[ Page 5369 ]

CONTENTS

Budget debate

Mr. Michael –– 5369

Mr. MacWilliam –– 5369

Mr. Parks –– 5371

Mr. Lea –– 5374

Mr. Skelly –– 5377

THURSDAY, MARCH 21, 1985

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. GARDOM: On this second day of spring there is one in our midst who is celebrating a natal day with a horoscope that says that the individual in question is versatile, sensitive, stubborn and sensual. Who indeed could that be? It could be none other than our Deputy Clerk, Mr. E. George MacMinn. Happy birthday to him.

MR. SKELLY: On behalf of the opposition, Mr. Speaker, I would like to join in congratulating our Deputy Clerk on his birthday — and on his foresight for having a birthday on the same day as our national leader, Ed Broadbent.

Orders of the Day

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

On the amendment.

MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, I would like to conclude my remarks on the budget with a few points. One has to do with the amount of dollars that this government has allocated to health care in British Columbia, and I would like to give the House some comparison figures between 1975 and 1985.

The budget in 1975 was $3.43 billion. That has grown in this current budget to $9.056 billion, which is about a threefold increase –– 164 percent net increase. In 1975 the amount of dollars allocated to the Health ministry was $.7233 billion. Today, that figure has increased to $2.6669 billion. Looking at percentages, in 1975 Health absorbed 21.09 percent of that budget; in 1985 that has grown dramatically to 29.45 percent, That is a net increase, on straight percentages within the budget, of 8.36 percent. The important point here is that health costs between 1975-85 have increased remarkablya, by full 40 percent — from 21.09 percent to 29.45 percent.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

In looking at these figures, surely the opposition and the people of British Columbia should have no doubts as to the first priority of the Social Credit government in the province of British Columbia, which is certainly illustrated here as being that of health care.

There is another item I would like to compliment the government on before closing, and that is the proposed naming of a commissioner of critical industries. As the months roll by, we're going to find this a tremendous benchmark in the recovery program in British Columbia. I think it's going to be a very interesting program to watch unfold. I think there are very exciting things ahead. In closing, I would ask the opposition to please get off the negative kick. Try to be positive for once. I look back in history and I find the opposition was against the B.C. Rail extension to the north country, they were against the homeowner grant program, they've been against hydro development, they were against B.C. Place, and they were against Expo.

MR. MacWILLIAM: I rise to support the amendment to the budget speech, and may I remind the members of the House that the general thrust of the amendment is that the House regrets that the Minister of Finance has failed to make provisions to reduce unemployment or create long-term employment within this province.

Mr. Speaker, in light of that statement, I'd like to direct my comments to the area of tourism in British Columbia. I notice the hon. Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Richmond) is not present in the House. It's unfortunate that in the spirit of cooperation he cannot hear these comments, unless of course he's listening outside.

[10:15]

No business activity in this province is more important now and in the future than tourist trade. Tourism is now the second major industry in British Columbia. In 1983 the revenues from tourism exceeded $2 billion. In 1983 there were also an estimated 86,000 people working full time in the tourism industry, with 126,000 individuals employed during the peak season. Tourism is a rapidly growing, non-polluting, labour-intensive business that is a major growth industry in this province today. Because the tourism industry occurs primarily in the small business sector, it is one of the major sources for new employment in British Columbia. A recent study of the Canadian Federation of Independent Businesses shows that 71 percent of all new employment occurs in firms with fewer than 50 people. The fact that such firms make up such a major portion of the tourism industry augurs well for the future expansion and job creation of tourism in the province,

I want to have a look through some of the economic benefits that are derived from tourism. In 1983 almost 12 million people toured British Columbia. Over 47 percent of these individuals were B.C. residents; they spent approximately $955 million in the province. About 26 percent were from other provinces, mainly Alberta, Saskatchewan and Ontario; they generated over $610 million in revenue. Approximately 24 percent of these tourists were U.S. residents, largely from Washington and California, who added approximately 20 percent to the total revenue for tourism. Interestingly enough, Mr. Speaker, only 3.8 percent of those tourists were overseas visitors. This forces one to question whether the minister's many sojourns to Japan, London and Europe are really a cost-effective method of generating the tourism trade. Perhaps he should be placing a far greater emphasis on encouraging the growth of the North American market.

There is no doubt that tourism is big business in British Columbia. It's a business with a great potential for the future. Yet there are disturbing signs when we look at the government's commitment to tap that potential. Although tourism grew about 5 percent per annum between 1969 and 1979 — a fairly steady rate of growth — our industry has been growing at a slower rate than has the competition. In relative terms, we've been falling behind in the marketplace.

Now here's the disturbing news. In 1983 the ministry report on tourism clearly shows that between 1979 and 1983 the total volume of visitors in British Columbia dropped 11 percent, from 13.3 million to 11.8 million. The most drastic decline, when you look at the graphs and figures, is due to the reduction in travel by British Columbia residents, undoubtedly as a result of the province's poor economy and imposed restraint measures. When you look at the graphs, tourism from the U.S., overseas and other parts of Canada remains

[ Page 5370 ]

fairly stable. The most precipitous drop is in our own local tourist economy, in British Columbians traveling their own province. The fact is that when people are in fear of losing their jobs, they're just not going to spend their money on travel. It's as simple as that. Interestingly enough, in his statement about tourism to this House just a few weeks ago, the minister did not mention in his glowing accolades the precipitous drop in the tourist trade since 1979. He took transient increases for a single month and used them to give the appearance of growth, when we have in fact been falling behind.

A report in the Vancouver Sun in July 1984 brings the issue into perspective. The article highlights the fact that the tourist industry suffered a tough year, with increased bankruptcies among Island and interior tourist businesses, compared to 1983 — which was itself a very tough year. Especially hard hit were the tourist accommodation centres in the Okanagan Valley and in the Kootenays. A recent article in the Province reported that the hotel industry continues to be severely battered by the B.C. recession. None of the major hotels have fared well. Occupancy rates reported in the 30 to 40 percent range are well below the traditional break-even point. Latest figures from the ministry confirm that for 1984 the average B.C. occupancy rate for hotels and motels was only 57 percent –– 3 percentage points below the traditional break-even point.

I don't understand how the minister can paint such a glowing picture when facts from his own report show otherwise. It's as simple and logical as that. The minister has also neglected to mention that British Columbia, despite its great potential, presently suffers a significant tourist trade deficit. In 1979 our balance of trade deficit for tourism in British Columbia was over $250 million; $250 million more went out of the province than came in. British Columbians spend more in other provinces and in the U.S. than visitors from those destinations spend here in British Columbia. Expenditures made by B.C. residents overseas are more than twice that spent by overseas visitors here. I think those figures show a rather disturbing trend, Mr. Speaker.

Part of the outflow o f the tourist dollar isunavoidably due to the midwinter lure of sunny southern climates like Hawaii and Palm Springs. But part of the blame also lies in the fact that we are simply not competitive enough in developing and marketing our own tourist industry.

I'd like to give this House a little direction in terms of marketing and good basic capitalist strategy — just to remind the other side where it's at. If this government is serious about exploiting our vast potential for tourism, it must do more than pay mere lip service to it. Government spending to promote tourism is one-twelfth of the tax revenue generated by that industry. Less than one-twelfth is going back into it.

In 1984, the total budget for Tourism was less than $8 million, compared to over $19 million for this government's political propaganda machine. I wonder where the emphasis lies. The minister over there says raise more taxes. I'm not saying that. What I'm saying is to redirect our spending priorities.

Let me give you an example, Mr. Speaker. The budget for the fledgling Ministry of International Trade and Investment for one year is greater than last year's entire budget for Tourism. Budget estimates for 1985 and 1986 show only a modest increase and are indicative of this government's lack of interest in tourism. There are no new incentives in this budget that have come from the Tourism minister. It's time this government put its money where its mouth is in developing our tourist trade.

Mr. Speaker, the tourism trade shows excellent potential for the generation of jobs, but it needs assistance through tourism-based small business incentives, tax relief, and extensive research in resource inventory identification and the development of marketing strategies.

As a member from the north Okanagan, I come from an area that's very dependent on the tourism dollar. It's an area, if I can remind the House, that presently suffers from over 21 percent official unemployment and that would significantly benefit from increased tourist trade.

On behalf of the tourism industry in the Okanagan and throughout B.C., and in the spirit of cooperation, I'd like to offer this government some positive suggestions for their consideration. These suggestions are designed to stimulate the potential in tourism that continues to remain untapped in this province. I offer them not as party doctrine but rather as proposals of an individual member for economic reconstruction in our tourism industry. I believe that some of these proposals would reduce the inequitable tax burdens which dampen consumer demand and also reduce the revenues of established businesses and make it hard to start new ones. These measures would also provide an increase to regional involvement in identifying market needs and pursuing target markets.

First, the elimination of the meal tax — nothing mentioned in the budget speech. The government tax on meals is simply no way to encourage tourists and residents to patronize restaurants. An alternative to the complete removal of a meal tax would be to provide a reasonable tax exemption on that portion of the meal, for example, below $10. Secondly, removal of accommodation tax. The government has been repeatedly approached by the hotel-motel association in terms of that tax burden. This is a time when we need to encourage the use of B.C. hotel and motel accommodations. Figures for the 1984 season demonstrate that the hotel occupancy rate is below the break-even point. Now the minister over there is trying to dissuade me from repeating the figures, because it doesn't look too good. But that's the reality, sir, and you have to face it.

The removal of this tax should increase the average length of stay; it should generate increased spinoff revenue, and it should create jobs in the accommodation industry. An alternative to the complete removal of this tax would be to provide a basic tax exemption for accommodation that would effectively tax only the more expensive rooms.

Third is the concept of tourism enterprise bonds. The issuance of special low-interest development bonds for tourism would allow investors who want to help the tourism industry to make a contribution and take advantage of significant tax credits. Bonds would be issued with equivalent interest rates and tax credits to provide a competitive return for investors throughout the province. Capital generated by these bonds would be made available at low rates of interest to new projects designed to bring more tourists into the area.

Interjection.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Mr. Speaker, the member over there has asked us to be positive, and now I see that the member himself is being negative. I suggest some reasonable, logical alternatives to stimulate economic recovery in this province, and he has the unmitigated gall to criticize such

[ Page 5371 ]

logical and reasonable alternatives. If you want to be positive, sir, it cuts both ways.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. All members will be pleased to contribute to the silence of the House and allow the member to direct his comments to the Speaker.

MR. MacWILLIAM: The provincial government, in dealing with the tourism enterprise bonds, would forgo the income tax revenue from those people willing to invest in the future of the tourism industry, but it would recover far more from increased revenues and reduced income support for the unemployed.

Fourth is the establishment of a tourism development fund. Since 1982 New Democrats have advocated the establishment of such a fund, with the following objectives in mind: (a) to achieve direct employment opportunities in planning, upgrading and constructing tourist facilities; (b) to achieve lasting employment through the operation and maintenance of such facilities; and (c) to stimulate permanent employment in related accommodation, travel and hospitality service.

[10:30]

Interjections.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Mr. Speaker, there's an old saying in the north that when you throw a stone into a pack of dogs and one of them yelps, you know you've hit something.

The present government has paid mere lip service to the concept of tourism development. The government has failed to show a real commitment to tourism development. Although the present government, after years of urging, has established such a fund, the $25 million allocated in the present budget over the five years of the program is hardly significant. As loans for tourism development throughout B.C., it will hardly cause a ripple in the pond.

My fifth point is the development of a regional advisory and planning council. B.C. will simply have to do a little better job at selling its tourism product. This province has failed to come up with a viable and long-term plan for tourism development, It's been stated by the federal minister that our tourism strategy is simply too vague. The need for long-term planning is related to the need to integrate regional values into an overall marketing strategy.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Although the government — and I give them credit for this — has formed a provincial advisory council from a few bureaucrats and industry representatives.... I think it meets twice a year, and the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Richmond) will, perhaps, confirm this....

Interjection.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Mr. Member, I'm not against regional input; in fact, I'm going to suggest positive alternatives to increase that regional input.

Although the government has formed a provincial advisory council from a few bureaucrats and industry representatives, such a body, I feel, doesn't really reflect the true regional needs. For this reason B.C. should create regional advisory councils for the nine identifiable tourism regions throughout the province. Let's increase our regional representation. Such councils should be given the mandate and the means to recommend future strategies for regional tourism development. Composed of municipal and regional representatives, as well as members from local chambers of commerce and industry personnel, regional councils could develop a local resource inventory, identify areas of unexplored potential and initiate regional market research to assess local tourism needs.

Sixth, market research. Although the ministry has been moving in this direction recently....

Interjections.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Mr. Speaker, I ask for order in the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Although the ministry has been moving in this direction in the last few years, and I give it credit for that, I think there's still a critical need to develop a more intensive marketing research program. Our past scattergun approach, as evidenced by "SuperNatural B.C.," has simply been too vague a sales job. It lacks focus. Not everyone is interested in the outdoors and scenery. We have to learn who is interested in what, and then we have to go out and sell them the package they want. That's just basic, logical, capitalist marketing strategy. I remind you that you're not practising that strategy. Tourism promotion must learn to use proper marketing techniques, to define its objectives. We need to develop a focused program that highlights identified tourist attractions.

I want to give you an example, Mr. Speaker. A person comes up from California, as opposed to somebody visiting us from Europe or Japan. What does he want? Where do we focus our efforts in each market? Which areas of the province are best going to suit and fill his needs? How can we best promote these areas to capture that tourist dollar? These are simple, logical questions that haven't been answered. The minister should study these questions and develop a rational and more cost-effective approach to market research.

In summary, I've gone over a number of points that I suggest as positive alternatives, positive proposals from this side of the House, in helping to stimulate our tourism industry. The tourism industry has the potential for unprecedented growth. As the second-largest B.C. industry today, it promises to be a major component in the creation of future jobs in the province. Tourism deserves more than the mere lip service that's presently being allocated to it. It deserves a solid commitment in terms of funding and planning in order to reach that potential and generate the economic activity that will help get B.C. moving again.

MR. PARKS: Before I get into my considered text, I feel compelled to comment on the remarks of the hon. member for Okanagan North, who has just taken his place. I found it most interesting that he commented on the merits of a tax on meals and accommodation. Obviously he was somewhat critical of that tax in this province. Throughout his speech he was chastising our government for the "lip service" that we have illustrated in our various incentive programs. I find it confusing that although he was prepared to criticize the tax on

[ Page 5372 ]

meals and accommodation in B.C., he failed to note that the only NDP government in this country, that of course being the government in Manitoba, has tax on meals and accommodation. I find it very interesting that the NDP, at least from the ranks of opposition, is prepared to advocate the removal of these two taxes, while the only NDP government in Canada has in fact imposed those two taxes.

Mr. Speaker, I'm extremely proud to be able to rise and speak in support of the budget, and obviously contrary to the amendment, noting that we have seen an expansionary budget brought forth by the hon. Minister of Finance. It is a budget that is a blueprint for recovery, a blueprint for optimism. I am somewhat distressed by the number of negative comments. I have noticed in the recent media we have various members, not only of the opposition of course, but members of the labour sector, saying things like: "Basically this is a profit-creation budget, not a job-creation budget." That was Mr. Andstein, the secretary-treasurer of the B.C. Fed. We also had Mr. Owen Dykstra, the president of the B.C. CUPE branch. He says that it "ignores ordinary British Colombians and doesn't stand up to any real test of fairness." We then even have Mr. Roy Gautier, of the B.C. Construction Trades Council, stating — at least it's purported in a quote: "'I can only see it as a lot of relief for business,' he said, adding that there is little indication in the budget that it's going to produce jobs."

The hon. member from the opposition applauds those comments. It seems to me that there is an inherent lack of recognition of the principles of economics. Of course it's meant to encourage profits, encourage business. It so happens that well in excess of 80 percent of all jobs created in this province are created by small business. This government has seen that what is required is to give consistency in tax planning.

The members of the opposition fail to realize that encouraging businesses to invest and expand creates jobs. Encouraging British Columbians who are sitting on a record amount of savings to invest in British Columbia businesses creates jobs. And by creating jobs, we are going to have the position, the ability to take care of our unexcelled social service programs.

My colleague from Shuswap noted in his closing remarks how expansive our expenditure has been with respect to health. I think it's worth noting that since 1975, the total social services budget has increased from $3.4 billion to $5.6 billion. In the same period we have seen the portion of our budget spent on social services rise from 57.3 percent to 65.2 percent. Clearly, this government's track record shows that the safety net of social services must be, and has been, maintained. The record is clear.

The hon. member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson), when he was speaking in opposition to the budget, spoke out against the student loans remission program. I found that somewhat surprising, Mr. Speaker, as one of the members of this House who has so often spoken in support of education. Here we have a program that says: "Look, students, if you're prepared to bear down, if you're prepared to excel, then we are going to ensure that that excellence is recognized." What can be criticized about that?

He referred to the purported fact that an individual going through a four-year baccalaureate program today likely would incur a $20,000 debt by the time he or she graduated. Quite frankly, I find that figure somewhat unreasonable. I don't understand how an individual, if he or she is truly interested in getting an education, cannot find part-time jobs and work throughout the school year, if not work full-time during the period when they're not in session; and if they really do wish to take their education seriously and to excel, then this loan remission program will be directly of benefit to them. So I was quite surprised to hear that hon. member criticize what I feel is one of the most significant programs in the budget with respect to education.

I know we've had some comments with respect to the health component of the budget, but as parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Health, I am extremely pleased to see that our government's commitment to health care as our number one priority continues. That is, of course, very evident in our budget.

If I may quote the Minister of Finance in the budget: "Health care continues to be of major importance to the government. The health budget will rise by 5 percent to $2.677 billion." He also noted that we're looking at inflation to remain just under the 4 percent level this year, and probably at the same level next year. So if you consider the actual increase in expenditures provided for in the budget, we are looking for at least a 1 percent real increase in growth in the health budget. I think both sides of the House would be prepared to support that aspect of the budget.

[10:45]

It seems to me we have for many years been proud of our universal health care system, but I wonder if it's not coming to the point where we are taking it for granted. I had that thought brought home to me, Mr. Speaker, when I happened to be watching television last Sunday evening and caught a segment of Sixty Minutes, the American news program, which had a very interesting program on what they call dumping. While it focused on the experience in Dallas, they said that the situation is throughout the United States. It illustrated that indigent patients, or patients who do not have medical insurance, can find themselves rolled up to the emergency ward of a private hospital, and as soon as the administrator finds out that the patient does not have health coverage, they are shuttled off to one of the few public hospitals in the various cities.

Another, I thought, most alarming comment: one young person indicated that when she was taken to the hospital, her mother was given the ultimatum: "If you pay me this evening, I'll take $75 for the ambulance ride. If I haven't been paid by the morning, the cost of that ambulance service will be $105." We aren't just talking about shunting minor breaks and contusions from the private hospitals to the public hospitals. We're talking about compound fractures, broken pelvises, individuals being transferred from hospital to hospital who were in such extreme pain that throughout the trip from the private hospitals to the public hospitals they were actually passing out. One person had meningitis, a number of people were in shock and there was a person requiring resuscitation upon receipt at the public hospital. These were all cited as examples of this dumping process.

Do we have that in British Columbia, Mr. Speaker? Of course not. We have a health care system second to none in the world. Regardless of your position in society, you are offered the best that our medical service can deliver. I think that's something we should all be very proud of, and we should all be cognizant of it. I'm sure that both sides of the House will support that.

I think it's clear that we have to be concerned about the efficient allocation of our very limited resources, and that is

[ Page 5373 ]

something that has been clearly brought to the forefront during the past three years of extreme recession, if not outright depression. The coffers of the provincial government have been tremendously depleted by the international depression, and that has meant that there has been a tremendous burden on government to ensure that efficient allocation of resources. In the health field we have seen that move toward efficiency in the alteration of the hospital management hierarchy. The multi-unit management concept has been introduced in British Columbia, and I am of the opinion and have been led to believe that it has been extremely successful. By amalgamating facilities,  we are able to concentrate greater resources for solving specific problems. Today many specialists are able to concentrate their efforts in establishing first-class facilities in combined hospital groups. The combination of these facilities results in an increase in health care expenditures beyond even the mere 5 percent budgeted, just because of the increased productivity from our health care facilities.

It's unfortunate that the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) is not here, because I was going to refer to him. I'm sure that he will support my comments as to the effectiveness of this multi-unit management concept, for he and I in our respective constituencies have one of the first examples of the amalgamated management structure: Royal Columbian Hospital, Eagle Ridge Hospital and, to a lesser degree, St. Mary's. We have there the efficient utilization of our resources, to get the best bang for our buck in an area that is extremely expensive and, hopefully, extremely beneficial to all British Columbians — certainly to those in our constituencies.

Rather than have glorified health facilities, we are ensuring that our dollars are spent on the delivery of health care in the most efficient fashion possible. I know Eagle Ridge Hospital, which was just opened last year, has proven to be an excellent example of this integrated system. I expect and hope that within a very few months, or within the next fiscal year or two, we're going to see that it has fully integrated with Royal Columbian. Hopefully we'll even see the advent of a fully serviceable emergency ward. I know that's something that my constituents and those of the hon. member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose) are very concerned about. I'm sure that with the integrated administration system it's going to be a lot sooner, notwithstanding the scarce dollars in our respective budgets.

I would suggest that the increased expenditures for the Ministry of Health, as well as the increased efficiency with respect to the ministry's operations, illustrate once again our government's commitment to the people of British Columbia. More importantly, they demonstrate our belief that the efficient allocation of resources is the paramount determinant in our budgetary process. As government we must first and always ensure that the taxpayers' money is spent wisely, prudently and frugally. The people of British Columbia have placed a trust in our government, and we must never disregard or misuse it.

I think one of the most important directions that the Ministry of Health seems to be taking — and it's reflected in the annual reports of that ministry for the last couple of years — is the movement toward more and more involvement in preventive health services. That, of course, is an attempt, through education, to promote the importance of personal health care and of a living environment where the conditions that cause and promote disease are eliminated or minimized.

This morning I was walking into the buildings with the hon. first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes), and we were discussing the importance of understanding our bodies. I think it's well known that that member has had some difficulty with his back over the past number of years. He was suggesting that a number of things he has learned because of his personal physical problem with respect to his back are things everyone in British Columbia should be taught, hopefully to prevent the type of handicap he is now facing. So the stress on preventive health care is something that we must encourage, and I'm very pleased to see that the Ministry of Health is doing that.

Interestingly enough, it was a comment that was referred to in the opposition leader's alternate throne speech that preventive health care had to be given more priority.... In fact, as I'm stating, Mr. Speaker, in the last two annual reports it has been very clearly indicated as one of the priorities of the ministry, and it seems that we are getting the support of the opposition in maintaining that priority.

By way of statistics, I understand that the increase in real dollar terms for that particular part of the Health ministry budget was 6.5 percent. As I say, that shows that, notwithstanding the very scarce dollars in all areas of the government's budget, we were able to emphasize and focus expenditures in that very important area. I wonder if it can be assumed that since the Leader of the Opposition supported the encouragement of preventive health expenditures, he is acknowledging that the hon. Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) has embarked on the correct emphasis for his particular ministry.

Mr. Speaker, I just pause for a moment. I see that a group of students has entered the building. I would like to welcome all the students and their teachers to their moment of this exercise in democracy. I hope that their brief stay with us today will be somewhat enlightening to them, and hopefully we'll all be on our good behaviour.

Another comment that was in both the 1983 and 1982 annual reports was that the Ministry of Health thought it would be more important for us to focus on wellness rather than illness. I find it quite interesting, when one reviews the alternative throne speech background, that there is the comment that the NDP is committed to changing the emphasis of our health care system from sickness to wellness. When you review the NDP's background paper on what they would do with respect to health, you find an amazing coincidence between words in their document and words that are contained in the Ministry of Health's annual report. As I said, not only this past year but the year before, there are almost word-for-word verbatim quotes. I wonder if that mere parroting of what the government is already doing is in itself an acknowledged commendation of the work of this particular ministry.

We do have a very serious long-term impact on health care in this province; that, of course, is as a result of the ongoing aging population in this province. It's going to bring increasing demands on our acute-care facilities. Although we do have a number of acute-care beds available in this province at this time, I think we're going to have to be concerned about he impact of that. I know the Minister of Finance noted in the budget that new acute; extended- and intermediate-care beds will be opened in several communities throughout the province. I applaud that, and I'm sure members on the opposite side of the House would be also inclined to applaud hat.

[ Page 5374 ]

I don't want to keep quoting too many of the articles out of the NDP background paper, when every time I refer to the Ministry of Health annual reports I find they're extracted.

I am pleased to see that the NDP are prepared to adopt, as their policies, policies that have been those of the Social Credit government for some years. I guess, as they say, if you have someone trying to model their policies after you, then it's the utmost sense of flattery. I don't think that particular member would concur with that, but I think that the words speak for themselves.

The Minister of Finance, in my opinion, has very clearly charted a course for our province that will ensure that economic recovery in British Columbia will continue to grow. I had the opportunity to attend a luncheon yesterday afternoon where our Premier spoke to a number of the members of the business community in Vancouver. I was greatly impressed with the enthusiasm with which that community was taking the remarks of our Premier, and the partnership in enterprise the tenor of the budget and the direction that this government; is giving the province of British Columbia. The response clearly was that, yes, the business community accepts the direction being given by the government. They recognize that the government has reduced a number of barriers that have prevented expansion in the last couple of years. Those barriers are now down. There are a number of incentives, and those incentives should create jobs.

MR. WILLIAMS: Did you visit the food bank line-ups across the street?

[11:00]

MR. PARKS: The hon. member refers to the food bank lines. I did not have occasion to do that yesterday, but I have visited food bank lines. I'm sure every member of this House is concerned about food banks and food bank lines. Not one member of this House would wish that we'd have to have food banks. I can only offer that member two comments. Firstly, thank goodness we do have the resources and the community support to have food bank lines if they're necessary. But are they to be long-term permanent features? I suggest not, and I suggest the hon. member from the opposition bench understands that.

The way we're going to do away with food banks is to have this province up and running like we all, I trust, are sure that it can get up and running. It's going to be the private sector. The hon. member for Vancouver East, I think, has some difficulty appreciating that it is the private sector and only the private sector that is going to get our economy going again.

MR. WILLIAMS: No doubt you're irrelevant; no doubt about that.

MR. PARKS: It may well be, but it's interesting to note — speaking of irrelevancies — that, in my opinion, the date March 14, 1985, is going to be remembered as the benchmark date when this government proclaimed a budget that in fact was a cornerstone of economic recovery, and it will be noted as the moment of turnaround in this economy. It's maybe not quite irrelevant, but it's interesting to note that that date in history is almost interesting from another point of view. It just so happens that 102 years ago on March 14 — and I know this is an irrelevant fact — a gentleman by the name of Karl Marx died. He died in London 102 years ago on March 14, and I think it's extremely fitting that on March 14, 1985, the Minister of Finance brought down a budget that will ensure that capitalism and encouragement in the private sector will be the direction in this province and will be shown to be the way that recovery will come in British Columbia.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: With us in the gallery this morning, Mr. Speaker, is His Excellency Kiyoaki Kikuchi, ambassador from Japan, along with Madame Kikuchi, and with him is Mr. Katakura, Japanese consul from Vancouver. I hope the House will make them welcome.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to be voting for this amendment, and I would like to tell you why. It falls under what I call the two "s's": specious and silly. I'd like to review the amendment for a moment. It says: "...but this House regrets that in the opinion of this House the hon. Minister of Finance has failed to make provisions to reduce unemployment or to create long-term employment within the province."

Mr. Speaker, I don't think that the government has failed to take this into consideration. The point is whether we agree with the method that they're employing to reach the goal, but they obviously haven't missed the point. They believe that that's what their budget is going to do.

Then it goes on to say, Mr. Speaker, that they've also failed to address the crisis in education and human services, and I agree with that part of the amendment. I don't believe they have done that. But then the amendment goes on and makes that statement look a little ridiculous, because it ends up by saying: "...and to control increasing government deficits and the cost of public debt." You can't have it all ways. Obviously, if the revenue isn't coming into the province, you have to reassess and plan how you're going to spend the money that is coming in. I think the government has failed on that count. They're not spending money according to the priorities that would be beneficial to the province. Education, when you're talking about economic development, has to be one of the highest priorities this society should be looking at today. At this point in our economic history, I would like to know how the official opposition intends to decrease the deficit. That's what I'd like to know.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

The other reason that I will not be supporting the amendment is that I'm going to be supporting the budget, with serious reservations.

AN HON. MEMBER: Great reservations.

MR. LEA: That's true, with great reservations. At the beginning of the budget speech, the minister pointed out that we have a changing economy. He and his government have finally realized that we're not just in a cyclical business downturn, that we have structural problems in the economy —an unorthodox economy in a traditional sense. Then the government has gone ahead and applied the most orthodox

[ Page 5375 ]

procedures that you can find to cure the unorthodoxy. Mr. Speaker, that's the enigma.

But they call it a budget of cooperation and partnership. To me, partnership doesn't mean that you come up with your own budget plan, plan it all by yourself — not going out to talk to labour, the business community and small business — and then say to everybody else: "Partnership means you agree with me or you don't." Now the Minister of Finance will say: "But I traveled all around the province." That isn't planning, Mr. Speaker. That isn't sitting down with all of the people who are involved in the economy and with other special interest groups, working with those partners to devise a plan for economic strategy and then coming back into this House and implementing the necessary procedures, programs and legislation to carry out a plan that you've devised and planned with your partners. Can you imagine a business where you have partners and one of the partners sits down and says: "I'm going to do the whole planning process. The rest of you partners, it's in or out"? I'm afraid that you wouldn't have that partnership long.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell you why I have serious reservations about this budget. But first of all, I would like to point out that it is the government's budget. They believe that this budget is going to do the job, and I for one am not going to stand in their way; in fact, I will cooperate with the government, even though I have grave reservations about the path they've chosen.

In 1979 we had BCRIC, in 1983 we had restraint, and this year we have partnership and cooperation. It's almost like three on a match. But since they made the statement that they realize the economy has changed, what have they done? A few moments earlier the hon. member who spoke before I had my opportunity talked about Karl Marx. He didn't mention Adam Smith. I believe that if Karl Marx and Adam Smith were able to come back today and look at the kind of economy we have, they would both probably revise their thinking from when they brought their theories out. At least they were both thinkers. It's the adherence to both Adam Smith and Karl Marx and the narrow way they interpret those people that is the problem. This is an Adam Smith budget that we're looking at. It's pure supply-side.

Let's take a look at some of the problems we have in British Columbia. The year 1979 was the bumper year for forest products out of this province. It was the highest year of volume output this province had ever seen. But did you know that 1984 was bigger? In 1984 there was almost a 10 percent increase in volume output from the forest industry.

AN HON. MEMBER: But they didn't make any money.

MR. LEA: At lower prices, at lower prices.

The intriguing part of this is that the forest industry turned out an almost 10 percent higher volume output, over 1979, with 25 percent less of a workforce. MacMillan Bloedel had 40 percent less — from 25,000 employees to 15,000 employees.

The government has, I believe, the right idea in one respect: they see it as a priority to create wealth. I think probably everybody would agree with that. But if their plan works, and if they can go into industry and retool with new technologies that will make those industries more productive, we are going to be having an ever-increasing rise in unemployment, because that's the idea of it. One of the big ideas is that in order to make our industries — the forest industry, the fishing industry or the mining industry — more productive we must apply the latest new technologies to those industries so that we may be competitive in the international marketplace. But what this government is doing with their budget is telling us that they can do that and create employment. That's the fallacy in the argument. But it is their plan, and I believe that they believe it is the correct plan.

Mr. Speaker, never let it be said that the member for Prince Rupert or the United Party is going to stand in their way of having their way. Mr. Speaker, I don't believe that this budget has much of a chance of working, but I hope it does. If it does work out the way the government says, it will be good for British Columbia. I don't believe that I should oppose the budget because it may happen to be good for my political career. I don't think I should hope that it fails. I don't believe that northeast coal should fail to help me. I don't believe that Expo 86 should fail to help me. I don't believe that any political party should hope that these projects fail. We should all get behind them to try to make them work.

Mr. Speaker, this government planned their budget and their economic strategy behind closed doors, and it's their responsibility. If it doesn't work, it is their accountability. I'd like to ask the government whether if it's proven a year down the road that this budget has failed, they will do the honourable thing. I don't mean resign; I mean go to the people of this province and say: "We did our best, and it didn't work."

You know, John Kenneth Galbraith said that governments are made up of lay people and they have to go to others for advice, and out of all the advice they get, they have to choose the one that they think is the most desirable. They may choose advice that doesn't work. Galbraith says: "Don't be angry at them. They're not evil people, but for God's sake, don't reelect them."

So, Mr. Speaker, I believe it is the job of opposition to point out to the government areas for improvement. I don't believe it is the job of the opposition to hope the government fails, because if the government fails, British Columbia fails.

Mr. Speaker, in opposing this amendment, I believe it is the official opposition's job to either lead, follow or get out of the way. The official opposition should be coming out with what they consider to be the way to go, and I believe that they have to a certain extent.

You see, what we have is a changing economic world. But we have both sides of the House trying to apply old solutions to new problems. Let's take a look at the two sides. On the........

[11:15]

Interjection.

MR. LEA: Well, listen. I know what yours is, Mr. Member. Yours — and I've heard you say it — demands.... Let's deal with the opposition first. Let's deal with demand-side economics and follow it through to its logical or illogical conclusion.

What the official opposition is calling for is the consumer-led economic recovery. That's what they're....

Interjection.

MR. LEA: Oh, not true. Well, what the official opposition is saying is that somehow or other, by some means or other, we must find a way to put money into the consumers' pockets so that the consumers will spend money in the retail stores of our province, who will in turn order from the

[ Page 5376 ]

wholesalers in our province, who will in turn order from the manufacturing sector. When the manufacturing sector kicks in, that's where the real wealth is developed in demand-side economics.

But Mr. Speaker, we live in an open economy. If you're going to apply demand-side economics, yes, there will be some stimulation out of the demand-side theory. There will be some — for a little while. In the long term, it doesn't deal with the problems.

Let's take a look at the open economy we live in. In an open economy, like we have in British Columbia, almost everything we produce in this province we sell outside our borders. Almost everything we consume, we import. So if we stimulate the economy from the official opposition's point of view, we will be stimulating someone else's manufacturing sector, and the loss out of every stimulative dollar will be absolutely incredible. You have to wonder whether that kind of stimulation is the way to go. I don't believe it is.

Now, Mr. Speaker, let's deal with supply side on the other side of the House. I'll have to give the government full credit for supply-side economics. I haven't seen one like it in my life, the one they just brought in. The theory of supply side is that you allow the business community to retain more of their earnings, the theory being that they will spend those retained earnings in expanding the economy and thus creating new wealth and jobs that can be taxed, and the trickle-down effect will work. But what are we going to have them expanding into? What are they going to be investing in? Has the government any guarantees that the business community in this province is going to spend those retained earnings in this jurisdiction? Not one. There is no guarantee, and if history is any judge in this province, we are in for real trouble.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Nonsense.

MR. LEA: Nonsense, they say. Look at the coastal forest industry. Have the retained earnings from the coastal forest industry been put back into the coastal forest industry to make it a modem industrial plant? The answer is no.

What guarantee do we have that these tax incentives that will allow the business community more retained earnings — that they won't take those retained earnings and build a pulp mill in Alabama? What guarantee that they won't take the money to southeast Asia or South America? There are no guarantees. This government has not taken it the one step further and said: "If you're going to get this tax benefit, you must give us a guarantee that you're going to spend that expansionary money in this province." And that's lacking.

Mr. Speaker, there are choices.

MR. PARKS: What happens if they don't spend it here?

MR. LEA: We've had it, haven't we? We've given them taxpayers' money to run off somewhere else.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: No, they haven't had it, because their returns from the Alabama pulp mill won't hurt them a bit.

Mr. Speaker, the problem is that with these new economic problems we're having, as we shift from what some economists call the mass economy to the information economy, the two parties in the House, the official opposition and the government, become more entrenched in the past. Demand side becomes even more important to the official opposition; supply side becomes even more important to the government.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: I don't know better than that, or I wouldn't be here. I'd be there.

MR. SKELLY: Oh no you wouldn't.

MR. LEA: Yes I would. Unless, of course, you asked for me to be kicked out.

Mr. Speaker, how do we deal with these problems? We're talking about research. As we all know, the amount of money that's spent on research, compared to the domestic product in this province, is below most other provinces. We know that it's below the Canadian average, and the Canadian average is below most of the industrial western world. So what are we going to ask these companies to invest in once we give them these tax breaks from retained earnings? Is it more pulp mills we need? Is it more sawmills we need? Is it more fish canneries? Just where are they going to spend this money? This government and preceding governments have not put the energy and effort and resources into research that we should have.

I think it's time we quit looking to the past. If we want to blame somebody for the problems we have now, we can all look at ourselves. The government and almost everyone else point to the federal deficit and say: "Do you know that about one-third of every dollar that the government takes in in revenute goes o pay off the interest on debt?" That's true. If you look at the corporate structure in this country, you'll find that their revenue and their ratio of debt payoff is almost the same. If you take a look at average citizens in this country and take their debts and earnings as an aggregate, you'll find that theirs is about the same. We have all been living in the same bubble. How many people sitting here just a few short years ago, when they were watching the price of their house rise with inflation, weren't counting the dollars, weren't rubbing their hands and saying: "Oh, there's some unearned money coming my way. Isn't it nice"?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: We were against that.

MR. LEA: "We were against that," says Gullible Gulliver's Travels.

Mr. Speaker, we have all been part of the problem, and we all have to be part of the solution. We have to look for common ground. We have to look for common goals. We can only do that by working together in a cooperative way. But a cooperative way does not mean coming up with your own plan and then telling everybody else: "Cooperate or else."

You know what the government will do if this plan fails? They'll say: "Well, we told you at the beginning that it wouldn't work unless the federal government kicks in with some tax dollars." They'll say: "We told you at the beginning it wouldn't work. We've given the municipalities the tools to do the job, and they failed. We're okay. Sure we had BCRIC. Sure we had restraint. Sure we had partnership and cooperation, but wait till next election. We're going to have a new slogan."

I saw the Premier on television, Mr. Speaker, breaking a champagne bottle against what he called a renewal train. If you'd watched that on television, you know what you'd have

[ Page 5377 ]

thought? You'd have thought that was the first train taking those boats down east. You'd have thought it was a brand new business that sprang into existence since budget day. That business has been there for some time. It has been a successful business, and it has been shipping houseboats down east for some time. I don't know what the number of the train was that was the economic renewal train, but it sure wasn't number one.

If we are going to deal with the economic transition that we're going through, number one to economic renewal in this province is education. That's number one, because if you're going to go into an economy that more and more and more is going to call for skills and knowledge, then we have to have the institutions in society that will supply the skills and knowledge to meet the demands and needs of that new economy. We must have that.

At the very time when we should be investing in the skills and knowledge that will take us into a bright economic future, this government is building highways. Their priority of spending has not been best suited for economic recovery. Their economic recovery is from the days of Adam Smith; that's where it's from. In fact, the Premier, when he feels in a jaunty mood, wears an Adam Smith tie, just to prove that the nineteenth century is still alive and well.

But, Mr. Speaker, how can we move from the old mass economy into the new information economy? We can only do it by first of all facing up to the very serious problems we have. A liberal estimate of the amount of timber we have left in this province is about 40 years, at the present annual allowable cut — about 40 years. If we were to do all the reforestation necessary right now, we would still be waiting approximately 80 years for the return of wealth. There would be a 40-year gap between the end of the old and the beginning of the new economic wealth coming on from reforestation. What about those 40 years in between?

MR. SKELLY: Research.

MR. LEA: Absolutely. What we have to do is to use our existing resources in the most judicious way we can in order that we will generate wealth through added value to our resources, to allow us to do research and get money for capital investment in that new economy. We have not been doing it, and I see no big move in this budget in that direction.

Research is still a very low priority with this government, because they believe that research somehow is some airy fairy academic exercise. I don't believe that all of the research in this province should be done in academe. I sure don't believe that all of the research in this province should be done by the huge bureaucratic companies that we have in this province. Their track record isn't that good here or any place else. The innovative research that's being done in most places is, to the greatest degree, coming from small and medium-sized businesses. The research money available in this country and in this province is based on profit. If you aren't making a profit, you can't get any research money.

[11:30]

First of all, we have a banking system in this country that is not conducive to small and medium businesses; there is no risk capital there. You can't go into our banking system and say: "I have some good experience. I have a good idea. Can I get some money?" The answer is: "No. We want nine times as much collateral as you have before you get any money." In fact, you can't get money on ideas.

In closing, I put the responsibility of this budget exactly where it belongs: in the government benches. It's their plan. It's not devised in partnership or in cooperation, but devised by themselves. I would urge the official opposition to vote for the budget and put them on the spot, instead of doing the same old hackneyed thing. I knew what the amendment would be; I could have written it for you. If the government had brought in the Lord's Prayer you would have had an amendment, and it would have been the same amendment. I'm asking the official opposition to put this government on the spot. Let's all cooperate with this government and do our darndest to make sure that their budget has an opportunity to work, and if it does.... I don't believe it will work, but boy, I'm going to give them every chance. I'm going to cooperate with them in every way I can to make sure it works, because if it does, British Columbia will be better off. If it doesn't, no one will be able to point a finger at this side of the House and say: "You were an impediment to its working." They would say, "At least you tried to make it work. Now you might look to us to be a viable alternative to government," and that's what opposition should be.

MR. SKELLY: I appreciate this opportunity to take my place in discussion of the amendment, which has something to say about the failure of this budget to make provision for creation of new long-term employment, to address the crisis in education and human services in the province and to control the increasing cost of public debt and government deficits. I can't, for the life of me, understand how the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) could have predicted that this type of resolution would come down from the opposition, except for the fact that it deals with things that the budget doesn't deal with. Nobody who has looked through the budget, analyzed the budget in any detail and applied any of the kind of research to the budget document that the member for Prince Rupert says is required could have come to the conclusion that any other resolution was required than the one we presented in this Legislature under the signature of the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann).

So it amazes me, Mr. Speaker, but I've heard this member speak many times before. I've never heard him say anything different than what he said in his speech today. I've heard it many times before. I heard it on For The Record a few days ago on local television. What the member is basically saying is this. He's trying to do what soap producers do in the United States. They have this technique called product differentiation. In order to make one soap product appear different from another, they have to differentiate themselves. Even though they're the same colour, and have the same effect and the same chemical composition, they try to make themselves look different. Sometimes they turn themselves into crystals, dye themselves a different color or wrap themselves up in a different package. But they are no different whatsoever, and their effect has no difference whatsoever on the job that that soap is supposed to do.

I simply cannot believe the member for Prince Rupert is going to vote for this budget, given what he said about this budget. If you truly represent the people of your constituency and truly represent them on the basis that you ran in that constituency in the first place, at some point you have to get off the fence, you have to stand on principle and you have to vote on principle. In this House it's as simple as that, and people are going to judge you on that basis back home in your constituency.

[ Page 5378 ]

So, Mr. Speaker, I am standing up in this Legislature, as most of our NDP caucus members have, and I am going to vote for this amendment for the very reasons the amendment states. And I am going to vote against this budget because I think this budget is going to do incredible damage to the province of British Columbia and to the economy of British Columbia.

I congratulate the member for Nanaimo, (Mr. Stupich) on the speech that he made in response to the budget. It was well researched, and it referred to many economies outside British Columbia and many economies in Canada that were faced with the same economic problem that this government faced: the problem of worldwide economic recession — and we all know what the impact of that has been. The problem of changes in economic structure: we all know how those have affected British Columbia, and in particular certain industries such as the forest and mining industries. But the worst impact on this economy has been the impact of harsh government policies internal to British Columbia. That's the problem that we have to deal with. Partly we have to deal with that worldwide economic recession, and we have to respond appropriately to the things that are coming from outside the province. We have a little bit of control over those things, Mr. Speaker. Partly we have to respond to the structural changes that are taking place in our economy, especially in those critical industries of forestry, mining, agriculture and energy. We have to respond to those changes that are taking place, but we have to respond in a way that's appropriate. We don't have very much control over those changes, but we have some control, and we can ameliorate their worst impacts. The government has failed to do that. The thing that the government has to do most of all is to respond appropriately to those changes that are taking place.

I must admit, Mr. Speaker, that I had high expectations of this budget. I thought the Premier and the Minister of Finance would actually do something appropriate, having seen the damage that the restraint program has caused, having seen the increase in unemployment in the province of British Columbia: a new person going on unemployment every 39 minutes between 1975 and 1984. As that clock ticks around 24 hours a day, a new person is out of work every 39 minutes in B.C.

I once calculated the increase in the number of people on welfare in this province between July 1981 and July 1984. In those three years a new person went on welfare every 16 minutes in B.C. As that clock ticked around, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year, under this Social Credit government a new person — man, woman or child — went on welfare every 16 minutes.

This economy is in a shocking state, and the government has failed to respond appropriately, in such a way as to relieve the worst effects of this worldwide recession on the people of the province of British Columbia. The problem is the failure on the part of government to provide adequate leadership and an appropriate response to the worldwide recession and its impact on the British Columbia economy.

The problem with this budget, by the budget's own admission, is that it refuses to deal with the issue of unemployment. Unemployment in B.C., in seasonally adjusted terms, is now about 14.8 percent. As a result of this budget, they're predicting an unemployment rate of 14 percent — a totally unacceptable rate. Well over 200,000 people will be unemployed after this budget has taken effect, and there are 226,000 people actually out of work. And that's if the budget succeeds. The budget itself expresses certain caveats that it may not succeed. It may not succeed in even reducing the number of unemployed people in this province to 200,000. It may go the other way, in fact. And the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) is going to vote for a budget that accepts that as a fact. I can't believe it.

Mr. Speaker, this is the sixth consecutive year that the Social Credit government has announced a deficit budget. In most of those years they've actually exceeded the predicted deficit. There's been an absolute runaway in the amount of deficit and public debt that this province has to sustain. The cause of that is higher budgets for welfare. As more and more people are taken out of the workforce, or allowed to drop out of the workforce by this government, the amount of money that has to be paid out in their shelter and support goes up and up and up, and it becomes a greater and greater burden on the public coffers and the taxpayers of this province. That has been the cause of higher taxes here in British Columbia. Even the Fraser Institute, the government's own economic advisers — people with the same kind of economic theory as the government — says that British Columbians pay taxes longer and pay more taxes than people in any other province except Quebec. Here in British Columbia we have the second-highest taxes of any province in Canada.

Quebec has a much lower unemployment rate than British Columbia, so their taxes possibly go to some good effect. But in British Columbia, we have among the highest unemployment rates in Canada. We rank with Newfoundland. We rank with Prince Edward Island. I'll get to the solutions in a minute, Mr. Member, because clearly you need some advice.

In terms of unemployment we rank with Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick as having among the worst unemployment rates in Canada. We are now one of the Maritimes provinces, in unemployment terms. In some areas — Vancouver Island, for instance — we rank among the worst — the southern interior of British Columbia and the West Kootenays. Some areas rank even worse than Newfoundland and among the worst in Canada, and that's a shameful record for this government. It's something that is not being dealt with in this budget speech in any clear and concise way. And the member for Prince Rupert is going to support the budget speech.

Mr. Speaker, the government talks about relieving the tax burden on citizens in this province, and yet just before this budget came down, ferry rates, electricity rates and bus fares in Vancouver went up. All of those charges that the government levies against the people of this province and all of those charges that reduce the disposable income of citizens of British Columbia went up just before this budget came down. British Columbians pay the second-highest amount of taxes of any province in Canada — second only to Quebec.

Mr. Speaker, as far as I can see, this budget is nothing more than a blueprint for three more years of recession. It's going to mean longer food lines, longer welfare lines and longer unemployment lines in this province. That's all that I can read out of this budget that's been presented by this government.

[11:45]

Yes, there are going to be tax concessions to industry — clearly, the budget is based on tax concessions to industry — but those tax concessions will mainly come out of the tax base of municipalities, regional districts and school districts. To the extent, of course, that this represents a transfer of funding of public school systems away from the property tax base and on to the general revenues of the province, I think we could

[ Page 5379 ]

support that, Mr. Speaker. But that isn't what it means, because those school district budgets are going to be cut down even further, with further disastrous results to the education system in the province.

Remember what this means, in terms of what the member for Prince Rupert was saying. He supports this budget, which cuts back even further on the school district budgets which he says have to be expanded and supported so that we can get this capability for research and development in the province. By voting for this budget he's voting against the education system, against additional research and development, against providing our students and our children with those very skills that they need in order to generate that new economy of the future that will be based on the information economy and not on the mass economy. Let me tell you that information doesn't stand by itself: information is about something. Technology doesn't stand by itself; technology is science applied to something. It's that something that people in this province should be dealing with; it's that something that's important; it's that something that the member for Prince Rupert doesn't understand. That something is the fundamental natural resources that we were blessed with in this provinc. That something is agriculture, forestry, mining and minerals, energy, water and our natural environment that has attracted so many people to British Columbia. Information alone is not going to do us any good. It's the information that is about that something, applied to that something, which is going to be the salvation of the provincial economy.

Yes, we have no hesitation in saying that part of our economic approach has to do with the demand side. Any successful economic program has to address the demand side of the economy. The problem today is not that a certain party is demand side and a certain party is supply side. That would be a problem if it were true, as the member for Prince Rupert states it, but of course it's not true. It is true that there's one party in this Legislature that is strictly supply side; that's absolutely true. They fail to see a whole other aspect of the economy. They are totally blinkered in their economic approach, and that's definitely a problem. This party does believe that the demand side does have to have equal importance with the supply side. We have to have a balanced approach to our economic problems.

Let me give you a few examples of how the NDP would deal with the problems in the province of British Columbia. I'd like to make a comparison. When you look at the economy today in B.C. and try to create an analogy for it, it reminds me of a guy who's been beaten up in the street and run over by a motorcycle gang. You find this economy lying in the street — it's not breathing; it's bleeding from all its arteries; its bones are broken — surrounded by this tough motorcycle gang, and it's in a poor state of health. I guess you'd assumed that from my description, Mr. Speaker.

I wonder if there's a doctor in the House.

Clearly there are no doctors, but I wonder if anybody over there has had any first-aid training. If you come on a situation where you find a victim lying in the street, and he's been beaten up and run over by a motorcycle gang — clearly he's bleeding from the arteries, clearly he's not breathing, clearly he's unconscious and his bones are broken — what do you treat first?

MR. LEA: You bury it.

MR. SKELLY: That's the positive approach. That's the United Party approach: bury it. That's the positive United Party approach: when you find an economy in rough shape, bury it. He would be drummed out of the college of physicians and surgeons and first-aid attendants.

I'll tell you. What you do first, Mr. Member, is you get rid of the motorcycle gang at the next election. You get rid of the motorcycle gang that beat him up and left him in the street in the first place. That's how you do it.

The second thing, though — and there is a treatment sequence; I consulted with a doctor on this, and with our debate leader for health and hospitals — is that you stop the bleeding. This economy is bleeding through its arteries, bleeding through its welfare budget, bleeding through its deficits and bleeding through its public debt. Unless you stop that bleeding, that patient is going to have serious problems. It's not going to survive. What we've been saying in the NDP is that you deal with the worst symptoms first. You stop the bleeding. You get those people back to work. You get the people who are on welfare and unemployment back to work, and you get them working in productive jobs again so that they are able to contribute in a positive way to the economy.

What has this Social Credit government done? Of course, their approach to treatment is to fire more people. In the last while we've done a little research, as the member for Prince Rupert suggested, and I wish he had done something the same. We estimate that as a result of this government's attempts to cut down on the public sector in the province of B.C. — school districts, hospital districts, municipalities, regional governments and the government itself — 9,172 jobs have been lost. That's in the government sector alone. In education — teachers and support staff — we estimate that 3,514 jobs have been lost. So that's a total of 12,686 jobs lost unemployment deliberately created by this government.

But this is not simply public sector unemployment. Whether they're working for the government, the school districts or the hospital districts of the province, every one of those employees spends their salary in the local community, and generally on retail goods and services — groceries, housing, travel; on purchasing those goods and services that we all purchase with our salaries in every community in the province. According to economists in B.C., each one of those jobs lost has had an employment effect in the private sector. So for those 12,686 jobs lost in the public sector, we've destroyed 8,880 private sector jobs, for a total of jobs deliberately destroyed by Social Credit Party policies of 21,566. You haven't stopped the bleeding; you have increased the bleeding. The patient is going to die a lot more quickly as a result of the actions you've taken.

When you look at the additional cuts that are going to take place in public sector employment as a result of what this government is doing, and the newspaper articles are numerous.... The Times-Colonist a few days ago says that if they continue with the current budgets proposed for school districts, 1,000 teachers' jobs are going to be on the line as a result of the cuts — 1,000 jobs, teaching staff, support staff. In addition, you can't separate the public sector from the private sector in this or any other province, in this or any other economy, because each of those jobs has an employment effect in the community. If we sack 1,000 teachers, it's going to mean 700 additional jobs lost in the private sector, as the economy in those communities spins down and spirals down.

[ Page 5380 ]

This government's economic measures are actually counterproductive to creating employment or improving the economy of British Columbia. I cannot see a single part of this budget that is going to create additional employment and help revitalize our economy over the next little while.

Mr. Skelly moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Schroeder moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:57 a.m.