[ Page 5381 ]

CONTENTS

Oral Questions

Academic resignations. Mr. Blencoe –– 5381

Northeast coal. Mr. Williams –– 5382

Budget debate

On the amendment

Mr. Skelly –– 5383

Hon. A. Fraser –– 5386

Mrs. Dailly –– 5390

Mr. Veitch –– 5393

Mr. Cocke –– 5396

Hon. Mr. Richmond –– 5400

Division –– 5403

THURSDAY, MARCH 21, 1985

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to welcome Prof. Don Balmer, who is here from Lewis and Clark College in Oregon. He has with him a group of political science students who are here to visit a number of people in Victoria, including the member for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy), whom he's meeting this afternoon. The interesting part about it is that the students accompanying Prof. Balmer are in fact senior civil servants with the Bonneville Power Administration and other power people in the United States. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

MR. SKELLY: I would ask the members of the Legislature to welcome a former member of this body, the former Minister of Recreation and Conservation under the government between 1972 and 1975, known at that time as the Hon. Jack Radford.

MR. R. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, in the precincts today are three people the government caucus was very pleased to meet with: Mr. Roland Gordon, head of the labourers' union; Mr. Bill Milner, head of the rock and tunnel workers; and Mr. Fred Randall, head of the operating engineers. I want to thank them very much for coming.

MR. HANSON: I'd like the House to join me in welcoming Mr. Don Gough and his daughter-in-law from Sudbury, Ontario, Mrs. Barbara Gough. Would you join me in welcoming them.

MR. MOWAT: Today in Vancouver we launched the Man in Motion tour, where a great British Columbian and a great Canadian from Williams Lake, Rick Hansen, started his tour for Expo 86. He left the Oakridge Shopping Centre this morning, sharp at 9 o'clock, and he will be going down through California. He's on a 25,000-mile journey to bring hope and awareness to all the disabled in the world, to tell about Expo 86 and to set up a legacy in each country he travels through. The Premier was there to send him off, and gave to Mr. Hansen the first new official B.C. licence plate: it says "Expo 86" on it. Also there was a contribution from the lotteries branch of $50,000. We're looking to the federal government for some funding. The city of Vancouver has given $100. We're going to be asking for some more funding. He's on his way, and with your permission, Mr. Speaker, we'll bring you reports as he makes his odyssey around the world.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to introduce four guests in the galleries today: from Tsawwassen, Betty and Dick Davis, and coming away from the great metropolis of Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan, to avoid the harsh March, my uncle and aunt, Art and Jean Douglas.

MRS. JOHNSTON: In our gallery this afternoon are a very active and involved lady from Surrey, Alderman Judy Higginbotham, and her daughter Karen. I would ask the House to please welcome them.

Oral Questions

ACADEMIC RESIGNATIONS

MR. BLENCOE: I have a question for the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications. On Tuesday the dean of the University of Victoria engineering faculty resigned in protest. I have since learned that a total of 24 University of Victoria faculty are either resigning or considering opportunities at other universities outside British Columbia. When are the minister and the government going to acknowledge the message which is being sent by these departing academics?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, the dean of engineering certainly sent a message when he resigned to take a deanship at the University of Calgary. This could be confirmed, but I understand it is at an improved salary — and certainly at an engineering school that is larger and better established than the one at the University of Victoria. I think by the same token, the president of UBC, when he resigned, went to a better-paying position in eastern Canada.

I suppose we will always be in the position in British Columbia of our faculty being able to accept promotions and better-paying jobs elsewhere. It has been my view that there is no reason why we should not retain those faculty who are in international demand by paying them competitive salaries. If you were to resign a post somewhere to take a better-paying job somewhere else, your employer would always have the option of increasing your salary to keep you. I understand, for example, that this is precisely what Pacific Press did when columnist Marjorie Nichols resigned on one occasion. Frankly, I see nothing wrong with that. I always like to see people....

Interjections.

HON. MR. McGEER: I'm sure, Mr. Speaker, that the higher offer did not come from the Premier or the government of British Columbia. I am answering the question by saying that the university does have the option of matching salary offers from other institutions.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, I would remind the minister that those 24 members who are either going to resign or are considering resigning are 5 percent of the faculty of the University of Victoria. They are top-notch people. University professors with international reputations do not normally resign in protest, Mr. Minister. Dr. Ashwood-Smith, a biologist who has brought a tremendous amount of research activity and grants to the university, is leaving to head a new lab at Cambridge University in the United Kingdom.

[2:15]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. While some latitude and some preamble is allowed, clearly the rules which guide us indicate that the question must be stated without argumentation or debate. When one poses a question with such guidelines, one can only expect a response with the same guidelines. I would ask the member, please, to direct the question, and we will then hopefully have a specific response.

[ Page 5382 ]

MR. BLENCOE: The top biologist has resigned. What is the minister doing to stop this brain drain, and does he appreciate that these people have simply had enough and want some action now?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I'm not aware of any resignations, except to improved salary and a promotion. For example, when Dr. Pedersen went to Simon Fraser University from the University of Victoria, it was as a promotion. When he went from Simon Fraser University to the University of British Columbia, it was as a promotion. When Dean Bruton came to the University of Victoria from the University of Calgary, it was as a promotion. If we have people who are capable and can receive a promotion, either in terms of salary or a position elsewhere, then the answer is to make an equivalent position available here in terms of status, or to increase the salary. For heaven's sake, Mr. Member, you cannot prevent people from seeking higher positions of responsibility and better wages.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, does the minister appreciate that B.C.'s reputation as a serious place to work, invest and research is being damaged?

I have a copy of a memorandum. A leading mathematician was about to return to the University of Victoria, but he says in this memorandum that a primary consideration in not coming back to British Columbia is the political climate with regard to higher education in this province.

When is the minister going to take action and ensure that our universities are protected, particularly the University of Victoria?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I can't think of anything which would be a greater deterrent to a great intellect like a senior mathematician than the kinds of speeches that member across the way makes. This is the difficulty that people would have coming to British Columbia. They get into the atmosphere that you would create with your speeches, and they would say: "Why would we come to a crazy place like that?"

No, Mr. Speaker, the way you recruit outstanding individuals is to have high quality in the departments of your university and to seek people with equivalent high quality and offer them promotions. That's how you recruit.

NORTHEAST COAL

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, in view of the absence of the Minister of International Trade and Investment (Hon. Mr. Phillips), I would direct this question to the Premier. On numerous occasions the government has advised the House and the public that the contract with respect to northeast coal was not negotiable, and that it would remain at the price that was established at an earlier date. Now the inevitable has happened, and the price for northeast coal has been reduced by 8.5 percent. Can the Premier tell us what this price cut means in terms of lost revenue to the people of British Columbia?

HON. MR. BENNETT: In response to the member, the first part of his statement is erroneous, and his four-year absence from the House hasn't improved his accuracy. What the government has said consistently, and I can reaffirm it today, is that all of the taxes to do with government, all of the surcharges to do with recovering the capital costs on the railway and the capital costs — the other surcharge — of hydro.... Highways and infrastructure are being paid, are paid in full as of this date, and will be continued to be paid, contrary to suggestions elsewhere. The government will continue to collect not only the regular royalties but those surcharges — which for the first time had the Japanese steel industry subsidizing in the province of British Columbia our railways, our highways and our hydro.

In following up with the answer to the member for Vancouver East, this is one of the great arguments for not having socialism in government ownership. The private sector takes the risks on their industry, and the government is getting full value on all of the shipments of coal, through royalties and taxation. This is one of the greatest arguments against the government owning the mines or moving into sawmills, as was started to be practised between the years '72 and '75.

MR. WILLIAMS: Seven hundred million dollars was spent by this government on this project one way or another. The question is: is it not so that coal royalties that were anticipated — which are related to price; that is, related to the price paid by the Japanese for the coal — are reduced, and that they in fact will be reduced by $4 million; that because there hasn't been performance in terms of volume, those payments to BCR will be reduced by $4 million; that the whole operation is in such sad shape that $100 million anticipated in corporate income tax is nowhere to be seen either? So that represents something like $108 million lost.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Well, again, Mr. Speaker, the member is totally wrong if he's suggesting that one cent went into the private sector development of those mines from the government of British Columbia. The money the government of the people of British Columbia has spent has gone into infrastructure. The money that the people's credit has purchased has been for the expansion of our railway. The money that has gone into Hydro has been in the expansion of Hydro, facilities.

MR. WILLIAMS: And the mine.

HON. MR. BENNETT: And a community of people, Mr. Member. The member smilingly says "the mine, " You're darned right! Because one of the things that we develop energy for is to expand our resources, to create industry and jobs. If that member from Vancouver East wants to stand up and say he's against industrial expansion and jobs for our people, because that's the implication in his statement and his asides, then let him do it. But I tell you, Mr. Member, that I want jobs for our people. And we're going to continue, through our industrial electrical discounts, to make sure that industry expands in this province.

MR. WILLIAMS: I would hope, with as many people on UIC as there are actually working, that there would be jobs for our people in British Columbia. But with respect to the mine, it's now anticipated that another hole will have to be constructed for northeast coal. The minister indicated that the hole may indeed be in the wrong place.

But my question is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. He indicated in January that the staff of the mines department were aware that the location was probably unsatisfactory. Can he advise us whether his staff were in

[ Page 5383 ]

fact asked to pursue this matter in some detail, to avoid the expenditure of an additional $300 million on this project?

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Member, I think you're misconstruing something that I said. I said that the staff of the Ministry of Mines advised the company at the time that they felt a further delineation of the ore body might be more appropriate than the delineation that the company was doing. That was merely advice that the technical people in my ministry gave to the mining company. We could give that kind of advice to any mining company in the province that wanted it.

AN HON. MEMBER: And...?

HON. MR. ROGERS: And what? The ministry people are allowed to dispense advice to any company that wants to ask for it. If the company chooses or doesn't choose to use that information, that's their business. We'd like to try to explain that to you. I know you have difficulty with somebody else minding their own business.

MR. WILLIAMS: Further to the Minister of Mines, Mr. Speaker. Wouldn't it be reasonable, in view of the high expenditure by our government of some $700 million, to pursue that kind of question in a more active manner than they did?

HON. MR. ROGERS: If the matter needs pursuing in a more active manner, that's up to the company. It's not up to the officials of the Ministry of Mines. There are untold numbers of prospectors, about 100,000 people, looking in this province for mining operations. There is a whole host of mines operating in the province. If they ask us for some information, we're prepared to give them that technical information. We are not in the business of advising them on how to run their business. They have very competent and technical people working for them. Maybe we'll let your House Leader have a....

MR. HOWARD: What do you care?

HON. MR. ROGERS: I do care. I don't think you have ever cared.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the bell terminates what should have been question period. The Chair, hon. members, is bound to the rules that the House provides for it. The rules clearly provide for brief and precise questions and answers, without argument or opinion. I would once again commend that to the members.

Orders of the Day

ON THE BUDGET
(continued debate)

On the amendment.

MR. SKELLY: I understand I only have a few minutes left to go. I've dealt with most of the speech this morning in any case, but I can't help commenting on the debate that took place in question period — or in what passed for question period, to use the Speaker's precise words.

The debate goes something like this, and I suppose it's characteristic of the debate that takes place in the House at all times, that if private industry wants to put a hole wherever they want, whether there's coal there or not, that's not the job of the government to decide. We're just here to give advice. On the other hand, if the government spends $700 million to provide a railroad and a townsite and hydro lines and infrastructure to the wrong hole, then surely there must be some government responsibility there, Mr. Speaker, for deciding if the hole is in the right place.

It's very interesting to me that the minister should say that the hole goes wherever the private sector wants to put the hole. We spend $700 million of the taxpayers' money, provided by the general public of British Columbia, or at the credit of the general public of British Columbia, and the hole goes wherever the private sector wants it. That seems to be the approach that this government has taken. It's the motorcycle-gang approach again.

As you recall, Mr. Speaker, prior to the lunch-break....

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: I have nothing against motorcycle gangs, provided they don't practise medicine, and provided they don't practise government. Mr. Speaker, this government seems to practise both medicine and economics as if it were a motorcycle gang, or else advised by a motorcycle gang.

[2:30]

In any case, before the lunch-break I was talking about the state of the B.C. economy. It appeared to me that the state could be comparable to a victim that had been run over in the street, beat up by a motorcycle gang and then left lying in the middle of the road bleeding and unconscious with broken bones. I asked some of the doctors opposite how they would treat the economy of the province if they found it in that state, lying in the street. Perhaps the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot) has some ideas. The first thing you do is you remove people like the Provincial Secretary, Mr. Speaker, who have caused most of the damage. But since we can't do that until the next election, I think we have to deal with those vital problems that have to be corrected right away in order to get the economy back to health again.

AN HON. MEMBER: ...'72, '75, '79, '83....

MR. SKELLY: I wonder if the whole gang can count like that.

Mr. Speaker, I think the health professionals on our side agree that the first thing you do is stem the bleeding. You stop the bleeding from all the welfare budgets and all the unemployment insurance payments. You stop the bleeding by getting people back to work. That's the way you deal with that vital symptom. Unemployment is a vital symptom: 250,000 people unemployed, 250,000 people on welfare. The idea is to get those people back to work. Get them into productive jobs again so they are paying taxes again. Those taxes will go into provincial revenue, and the economy will begin to restore to health.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.)

You might say: has it ever been tried? It has been tried. I'd like to give you the example of Australia. That's where this

[ Page 5384 ]

program was tried. Australia, you understand, has a Labour government.

MR. REID: But not for long.

MR. SKELLY: They just had an election, and they were re-elected. But he wouldn't know that, Mr. Speaker.

However, before the Labour government took over in Australia they were mired in the worst recession they'd experienced in 50 years. They are now the fastest-growing economy in the western world, measured by the OECD. When the Bob Hawke government came to office in Australia, they established an employment goal of half a million new jobs in the first three years. In the first year alone, they created 230,000 jobs, both in the public sector and in the private sector. Of course the Labour government in Australia doesn't draw a great distinction between the success of the public sector and the success of the private sector. If they don't work together, if they don't cooperate, if they don't consult with each other, then neither is going to succeed.

As I pointed out, in the first year they created 230,000 new jobs in Australia. By June of this year they expect to have created 400,000 new jobs. Again, let me remind you, Mr. Speaker, that those are public sector jobs and private sector jobs. They expect by the end of their three-year goal to have reached or exceeded 500,000 jobs.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: Okay, let's talk about Manitoba: the lowest unemployment rate in Canada. But the last time I was back in Winnipeg, a few weeks ago, Howard Pawley was saying: "Can you tell those people from British Columbia to stay home. We're having to create work for them back here in Manitoba." For the first time in many years people are beginning to return to Manitoba.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Does the Leader of the Opposition wish to be recognized as the designated speaker?

MR. SKELLY: From the sounds of it he does, right?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please proceed.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, the same is true of Manitoba. They've oriented themselves toward creating employment and solving the immediate problem of unemployment, toward addressing the major symptom of economic malaise — that is, to address the problem of unemployment.

But let me get back to Australia. At the same time that the Bob Hawke government has created these 400,000 to 500,000 new jobs, he's managed to increase benefits to the unemployed, he's managed to increase old age pensions, he's managed to increase family allowances — and we know the debate around family allowances in Canada these days — and he's managed to increase welfare payments.

MR. REID: How much do they sell their coal for?

MR. SKELLY: They sell a lot more coal than you do, my friend. And when they carbon-date it, they don't roll back the results.

They have raised all of those social benefits to people in Australia at the same time that they've increased employment and reduced the deficit in that country by $1.2 billion annually. What I'm attempting to convey to the government today is that if the economy is in bad shape and there are some symptoms that can be perceived immediately as being a problem, and those symptoms are unemployment and welfare, then the way a competent physician, a competent economist and a competent government would deal with the problem is to address that symptom first. They would put those people back to work, get them producing again, get them paying taxes again, get them off the non-productive unemployment and welfare rolls, and get those people working again. That's precisely what we're suggesting.

But that's not the only thing we're suggesting. We've been suggesting all along a three-pronged approach to this problem. The second thing we've been proposing is that we deal with reviving the body — the economy — and getting it breathing again. In order to do that we do have to deal with the problem of incomes. People who are out of work have insufficient income from unemployment insurance and welfare; they don't have sufficient disposable income. Those people who are working at fairly low wage levels in the economy, working hard but not getting very much money, are also suffering.

The government has taken the step of providing an income tax credit to help small business employ new people. I've talked to many small business people in the last little while, and they say: "Well, thanks for the credit, but what's the point of us hiring new people if we don't have any customers with coins jingling in their pockets?" Small business is based on people with disposable income. Small business is based on customers out there — ordinary British Columbians, ordinary Canadians like you and me, Mr. Speaker — who are able to go into their stores or places of business with disposable income in our jeans so that we can buy the goods and services they provide. All the tax credits in the world won't encourage them to hire another employee if there's no one there to do business with them. It's as simple as that.

I'm not saying that we should do away with that tax credit. I think it's a good idea; in fact, our party proposed it. When the tax commission from the Ministry of Finance came around and visited the various communities in British Columbia, our member for Okanagan North (Mr. MacWilliam), who at that time was an aspiring candidate for public office, presented a brief to them. One of the things he suggested was that the government should provide a tax credit, which would reduce the unfair differential of overhead costs of employment that small business experiences. But we understood that that would not be of any assistance to small business unless there was a general revitalization of the economy and the disposable income of our citizens was increased, so that they could go out with money in their jeans, be customers to small business, and buy the goods and services that small business provides.

There are ways of making the financial situation of ordinary British Columbians much better than it is, and they are probably less costly than the means that have been adopted by the government in its current budget. They are probably methods which would have a much more beneficial, immediate and direct impact on the economy; in other words, they could get the economy revitalized and breathing right away rather than waiting two and three years down the line, as this budget proposes.

[ Page 5385 ]

There are a number of ways. One of the ways is that the government could reduce energy costs on individual citizens in the province with the addition of water taxes, increased hydro and energy rates that are indexed to the cost of living, people in this province are paying very high energy costs, especially people on Vancouver Island and in the non-gas service areas of the province.

The government could take steps immediately. With the tremendous generation capacity surplus, transmission capacity surplus and energy surplus that it has, it could wheel that energy into those areas that require it — areas that pay a great deal for energy. It could sell energy at a much lower rate than it's currently doing. It could improve the disposable income of people on Vancouver Island, in areas like Revelstoke and Shuswap and Nakusp, and in all those areas on the west coast of Vancouver Island and on the mainland coast of British Columbia that will never be served by natural gas even if the federal government decides to pump in $558 million to make the project viable.

So that's one thing that the government could do to increase the disposable income of our citizens so they would have money in their jeans to support small business and encourage small business to create employment to respond to that demand.

There are other things it could do, like reinstating the personal tax credit — the provincial tax credit — that was of benefit to low income and medium income citizens in the province and that they took away just a very few years ago. That also would increase the disposable income of our citizens and give them the money to go out to small business in British Columbia in every region of the province to buy goods and services produced by local entrepreneurs.

We believe in a legitimate mix between large corporations and small corporations, small businesses, large businesses and varieties of ownership as well — public, private, cooperative. We believe in all of those kinds of things, and we believe that if each sector is healthy then the other sectors can feed on that health and grow and prosper.

The way to do that is to provide additional disposable income to the citizens of our province so they can go out in the free marketplace and demand those goods and services that small businesses will be willing to produce in response to that demand. There are many ways of doing that. I've suggested some: lower energy rates, lower bus fares, lower ferry fares, lower hydro rates. Lower the rates so that the disposable incomes of our citizens can increase.

As the Fraser Institute points out, Mr. Speaker, British Columbians are the most taxed provincial citizens in Canada, after the citizens of Quebec. We pay more tax — and we pay that tax longer each year — than citizens of any other province but Quebec. We have to start rolling back that tax so that our citizens will have a little more disposable income to encourage our small businesses in this province.

The member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) says that that's only going to encourage those small businesses to go to suppliers or wholesalers who will then go to manufacturers outside the province, who will provide those goods and services so that we end up importing more. It's a very simplistic view of the world. It's a very simplistic understanding of the local economy. There's always a move.... It's part of the enterprise and initiative of the small business community in British Columbia, Mr. Speaker, that when they see goods being imported from outside the province that could be manufactured inside the province, a process takes place which economists call import substitution. Those brilliant business people who can see that there's a profit to be made by manufacturing those goods inside British Columbia are inspired to produce those goods in British Columbia and to eliminate the foreign producer. In that way our economy diversifies and grows and prospers. That's the way economies work. Even if the member for Prince Rupert doesn't understand that, that's the way economies do grow and mature. I think we should encourage that kind of thing. But the point where you encourage it is not at the supply end; it is on the demand side. That's what small business people in this province want. They don't want government handouts. They want ordinary British Columbians, with money jingling in their pockets, who can be customers for those small businesses.

[2:45]

I pointed out earlier, Mr. Speaker — and I won't go over this ground again — that one of the ways to improve the local economy and to stimulate demand in the local economy is to restore education, because education spins off 0.7 jobs for every salary you pay in the education system.

Health care is the same way. I thought I would discuss here a problem that's taking place in my constituency. A few minutes ago the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) was in the House. I'd like to just cover this problem, because it is important to constituents in Alberni. Here is an example. Our hospital in Alberni in the last year ran a deficit of, I understand, somewhere in the neighbourhood of $400,000. I'd like to say that it's a hospital that is very strongly supported by everyone in the community of Port Alberni. They appreciate the service they get from that hospital, and they appreciate the efficiency of the operation of that hospital. Unfortunately, even though the hospital has cut its operations to the bone — and there are some complaints building up about that now — they ran a $400,000 deficit last year.

The government hasn't indicated whether they're willing to shoulder that deficit. As a result, our hospital is having trouble finding out from the government if they have to pay that deficit themselves out of next year's budget or if they have to lay people off. They've examined their programs, I understand, and it looks like we may have to lose 14 or 15 people from a very small hospital in Port Alberni — a hospital that's been losing staff every single year since the Social Credit government took office in 1975. We have fewer employees in that hospital now than we had in 1975, and it looks like we may lose 14 or 15 more. Each one of those employees has a spinoff impact in the community of 0.7 people. So we may lose additional people in the private sector as a result of that hospital having to lay off staff.

Mr. Speaker, I would urge the Minister of Health to take a look at the situation at West Coast General Hospital in Port Alberni. In a community like Port Alberni, which has lost over 3,000 people from its major industry, where there are over 3,000 people on unemployment insurance in a community of 19,000 people, it's almost impossible to sustain that kind of unemployment. I would urge the minister to forgive the deficit at West Coast General Hospital for this year, and to allow them to proceed to provide a quality health service during the coming year without any further layoffs, which would impair the whole community in Alberni.

What I am saying is that we have to get people back to work. We have to make sure that those people have sufficient disposable income that they can stimulate demand for goods

[ Page 5386 ]

and services and the provision of goods and services in their communities.

The last problem I want to deal with is how you deal with a sick economy. You develop some long-term program to restore it to health. In doing that, I think you have to address some of these supply-side issues: helping to reduce some of the costs that are imposed on business, so that they can be much more competitive; helping to reduce the energy costs — we think that's a laudable move; helping to reduce the tax costs and make them more realistic — provided other provincial responsibilities don't suffer in the process. That too is a laudable move. With those provisos, we would support those types of long-term programs to improve the health of the economy.

But we cannot develop a long-term strategy in this province unless we consult the people in industry, in labour, on both sides of this House, in every region of the province — among all groups in the province. Otherwise we will develop no credible strategy. It cannot be done in the back rooms of government offices. It cannot be done in the smoky rooms of cabinet. It has to be done out there in British Columbia, out there in the regions. That's how it happened before.

This budget represents a line of demarcation, as one of the speakers pointed out today. The thing this budget really marks is the fact that we've come to the end of the blueprint that was originally developed in the late 1940s. That blueprint, as I pointed out before, was put together by the Postwar Rehabilitation Council. We have discussed that before in this Legislature, Mr. Speaker. The government of the day back in 1942 put together this economic rehabilitation council, and it was made up of people from all political parties: Liberals, Conservatives, including Conservatives who were about to become Social Crediters — W.A.C. Bennett served on that — and CCFers who were in the House at the time. Harold Winch, Dorothy Steeves and, I think, Colin Cameron from Vancouver Island served on that committee. It was an all-party committee. The government of the day respected the opposition in the Legislature of British Columbia. It respected the views of the opposition, and it knew how to solicit positive information from the opposition of the day by getting them working together in a problem-solving situation.

That rehabilitation council travelled all over this province, to every community and every region. It talked to every economic interest group and every industry. Its report included discussions of agriculture, forestry, railway and highway infrastructure and education. I've mentioned this to the Premier before — quotes from his own father. All of these things were dealt with in the report of the Postwar Rehabilitation Council, and as I pointed out, that document became the blueprint for the economy of this province all through the 20 great years, right up through the 1970s.

What we've seen in the last little while, with the wallowing of this government's economic program, with the lurching from one megaproject to the next, with its failure to define a vision of an economic future for British Columbia and the uncertainty that results from that, is the end of that blueprint and the Premier's failure to develop a new one. That's why we say that for the long-term health of the economy in British Columbia, after you've dealt with the problem of unemployment, after you've dealt with the problem of poverty and welfare, after you've got the economy back on its feet, then you start dealing with the long-term concerns. You can only do that by consulting with all of the people in British Columbia.

That's why we on this side of the House have made that positive suggestion to put together a council, an all-party committee on economic reconstruction, a committee that would travel the length and breadth of this province and consult with every affected group. It would talk to every community, every region, every school board, every industry, to find out what their future needs, requirements and aspirations are, and to put their information together in a comprehensive blueprint that can carry this province through the next 30 years. That's a desperate necessity right now. This budget has no time horizon beyond three years from now. Nobody in this province can look at this budget and believe with any certainty whatsoever that they will have a job or that their children will have a job beyond that three-year horizon, because this budget becomes void at that point, vacant. It makes no statement about what is going to happen in this province beyond the end of Expo and the end of the tax provisions that are provided for in this budget.

Mr. Speaker, we desperately need a government that has that kind of vision of the future of British Columbia, a government that's willing to at least put that kind of vision of the future together so that the people of the province of British Columbia can have some certainty about the future, some stability of policy, stability of labour relations and continuity of educational programs. It's absolutely necessary that people in British Columbia have that so that we can carry on and become a successful province again, so that we can be a have province again, so that British Columbians can stand up proudly, shoulder to shoulder with other Canadians, and say: "We're proud of the contribution that we make to the national economy." British Columbians can't say that right now.

I support this amendment because the budget neglects a number of things. It neglects a provision for creating more employment in the province, for creating adequate employment in the province. It doesn't provide for methods to stop the bleeding of this economy, to stop the increase in the public debt and the runaway deficits. It doesn't have any provision whatsoever to do those kinds of things into the future. It doesn't have any provision to restore the quality of our government services, education and other services to people in this province. I have to vote in favour of this amendment, Mr. Speaker, because the budget does not deal with those things. The people of the province of British Columbia are demanding that we be here and that we deal with those things.

HON. A. FRASER: I have had some things to say during the old session and at the start of the new one, but mostly regarding legislation, on which you're rather confined. I guess you're really confined in discussing this motion as well, but not too badly. I want to say, in case I forget, that I'm not in favour of the motion.

I might also say that I'm highly honoured to follow the new Leader of the Opposition — I now want to hand out some bouquets. First of all, as I said, I haven't had the opportunity, and I want to congratulate the new Leader of the Opposition on his being elected last June. You fooled them all, and I congratulate you very much for that. I also want to say that I give you a lot of credit for bringing a different atmosphere to this place. I say that sincerely. You cleared up a big problem that this Legislature had by assuming the job you have.

I'd like to congratulate some new ministers, starting with the Minister of International Trade — Skies [laughter] — and Investment (Hon. Mr. Phillips), my great colleague and

[ Page 5387 ]

friend. I would like to congratulate the new Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. McClelland), and, of course, new colleagues in the cabinet, the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Pelton) and the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Segarty).

[3:00]

MR. NICOLSON: Parliamentary secretaries.

HON. A. FRASER: Oh, I'm coming to them. I also wish them well, my old and new colleagues in cabinet. I always get a kick when MLAs come to the cabinet. Before that they think they worked right down to the quick of their fingernails. About two weeks after they've been in the cabinet they find out really what it's all about and how much work you really have to put in. So it's always interesting to see the new blood and the new life.

Back to the new Leader of the Opposition. I'm very disappointed: he took off so fast. I would give him a little bit of advice. The people of British Columbia don't really want to hear about Manitoba, Sweden or Australia. They want to hear from him how we solve the problems we have here. We have a lot of people out of work, and all the members of this House should be concerned about that.

Back to the parliamentary secretaries. I want to congratulate them all, and I look forward to getting lots of work and mileage out of them. I'm particularly happy that the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) is going to help me. I look forward to working with him.

I don't want to miss all the thank-you's here. I also want to congratulate the — I don't know how you refer to him, really — MLA from Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) on leaving the NDP and forming a new party called the United Party. I thought one of the best shots taken in this session so far was what the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) thought of the new United Party. He said he wished them well, and as long as nobody joined it he was sure they'd stay united. I feel the same way: I'm pretty sure they will stay united. I think he's got his membership up to its maximum right now.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

Another thing has happened since I have been able to get a place to speak in the House. We're all Canadians, and we have a new national government elected on September 4, and we should be thankful for that. I would just say that Canadians wanted a change and they sure got one.

Dealing with our province, we have 28 MPS, 19 of them on the government benches and nine not on the government benches. We should — our Premier has said this — be informing them all the time about what's going on in British Columbia so they can help get our province recognized in a national government. In my opinion, we have a little better chance of being acknowledged as a province and part of Canada in the new government than we had in the old, for the simple political reason that we have members in the national government to take our message to them. I might say that, as a minister of this government, I've been to Ottawa and have met with the PC caucus, and so have a lot of our other ministers. We certainly extend that we're trying to cooperate with them, and they're trying to cooperate with us. That's a way better attitude than we've had and got used to.

Something that I don't hear very often in this House when I'm throwing compliments around is our Premier and leader of our province. I very rarely hear bouquets sent out about him, but I want to tell you this, Mr. Speaker: they're well deserved. No man or woman works harder than our Premier to better the lot of all British Columbians. To lead a government through these difficult times is no easy task.

MR. NICOLSON: He led us into them.

HON. A. FRASER: No, that is not correct. This is a world situation, we're all in it and we all have to get out of it. But our Premier spares no time. He's actually a workaholic: he works all the time, from daylight to dark. He travels, he communicates. I heard the Leader of the Opposition say that we've got to communicate. Well, our Premier will communicate anytime, anywhere, and he's busy doing that all the time.

As far as his being the leader of our government is concerned, when you hear individual ministers getting hammered, that's a government policy, and that policy was discussed by all the government members; a consensus was reached that it would be government policy. I don't think the general public understands that. Our Premier is a constant attender of caucus and of cabinet. He never misses, if at all possible, and I think we're very fortunate to have this great Canadian leading our province at this difficult time.

When the next cabinet shuffle comes along, I hope the Premier will remember this little talk and what I said.

I would now like to send out compliments to some other colleagues that I have high regard for, and I'll start with the Minister of Finance, again a dedicated person who works hard. He has a really difficult job when revenues keep declining and expenditures keep climbing. He's also a man of his word. Last year the Minister of Finance toured the whole province and listened to citizens on what could be done to spur economic renewal. He carried out as much as he possibly could in the budget that he delivered here on March 14, and believe me, that's a lot of hard work. That started last September and culminated in the budget. I want to pay him a compliment for his dedication and hard work — and also his staff, of course.

I will have a few things to say about the news media, but first I want to say that the Financial Post feels the same way about our Minister of Finance and have said so in one of their leading editorials, which is post-dated March 23. I'll just read a few excerpts from that editorial:

"British Columbia Finance Minister Hugh Curtis, whatever one may think of his earlier budgets, has the priorities right in the one he read last week. 'Unemployment in British Columbia is recognized as our major problem,' he said. That was not an admission to be found in earlier budgets when restraint was the order, not jobs. Restraint has done its job — the unemployed would say it has done it too well — and Curtis now has a much more appropriate focus: 'to accelerate the growth in the number of permanent jobs."'

I would think that's an independent view of the budget from people in other parts of Canada, and I was happy to see that.

Regarding the budget itself, Mr. Speaker, the citizens don't understand it, and it's difficult for us. The budget is $9 billion — not million, billion — in expenditures and $8 billion in revenues, and the government has actually budgeted for an $890 million, I think it is, deficit. We should all be concerned about that. I am amazed when I hear the opposition hollering for more money for this, more money

[ Page 5388 ]

for that, but they never tell us where the money is coming from. Everybody wants money but you've got to decide where you're going to get it from. These are things that we have to be concerned about.

The other emphasis in the budget is to try and give tax relief to small and large businesses. Of course, new machinery and equipment is immediately taken off the tax rolls, and I emphasize new. Certainly this should give a better investment climate if the tax that's on now is phased out over a period of time. Basically, the philosophy of the government is to create an atmosphere so that the private sector in the greater part will create the jobs that our citizens so badly need.

I don't think it's pointed out often enough that the priorities of our government are the social services. Sixty-five cents of every dollar of that $9 billion budget goes to four ministries of government; the rest have to climb around for the balance. The four ministries are Attorney-General, Health, Education and Human Resources. In the case of the Attorney-General, I think that budget is up slightly; in Education it's maybe up a little. Health is up slightly, and Human Resources is up. We shouldn't lose sight of the fact that of every dollar the taxpayer sends us, 65 cents goes out to these four ministries — what we like to refer to as the social service ministries.

MR. LAUK: With so many people unemployed, Alex, no wonder your welfare rates are up, for goodness' sake.

HON. A. FRASER: At least in the budget — if you'd bothered to read it, and I'm sure you haven't — we're trying to create jobs for the unfortunate people who are unemployed.

Another remark I have to make here.... Presently it makes good press and good news in question period to go after my colleagues and friends the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) and the Minister of Universities (Hon. Mr. McGeer). I want to remind everyone listening that what they're doing is a job for all the people of B.C., to carry out government policy, not their policy. I see the press say "Heinrich this" and "Heinrich that." It's government policy. It's the same with the universities. Believe me, I feel very sorry for some of the professors. But they're going on to better fields, and they left a fairly paid job. I have a hard time when I go to my riding of Cariboo, where today the loggers are working in seven feet of snow to make $25,000 gross a year. I have a hard time convincing them that a university professor quit when his salary was $120,000. They'd take a run at me with a logging truck, I'll tell you. And they work from 3 o'clock in the morning until 7 o'clock at night to earn their money.

Mr. Speaker, we're living in such a negative society, it seems. We always talk about unemployment and the unemployed people — and we should talk about that — but why talk 100 percent? In British Columbia today approximately 85 percent of our citizens are employed, and 15 percent unfortunately are not. But we never talk about the ones who are employed. I think we should give a hand to them once in a while and thank them very much for their labours.

[3:15]

Just a bit on my own riding. The Cariboo riding is large and extensive. I guess that at least 50 percent of the economy is forestry, and we have a big beef production segment. I would say that most of the forestry people work around the clock all winter. They had a successful winter. They didn't
belly-ache; they went out to work: they logged, they sawed and they shipped lumber, and, thank you very much, they were quite busy. I'm not saying there's no unemployment in the Cariboo, but, believe me, when I read the stories that are written about the coast industry, I'm proud of the interior forest operators. The press is really closer to the coast than they are to the interior, and they never cover it. But they should go up there and hear some success stories of people working all the time and making money as well.

But we have a few problems with forestry — and I'm glad the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) is here. We hear all this bunkum and so on in the press, and we certainly have to have more reforestation. But the biggest problem in forestry in the interior is the beetle infestation. It's a bigger problem than reforestation, and our operators are doing their best about it. The only thing I would like to say to the Minister of Forests is that the bugs are on the move, they're eating the forests up — millions of acres — and I wish the red tape could be cut to put this bug-infested timber up to bidder so they'll get in there, log it, and get it out of there. That's what they want to do. Sure, there's some of it going on, but I'm saying that it has to be expedited, because if we don't catch the timber infested by the pine beetle within the next 12 months we might as well forget it; it will be useless in 12 months' time. In other words, a lot of speed is required.

I want to touch briefly on beef production. As you know, in the Cariboo they're famous for their stampedes, their cattle ranches and so. I would remind the Legislature, Mr. Speaker, that they ship 50,000 head of beef cattle to market every fall. They're the biggest bull-shippers in western Canada, and they're quite proud of it. Right now there are small problems. We have wolves eating cattle. We don't need any Paul Watsons up there, I'll tell you. I was home the other day, and one thing they said emphatically was that they needed professional guidance, but they would be able to handle the wolves, thank you very much. But it is a problem.

Back to Transportation and Highways. I want to tell you that we've come through what I call an old-style winter. Snow-ploughing — I want to pay tribute to the employees of the Highways ministry who snowplough around the clock all winter long. As I said earlier, in some places today we have ten feet of snow on the level. We haven't got daffodils and green grass. I want to pay them the greatest respect. Regardless of weather, time, holidays or whatever, they're out there to make our road system safer for our citizens.

I'm glad that at least one member from the city of Victoria is in the House. I'm reminded that between Christmas and New Year's, you know, they had a real snowfall here in the great capital city of Victoria. They'll probably say I quoted the wrong depth, but it was 10 to 11 inches, and it was pretty serious for the motorists, who all had summer tires on that were worn out. But it was still a dangerous situation. You know, in the little alcove of Victoria.... Believe me, I was just amazed. The city of Victoria's mayor was asked what he was going to do about the streets — and this city of Victoria mayor is aspiring to be the Premier of British Columbia. You know what he said when he had about three miles of snowploughing to do — not 30,000 miles, three miles? He said: "We haven't got any snowploughs." And he says that our Premier's a poor manager.

I'm going to tell you, Mr. Speaker, it is a real joke. What he didn't say was that he could have hired people that had lots of equipment and made his streets safe, but he didn't do it.

And why didn't he do it? Because I've got to assume they've

[ Page 5389 ]

wasted tax money on things and forgotten about their street system. It was dangerous, and it stayed that way for a whole week. That's this excellent manager, who wants to be the Premier of British Columbia. What a bunch of nonsense!

The other thing.... You know, they're always complaining from Daffodil Island here — I call it Fantasy Island. Victoria has the best-looked-after taxpayers in British Columbia, by any government, regardless who they are. Do you know, Mr. Speaker, that they're complaining all the time? They want more, more, more from government. You know what they've got, Mr. Speaker? Something that any and every community in Canada and British Columbia would love to have: they've got 14,000 public servants here. What a payroll! A clean payroll, and they complain and they want more. You know, they might be able to fool some of the people some of the time, but not all of the people all of the time. They've got it real good, I'll tell you.

Dealing with the Coquihalla.... I'll have to be careful dealing with that, but between it and Annacis there are 4,000 people out there at work today — not promises. And you people on the other side say we need job creation now and for the future. Well, we have at least tried that, as well as having tried to give the private sector incentives to hire. But we're hiring as well. Those 4,000 people wouldn't be working today if it wasn't for this government stepping up the construction of these two badly needed facilities to give us a permanent and better transportation system in our province so we can be more competitive in the world market that we have to live from — our exports.

Interjection.

HON. A. FRASER: That was brought up the other day. I hadn't noticed him in the House, but I think he's the member for Okanagan North (Mr. MacWilliam). He tried to do a little twisting the other day. He's a typical NDP twister, and he said, regarding the Coquihalla: "What about the length of the Okanagan?" Well, I'll tell you what about it. We're building the Coquihalla from Hope to Merritt, from Merritt to Kamloops, from Merritt to Peachland, and from Peachland to Vernon. How do you like those apples? That little fellow can take that home and make a meaty event of it, you know.

Interjection.

HON. A. FRASER: Never mind. One thing I can assure that second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) that had a sabbatical for too long.... He's out of touch; I found that out. He had about an eight-year sabbatical, I think, from the Legislature. But I'm going to tell him that at least the citizens know that when we're government, they're going to get it. They know that under the NDP, regarding roads, all they got was potholes filled with snow.

I want to deal a little with the press. At least we have some of them here. We've got real problems with the media. I think they're even a bigger drawback to the province of British Columbia than the NDP are. I have some suggestions to you, Mr. Speaker: take all this electrical junk out of here, this Hansard stuff. Take it out. Throw it away. Be sure, though, that those other people.... These fine people that run it; I've nothing against them. Take it out and throw it away. When I first came here none of this fancy Dan stuff was here. When a speech was made by any MLA, regardless of party, those reporters up there were in the press gallery where they belong. They don't have to be any more, because of this fancy Dan stuff. What they do now is go and sleep; then they promise themselves they'll wake up and read Hansard, but they never do. They complain about the days we sit and everything, you know. Why don't they tell the public that they sit and cover this Legislature, this great capital of democracy, 15 minutes of every day — question period. No wonder they don't know how to report to the citizens of British Columbia — fifteen minutes coverage every day!

Interjection.

HON. A. FRASER: Yes, they get well paid too, that's right. And then when we want to get a little increase, they're all down on us like a ton of bricks.

Interjections.

HON. A. FRASER: Am I just about finished? I haven't even started my speech. Can't I be appointed the designated speaker? Anyway, what I wanted to say.... How long have I got?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Your time is up, Mr. Minister.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: With leave? Carry on, then, Mr. Minister.

HON. A. FRASER: The other day the member for Atlin attacked one of the reporters. I think that was terrible. He attacked one of the lady reporters for knitting. I just want to tell the member for Atlin: you made a grave mistake. The lady was knitting, but, you know, Mr. Member, she doesn't knit with her ears; she can listen. A lot of ladies are pretty mad at you, because a lot of ladies like to knit and listen. This particular reporter is a veteran. I just want to say to her: just carry on the same way and don't pay any attention to the member for Atlin. I want to give you a little secret about this reporter, Mr. Speaker: she's a real good race track handicapper.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, Mr. Minister. There is wide scope of debate allowed in the budget debate, but possibly....

HON. A. FRASER: Well, okay, I was dealing with the press, because they're the ones giving the message about the budget, you see.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Could you direct your comments to the budget and to the amendment to the main motion, please?

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I have another observation about the media that I think is quite important, but....

Back to transportation systems. These people talk about northeast coal, inferring to the Premier today that it was our fault that they drilled in the wrong place. I want to tell you something, Mr. Speaker. Through the northeast coal project we have a whole new transportation system, from Tumbler Ridge out to Prince Rupert. We now have a second world port in Prince Rupert, generated by northeast coal.

[ Page 5390 ]

[3:30]

In 1984 the BCR carried 55,000 carloads of coal and 150,000 carloads of lumber. I don't think these people over there will ever understand, but it diversifies what they have to haul. They ended up making a profit of $40 million. What's wrong with that? What are you bad-mouthing projects like northeast coal for? There are 3,500 people gainfully employed in that community.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. LOCKSTEAD: You're throwing $700 million worth of taxpayers' money down the wrong hole.

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, to that member, you were told today what was put in there and how it's coming back, for the first time ever. They won't believe all that stuff.

I want to get back to the press for a minute, though. The press never work on the weekends, and I can't understand that. They're a Monday-to-Friday bunch. Do you know what we have to listen to in British Columbia? All weekend, because they're not working, we have to listen to the war in Iran and Iraq. I don't see why we can't get some B.C. news. These great managers of the press.... These editors employ these hard-working reporters. I have nothing against these reporters; they're fine people. But their bosses, they think they're so smart and know everything. Why can't they stagger their reporters so they cover the news seven days a week? We politicians all work seven-day weeks. They can on a staggered basis as well.

There's one other thing about the press that I'd like to note, Mr. Speaker, and then I'll get back to the essence of my talk. Do you know that in this great province of British Columbia, on Saturday morning in the largest city in our province, the city of Vancouver, you can't get a Saturday morning paper published and produced in British Columbia, but you can get one from Toronto. You can get one in Victoria, but you can't in Vancouver. Can you believe that? At 6 o'clock in the morning you can get the Globe and Mail in Vancouver, and you've got to wait until almost noon to get the.... I forget the name of the paper published and printed here — the Vancouver Sun, I think it is. Now isn't that really something? The press serving the public of British Columbia! You've got to get a paper from Toronto — and boy, they give good B.C. news, I'm telling you. You really get up to date when you read them.

I just say to the citizens of British Columbia, Mr. Speaker, that I haven't much time for political holiness, I guess. Gossip-mongers! I just say to the great public of British Columbia: consider the source. Don't necessarily buy it all. Consider the source that it came from.

I want to close now and just say a bit about the press. We've got it on the front page every day about the bankruptcies, but I don't see on any pages in the paper how many new businesses started. I wonder why. I call that Negative Nelly stuff. I'm going to tell you, our citizens generally are pretty fed up with it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Fancy Dan and Negative Nelly.

HON. A. FRASER: That's right.

In closing, I hadn't mentioned, but I will, the provincial municipal sharing problem — partnership. Our Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Ritchie) is out there promoting that; I hear he's having a lot of success, as I'm sure we will have, from our municipal people, to again create pride and create jobs. The same thing with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Rogers) ; he has announced that we'll have cheaper electricity for inducing new business to start.

I appreciate the time I've had, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the audience. I just want to sit down and remind you all that I won't be voting for this motion.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, I'm rising to support the amendment put up by the official opposition, but before I do I would like to comment on the minister who just took his seat. It's a little bit of a difficult act to follow. I'm afraid I am going to have some doom and gloom in my speech, because those are the facts that exist in British Columbia today. But before I leave the minister, I couldn't help thinking as I listened to him.... And he is a very charming, folksy, affable person — and I say that with all sincerity; I have known him many years — and we all appreciate that. At the same time, I could not help thinking as I listened to the folksy little talk that we were just given about how everything is wonderful in B.C., so let's all be happy: where have I heard that kind of thing before? I was reminded of someone who happens now to hold the position of the presidency of the United States, President Reagan, who is known to be very charming personally and very folksy. But he has presided over some of the most dangerous policies we've ever seen in the history of this world.

The minister who took his seat — and I regret I have to say this, to some degree, but I feel very strongly about it — has also presided over what I consider to be one of the most dangerous policies brought in by his government. That is the policy of his.... And this refers to the budget and to my particular area, about which I'm going to go into detail in a few minutes, the whole area of hospitals. That minister presided over the removal of the testing stations for cars in the province of British Columbia. That minister presided over a policy which will increase accidents and deaths in the province of British Columbia. That is the kind of dangerous policy which has come from that minister. In debate we have to put aside our own personal likes or — hopefully not — dislikes of any members in this House, because by and large we have gotten to know each other, but, Mr. Speaker, I have to put that aside and say to that minister who just took his seat: you must bring back car testing before the accidents in B.C. are increased far more than they ever should be.

I know that the minister will be able to trot out statistics during his estimates which perhaps may show not a great increase in accidents and deaths, maybe, since he removed the testing station. You know the only reason, Mr. Speaker, is that because of the Socred restraint policy there are fewer and fewer cars on the roads of British Columbia. That is the only thing that saved you at this time. But as soon as the economy improves — hopefully soon, but we don't have much hope from looking at this budget — then we will have more cars on the highway. And I can assure you that his dangerous policy of removing car testing is going to bring about some very serious accidents and deaths in the province of British Columbia.

So I get a little tired of the folksy, happy little "let's not be doom-and-gloom people" when I think of some of the policies that have been brought in by this Social Credit government. We are not only talking about the doom and gloom; we are also going to present what we consider positive policies.

[ Page 5391 ]

The particular area that I've been given as debate leader in health is hospitals, and I will discuss that today. Following me, the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) will talk about his area of health dealing with medicare and medical premiums; he's also going to deal with a very specific issue which I will not divulge now to keep everyone in suspense. It's something that I'm sure will be worth while for people to stay and listen to. Tomorrow we will hear on health matters from the member for Burnaby-Edmonds, who will be dealing with community health and prevention aspects of the health-care system. But I want to get down to some of the facts of what happened with the Socred restraint policy in reference to health.

Mr. Speaker, we have a major crisis in health care in the province of B.C., for two reasons: one, the Socred restraint program; and two, the fact that the whole health care system in British Columbia needs to be restructured. We have ideas on how that could be done which will be brought up throughout this session and today.

Let's look at what has happened to the hospitals of British Columbia under the so-called.... They call it a restraint program. As somebody said, it seems some of this was done strictly on an ideological basis to appear tough; that's what we understand. Let's see just what has happened.

In talking to people out in the health field, there's unanimous concern that in 1985 we're going to see a repeat of 1982, when the Socreds first brought in their massive cutbacks. Twelve hundred hospital beds were closed in the province, and 3,000 full-time jobs were lost. The important thing to remember is that none of the hospitals in British Columbia has been able to bring back to any degree the standards they had in 1982. At the same time, because of the economy, the restraints placed upon the citizens of British Columbia and the increasing number of people who are out of work — our leader went through some of those statistics — we have more and more stress on our citizens, more and more illness. Yet the government that brought in the policies which created much of this stress is at the same time closing beds in hospitals and cutting back on services to them.

At this particular time, I regret to say, the need for psychiatric services in the province has increased tremendously. I think we all know that in families where people are out of work we are getting an increase in cases of child abuse, family violence, general nervous and complete breakdowns; yet Social Credit is cutting down beds. Victoria's Royal Jubilee Hospital, for example, said that they had an increase of 35 percent in their hospital unit cases for child sex abuse, yet the nursing staff and beds to cope with this are all being cut.

It's a list of horror stories. We saw another story in this morning's newspaper: "Hospital axes 85."

"Shaughnessy Hospital has taken a scalpel to the jobs of 85 health-care workers.

"At the top of the casualty list is the Vancouver hospital's kidney dialysis unit, which is being phased out as part of an effort to make up a $400,000 budget deficit."

What fear is going to be struck in the hearts of people who have families or relatives who need this? At the same time, right across the province psychiatric beds are being closed right and left — not only in the lower mainland but in many areas of the interior also.

We have word from the Vancouver General Hospital that their very effective — and B.C.'s only — adolescent psychiatric unit will be closed down for seven weeks in the summer to save money. Most of the hospitals in British Columbia are under orders from the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) to get their deficits down. You can't run on a deficit — that's his policy. But the policies of the Social Credit government, as I pointed out earlier, are the ones that are causing these hospitals to increase their deficits. The Minister of Health is taking the same strategy and tactics as the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich). He's sending tough, hard letters out to the hospital boards in British Columbia, saying: "You have to do this, you have to do that; you've just got to learn to operate. Times are tough." Times are tough, yes, and the hospitals know it. I can assure you that they, like the school boards of British Columbia, have been working exceptionally hard to try to do what they can with what they've been given. But every time they think they're going to get ahead, out come letters telling them that they'd better smarten up, that they're going to have different groups sent out to check on them.

[3:45]

Mr. Speaker, your own area of Prince George was in a very serious situation. I know that you are aware of all the details of that: not being able to handle people, hundreds of people waiting for elective surgery, shortage of beds, staff, etc. It wasn't until that hit the newspaper headlines, and until you as an MLA, the other MLA and others had to finally get involved in it, that some action was taken. But why did it have to reach such tragic proportions? I'm sure it did cause tragedy for many people in that area. I understand there was some alleviation. But there's never going to be a satisfactory situation until a number of things are done. That is the area that I want to talk about. But before I get on to some of our positive suggestions, I think we have to get some of the areas of cutbacks and just what they mean on the record.

Kelowna General Hospital, in the Premier's own riding, has been ordered to chop $1 million from its budget. There are major cutbacks at the Royal Columbian Hospital. I know that the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke), who has the Royal Columbian in his riding and is speaking next, will certainly go into detail on that. As I said before, no hospitals have returned to the pre-1982 level. They say that any more cutbacks will be made in the bones of what they were operating on last year. Hundreds of hospital beds are still closed: Royal Jubilee, Vancouver General, Burnaby — my own area — Campbell River, Prince George, to name some.

MR. WILLIAMS: How many?

MRS. DAILLY: The total number of beds? They were reaching over 2,000. I don't know what the present situation is. Some have been able to bring some down, but I want to emphasize that it has not come back to even what it was in 1982.

There are increases in the elective surgery waiting list. Prince George tops it with 2,000 people. Can you imagine the trauma of sitting out there, if you're going in for, say, a.... Well, that reminds me; I actually had a man in my riding phone me and say he had been diagnosed as having a brain tumour and was going to have to wait six months to get in. I can't believe it. Of course, we checked. But that was the situation at that time. Fortunately, I think, he was able to be speeded up. But a lot of people don't think of going to MLAs.

[ Page 5392 ]

They don't realize.... And I don't think it's fair, anyway, because there are thousands out there who have been waiting. To start to use the pressure of one or two people for preferential treatment is not fair. Yet MLAs are there to serve the people who come to them. Some of the trauma that people go through, waiting for elective surgery, is indescribable. And here are 2,000 waiting in Prince George. In Kelowna there are 1,500 people waiting for elective surgery. In Kamloops the waiting list has increased to six months. All the hospitals — the majority of them, anyway — are experiencing overcrowding.

Hospitals are seeing an increase — and this is interesting — in staff illness. There are higher stress levels due to fewer staff and more work, and heavier pressure on existing staff. These are things that we found out just in talking to some administrators and some staff people. The WCB figures between 1978 and 1982 show an increase of 32 percent in the number of back-injury claims by health care workers.

On top of all that, I think one of the most ill-conceived and cruel things done by the Social Credit government in health care has been the move to increase the user fees. When the economy is down, to then, on top of that, impose on people a weekly amount of money, which they are asked for as soon as they turn up at the hospital now.... If they're going to spend a week in the hospital, or even less, they're asked to hand over so much money now. It has been increased by this government almost twice a year. You know what's happening in the hospitals? They're in trouble for having deficits. Yet they say people are showing up who are without medicare premiums, without coverage, because there are so many young unemployed out there who are not even aware of the fact that they're not covered any more.

Many more people on UIC and welfare recipients are unable to pay the money asked for a deposit. I know that no hospital will turn anyone away, but I've said before that we're turning citizens again into two classes of patients: those who have the money to come into the hospital and those who don't. That's why medicare, hospitalization, the universality idea and accessibility was brought in in the first place. But the Social Credit government seems determined to take us right back to the way it was in pre-medicare days.

As for user fees being a deterrent, which I understand is the basic reason the Social Credit government imposes them and keeps increasing them, I would like to quote to you from research done by the Ontario Economic Council, which found that user or deterrent fees neither deter people from using health services nor reduce the costs of such services. The study done was called "Controlling Health Care Costs by Direct Charges to Patients: Snare or a Delusion?" They concluded that user fees only put more money into provincial treasuries or into the hands of doctors and insurance companies.

Well, Mr. Speaker, we have tried over and over again in this House to convince the Social Credit government that they should definitely be decreasing and finally working towards elimination of all user fees today. But instead of accepting that and their responsibility to do that, we find that this government is increasing them.

On top of that, they are going against the Canada Health Act. Mr. Speaker, you are well aware that we debated this in the House last year. Under the new Canada Health Act amendments, as you and most members of the House are aware, any province that abridges the universality and accessibility features of medicare will be fined. I believe that to date the province of British Columbia is paying out over $2 million a month, or has been fined that by the federal government, because they insist on maintaining user fees. So there is money that should not be taken out of this province for that particular reason. I believe that the Social Credit government is doing it either from an ideological thing that everybody must keep paying, whether they pay taxes or not, or because they actually believe it's a deterrent. I just hope, Mr. Speaker, that somehow or other some of the members on that side of the House will try to convince their cabinet and the Minister of Health that these user fees are not a deterrent. What they are doing is causing, again, a lot of concern and unhappiness for the people who arrive at hospitals now and are beginning to feel like second-class citizens.

It's many of these areas, Mr. Speaker, which are causing major concern to the NDP I want to remind the House also that at the same time that these user fees are being collected.... The Minister of Health informed the House, of course, when the bill came in.... I think it was the Minister of Finance who brought it in, the new Health Maintenance Tax Act that is now bringing in over $160 million annually out of the pockets of the taxpayers of British Columbia because we're told by the Minister of Health that they simply are not getting enough money from that awful federal government.

Mind you, they've been awfully quiet since the Liberals were defeated, and we have a new federal government. It's funny, I really haven't heard the Minister of Health complain about that awful Tory government, and yet I understand that those moneys are being deducted every month from the province of British Columbia by that new government, which happens to be a Tory government. I think it will be very interesting to find out what is going to result from that. Will the honeymoon between the provincial and the federal party continue when it gets really right down to money and money being taken away from the coffers of the central treasury of the B.C. government?

Mr. Speaker, I am particularly concerned about the way the province of British Columbia is really abusing the taxpayers when it comes to increased health taxes, and yet at the same time is continuing to be penalized. They're doing it on purpose, apparently, because of ideological policies of their own.

What bothers us most, I suppose, is not only the restraint policies and the terrible effects it's had on the province and the people of British Columbia, but we're also concerned that the Ministry of Health does not seem to have made any attempt to find ways of reducing health costs. There are little closed-door meetings going on with the doctors. I always find that very interesting, Mr. Speaker. All the people of B.C. are responsible for the payment of the doctors, yet we are never privy — none of us — to what goes on behind those closed doors. All we are told is to sort of be nice little children: "Don't ask any questions. We have arranged it and met with the doctors, and a new situation has developed between us." But we're never clued in. It's apparently not up to us to ask how this was arrived at. Is it to the benefit of the people of British Columbia? That's the question. How do we know? We don't know what goes on behind the closed doors.

Speaking of doctors, it leads me to the next point I want to bring up about the whole area of restructuring our health system. I have not seen any major attempt by the Social Credit government to look seriously at ways of reducing the costs. The NDP believes that you have to restructure the

[ Page 5393 ]

whole system if you're going to face what appears to us to be this crisis in health care and in the cost of health care in British Columbia.

[4:00]

We had hoped that the Ministry of Health would by now have been examining alternatives. Some of the alternatives which the NDP would like to see examined — and I know would examine and move on, I'm sure, when they become government.... Number one, they would like to see a far greater effort moved into prevention. We do not see that by this government. By the time a person gets to hospital, the prevention period is over, and it's the critical area. We have said that in the area of alcoholism, the area of lifestyle, all the areas that could prevent many people ending up as patients in the hospital....

We do not feel that this government has made a sincere attempt to move in on this preventive area, particularly when we see that they disbanded the Alcohol and Drug Commission. Can you imagine abandoning that at a time, as I've said many times, when more and more people are being driven to drink in this province? They have abandoned that. They claim that some of the treatment centres are still available. But there is no question about it, the heart of the government seems to be far more interested in accepting the revenues from the distribution of liquor, through the government, than it is in trying to cure and treat the people who use alcohol.

There is absolutely no comparison between the millions and millions of dollars which are taken in by the government through liquor taxes and the sale of liquor, and the little, tiny bit that is spent on prevention and treatment of the alcoholic. I consider that to be an immoral act of government, frankly — that it does not see that it has a grave and great responsibility to do something about the serious effects of alcoholism. Most of the tragedies in homes today, as I dealt with earlier, where we have deaths, accidents and cruelty, are combinations of results of the Socred restraint program — because of unemployment. But they are also usually made even worse, in many cases, by the use of alcohol.

It is becoming increasingly known that this problem is becoming greater every day. I know that the doctors.... I give the Medical Association — the doctors of British Columbia — credit, because I know they are very concerned about what they see as the results of alcoholism. They want some very specific measures taken by this government to do something about it.

At the same time, I would like to pay tribute to the doctors for pushing for the child restraint law, which was first brought up by one of our own members, I believe — or certainly pushed for by the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) several years ago. There was another area where our Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) sat back and stood up.... In fact, he not only sat back; sometimes he stood up in this House and said: "There's no way we're bringing in child restraint." It wasn't until the doctors got into the act and pushed for it that that minister finally changed his mind. That really doesn't say much for a government's philosophy of care for children, when they have to be pushed into doing something which is so beneficial to the children of this province.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

The NDP is also very concerned, as I said, about prevention. We think this government has to restructure their whole health care system with a whole new emphasis on prevention. That means they have to change their priorities. That means a lot more money has to go into prevention than goes into some of the other things which this government considers have priority over that. We've already talked about northeast coal and increased highway construction in some areas, perhaps, where there could be questions at this time, though not all.

I notice that my green light is on, and I have a lot more material. I just want to say that the NDP also believes very strongly in the development of community health clinics, where you can make use of the nursing professionals and the ancillary health people along with salaried doctors. I'm not saying you want to cover the whole province at this time, but I say to the minister, at least give them encouragement to see how they can work in comparison to the system we have now. But that Minister of Health has cut back on them instead of increasing them.

MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, I notice that we've finally emptied the galleries, and the people in the House are staying away in droves, but at least you're here, and that's all that's important.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: We'll bring them back.

MR. VEITCH: We'll bring them back.

I want to congratulate the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. A. Fraser) on his speech. I appreciate the down-to-earth manner in which he gives his presentations in this House. I hope he stays here for many, many years to come. He's one of those fellows who know where the rubber hits the road, and he's always folksy and makes a lot of common sense.

I'm also pleased to listen to the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly). I hope she wouldn't mind if I said that I think she's a good lady — a real good person — but I don't agree with her politically, obviously. She spoke about President Reagan and said that if in some way or other we would be emulating President Reagan we would be doing a bad thing for society. I want to tell you that in my opinion, Mr. Speaker, President Reagan is going to go down in history as one of the best presidents the United States of America has ever had. He wrought an economic miracle in that country, and he did it through one word that a lot of other people don't seem to understand. That word was confidence. He brought confidence back to America, and that's what we need to do here in British Columbia and in Canada.

HON. MR. McGEER: Confidence and free enterprise.

MR. VEITCH: Confidence and free enterprise: they're like different sides of a coin. The member for Burnaby North seemed to be blaming the government for illness or bad weather or something, I suggest in this province we ought to stop blaming each other and push the positive button and get on with doing constructive things. That's what's needed.

The only negative thing I'm going to say is that I reject this amendment, and I think that's probably positive, in the final analysis.

Mr. Speaker, the last time I rose to speak, in the throne speech debate, I was negligent in not complimenting the Leader of the Opposition, who is out doing some other work right now. He has brought a sense of direction to that caucus

[ Page 5394 ]

that was missing. I congratulate him on that and on what he has done for them.

The member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) spoke just a while ago. I think he's been a socialist far too long. He can't change his spots, that fellow. He gets things all mixed up. He's the member I know who has both feet firmly planted in the air. I'm just not sure where he's going, in either direction.

What the socialists fail to realize — and I don't know how many times we have to drive this home — is the difference between potential and value. Marshall Fields, a great merchant in the United States, used to sum it up this way: things very seldom break down from the mines out to the factories or from the factories out to the distributor or from the distributor out to the retailer. Where things break down is that last three feet. It's the distance across the counter that makes the difference; that's where selling is done or not done. That's why we have to have people like the hon. member for South Peace River (Hon. Mr. Phillips) going around selling British Columbia's products. You can have all of that coal in the ground, all the trees in the forests and all of that potential, but it's damn well worthless until you sell it to someone — you take it somewhere. That's what it's all about.

MR. BLENCOE: Dig the right hole.

MR. VEITCH: You're digging your own hole, hon. member. You'll see next time around. Just keep it up. Why don't you quit when you're behind?

The Leader of the Opposition talked about a reduced tax base for the educational budget, as a result of taking away the non-residential property side of the thing and giving benefits on that. Again, what he doesn't realize is the potential of new investment. We're talking about new investment; it's money we haven't got yet. Those people who are working in those new industries will be paying income tax; they'll be putting money back into the coffers. That's the way the thing works, and that's the economics we're practising here.

I don't know if you remember, Mr. Speaker, the story of the candle, the little poem that says: "I bum my candle at both ends; It may not last the night, But oh, my friends and oh, my foes, It makes a lovely light." That's what it's all about. You just can't do those things. Government aid and pure government aid, which they seem to be propounding all the time, is like giving yourself a blood transfusion from the left arm to the right and spilling two-thirds on the way over. That's the process. I don't know how often we have to tell them.

What the government has done to the business community, to the free-enterprisers, is that they've issued a challenge. I know that the people in the business community are going to accept that challenge, and we're going to be better off for it here in British Columbia.

MR. BLENCOE: You said that two years ago.

MR. VEITCH: And we'll say it again this year and again next year, because it's true, hon. member.

It's my pleasure to rise in support of the budget speech and to reject the amendment. This budget was put together with a maximum of responsibility and responsiveness, common sense and foresight. It provides the positive framework needed for the cooperative partnership for the economic renewal now underway in British Columbia.

MR. COCKE: Where?

MR. VEITCH: Keep looking, hon. member. If you look past the cynicism you'll see it happening. Don't kid yourself; it'll happen in spite of the NDP.

This budget provides clear proof of the Social Credit government's determination to meet the challenge of a rapidly evolving global economy. We're in a new economy; things are never going to be the same again. Our commitment extends, in full strength, to our province's small business and to our people who are seeking the training necessary to ensure them productive and meaningful jobs within a free society. This budget means far more than numbers; it unfolds a vision of British Columbia as a renewed partner in a vibrant world, and a competitor in that world meeting all comers. That's what we're talking about. It underlines our conviction that British Columbia's small businesses and well-trained new professionals can creatively generate new economic growth. It sends forth the strong message that this government is working hard in partnership with business and labour to make sure British Columbians are prepared for the new careers opening up, and that there will be private companies there to hire them — real permanent jobs.

The goal of our own enhanced and renewed economic strength can't be achieved through shortcuts and short-term measures. All the make-work projects and government intervention can never replace the basics of incentive investment, productivity, efficiency, salesmanship and profit. There's no escape from the real world — not for small business, students or any of us. In this budget we discuss a vision of what hard work and taking chances can achieve. It's the stuff that brings dreams to reality.

In this budget the government has provided incentives for existing businesses to grow and for new ones to stake a claim in the marketplace. It has also reaffirmed its commitment to ensuring that all interested British Columbians may acquire new skills and upgrade to the existing training necessary to take full advantage of the increasing demand for specially qualified individuals. The effect of the budget and the government's efforts to renew the confidence of business and students in themselves and in the future will appear gradually. As with a tidal wave, a powerful economic stimulus travels undetected beneath the waves until it hits the shore with the roar of new economic growth, and that will happen in British Columbia very soon.

Look below the border. I spoke of President Reagan. The Reagan legislation passed in the first days of 1980 significantly led to their surge in growth in 1984. But his detractors didn't see that until 1984. They were the doom-and-gloom boys.

[4:15]

1 would like to point out one measure in particular that will stimulate economic growth in small business. That's the small business venture capital tax credit, which is being introduced at an auspicious time as our provincial economy stands poised to reassert itself in growth and job opportunities. I've long supported this initiative; indeed, I first began to do so in 1978 under the previous Minister of Finance, who retired after years of long and capable service to our province.

The initiative is both simple and innovative. The province will lend its assistance in the formation of venture-capital companies through providing tax credits to investors of up to 30 percent. These venture-capital companies will then make

[ Page 5395 ]

investments in new and existing companies that are developing new products and services in certain industries such as manufacturing and processing, electronics, tourism and aquaculture. These recipients of investment must employ under 75 workers, of which at least 75 percent must work in the province of British Columbia. The goal is to create new markets for British Columbians and not to add more competitors to existing ones. The aim is to give free enterprisers and small business people the opportunity to launch projects they might otherwise not be able to do. The provincial government, through the Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development, will also be helping to provide participating companies with managerial and technical advice.

The venture capital tax credit system also provides a new mechanism to increase the investment of British Columbians in enterprises in their own province. While the tax credit system will provide incentives for all investors, it will especially do so for first-time investors. This has proven to be the case in Ontario, where they have operated a substantially similar program for the past four and one-half years. A recent study of the Ontario program revealed that approximately one-third of the shareholders in the venture capital companies had never previously invested. In that Ontario program, $30 million has been generated for investment in small business, which, during the existence of the program, provided 11,000 jobs. Given the strong entrepreneurial attitudes and willingness to work of British Columbians, I see no obstacle to this province doing better than Ontario.

The small business venture tax credit system has already generated a good deal of interest among the business community. For example, Cetec Engineering of Burnaby is even now undertaking discussions with potential investors. A Cetec engineer, Stephen Mitten, stated in the Vancouver Sun on Friday, March [5: "There's an awful lot of people out there just waiting for this kind of thing to happen, and the really sharp ones will work that out very fast." Yes, Mr. Speaker, this initiative is an example of good news in the making, good news for British Columbia.

The budget also contains several other measures which will support the development of new and creative companies and the strengthening of existing ones. The small business employment tax credit will provide an annual credit of up to $300 for each employee. This extends to both new and existing companies. It will prove to be a real boost to companies who are thinking about expansion to go ahead and make investments that will provide the jobs that British Columbians want and deserve.

Another positive measure is the phasing out of property taxation on new machinery and equipment being brought in over the next three years. It provides the incentive for companies to upgrade their facilities and thus also increase their demand for more highly skilled labour.

Significantly, Mr. Speaker, the upgrading of machinery and equipment will also lead to fewer industrial accidents, as old and comparatively more dangerous items are retired. Increased worker safety is a very important benefit of technological improvement.

A related initiative is the exemption from the sales tax on the purchase of certain types of machinery and equipment in target industries such as aquaculture, manufacturing and publishing. Again, the same benefits have increased demand for skilled labour, and better safety conditions will result.

Mr. Speaker, I would particularly like to emphasize that the greater demand for skilled and professional labour brought about by technological advance will be amply met by the graduation from our colleges and universities of well educated, well-trained men and women. Indeed, ensuring that our province can produce the qualified personnel we need is a major goal of this government. That commitment can best be demonstrated by this government's support for education, even during these past years when we all felt the effects of global recession and British Columbia felt them very sharply.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like first of all to present a few statistics which will correct some information presented to this House Monday by the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose). He's usually a well-researched member; in this case, he was not. He asserted that this government had cut funds to school services since 1982 by at least 25 percent, counting inflation. Well, Mr. Speaker, that member has been clearly misinformed — I'm sure by his research staff. In every category — the total education budget, the public school budget, post-secondary colleges and universities and school district grants — there have been increases in the money spent, and that is in current dollars and in real dollars, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, that member in addition failed to display a real understanding of the purpose of vocational training and of the colleges and post-secondary institutes in this province when he accused them of having failed the generalists. The goal of our colleges and post-secondary institutions is to provide specific training in the skills and areas a student needs to move directly into a job. The humanities and social sciences are amply available at our colleges and post-secondary institutions, but as any student at Langara or BCIT or PVI will tell you, they are not attending to get degrees in medieval history. That's not why they're going there. Those students will tell you that they're there to receive specific training, the training necessary to succeed in their chosen vocation. Many of them are returning at an older age to study, after many years out of the educational system.

It is precisely that fact which makes the TRAC program which the government introduced so well suited to our colleges and post-secondary institutions. The TRAC, or training access, program provides for goal-based, competency-based training and retraining for anyone over the age of 16. It provides individuals with the opportunity to move as quickly as possible to the training they need to succeed in existing and new occupations. TRAC represents an innovative alternative to the traditional lock-step education in which students advanced through a set of curriculum regardless of whether they already knew the material or whether the courses were pertinent to their occupational needs.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to report that there are over 3,400 students enrolled in the TRAC program at our colleges and institutes. The program has proven a particular success at the College of New Caledonia in Prince George. Not only have its graduates met with good success and a good success rate in finding work, but the program itself has been very innovative.

To better exemplify what a community college could do, a portion of the core courses in the TRAC program are now being taught at the Vanderhoof high school, and, as I predict, many of the industrial courses in high schools quite properly should be upgraded and maybe disappear with training access becoming the alternative. In this way the student can learn to take best advantage of the program, and the college can more accurately judge future participation in the program as those students transfer to the main campus.

[ Page 5396 ]

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to leave today without expressing that I do agree with the member for Coquitlam-Moody that the humanities, the social sciences and the arts are important parts of an individual's — and particularly a student's — life. I would state strongly that the colleges and post-secondary institutions are very definitely providing that training for students. But there must be priorities, Mr. Speaker. The priority for our colleges and post-secondary institutions is to do the best possible job in preparing students for the demands they will meet in their occupations. That's the reality of the new economy.

It's also a reality that our colleges and post-secondary institutions are doing very well at their jobs. For example, at the British Columbia Institute of Technology in my riding, they tell me that 90 percent of the graduates find work within three months of graduation. In part that is due to the fine job the faculty is doing in cooperation with business leaders, and the job they do in monitoring BCIT programs to ensure their quality and relevance — and excellence, I might add. That is an example of the partnership in economic renewal which our Premier is deeply committed to, both personally and as head of the government of British Columbia.

Our colleges and post-secondary institutions are the cutting edge of our technological advances in virtually all of our industries. They are, Mr. Speaker, thought shops, not sweatshops. That responsibility entails that they must be flexible, comprehensive and productive, using the most efficient resources that they have available to them.

This budget recognizes the importance of our colleges and post-secondary institutions. It provides very well for them indeed. The colleges and post-secondary institutions will maintain their present 1984-85 levels of financing. Moreover, within the allocation, adjustments will provide for a potential 6 percent increase in student financial aid, and $2.7 million for the development of employment training programs.

This budget, which I'm proud to support, holds good news for two areas in which I hold particular interest. The first is the stimulation of venture capital companies, which will stimulate new investment and create new jobs in growing industries and in industries yet to sprout in our province. The second is the training and retraining of our people in the skills they will require to be able to fill new and existing jobs, to improve their existing positions and to make their own business initiatives. I contend that the two programs are complementary, one to the other. The strengthening of one encourages the other, and vice versa. Increased venture capital provides opportunities for skilled workers not only to work but also to start and maintain their own companies. Better trained workers can more easily find jobs in new industries, and are more aware of their future potential.

Now, Mr. Speaker, some here might question the value of this budget and its strong support for venture capital companies and for the employment training programs. They might prefer instead that the government run companies. They talk about Sweden and other areas. They might prefer, indeed, that British Columbians not move into the technical and skilled industries where rapid change is taking place. But the economic renewal underway shows that what the people of British Columbia want is the opportunities to get ahead. They want opportunities to move ahead for themselves in new careers, in new industries, and they want the tools to be able to do that.

For our detractors, the New Democratic Party, I would like to answer them in my conclusion when they say that the things that we are doing are not good for British Columbians. But I tell you, Mr. Speaker, as the member for Vancouver–Point Grey continuously points out, what they are doing here will not help them in the next provincial election. They won't win the next provincial election.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. VEITCH: Oh, no, they won't. The people of British Columbia are smarter than that. I'll tell you, this budget will help this party become re-elected again. But it's not done for that purpose. You have to do strong things for the right reasons.

But it will come back to haunt you, what you say in this House, hon. member, and I agree with the hon. member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) in this one thing. He said that you ought to be supporting this budget. You ought to really show cooperation. You ought to really get behind the wheel in British Columbia and make things happen.

Before taking my seat, I would like to read a poem from one of my favourite poets, William Blake. He said:

Mock on, mock on, Voltaire, Rousseau:
Mock on, mock on: 'tis all in vain!
You throw the sand against the wind,
And the wind blows it back again.
And every sand becomes a gem
Reflected in the beams divine,
Blown back, they blind the mocking eye,
But still in Israel's path they shine.
The atoms of Democritus and Newton's principles of light
Are sands upon the Red Sea shore,
Where Israel's tents do shine so bright.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to a better British Columbia. I look forward to this government providing the leadership in this province for many years. I reject the amendment and support the budget.

[4:30]

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I'm delighted to follow the member for Burnaby-Willingdon. One of the reasons that I'm delighted is that I can proceed with what I was going to talk about anyway, and not have to discuss what he had to say, because I've never heard such empty words and empty phrases. There's just one thing I'd like to suggest to him: despite the gerrymander, watch out at the next election, Mr. Member. You watch out, and the rest of you watch out.

Mr. Speaker, in supporting this amendment, rejecting the budget out of hand, rejecting the government out of hand, I want to tell you a story that's a story to beat all stories. If there was ever a government in this province or anywhere else that could fog up an issue, it has to be the Socreds. You can't beat the Socreds at that one. Just for a second let me take you for a walk through fairyland. I want to tell you a little story that emerged two days ago in the Sun. It's going to go on for some time to come. This is a story about B.C., the gamblers. The headline is: "B.C. Gambles on Medical Equipment Experiment."

"The experimental equipment will do the job of standard radiology departments" — I'm talking about Victoria General Hospital — "but no one knows if it will do it better. Standard radiology equipment would

[ Page 5397 ]

cost $8 million to $10 million. Victoria General is committed to the deal, but the $15 million price tag represents only...." — part of the cost of the material that's going into Victoria General.

Mr. Speaker, they were advised against it. It's not as if we're talking about an innocent government that went ahead, following what they determined to be good advice. It wasn't that at all. They were advised against it, and I'm going to deal more with that in a moment. But I'd like to deal with the minister's fascination with the equipment.

The Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) is normally, one would think, a relatively intelligent person. Let me tell you what he says here. He couldn't explain the equipment: "'I need someone to explain it to me."' Yet he's spending $15 million on it — and incidentally, that's only part of the cost as I see it.

"The equipment already installed at Victoria General so intrigued Nielsen that he and senior Assistant Deputy Minister of Health Stan Dubas — promoted last week to deputy minister — flew to West Germany last December to see more.

"His assessment: 'Just fascinating. Oh, my God, though, the stuff we saw! We saw stuff that makes Star Wars look antiquated. That research and development centre, my God! We had some pretty well-trained people with us, and they just shook their heads."'

No doubt they shook their heads. They didn't understand it either.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nice trip, though.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. COCKE: Lovely trip, Mr. Member.

"Dr. Gordon Ritchie, chief of radiology at Victoria General Hospital, says he is happy his hospital is at the forefront of the technology, but admits no one knows whether the equipment will be better than standard stuff." We're talking about $8 million for standard material, standard stuff, and $15 million for this new sophisticated material. Ritchie is asked: "Isn't the purchase something of a gamble for a Health ministry that now complains of high operating costs?" "'That's right, "' Ritchie answered. 'No wonder I've got ulcers."'

Then the Premier throws smoke at it. He says it's a part of a partnership. We've gone into partnership with Siemens of West Germany. Ain't we lucky, gang? "Under this policy you'll see some innovative new partnerships to promote jobs." Where? In West Germany? It's not going to create one job here in Victoria. No more radiologists are going to be employed using this new digital material than would be employed using conventional radiological equipment.

AN HON. MEMBER: They bought it?

MR. COCKE: They bought it. Why did they buy it?

AN HON. MEMBER: I thought Siemens was the navy.

MR. COCKE: That's right.

Isn't it absurd that we should gamble in times of "restraint"? The advice of the radiological council of the day in 1981-82 was: don't do it. And I can prove it. I have the confidential documents, here before me. They're not confidential any more, Mr. Minister. I've had them for over two years, thinking, until the minister's announcement, that there's no way they'd do it. Why would they take professionals such as these people....? The misters are administrators and the doctors are radiologists: Mr. McGann, chairman of the radiological committee; Mr. Barth, who runs the Burnaby General Hospital; Dr. Boyd; Dr. Burgess; Dr. Burhenne, Dr. Kaan, Dr. Harker, Dr. Mark, Dr. Schneider; the secretary of the committee, Mr. Lawrence; Dr. W. Green; and Dr. Sinclair.

MR. LAUK: They're all closet NDPers.

MR. COCKE: They're closet NDPers. Do you know what happened to them in 1982? They got canned. Their advice was no good. Why they got canned is as follows. I'm going to read into the record their advice at that time, the advice that the minister did not take. The $15 million mistake that the minister made is a result of not listening to the professionals who were advising his ministry, who advised my ministry before these people took over, and who advised the ministry before we took government. When you're dealing with instrumentation that's as deeply technological as what we're describing here, you need the best professional advice you can get. Mr. Speaker, the minister decided that he didn't want to listen to that advice. This is the advice he got:

"The committee recommends against the joint proposal of a digital department with Siemens Co. for the following reasons:

"(1) There is no substantial medical benefit to be gained. (2) The projected cost, even in phase 1, far exceeds the cost for conventional equipment. (3) The total cost to the end of stage III is estimated at $13 million."

Those are 1981 dollars. We've seen the $15 million now, so that's the conversion. So they were right, weren't they? They were absolutely right.

"(4) The cost for completion of stages IV and V central digital storage and reporting — have not been included."

Incidentally, Dr. Ritchie has said he doesn't even know if it will work.

"(5) The total period of implementation is estimated as 5 to 7 years. X-ray equipment has a finite life expectancy. It is possible that the new equipment installed may become outdated by the time the final digital process is completed. (6) The operating expenses for the digital system are not determined at this stage. It is possible that the increased maintenance cost and the interest cost required to purchase the digital system may far outstrip the cost savings claimed."

They're not admitting there's any cost saving. And this is another key factor, Mr. Speaker:

"Being tied down with one single company, the hospital forgoes the benefits of competitive tendering in future purchases."

That is partnership, Socred style. In other words, sell out.

"In addition to the lack of competition, currency fluctuation may make European equipment unduly expensive at a given time. There is also no guarantee that Siemens will come up as leaders in every aspect of digital radiography.

[ Page 5398 ]

"The committee recommends against embarking on the project which will cost significantly more than conventional equipment without the guaranteed returns in both medical and economic benefits."

Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to go through the appendices of this document.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: The first minister of this province announced it. That's right. It is so, I'm afraid, Mr. Member. Now the appendices to this document are here, so anybody who wishes to have a look at them may do so.

I say that this is just another indication of a government that's totally out of control, living with catchwords: "partnership." Who are we in partnership with? Siemens? We sold them some coal. We didn't; Esso did.

Let me go on.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, let me go on. This is the first of two documents that I have before me. The second is a document of a meeting of this group, which disappeared from the face of the earth in terms of their advice to the Minister of Health.

This group, which I've already named, had a guest on January 7, 1982. Guess who that guest was at their meeting? Mr. Stan Dubas, who until a week or two ago was the assistant deputy Minister of Health. He is now the Deputy Minister of Health, replacing Mr. Bazowski, who has retired to his just whatever.

The first thing Mr. Dubas does is explain to the advisory committee, these old pros, what their function is. Let me tell you how he does it. He says this:

"Mr. Dubas began by explaining the purposes and relationship of various advisory bodies to the ministry and said that in his opinion the ministry would find it difficult to function without them. However, he said: 'The ministry felt there was a need to examine the purposes of these advisory bodies.' He referred to a recent change where the laboratory advisory council had been replaced by a laboratory strategic planning group."

[4:45]

Now if that wasn't the beginning of the end, my friends, I don't know what it could possibly be. That was the beginning of the death of this very vital advisory council to the Ministry of Health. All right, then we go on to talk about the Victoria General project.

"Referring specifically to the Victoria General project, Mr. Dubas explained the terms of the approval which had been given to the hospital and their limited nature (which had been confined to an approval for digital intervenous angiography only with a general approval that the hospital might explore only the possibilities of developing a fully digital department in the future) and stated that the hospital had not intended to proceed to the tendering process before the specifications had gone before the council."

He admitted right there that they had already jumped ahead of it.

First he tells them that they are likely to change their very being to a strategy group, and then he tells them: "Well, kinda sorry, in a way, that we couldn't take your advice. We just haven't, but in the future we will." Well, in the future they won't, because they disbanded the council.

Mr. Speaker, let's go on with this exploration of fairyland. The minister is uncomfortable. Maybe she could go and have a cup of coffee.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Oh, is she the secretary to that minister? No, can't be.

Mr. Speaker, in reply, Mr. Dubas then invited questions from the council:

"In reply to observations by some members that council had been bypassed in this sequence of events, Mr. Dubas said that he did not consider that this had been done intentionally. He referred, incidentally, to some other forthcoming possibilities of change, one of which might embrace the adoption by the ministry of a process similar to that of a certificate-of-need process which was being employed in the United States."

Well, that's a good way to smoke that one up.

"Mr. Dubas, having referred earlier to the exploration by the hospital of the principle of having all equipment for the new department supplied by one manufacturer, some members expressed doubts at the value of this principle from several well-recognized points of view."

Then they go on to explain that, but I think we all understand that. You tie yourself to one supplier and, man, you are just at his disposal.

Mr. Speaker, we got taken. Dr. Mark, one of the council members, was talking at this time.

"Dr. Mark explained that the hospital's tender document was drawn up in two parts, the first of which was a general tender document along conventional lines, and only the second part of which, the 'joint proposal, ' was in the nature of a more general inquiry.

"In response to a further question from Dr. Burhenne, Mr. Dubas made [it] clear that, at this stage, nothing had been formally approved and that the whole proposal would be brought back to the council before any commitment was given to the hospital."

AN HON. MEMBER: What council?

MR. COCKE: Exactly. What council? This likely was the very last time they ever met.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to just go on. Here we're talking about what the council were doing. The members of the council had expected to encounter an approach from the hospital along normal lines, but everyone had been surprised to hear — via the grapevine — of the hospital's having undertaken the tendering process, including approaches to the ministry at the level of the senior deputy minister and the medical advisory committee. In other words, they knew at this meeting that they had been circumvented.

We could go on. I would like to deal with one area. Mr. Dubas said he felt that there was room within the system for the ministry to approve a pilot project. Pilot project, indeed! What a pilot project: the entire radiology of that hospital. And

[ Page 5399 ]

we're talking about $15 million. A lot of that hasn't even been invented yet.

The motion — after Mr. Dubas left — was as follows: "It was moved by Dr. Schneider, seconded by Mr. Harker, that all radiological 'pilot project proposals' should be referred to the radiological advisory council for opinion and recommendations before any undertaking was given by the ministry." In other words, up until then they felt there was no such thing as a pilot project. After all, when you're going into that vast a field you don't call it a pilot project. Since the deputy had called it a pilot project, they decided they had better move a further resolution — getting closer to their demise. So, Mr. Speaker, that's the way it happened.

Then the first minister makes the announcement that they've made a deal with their new partners in West Germany, Siemens, and he blows smoke at the whole situation. He blew so much smoke that this government should smoke for it — a government that's going around denying people access to jobs and health care elsewhere, and denying other hospitals the right.... The hospital and the member — well, the three members that I'm looking at right now — from Vancouver.... For the longest time, the Vancouver General Hospital has asked for $2 million for a proven new piece of equipment that will, without any kind of an operation, break up kidney stones. You know how painful they are, and how you have to be operated on and so on. It will break them up. Two million dollars for the comfort of the people of B.C., and it's proven. They've been waiting and waiting for that, and it's all over the place but there.

AN HON. MEMBER: Kidney stones are very common.

MR. COCKE: That's right. Kidney stones are common. I had one in 1958, and I'll never forget it.

Yet on the other hand, a favourite of this government asks for $15 million.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: But it's going to be more. That's the original investment.

They admit that this particular equipment — and they're tied to Siemens now, who haven't even invented the last two phases — hasn't even been invented yet, and we've bought it. Aren't we bright? Yes, sir, that's research. But they had free available research given to them by the radiological committee that they fired because they didn't like to hear what they had to say. So, that's that.

I would like to talk about one of my favourite subjects for a minute or two. Incidentally, just before I get on with the Royal Columbian, I would like to give you a little bit of the history of these stupid user fees that we're paying in this province. In the period 1954 to 1975 we were paying $5, $10 and $12.50 in medical premiums. In 1985 we're paying $17 for singles, $32 for two and $36 for three or more. Can you imagine such an increase? But the real increase is for singles: $7.50 to $17. For three members of a family or more, it's $18.75 to $36. The whole thing is a fiasco. I say this to you, as I've said a million times in this House: the quicker we get rid of those insurance premiums, the faster we will have medicare that's accessible to all. Right now, if you happen to be unlucky enough to be out of work, you don't have access to medicare, because you can't pay the premium. It takes a year for you to be out of work before you are assessed to be one of those people who get assistance from the government. It’s a nonsensical situation.

Mr. Speaker, we all know what happened at the Royal Columbian Hospital. We all know that the Royal Columbian Hospital now has a new board, and we know that this new board have done some marvellous things. Look at what they've done. I'll show you a few.... This is their administrative chart. They have more administrators there than they have people who are nursing and caring for those who are ill. But do you know who did it? Let me tell you who did it. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine people from Coquitlam — not one from New Westminster — are on the Royal Columbian Hospital board. Nine appointees of this government: that's who we have for the Royal Columbian Hospital board. Do you wonder that there are problems at the Royal Columbian?

Do you wonder that that hospital has been mitigated against by this government over the years? Because New Westminster has had the brains, since 1952, to elect a CCF or an NDP member, this government has decided that they're going to teach us. It's not going to do them a darn bit of good trying to teach us, Mr. Speaker, but I'll tell you what it's doing: it's hurting the health care system for the whole lower mainland. That's a key hospital. It is the key hospital in terms of trauma. The hospital treats trauma from Hastings Park to Hope, and that's a very heavy trauma area. That hospital is the most accessible geographically.

We have all these new trustees. All of them are business people — every one of them. There isn't one person from labour or one person from any other kind of organization. All of them are business people. There is one woman, a Mrs. Gartside, but she's a director of Commercial Truck, so even she isn't...

AN HON. MEMBER: Be careful.

MR. COCKE: ...outside the business community.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, okay.

MR. COCKE: No, I'm not denigrating her.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're not against women, are you?

MR. COCKE: No, I'm against this kind of composition of a board, and I am also against this kind of distribution of administration. But anyway I'm not going to go into that now. I'll do that in the time allotted under the estimates.

I just want to give you an indication of what happened at the Royal Columbian Hospital recently. There was a doctor, Dr. Clem, who had the audacity to indicate that they were underserving trauma at the Royal Columbian and say that he could not carry on in his capacity as neurosurgeon at that hospital unless the government would come forward and say: "Look, we're not going to bypass the hospital and let people die on their way to VGH."

He was one of the finest neurosurgeons in this country. That hospital let him go. When there was an announcement that they would improve the facilities, he said: "Okay, under those circumstances, I'll come back if you want me." They obviously don't want him. They feel he's a troublemaker. He's far too important, but that Social Credit board have let him go from the Royal Columbian. To jeopardize the people

[ Page 5400 ]

who are in a car accident or a neurological accident by treating him in that way is beyond my ken. I don't understand it. I'll never understand it. They should be back to him on their bended knees asking him to come back and serve the people of New Westminster.

Mr. Speaker, thank you for your valuable time.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to rise in this debate and speak in favour of the budget and against this amendment. I'm speaking in favour of this budget because it is a responsive budget. It's right for the times, and it's what is needed out there in what I think is the time of the entrepreneur. It doesn't offer quick fixes, which is another reason I'm in favour of it. There are no handouts. It's not a handout, but it does offer a hand for those who are willing to go the first mile or put the effort into investing, for those who are entrepreneurs, for those who will provide permanent jobs to this province — not government handouts that will provide short-term, quick-fix solutions and leave us further in debt after six months, with people back on the unemployment rolls.

[5:00]

Interjection.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Yes, I'm going through the clichés, because I've heard them all from the other side of the House during this debate. The NDP solution to all of our problems is to throw money at them. Isn't that it? But whose money?

MR. LAUK: The people's money.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: My money, your money. The one solution they have — isn't that true? — to every problem. You just heard the member for New Westminster say the same thing. The answer? Throw money at it. You've heard it here from every member who has spoken over there: throw money at the problem. But whose money? Your money, my money, the people's money.

The private sector will provide the engine that will lead us out of this recession. They will provide the jobs that are required. They will provide it with the help of all levels of government. They don't, as I said, want a handout from government, but they do sometimes need a hand from government, especially when they're dealing in the international marketplace. We fully intend to give them that.

MR. LAUK: And a rolling stone gathers no moss.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: That's very good. The short member for Vancouver Centre gave me a cliché that I will try to work into my speech somewhere. I like it. If I use it three times, it's mine, right?

Mr. Speaker, I think the crux of this matter is attitude — the attitude of the people who are willing to go that first mile and to make the effort and the investment. Remember back a moment when we first encountered this recession, when the recession first came upon us. I remember it very well, because at the time I happened to be managing a small business, and some very tough decisions had to be made. The decisions we had to make are never easy. Many businesses didn't make those decisions at that time, and they regretted it. Many of them aren't around today, unfortunately. Many of them did and were successful, and they are around today.

But I want to refresh people's memories, Mr. Speaker, that there were those, when the worldwide recession hit us, who refused to become a part of it. They wanted nothing to do with it. They wanted to be recession-proof. I remember very well where all the noise came from: the leadership of the public sector unions. Most of us were here. You remember that. They wanted to remain recession-proof. They were led by the leaders of the BCGEU and the BCTF — not the majority of the school teachers. There were some, but mostly the leadership. They didn't want to be part of it. I remember, Mr. Member, that they had just received an increase of some 17 percent or 17.5 percent and were asked to become part of a restraint package, part of the solution instead of part of the problem. You remember it.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

I'm just trying to refresh the members. They don't want to be reminded of this, Mr. Speaker. They don't like to be reminded that a lot of these people didn't want to be part of the recovery process of restraining government spending. They don't like to hear about that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are any of them in here?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I think some of them are. I'm not sure. I remember an outfit that was born out of that not wanting to be part of the restraint package. You don't hear their name any more. I remember an outfit — loosely knit, I suppose — called Solidarity. I don't hear that word any more. Oh, I hear the real Solidarity, but I don't hear the one that was so prevalent here a couple of years ago. Where have they gone? Where are they?

As the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) said earlier, we were all living in this giant bubble at that time. I agree with him; we were. Our houses were going up in value, wages were going up at an unheard-of rate, and we were all enjoying it. It was wonderful. But contrary to a lot of us who realize that the bubble has burst, a lot out there still don't or won't realize that the bubble's gone. They still feel there's an endless supply of money out there.

That's why I'm glad that this budget is not for those people who want the handout and the quick fix. This budget is for the private sector, the people who had no choice when the recession hit us. They had no choice as to whether they were going to be part of it or opt out of it; they were in it. Businessmen large and small were in it. Loggers, sawmill workers, miners were in it. In my constituency, hundreds, probably thousands, were in this recession whether they wanted to be or not. They didn't have the choice.

So for some of those people who didn't want to be part of the solution, Mr. Speaker, we made them part of the solution. I think we made the right decision. It's because we made those decisions two and three years ago to bring government spending under control that we can today offer a budget like this to those who need it desperately.

I will repeat what I said in the throne speech, Mr. Member: that I shudder to think where our deficit would be today had you been government for the last three years. I have a life-sized picture of what it would be like had you been government, with your solution to all problems being to throw money at them. Throw the money, shovel it out the back of a truck, a rolling stone gathers no moss. Did I get it in there?

[ Page 5401 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Oh, I like that one.

The outcry from the leadership of the public sector unions at that time was incredible. But what we need now is some union leadership that's into the 1980s. I don't see it. I hear the same rhetoric that I heard three years ago, two years ago: still fighting the battles of the twenties and thirties, still using the same tactics, the same principles — with possibly one exception. I'm going to give him a little credit here, because I like some of things that he's done, though not all. We have one union leader out there who's a private sector union leader — Jack Munro, who has the concern or the good of his membership at heart. He's one, I know Jack will appreciate my saying that about him.

Interjection.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's no worse than Graham supporting us.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: That's right, and I know full well, Mr. Member for Vancouver Centre, that Jack Munro is no friend of this government. But I'll tell you, he makes a lot of sense when he talks, and he has the good of his membership at heart, which is more than I can say for most of them out there. All they're interested in is politics, Mr. Speaker, not the good of their membership. I will quote Jack Munro for a moment, because he said a very wise thing one morning on television: "Protesting is the fastest-growing industry in this province." I think he's correct when I look around and see the type of leadership that most of the unions are getting in this province. They're not getting it at all. They've got union leaders who are interested in politics, not in the good of their membership. They are dinosaurs and they're living in the past, okay?

MR. LAUK: You've attacked everyone except widows and orphans. Who's next?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Give me time.

They're like the NDP, Mr. Speaker; they're living in the past. They have solutions from the twenties and thirties for problems of the eighties, and they talk about us living in the past. The member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) said we've got old solutions. They're living in the past — the same old solutions, fighting old, old battles.

We heard in the sixties and seventies, for example, that the employer must be cognizant of the needs and the welfare of the employee. I agree with that, and it's been pounded into us, and I don't think anyone can argue with it. I don't think most employers will argue with it. Sometimes it got carried beyond all reason, but what about the converse message now that we're into a very tough, competitive market situation? Now it's time for the employees to be concerned with the welfare of the company. I don't hear that message coming through, and I think it's about time that it did — that the employees became concerned with the welfare of the company they work for.

It's a different ball game now than it used to be. It's a whole different market out there. The attitude of "shut them down till they come to their senses" is long gone. Now it's more likely to be "shut them down and they'll be gone for good," and we've seen that happen. We don't need to see it happen any more. With the international competition the way it is and the pricing we're up against in the international markets, if we force some of these companies to shut down, they will be gone; they won't be reopening. So I would like to see the working men and women in this province get the message through to their leadership or change their leadership, and say that the thinking of the past has to go. It has to go, and the employees must start to take an interest in the welfare of the company for which they work.

I get a little tired of hearing some of the comments from across the way about my good friend and colleague the Minister of International Trade and Investment (Hon. Mr. Phillips) when he takes a trip — the best salesman that the province ever had, probably. We hear the same snide remarks that I've heard now for four years about his annual steambath. He's assured me he has steam-baths more than once a year. But he's the finest salesman we've got out there, and we've got to send him and others on more trips abroad, not fewer. We should be investing more money and selling in the international markets. Several of the ministers should be traveling more.

Interjections.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: He's very effective in this House, Mr. Member, but he's more effective when he's in the international marketplace selling British Columbia.

The day of the entrepreneur, I think, is with us; I really do. When you look around, you start to see it. You start to see the entrepreneurs here. Take a look around at the universities. Go to the university campuses and talk to the young people there. You can hardly find a socialist there any more. There aren't any.

MR. LAUK: You can hardly find a student there any more.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: You'll find them. You can't find a socialist. Jack Webster went there last year and tried to find a socialist and couldn't find one. The whole attitude of our young people has changed around. The "gimme" generation is gone. The gimme generation is still over there, but it's gone from our young people.

The member for Prince Rupert referred to the story on television the other night of the Premier and these two young fellows that have started this company in Kelowna. I think that is a sign of what is happening in this province. Two young people have built a company in three short years that is competing nationally and internationally with no government help, exporting products to eastern Canada by the trainload, soon to be breaking into markets in the United States. And what did we get as a treatment of the story? Snide and cynical commentary from both television networks, not telling about the marvellous job that these entrepreneurs had done. They missed the whole point of the story of two young people providing something like 180 jobs. That is difficult for them to report on.

[5:15]

I want to make just a few comments about other topics that were covered by other people. First of all, the member for Okanagan North (Mr. MacWilliam) — I didn't hear all of his speech today in the House, but I have gone through the Blues and looked at some of his comments. Many of his comments

[ Page 5402 ]

are truly dated clichés about the tourism industry. He's telling us it's a major growth industry and that it provides jobs for small businesses. We're very much aware of that. Most of the material contained in his speech is things that we've known for a long, long time. In fact, the figure that he uses in his speech on the amount of budget for my ministry is incorrect. I'll set him straight on that, if he would like. I've got the figures for him. He's about half right, which is about par for over there.

Tomorrow morning I will be unveiling my program of Partners in Tourism at the Victoria A.M. meeting. That happens at 7:30 tomorrow morning in the Oak Bay Marina, if the member could get up that early. I know the press is complaining about getting up that early, Mr. Speaker. But he'd be welcome to come along and listen to me if he can stand it any more.

MR. LAUK: Can I come over for breakfast?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: You're welcome, Mr. Member. I'll even buy you breakfast, if you would like to come over. But you will have to listen to me. It proves the old cliché: there is no such thing as a free breakfast. Is that right?

Mr. Speaker, in fact I would even extend an invitation to the member for Okanagan North: if he really wants to find out what's going on in the Ministry of Tourism, and the things that we're doing, he's welcome to go over to the ministry, at the invitation of my deputy, and we will show him through the ministry — show him what is really happening, the research that we're doing, the marketing. We'll explain the Partners in Tourism program to him and show him how an efficient Ministry of Tourism operates. At his convenience, he's welcome to go over to the ministry at any time, and my deputy will personally show him through the whole ministry.

The comments that he made regarding the Provincial Tourist Advisory Council are not quite apropos, because every region in the province is represented on that committee. It works very well. You're correct: yes, we meet twice a year, We have people from the private sector, people from the regions and people from government. So we do listen very closely. We did not put our Partners in Tourism program together in isolation, as was suggested by some member over there — in the back room all by ourselves. We went and sought input from the industry, and I'm sure that they'll all be very happy with it when they see it tomorrow.

We will be pooling our resources to make them work better for us, to make our dollars go further. We will be pooling them with not only the private sector but the federal government — and, wherever possible, with municipal governments and virtually any tourism group that wants to come and work with us to make the years ahead great for tourism. Again, contrary to the member's speech, 1984 was better than 1983 by quite a bit, and 1985 will be even better. Of course, 1986 will be one of the finest years we've ever had in this province in tourism.

This brings me to just a short touch on Expo. I won't speak at length on it, because I did during the throne speech, but Expo is referred to by those opposite and those with other motives as one of the megaprojects. It's always referred to in a derogatory fashion. I'm sorry to hear that, from them and from others. They always throw in Expo when they talk about more money for other projects. They lump Expo in with it. That is not correct. For the umpteenth time I would like to set the record straight: the funding for Expo is not coming from any other program. They know that, yet they continue to say it. Those who say it in the media know it. Those who say it as late as last night on television stand up and harangue us for not spending more in education when we're building Expo.... They know full well that the funding for Expo is not coming out of general revenue funds.

They talk about shutting down the Coquihalla Highway; I heard that suggestion over there two or three times. "Shut it down so that we can put more money into the social programs, schools and health, etc. Let's shut everything down, " is what I hear from over there. "Don't spend any more on northeast coal. Don't build the Coquihalla. Don't build Expo. Don't build ALRT. Let's not spend anything except on the social programs" — which already get over 70 percent of our budget.

Where do they think the revenue is going to come from to pay for those social programs in the years to come if we don't put in such necessary things as a highway system, northeast coal and ALRT? Where is the money going to come from to pay for those social programs? Where are people going to work if we cancel them all? That's what I hear from over there: "Cancel them and spend the money somewhere else. Stop building anything and spend." Back to the same solution: let's throw some more money at the province.

I do want to talk about education for one second, and particularly School District 24, the Kamloops School Board. I want to commend them for making a very tough decision the other night. They've had it just as tough as any other school board in this province, including Vancouver, which makes all the noise. They've had it just as tough. They made a tough decision the other night in a room with 75 or 100 people in it — a lot of them with vested interests. It was full of teachers. The head of the carpenters' union was there, haranguing and telling them to go for a "needs" budget.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

MR. COCKE: What about the kids? Were they there? Nobody was representing the kids.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Everyone has talked to the kids in my constituency, including mine, Mr. Member. I understand, and so did the Kamloops School Board. The Kamloops School Board made a very tough decision the other night, and they went for a compliance budget against a lot of protestations — as I said, against a packed audience that was urging them not to. I commend them for that. School District 26 in the North Thompson is very close. They're only a hundred-and-some thousand dollars away from complying with the request of the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich). I think they will make it with just a little more work. They can make the tough decisions and come in with a budget that's within the guidelines if they give it one more shot. I urge them to go back to the table, persevere and cut a few more dollars out of their budget.

Interjection.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: In response to the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke), I happen to have one child still left in the school system; he's in grade 12 at NorKam Senior Secondary School in Kamloops. They are operating probably under as tough a condition as any school in this province.

MR. COCKE: And you're proud of that?

[ Page 5403 ]

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I'm not proud of it, but I'm proud of him. And I'm proud of the marks he's getting. He's doing very well in school, thank you. Last year they closed down McArthur Park Junior Secondary and brought all the students into NorKam, which wasn't probably ever equipped to handle that many students, but they're doing very well, thank you.

The problem will sort itself out in the next year or two, because the enrolment in the district is going down. But this year is a tough year for NorKam. I commend everybody who is giving yeoman's service to do a good job in that school under very difficult conditions. And I commend most of the students, who are turning in excellent marks — including my own son — under trying conditions.

AN HON. MEMBER: He takes after his father.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Yes, thank you. With a little help from the member for Point Grey, I'll get through this.

So I do commend them for what they're doing, and especially the Kamloops School Board for the very tough decision. And they've made some very tough decisions over the last two years regarding their whole school district. I know they were not easy, and I don't envy them having to make those decisions.

I come back to what I said. Remember back to 1982 when the cost of educating a student had gone roughly from $1,800 to about $3,400, in round numbers, in about five years — nearly doubled in five years? Again, with the solution to the problems that I hear from over there, can you imagine where it would be today? Can you imagine what the school budget would look like for 1985-86 had they been government, with their philosophy of spend, spend, spend? The taxpayer wouldn't be able to afford the cost of education.

Interjection.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: You would have done the same thing in health care, Mr. Member.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You should hang your head in shame when you think of what you did to the medical system in our province.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: That's right. It wouldn't have mattered....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. Hon. members, we have approximately four minutes left. Can we conclude this in an orderly fashion, so we may then put the necessary question.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Obviously they don't like to hear that. They never have liked to hear that. But it wouldn't matter that those paying the bills were hurting and not able to pay the bills. They would have spent the money anyway.

Interjection.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: You would have spent it anyway. It wouldn't have mattered to you. You'd have spent it.

Even now, many of of the BCTF leaders, including those in Kamloops, are saying: "Give us our raise in pay." They're not a bit interested in the welfare of the teachers who might go down the drain. They're still saying: "Give us our raise, even if it's 1.5 percent, 3 percent. Whatever it is, give us our raise in pay." They said the same thing in 1982, when they'd just received 17.5 percent.

Interjection.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: You tell me who is interested in the children or in their fellow teachers. It's not the BCTF, I’ll tell you, Mr. Member.

As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, we were able to put forward a recovery budget like this because of the tough decisions that we made over the last two or three years. This is a budget that enables us to work in partnership with Ottawa — which we will. We are very close to signing a subagreement for tourism with them, as well as others. It enables us to work with the private sector, and it enables us to work with the municipalities.

I had a meeting in the last two weeks with the city council in Kamloops. I have the assurance of the new mayor, Mr. Walsh, whom I have known for many years, that that city — and I know many others are too — is eager to become partners with us on the road to recovery, partners in progress or in profit or in whatever you want to call it. I know I can count on Jim Walsh and the members of the Kamloops city council, because I met with them and have their assurance. All they're doing is waiting now for us to get there within the next week or so to sign an agreement with them to become partners in recovery and part of the solution that we all need — the long-term solution that will provide jobs in that community. I know as well as anyone else how badly they're needed there and elsewhere in this province.

So it's because of that that I support the budget, and I am voting against this silly amendment.

[5:30]

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, under standing orders the question before us must now be put.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 16

NAYS — 30

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I understand from the House Leader that he's willing to accept a motion to adjourn debate on the main motion until the next sitting of the House. I so move.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:36 p.m.