1982 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 32nd Parliament

Hansard

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

( Hansard )

TUESDAY, APRIL 13, 1982

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

6963 ]

CONTENTS

Compensation Stabilization Act (Bill 28). Hon. Mr. Curtis

Introduction and first reading –– 6963

Legislative Assembly Allowances (Limitation) Act (Bill 19). Hon. Mr. Wolfe

Introduction and first reading –– 6963

Revenue Sharing Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 15). Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm

Introduction and first reading –– 6964

Education (Interim) Finance Act (Bill 27). Hon. Mr. Smith

Introduction and first reading –– 6964

Mineral Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 33). Hon. Mr. McClelland

Introduction and first reading –– 6964

Oral Questions

Purchase of shares in Inland Natural Gas. Mr. Macdonald –– 6964

Mr. Barrett –– 6965

Carolin Mines cyanide spill. Mr. Skelly –– 6965

Government information. Mrs. Dailly –– 6966

Budget Debate

Mr. Mussallem –– 6966

Mr. King –– 6970

Hon. Mr. Heinrich –– 6973

Mr. Lauk –– 6977

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 6982

Errata –– 6987

TUESDAY, APRIL 13, 1982

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I regret to

inform the House today of the passing of a member of this House who

served well between the years 1966 and 1972. Mrs. Isabel Dawson served

our House as minister without portfolio during those six years. Mrs.

Dawson was born in Camrose, Alberta. She married Charles John (Jack)

Dawson of Princeton. They had one child, John Frederick.

Isabel's

career spans many areas of endeavour. While she was working in private

life outside the Legislature, she was a very well-known, well-respected

and beloved Post Office rural mail carrier at a time when women did not

take on those kinds of responsibilities. That was in Powell River. She

was a member of the CWAC, a member of the Noble Grand Rebekah Lodge of

the Eastern Star and past president of the ladies' auxiliary of the

Royal Canadian Legion. She was appointed to the local centennial

committee and the senior citizens' committee by her local council.

She

was first elected to this Legislature in 1966, and was re-elected in

the general election of 1969. During those times when she served our

Legislature, her service to senior citizens was renowned throughout the

province. Her concern for the elderly spans many areas of interest. I

recall, as will other members of this House, how she fought for

long-term care for the elderly, and how she introduced a unique program

which has been hailed throughout North America — the senior citizens'

counsellors program — which our senior citizens still enjoy today. She

introduced the senior citizens' bus pass throughout our province and

she addressed the hearing-aid program for seniors, for which she had a

very great concern.

After her career in politics ended at

the age of 54, in 1972 she returned to school. I think it is a great

credit to her and to all women in British Columbia that she took up her

career to address the needs of the elderly yet again when she entered

the University of Victoria — and later the University of Oregon — where

she obtained her Master of Science in gerontology. Her Master's thesis

was a history of the services for senior citizens in British Columbia,

and no one knew it better than she.

In these last few years

she has been active in the hospice movement in the Vancouver Island

area, and she has also taken that cause throughout British Columbia.

She has worked on applied gerontology, and she has continued to work in

the community in a volunteer way. I know that she will be very much

missed by her friends and by all those who have been touched by her

life, her son John and members of this House — on both sides — who have

served with her. She did serve us all so very well.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

On behalf of myself and the people on this side of the House, I would

like to concur in and endorse the statement made by the hon. minister

and to let the House know that I worked with — and against — Mrs.

Dawson for many, many years. There was no MLA in that riding more

highly respected than Isabel Dawson for complete dedication to her job,

within the riding particularly. We in Mackenzie all appreciate that.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the wish of the House that the Chair express these feelings? So ordered.

MS. SANFORD:

I have constituents visiting today from Courtenay. I would like the

House to welcome Dave and Maggie Storring and their three children

Judith, Katy and Rebecca.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: I'm sure

all members of the House will join me in welcoming a young constituent,

Miss Andrea Merk from Winfield. Andrea is the daughter of an orchardist

in the Winfield area and has been selected for an entry interview for

the Lester B. Pearson College of the Pacific, She is here in Victoria

visiting today and will go for her interview tomorrow. I'm sure all

members will join me in congratulating her in achieving this stage of

success and wish her the best of luck tomorrow.

I would also

like to share with the House the fact that Mr. Gordon Roston, who is

the director-general of the tourism marketing branch for the Canadian

Government Office of Tourism, is in British Columbia today and in the I

L) use this afternoon. You will recall that Hon. Charles Lapointe is

the federal minister responsible for the Canadian Government Office of

Tourism, a government agency with which our ministry and this

government have shared an excellent relationship. We look together to

the future for many joint projects. I am pleased to welcome Mr. Roston

here and would ask all of the House to welcome him in British Columbia

style.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I would like to

welcome to the House, from West Vancouver, Jeanne Burgess. She is with

her three-month-old son, Justin Alexander Burgess. Jeanie is the wife

of David Burgess, one of our hardworking legislative interns. I ask the

House to join me in welcoming them.

MR. BARRETT: Mr.

Speaker, I have two introductions: first of all, two visitors from

Vancouver East, Lionel and Lean Kearns, who are in the House; and Mrs.

Robert Stone from North Vancouver. Mrs. Stone shares with my wife the

frequent — but not so much lately — occurrence of being a rugby widow.

I ask the House to welcome them.

Introduction of Bills

COMPENSATION STABILIZATION ACT

Hon. Mr. Curtis presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Compensation Stabilization Act.

Bill

28 introduced, read a first time, and ordered to be placed on orders of

the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY ALLOWANCES

(LIMITATION) ACT

Hon. Mr. Wolfe presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Legislative Assembly Allowances (Limitation) Act.

[ Page 6964 ]

Bill

19 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of

the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

REVENUE SHARING AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Revenue Sharing Amendment Act, 1982.

Bill

15 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of

the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

EDUCATION (INTERIM) FINANCE ACT

Hon. Mr. Smith presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Education (Interim) Finance Act.

Bill

27 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of

the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

MINERAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

Hon. Mr. McClelland presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Mineral Amendment Act, 1982.

Bill

33 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of

the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today

MR. KING:

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, last week I raised with the House a

question of privilege relating to certain comments made by the member

for Okanagan North (Hon. Mrs. Jordan). I would point out that, by any

standard, justice delayed is justice denied. Those were extremely

serious allegations and slanderous in nature against an unnamed

individual in my riding as well as me individually, and I would expect

and request an early decision by Your Honour with respect to that

particular matter.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, an early decision is underway and will be here just as quickly as possible.

Oral Questions

PURCHASE OF SHARES IN INLAND NATURAL GAS

MR. MACDONALD:

I have a question to the Minister of Energy and Petroleum Resources,

with a short

preamble — mercifully short. Tonight at midnight the offer

of TMA Western Resources to pick up for $20 the shares of Inland

Natural Gas with its 100,000 customers expires. The applicants, who are

Ben Macdonald and Trans Mountain Pipe Line and Jim Anderson, have 72

percent of the shares in their pocket as of today — in the trust

company, ready to be taken possession of at midnight tonight. Anderson

says he can't be stopped, because the commission can't force him to

divest himself of those shares.

I'm asking the minister:

when a public hearing of the Utilities Commission was called for April

2, as the minister well knows, why did he not insist, to protect the

public interest, that that hearing proceed?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

As the member knows, Mr. Speaker, the government indicated its

intention to intervene in the public hearing. The public hearing must

be held by the British Columbia Utilities Commission under the

provisions of its act. When an adjournment was requested, the

commission, in its wisdom, and in the way that it saw its duty,

accepted that motion for adjournment. The public hearing will still be

held, and while other matters are under review, at the present time

it's the intention of the government to intervene at that point in time.

MR. MACDONALD:

Why didn't the minister, in view of the amendment of the TMA offer

extending it to midnight tonight, and in view of the fact that they cut

out the condition of prior approval of the commission so that they can

get de facto control before the commission can do anything, when it's

too late for the commission to do anything, insist that his council go

before that commission and ask them why they wiped out a public hearing

that had been called by notice? They didn't even convene it. I was the

only person present. Was any objection made to that wiping out of a

public meeting called pursuant to order of the commission, with no

opportunity for anybody to speak to the question of adjournment?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

I'm not a lawyer and I'm not so sure what the member's qualifications

are, and I don't know if what that member says is true. I think that's

a legal matter, one which will have to be interpreted by those people

who are responsible for both the commission and its council, and

interveners and others who are interested. The hearing was called. I

assume, because that hearing was called for a certain time, that people

who were interested in intervening at that time had the opportunity to

appear and make their position known.

MR. MACDONALD: No, they didn't.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

I've no way of forcing people to appear before that commission, nor at

that point did I have any opportunity, legal opportunity, to intervene

at that point.

MR. MACDONALD: Why did the minister

wait until March 31, which is 48 hours before this hearing for April 2,

before instructing anybody to intervene on behalf of the people of

British Columbia, so that on April 2 nothing happened so far as the

government was concerned? They had no brief or preparation, and the

hearing just disappeared. Why did you wait so long to make that

decision to intervene — in effect, to wait until it was too late?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

It's the member for Vancouver East's opinion that the government waited

too long. I don't share that opinion. The important thing is that the

government did intervene, and will intervene at the public hearing and

make our position quite clearly known in that intervention.

[ Page

6965 ]

MR. MACDONALD: Did the Premier himself, or through any of his ministers

or council in his behalf, make any representations whatsoever that the public

hearing that was scheduled for April 2 be taken off the rails?

HON. MR. BENNETT: The answer is absolutely no.

MR. MACDONALD:

Has the Premier instructed anyone to act on behalf of the government

before midnight tonight to request that the Utilities Commission make

an order — as they can under

section 106 of the act — to restrain the

TMA group from taking possession of the 72 percent of shares which has

been offered pursuant to their cash offer? Have you asked the

commission to get a restraining order?

HON. MR. BENNETT:

No, I haven't, Mr. Speaker. It would be quite improper for the

Premier's office to intervene. First of all, there are two ministers

who would carry any responsibility for making any decisions on

intervention: the Minister of Energy (Hon. Mr. McClelland), probably in

concert with the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams).

MR. MACDONALD:

In view of this deadline, has the Premier discussed with the

Attorney-General going into the Supreme Court of British Columbia for

an injunction to restrain this takeover — which after midnight tonight

may very well be too late? That's what Anderson is saying and he may

very well be right. Have you discussed with the Attorney-General the

question of having a supreme court injunction issued to prevent a de

facto merger of Trans Mountain Pipe Line and Inland Natural Gas by this

new group contrary to the Utilities Commission Act?

HON. MR. BENNETT:

That's a very difficult question to answer, Mr. Speaker. I'm sure if

the member is seeking information to do with actions the

Attorney-General may or may not take, he should address the question to

the Attorney-General.

MR. MACDONALD: I have a final

question for the Premier: will he take under consideration immediate

action to prevent this merger, which is going to lead to increased

natural gas prices for the consuming public of the province of British

Columbia?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the member

has made a presumption in advance of a hearing which is to make that

determination, which indicates to me that, as usual, his mind is made

up, and now he'll look for facts to support his conclusion. I'll take

all of the substantial information he's brought to the House under

consideration.

MR. BARRETT: Can the Premier assure

this House that, regardless of the merger taking place after midnight

tonight, the government's position will still be presented to the

Utilities Commission, and that the government does not recognize a de

facto merger after midnight tonight, which would set the stage for any

presentation it makes to the Utilities Commission being irrelevant?

HON. MR. BENNETT:

First of all, Mr. Speaker, I know of no merger that's taken place or is

about to take place. I'm sure the Energy minister responded on his

responsibilities to the Utilities Commission and the public. Any

responsible course of action the government should take would be made

in consultation between the Attorney-General and the Minister of Energy.

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Speaker, can the Attorney-General assure this House that after

midnight tonight, when this offer is accepted, the government will

still be in a position to protect the gas users in British Columbia

through the Utilities Commission at the eventual hearing, or is the

statement by Mr. Anderson that it's too late after midnight for the

Utilities Commission to have any legal right to interfere correct?

MR. SPEAKER: Is the member seeking a legal opinion?

MR. BARRETT: I want the government to assure the people.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Mr. Speaker, I don't propose to give the Leader of the Opposition a

legal opinion, but I can assure him that counsel for the government

will appear at the public hearing for the purpose of ensuring the

public interest with respect to the transmission of gas energy supplies

in this province, and that the pricing thereof remains within the

jurisdiction of the Utilities Commission to decide what is correct and

proper in the circumstances.

MR. BARRETT: It's after the fact.

CAROLIN MINES CYANIDE SPILL

MR. SKELLY:

I direct a question to the Minister of Environment with respect to the

Carolin Mines cyanide spill. Has the minister determined why there was

such a long delay between the time of the spill and the time residents

of the area were notified of possible cyanide poisoning of their

domestic water? In view of the gross inadequacies in the waste

management branch's reporting system, as identified in the

auditor-general's report, has the minister decided on a new procedure

to be established to prevent possible loss of life and health in areas

affected by such pollution emergencies?

HON. MR. ROGERS:

At the present time we're having an investigation to find out just why

it is, when this particular emergency took place, the reporting

procedures which are in place did not work as they should have. The

first notification I had of this was late Thursday afternoon, some time

after the spill occurred. The staff of the Ministry of Environment,

federal Fisheries and Oceans and the Ministry of Health are currently

conducting investigations. If charges are warranted they will make

recommendations to regional Crown counsel.

The answer to

your second question is probably a little longer than that, but

essentially the answer is: no, not at the present time, but the matter

is under consideration.

MR. SKELLY: In view of the

almost total loss of the summer steelhead stock in the Coquihalla and

the continuing losses of species which prey on poisoned fish, as well

as the loss of safe domestic water supplies for people living in the

area, has the minister decided to recover costs from Carolin Mines in

order to restore the resources to their original quality and state, and

has he decided to lay charges under the Pollution Control Act?

HON. MR. ROGERS:

I believe I said earlier that the decision on whether or not to lay

charges has not yet been made. I expect it will be made within the next

two to three days. A decision on whether or not we will try to get

compensation for charges will also be made at that time.

[ Page 6966 ]

GOVERNMENT INFORMATION

MRS. DAILLY:

Can the Provincial Secretary confirm that his deputy, Doug Heal, has

been negotiating with the Canada News-Wire service at a cost of over

$200,000 yearly to provide an instant propaganda network for government

news releases?

HON. MR. WOLFE: I can confirm that

government information services, through Mr. Heal, have been giving

consideration to providing a more efficient method of providing

material to more rural communities — smaller newspapers. I wouldn't

interpret that to be a method of disseminating propaganda, as the

member refers to it. But he is investigating a more efficient method

used by other governments in Canada of transmitting press-release

material more instantly to publications which need to have it.

MRS. DAILLY:

Would the minister tell the House whether or not the restraint program

is going to apply to Social Credit government propaganda emanating from

his office?

HON. MR. WOLFE: I don't really think

that's a proper question. Perhaps the question would indicate that we

should suppress material and not have it go to the people of this

province.

MRS. DAILLY: Perhaps I should rephrase the question, because the answer certainly needs some rephrasing.

Mr.

Speaker, could the minister explain to the House whether he considers a

possible expenditure of $200,000 for government propaganda necessary in

this time of restraint?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker,

I don't know where the member gets her information on the cost of this

program. I can assure her that no decision has been made to adopt this

service, but I think all members would agree that there is a need to

examine ways of providing material more expeditiously to all areas of

this province, not just to the major press media. That's the crux of

this whole matter. Many, many publications in the outlying areas of

this province do not have material necessary for them to have for

several days after material is distributed. That is what is being

examined in the interests of proper information throughout this

province, not just the lower mainland.

Orders of the Day

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

MR. MUSSALLEM:

Mr. Speaker, it's a great pleasure for me to stand again in this

marvellous House, which few of us have the privilege to attend. This

special group of men and women who take their

part in the development,

extension and the future of British Columbia have a great honour,

privilege and responsibility. I take it seriously, and I know we all

do. After all, some people say "they talk and they fight," but it is

that marvellous gift of speech that must be the prelude to all action.

The prelude to all action in British Columbia is here. It is the

speaking, debate and criticism — of course the criticism — that is the

constructive development which creates what we know as parliament: the

tradition of the British system, the tradition of democracy, brought

down to us through hundreds of years. I believe this House, despite

what we may hear from some who are ill-informed, is a great example of

this principle of democracy. It gives me great pleasure when I hear our

people debating issues that will affect the lives of people in this

decade, in the next, and perhaps further on,

Since we became

the government in 1975 we have produced constructive developments. I

have to congratulate the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) for the

latest budget, the best budget I have heard in this House in the many

years I have been here. It is a constructive one. To imagine that a

minister could, at a time like this, stand in his place and produce a

budget with an increasing future for British Columbia, and at the same

time not increase taxation — no one thought it was possible. I myself

could not have imagined how it would be possible; the shortfalls seemed

so imminent. At a time when the whole economy is in recession and when

Canada, especially the central and eastern parts of Canada, is in

almost total recession, the province of British Columbia has been able

to develop a budget without an increase in taxation. I think it's the

upward trend, the positive nature of this government; this has always

been done in the past, and it continues to be done.

Interjection.

MR. MUSSALLEM:

Some would. We welcome constructive criticism, but we haven't had any

constructive criticism — none. The opposition of this House, I regret

to say, has deteriorated since I first entered this chamber in 1967. It

has deteriorated gradually, but steadily, until today we have arrived

at a new low. What do we find? We find a group of men and women with a

no-development policy; a no-development party, and no-development

people with a totally negative attitude. The worst thing of all is the

negative attitude. The other things are passing but that attitude is

ingrained, and that is what is hurting our province. If it weren't for

the upward swing of our own members, we would be in deep despair if we

listened to the opposition at all.

I regret to say this, but

I must say it. I recall a meeting of the Crown corporations where we

asked Inspector Lucy why we have so many accidents in British Columbia.

He said: "I want to tell you why. There's a special reason for that.

It's not that the drivers aren't trained; they are as good as anywhere,

but they have a wrong and a negative attitude." That's the trouble —

the attitude.

AN HON. MEMBER: How come the Socreds have more accidents than NDPers?

MR. MUSSALLEM: I'll give you an example.

Interjection.

MR. MUSSALLEM: The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) heckles. I don't hear him, so don't worry, boys.

This

party at my right — I hate to say that, and I shouldn't be sitting over

here — had the effrontery to.... I sat in my seat and could not believe

what I was hearing. I said to myself that this just couldn't be, there

must have been some mistake, I didn't hear it properly. I sat here,

almost dumbfounded, when, during the opening of the session, during the

budget speech, the television cameras did not roll. I tell you, that is

a terrible negative attitude, and that is the attitude that's killing

our province today: suspicion of the Speaker's Chair, suspicion that

those cameras somehow could have been altered and changed so that the

right story wouldn't get out. How can you be so small?

[ Page 6967 ]

Mr.

Speaker, I stand here in total amazement that the province was denied

the right to see its parliament in action at that most important time.

It is important for the people to see their parliament in action. That

is one of the great reasons for having television. They can see their

parliament. That important debate should have been televised. The blame

is right on that side — with deep regret, negative, no development. I

am telling you we have arrived at a sorry time with that opposition,

downhill since '67, downhill and going on.

I want to give

you an example of a different attitude, the attitude of the members on

this side of the House — that side. I want to say to you, Mr. Speaker,

it becomes extremely difficult for me to address my attacks while

looking at the good guys over there. I have to turn to my right.

Let

me quote the member for Kamloops (Mr. Richmond). He said the budget

"asks all of us to show a little restraint to get us through these

difficult economic times. It gives high priority to those ministries

that require additional funding, such as the GAIN program, long-term

care and of course the family services mentioned in the minister's

budget." Just a point, but the point is helping others, which is

something the opposition does not understand — making British Columbia

a better place to live in.

I give you something from the

member from Penticton, Does he complain? No. He said northeast coal is

giving contracts to Kelowna, Kamloops, Prince George and Penticton; not

only in that area, but it's spreading. The upraising attitude of the

debate on that side of the House....

I would go on to the

member for Kootenay (Mr. Segarty), one of the fine addresses we heard

in this House, just the other day. He said, very clearly, and I think

it is very important:

There are some in this province who would be willing to jeopardize our future

for their own personal gain and to protect an antiquated and failed philosophical

position. We must reject that attitude clearly and firmly.... We must continue

together with one another and with other Canadians to maintain that commitment

so that we may work out our differences with integrity, with tolerance and with

mutual respect.... We must work together, focusing our energy and creativity

so that all Canadians will grow and share with one another the hard-earned rewards

of future prosperity. I congratulate the member from Kootenay. I think those

are prophetic words.

contrast, the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly), whom I respect

and admire — she is not in the House at the present time — said she

likes to reduce everything to a common denominator. She asked this

question: "What has the budget done for me?" Well, I don't have to ask

many questions to tell you what the budget has done for her — the same

as it did for everybody in British Columbia. For example, it kept the

sales tax level, when anybody else would expect it to be equal to other

sales taxes in Canada — 8, 9, 10 or 11 percent. But the sales tax

remained level. Special funding for health costs — the highest priority

in this government has always been for health. Health, Mr. Member for

New Westminster (Mr. Cocke), the highest priority. Many great things

were done in health by this administration — not by the administration

of '72 to '75. Every positive thing done in health, all the hospital

allowances, the whole thing, was done by this government. Not one thing

by that, except talk — talk through three and a half years of

misadventure — 1972, 1973, 1974 and 1975. That was the difference

between these governments.

I would also say to the member

for Burnaby North that the finest educational system in Canada is in

British Columbia, funded without extra cost. As a matter of fact, to

the amazement of all concerned, the taxes on homeowners will be reduced

by this budget. Can you believe it, in a time of recession?

AN HON. MEMBER: Except in the rural areas.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Never mind what areas, but it is reduced.

The

best and the finest educational and health-care system in Canada is

here. I stand in my place with pride to be a member of that party and

that government which was able to do it at this time.

Let me

take another one. I'm talking about the downtrend the no-development

policy, the no-development party, the no-development people. Let me

quote the hon. member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea). He believes in a

balanced budget. Yes, he said that. I said: "They've changed." Except

he said this: "I believe in a balanced budget, except if it's necessary

to expand." In other words, if you want to go anywhere, you've got to

spend more money than you've got. Borrow it and charge it up to

somebody else. Our government does not borrow. Our government continues

with money we have in hand, and a spend-as-we-go-policy has been in

effect since 1972 and continues to this day.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about the Crown corporations, George?

MR. MUSSALLEM:

Let me answer that Crown corporation thing. Yes, I only wish.... I say

this in the House for the umpteenth time. I think I'm being baited each

time, but I'm going to say it again. Let us take B.C. Hydro for an

example, and we'll go through the whole thing. B.C. Hydro continues to

borrow money to create more power and more industry for the province so

that we can have industry in the north and all through this province —

the Peace River project, the two-river policy, the Columbia policy. All

this together created a greater, finer and stronger British Columbia.

It couldn't have been done without that. It took courage in those years

— in the fifties and the sixties — to develop the principle that that

party opposed.

Let me talk about Hydro: they were borrowing

money to build these dams. What disaster would we be in today if we had

not borrowed" There would be no Prince George, there'd be no mills in

the north and no industry up there. There just wouldn't be any without

the power developed by those dams and those projects. Yet they say

Hydro is in debt. They call that public debt. That's not public debt;

that is Hydro debt. I'll put it to you this way....

MR. COCKE: Who pays the interest?

MR. MUSSALLEM:

The people who pay the bills for light pay the interest, of course. But

I want to tell you this. If Hydro was put up for sale — now put this in

your pipe and smoke it — if Hydro was put up for sale today, heaven

forbid, it would be sold at probably ten times the book value of its

cost and this government could operate on the funds received from that

for the next five or six years without taxing anybody. But then we

wouldn't own Hydro.

[ Page 6968 ]

There

are more assets there than there is debt — ten times the assets. Now

understand that. Ten times more asset than debt. Do you understand

that? It's so simple. I think that anybody should be able to understand

that simple little problem in arithmetic. That is not a debt. There are

assets to correspond with that. Now I hear silence from them.

AN HON. MEMBER: B.C. Rail is not a debt?

MR. MUSSALLEM:

B.C. Rail is not a debt. I won't answer these questions. Well, I might

as well while I'm at it. B.C. Rail opened up British Columbia. It

opened up Prince George, Fort St. John and all the towns on the line.

It brought in the mills and brought in millions of dollars to British

Columbia without which British Columbia would be a dead,

carrier-of-water and hewer-of-wood province. That was the line that

opened up the centre of British Columbia. Of course, it's not a debt.

It's the greatest railway, it's the heart, it's the main artery of the

north of British Columbia today. Without the north there'd be, no

south; there'd be a little hamlet down here.

There's nothing

down here that creates wealth. The wealth is created in the hinterland

below the Fraser Valley. Let's understand that. We must expand our

sights beyond this comfortable south. We must realize that those men

and women who work hard up there — not always for a great deal — make

British Columbia a better place to live in, this southern part of this

province.

I think we should be deeply indebted. When you say

that BCR was a debt on British Columbia, I tell you it's our greatest

asset. It is the main trunkline and blood vessel of this province. Are

there any other things that you can think of? That's what you have to

consider. And they call it a debt! What would they do — liquidate? I

remember them talking in a public meeting on Crown corporations.

Liquidate the BCR. Close up the line to Fort St. John. Don't worry

about the future. Only think about what's at hand.

The

member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) said that if you had expansion, you

had to have debt. I say to you it is quite unnecessary, because we have

had expansion in British Columbia without debt. Through twenty years of

Social Credit administration up until 1972, and from 1975 on, this

province increased tremendously and prospered without going into debt —

not a nickel, not one cent of debt. That's because of proper

administration and a foresighted government that looked after every

dollar and looked after the people at the same time.

Had the

previous administration considered debt — and we had a debt load

tremendously like that of, for example, Ontario and Quebec.... The

interest on the debt of Ontario and Quebec would pay almost the entire

budget of the third-largest province, British Columbia. Do you

understand that? The interest on the debt of Ontario and Quebec alone

would totally pay the operating of this province — health, schools, the

whole business. Yet they talk about debt. We just cannot afford that.

Let

me tell you that most bankruptcies happening today are not because the

businesses are not getting business. That is not what is creating

bankruptcy. Let me tell these people who talk about bankruptcies. The

bankruptcies are happening because people during good times expanded

too fiercely and got into too much debt. When the time came to repay,

the hammer came down. That is one thing this province and this

government will not allow. That is one reason why today we have an

expansive budget in a time of depression.

It is regrettable

— I say this now — that the principles espoused by the Social Credit

administration in 1952 were not also in Canada. Had the Prime Minister

of Canada been the Premier of British Columbia at that time, W.A.C.

Bennett, I tell you, as have many good articles written before, that

there would be no debt in Canada today. As hon. members of this House

remember, he said we would retire the debt of Canada at the rate of 10

percent per year. We would buy the bonds back. We would at the same

time reduce the tariff barrier by 10 percent a year. In ten years there

would be no tariff at the international boundary. We would have

economic union. Had that happened, which it did not, Canada would today

be the industrial heartland of North America, because that is where the

raw materials are. That is where the people would be.

The

writing was on the wall not that long ago. In the late 50s the federal

government placed a railway line from Windsor to Ungava, Labrador. Why

did they place that line? They placed that line because the great iron

mountain in Pennsylvania petered out. There was not sufficient iron for

the steel mills of the United States. So the line went to Ungava to

bring the steel down from Ungava to Pittsburgh to create the steel that

was necessary. The writing was on the wall at that time, but it wasn't

taken hold of. We continued to go into debt.

I don't know of

any other government in Canada, except maybe Alberta, that is not in

debt. The policy of no debt pervades today, which gives us the

strength, even in tough times, to be able to say to the public: "No

increase in taxes."

Do you hear a kind word from that

negative party, those negative people and that negative attitude? Not

one single word. That party should be showing signs of appreciation,

should be suggesting how we can improve it, not why it shouldn't be

done. I am telling you, this opposition has come to a new low. In 15

years of depreciating bit by bit by bit, you do not recognize the

parliament of 1967 in the parliament of 1982 — you cannot recognize

that opposition.

The negative attitude pervades and we've

got to get away from it. We've got to get away from the negative

attitude and negative policies. Let me reiterate to you what our own

members are saying: "Lift up, proceed, create." That is our policy.

That is what we stand for. Let me quote a little bit from the first

member for Victoria. I read this and I can't believe it, but I'll read

it anyway. MLA Charles Barber is quoted in Hansard , page 4474,

as having called our government's plan for northeast coal "ridiculous

and unnecessary." Is that the policy of that party? Forty thousand jobs

and billions of dollars for the coffers of British Columbia and Canada.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Let's hear the member who has the floor.

Interjection.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Do I believe it? It's in Hansard .

It's almost unbelievable, but the first member for Victoria.... Let me

tell you about northeast coal. Northeast coal brings economic stability

— long-term contracts. This is what the first member for Victoria would

close down. He'd close down northeast coal, which brings stability,

long-term contracts, 5,800 jobs during construction and 10,600

permanent jobs. Northeast coal is the catalyst. That party would close

down northeast coal. Not only the first member for

[ Page 6969 ]

Victoria

said that; the hon. Leader of the Opposition said the same thing. I

stand here in disbelief, Mr. Speaker and hon. members, that anybody

could say at any time that he would close down northeast coal, which

brings 5,800 jobs during construction and 10,600 permanent jobs.

The

investment by Canada and British Columbia will be returned by taxes

from the first contracts with a surplus of $5.5 billion in escalated

dollars to the province and $9.4 billion to the federal government. In

other words, we get the infrastructure paid for plus a surplus for both

governments of nearly $15 billion to be used for other industry.

The

first member for Victoria would close it down. He didn't say it once,

but several times. How much more negative, destructive, and lower in

attitude can you get than to espouse this kind of statement. I tell you

it's high time some changes were made to that negative party with its

negative attitude. There's a danger which worries me just a little that

they do not know what they do. I don't think that party, which has been

depreciating from 1967 to 1982, realizes how slowly they have

depreciated downward, until today they're not recognizable from 15 or

16 years ago.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

have before us today a budget of great courage. It was a great act of

courage to develop a budget that could have an upward swing in the

economy of British Columbia when it's badly needed. This government,

this party, was the one that did it, and no other. Do not take my word

for it. It was hailed by the chief economist of the B.C. Central Credit

Union. I never heard of that before with any budget of this government

through the last 25 years. But this time he hailed it. It was also

hailed by the president of the Institute of Chartered Accountants. Can

you believe it? Yet this negative group would stand there and say it is

not a proper budget. It's also hailed by the most important group of

all: the workers, the men and women in the street. That's the first

time there have ever been such accolades. Never before have we heard

such accolades for a single budget. And I think, at a time when we have

to admit there's a recession, to have accolades like this for a budget

on an upward swing is something to be very proud of.

It's

obvious that these people have not been listening to those negative,

doubting people and their no-development policy — a no-development

party absolutely sunk in their destructive, negative attitude. I am sad

that that great party of the past.... It had a past. There was a time

when it was a respectable, businesslike organization, struggling for a

purpose, but the purpose has been lost, and now they're bent on

destruction. They would destroy the budget and the Social Credit Party.

Do they realize when they talk like this that they're talking about

destroying British Columbia? The negative, destructive attitude must

cease.

Through all this there is a danger. I have to tell

you that there's been a new attitude afoot in that party, and I can't

understand it. I can't understand what is going on there. I tell you

all these things because it's important. We have an attitude of

destruction, an attitude of no development, a policy of standing still

or backing up. Yet we have another facet, Mr. Speaker, and this is the

part I can't understand. Barbara McLintock wrote about the Leader of

the Opposition, and she entitled it: "Barrett, the Flying Fish."

Interjection.

MR. MUSSALLEM:

Well, I'm only quoting from the paper, not my words. "Maintaining the

leadership theme, NDP leader Dave Barrett will wear suits to the

Legislature, refrain from performing the famous flying fish acts and

otherwise maintain as much a dignified low-key, moderate image as

possible."

Now we go on further. Jim Hume wrote: "Barrett,

the Moderate." I quote again: "Dave Barrett, the moderate, in his

three-piece suit, rubbing shoulders and commiserating with the business

community, is nice for image."

What worries me a little bit

is, what is happening here? Is this a ruse to take in the

non-suspecting people of British Columbia? I can see it developing and

I hope the people will reject it when the time comes, because it's

wrong. It is terrifying. I am not saying in any way that the NDP are

communist. Don't misunderstand me. But I can say that if you

extrapolate socialism, you come to communism. I was in church on Sunday

and what the minister said stuck in my mind. He said: "The principles

of communism and fascism have the seed of self-destruction in them."

And I said to myself: "How true." Fascism has already destroyed itself;

communism is well on the way.

I am not suggesting that this

party is communistic, but I am saying that step by step up the ladder

it is the process of control by a few over the many. It is this

principle of totalitarianism that they stand for. For the New

Democratic Party the word "democratic" does not belong in that title,

because there is nothing about democracy in socialism. Socialism is a

master-serf relationship. I hope that as time goes on the people of

British Columbia will understand the danger of socialism in all its

facets. The only system in society that has ever worked is the system

of private enterprise. The system that has always failed is the system

of socialism — the master over the few. I say to you today that the

time will come one of these days for the people to make their judgment

again. The reason I am here is because I dread the hour that we become

the serfs of the leaders of any parliament, and that is the danger we

stand for in one form or another. Certainly we've got the British North

America Act. We had it....well, we still have it. We have that to

protect us. We have the new Constitution. We have all these things

while we're a province. But step by step, is it not possible that this

great danger, this cancer, within our system could pervade us and

eventually we'd come under.... . ? Once you are there, Mr. Speaker,

there is no way back.

The tremendous country of Russia, even

though it had a totalitarian monarchy, private enterprises stood there.

It was able to feed its people and was able to grow enough grain in the

Ukraine to supply much of the world. Much of the world was supplied by

the Ukraine. It was called the bread basket of the world. But today the

Ukraine cannot feed itself. What happened in that great totalitarian

system? I tell you, when the few dictate the many, that is the element

of disaster. Those are the seeds of destruction. Remember those words

very clearly. I certainly hope and pray that we realize that before

it's too late and understand the meaning of it.

The

individual is a supreme element in our society. It is the individual

that must succeed; it is the individual that must create, not the

parliament and not the leaders. They may show the course and point the

way, but the individual is the one that must produce. The individual

must have the will and desire to produce and must be given the

privileges of the production and pay for his work — a reward for his

enterprise. But you do not find it under the other system. I say

[ Page 6970 ]

again

that we have to have positive influence. We do not want no-development,

no-thinking, negative-attitude people. We cannot have that in British

Columbia. The time is getting late. We must remember our people

here.... This polarized society frightens me a little. I hope as the

time goes on we'll be able to understand that there is no system that

works except the private-enterprise system. I say to you, my hon.

friends, that the budget we have today proves the principle of the

initiative of the individual over the totalitarian system of "do as

you're told."

MR. KING: Before I address myself to

the budget, I want to make a few comments with respect to a statement

that was made by the member for Okanagan North (Hon. Mrs. Jordan) last

Wednesday. I do not intend to address that matter, which is before the

Speaker for deliberation now as a question of privilege. Although I am

concerned at the length of time being taken, I appreciate that the

Speaker is giving serious weight and thought to that question of

privilege.

But a new matter relating to that particular

incident has arisen, subsequent to my request to file the motion. That

question relates to evidence which has come forward from the individual

involved in the member for Okanagan North's comments, a man who

allegedly insulted her and her officials during a conference in my

riding. The minister did say that the man had been sent to the

conference representing me. Subsequently, the man was located and

interviewed by the media and indicated that in fact he had been invited

by the ministry. I too was invited by the ministry and couldn't attend,

but I note that the invitation is in the name of the Hon. Patricia

Jordan, with the seal of the province of British Columbia attached

thereto. I would suggest that at the appropriate time a question does

present itself to the Legislature as to whether or not the member for

Okanagan North deliberately misled the House by suggesting that the man

was sent by me, when in fact she knew, or at least should have known,

that he was on her guest list and had been, in fact, invited by her

office. That is a new matter and is not related per se to the question

of privilege that I raised at the earliest opportunity I had last week.

When

any visiting MLA comes to my riding, be that person a minister of the

crown or an MLA, it would certainly be my wish that constituents extend

every courtesy to them and to their office, whether or not they like

the individual involved. I am certainly somewhat concerned, to say the

least, that any member of this Legislature should be treated in a

boorish fashion when they are in my riding or any other riding in the

province. I can only say that apparently intoxication was involved in

this case on the part of an individual whom I do not even know.

Sometimes intoxication does produce boorish behaviour which is

regretted by the individual in a moment of sobriety.

One

thing about intoxication is that people usually recover from it. It can

produce sickness of the stomach and temporary lack of intellectual

judgment. Diseases of the mind, born out of slander, malicious thoughts

and hatred, are not so easy to recover from. I regret that the member

for Okanagan North chose not only to embarrass the individual involved,

but to infer and indeed to allege that his conduct was in some way

associated with my office.

I look forward to an early

decision by the Chair with respect to the matter I raised earlier, and,

as I indicated earlier, Mr. Speaker, at the appropriate time, the next

question which has come to light subsequent to that first motion should

be addressed by this Legislature.

Mr. Speaker, I find it

instructive that a very malicious charge, which has unquestionably

proved to be wrong and invalid, should be left hanging by the member

without an attempt to apologize or correct the record.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Order, please. Hon. member, the Chair recognizes the position of the

member, and I would hope that the member as well recognizes the

position of the Chair in permitting a debate which obviously is now

beginning more and more to encompass the motion that the member put

forward. I would ask the member if he could bear that in mind and

return to something that would be more appropriately in order in this

debate.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I'm in the difficult

position of not knowing — nor, indeed, with respect, does the Chair —

whether or not a motion has been put forward. We don't know whether the

motion is accepted. At this point, it has not been ruled upon. I

certainly do not wish to stray beyond the bounds of what is appropriate

for discussion while the Speaker has a matter under advisement, but I

would simply make this observation in general terms. I guess Jack Kelly

said it best for the Social Credit Party when he was their chief

research director and said candidly: "Yes, we play dirty, and that's

okay." Because that statement was made public, Jack Kelly was fired by

the Social Credit caucus. I suggest that what he had put forward in a

candid fashion is given proof positive by the member for Okanagan

North's conduct, and I wonder why she still retains her cabinet

portfolio. It's another Social Credit dirty trick, pure and simple, and

I shall not forget it, Mr. Speaker.

The budget that was

introduced has been called a lot of things. It's been called deceptive;

it's been called dishonest. I just want to trace for the House the

effects of the budget on the area of British Columbia that I represent,

the riding of Shuswap- Revelstoke. I want to identify what I think is a

commonality of interest between all the interior points of British

Columbia, whether it be the East or West Kootenays, the Okanagan or the

north-central part of our province.

The previous speaker

acknowledged that the wealth of our province is, in substantial

fashion, extracted from the interior, the less-populated areas of our

province — the resource wealth that funds the social programs of our

province and provides the material and the resources for the industrial

breadbasket of greater Vancouver and the lower mainland. It is one

thing for a member of the government to recognize that and comment on

it, but I wonder what kind of mental gymnastics it takes to make that

recognition and then stand idly by while the budget that he gives

praise to refuses to recognize that simple fact and instead

discriminates in very harsh and punitive fashion against the outlying

area which is the resource breadbasket of this province.

The

forest industry, it goes without saying, is the main underpinning of

our economy. Just to show you, as an example, what is happening to our

forest industry in the interior, we have a press release issued by the

Ministry of Forests, the Nelson forest region, on January 13 of this

year, setting the annual allowable cut for Cranbrook forest district.

The Cranbrook forest district begins the new year with a revised annual

allowable cut. The setting of the AAC follows the 1981 publication of

the Cranbrook timber supply yield analysis report. Here are the salient

points. The annual allowable cut determined by the chief forester has

been set for the next five years at 900,000 cubic metres. In line with

provincial

[ Page 6971 ]

policy,

the new rate of harvest is considered effective January 1, 1981, and is

a reduction of 320,000 cubic metres, 26 percent, from the previous

allowable rate of harvest for the same area: a 26 percent reduction in

the annual harvest of our forest crop in the Cranbrook forest region....

have seen similar reductions in the Revelstoke timber supply area, the

West Kootenays, the East Kootenays and the Okanagan. While all the

apportionments have not yet been set, this represents an appalling and

grave reduction in employment opportunity and economic activity

throughout the interior of the north-central part of our province. That

means the loss of jobs. At a time when this is happening, one would

expect that the government of the province of British Columbia would be

allocating more funding to renewing our forest crop at a more rapid

pace.

We had a provision before us in this Legislature in

1980 the Forest and Range Resource Fund, a special fund set up by the

government, which the opposition supported — providing for an annual

allocation over a five-year period to improve and accelerate the growth

of our forest resource so that we would not be facing the kind of

falldown which we see and which I have outlined just now. In this

year's budget that Forest and Range Resource Fund has been wiped out,

totally eliminated, so that Social Credit with its strange economic,

monetary policies can balance the books, on the face of it. What kind

of financial and economic stewardship is it when we undermine the

number one financial resource producer of our province at a time when

we are experiencing falldowns so that there can be short-term

accounting for the budget of this government.

At a time when

there's economic stagnation in the forest industry and hundreds —

indeed thousands — of people are laid off, we should be taking this

opportunity of the lull in harvesting because of poor markets to

increase our investment, to institute thinning programs in our forests

so our trees have room to grow, to institute accelerated planting of

seedlings, and to recapture some of the unsatisfactory stock land that

now sits dormant, supporting weed species rather than merchantable

trees. We don't see that kind of commitment to the forest industry — an

industry that we'll have to rely on in the future to fund our social

programs. Rather we see chiseling on the appropriations voted by this

Legislature to settle the Social Credit books rather than to provide

any ongoing commitment to the forest industry.

Mr. Speaker,

what's happening in those areas — the Premier's own area and the area I

serve in this Legislature, the Okanagan-Shuswap and Columbia-Thompson

areas? There's a letter here to the hon. Premier from the economic

development commission for the regional district of Columbia-Shuswap.

I'm going to read it into the record so that the House knows this is

not my assessment of the dire straits of the economy in that region,

but a factual assessment of the depressed state of our economy which

this government sits blandly watching deepen into worse recession.

Indeed, they plunge it into further depression because of their

insensitive and stupid economic policies.

Salmon Arm — Shuswap Forest Industry and

B.C. Southern Interior Forest Industry

Dear Mr. Bennett:

Our unemployment picture is growing worse very rapidly,

as shown on the attached data sheets marked in red. These do not yet include

any new major layoffs in our regional forest industry.

Because of this alarming data and the potential for a much

worse picture, we ask you and the Cabinet Committee on Economic Development

to give urgent consideration to our brief forwarded to you under cover of my

letter of February 17, 1982.

Anything you can do to fortify the hopes of our regional

forest industry in its difficult effort to continue operating would be of great

help in maintaining the thousands of local jobs that are so crucial to our economy.

Richard Dolman,

Commissioner

He attaches the unemployment statistics for the previous years going

back to 1975. In Region 91, East Kootenay, in January 1982, we had an

unemployment rate of 9.5 percent; Region 92, Central Kootenay, 12.4

percent; Region 93, Kootenay-Boundary-Okanagan, 10.6 percent; Southern

Interior, 11.6 percent. The average for Canada was down to 9.5 percent.

The

percentage increase in unemployment in the following communities is

absolutely alarming. Indeed, it's a catastrophe for those particular

towns that are living with this dilemma without any prospect of

assistance from the provincial government. In Salmon Arm we've had an

increase from December 1981 to February 1982 of 50 percent; in

Revelstoke, 73 percent; in Cranbrook to Golden, 46 percent; in Nelson,

the West Kootenays, 101 percent; in Trail, 65 percent; in Penticton, 62

percent; in Kelowna, the Premier's own riding, 60 percent; in Vernon,

58 percent; in Kamloops, 73 percent.

Mr. Speaker, that

spells disaster for many of those communities. The part that alarms and

angers me is the fact that we see no initiative in the budget either to

recognize the problem or to offer some interim measure that would

alleviate it.

The member for Boundary-Similkameen (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) thinks it's amusing and smiles.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

It's

not just the economic development officer who is concerned about this

matter. A special presentation with a visual slide show was presented

by the Shuswap-Okanagan Forest Association, which has their office in

Westbank and has mills throughout the Shuswap-Okanagan. They wrote to

the minister, and a variety of communities wrote to the government,

requesting that action be taken.

I want to read into the

record some of the things that SOFA has said. They were asked to

comment on what percentage of profits the industry sinks back into

silviculture. The answer was, in part, as follows:

five year average profit study of the southern interior conducted by

Price Waterhouse for the years 1976 to 1980 inclusive reveals that if

silvicultural costs and profit were combined, the silvicultural portion

of that combined number would be approximately 26 percent of the total.

The cost of planting trees in that area is about $3.95 per tree. Under

the current stumpage appraisal system, less than an equitable share of

stumpage revenue is being returned to forestry in that area which would

support and guarantee a sustained yield of forest products for our

industries and employment in that particular area."

[ Page 6972 ]

have ample evidence of what's happening. Here's a headline from March

31 saying: "Federated Co-op's Mill at Canoe Lays Off 250 From Their

Sawmill." It's not just in that region. Others say: "MacMillan Bloedel

(Wharnock) in the Red" — sure, the industry is in trouble — "Forest

Firms' Share Near Low, and Grim 1982 for Forest Industry."

Every

responsible agency of the forest industry is projecting that there will

be no market turnaround for the forest industry in 1982. In the annual

report of Canfor, Peter Bentley says: "It is a serious and unhappy time

for all of us, and I do not see any early signs of recovery." How is

it, then, that we have a government that eliminates the Forest and

Range Resource Fund, which would take advantage of this market lull to

increase the management of our forests, to accelerate the growth of our

stock and to replant and recapture some of the unsatisfactorily stocked

land? They eliminate that investment, but in the budget they project an

increased revenue flowing from the forest industry in 1982-83 of

between 26 and 33 percent, depending on whose

interpretation one takes.

When

all of the competent, knowledgeable people in the industry are saying

"no turnaround for 1982," the government obviously can't anticipate

higher revenue from the industry. It's pretty clear that this is a

government desperate to hide their incompetent financial stewardship of

this province. They are prepared to pirate every fund available, no

matter how that may hamstring the long-term interests of our forest

resource, just to hide their financial incompetence.

The

record is beyond repeating in this Legislature. "B.C. Timber Closing

Plant"; "Pulp Mill Closing in MB Cutback"; "Forest Future Dismal"; "MB

to Close Island Mill for Five Weeks"; "MacMillan Bloedel to Shut Down

Powell Pulp Complex for Two Weeks"; "No Tears for MB — Cuts for Company

Executives"; "Family Life Felled By Forest Industry Failures"; "Forest

City Swaps Glitter for Gloom."

We heard a great deal about

dire straits in reaction to the federal budget. Dire straits became a

euphemism for all of those communities affected by a harsh budget,

introduced by the federal Liberals. What does this government call the

effects of their policies? We don't pretend that they are totally

responsible. We recognize that market forces outside this province have

created a problem. But surely there are some positive things that can

be done in the interim which would alleviate the suffering of thousands

of British Columbians and at the same time make a positive investment

in our resource supply for the future, so that when the economy does

rebound and the market improves we will be in a stronger economic

position to take advantage of it. No, we see them eliminating the very

fund that would support increased employment in the forest industry and

would in fact put us in a stronger position with respect to timber

supply when the economy does rebound.

The young gentleman,

the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem), defies all of the records, and

he thinks that if you repeat often enough that the opposition is only

negative, people will believe it. Our leader released to the press a

positive program for economic recovery in the province of British

Columbia. It's available to the member for Dewdney and to the

government, and we commend it to them. It would address some of the

problems that should be recognized even by Social Credit members with

blinkers on.

That program provided not only for the

preservation of the five-year Forest and Range Resource Fund but for

the infusion of an additional $63 million this year into intensive

treatment of our forest resource. It is a program that would create in

the area of 5,000 jobs in the forest industry — an investment, if you

will, in the future that would place us in a stronger market position

when the market rebounds. It is a program that would allow idle workers

who are now sitting at home on unemployment insurance while their

resource goes to hell in a hand basket....

Interjection.

MR. KING: I withdraw, Mr. Speaker, if I've offended the minister. Goes to the dogs in a hand basket.

would allow them to look forward to a productive summer, to earn the

unemployment insurance stamps that would enable them to live and

maintain their families over the winter months. Many of them are not

going to be able to do that, If we don't put them to work now, their

unemployment insurance benefits will be exhausted by this fall and they

will be facing a bleak winter at the tender mercies of the Minister of

Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), and under this government that's

a prospect no one looks forward to.

Mr. Speaker, it's not

just the forest industry. We have suggested a positive program for the

expenditure of some $300 million, which with a change of priority by

that government could have been made available out of existing revenue

to generate some 43,000 jobs in the province of British Columbia,

related to the forest industry, the tourist industry, the mining

industry, agriculture. If the member for Dewdney and his government do

not wish to listen, or indeed examine, the practicability of ideas put

forward by the opposition, then that's on their heads. But to suggest

that we do nothing over here but apply negative criticism is simply a

refusal to open one's ears, or to open one's eyes and read what is put

before them for debate. Mr. Speaker, there is much that could be done.

have a telegram I received this morning from Okanagan College. It has

three campuses: one in the city of Kelowna, which the Premier

represents; one in the city of Vernon, which I assume someone

represents; and one in Salmon Arm, which I represent. I am going to

read the contents, and I want my colleague the first member for

Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) to listen closely.

B.C. HAS THE LOWEST POST-SECONDARY PARTICIPATION RATE IN CANADA.

AS RECENTLY AS 1968 WE HAD THE HIGHEST RATE. EDUCATION AT THE COMMUNITY-COLLEGE

LEVEL BENEFITS THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY, ESPECIALLY IN THE INTERIOR WHERE THERE

IS SIMPLY NO AVAILABLE ALTERNATIVE.

OKANAGAN COLLEGE PROVIDES COMPREHENSIVE POST-SECONDARY SERVICES

TO OVER 3,000 FULLTIME AND 3,600 PART-TIME STUDENTS, DRAWN FROM A REGIONAL

POPULATION OF 200,000, EXTENDING FROM OSOYOOS TO REVELSTOKE. OKANAGAN COLLEGE

OPERATES IN FOUR PERMANENT CAMPUSES AT A COST PER STUDENT BELOW THAT OF SINGLE-CAMPUS

INSTITUTIONS OF SIMILAR SIZE. FROM ITS INCEPTION, OKANAGAN COLLEGE HAS BEEN

CONTINUOUSLY UNDERFUNDED IN RELATION TO ITS MANDATE. THE ADDED COSTS ASSOCIATED

WITH MULTI-CAMPUS OPERATION HAVE NEVER BEEN ACKNOWLEDGED OR FULLY FUNDED BY THE

MINISTRY. IN 1981 OKANAGAN COLLEGE ACCOUNTED FOR 5.6 PERCENT OF THE PROVINCIAL

TOTAL OF STUDENT CONTRACT HOURS, BUT RECEIVED ONLY 5.4 PERCENT OF THE TOTAL

BUDGET FOR COLLEGES. THIS DOES NOT CONSTITUTE EQUITABLE TREATMENT, BUT REPRESENTS

AN UNDERFUNDING IN COMPARISON WITH OTHER COLLEGES. THROUGH MANY YEARS OF INADEQUATE

FUNDING OKANAGAN COLLEGE HAS MAINTAINED

[ Page 6973 ]

SERVICE AT A LEVEL OF QUALITY AS GOOD OR BETTER THAN OTHER INSTITUTIONS.

ANY FURTHER REDUCTION IN FUNDING AT THIS TIME WILL SERIOUSLY JEOPARDIZE THE

COLLEGE'S ABILITY TO CONTINUE THESE SERVICES. THE MOST VULNERABLE TARGETS

FOR SERVICE REDUCTION WILL BE THE PERMANENT OFFERINGS IN PENTICTON, VERNON AND

SALMON ARM, WHERE EVEN MINIMAL CUTBACKS MAY THREATEN THE FUTURE EXISTENCE OF

THE OPERATION.

WE CHALLENGE THIS GOVERNMENT TO RECONSIDER ITS STANCE WITH REGARD

TO THE DESTRUCTION OF POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION IN B.C. WE CALL ON YOU AS AN

ELECTED REPRESENTATIVE TO SUPPORT CONTINUATION OF POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION AND

TRAINING OPPORTUNITIES AT THIS TIME IN OUR PROVINCE'S HISTORY WHEN WE ARE

MOST IN NEED OF THE COMMON EFFORT OF ALL CITIZENS IN SUR PORT OF ECONOMIC RECOVERY.

CONSIDER THE NEEDS OF OUR YOUNG PEOPLE. IT IS YOUR DECISION AND THEIR FUTURE.

ERIC BUCKLEY, PRESIDENT,

OKANAGAN COLLEGE

FACULTY ASSOCIATION.

Mr. Speaker, it's not just the forest

industry in the interior where extraction is taking place and

reinvestment is failing. It is the educational facilities. It is the

health facilities, where we see home-care programs cut back. It is the

highway program, where we have petitions to coroners from the high

school principal at Falkland appealing for action to prod the Minister

of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) into doing something to make the roadways

safer for the children of that school, where the accident rate has been

alarming. The interior is being squeezed and denied safety on the

highways. It is being denied equitable opportunity and access to

education and health care throughout the province.

What do

we see at one and the same time? We see $1 billion worth of investment

in downtown Vancouver and another billion and some for northeast coal.

And the government says: "Are you against northeast coal?" If they

would be honest and put the facts on the table and tell us how much

they are going to subsidize the mining companies and the Japanese for

the export of that coal, we would give a definitive answer. But they

remain less than frank with the Legislature. They don't reveal the

nature of any contracts that may or may not be let, and they fail and

refuse to give a full accounting of the freight rates for the export of

the coal and the royalty payments on it.

I am not a very provincial person, in the sense that I don't believe that

we should be so parochial as to say: "Well, we have to have X number of

dollars invested in Shuswap-Revelstoke to match downtown Vancouver." But

I say there is gross and patent and unconscionable disparity between the economic

megaprojects which this government has instituted and the suffering that is

taking place in my part of the province. How is it that we can come up with

the dollars to invest in football stadiums and in Transpo '86, but we can't

find the funds for Okanagan College? How is it we can make this kind of heavy

investment when our highways pose a danger to the travelling public and the local

people in my area? How is it that we're having to cut home-care programs

for the seniors and the indigent all through the interior and north-central

part of the province when we see these kinds of lavish programs in downtown

Vancouver? No wonder western separatism is taking root in this province under

the maladministration of that group of opportunists over there. That is the

very stuff that regional unrest, regional dissatisfaction, is born out of. There

is no equity in what this government is doing. They are pouring the funds into

the area where they think they can win the most political seats. That's

what is happening.

hold no brief for the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy),

who some time ago had in her charge the Pier B-C complex, but I would

observe that it was strange that she was suggesting that there should

be a financial contribution from the downtown business community. I saw

Senator Perrault on television and he said the downtown management

group, and apparently the cabinet of the Social Credit Party, were

dissatisfied and concerned about the management at that time. That was

the minister and Mr. Shrum.

So the Liberal conspiracy went

to work, the Liberal conspiracy that took over the Social Credit Party

in 1975, composed of the then Attorney-General, the Minister of

Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom), Dr. Strangelove and the

two senators from British Columbia, Perrault and — what's the other

guy's name? — Austin. Senator Ray got on television and said yes, they

weren't satisfied with the management, so something had to be done. And

what did they do? They did an end run around the Premier. They said:

"How can we change things with the Premier commissioning his colleague,

the Minister of Human Resources?" Senator Ray told them how to do it.

He said: "He's an intellectual Tinkerbell. He's no problem. When he

came east to negotiate the constitution, we did an end run around him

when he couldn't perform as chairman. We simply called a meeting at

8:30 at night, after he'd gone to bed." Then they did the end run

around him, and they installed the Liberal boys to run the project.

The

interesting part of it is that the senator knew precisely what level of

support existed in the provincial cabinet for Gordon and Grace. How did

he know that? It wasn't a coalition that took place in 1975; it was a

Liberal takeover of the Social Credit Party. That's what took place.

That's who's determining the economic policies of this government now.

Who's in charge? — Paul Manning, Ron Basford, the three Liberals here

and the two Liberal senators. That's the power structure determining

the economic destiny of this province. They are the ones who are

prepared to rape the resources of the interior and plough them into

their own back yards; they are the ones who are prepared to deny

common, basic services to children and seniors throughout the length

and breadth of the interior. It was a sorry day for Social Credit when

the Liberals seized control of that party, and it's instructive to see

the contempt with which they move the Premier aside.

conclusion, I remind you that the Minister of Universities, Science and

Technology (Hon. Mr. McGeer) was right when he said: "The Premier

doesn't sparkle in debate." Indeed!

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

In the U.S. there is the annual state of the nation address; in our

nation it's budget day. It has the same connotation, because finance

ministers, both federal and provincial, are really addressing their

citizens on the economic health of their community.

You need

not be a chartered accountant to appreciate the fact that the economic

stewardship of the province is in capable hands. For six and one half

years the B.C. ship of state has avoided the turbulent waters and other

hazards that have beset and are besetting others.

[ Page 6974 ]

we can digress for a moment, I think you might draw a comparison

between some of the provinces in central Canada and the Maritimes, some

of which have called elections before presenting their budgets, and

also examine the indebtedness of central Canada, the provinces of

Ontario and Quebec. British Columbia, through the guidance of our

Premier, has chartered a fiscally responsible course and has avoided

the easy route of more and more debt which has affected the headway of

others. It's often said, but it's often even more difficult to deliver

upon.

The Minister of Finance described and had an

examination of the global economic view. I take this opportunity to

express on behalf of this House our appreciation for a budget of hope

and encouragement in a period of constraint. I also invite the members

of the opposition to examine the reaction to the budget compared to the

one brought down by our Minister of Finance's federal counterpart not

so long ago. Sometimes it's easy to be critical, but when I found some

excerpts in the newspaper shortly after the budget was delivered, I

went through and came to the last paragraph, and in the following line

there was an admission and acknowledgement in the editorial in the Vancouver Sun

— and heaven only knows it hasn't always been supportive of the

government. I quote: " But it appears to be a responsible budget, on

the right track between restraint and confidence. It will not afflict

British Columbians in hard times."

Perhaps we can also examine an analysis done by Eli Sopow in the Vancouver Province ,

and the closing comment by the chief economist of the B.C. Central

Credit Union. "This budget," he said, "is exactly the right formula to

carry us through the recession."

AN HON. MEMBER: What was his name?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: His name was Richard McAlary.

Or we can go to Ken Bell, the business editor for the Vancouver Province ,

and his analysis. There's one paragraph. "Nevertheless," he says, "I

believe that the current budget is as good as possible under the

circumstances."

As a matter of fact, the headline in the Vancouver Province is "A Good News Budget." That does not happen that often in this province.

"The budget didn't forget about the needy either" — I refer to

an

article by Barbara McLintock. "Estimates Give Hope to the Needy."

We'll see that there is a substantial amount of money available for them.

Probably

the best column of all was written by Mike Tytherleigh. Mr. Speaker,

the important thing about the budget is that it does encourage

investment, and it demonstrates the leadership of the government. He

says, referring to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett).

"Doesn't he understand that these investments will stimulate

construction and create jobs for today's students in labour-intensive tourist

industries that likely will surpass the resource industries in growth, and as

a future revenue producer in our province?"

And something which we have always proposed,

"The

revenue provides governments with money for educational and teacher

salaries, whose militant leaders appear determined to destroy the

credibility of the federation and anger the general public again.

"Ironically" — Tytherleigh continues — "while the

militants are attacking edifices and monuments, the NDP's new economic

recovery program says: 'Tourism is a major generator of external

revenue for the B.C. economy. It is an industry which requires

planning, financial support and cooperation between the private and

public sectors.' And they add that the trade and convention centres in

Vancouver and Victoria are long overdue. Yet no sooner do those trade

and convention centres and a number of other developments get on the

block then there's criticism — harping criticism — and it never stops.

I don't know why that particular political party always seems to

attract those who are against everything, those who are militants. It

continues again and again and again."

This particular budget provides a framework for recovery and is

not one that imposes a burden on the future. I have felt for some time

that something should be said about the state of labour relations in

the province, given a changing population, workforce, skills and

expectations. I believe we face a future not of more, but of better — a

future that requires more thorough use of what we have and a

substantial reduction in what we waste. It means a society based more

on serious deliberation than on serious conflict. It means an economic

community of industry — labour and management more interested in

effective competition with others than ineffective competition between

themselves.

Long before I became involved in labour

relations, someone once observed: "Collective agreements do not buy

groceries." How true that is, Mr. Speaker. Paycheques buy groceries,

dividends buy groceries and profits create investment and jobs. There's

nothing wrong with profit.

That is the ground on which we as

a society must stand. While they are all commendable things in

themselves, they require enlightened mutual self-interest and not the

blind pursuit of selfish interest. We have only to look at successful

economies to see that. We have only to look at unsuccessful economies

to know that.

In our relationships with labour, there at

times have been some unfortunate comments. But I want to remind you

that it wasn't us who declared anarchy. It wasn't us who referred to

the Labour Relations Board as a "group of right-wing thugs." It wasn't

us who said there would be blood in the streets. And it wasn't us who

said: "Go to hell." I also note the tremendous change in attitude and

approach of its author the day immediately following that particular

statement — more destructive debate from negative doubting people. I

never thought I would say that, but after almost three years in this

House, I think it's true.

The people of British Columbia

have had a Socred government in 27 out of 30 years, and three years of

opposite. That's 10 percent. There's always a tantalizing: "Well, let's

go to the mattresses and have an election." Well, people in British

Columbia have said what they want 27 out of 30 years, and I'm quite

confident they'll say it again and again and again.

MR. COCKE: That sounds like false courage.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: No, that doesn't sound like false courage, Mr. Member. Any time you want.

It's

refreshing to know that some of these issues were discussed at the

founding convention of the Canadian Federation of Labour, a new group.

Let us hope that it is a sign of a spring thaw that can lead to a crop

of new ideas and new concepts of labour-management cooperation, and not

the

[ Page 6975 ]

constant

affiliation by some members of labour with the members opposite. How,

I'd like to know, can you pursue the legitimate aspirations of labour

when you constantly align yourself with one political party or the

other? You can't do it — there's an immediate conflict. Remember, Mr.

Speaker, that labour disgraced no man. Unfortunately, you'll

occasionally find men who disgrace labour.

The government

embarked on a period of restraint in the public sector which included

compensation. What I believe is unique in this is the overwhelming

support this program has received from the public at large. There's

been criticism. Of course you can expect criticism, but it's muted. I

believe the sobering reality of the 1980s has impressed all our

citizens and all our interest groups.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

Getting to you, Mr. Member? I suppose in a perfect world there would be

no need to monitor or constrain various aspects of our social and

economic life. Well, life in British Columbia is of a very high quality

but it is not yet ready to submit to perfection. Therefore, with rights

and freedoms, there must be responsibility and accountability.

In the private sector there has been the bottom line in the financial statement.

In the public sector there is only the resolve of governments to say no. When

common sense dictates it, it must be said. For the abrogation of that responsibility

by governments, by increasing the burden to their citizens who are at the same

time their customers.... If, Mr. Speaker — and I say "if " — the

overriding constraint of ability to pay is not the categorical imperative in

the public sector as it is in the private sector, then other measures of accountability

must be brought into play. There may very we" be good reasons for that,

but I do not believe the public sector should be immune from some sort of economic

sacrifice. Its ultimate well-being is dependent on the health of the private

sector. I'm sure that those people who are unemployed at this time support

that view.

These measures of accountability can be skill, effort, responsibility and working

conditions in one circumstance, and security of employment and total compensation

in another. But make no mistake about it, Mr. Speaker, there must be a bottom

line. We cannot have two classes of citizens in this province: one which is

always vulnerable to the business cycle, and one which is not. Until we can

distribute our revenues without limitation, then as a government we have an

obligation to ensure that the burdens of restraint are not borne by the private

sector alone. That's the cruellest restraint of all. The principle which

is enunciated in the restraint program is one that no responsible government

can ignore, Mr. Speaker, and this is a responsible government.

The compensation stabilization program introduced today, for example, is much

more preferable than the alternative — and we know what that alternative is:

it's cruel, and it's unemployment. You know, I think we're making

a mistake out there, because I believe those in the public sector want to help.

This was the avenue they had available to them, and I would venture to say that

there is significant support. Surely that small sacrifice by some who have job

security is not an unreasonable request. While collective bargaining in the

traditional sense shall continue with one equitable and flexible limitation,

it does not contain the hammer that we once found in this province under the

guise of what was called the Collective Bargaining Continuation Act, where bargaining

continued until the bill had royal assent, and then ended. Not only did collective

bargaining not continue, but neither did the government that introduced the

bill.

The

opposition has been silent, and in my view a well-known dictum applies:

silence indicates consent. Did any of you see the response of the

Leader of the Opposition after the program was announced?

HON. MR. HEWITT: What response?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: That's it: "What response?"

Our

important social programs will continue, because this government did

its jobs. Those social programs for which our Minister of Health (Hon.

Mr. Nielsen) has responsibility are outstanding: health premiums are

the world's best bargain. How often it seems that we forget about the

good things. An editorial from the Times-Colonist said: "Health

Care — Still a Good Buy," and it's worth repeating: "The howls of

anguish are understandable — no one likes to pay more. But provincial

health-care costs over the past decade have grown at an astounding

rate, from $260 million in 1971 to $2 billion in the fiscal year just

ending — almost an eightfold increase."

AN HON. MEMBER: Who wrote it?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I don't know who wrote it, but I can tell you that editorial writers are not people whose clippings I often take.

"On

the other hand, in December 1965 medical insurance premiums were set at

$5 for a single person, $10 for a couple and $12.50 for a family of

three or more. There was no increase in premiums until 1976." Now we

look at the costs: "Health Care, the World's Best Bargain" — an

editorial.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to provide this House

with a little lesson in history. In 1975, Mr. Member for Vancouver

Centre, there was a budget address by the present Leader of the

Opposition in his capacity as former Minister of Finance — mind you, he

sacked that member as well. He had this to say to the House: "It is a

goal of this government to direct British Columbia's economy toward the

need of all people rather than those who possess power because of their

wealth or influence." May I editorialize there for a moment? I have a

feeling that he was referring to some of the militants as well as the

corporations.

He continues: "Our government is committed to

win the long-term fight to root out inequality and to achieve a humane

society which responds through the democratic process to the actual

needs of all our citizens." Well, Mr. Speaker, if that remains the

objective of the members opposite and of the Leader of the Opposition,

I invite them to join our government in support of the budget, because

it is the policies, determination and foresight of this government

which is making that objective a reality.

During the last

few days we've heard words of sound and fury signifying nothing, as

usual. But like ships in our harbour out here, they are most noisy when

they are in the fog. After three years, I believe it now. You know,

members, you never get a second chance to make a good first impression.

You had that once and I'll bet you'd like to do it over again. In 1975

you went to the people before a budget was presented. Why?

[ Page 6976 ]

Interjections.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Several more. The halo is starting to choke me, Mr. Member.

The

opposition's motto was "a new deal for the people." In fact, it was a

new death for the people. There are never any comments from the members

opposite about a triple-A rating. Nothing mentioned by the opposition

at all. What do the newspapers and commentators say? You complain about

the projects. On one hand you say we've got to do these things to

increase the tourism. "You need Expo, you need a pier, you need a

convention centre." We do it and what do you say? Expo, Pier B-C, ALRT,

B.C. Place, northeast coal, railroad expansion upgrading, court

facilities and petrochemical plants are the realities. They are funded

and they promote commerce. Where do you think we find the jobs? Each

requires substantial intensive capital investment.

You know,

I was looking for some material the other day, and you were against the

Peace River project too. I don't believe it. You'd have no power if it

hadn't gone through.

Interjections.

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

Mr. Speaker, my colleague the Minister of Industry and Small Business

Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) passed this over the other day and I

found it somewhat strange. This is an

article from the Financial Times

interviewing the Leader of the Opposition. "

(1) All oil and gas should

be publicly owned." But (2) — and why would anybody say this? — "If you

were the Premier, what would you do about northeast coal?" Answer: "If

we were in we'd stop it tomorrow."

AN HON. MEMBER: What's the date on that?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: June 8, 1981 — less than a year ago.

Coal.

One idea and one vision made it possible. I look down to our Minister

of Industry and Small Business Development and, you know, I think he

has the energy of a hummingbird. I really do. Persistence over a few

years and hard, hard work. As a result, what do we have in British

Columbia? A northern seaport and cooperation with the federal

government. Is that not in your program? Upgrading of the CNR and the

BCR. Do you have any idea the amount of capital invested? If some of

you would travel into the north you'd find that out. It's right from

the northeast to the coast. And what about a new town? Did you ever put

together a new town? Do you have any idea how many people are involved

and how much is shoved into it? A new power line, new highway, and ten

unit trains, 100 cars each plus the locomotive, the financing, rail

costs and the recovery plan, the freight rates and the surcharge. It's

never been done before. And they're concerned about the contracts

awarded — to date $413 million. Do you know how many of those dollars

were in British Columbia? Three hundred and fifty million dollars. The

value of contracts awarded outside of Canada is $26 million. Inside

Canada the value is $37 million, but in B.C. It's 84.6 percent — $350

million. And you are concerned about a few dollars that are going to

the Japanese to handle the loaders at the terminal in Prince Rupert.

Did you ever consider the exchange of commerce between one country and

another? Interchange foreign trade. You are as proud as can be when we

sell but, you know, there is a quid pro quo sometimes and it works both

ways.

Where does your party stand when it comes down to the Crow rate?

And

what happens with northeast coal stability? The economy and the

workforce from Chetwynd, Tumbler Ridge, Dawson Creek, Prince George,

Prince Rupert, rail upgrading, transportation of other products like

lumber, grain minerals and petrochemicals, and a workforce — the

construction industry — of about 10 percent of the existing

construction workforce, about 5,000 people in that area....

Our

government, Mr. Speaker, believes in a vibrant and healthy economy, and

a productive economy is necessary as a basis for sound social programs.

You can't have one without the other. That vibrance and health can only

be a reality when there is full participation from the private sector.

If there was ever a time to appreciate the value and contribution made

by the private sector to our economy and our standard of living, it is

now. All we need to do is go outside and find some of the difficulties

that the private sector are having and how it's reflected in their

employees.

We can never forget a hard-working and thrifty

population is the means whereby these goals are achieved. They're not

like the members of the opposition, too many of whom quit looking for

work as soon as they got a job. When they failed to deliver on their

announcement of northeast coal development, as the member for Vancouver

Centre did.... They failed and they seek comfort in opposition. I tell

you, you're worn out. Not our Minister of Industry and Small Business

Development.... It's better to wear out than rust out. You over there:

I think you are rusted out.

SOME HON. MEMBER: There's sure a lot of unemployment in Prince George.

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

There are great people in that area, and I'm sure they'll rebound,

Madam Member. The nearly destructive party — negative doubting. I'd

like to quote something that they usually use themselves.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Welfare.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Yes, welfare.

the value of a strong commitment to the private sector in the

formulation of an economic development strategy, let me make reference

to a statement by the Minister of Labour in the former Labour

government in Great Britain: "For the immediate future, the new

strategy will mean giving priority to industrial development over

consumption, even at the expense of social reform. There is no other

way of developing the industrial base on which the government's whole

program of economic and social reform depends." You can't have it both

ways, members opposite.

State socialism has no plan for

production. It doesn't produce, it consumes. Our policy is to provide a

climate where individuals and industry can flourish under government

assistance and encouragement, not by state control and ownership. It's

possible to plan an economy without owning it. If the opposition had

their way, they'd even regulate the bluebird of happiness.

The

wisdom of experience tell us the private sector will do a better job,

and let's keep it that way. It must be remembered that investors

examine the climate and do not speculate on the weather.

[ Page 6977 ]

There

hasn't been a great deal said lately about.... I think it's time to pay

tribute to the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers), who's also

been involved in B.C. Place, and the tremendous job which he has done.

He's quiet, does his job and doesn't look for any fanfare. I was never

so impressed in all my life with how fortunate people in Vancouver are,

and the rest of the province is going to benefit eventually as this

development comes to fruition. But when you look to a downtown

development such as the city of Vancouver is going to have with B.C.

Place, the spinoffs, the amount of work involved, the number of jobs,

the capital investment, preservation of property values, interchange of

commerce.... That's a plus: downtown British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I have concluded my remarks. There are a number of other things that I'd like to take a run at.

When

we add up all the projects which go on in this province — and for those

of you who haven't been travelling around, have a look. When you take

the rail lines from the northeast, through Prince George, out to the

west, and when you travel into the southeast and the developments are

there.... The member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) said it well when he

said: "Without development in the north, the south has nothing."

don't know if that's totally true. I think there is a little humility

in here. It was nice to hear that from a southern member, but I want

you to know that there is a lot of truth in it. What this budget does

is encourage investment. Remember, the investors look for the climate,

not the weather. What we have done, as all of the articles have said in

support of the budget.... "It is a good budget, and they couldn't have

done it better for the time in which we're now living."

MR. LAUK:

That's considered — by "that," I mean the speech of the Minister of

Labour — a smokescreen speech. He started off as Minister of Labour in

this province, and he extended his hand to ordinary working people and

organized labour and said: "I'm your friend. I'm defending you against

these right-wingers who want to bring in right-to-work and take away

your collective bargaining process. I'm going to stand up and defend

the ordinary workers against my colleagues." We knew better on this

side of the House. We knew that that young minister could only do what

any other young minister on the back bench of the front benches there

could do, and that is do what he's told.

He had to eat crow

this year. They brought in restraint packages. They've been

labour-bashing and going through that process, and the minister has

been very silent about defending ordinary working people in the

province, You'd think he'd deliver a speech today about the trade union

movement, the Ministry of Labour and what new things we have in store

for ordinary working people. We wanted to hear new policies, but he

came in and delivered this great big smokescreen. As if that isn't bad

enough, it was the longest string of uninterrupted clichés I've ever

heard in this House. Not a subject or predicate got within striking

distance of one another. For clichés — nine out of ten for content — it

falls off the chart at the bottom end.

I have a couple of

clichés for the minister. I figure giving him the same thing is better

than making a speech that's intelligible, so I'll throw a couple of

clichés his way. I took your speech as a speech of a person who lives

in a glass house and, overall, with a grain of salt.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

The

budget which has been delivered to us took this government a great deal

of time. There is a great controversy about whether the Leader of the

Opposition should debate the Premier over the economy, and so on and so

forth, but I think that controversy was incorrect. I think the Leader

of the Opposition should challenge the real governors of this province

to a debate. I think the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Barrett)

should go on TV and debate the real Premiers of this province. I think

he should challenge Patrick Kinsella to a debate. I think he should

challenge Doug Heal and Mr. Spector to a debate. Let's get the real

leaders of the Social Credit government out front where we can see them.

MR. HOWARD: But they're easterners.

MR. LAUK:

Oh, yes, I know they're easterners, and they don't understand that in

British Columbia we don't buy that line of.... Is that on the list, Mr.

Speaker? The people of this province do not buy the Blue Machine line

from Ontario.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Bring back Eliesen.

MR. LAUK: Marc Eliesen — listen to these guys!

Spector

and Kinsella, the chief architect of dirty tricks in Ontario on behalf

of the Tory Party, who proclaimed how proud he was of these dirty

tricks in Ontario.... The difference between Ontario and B.C. Is that

they've had a patronage system in Ontario that has controlled that

province, county by county, for 40 years. That's what they have there.

They don't have it here. There's no patronage system here — only in the

Premier's office — and we'll deal with that in due course.

I'll

tell you, Mr. Speaker, the Patrick Kinsellas and the Spectors of the

world are now in charge of the government of British Columbia. The

people know what's happening to them.

The government brings

in this so-called rainy-day budget, and they act so surprised. The

Minister of Finance is not in his seat right now. I don't know where he

is. He should be listening to this debate. Maybe he feels he's a

know-it-all and doesn't need to be in this chamber listening to the

debate. I don't know what he's doing. The budget is down; it's

terrible. He calls it a rainy-day budget.

It wasn't as if

they weren't warned. As a matter of fact, on July 6, 1981, the Premier

mentioned that he was warned. He stood up in this House — that's 1981,

not very long ago — and he said:

You want to talk about high interest rates...? I've heard

a lot about the negative economic policies of the NDP.... I'll tell you,

you have one member among you who is known to be the most credible economic

spokesman for your caucus. That's the member who was given the job of leading

economic development when your party was government.

Do you remember that speech, Mr. Speaker? He said:

I'd

like to share with this House then — I wasn't going to do this — what

your own member predicted. After the election of 1979 and in the report

of a speech by the economic development minister in the NDP government,

we had a set of economic predictions, which, I presume, were the

official New Democratic Party predictions of what was going to happen

to the B.C. economy in 1980 and 1981. It is useful, now that we have

some time to look at how these predictions worked out. Here is the

headline from the Sun : 'B.C. Faces Depression, Lauk Tells

Convention.... British Columbia faces a major depression in the early

1980s, NDP MLA Gary Lauk said Saturday. He said

[ Page 6978 ]

'continuing oil-price increases and massive public and private debt will send unemployment soaring.'

The Premier went on to say:

Well, since he gave that advice...land has gone up, houses have

gone up, unemployment has gone down and employment has gone up.

Fifty thousand more jobs had been created in the province, he said, and he asked what happened to these predictions.

What

I am thankful for is that almost two years after that set of

predictions we have a far different situation. I am glad of it. We have

more people working than ever before...and, yes, as part of Canada, we

share that opportunity with other Canadians.... We're now having to

deal with the problems of our own success.

Well, right now,

through this budget, we're having to deal with the problems of that

government's failure, that government's ineptitude. I don't see that

he's too willing to respond to the humble predictions this hon. member

made three years ago. You were warned, Mr. Premier. You took no action.

Now you've raided the private treasury. You've raided the sacred funds

that were set aside for the First Citizens Fund in this province. We

have walked over native Indians in this province for generations. The

only sign of hope for them on a provincial basis has been the First

Citizens Fund. They've raided that fund. They've taken the cash out of

other funds. They said: "We had it there all along for this purpose."

Nonsense! These programs and the cultural-fund programs are going to

suffer because you didn't take the warning that was given in good faith

by this side of the House, saying: "Get smart. Start saving. Start

knowing what you're going to do in the next four or five years, because

a recession is on the way." We said it; they didn't listen. Instead,

they came back in this House two years later and made fun of this side

of the House for making the predictions — a dog-in-the-manger attitude.

Lean

and fat budgets have been talked about for a long time. I'll tell you

what this government has done with this budget. They've taken the lean

and sliced it in half and moved it over to the fat portion of the

budget. The lean is for programs for people — ordinary citizens;

children going to school; senior citizens who need hospital care and

home maker services; the emergency hospital services, such as the

ambulance service and the expansion of the emergency unit in New

Westminster that handles severe traffic accidents on the freeways;

services to the public in health and education. Those are the services

that have been cut. The lean has been cut and moved over to the fat.

What's the fat? The fat is advertising budgets. The fat is to create a

newswire service out of the government for news propaganda. The fat is

in glossy $100,000 brochures with the Premier's visage on the front,

advertising a new spirit for British Columbia. The fat is in hiring

Spector and Kinsella and Heal and in buying furniture for their offices

and in spending $82 million more on advertising and ministers' travel

last year alone. They cut the lean and added to the fat.

That

is the disaster of this kind of budgeting. A cynical government advised

by a right-wing, cynical, Blue Machine group from Ontario, telling us

people out here what to do. The city-slicker easterners from Ontario,

who have been doing the bidding of the great, blue, Tory machine in

central Canada, have been sent out here in their 13-piece suits to

advise us poor little hicks out here who don't know any better. They

can be fooled, Mr. Premier. Send us out to advise old Bill. We'll tell

them how to hoodwink those country burnpkins. Let's send them out

there. They've advised this city slicker from the Okanagan — he's only

spent a little time in the Okanagan; most of it has been in Palm

Springs. In Palm Springs, somebody from Los Angeles or Wall Street

whispered in this poor little guy's ear and said: "Look, Bill, don't

take any of that nonsense up there. That's just unbridled democracy. We

all know the dangers in that. You've got to get some advisers from the

east. Get three of these henchmen, these dirty-tricks artists, to tell

you how to put makeup on and sell a phony, dishonest budget." And he

did it.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: I want to

talk about education. If you could bring the House to order, Mr.

Speaker.... I accept part responsibility for bringing it into disorder.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. LAUK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

want to talk about education. The Social Credit government has never

publicized, and will not publicize, its philosophy of education, and

don't wonder why. Their philosophy is one of elitism: curtailing access

to schools and colleges; making our schools narrowly based on parochial

institutions, or making them as parochial institutions; and making our

colleges and universities upper middle-class preserves. These are the

goals of the Social Credit education policy. The NDP believes in the

survival of democracy. Democracy will not flourish unless there is mass

education available to ordinary people everywhere.

The

Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) was lecturing us in history.

Forgive me if I point out to the Minister of Labour and to all hon.

members.... Compare Britain, Canada, the United States and Europe,

where there is high literacy and fairly good access to education, to

the semi literate countries of the world, where they fall into the

hands of totalitarianism every time. Their populations have not

received the benefits and the independence and the mastery of getting a

good education, because ignorance is slavery. This government

understands that ignorance is slavery. They want to keep the

educational institutions of this province in a narrow political view, a

medieval view. It was started by the second member for Vancouver–Point

Grey (Hon. Mr. McGeer) and is continued by the professor from Oak Bay —

continuing that elitism to keep people down and undereducated.

Let

me tell you how mass education also means better decisions and informed

judgments by our young people, both in terms of living their own lives

and in running the affairs of British Columbia. They've also

centralized control over education to an extent that has not been seen

anywhere in the free world. Nowhere in the free world has any

government done what this minister and this government have done in

centralizing control over almost every aspect of education:

universities, colleges, schools and kindergartens. They are trying to

impose their view of the economic system through consumer education

courses and interfering with the social studies curriculum. It is

central control by one of the most right-wing governments in North

America. It is the most right-wing government in North America. There

is nothing to compare with it.

I want to quote from Pope

Pius XI. Everybody will know this reference. It is "Quadeagesimo Anno,"

which is his second encyclical: "It is gravely wrong to take from

individ-

[ Page 6979 ]

uals

what they can accomplish by their own initiative in industry and give

to a higher community. It is also a grave injustice to assign to a

greater and higher association what a lesser and subordinate

organization can do." We now have word that what this government is

doing is also unethical and immoral in terms of education. His comments

were made in reference to education.

There are three

unpleasant facts of life in British Columbia. Unemployment, as measured

by the number of unemployment insurance claimants, has never been

higher in the history of this province. Over half of our unemployed are

well-educated young people under 25 years of age.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK:

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Heinrich) is very amused by this. Ten

percent unemployment in this province, over half of whom are under 25

years of age, and they're well educated in our school system so far.

These unemployed people have to sit by because the jobs generated by

these grand projects the Minister of Labour has talked about demand

skills of our unemployed that they do not have and cannot obtain in

this jurisdiction. How can this be? I say it is a result of the

bungling by this government, a failure to plan, to manage our resources

and to be prudent with our resources. A major portion of the

responsibility lies with the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith),

and it is his failure to develop priorities that relate to the needs of

British Columbians as a whole that bedevils education at all levels.

The minister has failed to secure from Treasury Board the financial

resources that are essential if a quality education is to be given our

children. It is government by TV. The Minister of Education followed

the Premier on television, and all government is to them is image — the

spectral crowd on the government side.

The school boards are

closing schools because of the so-called restraint program. Our

children are suffering unnecessarily as a result of government's

bungled approach to this program. The minister himself has decreed that

the restraint program shall apply to public schools beginning September

1982. Accordingly he thinks he can get away with about a 6.4 percent

increase in education expenditures this year.

However, some

people are doing much better than that. There are the independent

schools, for example, whose grants rise this year by 40 percent. The

explanation for this substantial increase in a restraint year lies in

the absurdity of tying aid to independent schools to the changes in the

previous year's public schools' expenditures. There was a slight

increase in enrolment this year and then there was the government

allowing partially qualifying students to enter that independent-aid

program. Under this scheme the student moving to a new school in

mid-year has some financial provision made for him at the new school on

a pro rata basis. It is very fair overall but you do not make the

comparable provision for the public school system, so the 40 percent

increase is directly the result of government policy. Sure, the

independent schools will feel the pinch in 1983-84 when they have had a

whole year to plan and budget for the impact of the restraint. The

government has not given the school boards of British Columbia — the

public school system — the same opportunity. If your program was

equitable, Mr. Minister, you would have done just that.

The

school boards this year settled with their teachers for around 17

percent. That is average overall. Some of those were negotiated

settlements made, I presume, by cost-conscious trustees relating to

particular local circumstances. Many of them, however, were not

negotiated. They were arbitrated because the School Act provides a

timetable for bargaining that stipulates binding arbitration if there

is no agreement by November 15, I think, each year. The School Act is

also Social Credit government policy. They changed it. That policy

generated a raft of 17 percent contracts this year. That meant that

Socred ineptitude produced a policy they did not like, so the

government comes in and says school boards must be restrained. The

opposition says that the school boards and teachers are being

arbitrated to death and that they should be left to bargain like any

other group of employers and employees, to leave to them a real

atmosphere of collective bargaining. The Premier and the minister

object to the level of settlement the teachers got this year, and yet

it's the Premier's and the minister's policy that brought them to that

position. It is the old double shuffle again. We have allowed this

process of arbitration to continue, and yet now that the arbitration

awards are too high we're going to pull back and play the game by

different rules.

The Premier's restraint program compounds

the difficulties of the school boards themselves. They are locked into

a 17 percent budget increase this year, and they are subsequently

advised that for the last three months they have to cut their budget by

an amount yet to be passed by this House.

HON. MR. SMITH: Are you against compulsory arbitration for teachers?

MR. LAUK: I am not going to answer any of the minister's questions. We'll do that later.

The

hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) described the budget speech as a

masterpiece of deception, and that is so, true. Add to that deception

one new education finance formula that temporarily limits school

property taxes in urban areas at the expense of people living in the

rural areas. The result is inequitable and purely arbitrary. It makes

no sense whatsoever.

I would like to discuss some of those

pronouncements in the education finance formula. The government claims

to be meeting 75 percent of school board operating costs. This figure

comes from the recommendation of the McMath commission report that 75

percent of school costs should be met from provincial general revenues

— that is from sales tax and corporate and personal income tax — and 25

percent should come from local property tax. That was the McMath

commission report. We all remember that. To meet this recommendation

the government did what it does best: it cooked the books; it

manipulated the figures; it proclaimed that industrial and commercial

property tax shall henceforth be known as — you've got it — "provincial

revenue," instead of the local school boards' tax base.

They

are trying to sell their education finance formula as a means of saving

money for the people of B.C. — nothing could be farther from the truth.

The minister is using statistical distortion in an effort to convince

taxpayers that Victoria is shouldering a larger share of education

costs. Contrary to the government's statements, the funding formula

will mean a larger increase in homeowner taxes in 1982. The B.C. School

Trustees Association calculates that residential taxes will rise by an

average of 44 percent over 1981, while the

[ Page 6980 ]

provincial

share, in the sense the McMath commission meant it, will be 32 percent

— that's down from 34 percent in 1981 and 48 percent in 1975, the last

year of the New Democratic Party government.

In 1981 school

boards raised $414 million from residential property taxes and $531

million from commercial and industrial taxes. The non-residential

property tax represented 56 percent of school board revenue. In 1982

the government is taking 100 percent of the commercial and industrial

property taxes — about $660 million — and renaming it provincial money.

The government, therefore, is not assuming 75 percent of the cost of

operating public schools, but playing the shell game of taking away all

of that property tax base, commercial and industrial, from school

boards and renaming it.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair. I

I'm

quoting from the budget speech: "The provincial government assumes

responsibility for the financing of some 90 percent of school operating

costs." Did I misread that? The figures in the budget do not total 90

percent of the restrained school board budgets. The claim is

extravagant, inaccurate, and suggests that the budget is as phony on

this topic as on all the others. Contrary to the Minister of

Education's (Hon. Mr. Smith'

s) statement — that "the burden on

residential property owners will be eased," British Columbian

homeowners can expect on average to pay 44 percent more in school taxes

in 1982 than in 1981. However, the education tax burden will not be

equally distributed to all B.C. homeowners. As school boards must now

get all their revenue from residential property tax, districts with a

high density of residential property owners will obviously collect more

revenue for their programs than low-density areas. Now, do you follow

that, I ask the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) ? In his area in

Prince George, he's got this very serious problem, and the good people

there have told me that they want to ask him about it if and when they

ever see him.

This means that districts like North Vancouver

Island will have to raise property taxes by between $100 and $200 per

house over 1981, while other districts with a high residential tax base

like West Vancouver — and we all know where that is — will have their

taxes go down by an average of $640 per house.

Not only will

there not be equality in property taxes for educational purposes, but

the quality of education itself will depend on the district in which

one lives. Now, how often have we said over how many years in this

province: "Let's keep things on a relatively equal plane between school

districts, so that the kids up in Creston and the Peace River can get

the same opportunity for education as the kids in Vancouver"? This

government, with one stroke of the pen, has stabbed the rural

jurisdictions in the back, as far as education is concerned; now there

will be inequality.

MS. BROWN: You always hurt the ones you love!

MR. LAUK:

Yes, it's taking away the best rural plank in the Social Credit

platform: "We take care of the rural folks; we take care of the people

outside of the city." The minister, who indeed should be blushing, said

in an interview on CBC "Good Morning Radio" on January 26:

"This

is what the province will pay for in school education: it will pay for

it totally; it will not be paid for locally, and it will be raised out

of general revenue. And if you want to do anything over and above that

in a local district, if you want to lower your pupil-teacher ratio" —

that's an extra — "or want to have additional courses that aren't part

of the prescribed core" — like math — "then you can go and do that, but

you must raise that on local property tax."

This

means that children with a relatively low residential tax base in their

district will get core education and very little else — I suppose the

core education will be the fundamentals of Major Douglas and consumer

education — while children in richer districts will be able to get

enriched programs without the mill rate being sent through the roof.

What's the impact of the government's policy? Let's take a few examples that a lot of you know full well.

Teachers are expected to deal with great ranges in basic skills and

ability levels, widely varying interests and needs, and widely

divergent cultural and linguistic backgrounds. In the city of

Vancouver, over 45 percent of the elementary school population have

achieve higher education and post-secondary education? As the member

for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) would say, who inherited all his wealth and

power on earth: "Have the gumption to do what I did."

This

government is turning its back on the programs that have been carefully

and efficiently developed in the school districts. School boards

second language, developmental and remedial reading, modified — or what

they call minimum essentials — courses a