[ Page 7513 ]

CONTENTS

Oral Questions

ICBC legal work and political fund-raising. Mr. Lauk –– 7513

Pension funds. Mr. Lea –– 7514

Price of gasoline. Ms. Sanford –– 7514

Expo 86. Mr. MacWilliam –– 7515

Expo 86. Hon. Mr. Richmond replies –– 7515

Tabling Documents –– 7516

Budget Debate

On the amendment

Mr. Davis –– 7516

Mr. Cocke –– 7518

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 7520

Mr. Skelly –– 7523

Mr. Reynolds –– 7526

Mr. Howard –– 7529

Hon. Mr. Kempf –– 7531

Ms. Brown. –– 7534

Division –– 7538

On the main motion

Hon. Mr. Rogers –– 7538

TUESDAY, MARCH 25, 1986

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, pursuant to standing order 12, which was just recently stated, it is my sad duty to inform members of the Legislative Assembly that Speaker Davidson's father passed away this morning. If it is your wish, the appropriate condolences will be sent to Mrs. Davidson senior and the family.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to take this opportunity to introduce the interns who have been working with the New Democratic Party caucus in the Legislature. Their names are Colin Hanson, Christine Hutchinson, Dale Jackson and Chris Katliff. It's my honour to say that we very much appreciate the work of the interns and the internship program that has been developed in the Legislature in cooperation with all parties.

I would also like to have members of the Legislature join me in acknowledging the fact that it's the Greek national day today. March 25, 1821, marked the beginning of the Greek war of independence, which freed the cradle of democracy, and I'm sure I speak on behalf of all members in congratulating the Greek community in British Columbia and wishing them all the best on their national day.

MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to introduce a number of Social Credit youth members visiting the precinct today: Doug Home from Vancouver South; Dave Tompkins from Vancouver–Little Mountain; Darin Nielsen from Richmond-South Delta; Scott Leaf from Maple Ridge; Mike Sporer from Burnaby South; John Lind from Oak Bay–Gordon Head; Scott Andrews from Oak Bay–Gordon Head; and Leon Skender from Saanich and the Islands. Would the House join me in making them welcome.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the Legislature to join with me in welcoming a neighbour. Visiting with us today in the Legislature from Lethbridge, Alberta, is Maurice Cloutier. He's here visiting relations — I won't tell you who because it's someone in the press gallery — and I want this person to be cordially invited and welcomed to British Columbia.

MR. REYNOLDS: I'd like the House to welcome Sandra and Gerry Lutz from Victoria. Gerry is vice-president and general manager of Westcan Stevedoring and general manager of Westcan Terminals, the company that will be welcoming the over 60 cruise ships that will be visiting Victoria during 1986.

Oral Questions

ICBC LEGAL WORK AND
POLITICAL FUND-RAISING

MR. LAUK: Prior to August 8, 1985, the Attorney-General, pursuant to amendments to legislation, seized control of the distribution of something like $20 million worth of legal work carried out by lawyers on behalf of ICBC. Since that time a Vancouver lawyer by the name of Michael Warren has sent a personally addressed, private and confidential letter — a copy of which I have — seeking a tithe on behalf of the Social Credit Party from the law firms affected. In light of the suggestion of patronage in these two events, has the Attorney-General decided to make public the guidelines, if any, for the awarding of ICBC legal work?

HON. MR. SMITH: I want to congratulate the member for being so current on information, and being up to date on communications travelling around the province. There is absolutely no doubt that fund-raising letters are written on behalf of all parties to lawyers, doctors, accountants....

AN HON. MEMBER: Teachers.

HON. MR. SMITH: No, not teachers. There'd never be any politicking there.

I know that we have the same sort of campaigns as the gentlemen opposite. But I can assure the member that absolutely no lists or names were transmitted by me or anyone under my authority to anyone who may have been raising money for any political party. That is not done. You will find, I think, that that letter you speak of did not just canvass lawyers who were doing ICBC work; it canvassed a broad spectrum of lawyers. Hundreds of firms received that letter and perhaps others. So the answer is that the criterion for doing ICBC is competent legal service at a very reasonable fee.

MR. LAUK: To further impress the Attorney-General with the currentness of my research, I have a second letter from Michael Warren. The second letter, dated December 10, 1985, was sent to those firms that were taken off the ICBC list and who had not yet replied to Mr. Michael Warren's letter asking them for a tithe.

Has the Attorney-General decided to investigate the persistent harassment of law firms for contributions to the Social Credit Party? When these letters go to firms who have refused to contribute to Social Credit and who have remained off the list or are still having trouble getting back on the list to do ICBC work, there is the smell of blackmail on the part of the Social Credit Party. I know that the Attorney-General would not tend his good name and office to such blackmail. Has the Attorney-General decided to investigate this and confirm that these contributions are not being hoisted from law firms on the basis that they would get legal work from ICBC or any other Crown corporation, agency or the government itself?

[2:15]

HON. MR. SMITH: In the event that Mr. Warren sent a letter to the law firm of the member opposite, I certainly will have Mr. Warren's case referred to the patients' review board.

On a more serious note, no one was taken off the ICBC list. A number of firms that did very large megabucks of ICBC work were on August I of last year not given additional ICBC files for a period of six months while all the work was reviewed and while a redistribution of ICBC work around the province was made.

Before we took these steps, 79 percent of the ICBC work across the whole province was done by about 15 or 20 law firms in the lower mainland. Now it is being distributed so that where there are accidents in the Kootenays or Kamloops or Prince George, wherever possible those are being done by

[ Page 7514 ]

local law firms. Nobody came off that list because of their political stripe.

Interjection.

HON. MR. SMITH: No, they didn't. In fact, the first one that came off was somebody who occupied the office I had under our government many years ago. Nobody came off because of their political stripe and nobody got back on because of it. They were taken off because they were the major producers of ICBC bills, and it was done on the basis of review. The distribution took place, and all ten of those firms are now doing work, but they're not doing it at the level they were before.

So whatever communications may be floating around from fundraisers have nothing to do with taking people off or putting them on.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, can the Attorney-General assure the House...? Let me ask this question a different way. Can the Attorney-General indicate — if he knows — how many firms that were put back on ICBC work contributed to the Social Credit party between the time they were taken off and the time they were reinstated?

HON. MR. SMITH: No, I can't answer that. I wouldn't know the answer to that question. But I can tell you that everybody of that original ten that were taken off were reinstated after each of the firms was interviewed — not by party fundraisers but by people charged with the responsibility of examining how the work was done, looking at the systems in the offices. They went in and interviewed every one of those firms, went over their systems and evaluated all the ICBC work, and we restored all those firms that were originally suspended from new work.

So they were taken off holus-bolus, they were put on holus-bolus. I have no doubt that they may have been canvassed by your party too, but it had no bearing on their coming off or their going on.

MR. LAUK: Last supplementary. Surely the Attorney-General, in light of the appearance of blackmail and patronage, can make public those firms which contribute to the Social Credit Party, receiving legal work from the government. The NDP or any other political party does not have that kind of public patronage to dish out. So when we canvass lawyers, we canvass them all. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the Attorney-General, if he would.... Has he decided to make public those law firms that have contributed to the Social Credit Party, that receive legal work from the province of British Columbia, its Crown corporations or its agencies?

HON. MR. SMITH: I was just looking at a list here of Victoria firms. The firm that received a fair amount of legal work from the government this last month is a firm.... Brewin and company, I believe it is. It's probably because of their political contributions that they've received that work, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The second member for Vancouver Centre has indicated that that was his final question, so I will recognize the member for Prince Rupert.

PENSION FUNDS

MR. LEA: In regard to the Attorney-General's last answer, I wouldn't doubt it.

I'd like to ask a question to the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations. During the last year or so there has been a phenomenon happening in our country — in fact, in North America — that I think should cause us all concern, and that is employers who are stealing pension funds from employees. It's going on in a widespread way right across Canada. As I understand it, there is some movement between the federal government and the provinces to try to stem the tide; in other words, to stop companies from taking money from pension funds for corporate use.

As an example, we have one right here in Victoria. It's Canadian Newspapers Co. Ltd., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Thomson Newspapers Ltd. They own the Times-Colonist. Now to give you an idea, Mr. Speaker, so that the minister can answer more succinctly, the market value of pension funds at December 31, 1983, was $72,844,742. The next day the market value of the pension fund of January 1, 1984, was $26,050 877.

What is happening, as with this company, is that companies are going in and taking the pension funds, including the contributions by the employees, and stealing that money and using it for corporate use. I know that it's a concern of governments across Canada. I'd like to ask the minister whether or not his government has decided to take legislative action to stop this stealing of employees' money. It's stealing.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I cannot comment, upon the authenticity or otherwise of your premise. You've used exceptionally strong words indicating stealing, which I presume means theft, which means an offence under the Criminal Code. I'm happy to take the question as notice. If you have something specific, you might direct it to the Attorney-General.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I don't think the companies are doing anything illegal. It is legal theft, and that's what I'm asking the government to deal with. Someone from the other side said: "Gee, I thought he was a Conservative now." Does being a Conservative to them mean that employers can steal from the employees? Is that what it's all about? What we have here is legalized theft of employee pension funds, and it's sanctioned by the governments of Canada and the governments of most provinces by legislation or by not taking legislative action.

What I'm asking is: has the government decided whether or not they're going to take some action so that employees' pension funds are not used for corporate use and disappear on the employees?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, my answer stands. I'm quite happy to look into the matter.

PRICE OF GASOLINE

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Last week the minister indicated that he would get back to the House regarding government action on the failure of the oil companies to pass on the savings in the wellhead price, and I'm wondering if the minister is ready to report to the House now.

[ Page 7515 ]

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, I presume the hon. member was here during the reading of the budget and noted some of the provisions in the budget and that the provincial government has capped — from a tax point of view — the cost of tax increases. As for the other part of it, I am researching it and will get back to you shortly.

EXPO 86

MR. MacWILLIAM: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Tourism. The minister no doubt learned when he returned from his recent vacation that the Kamloops and Region Expo 86 Committee is now bankrupt. I'd ask the minister why the government did not fund regional Expo tours and promotions from the outset rather than to launch belated bail-outs and rescue operations for societies after they get into trouble.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to correct the member's opening remark, which I'm sure was meant in a political sense: I was not on a vacation, contrary to what the member might think.

I'm very much aware, Mr. Speaker, of the problems that two or three of the local Expo community committees have run into, specifically Islands 86, the Kamloops committee, and possibly the Cariboo committee. To date, we have some 96 local Expo community committees in the province. Most of them are functioning very well. A couple of them tackled projects that may have been just a little too ambitious and consequently got themselves into a bit of financial difficulty; in fact, considerable financial difficulty in two cases.

This is not to fault anyone. The intent was there, and hard work was put into their project. But for one reason or another, their money-making schemes did not pay off. We have offered these committees, through the Ministry of Provincial Secretary, financial assistance on a two-for-one basis, which I think is more than fair. No committees were promised, or even was it indicated, that they would have any financial help at the outset of their activities. We have offered financial help on a two-for-one basis; that is, through the lottery fund, the Provincial Secretary will put up $2 for every $1 that the local committee raises to offset their financial difficulties.

At the moment, Mr. Speaker, the member is quite right: the committee in Kamloops is in considerable difficulty. But with the help of some very eager volunteers, and one paid person in region E, I'm sure that by the end of this week they will have overcome those difficulties and will be well on the way to planning Expo festivities for the coming six months.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The bell terminates question period. The Minister of Tourism rises.

EXPO 86

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I would like to answer questions taken on my behalf yesterday by the Provincial Secretary. They were asked by the same member, the member for Okanagan North (Mr. MacWilliam), wherein he questioned the specialized periods at Expo. He was questioning why they are now being brushed aside and Expo officials have shelved the promotional events which were promised to the international participants, etc. I wish to to clear up any misconceptions that this House or the people of British Columbia might have regarding the specialized periods at Expo, and perhaps caution the member to do a little more research in the future before he makes such statements.

In fact, Expo is paying particular attention to the specialized periods because of their importance to the exposition. In the last six weeks we have increased the budget to the specialized periods by $1.2 million. We are continuing to strengthen our commitment to those periods. The additional revenue has been generated through corporate sponsors and in areas where revenues are charged for such periods, such as admission to SteamExpo and the selling of display space at the Abbotsford air show.

To date, over 20 countries are participating in the specialized periods, and there are over 1,000 activities taking place in conjunction with these periods. Not one event has been cancelled or reduced, Mr. Speaker, but in fact they're all growing in stature.

I wish to give you a list of the specialized periods that are going to take place at Expo, and you will see the significance. The tall ships exposition is one that has had to be changed in nomenclature more than anything, just simply because we could not compete with the attraction of the refurbishing of the Statue of Liberty. But this has allowed us to stage an event with a much broader meaning to the ships of Canada and British Columbia. They will have a much higher profile than before.

The search and rescue specialized period is a one-week period with over 200 activities at False Creek. Taking part are such countries as the U.S.A., Australia, Britain, France, Switzerland, Canada, Japan and the U.S.S.R. It's the largest gathering of its kind ever held in North America; in fact it is the first time that it has not been held in Europe.

Air Fair '86 is becoming stronger than ever, providing an opportunity of making the Abbotsford air show a truly viable international air show that guarantees its success for many years to come.

The Flight into History has grown out of 40 participants. The arctic and bush plane fly-past has grown to 30 planes, with more confirmations expected daily. The DC3 fly-past will reach its target of 30 airplanes, Mr. Speaker. In fact there's every indication that this number will be surpassed.

[2:30]

In the innovative-vehicle design, 12 participants and countries have indicated that they will be participating. In the human-powered vehicle competition, 154 international participants are demonstrating on a competitive basis. The U.S.A., Canada, the Federal Republic of Germany, Norway, Britain, Australia and the U.S.S.R. will be participating in the polar transportation and communication special period. In the trucks and intercity buses special period, again, many countries are participating. It is the same with the urban transportation specialized period, and the automobile section in display and demonstration. It is the same with communication and mobility for elderly and disabled people; the conference design and demonstration will be attended by the U.S.A., Canada, Japan, Britain and Italy. It is the same with the marine communication specialized period, and the aviation design and demonstration, which will be attended by the U.S.A., Canada, Britain, Norway, Spain, Australia and the U.S.S.R. It is the same with the alternative fuel and power systems and transportation for recreation displays and demonstrations, the human power transportation and the underwater and offshore resources demonstrations. It's the same with the modern rail conference, which will be attended by

[ Page 7516 ]

France, Britain, Czechoslovakia, Canada, the U.S.A., Australia, Switzerland, Spain, Japan and the Federal Republic of Germany. I didn't want that member to leave the wrong impression with this House or with the people of British Columbia.

MR. HOWARD: The point of order I wish to raise with Your Honour relates to standing order 47A, especially that one about answers being brief and precise, and point out to Your Honour that the so-called answer just given by the minister is an abuse of the rules. It did not deal with the question that was asked, but dealt with everything else but. I think that minister should be brought to task for abusing the rules of this House. He should not be permitted to defend his inadequacy as a minister by that kind of tripe.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member is straying from the point of order. There is no point of order.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Just to be brief and concise, I would like to table responses to questions that were asked of me recently in question period.

Hon. Mr. Heinrich tabled the annual report of the Ministry of Forests for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1985, and the report of the five-year forest and range resource program, 1986-1991, submitted in accordance with section 9 of the Ministry of Forests Act.

Hon. Mr. Ritchie tabled the annual report and financial statement for the British Columbia Cellulose Company for the fiscal year ending December 31, 1985.

Orders of the Day

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

On the amendment.

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, oh, for the good old days when budgets were small, when budgets were balanced and when five cents bought a good cigar. Probably one of the most serious changes over the years has been the result of inflation. Five cents bought a good cigar as recently as the late 1930s. Today, I gather, a good cigar costs several dollars and maybe more like five dollars. In other words, inflation has increased the cost of most things by as much as ten times, and in some instances 30 or 40 times. Inflation has been a problem.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

One of the reasons for inflation, of course, has been the increased role, particularly the increased spending, of governments. In the late 1920s, for example, provincial governments spent something of the order of 3 percent of the gross product of the country; 3 percent of income was spent by the provinces. Altogether, the private sector accounted for close to 90 percent of all expenditure, government was more like 10 or 12 percent, and the provinces 3 percent.

Now the provinces by and large spend somewhere between 16 and 20 percent of the gross provincial product. In British Columbia's case, evidently, the figure is 17 percent. It was of the order of 12 percent in the late 1960s. It rose to 18 percent in 1975 after the NDP era; it dropped back to around 15 percent in 1979.

The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) refers to deficits. He refers to his concern about the large federal deficit, and I agree with his concern. He said that the federal deficit had been increasing over the last 15 years. My recollection really is that since 1975 our federal budget has been in deficit and has been increasingly in deficit. Our provincial budget has been in deficit since 1979. So we've had a mounting federal deficit over the last decade. We've had a substantial provincial deficit over the last six years, and it's currently running of the order of $1 billion a year in a budget of the order of $9 billion.

There are various views as to deficits, whether they're desirable or not. The basic Keynesian idea was that governments ran deficits during periods of recession in order to maintain and hopefully increase employment, at least in the government sector and government-related sectors. The converse, the other side of the coin in Keynesian philosophy, was that in good times governments taxed more than they paid out and ran substantial surpluses, and that over the long pull their deficits in poor times were offset by their surpluses in good times.

I look carefully at the provincial deficit currently running on the order of $900 million or, let's say, in round numbers, $1 billion a year. There are those who would say that that's not a deficit, or it's not a substantial deficit. They're looking at a different kind of accounting. That accounting separates current operating expenses from capital expenditures. I believe that we should move — we should have moved, the federal government should have moved, although they moved a little bit — towards a two-tier budget which has operating expenses, current expenses in the sense of salaries, wages, maintenance and supplies, all included as one tier in the budget. The second tier would have capital items, capital expenditures, outlays on major projects with a life of more than a few years — a highway, a bridge, a railway, light rapid transit, major construction projects with a long life. The capital budgets should balance project by project over the life, at least the accounting life but more likely the physical life, of that project. Now those who take the two-tier budget approach and separate capital from operating costs don't see our budget as a billion dollar deficit budget. I'd like to refer to a study which was done two years ago and is often quoted by members opposite. It's entitled "B.C.'s Budget and the Need for Restraint," and its authors — members of the B.C. Economic Policy Institute, Mr. Rosenbluth and Mr. Schworm concluded several things, and I'm quoting: "In fact, Mr. Curtis has distinguished between cyclical and structural segments of the deficit...." They go on, however, to draw the conclusions which I would draw, developing a two-tier budget instead of a single budget. They say:

"While the B.C. Public Accounts shows a deficit beginning in 1980 and reaching an all-time high in 1983, Statistics Canada's financial management system shows a deficit only in 1983, and Statistics Canada's national income accounts show a cumulative surplus from 1975 in every year through 1984.

"Transfers of funds to Crown corporations are included in the Statistics Canada analyses. This turns deficits into surpluses by taking an overall view of things.

[ Page 7517 ]

"Thus it is reasonable to expect the corrected deficit for 1984-85 is not significantly different from zero. Thus there is no evidence of a structural deficit. When one compares B.C.'s record with that of other provinces on a national income account basis, only Alberta and Saskatchewan have comparable records of surplus. Ontario, Quebec and the Atlantic provinces have a consistent record of deficits. The statistical record thus shows that British Columbia is in a better position than any other province except Alberta to counter the severity of the 1983 depression by expansionary fiscal policy."

Now if I'm dealing purely with the mechanics of things, I'm saying that if you had a two-tier budget and you separated capital from operating accounts, you would arrive at a conclusion that we had, at least up until the last 18 months, a more or less balanced budget. Items such as the payment to B.C. Rail effectively paying off its historic debt would be an item in the capital account and since it ran to $400 million or $500 million it would substantially have wiped out by itself the operating deficit which the government reported.

I know members opposite agree essentially with what I'm saying, because they often quote this study, but they draw a further conclusion and the conclusion is that because we don't really have a deficit we should be spending more. The province should indeed be spending more — spending more to employ people. I think fundamentally then their argument is that they would run a much higher deficit. Indeed they would probably run an operating deficit. I know that they are critical of the nature of the capital items — the capital projects — the so-called mega and other projects, because they say there isn't anything like as high an employment content in those projects as they would obtain by launching much larger numbers of smaller local development. That's a matter of argument. I think in one sense they're right, but in the longer term a number of the megaprojects will have a substantial impact on the ability of the province to generate more income overall to allow the private sector to operate more freely and more effectively. But they are saying essentially: "We don't have much of a deficit. We would run a much larger deficit. We would put more people to work employing provincial government funds."

I'm critical of that argument for another reason. I prefer balanced budgets. I would prefer a smaller budget overall in the province, but I am critical of the approach which really says that the provincial government, by spending more, can pull the provincial economy up by its bootstraps. Fortunately, or unfortunately, Canada is a substantial trading country; certainly British Columbia is a substantial trader. For every additional dollar spent in the province, much of the effect is felt outside. It's felt in the citrus fruit growing areas of California; it's felt in the automobile factories of Detroit; it's felt in the textile mills in England; it's felt in the transistor battery, etc., receivers of Tokyo, and so on.

[2:45]

The leakage out of our economy is substantial. So by spending tax dollars and spending them wholesale, they do not generate anything like the numbers of jobs one might expect in a self-contained economy. So simply to throw money at the economy and expect to generate a lot more jobs is, I believe, fallacious.

We've had problems balancing our budget, at least if you use the conventional old-style current accounting. In fact, we're roughly $1 billion short this year. We have been for several years of balancing. The main reason for this is that we've continued to spend a very large proportion — something like 70 percent of the budget — on people programs like health, education and welfare. We've maintained those expenditures at an annually increased rate in line with the growth of the economy or even more so. So on the expenditures side we've had a very large requirement, which continued to mount. On the income side we've had a disappointing result from our resource industries. That disappointing result comes partly as a result of price declines in international trade, and partly in decreased volumes of sales abroad of timber products, minerals and, latterly, of energy minerals as well.

Just to give you an indication, Mr. Speaker, back in 1978, when we had a balanced budget — balanced both on operating and capital accounts — income from the resource industries was $704 million. Running right through to the present time that figure has remained roughly constant. It was of the order of $700 million in 1985. In the interval the real purchasing value of $700 million has fallen roughly in half. So we have roughly half the real income from the resource industries now that we had six years ago. That is the principal disappointment.

There are those who are critical of the forecast for this year, as contained in the budget of income. I'd point to the fact, for example, that lumber prices right now are at or close to an all-time high. That's a good indication, hopefully, of a substantial revival in income from that very important sector. Nevertheless, we have in the interval lost a large chunk of income which otherwise could have been used to finance the major people programs.

Now the big ticket items — the big capital items — the items of the kind that I say should be in our capital budget. We have the Coquihalla Highway and its extensions from Merritt to Kamloops and later from Merritt to Kelowna. I believe that that should be fully documented. It should be described for all to see, not only in terms of its costs year by year — its capital costs and its operating costs — but also the income side. That should be in our capital budget.

SkyTrain. I think I understand the finances of SkyTrain, but they're very difficult to discover from our own accounts. I think that our accounts, if they were properly displayed, would be thoroughly defensible. While I realize that some of the interest is being capitalized, I think that too can be defended as a proper approach to capitalization of an important transportation link.

Northeast coal. It is virtually impossible to discover what the accounting of northeast coal is. I think that the principal argument for the northeast coal development, i.e., another major transportation artery across the province, is a valid argument. I believe, though, that it would be much more helpful all around — not only to understand what's happening, but even to defend the project — if it were possible to clearly identify what the expenditure items are, how that expenditure is being capitalized, and how the government proposes to finance it over time.

Site C. I'm for hydroelectric developments as long as they can be built on a total cost-recovery basis. I know that one has to allow for inflation as well, but I would like to be sure that a large part, if not all, of the costs of each new hydro development, especially if some part of it is to be exported,

[ Page 7518 ]

will be covered by export contracts. Again, a proper accounting would show (a) the operating costs, but (b) more important in that case, the capital costs — the flows over time; whether they in fact balance on a present-value or other basis.

I think that hospital and school construction — all major capital items — should be in a separate budget, and each identified by location and each paid off over time, not in one lump sum in one year, as we endeavour to do now and have always done, in our accounting. We should not charge them off in the year in which they are completed, or endeavour to do so. That invites all kinds of manipulation in respect to report. I think that contradicts the basic role of this Legislature: that is, to understand what's going on and to criticize, hopefully to make recommendations to improve the whole process of government in this province.

On the operation side, health is the biggest item. Health is nearly three billion dollars a year. Health expenditure in British Columbia is of the order of 6 percent of the gross provincial product. I don't find that disturbing. The main reason I find that laudable is that in the United Kingdom, for example, health as one of the major items of cost runs more like 8 percent. I continue to read in the American press that health overall costs more like 10 percent of the United States gross national product. I really can't understand the differences — why we are down around 6 percent with a very comprehensive scheme, essentially universal, and why the costs are higher proportionately in other jurisdictions. Nevertheless, our health expenditure as a proportion of our provincial income looks good compared to others, in fact looks manageable.

Education: more like 4 percent. Comparable to other jurisdictions, perhaps higher than in some. Our welfare expenditure is now around 3 percent of gross provincial product, hopefully declining as unemployment drops; but that depends very much on the job outlook in the province.

The opposition has an amendment before the House which relates to.... I'll call it special funds. These are funds over and above the items — principally health and education — which are voted on regularly, or at least annually, by this Legislature. The special funds are additional amounts. I understand that the principal reason for the special funds is that they can be spent without automatically involving increased expenditures on wages and salaries. I agree with that argument. Because most people — certainly most people in the private sector — have to live on roughly the same incomes as they have received for some years, I believe it's only fair that our public servants receive similar treatment; that for one reason or another the local administrations, particularly of the school districts and so on, not have the opportunity through increased budgets to pay more money to people individually, but maintain their payrolls. These special funds then go exclusively to such items as more and better textbooks, better computer equipment and so on. That's the argument for special funds, as I understand it.

Taxation. Basically, the tax cuts announced this year are a continuation of those announced last year. I have long believed that we shouldn't impose property taxes on machinery and equipment. Very few other jurisdictions do, in industry and commerce. That is being removed progressively over a three-year interval.

In the case of the capital tax, I would remove it entirely. I know it's popular to talk about taxing banks, but I can't really understand why we continue to levy a capital tax on banks which don't have their headquarters here, and indeed now give preferential treatment companies that have insurance headquarters here, if we're taking seriously the initiative announced in the federal budget, which sees Vancouver, along with Montreal, as a special international financial centre. We shouldn't have discriminatory taxation on outsiders, whether they be headquartered in the rest of Canada or abroad. I am critical of both those measures: failing to remove the remnants of the capital tax — that which applies to banks — and imposing a preferential tax on insurance premiums.

Recovery. We're obviously in a modest recovery mode. Expo 86 looks like it will not sell only 14 million visits; it may sell upwards of 16 million and probably more like 20 million visits. If that's so, we've picked up another couple of hundred million — at least, the treasury has — and we'll go that distance towards balancing our budget.

We have some other indications of recovery. Unemployment is down modestly; lumber prices, as I mentioned earlier, are at an all-time high — suddenly, hopefully for a period of months. But if that happens again, income from the forest sector will be up. So perhaps the deficit won't be a billion dollars.

One other item, finally. I hope that the Minister of Finance will look very carefully at the idea of a value-added tax or a special business tax of the kind that is now being seriously studied by the federal government. I don't know enough about the subject to declare whether I am in favour of it or not, but I know that the federal government is holding hearings across the country on this subject, and that there is some expectation that the provinces will fall in line and use the same tax base on which to levy their sales tax. Whether we like that tax idea or not, whether the value-added tax or some variation of it appeals to us, it's nevertheless something being given very serious study in Ottawa, and I believe that the province must respond in one way or another.

MR. COCKE: I guess maybe I've been here too long and I've already indicated that. I listened to the member for North Vancouver–Seymour, who was in the House of Commons and has been here for a number of years, speaking to a resolution. Mr. Speaker, I thought every second that you'd be calling him to order. He spoke on the budget debate. We've got a resolution before us that is very, very precise, and the House Leader knows it's very precise.

I'd like to speak on that for a second. When the House Leader goes, "Aaah," what he is saying is that he is spitting in the eye of the rules of this House. The problem with this chamber is the fact that we do not, oftentimes, live by our own rules. Mr. Speaker, we have a motion before us. It's a motion of confidence, and it says: "But this House regrets that in the opinion of the House the hon. Minister of Finance, by setting up special funds which can be allocated on a political basis rather than assuring adequate operating budget for ministries, is jeopardizing the management of our natural resources, the provision of quality services and undermining the employment and income security of ordinary British Columbians." Now maybe somebody's going to tell me you can drive a truck through it, but I'll tell you: that was one awful big lorry that I heard coming from the other end of this chamber.

[3:00]

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

[ Page 7519 ]

Mr. Speaker, speaking to that particular amendment, what the opposition is criticizing here, number one, is discretionary funds. We're saying that you don't take a half-billion dollars and put that half-billion dollars in the hands of three ministers to use at their discretion, to divvy out that money on a political basis, on a kinship basis, or any other basis.

The reason we have a Legislature, committees and this whole process is so that the opposition can go down the list. vote by vote, approve or disapprove, and the government can do the same thing. But instead of that, we have to vote in one solid block a discretionary fund that is outrageous. We know that Mr. Bennett Sr. set up some programs, and they were permanent funds that were set aside. We had the First Citizens' Fund and we had different funds and, as a matter of fact, the NDP when they were in government had special funds set up for employment for youth and so on. I'm not suggesting that those kinds of funds should be written off. I am saying, however, that to substitute special funds like this for voted money.... For instance, in health care, have you ever seen anything so absolutely diabolical as a cut in medicare of $30 million? Doctors who charge $111 for a diagnostic procedure etc. are not going to be charging $100 or $90 this year, and there are not going to be fewer people sick this year. The reason they're doing that is that they've got those slush funds rolling around. They've cut ambulance by $4.5 million. I have some real concerns over that one, because that was my baby, among others.

In any event, Mr. Speaker, there is not going to be a substantial cut in those services. Instead, we have the minister peeling out of his billfold $120 million for health care. We say that's ridiculous. Health care money should be voted in this Legislature. Where that money goes should be voted in this Legislature, and not given to a minister to put wherever he thinks it might be appropriate. By that, are we saying that we don't trust him? It can't be me. But the people don't trust him, and they've had good reason not to trust him. They've had good reason not to trust this government. As far as I'm concerned, it's the most absurd way of doing business that I have ever heard of. When other jurisdictions see our budget, those people who are sufficiently sophisticated to understand what they're reading will gasp and say: "That could only happen in British Columbia."

I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that those discretionary funds will come to haunt this government. Sooner or later people are going to understand that you don't give ministers a blank cheque. If that were the case, why didn't we come in here in the first place, vote on a budget of $9 billion, and go home? The reason you don't do that is because people say: "We want some kind of control on the way that money is spent." You say I'm carrying it to an illogical conclusion. No, I'm not. Urn carrying it to an absolutely logical conclusion. The reason we vote, vote by vote, is so that there is some kind of control, so that we can see the policies; so at least we can let people know before the fact, rather than after the fact. It's going to be great, when we come back here a year from now — or less; a few months from now, or whatever — and we see how these discretionary funds are being spent; and we stand up and say: "Isn't this terrible!" Now's the time to say that this is not the proper way to fund our ministries. Everybody in this chamber knows it. Even those who are doing it know it's not proper. I think it's a shocking situation. Absolutely shocking.

Let me show you where some of our taxpayers' money is being spent. The minute we had a budget, there was that blue advertising on television. You all saw it. The minute that budget was out, those few lines on our boob tube said to us: "What a great budget we've got! There are 50,000 more people employed. We are the second-lowest taxed people in the country." Do you believe that?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. COCKE: He believes an absolute falsehood.

Let me give you one little figure, Mr. Speaker. In this beautiful British Columbia of ours we spend out of our pockets, in premiums for medicare, $367,475,285. Do you hear that" Virtually three hundred and fifty million for our medicare premiums. That's a tax, and I'll tell you why I call it a tax. In every jurisdiction except the three most conservative territories in this country medicare is paid out of income tax. Alberta, Ontario and British Columbia are the only jurisdictions left with premiums. So you say: "Well, we want to go on charging premiums." Go ahead and charge your premiums as long as you're in power — hopefully that won't be long — but don't lie on television. Don't tell us that we are the second-lowest taxed people in the country, because we're not. It's comparing apples and oranges. It's an absolutely outrageous statement to make. And it's a statement that is not only being made by this government, but is being paid for out of the poor old taxpayers' pockets. Every one of those ads on television, on the radio, is being paid for by our poor old taxpayers — and I'm of them. And I'll tell you something: I'm insulted to know that a dishonest government can go out and peddle their wares, using my money.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: You can see, Mr. Speaker, by the way the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Ritchie) is reacting that he is quite happy to go along with the government doing this sort of thing. So much for your ethics, Mr. Member.

I Mrs. Johnston in the chair.]

The member for Seymour indicated that unemployment in this province is modestly down. Yes, it's modestly down in the city of Vancouver and its environs, but when in the Kootenays you have an unemployment rate as high as Newfoundland, when all through the interior you have unemployment rates outrageously high, and when on Vancouver Island you have an unemployment rate that is completely unacceptable....

HON. MR. RITCHIE: You're so negative. Always negative.

MR. COCKE: The minister says I'm negative. I am pointing out to the government.... I don't happen to be on a government bench or in a position where I can make the arrangements that are necessary in this province. He is. Now what is an opposition for? An opposition is to criticize a government, and this government is so easy to criticize. I find my job so absolutely easy that it's not even funny. This government is outrageously bad and should resign this minute.

Mr. Speaker.... Madam Speaker. I keep looking away from you.

Interjections.

[ Page 7520 ]

MR. COCKE: What's that? Is that...? Call a doctor. Something's wrong over there.

Madam Speaker, let's get back to the slush funds for a minute. I only want to deal with one particular slush fund. That's the health one. Let's take a look at the kind of precise budgeting that we've got going this year. Now I have been here for 17 years, and for 17 years I have watched budgets increasing, sometimes a great deal more in one year than another, but incrementally increasing. We have here a cut of $30 million, as I mentioned, for the Medical Services Commission, a $5 million cut for long-term care facilities, and $100,000 cut from home nursing and $277,000 from community physiotherapy; we've got no increase for homemakers, adult day-care or group homes for handicapped. We've got a $4.6 million decrease for ambulance service, a 9.3 percent cut in forensic psychiatric services, and a $1.3 million cut for mental health. What kind of sense at all does that make?

If they have $120 million to slush around, then fit it into the scheme of things. We know, for example, that there will not be a $30 million cut in medicare. We know that there will be a marginal increase in medicare. Knowing that, then that slush fund should be cut by a minimum of, say, $40 million right there. So you've got $80 million left.

On and on it goes. You can go right through this whole budget and find that there isn't going to be the kind of leeway that the ministers would like. But can you imagine the political clout that that minister has when he talks to a hospital board, to the medical association, etc.? He has clout, because they fear that they won't get their share — and sometimes rightfully.

Madam Speaker, I hope against hope that there will be some kind of change of heart in this government. But no matter how much they change, I have only one thing to say here, as a person who is retiring at the next election: I just implore the people in our province to get rid of this group who have nothing more to do than bilk them. I ask the people of British Columbia, as I've asked the people in New Westminster over and over again: don't vote Socred. You vote Socred at your own personal sacrifice, and at the sacrifice of the future of your province. They have proven it over and over again.

[3:15]

Madam Speaker, I feel that it's time for me to do what is proper, and that is to move over and let someone else — new blood — get into this chamber. I don't think that I have to make any excuses for the way I have served New Westminster. I've never been asked for any excuses.

Madam Speaker, the minister says I'm leaving a sinking ship. The only sinking ship in this place is the Titanic, and it's over there — it's the Socred sinking ship. I want to do everything I can possibly do to make the people in this province understand that the days of the Socreds should be absolutely numbered. You have not done the right thing by the people in this fair province. In 1983 you brought in a restraint process that has hurt every living soul in our province. The kids in our province are suffering terribly. The unemployment rate of people under 25 is at an all-time high. That's nothing for us to be proud of, particularly for a government that's supposed to be participating in making the economy work.

Why is it that other jurisdictions have done well? Why is it that there has been an improvement in virtually every other jurisdiction in this country but ours and Newfoundland — the book-ends of Canada? Who made us a book-end? When I first came into this Legislature it was a province that was rich in potential and rich in jobs — a first-class place to be. In ten years they've managed to run us into the ground. I absolutely implore the people in this province to.... For heaven's sake, the next time you get an opportunity, dump the Socreds, and it will be the best thing that ever happened to B.C.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, first, in re-welcoming you to the chair and the responsibilities afforded you on opening day, I'm just delighted to see that you're aboard, sir.

Speaking to this very fine budget and against this solely politically motivated amendment, I'd like to say this, Mr. Speaker. I know some of the opposition quite well, and I would assure you that in their heart of hearts they all welcome and are exceptionally thankful for the excellent and great things that this little government has done for the people of this province. But I'm afraid that this afternoon time is a little short for accolades.

I would really like to address many topics, and certainly some of those contained in the amendment before us. I would very much like to be discussing free trade, tax simplification in our country, and the continuing curse which my friend from Vancouver East is so interested in — marketing boards. I'd like to be talking about the roles of the Canadian broadcasting system, one of which is surely not to be a forum for libel. I'd like to talk about the function of Canada Post — and we all remember when it used to be to deliver mail. I'd like to talk about accountability in the use of public funds at every level, plus reform of the Senate, the appointment of the judiciary and the ever-increasing burdens that middle-income people in our country are being beset with every day. But this afternoon, in the very short time afforded me, I wish to deal, for the record, with an enormous issue which, if accepted in its totality, would burden British Columbia with burdens that it has never experienced since Confederation.

I wish to talk about the issue of aboriginal title in the province of British Columbia. The native Indian population is about 60,000 — under 2 percent of the citizens of our province; some 195 bands and some 1650 reserves, totalling about 900,000 acres. Anthropologists tell us that these first citizens of what is now our province and, indeed, much of North America immigrated to this continent across the Bering Strait about 35,000 years ago. On the whole, it is the position of British Columbia Indian leaders, who are also leading representatives of the Assembly of First Nations, which is the senior Canadian organization of status Indians, that, by virtue of their inherent aboriginal title, they claim ownership of and jurisdiction over all land and resources within the traditional territories of each first nation, plus the inherent right of each of them to self-government.

According to the recently released Nielsen task force report, under the 1981 Canadian census there are 350,000 status Indians in Canada, some 577 bands, 75,000 non-status Indians,100,000 Metis and 27,000 Inuit. The total Canadian aboriginal population is approximately 552,000 people.

Essentially the premise of the Assembly of First Nations, the status Indians, is this. The guiding principle for first nations' governments arises from their view of their spiritual relationship to the universe. Land is at the root of their sovereignty. In their view the earth is incapable of being owned. They categorically state that the traditional lands of

[ Page 7521 ]

the first nations' governments encompassed all of what is now known as Canada, save territory recognized as the traditional lands of the Inuit. They are the first nations. They have been here since time immemorial, and they conclude that their underlying title to the land can never be extinguished. From the land, from its spiritual relationship to them, from their definition of aboriginal title, flows all of their aboriginal rights, one of which is for a sovereign order of aboriginal self-government.

Now it's clear that their claims for title and rights go beyond usufructuary rights; those are the rights to hunt, to fish, to trap, to gather. Their rights extend, in their interpretation, to ownership and to jurisdiction over the land, over the resources, over the waters, fresh and salt and everything above and below each. They assert that their title claim and their inherent right to self-government do not emanate from parliamentary or provincial or even, for that matter, Crown powers of delegation, but stem from their notion of sovereignty, their notion of sovereign title from time immemorial. In referring to self-government, it also has to be noted that self-government, even from their concept, is an empty vessel without a land base.

These status Indians also claim that the inherent right of North American Indians to sovereignty was first recognized, but not determined by, the Two-Row Wampum in 1650 and later by the royal proclamation, which you've heard about in this assembly, of George III of 1763 which followed the Treaty of Paris under which the French surrendered to the British all of the rights they previously had in what was then considered to be Canada. The 1763 proclamation guaranteed protection of Indian possessions and recognized Indian rights to use lands, unless such lands were surrendered by treaty. I emphasize the word "use," but as I shall mention later on, Mr. Speaker, Indian claims to rights to lands under British and Canadian law and policy can be dealt with not only by treaty but also by Crown prerogative, act, ordinance and statute. Like it or not, that is and always has been the law.

Jurisprudence has also affirmed that this royal proclamation has no application in British Columbia because in 1763, 13 years before the Declaration of Independence in the United States, British Columbia was then unknown and undiscovered by the British and the royal proclamation did not extend to B.C.

Now moving upwards in time to the middle of the nineteenth century, before B.C. entered Confederation, British colonial governors acting under the laws of England, as adopted by the colony of B.C. In 1858, utilized various colonial laws and ordinances to exercise sovereign domain and establish rules over land use and disposition. It has also been judicially determined that in B.C. these colonial laws and ordinances effectively extinguished native claims to aboriginal title. This was the position taken by the judge in the supreme court of our province, by three judges of the court of appeal of our province — whose decision prevails by virtue of the split in the Supreme Court of Canada — and also by three of the six judges who formed an opinion on this point in the Supreme Court of Canada. Hence, Mr. Speaker, out of the 11 adjudicators in the Calder case, one of whom did not deal with the issue at all.... Seven of those ten adjudicators found that these colonial actions of B.C. governors and the Parliament of the United Kingdom extinguished these claims. The capacity of the British Crown and the British Parliament to extinguish aboriginal title to lands under their dominion was a rule of British law. It was also provided for in the 1763 proclamation. Hence this Crown prorogative and the legal capacity to extinguish native title, either by treaty or by act or by ordinance, has long been a principle of British and Canadian law and policy and has been supported by an abundance of judicial authority under the English common-law system as well as by the courts of our own land.

I want to state the historic position of every government elected in British Columbia, conceivably all reflecting the mandate of their electors since British Columbia entered Confederation on July 20, 1871. First, B.C. was unknown to Britain in 1763 and the royal proclamation and its recognition capacity did not extend here. Second, assuming that aboriginal title existed from an English common-law concept predating the royal proclamation, it was extinguished by the colonial acts and ordinances of Governor Douglas and subsequent governors. Thirdly, however, if it did exist and it was not so extinguished, then by virtue of the Terms of Union — I'm going to say more about this afternoon — Canada assumed both debts and liabilities of the colony existing at the time of union and constitutional jurisdiction over the Indians. Section 1 of the Terms of Union clearly and specifically reads: "Canada shall be liable for the debts and liabilities of British Columbia existing at the time of union."

Next, section 10 provides that the BNA act should be applicable to British Columbia — i.e., this section applies section 91 (24) of the Constitution Act, where the Parliament of Canada has responsibility for Indians and lands reserved for Indians. The third section is section 13, which dealt with reserve establishment, and that has been effectively and properly fulfilled.

So if native title still exists, Parliament has sole and full compensatory responsibility and also is the only authority to extinguish or deal with aboriginal title either by treaty or by statute. If there is any liability, it is that of Canada and of all Canadian taxpayers, not just those from the province of British Columbia. The recent Coolican report, which was published in December and released in March — we just got a copy last week — indicates that before the 1982 new constitution, the Crown "could extinguish aboriginal rights legislatively without the consent of the aboriginal peoples." But the Coolican report also suggests that these rights now could only be altered with the consent of the aboriginal peoples, and it not being their current desire to consent.... Or, secondly, it could be altered only by constitutional amendment.

So from the federal perspective, if there are valid unextinguished claims, the government of Canada will have to grapple with both the dollars plus the issue of finality in the event of settlement. Over and above that, it has to be observed that where there are treaties, the status Indian position is that the government of Canada negotiate or renegotiate those treaties with the first nations concerned, as well as resources and proprietary rights and appropriate jurisdictional relationships — and with appropriate fiscal mechanisms.

It's easy to see that this aboriginal title claim and concept is far from unique to British Columbia, but is clearly Canada wide. Here I must also make reference to the claim of the Metis, who themselves claim to be larger in number than the status Indians, and who, on the whole, are without a land base. They are also claiming such a land base, plus self government and everything that flows from that. In addition, they're claiming that they receive federal recognition under section 91 (24) of the BNA Act.

[3:30]

[ Page 7522 ]

[Mrs. Johnston in the chair.]

This all has tremendous ramifications, extending in the eyes of many of our aboriginal leaders to sovereignty and self-determination in the international sense. I have to say, is this what all of the Indian people in our country want? Is this what Canadian people want? Do we wish to have these kinds of sovereign enclaves? Do we wish to have these types of sovereign tax havens? Do we wish, really and truly, at this point in our time, to perpetuate an enlarged reserve system in our country. I say God help us if we do that.

Some of the native Indian community don't go quite that far. Some say: "Well, share." But share on what basis, share how, share when, and share to what extent? Would the sharing of rights, Madam Speaker, include the sharing of responsibilities? Nonetheless, it is the harder line that is being taken in these position papers, in these position statements and certainly in the lawsuits.

At a constitutional meeting in Ottawa in 1984, Mr. Billy Two Rivers of the Mohawk nation, one of the six nations of the Iroquois Confederacy, stated:

"Our people are citizens of our nations and do not seek citizenship within the nation of Canada. Any effort to subjugate our people under Canada is a violation of our right to self-determination under international law. We are separate and independent national entities. We have always held we are not citizens of either Canada or the United States."

In the British Columbia Gitksan case, not yet heard by our courts — and I'm not going to offend upon the rule of sub judice — there's a claim for some 20,000 square miles in northern B.C., but also for British Columbia and Canada to recognize and confirm their right to the ownership and jurisdiction over their territory and the right of self-determination in accordance with international law, i.e., total and absolute immunity from the laws of Canada, the province, the division of powers and certainly sovereignty in the international sense. That is now going to be heard by the courts and determined by the courts.

These are very strong positions. They're very fervently articulated. If accepted, they would result in a rewrite of history and a rewrite of existing governmental order in the Canadian sense.

This government does not agree with this sovereignty beyond-Canada concept. Some Indians may say this is an extreme position on their part, and many others may disagree with them. If they say it's an extreme position, I certainly agree with that. But that is what is being articulated, and we do not agree with the sovereignty-beyond-Canada concept.

At the first ministers' meeting last April in Ottawa, attended by the Premiers of the provinces and the Prime Minister, British Columbia said, and filed its position paper to this effect, that the aboriginal peoples of Canada are entitled to the rights of self-government within the context of the sovereign authority of the Parliament of Canada and the legislatures of our provinces, but not another sovereign order of government in Canada, not a government beyond the parameters and powers of the federal government and provincial governments, and not a government in the international sense. We're fully in favour of greater capacities for them to organize, to develop, to deal with their own economic, social and cultural affairs if they wish to — and that's their right — but all within the context of the federation of Canada. The approach that I'm suggesting would be very parallel to directions taken in the United States, where the power of Congress to legislate in respect to the Indians does not appear to be under any constitutional limitation. In the United States they have Indian self-government; however, not as sovereign entities beyond the authority of Congress.

Well, headway has been made in our country along the lines that I'm speaking of. Sechelt is a prime example — and I'm going to say more about that at a later date.

But apart from what Canada will intend to do with the land claims, apart from what Canada will intend to do concerning constitutional amendment, and remembering that there is no proposal for constitutional change in our country, it can't go anywhere whatsoever without the initiative and 100 percent support of the federal government. They've got all the cards. Although constitutional change is not a panacea unto itself, they do have the primary responsibility for constitutional change — if they reach the conclusion that that is the way to go. What we need is a reshaping of attitude, a reshaping of government policies and of legislative initiatives, which would prove to be far more important, in my view, in addressing realistic native aspirations.

A primary parliamentary initiative that could be dealt with right away is relieving our Indian communities, if they choose, of the shackles of the federal Indian Act and the federal bureaucracy thousands of miles away. This is a federal statute, a government of Canada statute. It's not an Indian law; it's not an Indian custom. It's not a provincial custom or provincial law. It's a federal statute, and one that is totally racist. It's discriminatory. It has proven to be a litany of failure. It is unclear and unfair, and clearly, I'd say, the statutory shame of our country at this point in our history. I indeed wish that every parliamentarian and every legislative member throughout the whole of our country, and certainly all of those in the aboriginal community, would read it. I tell you, the Charter could just run through the thing like a runaway freight. But why should anyone have to be put to that kind of trouble or expense? Could it not be scrapped, renovated and car-washed, or — what have you — and then get on with what could be a monumental first step in the interests of every Canadian and every member of the aboriginal community? In the years that I have been working in and interested in Indian matters, I have never had one native Indian come to me and say: "Thank God for the federal Indian Act." Madam Speaker, the ball here is surely in the court of the Prime Minister of Canada.

I'd like to make a couple of observations about the correspondence from the Hon. David Crombie to my colleague the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith). It came under cover of March 6 of this year. Mr. Crombie says: "It is the position of the government of Canada that aboriginal title likely exists in various areas of British Columbia." We have to ask: Mr. Crombie, how does it exist in the view of the government of Canada — from the perspective of Indian law, Indian custom, common law, royal proclamation, colonial British law, statutory law, federal policy, or on the basis of non-extinguishment? Further, Mr. Crombie, what does the government of Canada consider aboriginal title to be? Is it usufructuary, or is it total ownership over the land, the resources, the water, salt and fresh, and, as I said earlier, everything above and below. Furthermore, does this go to sovereignty? Next, Mr. Crombie, what are the ramifications that you conclude will flow from all of that which you suggest, and which of those

[ Page 7523 ]

ramifications is the government of Canada prepared to accept? He talks about "various areas of B.C." Which areas specifically? I say, contrary to some advice we earlier received from Mr. Crombie, that B.C. has never received particulars of these claims. I'm informed that just over the last day they have been delivered to officials. We're all looking forward to seeing what they say. Whether those claims consist of all the claims remains to be seen. Maybe, indeed, Mr. Crombie could advise us of that as well. Will they come from the concept of Chief James Gosnell that it's British Columbia lock, stock and barrel; or as he more recently stated, "most of B.C."; or as certain academics have indicated, "only" — and that's my word — "70 percent of our province"? Are those known claims, as of today, or does that include anticipated ones?

It was really only by way of newspaper report that we read in February that the chiefs of the Burrard, Musqueam and Squamish Indian bands indicated their claim to their traditional lands included Stanley Park. Mr. Crombie in his correspondence also say this: "The federal government will always live up to its obligations." Good stuff! But nowhere in his letter did he refer to article I of the Terms of Union, which I say again with every respect is a very selective assessment of Canada's responsibility and obligation. He indicated that the federal government does not interpret section 98 (l) (24) of the Constitution Act of 1867 or article 13 of the B.C. Terms of Union as placing on it the responsibility for compensation costs involving and settling Indian land claims in British Columbia.

This position is totally and completely unacceptable to the people and all of the taxpayers in this province, and this government of British Columbia is not prepared to see these taxpayers and these citizens go over Niagara Falls with or without a federal barrel to support this kind of constitutional impertinence — the net result of which amounts to a suggested unilateral negation of the Terms of Union and a complete abandonment of federal constitutional and legal responsibility. As my colleague the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith) informed the Hon. Mr. Crombie: "B.C. has carried out its obligations to set aside reserve lands, the acknowledgement of which was made by the government of Canada about 62 years ago in 1924." So if unextinguished aboriginal title exists in B.C., if there is any liability or charge upon the colonial government, Canada is fully responsible for that, and not B.C.

My colleague the Attorney-General suggested that Mr. Crombie and his colleagues reconsider the matter. I endorse that, and as strongly as I can. I would suggest also that the Prime Minister and the Premier meet as soon as they can. All this was first requested by the Premier in December of last year, and the Prime Minister appears to concur, because the current situation is doing a disservice to all of the people of British Columbia, definitely including the aboriginal community. They're all entitled to something better than that.

[3:45]

MR. SKELLY: Madam Speaker, it's always a pleasure to listen to the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations in the Legislature, and through subsequent weeks to try to find out exactly what he was saying. It would be good if the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations, rather than stating these positions in the Legislature, would get down to the process of negotiating with the people involved. One of the problems we have here in British Columbia with this government is that they do not seem to be capable of negotiating in order to resolve conflicts. Rather they present their positions in the headlines. Rather they misrepresent the positions of other people involved in the negotiations.

The minister himself selected comments by various people at the conference on aboriginal rights and cases which he indicated were the most extreme cases taken. It does not serve anybody's interests to represent the extreme cases as the positions which will be taken by Indian people in British Columbia or by the federal government. The problem with this government is that they do not seem to be able to sit down in good faith and negotiate with the people involved in a dispute and seek a resolution of that dispute.

In addition, this government, in my opinion, is attempting to generate fear among the people of British Columbia, to divide the people of British Columbia along racial lines, to divide the people of British Columbia in such a way as to leave a residuum of bitterness that will destroy this province and keep people at each other's throats for years and years and years.

Madam Speaker, this is a government that refuses to sit at the table with the people involved, and I'm convinced, as has happened elsewhere in North America and in other countries around the world where there was a problem with aboriginal ownership, where there was a need to resolve issues around aboriginal title and aboriginal claims to land, that reasonable people making reasonable demands can sit at the table and achieve reasonable solutions.

The problem here in British Columbia is not the fact that people are making unreasonable demands. This minister himself over the last weeks and months, in spite of all the advice he has received, claims to be ignorant of the issue of aboriginal title and what the Indian people are asking for in this province. He feigns ignorance, he claims ignorance, and yet he refuses....

HON. MR. GARDOM: Can you define it? Can you define it? No.

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: I can tell you the process by which it could be defined, and that process is the process of negotiation in good faith. The member shouts across the floor: "What's your position? What's their position? What's his position?" I'll tell you how to achieve a common position, and that is by sitting down, through the process of negotiating in good faith, rather than misrepresenting the positions of others in this debate, rather than exaggerating the positions of others, rather than exploiting the statements made by some of the people involved in this debate. The resolution comes from sitting down at the table with the parties involved and negotiating in good faith. I'll tell you, I believe this government is incapable of negotiating with anybody in good faith.

As long as there is a political opportunity here, this government, advised by the most cynical and manipulative advisers they could hire in Ontario, will use that opportunity to exploit those divisions for their own political benefit. Rotten politics. It doesn't matter whether they're negotiating or whether they're discussing issues relating to Indian land claims; it doesn't matter whether they're discussing negotiations with their own employees. It seems that these people in government today will use every ruse, every trick, every

[ Page 7524 ]

manipulation open and available to them to exploit people at the lowest common denominator.

It's no wonder that people in politics in British Columbia, people who have dedicated their lives to public life in this province, somehow feel that you end up a bit unclean after going through this kind of a political debate. This is a government that tends to exploit every issue at the lowest common denominator. It makes you ashamed of this government and ashamed of some of the people involved in it. I'll tell you how you can approach the resolution of this issue. I can't give you my solution because the process is more important than a solution that I would impose on the process.

The solution comes out of the process, and that's the key here. The solution will come out of the process. This government says that they're going to leave the issue of determination as to whether aboriginal title to the province exists or not up to the courts. I feel that the people of British Columbia should feel more threatened by leaving this issue up to the courts than they would if the issue was negotiated in good faith with the parties involved.

I think that the decisions of the court would probably be a roll of the dice in which people in British Columbia stand to lose and lose heavily. This government is prepared to gamble with the issue and to exploit the issue for its own political benefit. We're here in the Legislature today to discuss the budget, and it was my understanding that the minister, whose statement as far as I can see was totally out of order, did not relate in any manner whatsoever to the resolution on the order paper.... The minister did not even mention the budget in any substantive way.

I would like to talk a little bit about the budget and a little bit about the resolution that is before us now. I've heard the reports about the budget on the radio and the television and read a few of the responses to the budget in the newspaper. I've also heard the government line on this budget, Madam Speaker, the government line — 1-i-n-e.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order, order!

MR. SKELLY: I'm not at this point saying that the government is lying; I'm saying....

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: I'm talking about the government's line on this issue. In its ads the government says that 50,000 new jobs have been created in this province, and yet when you look at these statistics that appear in the budget, the government's line is absolutely false and absolutely misrepresents the number of people employed in the province.

MR. PARKS: What are your statistics?

MR. SKELLY: Madam Speaker, I'll use the government's statistics. In 1981, by the government's own statistics, 1,270,000 people were employed in the province. In 1985, according to the government's statistics, 1,228,000 were employed in the province of British Columbia.

MR. LAUK: What does that sound like to you?

MR. SKELLY: It sounds like, using the government's own figures, 42,000 fewer people are working in British Columbia today than were working in 1981.

The government in its advertising program around this budget is totally misrepresenting the economy of British Columbia and the problems with employment in British Columbia. It's a complete and total fabrication of the facts.

Madam Speaker, the government says in its ads that there is no tax increase in the current budget. That statement is totally and absolutely and completely false, using the government's own figures.

I can understand the concern from the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Parks). This member says that the opposition doesn't know anything about economics. But I'll tell you one thing we know, and that is that you can't be a director of a company you hold in a blind trust.

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: When you look at the figures provided by the government itself, the personal income tax increase for every household in this province is $221.31 this year over last year. Every household in the province of British Columbia will be paying $221 more in income tax this year over last year. I challenge that member to provide the figures.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Alberni has the floor. Could the Chair please ask for cooperation from the other hon. members in the House?

MR. SKELLY: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

As I said, the increase in income tax per household this year over last year is $221.31 per household. It's the highest increase in personal income tax per household in the last five years. And this government is representing to the people of this province that there is no tax increase in the budget. Totally false. Complete misrepresentation.

The government in its budget doesn't even mention the property tax for school purposes, and yet it has given the information to school boards around the province that if they're going to provide the same level and the same standard of service as last year, even with the so-called fund for Excellence in Education, it's going to require an additional school tax levy of $153 million on property. Where is that money going to come from? It's going to come from the individual residential homeowners of the province of B.C., those very same households that have received a $221 increase in their income tax. In spite of this so-called fund for excellence in education, the people of the province of British Columbia, the residential property-owners, are going to be forced to pay an additional $153 million this year over last year just to maintain services in school districts and the public school system at the same level as last year. This government is saying on its television and radio ads that there's no increase in tax for individuals in the province of B.C. — a complete and utter fabrication, totally false.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

Nobody believes this government anymore. Nobody in the province of B.C. believes what this government is saying. If this budget could be believed on the face of it, why are they advertising? Why are they advertising on radio and on television, to try to tell people what this budget isn't? Nobody believes them anymore.

[ Page 7525 ]

The budget says that taxes on people are going to be increased and taxes on corporations are going to be cut back. That's where you can believe them. It says here in the summary of revenue measures that taxes, mainly on corporations, mainly on businesses, are going to be cut by $362.9 million. Some people are getting a tax reduction.

A number of sources tell us that this is contrary to the best interests of job creation in the province of B.C. I want to refer to a few documents that have come our way recently from the federal government, from Canada Employment and Immigration, that discuss the effectiveness in job creation of various expenditure and revenue measures. This study that I'm quoting from compares the effectiveness in job creation of certain measures.

General government expenditure, of $1 billion in this case, to create employment results in the creation of 60,000 jobs over a five-year period, according to this study, at a net cost of $13,000 per job. Corporate tax cuts can create 11,000 jobs over the same five-year period through a tax expenditure of a billion dollars, and the cost per job created through corporate tax cuts is $77,000. The most job-effective way of creating employment in any economy is through direct expenditures for job creation, not through corporate tax cuts. That's the least effective. What this government is doing with the taxpayers' money is the least effective way, giving tax money to corporations.

Now I'm not saying that corporate tax reductions are ineffective in all cases. There are some cases where you should be cutting corporate taxes. I'm not convinced that this government is doing it in the right areas.

MR. LEA: Name one.

MR. SKELLY: Well, I'll tell the member for Prince Rupert which area — the water tax. The punitive water tax that this government has imposed on energy industries and on the mining industry and on the pulp and paper in the province of British Columbia has imposed huge new costs on these industries. That's one, This method is the least effective method of creating jobs, and the province right now has a serious problem with job creation. There are 198,000 people out of work.

Another problem with the corporate tax cut method is that it's very difficult to evaluate the results. Our federal leader, Ed Broadbent, and the New Democratic Party in the House of Commons have suggested that we shouldn't oppose corporate tax cuts when they are effective, but we should demand some job creation performance from those who benefit. That's the difference in the position we take: if you give a corporate tax break you should be demanding some requirement from the corporations who benefit from those tax cuts in terms of their job creation performance. This government hasn't made any demands along those lines at all. Even the Nielsen report by the federal Tories has suggested that the corporate tax break method is least effective and can't be monitored effectively, and therefore it's very difficult to ensure that jobs are going to be created through that route.

[4:00]

Those free-enterprisers believe that the economy of British Columbia is dominated by the marketplace — that it's a marketplace. If they were real free-enterprisers, rather than using the corporate tax cut method, they would be taking measures which increase the disposable income of individual consumers in the marketplace. That's what they'd do if they were real free enterprisers, so that our citizens could make the decisions in the marketplace, could determine which entrepreneurs offering which goods and services were the ones to reward through the expenditure of their consumer dollars.

But that's not what this so-called free enterprise government is doing. What they're giving is corporate tax breaks which reward some and penalize the others. At the same time they're increasing the tax on consumers so that they don't have the disposable income to patronize businesses doing a good job in developing, innovating and providing new goods and services — the kind of new goods and services that create employment here in British Columbia. This so-called free enterprise government is turning its back on the market theory. That's one of the reasons we're not getting the kind of job-creation effectiveness that this kind of expenditure should create in B.C. Crazy!

People no longer believe this government. They no longer believe the wild ideological positions that this government is taking. This government reminds me very much of the Trudeau Liberals before their final collapse in terms of the patronage it's absolutely riddled with, in terms of the way it operates totally in isolation from the people of the country or the jurisdiction that it purports to serve. This government is living in absolute isolation from the people of British Columbia. That's one of the concerns we have with this budget which prompted us to move this motion of non-confidence in the government to begin with. I think the last battle we saw between the Trudeau Liberals and the British Columbia Socreds was over who should paint the flags on SkyTrain and which flags should go on SkyTrain — both governments jockeying to take credit for expenditures out of political slush funds in order to benefit their own political positions. Rather than any concern whatsoever for the needs and aspirations and requirements of the people of Canada, both governments were simply jockeying for political credit and political position.

That's why we're concerned about the funds for health care, education and silviculture. Mr. Speaker, this government is robbing the line ministries of government: those ministries committed to providing high quality education, the ministry committed to providing high quality health care and the ministry committed to providing a high quality of natural resource and forest management in British Columbia. This government is stealing money from the line ministries and putting it into political slush funds so that they can take credit for everything that comes out of those funds.

I was interested in the statement made by the member for Richmond, the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Nielsen), in which he indicated that some school boards in the province are not going to apply for grants out of the Excellence in Education fund. He said: "We know that those school boards are NDP-dominated school boards." It seems to me that what that minister said absolutely confirms the view we have taken that this is going to be a political slush fund. How does the minister go about finding out how an individual school trustee votes in a provincial or federal election? How is it that the minister knows how those members voted, and how is he aware that they're on school boards as well? Is that not going to affect the minister's view when it comes time to approve a project applied for by that school board? Is the minister not going to take a look at the members of that school board and say: "Oh, they're all NDP or they're all Liberals or they're all Tories. We're not going to give that

[ Page 7526 ]

school board any money regardless of the merits of their application."

Mr. Speaker, these slush funds create a very dangerous precedent. The minister's statement indicates that this government is willing to review the political persuasion of people on school boards — and on hospital boards, I'm convinced, and other boards throughout the province — and if they're not consistent with the politics that the minister likes, then those boards aren't going to get the funds they applied for from these political slush funds. I think this is an extremely dangerous way to go. Funds for education should be allocated to the ministry, and the funds should be sufficient to provide the highest standard of education that we are capable of providing for our young people in this province. They shouldn't be split off into two separate forms of funding, whereby part can be allocated to the school boards on a formula basis and the rest can be allocated on a political basis. That constitutes a threat to the education we're providing to our children and young people in this province.

The same is true of the allocations under the new fund for health care. The way that that budget is separated now constitutes a threat to the quality of health care that's going to be made available to our citizens.

Silviculture. I cannot believe the number of funds that this government has set up in order to provide an independent silviculture or tree-planting fund in order to maintain the forests of the province of British Columbia and to maintain sustainability in the forests. Every time they set up a new fund, within a few years it's eliminated. This fund was set up with a $20 million contribution from the provincial government, and they said that they were going to expect contributions from corporations, from trade unions and municipalities.

I was interested when the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) stood up and spoke. He said: "We may levy these funds." Does that mean that he's going to be forcing municipalities to pay money out of their tax revenues? Is he going to be forcing municipalities to pay into this fund? Is there going to be no choice on the part of municipalities to pay money into these funds?

I talked to trade union leaders this morning who say that they haven't even been approached by the government with respect to their contribution to the fund. Neither have municipalities. This government is springing the fund on the people of this province without any consultation whatsoever, and as a result, people don't know what is happening with this fund.

They do have the suspicion, and a justified suspicion at that, that this fund is going to be used for political purposes. This government doesn't care about reforestation. This government doesn't care about silviculture. This money is going to be used for political purposes so that the government can take credit for any of the expenditures out of this fund.

I was talking to some people involved in the silvicultural industry. As I travel around the province, I meet a number of people who are involved in that industry. This government allocates funds for silvicultural projects on a low-bid basis. The lowest bid gets the project. That's the way they allocate the money. As a result, there are a lot of people who see this as a bit of a gold mine. Restaurateurs who decide to go into the tree planting business since they don't have experience in the business hire people at the very lowest wages or piece rates and don't give them any useful training at all, and as a result these people beat out the experienced tree planters and the experienced silvicultural organizations, and they go out and plant trees. In most of the cases, in the audit by the Forest Service, those plantations are rejected, the people who do the work aren't paid, and the business person ends up losing his initial investment because he simply cannot plant trees on that basis.

The other result of that, Mr. Speaker, is that experienced silviculturalists, experienced tree planters, people who provide decent wages and working conditions for their employees, end up losing out on the contracts, and as a result they go out of business and we lose those experienced tree planters and those experienced silviculturalists who could be doing good service to this province in maintaining the sustainability of our forests.

This is a dangerous method of budgeting, because it creates political slush funds that aren't used for the best benefit of education, for the best benefit of health care or for the best benefit in maintaining the forests of this province. The people of British Columbia are going to lose as a result of this budget, rather than see any progress being made.

I would encourage every member in this Legislature to vote against this budget and to support this resolution.

[4:15]

MR. REYNOLDS: Before I get into the reasons why I'm going to vote against this resolution, I would like the House to welcome a number of young people from the Dordt College Choir who are on a concert tour of the Pacific Northwest from Sioux Center, Iowa.

Mr. Speaker, it's interesting to sit here today and listen to the minister in charge of Intergovernmental Affairs outline the government position on Indian land claims, and then to listen to the Leader of the Opposition get up and do his number on this issue. I can only relate, in listening to the Leader of the Opposition and what he had to say.... I happened to watch the Academy Awards last night, and I think he would have won the best actor award in a leader's role. Because I go back and read the Hansard from when the NDP were in government, Mr. Speaker....

MR. BLENCOE: The Premier won't like that. The Premier was the runner-up. He lost out.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, the Premier is not an actor. The Premier is a leader. The Premier is a man who has done active things for the province of British Columbia; that's why he's won the last three elections and the New Democrats have lost. And that's why the Premier will win the next election, and we'll be back here watching the Leader of the Opposition fighting with the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams), the mayor of Vancouver and all those others for the job of leader of the New Democratic Party, with eight or ten people back here.

MR. BLENCOE: No wonder you don't get in cabinet.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, these people say: "No wonder you don't get in the cabinet." That's the only thing they've got in their minds. They're greedy. All these guys sitting here.... Half of them are leaving because they know they can't win, and the other half, including the member for Victoria, is dreaming about the day he can be in the cabinet — dreaming of the day he can make some of those decisions.

[ Page 7527 ]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to get back to the debate, if these members would let me talk about it.

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound has the floor. I'm sure he will relate his comments to the amendment.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote from the Vancouver Sun of 1974.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. REYNOLDS: This is better research than the NDP They can't go back that far; they don't want to go back that far. They want to go back the last ten years, but that's all. Let me just quote what was said on that day by the Premier of the province about Indian land claims:

"Premier Dave Barrett rebuffed repeated requests Tuesday to involve his government in Indian land claims. 'There is no way we can go out and say we're going to settle land claims in this province, ' he told an audience of 100 here. 'It is impossible for us. The only one who can settle them, ' he told the questioners, 'is the federal government.' He added he sees no sign the federal government is interested.

"He said, 'We are prepared. We will sit and play the part we must play, but the initiation must come from the federal government. All the province needs, ' Barrett said, 'is for the federal government to put in writing that Ottawa is responsible for settling Indian land claims and outlining the terms."'

Now, Mr. Speaker, that's certainly not the position of the present Leader of the Opposition.

AN HON. MEMBER: Correct.

MR. REYNOLDS: He says correct, but they change positions, Mr. Speaker. They have one when they're in opposition and one when they're in power. I go back to....

MR. SKELLY: What did the Socreds promise in the '75 election?

MR. REYNOLDS: See, now he wants to know what we promised, but you see they're afraid to talk about what they promised. It's a nice position to be in the opposition. You don't have to have any responsibility. Let me just tell you what the New Democrats said....

MR. LAUK: How does it feel to be in the back bench?

MR. REYNOLDS: It's fun.

Mr. Speaker, let me just tell you what the NDP said when they were in power. They've got one story now as you just heard what they did when they were in power. You know what the Leader of the Opposition says now: "My position is different. I take a different approach than Mr. Barrett took. Our party policy has changed." He's shaking his head and saying yes. Let me quote what one of their members said when they were in power....

MR. MacWILLIAM: Name names.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Levi.

This was a question from Mr. Gibson, one of the Liberals in the House at the time.

To the Minister of Human Resources. Mr. Speaker, I think the late June meeting he was discussing earlier on relates particularly to cutoff lands, but I'd ask him a question on the more general case of the so-called B.C. land question. Since the B.C. NDP convention adopted a resolution for the immediate joining of the provincial government to the negotiations between the Indian people and Ottawa, is this now government policy? And Mr. Levi's reply:

No, it's NDP policy

Mr. Speaker, I've always understood that whatever the NDP policy is would be their government policy if they were the government, but it certainly wasn't in that day. I might suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that he should outline to the people of British Columbia that his policy is totally opposed to what they've been saying in the past — outline and tell us exactly what he would do if he was the leader of this province. Also he should maybe talk to the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) and ask him if his policy now is in line with the Leader of the Opposition's policy.

Mr. Speaker, I want to quote the second member for Vancouver East. When he was a minister in that NDP government in this province for a short period of time, he said: "The B.C. Indian leaders are harassing the majority of the population in order to achieve their objectives. The government will not accept that. We will not be harassed."

MRS. JOHNSTON: Who said that?

MR. REYNOLDS: The second member for Vancouver East.

Mr. Speaker, he said: "We will not accept that. We will not be harassed by the Indians in this province."

Interjection.

MR. REYNOLDS: This is certainly part of the budget. This is money that could be expended in this province. We want to know what the position of the New Democrats is. The Leader of the Opposition talked about Indian claims. He talks about them all over this province but does not tell us what his policy is.

Mr. Speaker, you've got the second member for Vancouver East, who wants to be in the government, who tries to say he's part of that government, but he's not there. He'll never get there, and he opposes what the leader of his party wants to do right now. His policy was: do minority groups have the right to harass the majority to the extent these people suggest? He said: "I think not." You won't find me agreeing with the second member for Vancouver East too often, but on that issue I agree with him and our government agrees with him. But his policy doesn't agree with the Leader of the Opposition. I think we should know that when that party is going into an election: are they all together on this issue? Are they going to have a different policy after this election is over?

Levi was opposed to aboriginal rights, and he said: "For in socialism everyone is equal. We can't have one group gain more than another group." That's what the Leader of the Opposition wants to do. He wants to have one group gain more than another group. So I think he certainly deserves the award for best actor in a leader's role, because he doesn't have

[ Page 7528 ]

the support of his party on this issue. His members differ with him on this issue.

Interjection.

MR. REYNOLDS: I would normally take the second member for Vancouver Centre's (Mr. Lauk's) comments.... But since he's retiring, I guess we just have to ignore him now and hope he gets on the ICBC list and makes a few bucks next year.

Interjection.

MR. REYNOLDS: He always says things in jest. He says he can be bribed, but not with that one. But I don't even believe that, because I think he's too honourable a gentleman. He has served this House well over the years and has a great sense of humour. I'm sure that when he sees the....

AN HON. MEMBER: Who are you talking about?

MR. REYNOLDS: I'm talking about the second member for Vancouver Centre, who has been well respected — obviously respected in his constituency, where he has been elected for a number of years. I think all members of this House respect his wit in debate, and there has to be opposition at all times.

Interjection.

MR. REYNOLDS: You've got to speak to Mikey about that if you want to run again. I'm sure — just to finish that off — that he's probably happy he's not running next time, because he knows he doesn't want to be in opposition for another four years. He wants to get back into business and enjoy the prosperity that this province is going to have in the next few years because of the decisions taken by the Premier of this province and by the Minister of Finance in his budget.

In his budget speech the Leader of the Opposition talked about some areas. I'd like to quote some of the things he said, and tell you what the real facts are. He said: "British Columbians work longer to pay their taxes than people of any other province except Quebec." The Leader of the Opposition said that's what the Fraser Institute says. "British Columbia has the second highest tax rate of any province in Canada." That was in Hansard for March 13, 1986. Well, I checked with the Fraser Institute.

MR. LAUK: You did?

MR. REYNOLDS: Yes, I did.

MR. LAUK: Are you a member?

MR. REYNOLDS: No, I'm not, but I have a lot of respect for Michael Walker and the good work he does, and a number of credit unions in this province also happen to think he does a good job.

The facts of that matter are not as quoted by the Leader of the Opposition. The B.C. tax freedom day ranks fourth from the bottom, according to the Fraser Institute — and that is their policy. Quebec, Alberta and Saskatchewan are all more heavily taxed than British Columbia, according to the Fraser Institute.

I bring that up because the Leader of the Opposition has a function in this province, but one of them is not to state facts that are untrue. It wouldn't take very much. I'm sure that if the Leader of the Opposition had phoned up Mr. Walker at the Fraser Institute, he would have told him what the facts are. He probably picked it up out of some socialist newspaper somewhere that misinterpreted the facts and then read it into the record of this House. And some people would read it and believe it. But those aren't the facts.

Interjection.

MR. REYNOLDS: You always like to pick that one.

The Leader of the Opposition said in his speech: "When you see the Conference Board of Canada say that retail sales after Expo are going to collapse to one of the lowest levels in years...." That was in Hansard for March 17, 1986. Again, I think his research department has not got the true facts. The Conference Board of Canada, in its February 1986 report, projected retail sales to increase 4.4 percent, the real domestic product to increase 1.3 percent, and the gross domestic product to increase 4.9 percent. That's the good news.

The doom-and-gloom boys don't like to give you the good news. They pick one little statement out of an article and make their whole speech around it. They are desperate to try to get a story across that is not telling the facts about what's happening in British Columbia right now.

Third point. The Leader of the Opposition also said in his speech in this House that during the first half of 1985 the B.C. population showed a net loss of 1,400 residents. If they checked the figures, they would find that during that period of time there was actually an increase of 11,192, not a loss as they try to say. They just take part of the figures to make their point; they don't take them all.

I think the people of this province are so used to the NDP using this tactic.... That's why they never form the government in this province — only once for a very short period of time — and with those types of attitudes they will never form the government in this province again. There are so many other reasons that we could talk about, but....

Interjections.

MR. REYNOLDS: It's nice to get up and talk here. They really pay attention. That's part of their problem. When somebody is telling them some facts, they want to be talking instead of listening. They get their mouths working before they get their brains in gear.

MR. LAUK: Your trouble is that you haven't done anything wrong yet; that's why you're not in cabinet.

MR. BLENCOE: Nothing they can prove, anyway.

Interjections.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, I stand up here to oppose this motion.

They're all laughing, Mr. Speaker, but it's not a laughing matter. What we've done in this province — the great things, like Expo — and they still think it's a joke.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

[ Page 7529 ]

The second member for Victoria wants to call Expo a joke. His leader wanted to call it a circus. They say "shift gears." We've got so many good things to talk about over here we could stand up for hours.

MR. BLENCOE: You've been going in reverse for ten years.

MR. REYNOLDS: The second member for Victoria always likes to do his yapping, but I haven't heard him say one constructive thing since he came to this House three years ago. He hasn't done one constructive thing to help Victoria in this House. He goes into Vancouver and tries to find his way around once in a while and causes some problems. He tries to take his party to power on the backs of the handicapped and the poor. Not one positive thing has come from that member since he's been here for three years. I would defy him to read Hansard and find one. If he did, I'd take him out and buy him dinner.

MR. BLENCOE: I wouldn't eat with you anyway.

MR. REYNOLDS: Well, I probably sat up with some of your friends who were having a good meal for a change.

Interjection.

MR. REYNOLDS: This member.... You see, they want to knock all the good things.

[4:30]

Interjection.

MR. REYNOLDS: It would be more than a pleasure.

I want to close by saying that I oppose this amendment. I'm going to vote in favour of the budget.

The Leader of the Opposition should get his act in order and start telling the facts as they are to the people of British Columbia, not as they come from his research department. I think it was the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) who stood up one day and said: " Oh, I've got my notes here from the research department, and there is nothing on them." I said it was the best job they'd done in years.

They need improvement, because in a democracy, we have to have a strong opposition. An opposition should be an opposition that the people of this province or the people of Canada can look upon as an alternative government. They don't see it that way in this province. They see this group as an opposition, a noisy opposition, but they don't see them as the government of British Columbia. That's their problem. I hope that they can sit down and work together and give the people of this province what they deserve, which is a good, strong opposition that spells things out the way they really are.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I can always tell when the Leader of the Opposition is effective: he gets attacked by that member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound all the time. It's the best indication. I'm sorry that the member has scuttled out and left the premises, because I want to make a comment or two about it.

Apart from the fact that it was highly amusing, entertaining, laughable and puts on a good kind of show, but not with any substance to it....

I do want to make a comment. I had planned to do it and will proceed. If the members feels that he wants to say something about it afterwards, he certainly can. But he made a reference to an actor, to people seeking to be in the cabinet, and that that was their only attraction for being here, and that sort of thing. And I think the House is entitled to know why he, the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound, wasn't chosen to be in the current cabinet. That was because the Premier obviously knows the unsavoury reason behind that member leaving federal politics in the first place.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Order! The House will come to order and the member will withdraw that last remark. It is unparliamentary and reflects on another hon. member of this House.

MR. HOWARD: "Unsavoury" is unparliamentary?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The reference to the other hon. member is unparliamentary, and I would ask the member for Skeena to withdraw that comment.

AN HON. MEMBER: Even though it was true.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Interjections.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, perhaps it wasn't heard what I said. Without the use of the word "unsavoury," let me say it again. Then if Your Honour says that it is unparliamentary, I certainly will withdraw it. I'm saying that the Premier knows about the circumstances surrounding the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound having left federal politics, That's why he, the member for Howe Sound, is not in cabinet. I left that one word out.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, thank you. Then the member has withdrawn the offensive reference.

MR. HOWARD: Word. If there is a word, that's what I was trying to get.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: And it is withdrawn?

MR. HOWARD: Well, I didn't use it the second time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: But it was used the first time and was not withdrawn.

MR. HOWARD: Well, that's just what I said, Mr. Speaker: that if saying it again without the use of that word in there.... I think it's implicit that it has been.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That still does not resolve the original problem, which is the use of the word which the Chair finds offensive.

MR. HOWARD: I think it's implicit that I have.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member has withdrawn?

[ Page 7530 ]

MR. HOWARD: Yes. That's why I had to repeat it in the different way.

If other hon. members knew those facts too, they might pay less attention to what the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound says.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to make a few remarks about one subject matter. Earlier, Mr. Speaker, during question period there was some reference, by way of questions and the like, as to whether a certain action constituted legal theft. I had the same view that the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) had: that is, that theft is theft. Stealing is stealing. You can't have a legal form of theft — the question was raised within that context — except when you're dealing with public money, and using it for political advertising. Then you can have a legal form of theft. And that seems to be what's going on with this government. Because it is diverting funds which taxpayers pay involuntarily, diverting funds which taxpayers pay for what taxpayers think is to the advantage of the taxpayer, diverting those funds into a political partisan advertising campaign to increase the image and the stature of the Social Credit government. That's what's happening. That's what's happened in 1982-83; that's what happened in subsequent years between then and now. And that's what's happening right now in an intensified way. Taxes taken for one purpose are used for another. Taxes taken from people for programs are used for propaganda. Now the taxpayer has no choice. He coughs up what this Legislature says shall be the taxes payable, given that there are, as far as income tax is concerned certain deductions and the like that one can make. Taxpayers have no choice.

I submit that when this government — and this is the government that is doing it — takes that tax money and diverts its use to propagandize people, advancing through television advertising that Social Credit is the way to go, it is using public money for partisan political purposes. That is legalized theft. That's legalized stealing.

AN HON. MEMBER: Theft?

MR. HOWARD: Yes, theft and stealing, and those who do it, those who engage in it, should be classified accordingly.

I don't want to get into again and repeat what the Leader of the Opposition put forward on the record during the remarks he made a few moments ago, that apart from the fact that the advertising is false and is telling things which are not correct, is propagandizing, is distorting facts and figures in its advertising — apart from that, Mr. Speaker, I want to put to you that that activity on the part of this government is mean and deceitful and dishonest. There's no difference, in my view, between the Bennetts and the Kinsellas and the Lucanias of this world, when it comes to things of that nature.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. HOWARD: If I should not have used that person's name, I won't.

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Kempf) will come to order. Again I remind all members that temperance and moderation in debate are always a hallmark of parliamentary courtesy.

MR. HOWARD: When it comes to using public funds for advertising for political purposes, that same ruling should prevail. I wish there were a mechanism by which you, Mr. Speaker, were able to put that into effect. Temperance and moderation indeed! There's no temperance or moderation on the part of this government, abusing the taxpayers of this province; no prudence, no responsibility, no respectable activity at all.

HON. MR. KEMPF: You speak of respect!

MR. HOWARD: Perhaps whatever respect that minister had earlier was lost not too long ago, and not by my doings.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. HOWARD: No respectability at all. No respect for the taxpayers of this province, in the minds of anybody on that side of the House, particularly one that I might be looking at the moment. There's no difference between the Kinsellas of this world and the Lucanias of this world, none whatever.

One may approach dealing with matters by manipulation, another may approach dealing with matters by distorting the truth, another may approach it by conning people or coercing them. But the purpose is identical between those groups and those types of people. The purpose is to try to convince people to do something that is not in their best interests. The purpose is to try to get people to do something that they would not ordinarily do. Read Patrick Kinsella, or whatever his first name is. Read Kinsella's comments about that. He gloated over the fact that it was possible — and they used taxpayers' money to do it — to move people from one position to another by advertising techniques, seeking to get people to do something that they would not ordinarily do.

The $20 million a year that this government spends on that advertising program is disgraceful — not only disgraceful, Mr. Speaker, it's frightening, because it indicates both the activity itself and the response that one gets from members when it's raised, when it's talked about.... It indicates that in the doing, in the action and in the response, the government does not know the difference between what is right and what is wrong in this regard. They may know where right is in the political sense, but in a moral and ethical sense of right or wrong, they don't know.

That one member who just spoke across the floor may have some inkling about it. He's fresh into the cabinet. But the government in a total sense does not. It has a political psychosis about it, and that's the dangerous part. If there is a derangement of personality or a loss of contact with reality, then damaging things may be done to the body politic, if a person doesn't have that assessment of what is ethically and morally correct and what is incorrect.

I submit to you that the budget does not recognize that reality. It does not recognize that the people of this province don't trust this government, because it's broken faith with them so many times before. It doesn't recognize that ordinary citizens in this province are saying time and time again that they, as ordinary citizens, have the belief that this is a government that doesn't care for them one whit. The advertising program of this government using taxpayers' money merely

[ Page 7531 ]

substantiates the fact that it is a government out of touch with reality and a government that can't be trusted.

[4:45]

HON. MR. KEMPF: Needless to say, I stand to speak against this amendment and in favour of the budget brought down a few short days ago in this House. But before I get into my debate on that topic, I would just like to place on the record the feeling that I have for the type of personal attack that we just heard in this House from the member for Skeena. Mr. Speaker, it is a disgraceful example of what that member is all about.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. That will be withdrawn.

HON. MR. KEMPF: I'll withdraw that, and I'll let the people of British Columbia and of Skeena, after reading Hansard of the proceedings that go on in this House, make up their minds for themselves.

Mr. Speaker, I spent many years toiling very hard in this province to come to this place, this place that I thought was where the work of the people of British Columbia was done. If ever....

Interjection.

HON. MR. KEMPF: You're wet behind the ears yet. Maybe you'll live long enough to learn a little bit about this province.

I have never heard anything more disgraceful than the member for Skeena's speeches in this House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Again those are personal references, hon. member, and must be withdrawn.

HON. MR. KEMPF: I mean no personal disrespect.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: And the comment is withdrawn.

HON. MR. KEMPF: I just allude to the personal disrespect that is shown by those kinds of speeches in this House for the people of British Columbia,

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member will withdraw.

HON. MR. KEMPF: I withdraw.

Time after time his purpose in this House is not to debate the issues, not speak on behalf of those whom he represents in this House — whom he represents now. I want to to tell you, Mr. Speaker, it's because of that kind of action — and he may be 500 air miles from his constituency.... The people of Skeena know it, and I know that because I spend a fair amount of time in that member's riding.

Interjection.

HON. MR. KEMPF: I spend plenty of time in my riding too, Madam Member. Far more than you spend in yours.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. MacWILLIAM: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, clearly the member for Omineca is not speaking on the amendment. He's wasting the time of this House in his personal attack on my colleague.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I must note that a great deal of latitude has been allowed on both sides of the House this afternoon during this amendment debate. I'm prepared to allow the same latitude to the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing. I'm sure that all references to other hon. members will be parliamentary and in order.

HON. MR. KEMPF: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That's all that those members opposite want to do in this House. They don't want to debate the issues; they don't want to debate a budget which is, in my mind, one of the best documents brought down in this House since I've been here. I don't care what they say or try to tell the people of British Columbia. That certainly will stand.

You know, Mr. Speaker, I've sat here and listened during the throne speech debate and during the budget debate and now during debate on this amendment. Time after time members from the opposite side stand up and say that they want increased allocations for health care in British Columbia, increased funding for education, increased funding for reforestation and increased assistance for the students of this province. Time after time member after member stood up and said those kinds of things. Now when a budget is brought down by this government to provide those kinds of things in the province of British Columbia, they say it can't be done. They now say it can't be done.

Interjection.

HON. MR. KEMPF: You can talk about slush funds, and I hope you people opposite get in right over your heads, because I've got lots of information in front of me this afternoon. So let them talk about slush funds. You know, we heard them talk about a pork-barrel. That's the only word they really know, because they really know the meaning of pork-barrel. I remember the three and a half years from 1972 to 1975, and I remember the pork-barrel, all right. They know that word well, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, we talk about pork-barrel. They said that the special funding for education, the fund for Excellence in Education, was a pork-barrel.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's what the people are saying, Jack.

HON. MR. KEMPF: Oh, well, I dare those members to go up to Prince George....

AN HON. MEMBER: We were there.

HON. MR. KEMPF: You missed it, I guess. I ask them to go to Prince George and ask the students at the College of

[ Page 7532 ]

New Caledonia whether the $70,000 that has been allocated for the new automotive mechanical repair program, announced very recently.... I have in my hand a news release of March 19, 1986. Ask the students of the College of New Caledonia. Many students who come from my constituency, and from that of Mr. Speaker's, ask them whether they think that $70,000 is for a pork-barrel. For the first time, the College of New Caledonia can provide that kind of course for the students in northern British Columbia, which is badly needed and was seen by this government.

As I listen to that member for Skeena talk.... I've listened to him hour after hour for ten years. Not once does he bring forward a proposal for the people he represents. Not once does he speak about the people and their needs — the people of the north that he supposedly represents. No, he would sooner stand and muckrake and sling dirt, and do the thing that he does best in this House.

MR. SKELLY: How long have you been living in Victoria?

HON. MR. KEMPF: It wouldn't matter, Mr. Leader of the Opposition, how long I lived in Victoria and served in this House. I will never forget my constituents, those who send me time after time after time to this House to represent their interests — not to muckrake but to represent their interests in this House, which is what I was sent here to do, and which I will do every time I stand in this chamber.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: One moment, please.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Thank you. It's quite loud in here. The Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing is taking his place in debate. Any other members who wish to participate will have equal opportunity to do so. In the meantime, out of parliamentary courtesy perhaps we could afford the minister his time on the floor. Thank you very much.

HON. MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, you know we see big headlines saying: "NDPs Stupich Forecasting a Deficit." That's very interesting. You know he has become an instant expert. I wish he had been as much of an expert back in the days when he was the Minister of Finance in British Columbia. I really wish, on behalf of the people of British Columbia, that he had been as much of an expert in those days. You know he chastises the government for a budget that forecasts an increase of 5.7 percent and they say opposite: "You know it's an election budget. That's why...."

Interjections.

HON. MR. KEMPF: Oh, Mr. Speaker, you know I'm not even going to get into that argument. It's on the record of this House.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, they talked earlier about hitting the quick on this side of the floor. I guess the tables are turned. They talk of a budget that forecasts an increase of 5.7 percent and note that as an election year increase. I go back to the estimates of revenue for fiscal years 1974-75 and 1975-76.

MR. SKELLY: That's a long time ago.

HON. MR. KEMPF: Yes, it is, but we don't forget, Mr. Member, and neither do the people of British Columbia. They will never forget. That's why you will never be the Premier of this province, Mr. Member, through you, Mr. Speaker. You have the same kind of economics as you did in those days. You couldn't run a peanut stand and the people of British Columbia knew that and threw you out after 1,200 days.

They haven't changed their ways a bit. They castigate this government for having a budget that has a forecast increase of 5.7 percent, but let's look at the record of that party when they were government. Let's look at their record. Revised estimates of 1974-75 — and I guess we remember that year, 1975 don't we? Don't we remember that very clearly? You bet I do. You bet I remember fighting an election in four feet of snow. I remember that. We had a government in those days that couldn't continue through the winter. They were broke so they had to call a winter election — a December 11 election in the province of British Columbia, 90 percent of which is covered with snow in the second week of December. Shameful, Mr. Speaker. But you know why they did it? They were broke. They were absolutely flat broke, Mr. Speaker, and if it wasn't unparliamentary I'd tell you exactly how flat broke they were, but that would be unparliamentary so I wouldn't do that.

Mr. Speaker, revised estimates for 1974-75, when that party was the government of British Columbia were $2,585,400,000. Then they brought in a budget in the spring of 1975, knowing full well at that point — they couldn't know anything else — that they were on the rocks. Six months later they called an election in this province. They were broke and they knew it. But they brought in a budget which was 24.6 percent higher than the one the previous year.

MR. MOWAT: How high?

HON. MR. KEMPF: Twenty-four point six percent. Then they have the audacity to castigate this government for the budget that was just brought in.

Interjections.

HON. MR. KEMPF: You were part of that, Mr. Member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke). You were part of that scam — that 24.6 percent increase. And six months later, when they couldn't pay their bills — and we remember them; they were in the desks when we took office.... I remember that. It's not that long ago, Mr. Leader of the Opposition. I remember the cheques made out and not signed, not sent. They were broke, yet they brought in a budget 24.6 percent greater than the one the year before.

They talk of deficits. Yes, we run a deficit. Yes, I stood in my place and spoke against deficits, and I still speak against deficits today. But there are certain services that the people of this province expect, and in order to provide those services during these kinds of economic times, deficits must be run.

[ Page 7533 ]

However, Mr. Speaker, we were talking about a different time in 1975.

[5:00]

Interjections.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

HON. MR. KEMPF: Oh, don't try and divert the issue. We'll get to the social housing thing in due course, Mr. Member, and when we do you will not like it. You and your cronies in this province will not like it. I've got to tell you that right now.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. All hon. members will have an opportunity to participate and stand in this House. In the meantime, the minister has the floor and we extend the parliamentary courtesy to him. He will address his comments to the Chair.

HON. MR. KEMPF: You talk about deficits. That party was in power in this province during one of our best economic times. The money was coming in. They didn't know what to do with it all; they admitted that themselves. The Premier of the day said: "I never knew we had so much money." Yet what did they leave during that particular point in our history? Some of the best economic times this province has ever seen and what did they leave when they left office? When they were broke and had to call a winter election, what did they leave in this province? They left a deficit. Lo and behold, they left a deficit of — it's right here; this is from Public Accounts 1975-76 — $261 million, during economic times that were never any better.

Interjections.

HON. MR. KEMPF: Yes, certainly it was our government. We took office in January and had to live with that budget they brought in, which was 24.6 percent over the one the year before. Yes, you bet it was, and that tells the whole story. They left a deficit after some of the best economic times this province has ever seen.

I've sat here and listened to them talk about advertising. A terrible thing, this advertising. I've got a full page here from the Times and the Colonist for March 4, 1975. Who was in power? You weren't even alive at that time, I'm sure. You weren't on the boat anyway. You got off the boat after that. You weren't even in this country, so how would you know? A full-page ad, March 4, 1975: "Our budget for the 1975-76 fiscal year has been designed to achieve greater economic equality and social justice in British Columbia." He talks about advertising. What hypocrisy! If you live in a glass house, Mr. Member from New Westminster, you shouldn't throw rocks. It's going to catch up to you after awhile.

They talk about advertising. I remember what their budget was. I can remember what their advertising....

Interjection.

HON. MR. KEMPF: You weren't here; you didn't know. Hang your head in shame! If I were you I'd leave that party, for all the speeches you've given in this House in regard to the advertising that this administration does. Go back and ruin your own country some more.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. minister, would you please address your comments to the Chair.

MR. MacWILLIAM: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to rule to ask that member to withdraw the statement which was a clear insult to the proud immigrants to this country. By telling that member to go back to the country he came from you have insulted every immigrant in this proud country of Canada, and I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to rule that comment out of order.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. BLENCOE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think you should bring that member to order and the member for Surrey for their insulting challenges to the decent immigrants of this province. That's what has made British Columbia. They're continuing to attack British Columbians, and they should be brought to order.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're no decent immigrant.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The Chair observes a certain unruly element possibly growing in this chamber. All members.... Order, please, the member for North Okanagan; the Chair has got the floor at the moment. Order, please, hon. member for Little Mountain.

The Chair would appreciate a continuation of parliamentary courtesy to all members, and recognize that the minister has the floor on the amendment to the budget motion.

HON. MR. KEMPF: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I'm just trying to show the people of this province the hypocrisy of the members opposite this side of the floor. They talk about advertising. Well, we see what they were advertising. And it didn't do them any good, Mr. Speaker. The people of this province fired them out of office anyway.

Mr. Speaker, in a province where....

Interjections.

HON. MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, they give those kinds of speeches, they enter into that kind of debate on the floor of this House, because they've got nothing else to say. "It can't be done, " they're saying. "We can't believe that it can be done." Of course they can't believe that it can be done; they couldn't do it. That's quite apparent. History shows that. They couldn't do it. So now they're saying: "Well, we couldn't do it, so it can't be done."

To the members opposite, I say stick around. Of course, most of them aren't going to. Most of them are abandoning ship already. They're getting off. They know when they're well off. They know they've sat over there long enough, and they don't want to sit over there for another ten years. The member for Vancouver Centre knows that. He sits in silence. He knows he's going to get out while the getting's good. He doesn't want to sit in opposition for another 10 years, Mr. Speaker. He doesn't see any change in that party. He doesn't see a bit of change in that party, from what they were when they were government. They were a failure, and they're still a failure; and that's too bad, on behalf of the people of British

[ Page 7534 ]

Columbia. Because I do truly believe that any government, any legislature, needs a good opposition. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, it hasn't got it.

Interjections.

HON. MR. KEMPF: Let's talk about my hot-tub. Mr. Speaker, I've got to tell you, I didn't come to any one member on the other side of the floor to help pay for it, when I paid $4,000 out of my own pocket for it. Not one member over there did I ask for a nickel. Mr. Speaker, if they want to talk about my hot-tub, the one that I paid for and had installed myself, let's talk about that.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I'm sure the hon. minister will relate his hot-tub to the amendment to the budget debate, and all other members will listen quietly, in anticipation of his words.

HON. MR. KEMPF: What they don't realize opposite, Mr. Speaker, is that this government is not trying to win a popularity contest.

Interjections.

HON. MR. KEMPF: That's all they know. This government is not trying to win a popularity contest. That's right. That's what you think government is all about: governments are to win popularity contests. Well, that's not what they're all about, hon. members. Governments are here to do the best they can for the people of British Columbia, not win popularity contests. You may think that. Everything you did back in 1974 and '75 points to that. But that's not what we're here for, hon. members. We're here to do the best we can, with what we've got, for the people of British Columbia.

Interjections.

HON. MR. KEMPF: That's all they do in this House. They have nothing positive to say, nothing positive to put forward; not a positive thing on behalf of the people that they represent, like the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), who stands in this House and does those disgraceful things that I saw a few minutes ago. The member for Skeena stands in this House.... Does he talk about some of the very real problems that face his constituents, that face the citizens of our north? Does he talk about Indian land claims? Does he say where he stands...? Where do you stand on Indian land claims, Mr. Leader of the Opposition? Where do you stand? I know where I stand, and I've said that publicly both in my own constituency and in that of the member for Skeena. I know where I stand. Where do you stand on Indian land claims, for the record? The media is here: where do you stand on Indian land claims, Mr. Member, or do you know what they are all about?

It can't be done, they say, and they move a resolution, a motion of non-confidence, in a budget that time will tell whether it can be done or not. You bet it will, as it did back in 1974-75. It was quite evident, the way in which it was going then in a province where good things are happening. Should we listen to those people who say it can't be done, when they said it couldn't be done with Expo, it couldn't be done with Annacis Island, it couldn't be done with the Coquihalla, it couldn't be done with SkyTrain? None of these things could be done a few short months or years ago, and now they say this budget can't be done.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Who are the people of British Columbia to believe? Are they to believe those people, those doom and gloom artists opposite who have said everything in the last ten years in this province could not be done? Now they're saying this budget is not going to be successful, because it can't be done. We couldn't put Expo together. It wasn't going to be a success. We couldn't build the Coquihalla in time; Annacis Island bridge would not be there in time for Expo; the SkyTrain wouldn't, and it's been in use since January 15. But it couldn't be done, and now they say this can't be done. I'll leave it to the people of British Columbia to see whether it can be done or not.

MR. COCKE: Call an election.

HON. MR. KEMPF: Why should you worry, Dennis? You're not going to be here. The member for New Westminster is not going to be here. The member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), the member for Cowichan–Malahat (Mrs. Wallace).... Why are these people leaving the ship? If they think they can do it, if they think they can win, why are they leaving? I ask that simple question. I'll leave the proof of the pudding to the people of British Columbia.

MS. BROWN: I'd be willing to give up my place to that member if he'd like to speak some more, because every time he opens his mouth we win a few more votes. I certainly want to agree with him that they are doing the best with what they have, and that certainly explains the problems that we're in. But, you know, he says that we are accusing them of pork-barreling. The people of British Columbia are doing that. I have in front of me the headlines from the Province of last Friday — not the NDP, certainly not an NDP paper — and it says right there....

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: Oh, is the Province an NDP paper?

[5:15]

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: No, I don't.

It says right there: "Pork Barrel" — in headlines. That's what it said. This is not the Democrat. "Pork Barrel," it says. This is not the Democrat; this is the Province. It says: "Cabinet to dole out $1.3 billion." "Pork Barrel," it says. That's what it says: "Pork Barrel." I want to tell you, it's not the opposition that thinks it's a pork-barrel; it's everybody else out there who know that it's a pork-barrel.

MR. LAUK: All those who approve of the budget say "oink."

MS. BROWN: Oink, oink, oink — that's right. When the members from the government get up and try to justify taking money out of human resources, out of health, out of education and out of other ministries, and putting it into these so-

[ Page 7535 ]

called special funds which they can dole out when the time comes to purchase vote.... If they really think they can justify that, they're kidding themselves. They know they can't, and that explains the massive advertising campaign the people of this province are paying for.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

Now I had the misfortune to be home last week, or just after the budget came out, so I got an opportunity to see some of the very first ads that this government is using the taxpayers' money to pay for.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: You better believe I got off my back and got in here as fast as I could. You better believe I did it. I tell you, I decided that if there was one time that Burnaby-Edmonds needed somebody dead or alive on the floor of this House, it was to speak against this budget.

The education of young people in Burnaby has been jeopardized so that this government can put together a slush fund for itself to use when the time comes to purchase the votes that it thinks it's going to be able to purchase. But I tell you that it's not going to be money well spent. The people who are having to sacrifice that money, the parents of those children, know precisely what you intend to do with that education fund, and they are not going to be bought.

The Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) yesterday stood up on the floor of this House and spoke in this debate without once mentioning his ministry. He had every right to be ashamed of what his government is doing to the disabled, to the senior citizens and to the people in this province who are dependent on the services of the Ministry of Human Resources. Money has been sucked out of that ministry too. The senior citizens budget has been decreased to absolutely disgraceful figures, There's something in the neighbourhood of $1 596,000 less in services to seniors in this province at a time when the whole world knows that the number of seniors is increasing — and not just on the government side, as Denny Boyd says; not just the tired old grey faces over there, but throughout the province. They pulled $1.5 million dollars out of services to seniors. Close to $1 million — $737,000 — has been pulled out of rehabilitation for the disabled in this province.

These slush funds don't just grow like Topsy; they come from somewhere. The question we have to ask ourselves is: who is being deprived so that these slush funds can be put together, so that this pork-barrel can be designed and put into place? I'm here to tell you that the disabled in this province, the seniors, the people on income assistance who are unemployable....We like to hear where the money's going to go for job creation for those on income assistance, but those people on income assistance who are unemployable are also having to contribute to these slush funds and to this pork-barrel.

This is a disgraceful government. It is a shameful government. And that is the reason for this amendment. Somebody has to stand on the floor of this House and talk about the way in which this government is ripping off the poor in order to buy votes from the rich.

Read the editorial in the Sun of last Friday — and again, that's not the Democrat; that's not an NDP paper. Read the editorial in the Province. Read even the articles in the Times-Colonist of Victoria. They all say the same thing: this kind of blank cheque in the hands of cabinet ministers means absolutely nothing but pork-barreling. There's no other word for it. We can use all kinds of euphemisms; we can use all kinds of different ways of expressing ourselves; we can bring a thesaurus in here and find new and different ways of describing what they're doing. But it all boils down to the same thing. The people of this province do not believe them when they say that that money's going to be spent fairly and equitably in education or in reforestation. Nobody believes them.

Everybody knows, Mr. Speaker, that these funds are put there as a contingency in the event that an election is called, so that they can go out and purchase the votes they feel they must have so they can continue to take as good care of themselves as the discredited Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Kempf) takes of himself, with his $71,000 salary, living in subsidized housing at $475 a month and having the gall to stand on the floor of this House and say he paid $4,000 cash for his hot-tub. His hot-tub was paid for by the poor people of this province. That's who paid for his hot-tub, subsidizing him. I don't have a hot-tub and I don't live in subsidized housing.

MR. REID: Get a hot-tub; you could use one.

MS. BROWN: You know, Mr. Speaker, I am not going to respond to that member for Surrey who just launched that attack on the immigrants of this country. I am not going to respond to him. I am merely going to see to it that the Hansard is mailed out to all of the people who he's crowing this phony multicultural stuff to that his government's talking about. Always standing up and saying, "Oh, we have this great multicultural policy," and then the truth will out on the floor of this House. "Let them go back on the boats and go back where they came from," was a comment that he made. That's all I'm waiting for, that statement in Hansard, and then we'll see to it that the immigrants —who, incidentally, include his ancestors — will have that information.

But I want to get back to talking about the really invidious and insidious way in which this government takes money from the poor, not just to purchase votes from their friends and from the rich but to actually pay for the advertising which is telling them things about the budget that aren't true, such as saying that there's been no increase in taxes. As the Leader of the Opposition pointed out when he spoke earlier in this debate, it's the highest increase in five years on the homeowners of this province. Every homeowner in this province is going to have to shell out, to pick up the tab of giving children a decent education to replace the money which this government took out of education to put into its pork-barrel and its slush funds. That's what's happening, Mr. Speaker. Everybody's income tax goes up. Everybody's home taxes go up. Everybody pays more. Everybody contributes to that pork-barrel. Everybody puts money into that slush fund, out of which this government is going to be spending money not just to pay for its advertising — its false advertising — but also to use to purchase its votes prior to the next election.

And they're not going to get away with it, because if there's one thing we're going to do, we're going to see to it that every British Columbian knows where that pork-barrel money is coming from. Every British Columbian is going to know that the slush-fund money is coming out of the pockets of senior citizens, out of cutting services to the disabled, out of cutting services to the handicapped and taking away from

[ Page 7536 ]

our children, robbing them of a decent education. You've got to be pretty low indeed when you would rob and steal from children. And that's what this budget does. It deprives the children of this province of a decent education in order to put money into a pork-barrel.

MR. REID: Talk about $100 million to teachers.

MS. BROWN: Talk about $100 million? There are so many overruns over there that when you stand up and speak about it they all disappear. Let the record show that aside from the little member from Surrey. There's only one minister in this House, and he's only here because he's waiting to speak. If he weren't waiting to speak he wouldn't be here.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Sure you're going to speak, that's the only reason you're here. The only reason he's here is so that he can get up and speak. Okay, now that I've challenged him he's going to give his place to someone else.

MR. REID: I'm your designated listener.

MS. BROWN: You're my "designated listener." I don't care that you hear what I have to say. The people of Burnaby-Edmonds hear what I have to say, and that's what's important. The president of the Burnaby-Edmonds Social Credit Party keeps coming into my constituency office to find out if I'm going to retire. I'm not going to retire. No, I'm not going to retire.

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: Listen, if ever there was a time that this province needed good New Democrats, the time is now.

This budget, Mr. Speaker....

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: Not on your life, my friend.

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, they haven't got a very good memory down there. They can't remember that this government went so far as to eliminate the seat I represented to try to get rid of me, and I'm still here. So what are they suggesting? Are you going to wipe out Burnaby-Edmonds? I'll move to another riding.

MR. MOWAT: The voters will look after you.

MS. BROWN: You'd better believe the voters look after me. And do you know why the voters look after me? Because the voters believe what I say. They don't believe a word that you say. That's the difference.

I don't have to buy any TV advertising. I just tell them the facts and they believe it. I don't have to set up any pork-barrels. I don't have to establish any slush funds. I don't have to move into public housing. I don't have to buy any hot-tubs, Mr. Speaker. All I have to do is stand up there and tell them the facts, and they say: "Right on. Right on." That's right.

So, Mr. Speaker, I'm not....

[5:30]

AN HON. MEMBER: You've got to get tougher, Rosemary.

MS. BROWN: I've got to get tougher, right. See, that's the problem: I'm so shy and withdrawn, but....

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: And reserved, right. But I tell you, I'm going to turn over a new leaf. No more Miss Nice Guy. No more kid-gloves. No more gentleness. No, that is behind me now. This is serious business. These pork-barrels and these slush funds call for direct action.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: What did he say about a Mercedes?

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: No, I've never driven a Mercedes, but I'll tell you something about Peugots. That's a good car. I'm sure the member for Surrey would be happy to say that, but that's not the point. The point here, Mr. Speaker, is that this government has deliberately —not by accident — skewered and put into jeopardy provisions for quality service in this province in order to establish its slush funds and its pork-barrels. That's what it's done — deliberately put into jeopardy, so much so that the Minister of Human Resources.... I welcomed the Minister of Human Resources when he was appointed, because I recognized that it was going to be a full-time job for him. But he stood on his feet yesterday and did not say one word.... Not once did he speak up on behalf of the senior citizens, the disabled, children or the people on income assistance who are going to be deprived of quality service in order to put money into these slush funds and these pork-barrels which they're going to be using to buy votes the next time around.

Smoke and mirrors — deliberately underestimating their budget. Can you imagine anything more ludicrous than saying that due to the increase in employment in this province, income assistance can do with $11 million less than it has now? At a time when unemployment is soaring, when there are more people out of work than ever before, young people, single parents, working people who want to work, lopping $11 million off their budget. And do you know what? It's not the first time they've done it. In 1983 and 1982 the deputy minister admitted it. He said: "Oh, we always underestimate. We always do that. Then when we need more money, of course, in come the warrants."

The reality of this situation is that the government didn't have the guts to stand up and admit that in fact there are going to be more people on income assistance in this province than ever before. Therefore that budget should have been increased, not just because they're going to have more people but because there has not been an increase in the GAIN rate since 1982. The poor in this province have been living on 78 cent dollars, and when that Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) was asked why there was no increase for the people, he said: "Well, they'll be able to earn more money." Earn? People on income assistance can't find jobs,

[ Page 7537 ]

so where are the people on income assistance going to be finding these jobs? There is no work.

Your government has deliberately created unemployment in this province by its policies, through its mismanagement, through its stupidity and through its pork-barreling and slush-fund building. It has deliberately thrown people out of work in this province. There are no jobs. There are no jobs for you if you're on income assistance; there are no jobs for you if you're not on income assistance. There are no jobs for young people under the age of 24. There are young people in this province who have never worked and who have never stopped looking for work.

The dishonesty of having a budget that says: "Because of the...." What is it they call it? Resuscitation? No, that's not the term. "Because of the renewal, we will now overnight need $11 million less than we needed the day before." Now I can understand the Minister of Finance reading that nonsense, because he doesn't understand, but for the Minister of Human Resources to have permitted him to make a statement like that, now that is unforgivable.

I am disappointed, I am hurt and I am upset, because I really had faith in this new Minister of Human Resources, I really thought that he was going to do things differently.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Yes, sure. Right. He appointed a superintendent of child welfare. I congratulated him for responding to the first request I made to him. The second request I made was the GAIN rate. You can't live on the present income assistance rates. You can't do it, and if you continue with the kinds of policies that you have and the kinds of programs you have, deliberately throwing people out of work, you can't call that renewal and then whip off $11 million out of the budget.

The reality of the situation is that these pork-barrels and these slush funds are being built at the expense of the people in this province who can least afford it. That's the reality of the situation. The children of the province — because they don't vote, so the government doesn't care about them.... Education is one means of siphoning off funds into the porkbarrel. The sick — Health is another means of siphoning off funds into the pork-barrel. Senior citizens and the disabled — another means of siphoning off funds into the pork-barrel. The poor and the unemployed — another means of siphoning off funds into the pork-barrel.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

This is not a Robin Hood budget. This is a situation where the government is actually stealing from the poor. It's a "Robbing" Hood budget — robbing from the poor. They're robbing from the poor to turn around and try to buy the votes of both rich and poor alike, when the time comes.

Does this government really believe that people have forgotten that the Premier of this province actually said that BCRIC shares were going to be worth $20? Does he think that the senior citizens and those people in Burnaby who cashed in their savings bonds and their savings for their old age to buy BCRIC shares at $6 a share, because the Premier told them that they were going to go to $20, have forgotten that?

Nobody believes anything you people say — nobody. I don't think it matters whether the opposition believes you or not. I don't think it matters whether the opposition trusts you or not. But I'll tell you something: what we are hearing out there is that nobody believes you and nobody trusts you.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Segarty), who is also the minister responsible for women, had a big meeting with the women's groups in the province on Friday night. He handed them a big glossy magazine. I must show you, because it's really quite a beautiful magazine, which says to them that the government of British Columbia.... Look at it — red, white and blue. This is their "Plan for Progress." It looks like SkyTrain. The "Plan for Progress" is actually eight pages long, but the first five pages are messages from the Premier and the minister, and an introduction — whatever. But what is the plan? The plan is the government expressing its concern. So he had this big public meeting, and the women said to him: "How much money is there in the budget to translate this concern into jobs, into retraining, into opportunities?" "Well," he says, "I'm not here to answer questions, I'm here to listen."

You know why he was there to listen? Because there is a $100,000 increase in the budget to express and translate into action his concern for all of the women of British Columbia. That is less than one cent a woman. We tried to compute it, and because I didn't have a slide-rule and none of the rest of us did, we couldn't figure out what it came to. Once we realized that this government is budgeting less than one cent a woman to translate its concern into jobs, somebody said to him: "Mr. Minister, when is there going to be equality in this province?" And you know how serious he is about these things. He said: "Heh, heh, heh, when there is a ministry of men." That was his response. When there is a ministry of men there will be equality in this province. You know something? He's right: as long as Social Credit is government, women are never going to a fair shake in this province. Never!

If they think they're going to be able to buy the votes of the women of British Columbia for less than one cent a vote, they've got another think coming. Because it's just not going to happen. For one thing, their vote is not for sale, and for another thing, they don't believe a word that that minister and his government have to say. Nobody believes them, Mr. Speaker. Nobody trusts them. Say this after me: nobody believes them, nobody trusts them, nobody believes them, nobody trusts them. Because that is right. Nobody believes them. It's true.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. It's a good idea, but one at a time, please.

MS. BROWN: Can we all take turns saying nobody believes them, nobody trusts them?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: If you're recognized to speak.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I am going to wind up by saying that I support this amendment. I regret that it has been necessary to introduce this amendment, but there is absolutely no way that this opposition could have remained silent while this government established slush funds and porkbarrels out of the needs and services of the people of British Columbia, so that they would be able to have something to bribe the voters of B.C. with.

[5:45]

[ Page 7538 ]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 17

NAYS — 26

DEPUTY SPEAKER: On the main motion, the Chair recognizes the Minister of Health.

HON. MR. ROGERS: I was just going to say goodbye to so many friends that are leaving.

MR. BLENCOE: You're saying goodbye?

HON. MR. ROGERS: No, you may be leaving too, but I hadn't thought about you. So many of them here for the division. I'm glad I have this opportunity to address my good friend from Vancouver Centre. That fellow that's replaced you, he ran against me once. He ran against my friend from Little Mountain once. I hope he's ready for a third time. So many others are going whom, in the nine or ten years I've been here, I've come to talk to across the floor, and so little time today for all these goodbyes.

MS. BROWN: Charity begins at home. Say goodbye to your own....

HON. MR. ROGERS: I'll look for your demonstration of that, Madam Member. I'm going to say goodbye to my good friend from Columbia River and my friend from South Peace River because, of course, for so many years you predicted his defeat. You started in 1952, didn't you, hon. member, and for all those years.... And finally he sees....

AN HON. MEMBER: You can't defeat Chabot.

HON. MR. ROGERS: You certainly can't do a thing like that.

But, my goodness, I must say I wouldn't want to use the words "abandon ship." I guess Mikey is going to be a sort of Brian Mulroney for the NDP — stalking you from behind with the public relations and his marvellous charm with the press. My good friend Don from South Peace River....

MS. BROWN: Where is he?

HON. MR. ROGERS: Actually, if your retiring members did for your party what he as a retiring member is doing for our party, oh, my Lord, would you be envious. If any one of your retiring members can sign up 1,000 party members before they leave, I'll be surprised. Don has already done that, and will double it.

Of course, my very good friend from Chilliwack, my mentor those many years that I was the Deputy Speaker of this House — such a charming gentleman, and a gentleman who has done so much to raise the decorum and the dignity of this House and whose legacy we will all appreciate. In terms of the member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder), I think we can get both sides to agree that he's a fine guy.

Interjection.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Well, I think you have to agree that Harvey is one of the nicest.

Mr. Speaker, in this year between now and the time that the next budget is brought down in this House, this province will change more than it has in the last 20 years. Since I want to speak about that change and what that change will involve, and there's not enough time to do it now, I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House at its rising do stand adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow.

Motion approved.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I wanted it noted that the College Ste. Anne from Lachine, Quebec and the Little Flower Academy from Vancouver — both girls' schools — were represented here in the House today. Those schools are operated by the Sisters of St. Ann. Visiting with them today were Sister Gallagher and Sister Claire, both sisters of St. Ann, and Dr. Brierly and Mme. Nicole Raymond. It should also be noted on this day of their being in the Legislature that the Sisters of St. Ann have operated schools continuously in British Columbia since their arrival in Victoria in 1858. I'm delighted to have the opportunity to recognize them.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:57 p.m.