to the British Columbia Railway debt retirement. I paraphrase his questions for the sake of brevity. The member sought confirmation that B.C. Rail sinking funds have been used in the past to purchase bonds issued by related provincial Crown corporations. It is a matter of public record that BCR sinking funds have been used in the past to purchase bonds of other provincial Crown corporations and in some instances bonds of the British Columbia Railway itself. This is a practice that has been followed in the past for a variety of sinking funds. A condition of all these transactions is, of course, that they must be carried out at then-current market rates so that the sinking funds earn the same return which they would obtain through investments outside the provincial government sector or the provincial government area of activity.

[2:30]

The member for Nanaimo then asked, in a supplementary, whether the $470 million, which is admittedly the subject of a bill now before this House, cannot be used to acquire bonds issued by related Crown corporations, and the question of whether the sinking funds could be used to purchase "bank paper" to be used to finance the Tumbler Ridge branch line. I say again. for that member and for the record of this House, that the payment of $470 million cannot be used to finance the Tumbler Ridge branch line. My answer could be lengthier were it not then infringing on the fact that the debate on the bill will occur at some time.

Finally, the hon. member stated in a preamble to his last question that B.C. Railway's financial statements for the year ending December 31 –– 1982. have notes to the effect that the interest and repayment of the cost of construction of the Tumbler Ridge branch line has been guaranteed by the province of British Columbia. I think the member then asked if it is reasonable to assume that the provincial guarantee is to be withdrawn. That member would know, having served briefly as a Minister of Finance, and the Leader of the Opposition — for the time being — would also know, having served as Minister of Finance, that the question of a provincial guarantee is a broadly issued satisfaction to those who purchase debentures and bonds and who invest in the credit of the province of British Columbia. The existence of a provincial government guarantee enables Crown corporations — B.C. Rail and others — to borrow at rates somewhat lower than would otherwise be the case were there no guarantee. I emphasize in this answer that the provincial guarantee does not mean that the line will not be self-supporting. That guarantee guarantees all Crown corporation debt including, for example, B.C. Hydro and Power, which in that case is entirely self-supporting.

Orders of the Day

ON THE BUDGET
(continued debate)

On the amendment.

MR. NICOLSON: I thought that the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Richmond) would be continuing the debate which he adjourned. Perhaps he has something else besides this budget which has caused him some concern: perhaps he got a copy of the auditor-general's report on his ministry, or perhaps the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith) has asked him for an appointment in his office later this afternoon. Whatever it is, I certainly find it timely to take my place in this debate on this motion founded upon the actions of my colleague from North Island (Mr. Gabelmann): the motion that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair be amended to read that this House regrets that, in the opinion of this 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 thereby condemned them to a life of subsistence — I might even say, to the soul-destroying fate of a life of subsistence, because to live in subsistence is not to participate. It is not really to do much more than exist, as does maybe a star-fish on the bottom of the ocean. That is not what human beings were placed on this earth for, Mr. Speaker — not to subsist, but to grow, to participate, to communicate and

[ Page 3476 ]

to work; to work for each other in order to make the world a better place and to realize our full potential.

Mr. Speaker, in the weekend Province, the business editor, Ken Bell, wrote an article, "Bill Should Back Off, " which said:

"Last Monday's B.C. budget delivered by Finance Minister Hugh Curtis underlines the extent to which the application of restraint has passed beyond the degree considered desirable by most Socred voters. Unfortunately, however, just as there's no such thing as being half-pregnant, there's no such thing as voting only for the good points of a political party. When you cast your vote, you take the whole party, warts and all. That's especially true of the Socred Party."

Mr. Speaker, I never thought I would see an article like this from Mr. Ken Bell, who writes some very excellent articles on computers and is very well respected for his articles on data-processing, and I think fairly well respected for most of his articles on B.C. business. But he has said that the government should back off. He said:

"More helpful, surely, would have been some attempt by Curtis to explain just why the B.C. unemployment figures are so high (reputed to be about the fourth highest among the 60 states and provinces which make up Canada and the U.S.)

"B.C. was supposed to lead Canada out of the recovery. It demonstrably isn't at the moment, and people are entitled to know why."

[Mr. Pellon in the chair.]

Indeed, Mr. Speaker, the statement by Mr. Bell has been rechecked, and it is correct. The only state with a higher unemployment figure than B.C. Is West Virginia, with 15.7 percent. The next highest is Alabama with 12.3 percent. In Canada, only New Brunswick, with 15.6 percent, and Newfoundland, with 21.7 percent, have higher rates of unemployment. And yet unemployment was not mentioned.

In my riding, and in the Kootenay West region of Canada Manpower, we have right now the highest rate of unemployment in the province: 23.6 percent. That compares with other very seriously affected regions — region 6, which would be Vancouver Island, has 18.2 percent unemployment. That's very serious unemployment. The Kamloops region has 19.9 percent. The Okanagan region has 17.8 percent. Indeed, there's only one region on the list with less than 10 percent unemployment and that is East Kootenay. With the government's coal policies, they are going to try to reverse that as well. The government has done such a poor job. A few years ago they were saying how British Columbia was going to lead the way into recovery. In this budget we have the very hopeless prediction — and the minister said it — that we will likely not come out of this recession before we enter the next one here in British Columbia. That is now the admission.

Mr. Speaker, with 23.6 percent unemployed the government intends to kill the second-largest employment base — maybe even the largest economic base — in the city of Nelson in that West Kootenay region, which is so seriously affected. At this time the government is deliberately refusing to listen to proposals which could cut back quite drastically on some of the costs of operating the David Thompson University University Centre. But it has to be remembered that it was the government that set up this very awkward model for running a university centre. It was the government that shut down Notre Dame University. Then they said that instead of having a single entity they would have a university centre. The first and second years would be offered by the local community college, and third and fourth years would be offered by the University of Victoria, which has done a very good job. They have delivered; they have put a lot of effort into it. The president of the university has put a lot of his personal time, energy and effort into the David Thompson University Centre.

Mr. Speaker, it was such an awkward model that funding, at times, got absolutely lost in the Ministry of Education. Funds from the Ministry of Education were sent to Selkirk College ostensibly for the operation of David Thompson University Centre, but great amounts of those funds were taken by the college and then the centre was charged a fee for service. I think that if you looked at the true cost of operation of the university centre, you might find that some of the money was being bled off to some extent by the college administration for purposes other than those intended — maybe for a little bit more of the centralization which seems to be the preferred mode of operation of the administration of Selkirk College. In saying this, I realize that a lot of the people who serve on the board of Selkirk College — in fact all but one of those who were on the board prior to the government doing away with all of the school board appointees — were very cooperative and helpful. I believe he is one of the ones who was let go when the minister brought in a complete list of appointees.

Mr. Speaker, there was no advertising of the activities of David Thompson University Centre. It was one of the best kept secrets in British Columbia. The person who was supposed to go out and do the selling was an employee of Selkirk College. She felt that if she went out and did too good a job for David Thompson, then maybe she wasn't doing the job for Selkirk College. Selkirk College is a community college, and it should sell itself in the local region. David Thompson University Centre was a provincial institution offering programs that were unique in the province — indeed, unique in the country. It offers a rural education program in which students study and do practicums, not only in major cities but out in little one-room schoolhouses where the teacher maybe has to kick a bear off the front porch with a broom before the children can be dismissed from school in the afternoon. These are some of the real anecdotes that have been brought back to the college by some of the students.

[2:45]

1 think that every one of those people last year got a job. While many graduating people in education were not able to get jobs, there was a demand for a teacher who was trained in that way. At the same time, we have a government which is saying that if you want to get employment, you've got to get real technological training and go into engineering. Look at the success of the graduates from the faculty of engineering at the University of British Columbia last year. I believe that less than a quarter of them have jobs today, so that is not the answer either. The answer is that the government must have a will to govern for all the people of this province and not to impress their friends, whether their friends be very famous people in Japan like the Prime Minister, who some of them get to rub shoulders with once in a while, or impressive industrialists in Nippon Kokan and various other industries of the Pacific Rim. We know that the Pacific Rim is important to the economy of British Columbia, but the people of British

[ Page 3477 ]

Columbia are the most important resource that we have. If we have a will, we can provide for those people employment and educational opportunities that allow all of them to participate. There is an emphasis on arts at that University Centre; on creative arts and practical arts and arts programs that lead toward employment; saleable skills; practical skills in creative writing, and the experience of not just writing something creative but seeing a play actually being performed with music written as a score for the production. There is an integration of performing arts, written, graphic and photographic. All types of programs are being integrated.

These things perhaps cost money. The people of Nelson were never given a chance to participate in the concern that the minister had over the costs. We were shut out of it. It was in the hands of a board, only one or two of whose directors came from Nelson, or in the hands of the University of Victoria. The city of Nelson listened to what the minister had to say if the minister didn't listen to what the city of Nelson had to say. They have a list of proposals, very short and succinct, and I think that it does point the way toward a more efficient, cleaner, leaner operation. It doesn't create another university in the province. Here are some of the things that could be done. They propose that funding allocations for the Selkirk College programs offered at David Thompson University Centre be under the Minister of Education's own funding formula model. They realize that that would lead to a reduction in the amount of money, but they are sure that there are ways in which this can be met. For instance, the city of Nelson is aware that the implementation of the new funding formula at David Thompson University Centre will mean drastic reductions at the centre but will represent considerable cost savings to the Ministry of Education, if they were to go under formula funding.

I talked earlier about the problem of having someone from Selkirk College going out trying to sell the University Centre. The city of Nelson is willing to fund a marketing and development office serving the needs of both the city and the David Thompson University Centre. The director of the office would report to the director of the centre and to the city council. Within this academic year, a little before Christmas, a person with considerable business experience in Victoria and who has moved to Nelson, a person whose spouse happened to be an executive assistant to the Social Credit government in about 1976-77, went out and did some marketing and selling of the rural education program. She enlisted 76 bona fide, qualified applications into what would have been a limited enrolment of 25 people. That is just one example of the type of activity that could go on and address the minister's concerns about low enrolments. It would be very conceivable that one might have to double the enrolment in those years of the rural education program.

The city, the people of Nelson, are willing to underwrite that expense. We put up our money just as we did when many people subscribed privately to put up those buildings years and years ago. Nelson is not a city that goes begging for handouts and government largesse. Nelson is a city that goes out and does things for itself, and that is why those buildings are there. That is why Nelson has its own electric power plant and had electric power before Victoria and Vancouver. That is why Nelson had the first electric railway. That's why in the middle of the Depression Nelson built a recreational complex, which still serves the city today. It has two sheets of ice in the same building, with library facilities, a badminton hall and other things. Nelson is a city that doesn't look for largesse. It doesn't look for handouts.

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: There's a native of Nelson. I would hope he would be fighting with me on this issue, not against me.

The community is willing, to consider creating a community-wide sinking fund debenture and to initiate that to ensure a base of seed money for program enhancement, with a specific percentage earmarked for promotion of the centre. We're talking about debentures, which is the kind of thing we have done before to get ski hills off the ground. The beneficiaries are not just the people who take part in the recreation; they are the local motels, restaurants and entertainment facilities. We would be willing to put up money in debentures. If the minister will reconsider it, if he will allow this kind of plan to go ahead, I will put up $2,000 in those debentures. I'm making that offer here and now in this House. I'll put up that much of my annual salary, after tax. If the minister will listen to this proposal. which I think has a great deal of sense to it. We can get those per capita costs down to the kind of ratio that the minister feels is more appropriate.

We have had a marketing study. It's regrettable that it was only done this year. It's regrettable that it was only done, maybe, after there was some pressure. In fact, it's regrettable that the minister didn't show his concern, or that his predecessor didn't show concern about this and allowed it to go on. He should have been showing concern two years ago. Two years ago you should have given us a couple of years to address these problems, and allowed the people and the community to get involved. If we lose this, we are losing the opportunity for a kind of educational experience which doesn't just serve the people of Nelson. It enriches the city of Nelson, but it also serves young people from all over the province. Many notable graduates have gone through those halls. My colleague who sits right here, the member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell), is one of those people. Miss Nola Landucci is another person who went to Notre Dame University, and went through those very same buildings, and took part in the building of that idea of educational opportunity beyond the metropolitan area.

The city of Nelson would be open to discussions relating to the release of the Mary Hall building. The city, and possibly the regional district. would continue to maintain and operate the facility with a lease-back arrangement for the five classrooms contained in it. The recreational food centre would be used to encourage community and campus cooperation, as well as provincial tourism. The city would be willing to entertain the taking over of what I think is one of the most expensive operations of that campus. There again is where we see some of the problems of having it administered from Selkirk Colleize on a sort of fee-for-service basis, rather than being operated directly by the people who have the most at stake.

The city of Nelson has been alarmed and put on a state of alert several times by the principal of Selkirk College, Mr. Leo Perra. Three separate papers have been put out since last summer, calling for centralization, for the closing down of David Thompson University Centre. They are even suggesting that the Rosemont campus vocational school could be shut down and moved to a central Castlegar campus, that a building valued on the books at more than $12 million right

[ Page 3478 ]

now — and which, no doubt, would cost more than $20 million to replace — could somehow be shut down and rebuilt at another campus. In these proposals we're also moving a library collection. Right now the estimates are that it is going to cost $75,000 just to move the library books and build new space to house them at Selkirk College. This particular kind of assault has been going on in tandem. There are people in the minister's ministry who are former administrators up there. I'm talking about your ministry; I'm not talking about the Ministry of Universities, Science and Communications. There are people in there who have been feeding you advice, and they have been giving the minister the wrong advice.

The way it was set up I was even surprised that it could last as long as it did, because there was not a wholehearted effort on behalf of everyone who was engaged in it. When the closure was announced, it was almost like jackals coming in on a kill for the scraps and pieces. I have three papers authored since last August. They all talk about centralization, cutting down programs and centralizing everything through the Castlegar campus. The people of Nelson — myself included — voted for a community college to be located at Castlegar. The two don't have to be in such competition. I think the roles of the two have certainly been spelled out in such a way that they aren't in competition. Nevertheless, you'll always find empire builders in a bureaucracy, and it is our obligation as politicians — a profession which I think is somewhat noble, even though it's not always held in the highest esteem — to watch bureaucrats who are possessed with empire building. When they are possessed with building centralized empires, we must watch them even more diligently. I ask the minister to consider this modest proposal, to use his imagination to realize that there can be considerable cost savings and that this idea need not die and it will not die. Someday there will be another election, and if there is a change of government, this idea will be resurrected very, very quickly. It's part of our policy. While the current government closed down Notre Dame University, they saw it as necessary to create the David Thompson University Centre. The minister has shut it down without even seeing what goes on there. You have listened to the wrong advice. You should look about you very carefully to the people you think are seeking to help you and guide you. I think you should very much reconsider the kind of information you've been getting. You should become a little bit more informed on the problem that has been going on for many, many years.

[3:00]

The people who are advising you are fighting an old battle. That's an old battle of the late sixties and early seventies. The minister should took at this with fresh, new ideas, and there are fresh, new ideas in this proposal. The city will be a much better watchdog of cost-efficiency. The people of the local area will put in their own money to help make this work. With that kind of vigilance.... Believe me, there's nothing more efficient than local, municipal government. They're the ones who really watch everything. They get the best out of every dollar, and that is the way to approach this particular problem.

I wouldn't want to say anything in this debate that would maybe give more vent to my feelings than to my reason. There is an act which governs this particular institution, where so many people are going to lose their jobs. Just how much disruption can one community stand? The highest unemployment in the province! There is an agreement between the province and the old Notre Dame board, and that agreement says that the province agrees that: "Courses should be offered at the facility that will enable students to begin and complete university degrees in arts and sciences, education and fine arts. The province will cause the educational lessee of the facility, within the scope of its limits and authority, to provide university-level courses and programs." That is an agreement. That agreement was ratified by the Legislature. I don't know if it's going to be the subject of some sort of action in the courts if that agreement is broken, but that isn't the important thing. The important thing is that there is an opportunity here. It is the first opportunity that the community has had to know what was wrong up there. The community has some ideas, and I think that something really good could happen if you challenged those ideas. It need not be costing the government $2.7 million every year. Forget about how much is going into that region per capita, because that is really a spurious piece of information. If you were to look at Burnaby and say: "In Burnaby there is so much going in per capita, beclargesse.ause you've got Simon Fraser University, BCIT and one or two other institutes.... .. If you looked at the Point Grey riding you could say: "In Point Grey they've got so much per capita because they've got the University of British Columbia." But when you say that it's costing so much per student, then you're starting to get on to some legitimate ground. The city — and people — are willing to put up money to see that this employment and cultural base and this educational opportunity for our citizens is not lost.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

It is expensive, When a student comes out of the University of British Columbia — from which I graduated in the faculty of education — goes into a rural school and suddenly finds that he can't cope, in about December of the year he quits. Somebody else comes in in mid-year and lasts about three or four weeks, and then somebody else finishes out the year. That has not been the experience with students trained in the rural education program. Students educated in the arts are finding types of employment opportunities, because a lot of this is employment-oriented. In the writing program they're working with word processors. It is a unique experience, and outstanding authors are coming to the program.

One of my early high school days friends is a person by the name of Cameron Porteous, the art director of the Stratford Theatre. He came to Nelson because of the program that is going on there, gave a lecture and shared his skill and experience with students and others in the community. All of that is now lost. Do you mean that we should never have it in any community in this province, when you ask why one community should have it when others don't? Must education in British Columbia always be on the lower mainland or here on the southern tip of Vancouver Island? The reason that it is in Nelson is that it was there before any of the community colleges. It was a lighthouse for the idea that post-secondary education should extend beyond Hope, and that was realized when the government of its day brought in the community college plan. Why should we now destroy that lighthouse?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: On the amendment, the Chair recognizes the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.

[ Page 3479 ]

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, I'm glad you brought our attention back to the amendment. I would just like to quote a portion of the amendment which the NDP moved and seconded the other day: "That the 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."

I'd like to come back to that "life of subsistence" later on, but first of all I don't believe that the amendment is anywhere near realistic. I think it could identify a number of areas, but to say to this House — and to the people of British Columbia — that by this budget they have been condemned to a life of subsistence is unrealistic. I suggest that the credibility of the party who brought forward that amendment is seriously in jeopardy, for two reasons which I'd like to point out to this House today.

One reason is that a week ago members of that party took the opportunity, when the ombudsman's report was filed in this House, to viciously attack the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland). They called for his resignation. Then when the report was found by the ombudsman to be somewhat in error, the ombudsman — rightly so, and to his credit — apologized to the Minister of Forests publicly, by letter and in this House. The letter was read out to people in this chamber, and of course it was public knowledge throughout the province. I compliment the ombudsman and his office for doing that. But when I talk about the credibility of the opposition, why is it so difficult for the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly), the forestry critic, who in this House a week ago called for the Minister of Forests' resignation? Now, when the Minister of Forests has been vindicated and apologized to by the ombudsman, why doesn't that member for Alberni, who is a leadership candidate of that party, stand up in this House and publicly apologize for those comments that he made in the heat of debate? I will give him credit for that; part of the reason we sometimes do things in this House may be that we get carried away and make statements which afterwards we probably feel we shouldn't have. But after finding that the ombudsman recognized the error, it would seem to me that that member, if he's going to be a leadership candidate of a party, should certainly have the decency to apologize for the attack he took on the Minister of Forests.

The second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) is a former Attorney-General of this province and a Queen's Counsel; a man who knows not just justice in the courts but social justice, and knows the impact that statements made by leading politicians in this province can have on another politician just through the news media, through reporting of statements made in this House — not just on the man himself, as the Minister of Forests, but on his family, on his wife and children. It would seem to me that a man who has been in this House for a number of years, who is a Queen's Counsel and a former Attorney-General, would be the first to stand up in this House and apologize for the comments that were made to this House on the matter of the Minister of Forests.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Did he apologize?

HON. MR. HEWITT: No, he hasn't done it yet: I'm hoping that maybe they'll come forth after my comments this afternoon. Maybe they will get up and make the apology.

But, Mr. Speaker, that brings into question the credibility of the opposition, and of course the credibility of this motion that they have put before the House.

[3:15]

The second issue I find difficult to understand is the comments made by opposition members on the payment of funds to B.C. Rail. I mentioned this earlier in my speech on the budget itself, but it's worth repeating.

.Members of the opposition sat on a two-party committee on Crown corporations, and as a result of their investigations of B.C. Rail, they made certain recommendations with regard to the historical debt of the BCR. The report on the inquiry into the B.C. Railway' April 20, 1982, by the Committee on Crown Corporations stated: "The government should assume the railway's net outstanding long-term debt, which stood at $662,809,000 at December 1980. In return the railway should issue to the government common shares of equal value." The report went on to say, with regard to comments made concerning the morale of the BCR management and staff and in their hearings: "Nobody likes to be associated with an organization that is losing millions of dollars." One of the reasons, of course, for those losses was the interest on that long-term historical debt. The committee went on to speak about the annual grant of funds to B.C. Rail from the Legislature; it's about $70 million a year that we've been paying to them to help offset the costs of that long-term debt. While that assistance was welcomed by the railway, it "does not adequately address the long-term problems associated with the debt. The grant merely defers the time when the province will have to make good its guarantee, and leaves the railway vulnerable to changes in government policy."

In April, 1982, the Committee on Crown Corporations, on which members opposite sat, made that recommendation. It seems strange to me that the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) would stand in this House and criticize, or that the member who just came in, the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) would take exception to the payment by the government to the BCR to do away with that obligation for the historical debt. The second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald), the former Attorney-General, and the gentleman who just spoke, the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) were on that committee, along with two other NDP members; one of them was not re-elected, and the other decided that he should find other work as opposed to being an MLA. Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, those are pretty good reasons why the credibility of the NDP is somewhat in jeopardy in this province. You attempt to make issues where issues do not exist; you attempt to make statements which you feel are in your political best interest when you are sitting on Crown corporations committee, but don't take into consideration that we may act on a committee's recommendation. And then where do you go? You attack the very thing you recommended. I suggest your credibility is slipping rather badly.

Mr. Speaker, we've moved to relieve the BCR of that historical debt. No service in this province is directly affected by the moving of that debt. If you look at it for a moment, in moving those dollars over to the BCR sinking fund....

MS. SANFORD: You're outrageous.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I'm outrageous? The lady says I'm outrageous. Well, Mr. Speaker, if you look at the amount of dollar you see that we would have as BCR. and BCR's

[ Page 3480 ]

funding, and we guarantee it.... I know every member opposite who stands up in this House says.... Even the member for Comox says time and again that the debt you guarantee in the Crown corporations is debt of the province. You say that every year we come in with a budget; you tell us we're only in a deficit of so many billion. "That's not true," you say. "You forget to add the Hydro debt, you forget to add the BCR debt." All that we're doing is now identifying it as a direct debt of government, as opposed to a guaranteed debt of the BCR. So you can't have it both ways.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to comment about what I we're attempting to do in this budget, not condemning people to a life of subsistence. We're attempting to address the question with regard to prevention as opposed to the cure.

We're attempting now to arrive at a time when we don't have to look at short-term solutions and end up with long-term pain in the end because we increase the deficit of this province to where the taxpayer will have to pay more and more money to prop up a government that would be over loaded with debt.

You see, as I've said many times in this House before, Mr. Speaker, it's not the government's money we're talking about; it's the people's money we're talking about, the people who pay the taxes. If we look at the short-term method that these people talk about all the time, creating jobs, in most cases those types of jobs we'd be creating would be make-work jobs with very little productivity. I don't think that's the way we want to go. I know that's not the way we t want to go. I think the member for Comox said: "Why don't you ask the people?" We did. We asked the people in May 1983, and the people came through with flying colours and said: "We want you to practise restraint. We know in the short term there's going to be some pain, but we recognize that in the long term, for the benefit of our children and the opportunity for jobs in this province, your approach is correct. You cannot buy your way out of debt." So, Mr. Speaker, we are looking at the opportunities here for prevention as opposed to short-term cures.

We basically said that we've got to have a system of less government in people's lives. We've got to have a system where we don't continue to increase taxation. And we've got to have a system that allows our industry and our businesses in this province to compete in the world marketplace. We're short-sighted if we think all that we do is trade things back and forth, or buy and sell things back and forth in Canada or in British Columbia. Nonsense! Where we get our dollars is in the export market. If you price yourself out of the export market, Mr. Speaker, your revenues drop, and drop drastically. If we allow that opportunity to the private sector to have the ability to compete, if we can show leadership as a government, saying we're controlling our costs.... Recognize that when you negotiate a contract, you ensure that your employees know that the impact on the end price of your product is substantial if you allow ever-increasing wage settlements. I think the private sector is coming through, and I think the employees are coming through. They recognize that the problem is not just within this province but is worldwide.

Mr. Speaker, we look at the fact that government's got so involved in people's lives. When you look at George Orwell's book 1984, where we're at on the calendar, not according to the book but on the calendar, it happened....I guess in his book it just grew that way, because people kept saying: "Let government do it." All of a sudden government became the master instead of the servant of the people. That's what the opposition advocates. They want government to be the be-all-and end-all. They love people to come to government and say: "You do it for us." But you find out in the end that the cost is too great.

MR. HOWARD: That's not true and you know it.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, the learned member for Skeena says: "That's not true and you know it." I'd like to have him explain someday, in economic terms — don't garble it up with social terms — why government competes in business. Why does government compete in chicken plants? Why does government compete in turkey plants? Why does government compete in the building of railway cars? Why does government compete in those areas that that opposition party moved into in their term? That's one of the problems. They would slowly move in and compete in those fields that are historically left to the private sector and to competition in the marketplace. I can grant you that there are one or two areas that even my philosophy can accept. I guess one might well be B.C. Hydro, because that's a utility and it affects the life of all the people in British Columbia — as opposed to competition in the marketplace. I guess I sometimes have difficulty with even that. Nevertheless, they'd move well beyond utilities and get right into competition in he marketplace — whether its beef or chickens or turkeys or many other thing that you can think of — if you gave them the time. The people didn't give them the time between 1972 and 1975. They finally recognized what was happening, and as a result that party only served in power for three years.

I just want to touch on two other things. One is when they talk in their motion about "record unemployment" and "condemned them to a life of subsistence." A few of their members mentioned the Ministry of Labour's program for young people: the 1984 jobs-for-youth program. I think the member from Burrard, I believe it was, made the comment that young people are going to have to go begging for jobs. We don't see that.

Interjections.

HON. MR. HEWITT: For the benefit of the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell), she was referring to the fact that the young person had to go to a company, to a small business, to a farm operation, and knock on the door, so to speak, and say, "I'm here because I would like you to create a summer job for me, if it's at all possible, " and have the opportunity to say to that person: "There is a program of government that will assist in you paying my wage." In other words, we're having those young people, as the second member for Surrey (Mr. Reid) says, develop some initiative to go out and talk to potential employers and to sell themselves as good workers, as young people willing to learn, and saying to those potential employers: "I'm here and I'm prepared to work hard, and the government is prepared to be a partner with you in my development. They're prepared to pay part of the wage for my summer employment." It's a great concept, and I compliment the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. McClelland) for bringing in this program. There are some employers — small busy businessmen — who may not even have been aware of the program that was available to them in the past. But we can take thousands of students — young, aggressive, enthusiastic students — and send them out there as salesmen and tell them to knock on doors, to say to potential employers: "I'm here. I'm willing to work. Give

[ Page 3481 ]

me a job. The government is your partner in my development." The Minister of Labour is giving those young people the tools to enable them to aggressively seek opportunities for summer employment. I think it's a great concept. It's a $10 million program and it will result in some 8,400 jobs.

When we go on to the difficult times we've been through and the fact that we've had to cut our programs.... Yes, we've had to cut the budgets of all our ministries, with the exception of Health. We've had to cut our cloth to live within the ability of the taxpayer to pay. But just so the members opposite don't think it's a free ride and say, "Spend more, spend more, spend more, " there has to be a source of funds in order to provide those programs. For their information, because they probably haven't read their budget papers yet, 60.7 percent of our budget comes through taxation and 8.8 percent comes out of natural resources. The reason that has gone down to that figure is because....

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEWITT: The member opposite says it's because we have given it away. The reason is the world economy. They don't need copper. They don't need other minerals or metals. When the economy is slowed down in other parts of the world, it affects us. As I said before, we rely on our export markets. So we can't get more money there. We're trying. The Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) are out attempting to sell this province's goods to foreign markets. We can't get it, Mr. Speaker, from fees and licences — if you wish, we can get it from there, but we jack up the cost of business to those people who are trying to survive the recession and are looking for the opportunity to recover. We've got 4.8 percent that comes from the liquor distribution branch, and I guess we're one of the heaviest taxers of alcoholic beverages. I guess we could jack that up some more. But if we did, I imagine the member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell) would complain considerably, and others might complain — including me. We do heavily tax that product at the present time, but we could get it from there.

Then we get the tax dollars that go to Ottawa and are laundered and come back. We get about 19 percent from them. We can't tell them to pay us more. We're having a tough enough time getting what they pay us already out of Ottawa; they don't want to pay us any more. So what I'm getting at, Mr. Speaker, is that the only source of additional revenue is from heavier taxation on the people and the businesses of this province. If you want to do that, then you're adding more straws to that camel's back. They are now on the road to recovery, albeit slow, but they are now seeing the light at the end of the tunnel. There are more people working in British Columbia today than there were two years ago. If you want to tax them further, as the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford), would probably do.... She would tax the businesses. "Keep loading it up; they can pay. The big shareholders own that; they can pay." Well, I have got to tell you that if you continue to tax them, you'll price them out of the marketplace, and then your whole economy will collapse on your head.

[3:30]

Those are our sources of revenue. Where do we put it all? I know there may still be some people in the audience from the Nelson area. I have to tell you that when we bring all that money in, as the government, and then we distribute it, we're taking 66 cents out of every dollar that comes into this government. Two-thirds of every dollar goes to Health, Education and to Human Resources. We spend small amounts on Transportation, on the development of our natural resources and on aid to local governments, that also have their taxing problems. We pay approximately 2.8 percent as interest on debt that we carry at the present time. So if we increase taxation or we run into a deficit, it causes problems for the government and for the economy of British Columbia. First, if you increase taxation you affect the purchasing power of the consumer and industry and commerce. Secondly, if you don't go that route and say: "Raise the deficit, forget about the cost and just let her fly like they do in Ottawa...." If you do that, the cost of servicing will be so great that in the end you will have to cut back your programs.

Mr. Speaker, in making these comments I'm trying to address the statement that they make in their amendment. The amendment is unrealistic; it indicates the lack of credibility that the opposition party has in the province of British Columbia today.

In closing, I can say that it is never easy to tighten your belt. Whether it's an individual, a family or a provincial government. As I said, we could take the easy way out. We addressed it and took the tough way out. We said that we had to cut the cost of government. We could have just carried on and paid for the programs that we had and never questioned whether or not that program was still viable. We could have just taken the easy way out and let the deficits run bigger and bigger.

I'm not well-versed on the Nelson problem, but I would like to touch on the David Thompson University. I'm told that one in five students who choose to attend that university come from the Nelson area. I assume the other four must go to other places elsewhere in British Columbia, Canada or the United States to take their post-secondary education. If you took the total number of students and the faculty, you would have one faculty for six and a half students. I understand that one-third of the students at DTUC come from the Vancouver Island and lower mainland areas where alternative facilities with similar programs are available to them. If that's the case, and if those statistics are nearly accurate, I can understand the Minister of Education, having to address that problem, dealing with it as he did. As I said before, this government didn't choose the easy way out. We took a tougher route, one that would bring criticism from special interest groups, but one that is endorsed by the general public, the taxpayers in this province. That was proven last December when the Vancouver Sun did their poll, which indicated that at an election the popularity of this party would be higher than it was three months earlier, and that the NDP's popularity was less.

I cannot support the concept of short-term gain for longterm pain. I cannot support the opposition's amendment. It's unrealistic and. as I said, it's not credible. But I can support this budget, which looks to a brighter future for all British Columbians.

MS. SANFORD: I'm pleased that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs got up and spoke. We were supposed to hear today from the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Richmond) on this amendment that deals with levels of unemployment. I'm assuming, because the level of unemployment right now in Kamloops is 19.9 percent, that if the minister had not been frightened off by the auditor-general's

[ Page 3482 ]

report on what's happening within the Ministry of Tourism, then he's frightened off by the unemployment figures for Kamloops. How could he possibly oppose the amendment that we have placed, when the unemployment rate in Kamloops stands at 19.9 percent? Based on that, I'm not surprised he didn't get up and speak.

Following the minister's speech, I thought I would start today by reading a little editorial that appeared in the Comox District Free Press, dealing with the budget. These people, who are outside of this party, who watch what's happening in British Columbia today, made the following comments about this particular budget. I wish the minister would listen. Perhaps he would change his perspective a bit and realize that his government is on the wrong track entirely; that the words he was presenting us with this afternoon have no relationship whatsoever to what is really happening, in terms of what's happening to people, to services and to the economy itself. They are very destructive in their approach. This editorial, entitled "Budget, " says:

"Poor old St. Peter has been mugged so many times in order to fill Paul's purse that he must be near to declaring personal bankruptcy. And he isn't even left with the hope, in light of the cuts to the Attorney-General's budget, of getting much compensation for the crime."

Those of us who have been following what's happening with the Attorney-General's budget will recognize that reference.

"So you want your tonsils out; you got it. Of course, the rest of the province is going to have to pay a 4 percent surtax this year and a further 8 next year in order to pay for frills like health."

The minister just told us that government should not raise taxes at this stage. What about that 8 percent surtax related to paying for health in B.C.? The editorial goes on:

"And if your convalescence calls for assorted medications, you'll have to pay $175 before it's deductible, rather than the former $125. Not to worry, though; you'll be able to save the odd buck here and there. Human rights programs, for example, have been cut in half. That should leave us rolling in the long green. And schools, universities, income assistance, the ombudsman and student aid grants have also been hit with chops of a greater or lesser degree, so the future looks pretty affluent now."

They'll applaud that on the government benches. That's it: cut it all down. Never mind what happens to those university students, those kids in the classrooms. We're going to cut it down. We're going to save the money.

The editorial continues:

"It all boils down to the fact that Mr. and Mrs. Joe Householder will be paying an extra $100 to $200 a year to be left ever so slightly behind where they were last year. Mind you, the feds have to be blamed for that, for being so pushy about health care.

"This budget remains dedicated to restraint. If that is all Mr. and Mrs. J.H." — meaning Joe Householder — "are concerned about, they should be moderately pleased. If, however, they are are the sort of bleeding hearts who feel that a government has other short-range obligations to the human element of the Pacific province, they, while hardly surprised by Paul's actions, are possibly wondering about St. Peter's future."

That editorial says a lot about the attitude of this government to people and says a lot about the fact that the government is on the wrong track entirely. We were told last year that the government had to take these drastic measures in order to get the economy back on the rails. What has happened since then? Unemployment has reached 202,000. Seventy thousand young people are without work. Universities are going to have to limit enrolments. We are going to have to pay an 8-point surcharge on the income tax. We are going to have all kinds of cuts in the health field, particularly in preventive health, which has been virtually eliminated by this budget. Adult day-care centres will no longer be funded. We are going to have all kinds of services privatized in this province, and when that happens we know what happens to those services in many cases.

I have been looking at what has been happening to people as a result of this budget and the budget that was presented to us last July. I have been looking at the fact that the gap between the rich and the poor is increasing in this province. I have been looking at what is happening to services. I find that many of our citizens are in absolutely desperate circumstances at the moment and are facing yet further cuts under the knife of this particular government.

I have been looking at what's happening to the resources of the province, and the ombudsman's report certainly points out the shortcomings that are taking place in that area. I have been looking at what the economists are saying. The latest one, just this weekend, said that this government is on the wrong track and is wedded....

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: Oh, I'm not talking about the Fraser Institute, I can assure you. I dismissed them years ago. No way am I going to accept what they are telling us. I know what they want us to think. I know the kind of province that they want to see. These people have such a slavish adherence to the philosophy and the doctrines and the ideology of that Fraser Institute that that is all they can see. It is unfortunate, because it has an absolutely devastating effect on this province. This weekend we had more economists coming out and stating that the government is misleading us through the figures that they are presenting in this budget, and are also causing great damage in the process to both the people and the economy.

We cannot afford to have Social Credit at the helm in this province. The costs are outrageous with this government. They have tripled the debt. We have the largest debt in the history of this province.

MR. REID: There'll be no debt soon.

MS. SANFORD: No debt soon. Well, isn't that interesting. I assume that next year they are going to borrow $15 billion to pay off the current debt. Is that what they are proposing? They borrowed $451 million this year in order to pay off the debt for B.C. Rail. So we just borrow more and pay off more debt. Is that the way they are going to handle this debt? I assume so. In a very few years you people have piled the debt in this province so high that it almost matches on a per capita basis what the federal government has piled on us — $5,400 per capita provincially, $6,000 per capita federally. There isn't that much difference anymore. I think that is news to the members sitting there on the back bench.

[ Page 3483 ]

They don't realize the kind of debt this government has piled up. They don't realize that many of the actions they're taking are going to cost the people of this province far more in the long run by this adherence to this ideology.

[3:45]

MR. HOWARD: They don't care, either.

MS. SANFORD: They can't care. Surely they must recognize that young people can barely survive at this time on $375 a month, and there are 70,000 of them out of work right now.

MR. REID: We've got them knocking on doors now. That'll help.

MS. SANFORD: They're going to knock on doors now. Oh, Mr. Speaker, isn't that nice? These 70,000 young people can go out and knock on doors, the doors will be open to them, and there will be work for them.

MR. REID: You wait and see. There will be.

MS. SANFORD: I happen to know many young people who have been pleading at every doorstep for something to do in order to try to make ends meet. I have a picture that was in the local paper this week — I wish I'd brought it with me — where one of the constituents, who has been out of work for two years and has tried to find work in every corner of the province, has taken a placard and has taken to standing on the road: "Please give us a job."

MR. REID: He got a job. That's initiative.

MS. SANFORD: No, he did not get a job. That might be initiative, but he has not got a job. Mr. Speaker, 202,000 people knocking on doors and they're all supposed to come up with jobs?

MR. REID: There'll be jobs. Be patient. You'll be surprised.

MS. SANFORD: There'll be jobs! What a....

MR. REID: Just put a little business card on that says "I want a job."

MS. SANFORD: Oh, just give them a business card and they'll find a job. Well, I'm sure that the 202,000 people who are currently looking for work, who are losing their homes, who are unable to feed their families and who are in absolutely desperate situations are going to be pleased to hear from the member for Surrey that if they just get a business card they'll find a job. What malarkey!

MR. REID: There are lots of jobs out there.

MS. SANFORD: There are lots of jobs out there? Two hundred and two thousand people....

MR. REID: They've got to get off their fannies and go look.

MS. SANFORD: I've never heard such ludicrous talk in my life.

We cannot afford a government prepared to subsidize the Japanese steel industry. That's what they're doing with this northeast coal development: $451 million that could be going to services to people, to education and to health are going to be handed over to B.C. Rail. We all know that thatos to help pay for that Tumbler Ridge extension, to help to subsidize the northeast coal development. Those $451 million are our tax dollars, and the government is telling us that they are managing the province well. Mr. Speaker, 202,000 people looking for work, and a handout of this type to B.C. Rail!

A government prepared to cut off the number of students who can attend a university; a government prepared to lay people off, ensuring that the economy of the province is affected adversely even further than it is because they too are going to require government assistance as a result of these layoffs a government prepared to cut services to children and to seniors and at the same time take care of their friends in the forest industry by the kind of giving-away of Crown timber we heard about through the ombudsman's report — "Crown Timber for Free," an editorial in the Sun talking about the free log scandal; a government prepared to pour money into putting out householder mailings talking about the budget, at which time they give false or incomplete information; a government prepared to have cabinet ministers flying all over this globe is trying to tell us that they're doing a job for the people of British Columbia. It doesn't make any sense. They're prepared to ship raw logs out of this province knowing very well that every time they undertake another shipment, they are shipping out the jobs of the people of British Columbia. They are prepared to give away these free gifts and at the same time cut back on basic services — even the testing of motor vehicles is no longer a priority with this government.

Mr. Speaker, this government has known for a year that the major forest corporations were getting free timber. They have known for a year, from the Premier on down, that the money that was to be collected to help pay for some of the services that people are being denied these days was not being collected. They've known that for a year.

On TV the other day two prominent Social Credit members, who are independent contractors contracting for B.C. Forest Products, stated very clearly what the situation was. They stated very clearly that they felt the Minister of Forests should step down and be replaced. All that the government members are saying about apologies over here don't wash, because we know that that timber has been given away to those companies all of these months — money that should have been collected.

MR. REID: You know nothing.

MS. SANFORD: I think the second member for Surrey is saying that I know nothing about the giveaway of this timber. Well. It's very interesting that two people who are involved as contractors, who have worked in the forest industry for years and are also prominent members of the Social Credit Party, have stated very clearly that that timber is being given away. They stated it on the TV again the other day. I saw them.

AN HON. MEMBER: They're wrong.

[ Page 3484 ]

MS. SANFORD: Oh, they're wrong? Oh, well. Gee whiz, has the...?

MR. REID: You'll be proven wrong. Then you'll apologize.

MS. SANFORD: I see. Mr. Speaker, these two people....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MS. SANFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. He does get to be a nuisance, I have to admit that.

These two gentlemen went on to say that the fact that the RCMP had been called in to investigate this particular situation was in fact a red herring. They said that this has been common knowledge to the government members — at least to those on the cabinet benches — for a year. They say that there should be an ombudsman right in the Forests ministry itself to ensure that this kind of thing does not continue.

Interjections.

MS. SANFORD: Well, I'm only quoting the members of your party, Madam Member.

MRS. JOHNSTON: You say you don't believe the members of our party.

MS. SANFORD: Yes, well, I'm just telling you. You obviously don't believe them either. You're accusing them of not telling the truth on TV the other day.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Did I say that?

MS. SANFORD: Maybe you didn't; maybe it was your colleague.

Mr. Speaker, we know that they don't want an ombudsman. They've been gunning for the ombudsman for well over a year. We've heard it coming out of that corner of this House for over a year. They wanted to get rid of that ombudsman's office. I've heard the speeches, and I've heard the people state it on the radio. It's no wonder when the ombudsman says that this government is giving their friends in the major industries the timber and the resources of this province. It's no wonder they want to do away with that ombudsman. They don't want him.

The other thing that these two gentlemen said on the TV.... These contractors are members of the Social Credit Party and have contributed heavily to that party over the years, by their own statements. I don't know whether you people accept their statements or not, but I accepted that statement, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: They just accept the money? Oh, I see, But they said that the major corporations and the Forests ministry have an embrace. That can be translated very simply to say that the government protects and governs for the major corporations of this province. That's exactly what that statement means. I'm quoting your members on TV the other day, because I wrote it down. I thought it was an interesting comment.

MR. R. FRASER: Which members?

MS. SANFORD: Your members. Socred members. You all know the two people involved,

MR. REID: I don't know them.

MS, SANFORD: Oh, well, this is a quote from Mr. Ian Mahood and George Percy on TV the other day.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Name them.

MS. SANFORD: I named them.

MRS. JOHNSTON: I don't have time to watch TV.

MS. SANFORD: I told you, Ian Mahood and George Percy, both of them contractors, both of them Socreds and both of them contributing heavily to your party. They are saying that you people are doing a lousy job of collecting the money that is due to the taxpayers of this province. They're also saying that from the Premier down you people have known about this situation for well over a year and officials within the Forests ministry have known longer than that. It is high time, Mr. Speaker, that we ensured that the money that is due to us from our resources comes to us and is not given away to those major corporations.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair]

This weekend we heard from Robert Allen, yet another economist from the University of British Columbia, who teaches in the economics school out there. He made some interesting observations this weekend.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Is that one of your members?

MS. SANFORD: I don't know whether he's a member or not; I have no idea.

Mr. Speaker, after studying the information that is available through Statistics Canada and the OECD, he announced that the government has arrived at entirely the wrong conclusions and is basing its budget on entirely wrong conclusions.

MR. REID: He sounds like one of your candidates. He's probably going to be one of your candidates.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, how about asking him to go and answer his phone — would you do that?

MR. REID: Or go and watch television, like you do.

MS. SANFORD: I think he should go and answer his phone.

Mr. Speaker, he is saying that, for instance, the government is assuming that the budget pressures are such that they have to take out what they consider to be frills in education. But he points out that in British Columbia education spending is already well under control because this province spends the least per capita on education in Canada. So education spending is already well under control here. Yet they insist that they have to chop and cut to ensure that the young people

[ Page 3485 ]

in our classes are not able to attain their full potential by actions they are taking and the approach they are adopting.

[4:00]

He is also saying that investment in British Columbia, compared to the other OECD countries, is already high. That's news to the Minister of Finance, because what they are saying is that they have to cut down on all of these services. They have to pay off things like the B.C. Rail debt and that kind of thing, using money that should otherwise be used for services to people, in order to attract investment. The other thing that this economist said was that the economists who work for the Ministry of Finance are really very well trained. They can read the same data and come to the same conclusions, because they attended the same school of economics at the University of British Columbia. They took classes from this particular economist, whom I am quoting.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Some do.

MS. SANFORD: All right, I'm not saying all of them did.

What he is saying is that they know better. They can read the statistics and draw the appropriate conclusions. But you can't draw those conclusions if you have a political need and adherence to that right-wing philosophy that's espoused by the Fraser Institute. You are not able to deal with that then. That is the political input into the interpretation of what is happening in terms of the economics of the province.

So what they're asking is that the poor pay more and that those people who are already suffering in this province pay again. In his speech the Minister of Finance made no reference whatsoever to the word "unemployment."

What's happening to people, Mr. Speaker? We find that with small businesses there is a 23 percent increase in British Columbia in bankruptcies, while bankruptcies in the rest of Canada are going down. That figure alone should tell you something about the approach that you have adopted. It should tell you that you could possibly, if you looked again, be on the wrong track.

We find that people are lined up at food banks all over this province, because they are not able to survive. They're not able to feed their families. They are not able to keep their families together. In the Advertiser in Courtenay this weekend there's a front-page article that talks about the walkathon that the people in our district are going to participate in in order to raise money to feed those people who don't have food.

MR. R. FRASER: That's good community spirit.

MS. SANFORD: Oh, that's good. That's right. You abandon all your responsibilities. You give away the timber. You pay off B.C. Rail. You have your high-flying cabinet ministers all over the place and let people go out and walk to raise food money in order to ensure that the people of the province are fed. You people are a disgrace.

Mr. Speaker, the organizers of this particular walkathon are anticipating that more than 1,000 people will turn out on March 4 to take part in a walkathon to support the Comox Valley Food Bank.

" 'We're hoping to raise about $6,000, ' says Dick Clarke, the Solidarity Coalition rep named to publicize the event. That dollar figure represents the amount required to supply the food bank's larder for about a month."

So we'll have over a thousand people out walking, trying to raise enough money to ensure that the people in dire need within our area will be fed for a month.

"The walkathon has been endorsed by local municipal councils, and Courtenay city council has indicated that all the aldermen and the mayor will be taking part. Clarke is hoping to get a competition of mayors from Courtenay, Comox and Cumberland underway for the event. 'We'd like this to be very visible, ' Clarke says. 'It could encourage other communities to do the same' " — rather than turn people away when they don't have food.

MR. REID: Community involvement. That's a good idea.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Hear, hear!

MS. SANFORD: This is a government, Mr. Speaker, that's prepared to say "hear, hear." when we know that people are so desperate for food that they have to line up at food banks in order to ensure that their children are fed.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Rubbish!

MS. SANFORD: It is not rubbish. I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker.

This government is prepared, at tremendous cost, to privatize a lot of the services which we know are going to cost everyone more in the long run than they are costing now. Let's just look at the testing stations. Safety. Mr. Speaker, they have closed down the testing stations for vehicles in Nanaimo. Victoria and Vancouver. They're going to privatize it. The former director of the motor vehicle branch indicated that if they raised the price to the motorist by 50 cents per vehicle, they would be able to cover the costs of all that motor vehicle testing.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Not true.

MS. SANFORD: Well, Mr. Whitlock was a very respectable civil servant. You might want to criticize him now that he's retired. But he indicated very clearly that an additional 50 cents — in other words, $5.50 — would enable us to test our vehicles. What's it going to be when it's privatized, Mr. Speaker? Is it going to be cheaper for us?

MR. REID: I doubt it. The same amount of money.

MS. SANFORD: Oh, he doubts it. It's going to cost the same? Well. I can assure you that we are going to pay far more for the kind of testing that these people are proposing at this time — when and if that ever happens. And in the meantime ICBC's report indicates that there will be four additional deaths on the roads in the year through the closure of those testing stations. The people of the province will be paying far more through their insurance that they pay to ICBC because of the removal of these testing stations — an additional $2.4 million. Oh, it's cheaper, they say, if you privatize.

[ Page 3486 ]

MR. READ: It's just more efficient. Nobody said cheaper

MS. SANFORD: More efficient! Four deaths and $2.4 million.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. I believe the member for Comox has the floor.

MS. SANFORD: They are prepared to risk safety in the interests of following this particular philosophy that they have adopted. As a matter of fact, this week the board of school trustees in Courtenay made an appeal to the school trustees of the province, asking that we have a full public inquiry into bus safety in this province. I don't think the government is going to follow up on that. I don't think they have any interest in that. We had an indication from the minister responsible for the motor vehicle branch that the issue of bus safety should be dealt with in a committee established through this Legislature and headed by the first member for Surrey (Mrs. Johnston). The next day, when the proposal was advanced to the committee, it was turned down by those Socred members — in spite of the Minister's recommendation in this House that the issue of bus safety be dealt with under that special committee which was established to look into the privatization of motor vehicle testing.

Our young people can no longer afford this government. This summer 70,000 of them will be knocking on doors, each with a little card given to them by the minister. They are going to be faced with a debt that is unparalleled in the history of this province. That's going to be their legacy from Social Credit. There's going to be a tremendous burden on them now and in the future. It's an unacceptable burden. An elitist approach has been adopted in terms of their education. If you can afford to pay the huge increases that the universities are going to have to charge for student fees, then you can go — that is, if the university has enough room for you, because that too is in doubt. They're going to have to cut out a number of people who are accepted. There's no work for them. There's no longer financial assistance for them through grants in this province. That will be eliminated. They are going to be faced with crushing debt, thanks to Social Credit. If they're under 25 they have $50 a month cut off their welfare — welfare that they can't even survive on.

I think the $450 million that has been advanced to B.C. Rail is probably for B.C. Rail to buy enough boxcars so that the 70,000 young people who can't afford accommodation under the new welfare rate can ride back and forth on the rails in boxcars. Could that be it?

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: It's just like the Dirty Thirties; you're right. By the cutbacks in the whole reforestation program, they're destroying their hopes in the future. They're destroying their aspirations, their dreams. A whole generation of young people is being neglected and adversely affected by the attitudes, the programs and policies of this government. We can't afford them any longer.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, I have to comment on that uplifting speech we have just heard. I really wonder how some of the members of the opposition sleep at night. They're so very depressing, and so depressed in the House here every day, it leaves us with the feeling that they're all down in the dumps. They have no optimism. They've given up. There's no hope. I guess that says in a nutshell why they've lost every election, with one exception. To suggest that the Socreds don't care.... On May 5 the majority of people in this province believed that Socreds do care. That's why we took power again.

I think it's important to correct one of the many incorrect statements made by the previous speaker: that is, the one to do with the ombudsman's office. There is no opposition from the majority of the Social Credit members with regard to the office of ombudsman. I think that should be made very clear.

It's interesting to hear the statements made by the opposition about "the crushing debt, thanks to Social Credit, that we're leaving for our young people." Can you imagine the type of debt we would have if the NDP were in power? They have the loose-the-purse-strings attitude: let's go further into debt, let's give this to this person, let's give more to that person. Where do they think the money's coming from? We have one source of revenue, and that is the taxpayer. There just isn't any more revenue to go around.

[4:15]

It's really interesting as well to compare their attitudes. Really, the NDP members do realize the need for restraint, and they do practise restraint. We should refer to the activities in their own head office last winter. They knew that they were short of money, they knew they were left with almost $1 million in debt, so they had to start laying off. They know that's the way you have to counteract a shortage of revenue. They laid off in their office, hon. members....

AN HON. MEMBER: By seniority?

MRS. JOHNSTON: By seniority. I think there's a bit of debate on just exactly how they handled the layoffs. For some reason they can apply the restraint to their own headquarters, but they can't apply it when it comes to government operations.

The people of British Columbia and the investors really do have the same amount of confidence in the province as do the Social Credit members. In fact, some of the investors in British Columbia have so much confidence in British Columbia's future that they are even investing money in NDP tidings. I refer to the mill that's going to be built in Chemainus. There really is hope for this province after all, even if you listen to the doom and gloom that's proposed by some of the members on the other side of the House.

Interjection.

MRS. JOHNSTON: We heard a great deal about it, Mr. Member, when the mill closed down, but we're certainly not hearing anything about it from the other side of the House now that it's going to be rebuilt. I guess that everybody isn't concerned, because there's an NDP member there temporarily. Eventually, I'm sure, we'll see a Social Credit member there, and there will probably be even greater investments.

On May 5 this government was re-elected on the basis of a pledge to reduce government spending, and there is no member here who's happy to say that we aren't in a position to be bringing in new programs and that we're having to cut back

[ Page 3487 ]

on existing programs. But I think it should be a proud statement we're making that after 31 years we are able this time to come in with a budget that shows a slight reduction from the previous year's budget, and I think our Finance minister is to be congratulated for being in a position to do that.

Our Finance minister told the Legislature that the operating expenditures in 1984-85 will be an estimated $7.9 billion. This is a reduction of 6.2 percent from 1983-84. I wonder what would happen if we weren't in government? What would happen to these people whose future the NDP members are so concerned about us mortgaging? We're still looking at a deficit of $671 million; hopefully we won't be looking at this for too many more years. That amount does represent $650 per household. The interest payments alone for 1984-85 are equal to the combined budgets of seven of our ministries. So we have to be cautious, and we have to continue on our program of restraint.

There is one major area of the government — and I think it's important that we repeat this over and over again, because we're constantly being criticized for the spending in the area of health.... Our health spending this year will increase by $51 million. It's not an easy area to increase spending in, because of the restraint having to be shown in other areas. But it shows the priority adopted by this government, and health is certainly our number one priority.

Our Finance minister has also told the Legislature that the government has commissioned a study of business taxation in the province, and the results will hopefully be coming forward this summer. I think this is very important. Most of us — and I'm sure that includes even those in the remote areas where they don't have quite as many small business people — have received letters from our constituents outlining the concern they have with business taxation. We can't continue to increase the taxes to our business community and expect them to continue to operate. The small business community is providing the jobs in the province, and we have to ensure that they're able to continue to carry on. I'm pleased that this is under review.

We also have an increase in the minimum property tax from $150 to $175, starting in 1985. But it should be noted that the $1 minimum stays in effect, and I think that this has not really been clarified for the seniors and the handicapped. So there's no concern for seniors and handicapped with regard to an increase; the $1 minimum remains in effect for them.

I think some of the fiscal facts should be mentioned, and mentioned over and over again because of the misinformation that seems to come in regularly from members opposite. The provincial contribution, as far as school costs are concerned, for each full-time-equivalent student is $3,437, and we have an estimated 478,900 full-time students in this province. The provincial contribution for each full-time-equivalent student in our universities is $6,903. Can you imagine, $6,903, and we have approximately 45, 660 full-time-equivalent students in our universities. Now we go to the acute-care beds. The annual provincial contribution per acute-care bed is $111,439 and there are 11,400 acute-care beds in this province. The annual provincial contribution is $12,348 for each long-term care bed, and we have 16,400 in the province. The annual general taxpayer contribution to the Medical Services Plan is $179 per capita. We have an estimated provincial population, as we know, of 2,800,000. We look down to the contributions to local government. This year I think it is very important that we are able almost to equal the contributions that were made to the municipal governments last year, and that is only because there was a surplus from the previous year. In consultation with the Union of B.C. Municipalities, we are going to review the suggestions that are being brought forward by the UBCM and the Finance ministry to attempt to come up with a stable mechanism for revenue- sharing. This is a problem that I am sure is applicable throughout the province. whether it be a large municipality or a small municipality, and I think it is important that they have a very early awareness of what they are going to be receiving in the way of revenue- sharing.

As far as municipal affairs are concerned, I think it is important that we look forward to more streamlining in the area of the Municipal Act. We undertook some of this last year, and I think that the cost-saving measures have proven very effective.

We have heard a great deal lately with regard to the cutbacks in the Education budget, and in my community of Surrey it is very interesting to note the change in the attitude of parents. Last fall we heard from parents and from our school trustees on more than one occasion that they wanted the decision- making on the spending of the local school budgets to be left with the school trustees. They felt they elected those trustees to make those decisions, and last fall they felt the province was setting too many restrictions on the budgets. Things have changed. Now that we have allowed the school boards to make all these decisions and to make the necessary cuts, the parents are not necessarily happy with some of those decisions, and we are seeing them coming to the MLAs and saying: "We don't like what our school board is doing. We would like you to step in. We don't want layoffs in March. We don't want this subject cancelled. We don't want this program discontinued. We would like to see the money spent in other ways." I believe that more and more of the parents in our community, and I am sure it applies throughout the province, are coming to realize that things are not quite as cut and dried as some of the school trustees would have led them to believe. I am pleased that they are becoming more involved in the budgeting process of the local school districts.

I believe that it is important that we continue with some of the major projects in the province that are producing jobs for our people. I particularly refer to the hopeful extension of the ALRT to Surrey. I am looking forward to the awarding of the Summer Games. The Surrey-White Rock district has a very interesting submission that they have put forward for 1986. I am hoping that we can see them awarded to the municipalities of Surrey and White Rock.

When we look through our budget, we see there are cuts and transfers of funds being made in various areas, but I believe it to be very important that when we as a provincial government make those cuts we are not cutting to save the provincial government money while at the same time transferring that cost to the local municipalities. We have seen a couple of cases that fall into that category in my constituency which leave me with some concern. I think it is something that we are going to have to look at a little more thoroughly.

I am looking forward, Mr. Speaker, to some of the legislative changes that we will be dealing with later in this session. I am particularly looking forward to the coming changes to the labour legislation. I think that the situation we are faced with at the present time to do with the pulp mills and the workers picketing the IWA operations is really intolerable. I would suggest that it would be beneficial to all the

[ Page 3488 ]

woodworkers if we had one union that handled all of the members in the woodworking industry, rather than such a large number of unions that go in on secondary picketing arguments. They're causing a great deal of confrontation in the northern part of the province, and I don't think that anyone is going to gain anything from that.

In closing, I would like to read from a letter that was sent in, and I think it sums it up very well:

"A young man in, his mid-thirties was in a comfortable executive position making over $100,000 a year income. However, he yearned for the moment to break away from this cushy position to test his skills in the marketplace and to rise to the heights he believed he could reach. Regretfully, burgeoning government bureaucracy and unchecked public spending made him hesitate. You see, he studied the economic history of Canada in relation to its past, present and future trading partners and saw long ago the challenges we needed to face here at home before we could compete in the changing world marketplace."

"However, the course he sees the present British Columbia government taking coincides with the solutions he saw were needed to create a new confidence in ourselves and in our future. Thus, Mr. Premier" — this is a copy of a letter that went to the Premier — "this young man, now confident not only in his own abilities but in the ability of his government to provide proper leadership, resigned from his cushy job to seek his dreams and higher goals."

Incidentally, it has worked out very well for him because of the confidence he has in this government and in this province. I think it reflects on the outcome of the election on May 5, and many people in this province feel the same way.

At this time I take great pleasure in speaking against the amendment and for the budget.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, it's always a delight to follow the member for Surrey. I would like to comment on some of the things that she stated in her opening.

[4:30]

It's interesting the way the Social Crediters use statistics in their speeches; they're careful not to use the actual statistics but just kind of anecdotal references to what might once have been statistics. She says that there are more people working now than there were two years ago. Of course two years ago there were fewer people working than at any time since the 1930s. So we have to make comparisons based on the figures of now and then. I think we would find that the employment situation in British Columbia when measured objectively against any standard and against the improve ment in employment in any of the provinces in Canada.... This government has one of the most dismal records of job creation of any province in Canada. In fact, the only place where this government can take any credit is in the number of I 1 jobs it has purposefully destroyed by firing people in government service, downsizing government operations, privatizing operations and doing away with thousands upon thousands of jobs. The employment situation in this province is worse than virtually every other province in Canada and, in fact, many other states in the United States.

She also said that the budget has been slightly reduced this year over last year. Well, that is not saying very much, is it, Mr. Speaker? How does the budget this year compare with the year before? Last year's budget was an 18 percent increase over the previous budget — far ahead of any other province in Canada. It's not the kind of budget that you would call a restraint budget by any other name than an Orwellian definition. The budget is slightly reduced this year but compared to previous years, and when you average it over two years, it has a substantial increase.

She talked about debt. Yes, this province is deep in debt — probably deeper in debt per capita than any other government in Canada, including the Canadian government. Instead of justifying the debt, she simply said: "Well, what would the debt have been if any other government were in office?" What a ridiculous statement! Of course it would have been less, and more people would have been working, and people would have been happier. Consumer confidence would have been higher.

This party is concerned about the people who work in this province, It's concerned about restoring our economy to its previous vibrancy. It's not concerned with going around and cutting out universities, cutting down school budgets and sacking people who have faithfully served the people of this province for 25 and 30 years. This government is conducting a reign of terror around British Columbia as no other government in the past — a reign of terror that only leaders such as Lenin could have conceived. This government has....

MR. KEMPF: You should know all about Lenin.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. SKELLY: I certainly do now after watching you in action. I know all about a reign of terror. I know all about what Lenin would have done had he been the government of this province. He certainly would have been in government under Social Credit.

What an unbelievable use of statistics and comparisons — absolutely ridiculous! I've never seen a political party like this — or a speaker like that — stand up in the House and boast of the destruction they're doing to our economy, the damage they're doing to our citizens, the damage they're doing in undermining our economic and social institutions. They're traitors. They ought to be ashamed.

Mr. Speaker, some of the people in this budget debate have mentioned the ombudsman's report. Since it's been mentioned before, I'm sure that you'll give me a bit of leeway in allowing me to mention it now. I think it shows a lack of courage on the part of some of our more extreme right-wing Social Credit members for them to discuss the ombudsman in the way they do and attack him personally for the simple reason that he tabled a report which is critical of government activities. That's the whole reason for the existence of the ombudsman's office. It's the duty of the ombudsman. He doesn't do it because he likes to do it. He does it because it's his duty to represent citizens who run afoul of an insensitive administration. The problem now with the ombudsman is that he has so many citizens running into problems because this administration is so insensitive. It's gutless of members to stand up in this House and criticize a person personally and in his office who has no opportunity to respond to their criticism and debate their criticism. We should be dealing with that report before a committee of this House. We should have the opportunity to question the ombudsman, to question his facts, to bring forward papers and people and witnesses, to either confirm the facts that he's presented or show that

[ Page 3489 ]

they're not true at all. But we have not been given that opportunity, and the government seems to be in fear of giving us this opportunity.

Why is that, Mr. Speaker? They're calling for the opposition to make an apology for demanding the resignation of the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) for such an unbelievable administrative bungle, which allowed $36 million of public funds to slip through his hands and into the hands of private forest companies. Do you know, Mr. Speaker, how much money that is, how much it represents in terms of job creation in this province? Do you have any idea? I was talking to a group representing David Thompson University Centre out on the steps a short time ago, and some of them are in the gallery now. That university campus takes roughly $3.5 million to $4 million a year to operate. The money that the Minister of Forests has allowed to slip through his fingers into the hands of big forest companies would have run that campus for ten years. That's the kind of slipshod operation that that Minister of Forests is running. That's only at six dry-land sorts around the province. How many others? How much more money has the minister allowed to slip through his fingers through incompetence, through a failure to charge the forest companies, those huge resource companies, the moneys that they should be paying for Crown timber that they're using under licence from the province of British Columbia? How many jobs have been lost as a result of that $36 million slipping through the hands of that minister? And they are asking the opposition to apologize to the Minister of Forests for bringing this matter to his attention, or for demanding that it be dealt with, or for demanding that the minister resign.

The ombudsman at least had the decency to admit that a part of his report — a very small and insignificant part of his report — was inaccurate in fact. He says on page 28 that "the Minister of Forests asked one of my complainants to get the ombudsman out of the investigation." He admitted that was wrong; he admitted he was wrong in that one single fact in the investigation. Now the Socreds, in order to divert the attention of the public from the real weight of this document, from the real incompetence of the Minister of Forests, are attacking the credibility of the ombudsman, attacking the credibility of his office. They don't want the public to keep in their minds, at the centre of their attention, this fact in the ombudsman's report: that the action of the ministry — and the minister, therefore, since he represents the ministry to this House — are not only contrary to the spirit and intent of the Forest Act but also contradict any proposition that the ministry might be managing the forests in the public interest.

Mr. Speaker, no Minister of Forests has the right to remain in office a minute longer than those charges remain on the table of this House. The Minister of Forests should resign and should demand a complete investigation into the allegation and charges made in the ombudsman's report. Those allegations and charges should be the subject of an investigation in public so that everybody is aware of the facts behind those charges. Not another one of these investigations behind the closed doors of the office of the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith). Not another coverup. We don't need another one of those; we've had a coverup on this issue for three years running. What we want are the facts of the matter. We on this side of the House have no intention of apologizing to anyone for demanding the resignation of that minister. He has been shown in this matter, as well as in every other matter within his jurisdiction, to be utterly and completely incompetent to fulfill his role as Minister of Forests. I'm sorry he's not in the House to listen to this. He is out on a junket, I understand.

In his own documents submitted to cabinet, it is suggested that the restraint program of the provincial government has virtually destroyed the effectiveness of the silvicultural programs of the province of B.C. Let me quote some of the statements from that report, which was submitted to cabinet on September 30, 1983.

Under "Effects of restraint on successive five-year programs: Major implications of these restraint measures include a possible need for annual allowable cut reductions to meet with lower productivity of the forest land base." Mr. Speaker, you are aware what the results are of annual allowable cut reductions in the forest industry. The lack of replanting and silvicultural treatment means that this government is going to have to cut back on the amount of timber available to forest companies operating in this province. It means this government is going to have to say to people working in the forest industry of British Columbia that there will be fewer jobs available to British Columbia citizens as a result of the application of this so-called restraint program to silviculture and to replanting. It's going to mean fewer jobs now, and fewer jobs for our children and their children, because it's going to undermine, as the minister's own report to cabinet says, the productivity of the forest land base.

According to that same cabinet document, the restraint program is going to eliminate the funds required to support the currently approved annual allowable cut and will require the dismantling of insect and disease control programs. Dismantling insect and disease control programs means that the work we've already done on replanting and silviculture will be subject to attack by disease and insects; in fact, we may be losing the money we've already spent on silviculture and replanting. The damage that this minister is doing to the forest economy of British Columbia is only beginning to be felt; it's going to be felt for years and years.

Finally, the virtual elimination of range and recreation enhancement programs. This was the minister who brought in the Forest Act in 1977 and 1978, who brought in the Pearse report and the discussion on the Pearse report — the Royal Commission on Forest Resources. This was the minister who brought down the Forest Act and the ten-year planning provisions for range and resource management, for forest management. This is the minister who brings down the five-year forest range and resource program every year. This is the minister who talks to us with such promise about the forest industry, and yet the secret documents that he presents to cabinet behind closed doors tell us that the forests of this province are in disastrous shape as a result of his management of those forests, the government's financial programs and the government's restraint programs.

On another page, talking about the effects of restraint on successive five-year programs: "In general, growth built into and approved under the initial five-year programs has not occurred. Indeed, one year after publication of the second five-year program, the implementation schedule was set back for two years. One year later the forecast and the resource base for the year 1983-84 were reduced substantially. Growth in subsequent program years was put off indefinitely." So the minister has not even kept his commitment to the forest range and resource program of his own government. He has been unable to obtain the finances required for his own ministry to keep that program up; as a result, the program has fallen behind harvesting, and is more subject to losses from disease

[ Page 3490 ]

and insects than ever before. The major implications of restraining the five-year program to a no-growth schedule are that productivity of the provincial forest land base will be reduced and predicted wood supply shortages will occur earlier and be more severe.

[4:45]

Mr. Speaker, what's provided to the citizens of British Columbia with the release of this cabinet document is the warning that their minister has not only abused his trust as the Minister of Forests but that their potential for employment in the forest industry in the future in this province is going to decline, that jobs in the forest industry are going to decline and that there is insufficient commitment by the minister and the government to keep the forest industry and the forests of this province in good shape, as we would do if we were proper stewards of the resource and did our duty as government, as a Legislature and as ministers of the Crown. There is an obligation not simply on the minister, Mr. Speaker, but on the government and the members of this Legislature to call on that minister to resign and to call on that government to change the program and to immediately commit the money that's necessary to carry on the forests of this province.

We were told that the federal government was negotiating with the provincial government on a five-year, long-term intensive silviculture subagreement that would require a commitment of $104 million a year, jointly shared by both governments. In other words, the B.C. government would have to put up $52 million each year, and the federal government was committed to $52 million each year over a five-year period. The provincial government refused to become involved on that basis. As a result, this year $10 million will be spent on intensive silviculture — a drop in the bucket, less than 10 percent of what's required.

The sooner we replant our forests the better it will he for all of us. The sooner we restock lands that haven't been sufficiently restocked, and do that necessary backlog reforestation, the better it is going to be for us and for our children. It is simply not being done, and from the figures and information that we have, there appears to be no commitment to it on the part of this government and this minister. What are we to do, other than to call for his resignation? His administration of the forests of this province over the last four or five years has been utterly shameful, and he has no right to hold his office for one minute longer. The minister is on a junket to Europe or somewhere. He isn't even here in this House to answer the charges in an extremely critical report tabled in the House criticizing his office and his ministry. It is totally and absolutely irresponsible of that minister. He should be here addressing and answering those charges, and if he can't answer them, then he's got an obligation to the members of this Legislature and the citizens of this province to resign his office and quit. That's his responsibility.

We're talking about jobs when we're talking about silviculture and reforestation. We're talking about the opportunities for employment for our citizens who are working now and for citizens who might have the opportunity to work in the future. What does the forest industry mean, in terms of direct employment for the citizens of British Columbia? It means there are something like 31,000 jobs directly in the forest industry and double that in indirect terms — 62,000 jobs.

I'd like to read a page from a report that was done by the federal Department of the Environment. Its discussion of the federal-provincial agreement on intensive silviculture on page 38 of that reports says:

"Events at Ocean Falls pale to insignificance comparative to the potential effects of the projected falldown on the British Columbia economy, A one third decline in the timber supply from current levels would multiply the Ocean Falls experience many times and would have massive and pervasive effects throughout the British Columbia economy.

"Based on current employment figures, such a contraction would throw 31,000 British Columbians out of work in both logging and wood-based manufacturing industries. Due to the central importance of the forest industry to British Columbia, at least an equivalent number of jobs would be lost in other sectors, including the transportation industry, the capital repair and the construction industry, the material and supply industry, and, most significantly, the retail and personal service industry.

"The major effects would be largely localized in forest-dependent communities, but every major settlement in British Columbia would be impacted."

Mr. Speaker, if this government was interested in exercising its mandate as stewards of the forest, if it did ante up the $52 million it should be putting up for the federal-provincial intensive silvicultural agreement, that agreement could create total employment of approximately 200,000 person-years for complete reforestation of all good and medium backlog sites throughout the province. Yet the government has rejected it and has neglected to put up the money to get involved in that federal-provincial agreement, and as a result that money is going unspent. All we're going to get this year is an extension of the previous agreement: something like $10 million. Yet the money is available. The money would be available if the minister would simply develop the political will and the guts necessary to go back under section 87 of the Forest Act and to require those companies which, through inaccuracies in the scaling system approved by the Minister of Forests, gained illegally to the tune of something like $36 million. If we brought that money back into the provincial treasury and added to it money we have in the provincial treasury, we would be able to enter into that federal-provincial agreement and we could be getting to work today on that replanting of our NSR lands and the backlog replanting that's required. Yet the minister is off on holidays on a junket somewhere in Europe and isn't fulfilling his duties as minister. and those people over there expect an apology for the demand that the Minister of Forests resign. What a shameful request. They should themselves be demanding that the Minister of Forests resign. He shouldn't have been in his office one minute longer than that report was on the table in this House, than cabinet knew of the information in that report on January 11, and than he knew of that report in the fall of last year. Yet the minister still sits, without exercising his responsibility, as a minister of this House. It's shameful, and yet we have grown to expect it from Social Credit.

Mr. Speaker, there are a few other things I'd like to mention during this debate. It seems that the budget has decided to centre on health and that the minister is going to bring about an increase in income taxation — which he calls a "health surcharge" or a "health taxation surcharge"; I forget exactly what Orwellian term he has decided to add to it. I'd like to make a positive suggestion. In looking through the estimates of the province of British Columbia for this year, it

[ Page 3491 ]

appears that the expenditure of the Medical Services Commission is going to be roughly $849 million and that revenue raised through premiums imposed on the people of British Columbia is going to amount to something like $336.8 million, leaving a demand on general revenue of something like $512,741,000. I asked during the minister's estimates a few weeks ago if the minister had ever investigated the possibility of charging premiums under the income tax system or of eliminating the premium system altogether and charging the equivalent of premium revenues under the Income Tax Act. I'm not talking about the kind of punitive tax he has imposed as a result of his conflict with the federal government over their new legislation. I'm talking about removing the cost of premiums altogether from the citizens of British Columbia.

As I said, the premiums payable to the Medical Services Commission, according to this year's estimates, would be $336.8 million. Assuming a third of that is paid by employers under employer-employee benefit plans and therefore is already being paid by large corporations, and say only $224 million has to be added to the provincial income tax system in order to remove the premiums altogether from individual citizens, it would require an increase in the percentage of tax payable by citizens of British Columbia from — since each tax point represents about $45 million — about 44 percent up to about 49 percent of federal income tax. So the minister had an opportunity in this budget to change the Medical Services Plan from one based on premiums to one based on income tax — from one based on a punitive tax on the poor, a regressive system of taxes, to one based on income tax, which is a progressive form of taxation.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: I didn't know the minister was attending NDP leadership meetings. He may have been watching community cable TV. This minister has nothing else to do. He has fired all his staff, and he's got nothing to do, except go to NDP all-candidate meetings. I remember seeing him there. He was the one in the front row in the purple dress. I remember you. You asked the question about capital punishment.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. To the amendment.

MR. SKELLY: I was just suggesting that in the financing of health care in this province, instead of adding another punitive tax collectable through the income tax system the minister might have bit the bullet and transferred the whole premium system, other than those premiums paid by employers, to an income-tax-based system, which would have removed a tax from many of our citizens, one which is imposed regressively, and changed it to a progressive tax system. In this budget the government had many opportunities to improve the lot of individual citizens without really affecting the revenues of the province. Our revenues would have remained the same. It's just the form of taxation that would have been different: we would have changed from a tax that's hard for the citizens of the province to bear, especially those among us who are the the poorest and have the lowest income, to one that is easier to bear, and since it would be based on ability to pay, a greater share would be paid by those who could afford it and who would find it easier to pay the burden of those taxes.

[5:00]

I'm also concerned about the changes contemplated in the Workers Compensation Act and this government's failure to exercise any restraint of the kind that would be available to us if we took a serious look at the whole problem of accident compensation in British Columbia. In 1976 and 1977 — in fact, as far back as 1975 — a number of governments, in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and British Columbia, took a look at the workers' compensation system and found that it had some serious shortcomings, as you, Mr. Speaker, are aware. First, it only covered people on the job. If a worker fell down the stairs at home and lost his salary, he wasn't covered. He had to be injured on the job. If he fell down across the factory fence and sprained his knee and broke his elbow, his elbow would be covered but his knee wouldn't, because his knee wasn’t on the job. As a result, we have a whole cadre of claims adjudicators whose duty it is to decide whether an injury was work-related or not, and if the injury isn't work-related, then they refuse to cover the worker on that basis.

Other countries, such as New Zealand, have a comprehensive accident-compensation scheme. It's premium-based. Even small business people are covered, because occasionally they lose their opportunity to work as a result of accidents both on and off the job. Yet in New Zealand accidents are covered under an accident compensation scheme that's premium-based. New Zealand also brings automobile accidents in under the same accident compensation commission umbrella. They also bring in other programs, such as health care and rehabilitation. Even housewives who suffer accidents at home, whose assistance is lost to the major breadwinner in the family, are recompensed under the New Zealand accident compensation scheme.

Instead of looking at ways of cutting down on assessments to people in the forest industry and cutting down on assessments on employers, and instead of looking at ways of cutting back on occupational health and safety education and inspection, why isn't the government examining a more comprehensive scheme that doesn't allow workers and citizens to fall through the gaps of the scheme? Yet this scheme would not cost very much more than the programs currently in effect and would cover many more of our citizens.

It seemed a little hypocritical a few months ago when the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. McClelland) decided he was going to solve the compensation problems for the Truck Loggers' Association by imposing a freeze on assessments for workers' compensation. At the same time, he also refused to strike a royal commission into workers' compensation. The last one was held in the 1960s. This province is in desperate need of a complete re-examination of the whole of accident compensation from automobile insurance, through workers' compensation insurance and other private insurance schemes to make sure that all our citizens are equally covered and that the premium burdens are spread across the whole population on a basis that's actuarially sound.

ICBC has been a tremendous achievement in this province. Very little information is allowed to come out from the corporation or from the government, because they don't want people to know what a success it has been since the NDP created it.

I met with a group of people in my riding a short time ago from the Motor Dealers' Association and the Automotive Retailers' Association. The one thing they asked me to do as

[ Page 3492 ]

their MLA was to save ICBC. These are the people who were parading in front of my office singing "Thanks for the Memories" and asking us to do away with ICBC in 1975. But after ten years' experience with that corporation, after being able to negotiate their charge-out rates on a fair and equitable basis with the insurance corporation's personnel, after a few years of getting out of the system where they had to pay adjusters under the table in order to have business directed their way, after ten years of being out of that system of private insurance where if you had an appeal on a payment of a claim case you had to appeal in Connecticut or in Zurich or in London, England, to an insurance company operating outside of the province of British Columbia, they're now able to make that appeal to British Columbia citizens within British Columbia and have that appeal resolved in a matter of days in most cases. The Insurance Corporation of British Columbia has been one of the greatest achievements of government in this province.

The Motor Dealers' Association ad the Automotive Retailers' Association are the people who are now concerned that this government is going to attempt to do away with it. It's not simply those people who are involved in the automobile repair section. Other people — doctors, medical practitioners and rehabilitation experts — know that ICBC provides one of the best rehabilitation systems in the world — one of the best rehabilitation services anywhere in North America.

What we should be doing is taking a look at the whole accident compensation system in British Columbia to try to bring those compensation systems under one umbrella so people are covered at all times, whether they have an accident in their home and lose their salary, whether they have an accident coming from work or going to work and lose their salary as a result or whether they have an accident at work and lose their salary. It doesn't matter to the wage-earner. He loses his salary regardless. Think of all the administrative detail you could eliminate. People now have to make these discriminations between whether the accident happened on the job or off the job, whether the accident happened in a car or out of a car, where the accident happened. You could eliminate a lot of that administrative detail, cut back on the costs, telescope those administrative costs down and deliver a much better service on a decentralized basis to all the citizens of British Columbia. Why isn't the minister looking into that type of service instead of simply looking at the workers' compensation from the point of view of cutting back the costs to the employers? It's a single view.

I proposed to the minister back in November 1982 that what we should do with the Workers Compensation Act is set up a grandfather clause in the act that requires a reinvestigation of the whole process every four years, as they do in Saskatchewan and in some other provinces. The statute remains a vital statute, constantly being improved and reexamined with changes being brought back to this House so we can make changes to that statute for the benefit of the workers and the citizens of British Columbia. The answer I got from the minister was: "It's a good idea. Don't bother to contact me again." Other workers in other provinces have the advantage of a system that is constantly being renewed and revitalized, and citizens in other countries have the advantage of an umbrella system of compensation that covers not simply workers and passengers or drivers of automobiles but everyone in the country. I think it would be worthwhile for the minister to reconsider.

When the B.C. Federation of Labour was over here a few days ago, he said he doesn't intend to have a royal commission into the workers' compensation system because that would be too expensive. Yet he's going ahead with plans to change that system to the benefit of employers without any public consultation to make sure that all workers and all citizens of the province have a right to suggest changes and to debate the changes that are being proposed. There are numerous ways that this government, if they were serious about restraint rather than using it as an Orwellian newspeak term, would get involved in ways that would restrain costs and yet provide increased services and provide them on a taxation system that's based on ability to pay rather than on the current retrogressive taxation system.

It seems, though, that every positive suggestion made from any corner of this House that goes across the floor of the Legislature ends there. There's no response. This government has ears for the rich and the powerful in British Columbia and no ears for anyone else. It has cars for the rich, powerful and wealthy in the forest industry, for the biggest of all companies, and yet when the smaller companies come down here they can't get the ear of government, even when they're represented by former Social Credit members. This government has only ears for the rich and the powerful, and a deaf ear for those representing the smaller businesses in the province. They don't get the hearing of the government.

MRS. JOHNSTON: That's rubbish.

MR. SKELLY: That's true and you know it. Of course, that member, when she's seeking her own benefit in municipal offices, always has the ear of the government on that basis.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, every positive suggestion that goes across the floor of this House is ignored unless it comes from the certain wealthy and powerful citizens of this province. I do hope the government will take into consideration some of the suggestions I've made. I move adjournment of this debate.... Oh, I'm sorry. The red light is on, Mr. Speaker.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, we've got an interesting, if unworthy, amendment before the House to consider.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order!

HON. MR. McGEER: "Order!" I hear from the opposite side of the House. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, I was one of the few members in the House listening to that member who is now about to leave the chamber, and I suppose it's only fair that he should leave after giving his speech, because none of the opposition members were there to listen to any of their own speeches either. Why should he, just because he's a leadership contender, listen to what the members of his caucus have to say any more than they listen to what he has to say? I would venture that they were not interested in being bored any more than I was, because when that member speaks, it's a time warp. You have the impression that you are listening to the rhetoric of the sixties.

Someone asked me today if I was going to make some comments on history. That's certainly never my objective, Mr. Speaker — only to use the lessons of history as a guide to

[ Page 3493 ]

the future, because they say that those who cannot learn the lessons of history are condemned to repeat the errors of the past. If we ever were to see or hear an example of that undying premise, it would have been from the member who has just concluded his speech, although, Mr. Speaker, I could apply those remarks equally to any of the members opposite, with the possible exception of one, who I would be obliged to support if I were a member of that caucus, and that's the member from Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea), because he is the only one, Mr. Speaker, who has told it like it is for that party. He has said honestly, and you can already see.... Look at the uncomfortable squirming in the chair. Why? Because they know he's right. He was the one....

Interjections.

HON. MR. McGEER: I killed him off? Well, what do they say? He said the party was irrelevant. He said the party was living in the past. He said the party had no policies or vision for the future. How could anyone, least of all the NDP, disagree with that comment? What could be more self-evident? And yet all the other people, you see, are avoiding the central issue, which at this moment is the bankruptcy of the NDP of any ideas. There's a saying they have, Mr. Speaker: "The porch light is on, but nobody is home." That's the problem. Here we have a group of members who have inherited a party and ideas born in the 1930s. These members, several generations of politicians later on, are still saying the same thing as if we were in the thirties, the forties, the fifties or the sixties. It wouldn't matter what decade it was. It wouldn't matter what the reality of the world is now or, for that matter, was then. We still have before us, in this remarkable time warp, ideas of the past projected into the present and the future.

[5:15]

There is that one member, and I'm sure t hat the second member — I've been waiting a long time to say "the second member" — for Vancouver Centre will be going.... If he cannot get the member who concluded his speech, or the member who proposed this amendment into the House, at least he might get the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) into the House to hear my words of praise for him, based on agreeing that everything that the NDP says and does is irrelevant to the future, if not to the past.

What is irrelevant in the context of today about this amendment proposed by the members opposite is that their focus is still on the notion of the 1930s that governments somehow provided employment. Ever since I've been in this Legislature, I have been hearing from the NDP that government was responsible for unemployment and that therefore government would be the source of employment. This particular amendment says that government is at fault because they have not concentrated on unemployment. But the whole purpose of this budget was to talk about employment — real employment. For the first time in 31 years, for any government in Canada, it focused on the true problem and dealt with it. It identified that the problem was government itself. It is a strange reversal of trends, I suppose, for a government in power to recognize that government itself was the ultimate source of unemployment, simply because government itself has the power to make it impossible for employers to employ. This is the fundamental principle that is being recognized today around the world. But where can you find, outside of British Columbia, any government that is doing something about that very problem? Nowhere, Mr. Speaker. That's why the eyes of the world are on British Columbia. We have identified the problem, and we're doing something about it. Still we have the rhetoric from the NDP.

They are locked into the past, merely being a new generation of puppets mouthing the words of J.S. Woodsworth and all of the socialist predecessors who thought they had an idea of importance in the 1930s. Without judging whether or not those ideas had value. certainly we recognize today how out of context with the realities of the world those particular notions have become. In Canada — and I speak of us nationally and as individual provinces — we have made many terrible errors; in trying to help our citizens and identifying government as the only way to do it, we have succeeded only in holding our citizens back.

First of all, it was that unlimited spending and unlimited social programs could be supported by the economy. If the economy couldn't support them. then we would blame the economy. If we couldn't find jobs, somehow we would construct a fortress Canada. We did have a golden age in Canada. That golden age started at the time of the Second World War when Canada, the first to step beside Britain and defend the world's freedom, carried more than its share, out of all the protected nations in the world. Being in North America we were amongst those protected nations, and carried more than our share of any of those nations in the world. As Canada won respect. and as its economy developed in the early post-war years, there was this internationalism. People described Canada as the giant of the north. Our optimism was unbridled.

Then Canada began to turn inward economically, and began to rely more and more on the interventionism of government, both in the economy and on pressing social programs, which that economy could not support. It's only in the last two or three years, when the disastrous consequences of this Government adventurism have begun to penetrate the minds of politicians and bureaucrats, that we have witnessed some reversal. first of all in our approach to economic problems. The disasters of the Diefenbaker years, and Commonwealth preferences, were followed by the building of the fortress Canada following the tenets of Walter Gordon and the Watkins manifesto, supported by the NDP; then followed a very high level of government borrowing, burdensome debt, the national energy policy and the unprecedented — for Canada — depression, where we performed the worst of all of the OECD nations, at a time when things were bad enough for those nations that were doing well.

After all of that, the first glimmer of common sense appeared across our nation. Now our national government is recognizing the necessity for Canada, of all nations, to pursue an internationalism in its economics. We should recognize this in British Columbia and in western Canada, because it’s our exports that support the rest of the country', we carry the traditional manufacturing of eastern Canada on our backs. Now that that manufacturing is itself beginning to turn outward, perhaps the burden that western Canada has carried will not be so great. Nonetheless, Mr. Speaker, as the insight is beginning to penetrate in an economic sense, so too we begin to realize that our social programs must keep in step with the economic realities of the day; if they don't, we only produce unemployment, never employment. Now that message is starting to get through, and Canada can look to achieving the promise predicted by Sir Wilfred Laurier — for that brief scintillating period during the mid- and late forties,

[ Page 3494 ]

up until the time of the defeat of the St. Laurent government, that we were really on our way. Now we have stumbled and fallen, scraped our knees as a nation, bled a little bit, watched other nations in the world step ahead of us. In my view we are now prepared as a nation to rise again and become as people predicted — the giant of the north. That should be the promise and the challenge that we hand to our coming generation. But if we hand to them only the ideas taken from the 1930s — the time-warp rhetoric presented by the member who just concluded his speech — and believe in the validity of the empty amendment which has been offered by our loyal opposition, then we won't just be struggling on our knees; we'll be thrown prostate in....[Laughter.] Did I say that? Well, we're not in that bad shape. I think we are still a virile country, and I hope that we will not be prostrate as a result of the NDP policies.

I don't want to get the attention of the House diverted, even though it is late in the afternoon. But I do say this: the amendment once more demonstrates that British Columbia has a strong and a wise government showing leadership not just for this province, not just for Canada, but for the world — a government which has identified that government is the problem and a government that is prepared to do something about that problem. This government isn't alone in recognizing the facts of life. It is alone in doing something about it. I suspect that the United States has recognized the problem that their big government is their difficulty. They're not reducing expenditures. We have seen the Thatcher government in Britain, so despised by the NDP opposite.... They have recognized the problem but have not reduced their expenditures. But once a government, having recognized the problem, deals with it, that's when prosperity will come again. I can only say to the NDP: follow your true leader; follow the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea). He is the only one that understands the dilemma of your party. He doesn't have the solution, but identifying the problem is the start. He has told you that you are irrelevant and bankrupt of ideas, and he's right.

[5:30]

I and, I suspect, many of my colleagues on this side of the House.... It will be a free vote, as always, on this side of the House, Mr. Speaker — the Premier never needs to persuade; therefore I suspect that in this free vote many members, at least on this side of the House, will be voting to reject the amendment. And I would suspect that if the members opposite were voting as they really felt, as evidenced by their attendance when their own speakers are here to address the chamber — they're not here to listen to them because they don't believe what they have to say any more than does the member for Prince Rupert — they would be voting against this amendment as well.

Once more, in sorrow rather than anger, I say: learn from the lesson of 1933; learn from the lessons of 1937; learn from the lesson of 1941, 1945, 1949, 1952, 1953 and 1956. When was the next? When did you lose again? In 1960. When did you lose again? In 1966. When did you lose again? In 1969 you lost again. Let's leave 1972 out of this. When did you lose again? In 1975. When did you lose again?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: In 1983.

HON. MR. McGEER: That's right. Remember those losses and repent.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, you don't know how much I enjoy listening to the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications. Normally one would probably have to pay $5 to go to a movie to find such enjoyment and such humour — such ridiculousness, of course, but nonetheless he's delightful to listen to. When he gets on to that political junk, he doesn't say very much of any sense, but he's delightful to listen to.

I would suggest to hon. members opposite — especially the minister who just pounded his desk so much — that within the head of the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications is 75 percent of the imagination for the government; 75 percent of the ideas of government come from that minister. Some of them are kooky ideas like that flue he was going to build across to Vancouver on which he squandered a million dollars of the taxpayers' money to examine it. But I don't know what you guys would do if it weren't for him in terms of having something to grapple with.

You know what he indicated a moment ago very, very clearly? He's still a Liberal, with a capital "L, " and a membership card in his pocket, because he took the traditional historic Liberal course of taking the credit for the sunshine and blaming everybody else for the rain. I don't know how that minister can be so negative about things, except of course that he is a Liberal. But you'll notice that everybody else was at fault but his government for the difficulties that we are facing.

Let me remind the minister and other members in this House that about three years ago we in the NDP, on this side of the House, sat down and looked at the budget of those years and at the excesses of public spending by this government. Admittedly, all we had was the budget documents — we couldn't get inside government to see the further excesses and the further extravagances. But we selected the areas of advertising, office couches, office furniture — new plush facilities for ministers and others; we looked at the area of office expenses; we looked at a number of unnecessary areas of the squandering of public money. We moved motions in this House to reduce the level of government spending two years before this government caught up to the idea that it might need to do something about it itself. On every one of the motions we moved in this chamber, particularly in the Ministry of Universities, Science and Communications, the vote was led by that minister against curtailing expenditures. The vote was led by that minister himself, saying no, he was not going to cut back on the posh facilities within his office; he was not going to curtail the amount of money spent for propagandizing. If he had followed our advice some three years ago, we would have saved the taxpayers of this province a total of some $80 million in one year alone. Every attempt made in those years was voted against, negatively, by this government. In the following year we did the same thing; that totalled some $75 million just from an examination we were able to make from the scant information contained in the estimates, without the opportunity to inquire in depth into the amount of lavish extravagance that was going on in this government.

Three years ago we set the course and charted the way in which to cut back on government expenditures. Everybody in this House who belongs to Social Credit who was there then voted against curtailing any expenditures, including and in particular that minister who just sat down, with his unctuous, mellifluous comments about what a great government he belongs to, how he has all the answers and everybody else is

[ Page 3495 ]

ignorant. It's passing strange that he is now adored in Social Credit, unless, of course, they do in fact endorse the concept of doublespeak — saying one thing and meaning something else. That's why it's enjoyable to listen to that minister and to other ministers on this side. They talk one way, but their actions deny their talk. They say one thing and do something else, consistently and regularly.

Do you want to know more about budget matters? This was the government that went to Ottawa and urged the federal government to impose a high-interest-rate policy on this nation. The genesis of high interest in the Bank of Canada came from this Premier. Then when they began to see the error of their ways, they hid from it all and blamed it on Trudeau. Well, he was at fault as well, but the origin of it came from this government. Do you remember that, Pat McGeer? You were a part of that — advocacy of high interest rates. At that time that was the panacea. That was the solution; let the Bank of Canada slip it to you. You advocated strongly and urgently a high-interest-rate policy.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

MR. LAUK: He's one of the horsemen of the apocalypse.

MR. HOWARD: Nice phrase.

He also went to Ottawa — the same minister, or his government on his behalf — and said: "What we need in this nation and in these provinces is a limitation on government expenditures so that an increase in government expenditure one year over the preceding year should not be more than I percent less than the gross provincial product." They used as an example in the paper they presented to the federal government a 10 percent increase in the gross provincial product and said if it increases 10 percent, then the increase in budgetary expenditures should only be 9 percent. They immediately came back here after presenting that idea to Ottawa, after arguing for that in Ottawa, and appointed the present minister as Minister of Finance, and the first year that he was minister, contrary to what they advocated, he increased the budget expenditure by 20 percent and the following year by another 20 percent. Squandering spendthrifts thought they could just....There was no tomorrow.

If they'd have taken our advice a few years back, the people in this province would have been a damned sight better off financially than they are now. If they had taken our advice then, employment-wise people would be better off in this province than they are now. So don't give us any guff about it being everybody else's fault but yours. Yours is directly the responsibility for the fiscal policies followed by this government successively over the years that it has been in office, and now the people of this province are reaping the misery of that fiscal stupidity, carelessness and squandering of taxpayers' money.

In the budget itself — this is part of the foundation for the amendment now before the House — there were presented, and I don't know how many members have looked at them, some economic and financial tables called general economic indicators. They relate to demographics, economic indicators in activity, incomes, prices, and those sorts of things normally taken to be an indication of the state of the affairs of the economy. In that table, the following is shown. Over the preceding four-year period the labour force has increased slightly. Employment has decreased tremendously. The unemployment rate has doubled from 6.8 to 13. 8 percent in that four-year period under this government's administration. The provincial gross domestic product in constant dollars — the only way it can be measured to be meaningful — has declined under this government. The capital investment over that period of time, both for new capital and for repairing capital assets that existed, shows a slight increase from $12. 1 billion to $12.4 billion. Because that includes repair rather than new capital, the contribution to employment is on the deficit side. The Minister of Universities, Science and Communications knows better than any of his colleagues that it is capital investment in new plant that provides the opportunity for employment, not repairs to old equipment. Repairs to old equipment as a capital investment is usually a stopgap measure — but that's the economic indicator in there.

Housing starts have declined, the value of building permits issued have declined, business incorporations have declined and business bankruptcies have gone up three times from what they were four years ago. The amount of timber that's scaled declined as well. It’s no wonder that the amount of timber scaled declined. but it did. What does the budget do with respect to showing what those economic indicators are and including them as a part of the budget? They must have some value, even to this government.

MR. LAUK: It's a plea of guilty to stupidity.

MR. HOWARD: They don't have the intelligence to plead guilty to stupidity. It's beyond their comprehension, because they only have the approach of blaming everybody else and taking credit for anything good that anybody else proposes — even to the extent, in the historical prelude to the health maintenance tax.... Because they didn't want to give credit to anybody else, they refused to acknowledge the fact that hospital insurance and medicare were both won against tremendous odds in the province of Saskatchewan with the CCF under Tommy Douglas and the late Woodrow Lloyd. The government ignored the fact that these men led the fight for health care in this nation. If there'd been a spark of decency and recognition of the contribution that people can make to health care, it would have been mentioned in the budget. But it was ignored completely. In fact, it was skated and skirted around so that that fact of life was hidden.

[5:45]

There is a concern about the economy, and regardless of what the Minister of Universities, Science and... What else is he involved in?

AN HON. MEMBER: Tunnels.

MR. HOWARD: Regardless of what the minister of tunnels may think or say for political purposes, and I enjoy that aspect of his.... There is more understanding and appreciation of the forces that make this economy work in any half dozen members on this side of the House than there is in the whole crowd of Social Crediters put together. Those arguments and contentions have been put forward on other occasions, and they'll be put forward again, in the hope that somebody on the other side of the House will have a glimmering of understanding of what's necessary. If they pull the blinds away from their eyes to look at some facts of life — namely, that all of the brains in this province don't repose in the 20 people who comprise the cabinet.... There are other people who have some brains as well. I can appreciate that that's enticing the minister to say something unkind or

[ Page 3496 ]

political about us, but I don't mind that at all. I just tell him a fact of life.

Let me make a reference to page 2 of the budget — if I can dig it out here quickly. This is a request. I'll just select this one sentence out of it, but it is indicative of the manner in which this government thinks. This is in terms of economic factors and economic conditions: "Those who generate the wealth in our society should temper their expectations to suit the state of the economy." It's a clear enough statement. What about those economic activists in this province who don't generate any wealth? What about the banks? What about.... . ?

AN HON. MEMBER: Howe Street?

MR.HOWARD:...Jesse James street? What about Howe Street? What about the financial institutions of this province? They don't generate any wealth. All they do is take in wealth in the form of money as a deposit and lend it out. They take in savings, they lend it out, and they pocket the difference. They pocket the 5 percent difference.

I see a number of members in the chamber nodding their heads as if they have had some kind of experience with financial institutions and what they do. But there is no request in this budget for banking institutions to temper their demands and claims on the economy. That's short-sightedness and that's blindness. It's ignorance on the part of this government to make those comments. But it indicates how little they know about the economy. It indicates either how little they know or how little they care about the economy. "Those who generate the wealth...should temper their expectations...." Those who live off the generated wealth open Sesame. The sky is the limit.

AN HON. MEMBER: They've never even washed a window or brought in a crop.

MR. HOWARD: He gets into that window-washing bit.

But seriously, who generates the wealth in this province, and what are the figures in respect to it? No, I would say the lawyers do not. Members of the legal profession do not generate wealth. Politicians don't generate any wealth. We live off it — an admitted fact of life that's true. Let me tell you something in this chamber of significant importance to the state of our economy, and what we're up to or not up to, remembering the economic indicators in the budget that I just read a moment ago. This is as a percentage of the gross provincial product; that is how many dollars are floating around there and what's happening in the economy. Workers in primary industries produce wealth; they generate wealth. The amount that they generate is 8.2 percent of the total. There is some manufacturing. The bulk of it is in wood and paper products — indicating sawmills, pulp mills, paper mills and so on. The total of manufacturing, including wood, paper products and pulp mill products and so on, in addition to primary resource activity, is an additional 18.4 percent. The total of those two figures is 26.6 percent.

Basically one-quarter of the wealth of this province is generated from our resources. The other three-quarters of activity in the economic world lives off that wealth production. The learned doctor from Vancouver-Point Grey was talking about wealth production in one of his earlier statements, although he didn't draw it to this extent. So we find that the service side of things, which includes government, business and personal service, lives off that. The legal profession lives off that. The medical profession lives off that. Even the learned doctor from Point Grey lives off that — not only here but in the university as well. He's got two sources.

HON. MR. McGEER: No, just one.

MR. HOWARD: If it's not two and it is just one, he still lives off that, because he doesn't produce any wealth himself. Neither do 1. I'm trying to tell the learned doctor and others on his side of the House some simple facts of economic life, and that is that three-quarters of the people in this province do not produce any wealth; they live on the wealth produced by the other one-quarter, by workers in primary and manufacturing industries. That's a basic fact of life. Finance, insurance, real estate, transportation, public administration, etc., all live off that amount.

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD: Well, the minister of universities, who has finally awakened.... He was listening, but he's finally desiring to say something. Well, I'll tell you what I'll do, Mr. Speaker. I would be the very first, at the conclusion of what I'm going to draw here, to suggest we give unanimous consent for the minister to stand again and speak a second time in order to give us the benefit of his views about what I'm saying, because he knows that what I'm saying is accurate and clear.

He knows that he belongs to a government of world travelers. So the newspapers tell me. He just came back from Silicon Valley or someplace, along with the Premier. But he belongs to a government that is intent.... One minister just came back the other day. Another one has taken off just the other day, and others are going elsewhere. He belongs to a government that believes in travelling the world to sell the natural resources of this province in their raw or next-to-raw state. That's what they're up to, when property, as a companion to that attempt to try to sell on the export market — and we need to do that because we don't have the population to consume that which we produce; it has to be sold elsewhere — there should be activity within the province to develop a greater amount of what the economists call a value-added component to our resources.

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD: Well, you can wave your rag around if you feel like it. The member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. Michael) knows exactly what I'm talking about. It's a strange thing to me that he knows what I'm talking about, yet he's in bed with that crowd over there who don't want to do anything about it, who want to be aloof from the whole economy.

I wonder if I could have the opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to conclude my remarks on the morrow, and therefore move adjournment of the debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen moved Adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:58 p.m.