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 )

THURSDAY, APRIL 22, 1982

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

7149 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Ombudsman report No. 4. Mrs. Wallace –– 7149

Cutback in revenue-sharing with municipalities. Mr. Barber 7149

Municipal tax interest rate. Mr. Howard –– 7150

Terrace municipal tax arrears. Mr. Howard –– 7150

Federal ferry subsidy. Mr. Lea –– 7150

Northeast coal. Mr. Leggatt –– 7151

Budget Debate

Mr. Kempf –– 7151

Mr. Leggatt –– 7153

Mr. Strachan –– 7157

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 7159

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 7163

Mr. Barber –– 7165

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 7167

Division –– 7170

Committee of Supply

On vote 1: legislation.

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 7170

THURSDAY, APRIL 22, 1982

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: We have a great

deal of Hope in the galleries today. Would the House please join me in

welcoming a group of Grade 11 students from the Hope Secondary School,

accompanied by their instructor, Mr. Dahl.

MR. GABELMANN:

In the gallery and in the precincts today are people from all over

British Columbia representing HUDAC. I ask the members to please make

them welcome.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: We have two visitors

from Welland, Ontario, Ed and Mary Schultz, along with their

granddaughter from Victoria, Allison Bodkin. Would members join me in

making those three persons welcome.

MR. LEA: In the

gallery today is Russell Anderson, who ran for our party in the riding

of Omineca. Until Russell ran for us he worked for the Royal Bank. I

would like to ask everybody to welcome him here.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to associate myself with the remarks made just a

few moments ago with respect to HUDAC members who are visiting in the

precinct today. A number of us have had an opportunity to meet with

these men and women, and in my particular case I met with a number from

the greater Victoria area council of HUDAC, which is a fine association

in the province of B.C.

MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Speaker, I

would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Cranbrook

Royals of the Western International Hockey League on winning the Allan

Cup at the Canadian senior hockey championship in Cranbrook last night

by defeating the Petrolia Squires of Ontario.

Oral Questions

OMBUDSMAN REPORT NO. 4

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the ombudsman filed report No.

4 with this Legislature, a report which is shocking, to say the least. Why has

the Attorney-General concealed documents from the ombudsman relative to the

horse-racing industry?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Mr. Speaker, I think that if the hon. member had read the ombudsman's

report and the extensive exchange of correspondence which he set out in

that report, she would know the answer to the question. If she'd also

taken the time to read

section 17 of the statute which authorizes the

ombudsman to discharge his onerous responsibilities, she would most

assuredly have the answer to the question.

The information

which was demanded of me by the ombudsman would have offended against

the provisions of

section 17 of the Ombudsman Act, and therefore I was

advised to issue my certificate.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, I assume that when a question is asked, we would like to hear the answer.

MRS. WALLACE:

Mr. Speaker, I have read the report, and the ombudsman states very

clearly that the information that he has seen, without breaching

confidentiality, in no way infringed on cabinet secrecy. The ombudsman

has said that publicly.

Mr. Attorney-General, on whose

instructions are you refusing this release, and on whose instructions

are you invoking this

section of the Ombudsman Act?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Mr. Speaker, it is clear from the supplementary question asked by the

hon. member that if she has read the report, she has not understood

what she reads. The fact of the matter is that a complaint was made to

the ombudsman with respect to the report itself, which resulted in a

demand made by him to see all of the files associated with that report,

and it is in those files that matters leading to the deliberations of

the executive council are contained.

MRS. WALLACE: I

have a final question. Will the Attorney-General advise the House at

this late date whether or not the report into the horse-racing industry

included a recommendation to double the B.C.-bred bonus?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The answer to the question is no, Mr. Speaker.

CUTBACK IN REVENUE-SHARING

WITH MUNICIPALITIES

MR. BARBER: I have a question for the Minister of

Municipal Affairs, who had a $25,000 overrun in his personal office

budget last year. The unconditional portion of the revenue-sharing fund

has been cut by the minister by some $63 million in order to balance

the provincial budget. This juggling has been described by Mayor Jim

Tonn, the president of the Union of British Columbia Municipalities, as

fraudulent. My first question is: is the minister aware that this

"fraudulent practice" — quoting the president of the UBCM — has left

municipalities all over the province with only three weeks in order to

develop entirely new municipal budgets with new taxes in order to raise

that lost revenue?

MR. SPEAKER: The question contains an unparliamentary word, and that word is "fraudulent." Perhaps the member could change the word.

MR. BARBER: I'm quoting.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please. I think all the members know that we cannot use another

vehicle to put into someone else's mouth a word which would be

unparliamentary in this chamber. Therefore I'm sure the member can use

a word other than the word which offends the House.

MR. BARBER:

The cut in revenue-sharing has been described in a very novel way by

the president of the Union of British Columbia Municipalities. My

question is: is the minister aware that as the result of this novel

practice, munici-

[ Page 7150 ]

palities

have been left with all of three weeks to develop a new budget and

raise new taxes so as to compensate for these lost revenues?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

The first information getting back to us is that, for the most part,

the majority of municipalities can certainly do their budgeting without

substantial tax increases, if any. This is largely because of

revenue-sharing and such programs. For the member's information, since

1975 — the last year of NDP — until today the amount of revenue going

to municipalities from the provincial government has risen by 400

percent. For that member to assume that, somehow, municipalities are so

incompetent that they must consistently receive a 25 percent increase

annually.... I think it is an insult for him as Municipal Affairs

critic to make such a suggestion. I see the municipalities as being

much more responsible than he considers them to be.

MR. BARBER:

That was a novel reply. Since 1980, by Socred order, municipalities

have been required to print the following advertisement on every

municipal tax notice: "Last year, without provincial government

revenue-sharing, your general municipal taxes would have increased by X

percent to provide similar levels of service." Will the minister

announce today that he will permit municipalities to replace this

rubbish with the truth of the matter: "This year, because of cuts in

government revenue-sharing, your municipal taxes will be increased by X

percent to provide reduced levels of service"? Yes or no.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

I think that the taxpayers, local or wherever, being well informed,

make the people in government most accountable. The fact that

revenue-sharing probably still accounts for taxes being half of what

they might be ought to be pointed out again — and it will be pointed

out again.

MUNICIPAL TAX INTEREST RATE

MR. HOWARD:

I too would like to direct a question to the Minister of Municipal

Affairs. Given that the Union of B.C. Municipalities, at its convention

last September, passed a resolution calling for increased penalties for

nonpayment of taxes, penalties increased from the present 12 percent to

a rate 1.5 percent above the prime rate of the bank with which the

respective municipalities deal, could I ask the minister if he is aware

that the unscrupulous are using this loophole to force municipalities

to go into debt and to make money themselves by refusing to pay taxes

or by withholding taxes? Can the minister tell us whether he or his

government has decided to close that loophole and follow the

recommendation of the UBCM?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The

rate of interest has been stipulated as a part of the Municipal Act,

certainly for a good many years, and some of those years were those

during which some of the members opposite served in government. I've

recommended, and am certainly supportive of, a change that would

instead allow the interest rate to be established on the basis of

whatever the market should dictate, but it's certainly, in my opinion,

no crime for anyone to use the law as it presently exists. If in fact

there is a provision, as there has been for a number of years, that you

can delay the payment of taxes and pay the interest instead, and if you

choose to do so, it's no crime. If that means, however, that we in

government ought to address the matter differently, so be it. That

should be a question for future legislation. But I certainly don't

think it's fair for the member opposite to somehow label people who use

that which is presently, in law, permissible.

TERRACE MUNICIPAL TAX ARREARS

MR. HOWARD:

As a prelude to my next question, I should advise the minister that

when we were the government, general interest rates were much lower

than 12 percent.

I wonder — and this may be the reason why

he has not been able to get his recommendation through cabinet — if the

minister is aware that two companies, the president of each being one

Raymond B. McCarthy, are in arrears of taxes to the extent of some

$25,000 to the municipality of Terrace.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

Again, I repeat: if a government, whatever the government, has not

changed the percentage rate, then it's no crime and it's not stealing.

No one goes to jail for using the law as it's written. Certainly for

some member to suggest it's a criminal act for anyone to use the law as

it's written is totally out of order.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, it's interesting to note that the only person who brought up the question of criminality is the minister himself.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. To seek the floor under the guise of a question when actually no question is at hand is out of order.

FEDERAL FERRY SUBSIDY

MR. LEA:

A question to the Minister of Transportation and Highways. Can the

minister inform the House on what date the Premier instructed him not

to negotiate with the federal government for the continuing subsidy for

northern ferry routes?

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker,

this matter came up this morning from that member. I would like to

clarify the matter. The government of British Columbia has an agreement

the Pacific coast. The cost-of-living part of the subsidy is subject to

review after a five-year period. I wrote the Minister of Transport in

February 1981, and I have his reply stating that he does not want to

deal with it in any way until a study that is going on on the Pacific

coast is concluded — a joint study by the province of British Columbia

matter is at the present time. As far as the study is concerned, we

expect it to be delivered shortly. It's tied in, and I have a letter

from the Minister of Transport of Canada to that effect.

MR. LEA:

The five-year period expired four days ago. Can the minister confirm

that there is an agreement between the province and the federal

government to let the subsidy not rise and the extra revenue that would

accrue to the province from a subsidy rise, and that that agreement has

been reached in order to subsidize and to bring into effect the

agreement with Pier B-C in Vancouver?

[ Page

7151 ]

HON. MR. FRASER: I really don't understand the question. I would

like to state emphatically that at no time as the Minister of Transportation

have I ever had any dealings with Transport Canada or the minister regarding

Pier B-C — none whatsoever.

MR. LEA:

I would like to ask the minister why the management of B.C. Ferries was

told by the provincial government "not to concern themselves about this

subsidy and to let sleeping dogs lie." It's a direct quote.

AN HON. MEMBER: From who?

MR. LEA: The minister.

HON. MR. FRASER:

I don't know who he's referring to, Mr. Speaker, but I will say on

behalf of the government that it is an agreement between the government

MR. LEA: Not the ferries?

HON. MR. FRASER:

It is not an agreement with the B.C. Ferries; it is an agreement with

NORTHEAST COAL

MR. LEGGATT:

My question is directed to the Minister of Industry and Small Business

Development. On Tuesday of this week, in answer to a question of mine,

he stated that we have a $600 million debenture signed by Quintette

protecting the taxpayers of British Columbia for every cent that has

been spent. Has the minister decided now to table that debenture in the

House so that the taxpayers of British Columbia can examine the extent

of the $600 million protection?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: In

answer to the member's question, Mr. Speaker, I understand that the

debenture was filed in the superintendent of brokers' office here in

British Columbia. I'd further like to inform the House that I will be

tabling it and will be ready, willing and able to explain the complete

agreement we have with the coal companies in due course.

Orders of the Day

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

MR. KEMPF: I

rise to speak in favour of this budget. But before I do, I too would

like to welcome Mr. Anderson to this House as a former constituent of

mine and wish him well, wherever it is that he is now working.

Interjections.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, bring this House to order. I rise once again to speak in this debate

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please. Hon. members, at this juncture there is usually some

understandable movement. When members are taking new positions and

moving to other, places in the building, I wish we would do that

silently, because the business of the House must proceed.

MR. KEMPF:

As I was saying, I rise once again in this debate to say that I am

supporting this budget and voting in favour of this budget when the

vote is taken later this afternoon. I am voting in favour on behalf of

those I represent in the constituency of Omineca. I have consulted with

many of those constituents, even though the member for Prince Rupert

(Mr. Lea) — I really wish he had stayed in the chamber — doesn't think

that to consult with one's constituents is proper conduct; he doesn't

believe that to be the democratic process. I believe it to be the

democratic way. In consulting with those whom I represent on this

budget, I find they believe in the objects of the budget as brought

down on April 5. I would like to read the objects, once again, into the

record of this House:

"To provide economic

stimulation and create employment, particularly in those sectors and

communities hardest hit by world recession, to ensure that the burden

of restraint and adjustment to current economic circumstances is shared

fairly among all British Columbians, and to maintain the high quality

of public services provided by the government of British Columbia."

constituents agree with those objectives of this budget. A lot has been

said in this debate by members opposite about this budget and, as well,

about a very wide range of subjects both related and, in some cases,

not related to this budget. I believe the most disturbing words I have

heard during this debate since this budget was brought down on April 5

were the words uttered by the member for Prince Rupert. Again I say

that I am sorry he is not in his place. That member really can't decide

whether or not to support northeast coal even though the development

means millions of dollars of investment and hundreds of jobs in his own

constituency. The words that were most disturbing that came from that

member was when he actually chastised me for saying that I was here in

this chamber to speak on behalf of those whom I represent. I really

think that is a shame. I believe that we are here for the sole purpose

of speaking on behalf of those who've sent us here, not to, as the

member for Prince Rupert has said.... It's here in Hansard for April 15, 1982, and I would like to once again read it into the records of this House:

Mr. Speaker, In our form of government

(and he says "our" form of government; apparently it's a different form

than the government of those on this side of the House) we are elected

in our individual constituencies to come here and be individuals. We

are elected to come here and to assess legislation and then to give our

individual views as we see that legislation. If the majority of the

people in our constituency don't agree with these views that we have

given, then there is a democratic option, and that's to vote us out and

replace us with someone else.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say to that member that

I'm in touch with my constituents on a daily basis — as I believe all

of us in this chamber should be — and I listen to my constituents on a

daily basis and act accordingly as their representative in this

chamber, as we all should do, Mr. Member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly), and

as I think the member for Prince Rupert should do as well.

Now I know why it is that the member for Prince Rupert hops on the Queen of the North

after election day and sails off into the distance, south to Victoria,

never to be heard or seen again in his constituency until the next

election. It's because he doesn't think that he has to listen to his

constituents. He is now an individual; he has now come to Victoria to

speak in this chamber on the basis of what he as an individual thinks.

Mr. Speaker, I think that's a terrible shame. I've heard that

[ Page 7152 ]

member

on several occasions in the last three weeks in the chamber saying that

he wanted an election. No wonder that member wants an election. He

wants to once again visit his constituency. I figured it out.

Mr.

Speaker, I'm here to represent my constituents and speak for them, and

I support this budget on their behalf. It's the first budget of its

kind that will start us down a very long path, a path of return from

the great, gaping hole into which we've all dug ourselves due to one

form of greed or another. It's not perfect, but it's certainly a

beginning. Just to admit, as many governments today will not, that we

have a problem is a beginning. I support the budget and will vote that

way.

But I'll have other things to say during this session. My constituents are not void of problems.

Interjections.

MR. KEMPF:

Some hon. members have said: "Is it a hit list?" Maybe it is, but I'll

be speaking in this chamber on behalf of my constituents and the

problems they are facing. The media calls it a hit list, but hit list

or not, they're the real problems faced by my constituents, Mr. Second

Member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald), and I'll speak in this

chamber about them. I would suggest that you do the same for your

constituents.

I've heard the members opposite speak against

this budget because it's a budget of restraint. In times such as we are

experiencing, it's a budget which provides thousands of jobs in new

industries. I'll name 5,800 of them in northeast coal, Mr. Member for

Alberni (Mr. Skelly). It provides thousands of jobs in new industries

when old industries are floundering. It provides no tax increases when

our citizens are stumbling under an already heavy load. This

opposition, even though they are aware of the situation regarding

revenues to government, want more and more in the way of grants and

what have you, and they speak against a budget of restraint.

believe a constituent of mine puts the entire situation in perspective.

I would like to read into the record a letter to the editor which

appeared in a very recent issue of one of the local papers in my

constituency:

"It gripes me to read about all

the people crying about cuts in government grants to recreation, sports

and other social services when we are in recession. We all have to

tighten our belts. It sounds to me like we only hear from the people in

charge of these programs and, of course, the union bosses. It appears

to me that these people are more concerned about losing their jobs than

they are about the people benefiting from them.

"We

must all realize that if the money is not there, we have only two ways

of getting it: one is higher taxes; and the other is borrowing and

putting our government into a debt that our children and our

grandchildren will have to pay. Neither of these is desirable. We do

not want more taxes, and the only money the government has it gets from

you and me sooner or later.

"Rather, let us pull together and help each other, as did

our forefathers who founded this great country of Canada, without any government

grants, without any subsidies, without any free meat, milk, eggs and without

boards which only help the lazy and the inefficient support a greater bureaucracy

and serve to increase the price of the product to the consumer. Let us defend

our inherent freedoms with courage, initiative and ingenuity."

I think that puts it in perspective very well.

those members opposite would practise what they preach, they would join

us in trying to make this budget work. They would join us in trying to

give support to this budget. Yes, I said it wasn't perfect, and it's

very rare that anything ever is, but it's a budget that admits the

problems and tries to do something about them.

Instead,

those members opposite — and I see only three in the House at this time

— oppose absolutely everything, thinking not of the people of British

Columbia but speaking only of their selfish selves and their quest for

power. "We want an election," is all they have to say. They want an

election while the people of this province are in need of jobs. While

this province, as do many other jurisdictions, fights the ravages of

world recession, all the opposition can say is: "We want an election."

Again, I say it's a shame. They haven't learned, and they desperately

want to hang on.

Mr. Speaker, I read from a book which I

commend not only to members of the official opposition, but to every

member of this House, including yourself. It's a book called Wealth and Poverty

— subjects often spoken of in this House by the members opposite, but

understood by very, very few. I would just like to read one paragraph.

It's by a Mr. George Gilder. I don't agree with the colour of the

cover, but I agree with the contents:

"The most important event in the recent history of ideas

is the demise of the socialist dream. Dreams always die when they come true,

and 50 years of socialist reality, in every partial and plenary form, leave

little room for idealistic reverie. In the United States, socialism chiefly

rules in auditoria, parish parlours, among encounter groups or leftist intellectuals

retreating from the real world outside where socialist ideals have withered

in the shadows of Stalin, Mao, Sweden, Tanzania and bureaucracy."

Mr.

Speaker, I would like to read the entire book. I really would. I'd like

to read the whole thing, but time won't permit. However, I again

commend all members of this House, including that member heckling me

from over there, the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt), to read

every word in this book, for those who would read it, Mr. Member for

Coquitlam-Moody, would soon support this budget.

I too, as

did the member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet), take exception to

remarks made in this debate by the two members for Victoria, members

who, by their own statements in this House, want only to have more,

more and more from government, more from the taxpayers, more from the

natural resources of this province — more for this city and this

island, giving absolutely no thought to rural British Columbia whence

the revenue of this province came in the first place, and giving no

thought to those areas containing those people who actually produce the

wealth of this province.

You know, Mr. Speaker, this is a

prime example of what I'm going to say, and certainly a prime example

of the kind of representation that we see here in this chamber from the

city of Victoria — and from most of this island, as a matter of fact. I

guess we're all to blame. We are all to blame — all as a society. We

were so affluent during the fifties and sixties that we found during

the seventies that we could be stupid — not all of us, but some. The

popular pastime during the seventies,

[ Page 7153 ]

more

often than not with a government grant, was to start some

bleeding-heart organization designed to stop or to at least slow down

development in this province. The NDP, seeing a means by which to

become more popular with such groups, and thus to acquire more votes on

election day, literally jumped to their assistance and chose their

candidates accordingly. It became an easy way to get elected.

Politicians

who stood for something, particularly here in Victoria, were swept

aside. Politicians who care not where the money comes from or who have

any experience out there in the real world were placed in office, and

it wasn't very long before the wealth-spenders led the

wealth-producers, as is quite evident here in Victoria. Those members

over there — and they too are not in their places this afternoon, Mr.

Speaker — who are said to represent this beautiful city of Victoria

only want more and more and more from the taxpayers of this province

for any hare-brained scheme, giving absolutely no thought whatever to

where the money really comes from. Or maybe it is that they really

don't know.

The member for North Peace River said it all,

Mr. Speaker. The movers and the shakers of the city of Victoria, of

which there are many, and the wealth-producers of this beautiful

Vancouver Island had better wake up. They had better send to this

chamber those who understand where it is that those dollars, of which

they want more and more out of government, really come from. On behalf

of those whom I represent, northerners, wealth-producers, I say again

that I will vote in favour of this budget.

MR. LEGGATT:

Before I proceed, Mr. Speaker, I understand it's appropriate that at

the first opportunity a member raises a question of privilege where he

feels the privileges of either himself or any other member have been

breached. The question I wish to draw to your attention, Mr. Speaker,

is an answer given by the Minister of Industry and Small Business

Development to this House on Tuesday, April 20, in response to a

question I asked concerning the security that the taxpayers of British

Columbia have with respect to the public investment in the

infrastructure in the Anzac spur line or the Tumbler Ridge line. In

answer to that question, the minister stated to the House as follows:

"We have, Mr. Speaker, a $600 million debenture signed by Quintette

which protects the taxpayers of British Columbia for every cent that's

been spent."

Mr. Speaker, I have now had an opportunity of

examining that particular document, the debenture in question. The

province of British Columbia ranks fourth and fifth amongst any

creditors. It ranks behind every investor in the project with the

exception of the shareholders, which means if you got a fifth mortgage

on a dump truck you'd be very lucky.

Without going into the

merits of this, the question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, is this: I

believe my constituents are entitled to receive accurate information

and not misleading information in this House. To say that that

particular debenture protects the taxpayers of British Columbia is

misleading and is wrong. I therefore have prepared a motion, Mr.

Speaker, which I would ask you to consider, as to whether in fact the

House has been misled.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you. We will review the words spoken by the hon. member in the record of Hansard

and try to determine whether or not a prima facie case can be

established. We will hold the motion until such time as debate is

either permitted or denied.

Please proceed. The member for Coquitlam-Moody is, I presume, standing to debate the budget address.

MR. LEGGATT: Yes, I am.

Mr.

Speaker, before we examine what is required or what is appropriate for

British Columbia in these very serious times, I can expect that the

minister — and I'm glad to see him in the House — and his officials sat

down and examined the state of the economy. They had a look at what the

president of the United States called the state of the nation address,

or the state of the state address if you happen to be a governor.

The

economy in British Columbia is now in a state that we haven't seen

since about 1936. The response to the conditions of British Columbia

aren't just merely inadequate; this budget is an abdication of

leadership. It's a complete abdication of the responsibility of

government to do something about a depression in the rural areas and a

deep recession in the urban areas. You don't have to travel very far in

British Columbia to know the disaster that has befallen this province.

Let's

took at a few statistics. According to Statistics Canada's December

report. we have 143,000 unemployed in B.C. That report also indicates

that we have 64,000 "hidden" unemployed. As of last December, we had an

unemployment rate in British Columbia of 10.6 percent. In addition, we

have at least 140,000 thrown onto the welfare rolls in British

Columbia. We have an unemployment rate that is now above the national

average and is the worst rate west of Quebec in Canada. This is the

first time that this has happened. That is a bloody disgrace! You are

looking at an automobile industry that's in total shatters in the

province of Ontario, and yet, believe it or not, our unemployment rate

is higher than the rate in Ontario.

It's interesting that

the Royal Bank of Canada brought out a recent study on the projections

of growth for the province of British Columbia. I can only assume, Mr.

Speaker, that before they produced that report they read the budget and

asked: "What is this government doing to create economic stimulus,

employment and to take a leadership role?" They came to the conclusion

that the growth rate is zero and that the government performance rate

is zero. They both came up with zeros. They have examined the budget,

and the Royal Bank, that fiscal conservative of all times, has come to

the conclusion that even the Royal Bank can't live with you fellows.

When

you talk about unemployment you get lost in statistics, but I've got to

produce a couple more. The rate of unemployment in Prince George is now

18 percent, in the southern interior it is 16 percent and in the West

Kootenays it is 13.4 percent.

It's all very well to sit by

complacently and talk about these wonderful philosophic concepts of

socialism versus capitalism, but the real fact about this budget is

that it doesn't give a damn for that 18, 16 and 13 percent that are

unemployed.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I would recommend, perhaps, more moderate language for the chamber.

MR. LEGGATT:

Something else I think we should examine is the rate of unemployment

insurance claimants in the province of British Columbia. In my own area

of Coquitlam, the percentage increase over last year is 94.7 percent,

according to the latest UIC statistics; Port Alberni shows 223

[ Page 7154 ]

percent;

Houston, 183 percent; Smithers, 120 percent; Kitimat, 167 percent; Fort

St. John, 102 percent; 100 Mile House, 150 percent; Fernie, 117

percent. I hope the Minister of Finance is going to pay a little

attention to this. There is a rip-roaring depression over this province

right now, and this government hasn't responded to the economic

conditions of British Columbia.

There is a little bit to

fall back on because of that horrible socialist thing that I've heard

everybody condemning: unemployment insurance — one of those terrible

socialist measures that were brought in. Where would this government be

without those little socialist measures? Where would these people be if

they didn't have unemployment insurance or welfare to buy those

groceries in the corner store and keep those small businesses at least

turning over slowly? What this government misses because of its

ideological fanaticism is that it is democratic socialism that has

saved the free enterprise system. Do you know what? We are going to

have to be called on to do it again. We are going to have to save them

from themselves.

I hear my colleague for Omineca (Mr. Kempf)

is reading Gilder's book on wealth and poverty. Gilder and Milton

Friedman are the people you shouldn't be reading, because they are the

problem. It is that philosophy, which says that you shouldn't

redistribute wealth and give people purchasing power at the bottom,

that is destroying the economic structure of the western world. It is

that philosophy that means that people don't have the money to buy

houses and don't have the purchasing power to buy the goods that the

capitalist engine is capable of producing in abundance, and it is that

philosophy which redistributes wealth upward instead of down.

AN HON. MEMBER: Redistributes poverty.

MR. LEGGATT: Let's deal with that — "redistributes poverty."

After

the Second World War there was a consensus, something John Kenneth

Galbraith described as a general agreement among all political forces

in the western world. That was the liberals, the Tories, the

coalitionists, the Socreds or what have you. For about 25 years they

all accepted the concept that we have to try to produce fairness in the

western democracies, that if you leave the free enterprise system alone

you will wind up with only oligopolies and monopolies controlling the

heights of the economy and you will destroy competition. Not through

government. You destroy competition by allowing concentrations of

wealth of such enormous size that small business can't possibly

compete. The trust-busters of the United States. There was a consensus

developed that said: "We conservatives will make a very slight gesture

in that direction. We will bring in a little bit of legislation. We

will vote in favour of a very modest pension or a very tiny medical

care plan." The liberals were a little farther left than that. The

liberals came along and said: "We're going to do just a little bit more

than that. We will make ourselves just a bit more generous than the

Tories." Of course, when these terrible socialists came along they

said: "We'll go farther than anybody. By God, for democracy to survive

we must have a government that produces equity among the competing

components of society." Creating that democracy is what democratic

socialism is all about. For about 25 years even those other forces —

and this government was once a part of them — said: "We will make

gestures in this direction. We will have welfare." We all disagreed on

the extent and amount. We would do more. Admittedly, we are more

compassionate, as a matter of fact.

Interjections.

MR. LEGGATT: That happens to be true.

That consensus was suddenly broken by my friend from Omineca's book, Wealth and Poverty .

It was broken by the economic philosophy, persuasively argued, of the

Chicago school, led by Milton Friedman. Milton Friedman came along and

said: "Now wait a minute. We can't do this. It is ruining the economic

structure. It is ruining the world to try to be fair to the poor, to

try to produce welfare and compassion, to guarantee health care. By

bringing that forward we can't accumulate that capital that is

necessary at the top, and we are creating inefficiencies in the free

enterprise system." And they ultimately bought it in the United States.

Probably the first jurisdiction to buy that philosophy was the

government of Sterling Lyon in Manitoba. They bought it, they ran on

that ticket, and they won. The people of Manitoba had a chance to

examine that philosophy and threw them out on their ears where they

belonged. That's what happened. In England, the same thing occurred.

When the Thatcher government came in, remember how everything was going

to be roses and how she was going to cure unemployment? Look at the

state of England today under a right-wing Thatcher government.

This

philosophy, which I consider an amoral and unchristian philosophy,

says: "To hell with my brother." It's like the elephant dancing among

the chickens: everybody for himself, folks. That's what we had. Don't

protect the weak in your society. Let the free enterprise system exist

without the protection of this terrible thing called government, and

let us stomp all over them. That's what has occurred in the last short

while in the western world, particularly in the United States, which

has the most important influence on the economies of all of us.

Now

we come to the little economic jurisdiction of British Columbia. We're

now told by the Premier, the Minister of Transportation and Highways

(Hon. Mr. Fraser) and everyone: "The economy is out of control. We

can't do anything about it, folks. It's only international forces which

are creating this depression in the province of British Columbia. We

can't do anything about it. We have to abdicate it."

remember when the NDP was in power and they were accused of doing

everything, including destroying several industries, and nobody

mentioned the world price. Nobody mentioned international forces then.

Where were these guys talking about the international conspiracy

against British Columbia?

I don't believe that leadership is

adequate, or even there, if you don't respond to a depression in this

province. You're not responding.

The story of what's

happening to small business in this province is a story that Galbraith

could tell you. It's a story that anybody who has examined the economy

of Canada will tell you. Small business is being driven to the wall,

not by government but by high interest rates, by banks and by an

economic philosophy that says you can't survive unless you're an

American franchise; you can't survive unless you're a giant

multinational corporation.

So here we are, looking at

bankruptcies at an all-time high in the province of British Columbia.

There were 174 bankruptcies in February. What are you going to do about

[ Page 7155 ]

that?

Those were only the bankruptcies declared. You can multiply that by ten

to get the number of small businessmen who have gone completely to the

wall and are winding up on the streets without a job and without hope.

MR. KEMPF: Some on welfare.

MR. LEGGATT:

Some on welfare. That's what this government has done to small

business. It's destroyed small business. It's destroyed it because it

refuses to see that there is a role somewhere for government.

noticed that the other day in Vancouver 50 foreclosures went through.

They're running the most amazing mill of foreclosures the province has

ever seen. Every one of those brief little applications to a judge by a

mortgage-holder contains another story of agony. It contains the hopes

and the dreams of another family down the tube. Why don't you bring in

a moratorium and give them a break like they did in Saskatchewan? Why

don't you do something for them, instead of sitting there

philosophizing about Mr. Gilder and wealth and poverty?

MR. KEMPF: We'll talk about Saskatchewan on Monday.

MR. LEGGATT: Got some money?

You

are looking at a government that's out of touch with economic reality

in the province. It is partly world markets. We know that we can't sell

lumber when the U.S. housing market is dead, and we know we can't sell

mining products when the price of copper is down. That's true. But who

was it that was on the high-interest bandwagon ten years ago? My friend

for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) pointed out that the economic conferences

of Canada were constantly petitioned by the Premier of this province

for a money-supply approach to the economy: "Get the interest rates up.

Inflation is the key problem to everything." Now when they've done

exactly what the Premier has asked, he wants to blame them for all his

problems. It's an abdication of economic leadership.

If you

happen to find $500,000 today, and there are not many people who have

that.... I think the Premier probably has $500,000. I don't know what

he's got in the bank, but I suspect there are a few people around here

who have at least $500,000 sitting in the bank.

MR. KEMPF: Don't look at me.

MR. LEGGATT:

Do you know what they make on that every year right now just in

interest? The interest rate on $500,000 is $100,000 a year. They talk

about welfare. Do you know who the real welfare recipients are in this

province? They're the guys who are sitting back drawing that $100,000 a

year without turning a finger. That's a disincentive to work. It harms

the whole economy, and it doesn't put that capital to work. That's

welfare. When you pay anybody those kinds of interest rates, that used

to be usury. They used to throw people out of the temples for that kind

of thing.

MR. KEMPF: You want to take it away from them whether they work for it or not.

MR. LEGGATT:

I want you to do something about the ripoff in the banks, my friend.

That's what I want you to do. I want you to have a policy that says

that ordinary people can get interest rates at something they can at

least afford. Right now two people with good incomes can't even buy a

shelter over their heads, and it's a direct result of this government's

failure to understand that human element out there. They haven't got a

housing program worth the name, and you know it.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please, hon. members. If we don't interrupt the member who has

the floor, perhaps he could remember to address the Chair.

MR. LEGGATT:

Oh, they did do something in this budget about banks. They said: "By

golly, that is a problem." They did respond. I forgot. I overlooked it.

They've got a tax on banks now that will attract $15 million. Do you

know how long it will take the banks to find a way to pay that $15

million? I'm sure that new tax they brought in must have made the

boardrooms sweat right across the country. How many cents on a cheque

will it take to get $15 million? One tenth of 1 cent? They'll pass that

through to the customers so fast it will make your head spin. It's not

going to make any difference.

They have failed to tackle the

economic giants. They have failed to provide an economic atmosphere in

this province through a low-interest program in housing and a

low-interest program for small business. They have failed to see the

trouble we're in.

We hear a lot here about the federal debt.

I can recall my colleague for Skeena (Mr. Howard) and myself constantly

being accused of being in Ottawa at one time creating some kind of

massive, giant debt. These guys keep ranting and raving about the

federal debt: the federal debt is too large; the philosophy of that

Liberal government is wrong; they didn't do cyclical budgeting; and

they only continued to increase the debt. But I want to tell you, my

friends, that the individual debt of every British Columbian, if you

divided up his federal share and his provincial share, is much heavier

in terms of the provincial debt than it is in terms of the federal

debt. It happens to be true. The provincial debt is now $10.5 billion.

MR. KEMPF: What are the assets?

MR. LEGGATT:

What do you think the assets of Canada are? Anyway, through you, Mr.

Speaker, those debts are secured by the assets of the country. In this

province it's now $1,700 for every family of four on the provincial

debt only. One of the great villains in all that is B.C. Hydro, who are

into a program of continually expanding more than they need and massive

borrowing that is unnecessary and at rates that are terrible. For what

purpose is that? Why are we expanding?

AN HON. MEMBER: So we can have electricity.

MR. LEGGATT: No, so that California can have electricity, my friend. That's why.

Let me read you an item from this morning's Province :

"Indeed, as a Province business-page

article has pointed

out, B.C. is really subsidizing the Americans — to the tune of $240 million

last year, or about $92 a person in B.C.....

[ Page 7156 ]

Hydro has had to borrow heavily to finance its dams. According to the

New York investment house of Salomon Brothers, Hydro was the

fourth-largest single borrower in international bond markets last year.

Only the World Bank, the European Investment Bank and Hydro-Quebec

borrowed more than B.C. Hydro's $1.31 billion U.S."

B.C. Hydro needs all the money it can get to finance that debt, especially at today's high interest rates. This is what the Province

said the day before: "B.C. Hydro provided a $240 million subsidy to

power users in California last year by selling cheap, surplus B.C.

hydroelectric power to west-coast utilities, enabling them to close

down some of their own expensive oil-fired generating capacity."

What

the Californians have been doing is shutting down their expensive

power, getting rid of their oil-fired power and coming up to the banana

republic here to buy some nice, cheap British Columbia power.

MR. LEA: And they lend us the money to do it.

MR. LEGGATT: And they lend us the money to do it at a nice, fat 16 or so percent.

"Although B.C. Hydro's customers will also benefit from

the record $262 million it earned from sales outside the province — about $220

million of which went to California — the price at which it sold its surplus

power was less than half what it would have cost the west-coast utilities to

produce the same amount of electricity from their own plants."

Some

bargainers we are! We must now be getting a world reputation as being

the softies of all times across the bargaining table. The sucker

government of British Columbia. We have taken overexpansion in our dams

and now we're selling power to California at half the rate it cost them

to produce it themselves.

AN HON. MEMBER: Would you send the water down the spillways?

MR. LEGGATT: That's because of overcapacity, my friend. This spill argument is nonsense. We are the softies of all time.

When

we come to B.C. coal and we look at the bargaining that took place, it

makes B.C. Hydro look pretty tough; they don't look so bad on the

California deal. Let's see what we did on B.C. coal.

I see

the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) has come in. I'm pleased to

see him, because he asked a question in the House the other day. He

said: "You fellows make up your mind: are you for northeast coal or

against northeast coal?" Then he said we should go up to the northeast

and ask any of those workers: "Do you want to lose your jobs?"

The

trouble with the Attorney-General is he always asks the wrong question.

He used to do that in court all the time. Do you know what the right

question is? Go up there and ask them: "Do you think B.C. got a good

deal on the coal?" Go ahead and ask them. I know what their answer is:

"We got suckered. We got a very bad deal on the coal."

Let's go through the thing very briefly.

AN HON. MEMBER: Have you been up there, Stu?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Are you going to go up and ask them the question?

MR. LEGGATT: Of course, as soon as I get a ticket from the Attorney-General I'll be there in a flash.

Look

at the project itself and examine what we've done. We have all the

capacity in the southeast to provide the Asian market. The

infrastructure is there and paid for. Roberts Bank is in place.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

That

is not to say that we shouldn't develop northeast coal. It means that

when you develop northeast coal, make sure that the development makes

economic sense in terms of the price and the terms. Now we see — and it

wouldn't have been too difficult for anyone negotiating that deal to

predict, given the balance of trade with the Japanese — that the

Japanese are about to treat the United States much differently. than

they've treated Canada on coal. They are now about to buy thermal coal

in fairly large amounts from the United States. They will be providing

low-cost assistance to construct the transportation infrastructure for

American coal. What did we do? We asked the poor taxpayers of British

Columbia, who are sitting with 200,000 unemployed, with 140,000 on

welfare.... They have drained all those assets and decided we are going

to give a gift of a railroad for the Japanese to carry their coal over.

That railroad is going to cost $500 million. When we started off, I

remember they told us it was going to be $180 million. Then it went to

$190 million, then $200 million, then $250 million. We always said it

would be $500 million.

MR. LEA: Like Pier B-C.

MR. LEGGATT:

Yes. Well, it is $500 million. The figures are largely in now and we

don't withdraw one inch from our charge that there will be a billion to

a billion and a half of taxpayers' dollars down the drain on northeast

coal. There is no way that on these tonnages, and with this surcharge,

you can ever pay the taxpayers of British Columbia back.

The

Minister of Industry and Small Business Development has said — in slip,

I think — that he had to sell another 11 million tons a year to make

this thing fly. There is no indication from the eastern markets that

there is a market for 11 million or anything like it in terms of

additional tonnages. What is worse is that we were so anxious to make a

political point, this government was so anxious to make a deal, that

they buckled all the way down the line. If you examine the negotiations

that took place, in fact the federal government is protected on the

numbers. The taxpayers of British Columbia are holding the bag on the

coal deal, no question about it.

Now you look at that and

you say: $495 million, but aren't we creating jobs? Yes, we are, about

5,000. But you know what we should have had? We should have had all the

jobs, and we could have had a steel mill and we could have had Canadian

ships carrying that coal to the Japanese market — if you had a

government that was willing to do some decent bargaining instead of

buckling all the way down the line from a sense of political

desperation. Political desperation led them to this impecunious deal.

How many houses can you build in the province for $500 million? By,

just using it as a mortgage fund you could reduce the interest rates to

every small businessman and every housebuilder.in the whole of the

province of British Columbia. You could take that capital and do it.

[ Page 7157 ]

we got to the point where, in a great rush — getting off the choo-choo

train, saying we've got it, it's all here — they proceed. But somewhere

along the line we kept asking questions such as: what would happen if

Quintette didn't get its financing? What would happen if there were

some problems in the money markets, because interest rates are getting

pretty high? What if these companies defaulted? And we were always

told: "Oh, yes, my friends, the taxpayers of British Columbia are

protected right to the cent." So we started to look at this and we find

there is a debenture on file. There is an agreement that we haven't

seen yet, but the debenture is very interesting.

In the annual report of Denison Mines Ltd. this particular debenture is referred to as follows:

"The

company is participating in the development and construction of a coal

mine in northeastern British Columbia by Quintette Coal Ltd. Total

project costs are currently estimated to exceed $800 million, of which

the company's share would approximate $370 million. The infrastructure

commitments by the government of the province of British Columbia for

road, rail and townsite facilities in the province are secured until

the completion of the project by a debenture of $600 million."

Here's the hooker.

"This

debenture creates a floating charge on the assets of Quintette, subject

to Quintette's right to give prior security in certain circumstances."

That's

curious. We wanted to see what that really meant so we got hold of the

debenture. In the debenture, if Quintette can't get its financing, if

Quintette goes under and we have put $500 million in the ground in

northeast coal, what is our security? Well, here it is my friends —

this piece of paper. It is all we've got to protect the taxpayers of

British Columbia. Let's see what happens in the event of default. The

first thing is that "discharge of all rents, taxes, rates, insurance

premiums and outgoings..." comes first. The receiver gets payment

second. The guy they hire to handle the default gets paid second. So

we're not second and we're not first. Surely we've got to be third.

Come on, it's got to be here. Third, "in keeping in good standing all

liens and charges on the property and assets hereby charged prior to

the security hereby constituted." Whoops! We're not even third. How

about fourth? Come on, we've got to be fourth. Even this government can

be fourth, can't they? Fourth, "in payment of any principal sum due and

payable upon this debenture...." By God, they finally came in fourth.

They are even fifth — "in payment of any interest accruing due on this

debenture...."

What does this really mean? It means that the easy loan company and anybody

with $20 who throws it into northeast coal ranks ahead of the public investment

on that railroad. That,

my friends, is a disgrace in terms of management of a project of this

magnitude. This is not worth the paper it is written on. I think I said

it isn't worth the fees they paid the lawyer to prepare it. It is just

a useless piece of bumph, and I can understand the minister's

reluctance to really produce it or talk about it. Maybe he hasn't read

it.

This is a good-business government? These are the

fellows who said the NDP couldn't run a peanut stand and they produce

this to secure an investment of $600 million? Even Mr. Attorney

wouldn't have prepared this document, I can tell you. That is the kind

of good business management that this government has produced — no

assurance whatsoever that in the event of a default of the coal

companies we are protected on the rail line.

Interjection.

MR. LEGGATT:

I hear my friend who gave an excellent speech this morning, the member

for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet). He is really coming into his own.

Who used to give speeches like that? Was it Hughey Long? It was very

good, and I must say that while I didn't agree with it I admired the

spirit with which it was delivered.

MS. BROWN: That's the B.C. spirit.

MR. LEGGATT:

That must be it. Individual opportunity, there it is. It is the kind of

individual opportunity that allows a person not to pay his house taxes

and pick up his interest at the bank, right? That is the kind of spirit

that kept this country alive. That's personal initiative.

This

document is a fraud on the taxpayers of the province of British

Columbia. There is no protection, and I want to tell you that there is

some very real risk that the financing will not come forward in view of

the high interest rates that are worldwide, that used to be supported

by this particular government. The problem is that the margins are

pretty thin for the coal companies right now and I think they have

their heels in. I think they're worried and they're dragging. I would

like to see the project go ahead on the basis that the people of the

province of British Columbia examine this deal and then give the NDP a

mandate to renegotiate it on a fair basis. That is the only way the

deal should proceed. We will proceed with northeast coal, but we'll do

it in fairness to the people of British Columbia.

MR. STRACHAN:

One of the things we discussed today was how hard it is going to be for

us government members to follow our brother from North Peace. I have to

thank the member for Coquitlam-Moody for his kind words about our

brother from North Peace and associate myself with those remarks. I

don't know if I can achieve the momentum my hon. colleague maintained,

but I'll do my best.

In speaking to the budget we have to

remember, of course, that a budget is a blueprint. It sets out plans

for the coming year and it advises British Columbians of our current

state of economic affairs. This year we have presented a leadership

budget. It is balanced: it states what we want to do; it recognizes the

external pressures on our economy; and, of course, it has the ability

to deal with those pressures internally, in the province of B.C.

was interesting this morning to listen to the member for

Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) speak at great length and give us the

litany of increases in the cost of marriage licences and so on and so

forth. I took the opportunity to look into these increased fees, and I

see that marriage licences have increased from $5 to $10. That's

certainly a tremendous increase in terms of percentage, but not much

when you think of the real dollar increase to the person getting

married. I think it's pretty fair to observe that $10 for a marriage

licence is a pretty good deal, although I guess it could be argued that

it depends on, who you're marrying.

Interjection.

[ Page 7158 ]

MR. STRACHAN:

I guess if you can't afford the $10 — to the Minister of Forests (Hon.

Mr. Waterland) — then maybe you shouldn't get married. I don't think

the member for Cowichan-Malahat really had much to say of any economic

significance, and I would have to reject that litany of increases that

were listed to us today.

The member for Cowichan-Malahat

also spoke at great length about how we're taxing the people. This

really does fly in the face of what we've heard the NDP do. For

instance, we are not the government that taxed the mining industry out

of British Columbia. We certainly didn't do that. We don't have members

in our party who just recently told vocational students at a community

college that industry should be taxed for all vocational training. We

seem to have some disagreement with user-pay there.

The NDP

seem to fly in faces and contradict each other at every turn; that's

probably a reflection on their attendance. The other day I got the

calculator out and looked at the attendance at divisions since I've

been a member of the thirty-second parliament. To my great shock, I had

to observe that the NDP attendance is about 80 percent. In other words,

at any given time 20 percent of them are not here. I think that's

shameful. For people who are not cabinet ministers and don't have

cabinet responsibilities, but do have responsibilities to the people

who elected them, to see their attendance in this thirty-second

Parliament at divisions, when they know the vote is coming, at 20

percent missing, on an average....

The member for New

Westminster (Mr. Cocke) spoke about debt, debt, debt. He pounded the

desk. Unfortunately he's not here today. That's another one taking the

afternoon off — so typical, I guess, of that party, in view of their

attendance record.

HON. MR. McGEER: They would come if they were paid for the divisions.

MR. STRACHAN: What an excellent suggestion!

That's

one way to look at debt. On our side of the House we see the amount of

money we're putting into these projects we're doing as investment. I

thought of this when the hon. member for New Westminster was speaking.

It's an investment, like buying a life insurance policy. Of course, it

is a debt that you incur, but it's an investment for your future. You

buy that life insurance policy to protect yourself, to protect your

family and to protect yourself in the future. I would submit to all

hon. members, and particularly to the member for New Westminster, if he

happens to look in the Blues tomorrow, that we could compare our

investment in the economy of British Columbia and what we're doing now

in this budget to an investment such as an insurance policy or any form

of other capital expansion, Mr. Member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich), like

investing in a hotel. It's an investment for the future. It creates

jobs. It will create revenue, and it's simply a capital investment. I'm

sure the hon. members are all aware of what the term capital investment

is. That's what we've done.

The corollary to that is that

it's interesting and ironic that the NDP continually talk about the

debt, as they call it, and our investment in great and good capital

projects in this wonderful province, yet, at the same time as they

criticize us for doing that, they ask us to create jobs. That is where

the irony comes in. We are investing, and it's costing us, but it's an

investment in the future and in the people of British Columbia.

simple analogy is that it's like buying a home. The NDP have clearly

articulated what their housing policy is. I understand the members from

HUDAC were just delighted with that. It's nice that the NDP have stated

some policy. The NDP have said many things about housing. I think we

would all be in agreement with the statement that everybody should own

their own home. I don't think there's any question about that being a

desire of that side of the House, and it's a desire of the members of

this side of the House. Home ownership in British Columbia — or

anywhere in the western world — essentially is a desirable thing. I

submit to the hon. members opposite that that in fact is the same

analogy that we are using with our capital projects. When you buy a

home, of course it's a debt, but in fact it's an investment in the

future for you and the family.

Mr. Speaker, we have

investment in northeast coal, B.C. Place, the rapid transit system.

Sure, it's a big expense. You could consider it big debt, but it's

investment in the future for our children and for our province. We

invest because we believe in our province and we believe in the great

future of our province. I guess we could be like you or do as you

suggest, hon. members opposite, and not invest — do nothing and

essentially be nothing. However, that's not our policy. We are going to

continue to invest the taxpayers' dollars in the future of our province

so that we in fact continue to grow as a province and be a great

province.

Mr. Speaker, the budget clearly articulates that

capital spending by our government this year will in fact create close

to 50,000 jobs, and it's going to be interesting to see the NDP vote

against a budget that will create 50,000 jobs. I would suspect that

that's maybe why the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) wanted to

absent himself from the House this afternoon, so that in fact he

wouldn't have to go on record as voting against a budget that created

50,000 jobs.

We have had some extremely interesting

philosophical debates in the last couple of days, Mr. Speaker. I always

enjoy the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt). He has a good,

clear, articulate mind. I can't agree at all with his philosophy, but I

do enjoy listening to him articulate his thoughts. Even more

interesting, though, was a comment made earlier this week by the member

for Alberni (Mr. Skelly). He talked about being poor. If you look at

his speech and boil the whole thing down, it seems to me that the hon.

member for Alberni was saying that unless you're a failure, you haven't

succeeded. He talked about the Premier and all of us as being

millionaires. As a matter of fact, the Leader of the Opposition

yesterday called me a fat-cat millionaire. Well, I can assure him I'm

not a millionaire — and I'm a little thinner than he is too. I bet the

waist size is smaller, if we wanted to compare them.

Mr.

Speaker, the NDP take some pride in being poor. And they are — they're

poor in vision, poor in spirit and they're particularly poor in

opposition. I guess, in terms of success, the NDP have succeeded on

their terms, because in fact they are failures, which is something they

seem to identify with.

Mr. Speaker, no one likes poverty. We

especially don't like it because the New Democratic Party prey on it.

That's why our budget creates jobs — 50,000 jobs for northeast coal,

B.C. Place.... And look at all the other job-creation projects we've

had, such as the CP Air turbine plant. Hon. members, it's jobs, jobs,

jobs.

The member for Coquitlam-Moody is, as I said, always

an interesting fellow. I think he has trouble sometimes understanding

his own philosophy. He talked about northeast coal,

[ Page 7159 ]

and

of course I won't mention the question of privilege. He talked about

depression in B.C., and he seemed to somehow equate the depression in

B.C. with the state of affairs in our province when they were

government during the early seventies. Mr. Member for Coquitlam-Moody,

if you're listening, I think it's fair to observe that other members in

this House, including your own members, particularly the hon. member

for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King), have indeed stated that in fact

we're in a North American downturn — there is no denying that — and

that we are caught up in that. The point the NDP will never admit,

though, is that the depression in B.C. during the time they were

government in fact occurred when the rest of the economy was booming.

Interjection.

MR. STRACHAN:

That is right. If he wants an example, my good friend for

Shuswap-Revelstoke, you brought in the mining tax, and just about

closed down Afton Mines in Kamloops when the world copper price

couldn't have been higher. It was at a peak and you ruined them.

MR. KEMPF: The Yukon Development Act.

MR. STRACHAN: The Yukon Development Act. You had to change your own legislation.

Mr.

Speaker, times are tough. The hon. member for Coquitlam-Moody mentioned

the unemployment in Prince George. No one likes that; however, those

are the facts. One thing the hon. member for Coquitlam-Moody probably

doesn't understand, though, is that at this time of the year in Prince

George we are having what is called "breakup." Breakup is quite simple.

That is when the frost comes out of the ground and the product is mud.

I am sure you are aware of what mud is.

The hon. members

mentioned the war. In 1946 the Labour Party was elected and England hit

the skids and has been on the slide ever since. I would ask the hon.

second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall) how many people have emigrated to

England lately as opposed to people from England who have immigrated to

our great country and our great province. If there is something wrong

with our province, why did that member come here? That is a simple

question. He came here because of great economic opportunity, because

there was work, development and jobs and he knew he could, in fact,

succeed for himself and for his family in this province under a Social

Credit government. What do they do now? They do their best to try to

defeat it.

I guess we could go on forever about political

philosophy and how we differ. The interesting thing is that I think

both parties, whether they be right wing or left wing, will agree on

something. We can, in fact, identify the problem. The solutions we

advance are different, and that is the basic disagreement we have in

our philosophy. The opposition want to nationalize. They feel that by

nationalizing the resource economy, the manufacturing economy and

probably everything they can get their hands on they will have a lot of

money to shell out the door to serve their social programs. It simply

doesn't wash. Any country that has gone through that socialistic

nationalization program is now economically bankrupt and, I would

submit, morally bankrupt as well.

It is our philosophy and

always has been that the best thing we can do for those people who are

less fortunate than the rest of us is to provide a very healthy private

sector. As the hon. Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) said the

other day: "A collective agreement doesn't produce food on the table; a

job does." We have to maintain that healthy private sector and then,

everyone benefits. You can't do it by nationalizing. You can't print

money as a government. You have to have a healthy private sector

producing goods that are sold, exported and consumed. That puts food on

the table and puts paycheques in people's pockets. It supplies revenue

to the Crown so the social programs.... Some of the best social

programs in Canada exist in this great province of British Columbia and

I must say that we have been a leader in that respect for the last 30

years. The Social Credit government has introduced wonderful social

programs, and it is because we have had a healthy, buoyant and thriving

private sector.

It was interesting to hear the hon. member

for Coquitlam-Moody talk about our taxing the banks. He apparently

doesn't like to tax the banks. He said that all they are going to do is

put one-tenth of 1 cent on cheque-cashing or whatever and pass it

along. Yet it is interesting that that member, who has a great deal of

respect, I guess, for Mr. Broadbent, the national leader of their party

— probably more respect for that leader than maybe other leaders; he's

worked with him — didn't take the time to read Mr. Broadbent's latest

announcement that, in fact, Broadbent would tax banks to create jobs. I

have a clipping right here that indicates that obviously Mr. Broadbent

is agreeing with our budget and our philosophy of putting an extra tax

on the banks. Although we don't have support from that side of the

House, it is obvious to me that Mr. Broadbent seems to agree. At least,

he would copy our provincial budget legislation.

A lot was

said about the fact that B.C. Hydro has overbuilt or underbuilt. Who

cares? We can all turn on the lights now. We can attract industry to

our province because we have that tremendous hydro potential. It is

there, it is going to continue to be there and that is why investment

in British Columbia has gone the way it has. If it wasn't for B.C.

Hydro, for the development they've done in the north, I can assure you

that Prince George would not be the vibrant and vital community that it

is today. I can assure you that had we followed the NDP philosophy of

hydro development, our best industry at this time would be candle

factories, because there would be no hydro to service our customers and

industries and those people who have to use hydro. Further, it was most

interesting to hear the comments about B.C. Hydro. Through some

convoluted way of thinking the hon. member said that we're subsidizing

California. I guess he would suggest that we spill the water and not

sell it. Of course, there would be no revenue, but we'd be sticking to

our principles as our province went broke. I can't accept that argument

and I think that would be a hard one to find.

Mr. Speaker,

I'm going to conclude, because this is the second opportunity I've had

to speak — during the amendment and now during the budget speech. But

I'll conclude by saying to all members here: our budget is balanced, it

shows leadership, creates jobs, provides social services such as

long-term care, and most importantly, gentlemen, it will pass because

we're government and we brought in a very good budget.

HON. MR. GARDOM:

Mr. Speaker, it's a great pleasure to see you here this afternoon. This

is a thoughtful, well-reasoned and responsible budget. It's the result

of a lot of hard work, a result of a generous application of common

sense

[ Page 7160 ]

initiated

by following a realistic and practical philosophy firstly, of not

wanting to mortgage our children's future to pay for one's own

present-day spending, and secondly, with the appreciation that in order

to effectively comply with social needs, economic wherewithal is a sine

qua non and an absolute necessity which cannot come about without

fiscal responsibility.

Mr. Speaker, one doesn't need any

after-the-fact economist to tell anyone that you can't take more out of

a pie than you can put into it. The Minister of Finance, the government

and all those in the public service in this province that have worked

so very hard to produce this excellent product deserve full

commendation, not only of this assembly but of all the people of B.C.

This budget is responsible, it is positive, it is fair, it demonstrates

leadership, and it will best satisfy the needs and fulfill the

aspirations of B.C. plus the times which we are now going through.

We're

not printing money like some administrations. We're not wallowing in

debt like others. We're providing sound, uncomplicated, upfront,

straightforward fiscal management. I think what gripes the opposition

most, Mr. Speaker, is that they know the B.C. public know that, too,

and in their heart of hearts, when their conscience starts to say tilt,

they know that as well.

Little wonder, Mr. Speaker, that

they have been unable to offer constructive, cost-analyzable,

cost-benefit, workable alternatives to the proposals of my colleague

the Minister of Finance. Little wonder that they have been so woefully

weak in their opposition in having to rely once again upon their only

port in the storm: infantile debating tactics and personal peccadillos

for the hope of any kind of ink whatsoever.

Little wonder

also, Mr. Speaker, that they run for cover, because they know that B.C.

supports this budget. B.C. is behind this budget and behind the

compensation restraint program. If the people of B.C. have the choice,

they'll storm the polls to support this budget and vote for this party

that showed the leadership and has the leadership to introduce and pass

it.

Further, Mr. Speaker, it is little wonder that the NDP

are suffering from the Philippine fall-aparts and are so sad and

down-in-the-mouth, because they know that if they even so much as put

their foot in the water, capital in B.C., Canada, the United States and

Europe would once again incur St. Vitus' dance almost overnight.

Everybody in B.C. remembers — and capital certainly does — the flypast

of dollars fleeing and flocking over the Rockies, draining B.C. of

opportunity, of jobs, of hope and of promise for the future.

It's

no wonder that the official opposition is worried about going to battle

with last-chance, fumble-the-ball, 1975-and-1979 Dave. He really and

truly is a socialistic rarity like rare roast beef: brown on the

outside but red in the second cut. It's little wonder that they're all

thinking about getting some new juice aboard now, rather than face

Dave's last stand, Dave's last hurrah, with once again the same

consequences as he faced in 1975 and 1979. Mr. Speaker, I think the

best thing for you to do really is to alert the crape merchants in our

province, because they are going to be in for some major orders.

colleague the member for Columbia River (Hon. Mr. Chabot), who

unfortunately is not in the House, is a card player and a good one. He

told me what's in the cards, and what's in the cards for the NDP, Mr.

Speaker, is really nothing but double, double, toil and trouble. I

wanted to share this prophecy with you within the privacy and indeed

the confidentiality of these four walls. But I have to tell you one

thing, Mr. Speaker: I'm not the originator of these observations,

because that was the real message from $80,000 Bob and the NDP B.C.

federal caucus and all of those who are still CCF supporters and NDP

reformists out there. They know without qualification that the

prospects of socialistic good fortune in B.C. under poor old Dave have

vanished like the morning mists in summer. So I'd have to say to him

that if he's going to stick around, baby, that's okay by us.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Mr.

Speaker, on another topic, 115 long years ago, on March 29, 1867, Queen

Victoria gave royal assent in London to the British North America Act.

Now 115 years later, plus twenty days, this April 17, the Queen of

Canada, Elizabeth II, proclaimed the constitution of Canada, the Canada

Act 1982. As I said on Thursday last, great thanks are due to all,

particularly the good Lord who has endowed us with so much: our land,

seas, water resources and energies, our democratic institutions,

parliamentary system, our rule of law and a free and independent press,

all of our freedoms and, more glorious than that, the fact that we live

in peace. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, how commanding indeed is our

responsibility and indeed our duty, and it must be our commitment, that

all of that which we have inherited may be nurtured and passed on to

those who follow us: that is, Canada — a democratic federation; just,

united, prospering and with bountiful opportunities from sea to sea. As

a country Canada can anticipate over the short haul more growing pains,

more exacerbation, more time before we can truly achieve real national

maturity; and consequently more calls upon the energies, the will and

the determination of our people to shape their destinies and that of

our country — to stand by and to stick by Canada and not to turn their

backs on it.

It's not unnatural to experience tugs and pulls

in a federation. They are very normal — as professor Higgins said, as

normal as breathing in and breathing out. But as soon as the forces of

centralism become too strong the forces of decentralization react, and

vice versa. That is the dynamic and it is a process that is always

going on. It is, it was and it always will be thus in a federation and

particularly one of such dimension, diversity and cultural uniqueness

as in our country.

What we have to remember, Mr. Speaker, is

that we are too big in every sense and our spokes are too distant from

the centre to go to the extremes of a unitary route, or attempt to meld

or mould our country into a unitary state. Purely and simply that would

be a practical unreality for Canada and a fact that should never be

lost. Nor must we forget, as some short-term alarmists among us would

have us do, that the strength of our provinces and of our regions

relies upon the strengths of them being cohesive one unto the other,

and through them unto the whole, which is our country of Canada. Our

national anthem impresses upon us to "Stand on guard for Canada," and

so we must. I'd say, Mr. Speaker, how prophetic those words! For a

weakened Canada would result in the regions and provinces themselves

being perhaps irretrievably weakened.

As a boy I was taught

the word treason, and perhaps that is now mollified into the words

self-determination, but I don't think Canadians should touch either of

them with a barge-pole. This nation is not an island unto itself. It has

[ Page 7161 ]

world

presence; it has worldwide commitments and worldwide responsibility.

There is no question that our country is one of the bastions of

democracy, and essentially a free, competing and enterprising democracy

— which do doubt can be improved upon. But we have to beware in our

country — in the east, in the west, in the central and in the north —

those siren songs, however attractive they may seem, because,

unwittingly or otherwise, they are the songs of destruction, and for

the destruction of the best nation with the best future of any country

in the world.

What we want to do is keep Canada off the

rocks, get it and keep it in the mainstream. Indeed that is how every

one of us should be addressing our collective energies. Break-up will

never improve our lot, but it is get-together that can do the job and

produce the best and only practical and positive results. Sure, there

is lots to be done. We're not living up to our potential and we are

overgoverned and overbureaucratized in our country. Sure, the federal

engines of power have become remote from the bulk of the country, and

sure, the morale of our services is not the best and sometimes our

sisters in NATO question our commitment, and sure, we endure a

nation-wide tax jungle, but let's not pull up the tracks but get Canada

back onto them.

The cry of the separatist is in so many

cases one of frustration, but the consequences of the shrillness of

that call and its so-called cure would be a travesty for this country,

a travesty for everything it stands for and for its position in the

world. I say it is sad, silly and irresponsible, and there is no way I

want to see Canada turned into a tin-pot republic or compound any of

the ills which some of these separatists now complain about. There is

no way that I, or I'm sure people in this assembly, intend to idly sit

by and see that happen. We can't take the country or democracy for

granted, because it is only commitment that can carry that day. We have

to appreciate that both are under considerable attack within and

without. What better time to rededicate and recommit ourselves to those

values, remembering always that the democratic system is completely and

never-ending on test. That is not its weakness but its strength.

is only by genuine effort and the exercise of good conscience that

democracy in Canada and all of our democratic institutions can be

effectively maintained and improved. They and it cannot be neglected.

Recognition today, some think, is enough. It isn't. Acceptance isn't

enough. These things are far more than objects of art, once to be

completed and sometimes polished or occasionally admired and then left

alone. They are living and vibrant and they have their successes and

failure and indeed their friends and, unfortunately, their many foes,

all in varying number and in varying force. But our country and the

democratic principles under which we live have to be minded and taken

care of, and we've got to ensure that they continue. That requires

commitment and hard work.

I've said before and I want to say

again that when Canada is functioning, cooperative federalism is

functioning. That is proven through history. My friend across the

street agrees with me. Where cooperative federalism is not functioning,

neither does Canada. A country that doesn't function does not survive.

History has. told us that over and over again. As cooperative

federalism prospers so has and so does Canada. As it doesn't, Canada

doesn't. It is proven. That is the way and the course, because

Canadians have always responded much more to the carrot than the cattle

prod. I can't emphasize these points enough, because this is the

message that the opinion leaders — we have in this House 57 opinion

leaders — and the opinion moulders across the country should be taking

to our people.

I want to also ventilate about a few other

items. Firstly, what are going to be the results of the new

constitution? I would say that the justice system is going to face some

unsettled weather. No doubt there are going to be a few ships' lawyers'

judgments which would muddy the water and perhaps obviate common sense,

but in every likelihood that will be an activity of the minority, and

hopefully tempered, practical, broad-perspective, judicial wisdom and

common sense will prevail over the very narrow parameters of the

i-dotters and the t-crossers. I would say that there could be some

unsettlement, and perhaps legislative cures along the line may well be

called for to take care of them. I think, further, we are going to see

a move to better representation in our national institutions — the

Senate, the House of Commons, the boards and the commissions and all of

those national levers of power — and it's got to be. We can't have the

country continue to be dominated from the centre. I'd say thank the

good Lord, and an awful lot of effort, that we now have an amending

formula in our country that will help us to be able to effectively do

that job. There is no need to restructure the country, but we need to

better the balance. It's pretty obvious that, in a country of this

size, that which can best be done locally should be done locally, and

that which can best be done nationally has to be done nationally.

can see a Senate or an upper House removed or remodeled. I can see the

doors of family law becoming more accessible and less expensive. I can

see the Supreme Court of Canada having greater visibility and being

more regarded as what it really and truly is: the supreme court of our

country rather than the supreme court of Ottawa. I can see it no longer

being a creature of just a federal statute, with more input concerning

the selection of judges from all partners in Confederation. And as we

are a monarchy, I can envision greater visibility of the monarch, the

Queen, and her Canadian representatives, who will continue to maintain

their emergency power to curb anyone who would attempt to undermine our

democratic institutions. As the London Free Press

in Canada said a couple of days ago concerning the monarchy: "How

fortunate we are to have a non-partisan, final safeguard against the

predations of any would-be political tyrant." Mr. Speaker, there is

much more to be done in the constitutional sense — for the Indian

community, for the division of powers, and all of those things which,

hopefully, will make us function better as a nation.

I'd

also like to make a couple of observations about our own province,

things where I can see that debate and interest may develop. Policy may

eventually result, subject to the best interests and the desires of all

of the people in B.C. I want to make it abundantly clear to you, Mr.

Speaker, and to the members of this assembly on both sides of the

House, that I'm not advocating or disadvocating government policy or

changes to it, but areas which may well be the topics of discussion in

the months and years ahead.

I'm going to talk about a few

specifics. Labour. Perhaps illegal work stoppages by management or by

labour could face civil penalties — money awards, damages — by virtue

of society being so very interdependent and interrelated, the innocent

party today rarely escapes, and in so many cases bears the very harmful

brunt of an activity that isn't its own. Perhaps, too, they should have

a similar remedy — money damages — and by that I would apply an analogy

from the

[ Page 7162 ]

tort

law of negligence. There one has a duty to exercise reasonable care not

to injure one's neighbour — and a neighbour is defined judicially as a

person who, one could reasonably anticipate, would incur the

consequences of one's action. Perhaps such a tortuous remedy should

find its way into labour-management relations. I think that is

something that might well be looked at.

Further, Mr.

Speaker, a gander might be given to the country having a federal,

provincial, regional and municipal 40-hour work week for all of those

in government service. This would probably result in an enormous saving

in tax dollars. And who should better demonstrate national, provincial,

regional or municipal leadership than all those involved in it?

Now

I want to say a couple of words about elections, which everyone here

seems to be very anxious about these days. Expressing a view of some

people in our province on a matter that might well become a topic of

debate at some point in time — it may well be considered heretical from

the point of view of the other 56 people in here — I think it's not

necessarily unreasonable to give some study to the question of fixed

election dates — say every four or five years. There would be the

safety valve that a government which is defeated in a non-confidence

motion — say twice within a 48-hour period; they'd have to bring it on

a second time — if it lost that non-confidence vote a second time it

would then have to pull the plug. Now some people who advocate this say

it might well result in better planning. It might result in less

adverseriality, certainly in the early years of an administration. It

might well produce, in the long run, an overall product that the

taxpayer would better enjoy.

In health, Mr. Speaker.... It

might be a small point, but it's talked about. Maybe at some point

we're going to hear from the hospitals, the doctors and the nurses

themselves that the reason elective surgery goes somewhat to pot in the

summer and the ORs are closed is that so many people in that service

have to hit the beach. These plants are tremendously expensive for

society and I'd say it's not unreasonable to suggest some better

staggering of holidays. And if indeed there are any goof-offs, see that

they stop so that these units can function 12 months of the year.

Schools. We've got good schools, good teachers and fine students, and I want to say a word about each. School utilization....

MR. LEA: The whole system is a mess.

HON. MR. GARDOM:

My colleague over there, the member for Prince Rupert, says the whole

system is a mess. I can't go that far with you, sir, but I certainly

think there has to be some improvement.

Utilization is far

better today than it was 10 or 15 years ago when some of the old-timers

first came to this House, but it can still be improved upon. Insofar as

the kids are concerned, let's teach them to read, write and spell. I'm

all for two official languages, but they're not much good if they can't

manage either.

Regarding the teachers....

MR. LEVI: Watch it.

HON. MR. GARDOM:

"Watch it, " says the member over there. He thinks I'm on dangerous

ground. I'm just expressing some sentiments, Mr. Member, that I've

heard and you've heard over the years and that perhaps should be a

subject of debate at some point in time.

Is the grid system

working, or is it just a Depression holdover? Is the job to better

reward academic qualifications, or is the job better to reward teaching

skills, because the two do not necessarily track together.

MR. MACDONALD: What's the grid system?

HON. MR. GARDOM: My friend, who has been on just about as many arbitrations as I have, should know what that is.

The

merit-pay concept is something that perhaps should be discussed. Should

not the teacher who gives his or her all and produces a product, the

person who does a better job with the students, better than those who

clock-punch, receive a better benefit than those clock-punchers whom

the kids sometimes call 3:30 dropouts?

Now liquor. I knew my

friend from Prince Rupert wanted me to start with or get into liquor.

Let's have some competition in the business. If some beer producer

wants to pay for refrigeration, let him do so and plunk his product

right into the cooler. Why not permit sales of brands? If a producer

wishes to undersell, let him do it. The public purse will get its

markup, and if there's any break, let's see that the consumer gets it,

My colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr.

Hyndman), is looking at some provincewide specialty stores insofar as

wine is concerned. I say that's a first-class move.

Finally,

returning to proof wouldn't be a bad idea either. Proof was dropped

during World War I for munitions and it was dropped in World War II for

munitions. The alcohol was required for munitions. If we ever have

another war — and God forbid that; it's the last thing any one of us

would wish — there is one thing for certain: there would be nothing

left in the bottle but water. Maybe that would be a good thing too.

There's

a lot of talk sifting through the community about marketing boards. In

this country we have perhaps the most controlled and regulated system

for the distribution of primary products outside of the Soviet Union.

Cui bono — who benefits? The inefficient producer; a raft of

swivel-chair fillers and local dumps who get the excess production.

What is that doing to the freedom of the marketplace? I say it's

wrecking it, larding it to the consumer and putting mighty unrealistic

prices on the sales and purchases of operating farms, with quotas

sometimes being sold like taxi licences, the hens and hogs and cabbages

and cattle being of secondary economic interest. We often hear from a

number of members about doctors, lawyers, accountants, naval architects

and engineers in this context. Sure, they're all under standards and

disciplines and certain types of closed-shop rules, but they don't

regulate or hang quotas on the production of their members.

The

Insurance Corporation. I'd say that on balance it has done a

first-class job for our province. Its administrative costs are lower

than in the private sector because their investments are locked into,

and form a part of, their operation, as opposed to being separate, as

in the private sector. Furthermore, ICBC has provided a good market in

general insurance when that market has not been otherwise available.

And it invests in B.C. I say that's good, and I think everyone would

agree with it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Only 40 percent.

[ Page 7163 ]

HON. MR. GARDOM:

But it invests in B.C. The Hartford Company perhaps doesn't invest here

at all. Why I should pick Hartford I don't know. It just came to my

mind. Some might well say that, in addition to ICBC's present portfolio

of risk, some thought might be given to having the insurance on

hospitals taken out of the private sector and put under the Insurance

Corporation, or at least let it compete more actively for that kind of

business. Perhaps it would result in coverage that would cheaper and a

money-saver all round.

Fourthly, I think we should further

remember that the concept of insurance is essentially for calamities;

it is not to take care of a bust fender or a common cold. It is

disaster protection. Maybe car accidents and the resulting injuries,

which are now under ICBC, should be looked at from the viewpoint of the

compensation route, leaving it, indeed, to the Frank Sinatras of this

world to self-insure their own tonsils, as they deem it fit, under

their own accident policies. I suppose if this kind of observation

results in my ending up missing, I would have to suggest that the

Attorney first interview B.C. trial lawyers and Melvin Belli as to my

whereabouts. Perhaps it is worthwhile that a look be taken at this.

Legislation.

The western world is overlegislated. No doubt it's overlegislated

elsewhere, but I do know something about the legislative process in the

western world. We all know that the common law is too slow, and in many

cases it cannot do the job. The legislative process came to correct

that, but it is starting to go hog-wild. Indeed, it is fattened by a

bureaucracy that is increasing at a terrifying rate. It is trying to

parameterize all human behaviour on the head of a pin. I tell you it

just cannot be done. We might well produce a few snakes-and-ladders

games that people don't know, to replace some that they do know. But

indeed, all of that is perhaps questionable progress. At least the

Napoleonic Code was reasonably conceptual. Many would say, let's leave

something for the people themselves to work out, and for full

intelligence to take over. Some administrations — hopefully not this

one — are bringing in legislation much like trying to calcimine a barn.

Finally,

I'd say that politics can and should be ennobling conceptually and in

practice, but often it isn't. No one in this assembly but the full 57

individuals — I'm certainly one of them; perhaps I as well have been a

transgressor — has control of that. But short-term muckraking is a punk

alternative to long-term constructive suggestion and action. It demeans

the participants; it demeans the institution and, unfortunately, almost

all get tarred with the same brush.

I quite doubt that it

was the mandate or the platform of anyone in this room to be elected to

be rude or to call each other bad names or to spread untruths or

develop spurious innuendoes to satiate those of prurient appetite.

closing, Mr. Speaker, I'm going to speak of one man and one family:

Dick Vogel and the many spokes of his family, all of whom have had some

commitment in varying form to public service, and all of whom have

performed with dignity and integrity. They have paid a price; hopefully

one that is not irrevocable in spirit, if not in health. Throughout his

pillory all of those who jumped aboard and all of those who slavered at

the trough of innuendo and arrived at judgment without trial have now,

after the fact, the capacity and opportunity to examine that which was

stated in the arena of judicial calm, wherein one found the innuendo

discredited, the allegations discredited and Mr. Richard Vogel

vindicated.

How many have said to this man of integrity:

"Sorry"? "Sorry" to him; "sorry" to Patty; "sorry"to Vogels all — in

all conscience, Mr. Speaker, that should happen.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

Mr. Speaker, it's really a pleasure to follow my colleague the Minister

of Intergovernmental Relations after his very thoughtful address to

this House today. I have to say that it couldn't have been a more

fitting ending to his address today. I am really very sorry that there

were so few members of the opposition in the House to have heard the

comments that my colleague has given on behalf of all of us in regard

to the Vogel family. May I just say, in my response to this budget

speech — my first address to this budget speech although I did address

the amendment last week — that I really want to align myself with the

minister's remarks and to also say how very sorry we on this side of

the House are that the political process has sunk to the level that it

has in this province through such kinds of innuendo and attack as we

have witnessed, both inside this House and outside.

May I

say to you today, Mr. Speaker, that I am very proud to stand in this

House and speak on behalf of the budget. It must be the very best

budget, the most responsible budget and probably the most enviable

budget of any jurisdiction in this nation, because while there are

other jurisdictions that have had to close facilities and cut services

for people, raise taxes and burden people with even a greater amount of

responsibility to pay for government services, this Minister of

Finance, this budget and this government address themselves to the very

real concerns of British Columbians who, through very many ways, told

this government not to raise taxes. In fact, there were many people on

the other side of the House — certainly it didn't come from this side

of the House — and many people who, through the various spokesmen from

the business community, even said in

preamble to this budget: "Don't

raise taxes. If anything, go into deficit financing." That our Minister

of Finance withstood those pleas and arranged our financial picture

this past year in order to present to us a budget as responsible as

this is a great credit to him and to the government of British Columbia.

am so pleased that today we have announced the members of the committee

which was announced through this budget: the committee which is going

to address itself to employment development in this province. I am very

proud that I have a great number of our cabinet colleagues on that

team. I am extremely pleased that I am going to have that kind of

teamwork from our whole government. I would just like to say that in

spite of the protestations from the hon. member for Coquitlam-Moody

(Mr. Leggatt), who was on his feet earlier in this address, trying to

tell us that we were not in this budget addressing the results of a

world recession — we were the masters of our own fate here in this

province — it is interesting to note that at the time in this

province's history when we had the highest revenues from forestry that

this province has ever seen, it was that party opposite, through their

government, that was not able to finance the province and left this

province in debt when they finally left office. It is very heartening

to know that through this budget we are going to be able to maintain

the responsibility of providing jobs. It is exciting to be in this

place at this time in this province and look forward to times of

prosperity. I am going to say that we have a great deal of optimism to

portray in this province. It is time that people started to do just

that. The doom and gloom people, the negative ones opposite, can give

the story of

[ Page 7164 ]

doom

and gloom throughout this province, but I am going to tell you that

this province has the most tremendous potential of any place in this

nation. We are going to provide jobs and do creative things with the

new committee that has been established and announced by the Premier

today, but let us not forget that the very best people to provide jobs

in this province are from a private sector that is free to provide jobs

and that sense of confidence in the province and in each and every

community.

We're going to call on them to do just that. You

can tell the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea), who talks about the

payment of taxes, that as far as the payment of taxes in this province

is concerned, you can count on the private sector people to initiate

jobs and provide them through the taxes that they are paying. I don't

have to apologize on the floor of this House — or outside the House —

for the kinds of taxes that have been created by members of my family

to provide social services in this province.

I would like to

comment about the training of people. My colleague the Minister of

Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) has addressed the training of people in this

province to provide skilled workers in this province. During the past

year we have had the best record in history of training young people

for jobs in the province of British Columbia.

Interjection.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: There it is — the natural reaction from the side opposite. In case Hansard didn't pick it up, they said: "And there's no jobs available."

Mr.

Speaker, there is going to be a need for skilled workers today and

tomorrow, and this province will have them ready. In these last weeks

or days that we have sat in this House and addressed the budget, surely

there should have been some constructive ideas from the side opposite

to say to us that even in spite of the good record that our Minister of

Labour has put forth — and it has been the best in our history —

British Columbia cannot tolerate importing skilled workers into this

country and into this province when people in British Columbia need to

be trained, and that has to be done.

I'm excited about the

kinds of things that we can do. Job creation and economic stimulation

are very much the responsibility of a provincial government.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please. I call to order the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea)

and the Premier, who are disrupting the member who has the floor.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I'm

excited about it. It's been announced today. I'm excited about the

program ahead of us. I call on the members of the New Democratic Party

in this House, the business community in this province, the members of

our own caucus and the people outside of this House, the business

community and the labour leaders. This is a time when we can all get

together and use the best creativity among us all. Surely all members

of this House — in spite of what is said on the floor of this House,

party politics aside — can we please get to a point in this province,

put that party card behind us and do the best for the people of the

province. That's what we'll be calling on each and every member of this

House and each and every responsible member of the community to do.

another order, and more in the line of social services in the province,

there has been a lot of discussion over the past year.... My colleague

the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) and myself have been very

concerned, and we have been working together on a program for the

enforcement of maintenance orders. We hope that it won't be too long

before a revised program will be put before the people of this province

through this Legislature and. through this government.

know that the member for Victoria would like to continue with the

interruptions, but perhaps the member doesn't understand the problems

of the single parents of this province who are forced into poverty

because their marriages have broken up and their spouses have left them

in a state of poverty while the taxpayers pick up their bills and they

go on to spend money which should go to their wives and their families.

That's the kind of thing I think you should be concerned about in this

House.

Interjection.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

Yes, we'd all like to keep the families together, but unfortunately in

the day and age in which we live.... The member opposite who just made

the interjection about "keeping families together" will be more

cognizant of that subject than most people in this House. I would like

to suggest that although that would be the ultimate, and we would very

much like to see that happen, reality tells us that there are couples

who break up. Their spouses go on to another part of the country or

province, and their lot is so much better than the spouses they leave

behind with their children and responsibilities.

We don't

want a welfare way of life for anyone. It is not first best. The most

important part of that enforcement of maintenance change is not the

dollars it will save the taxpayers; it is the elimination of the

harassment that goes along with the whole situation of the breakup of

marriage. So I would hope that we will very shortly see that kind of

enforcement program which will get the concurrence of all members of

this House.

It's a good budget. We're just about at the end

of the debate on the budget, I understand. Our Minister of Finance will

no doubt wind up the debate. There is a lot of credit coming to this

Minister of Finance for the kind of budget we have before us. There is

a lot of credit to come to this government that has been able to put

forward this kind of budget in this day and age. Nowhere in this nation

will there be a better budget presented to the Canadian people. Would

that our federal government had been as cautious and responsible with

the people's money in the past, and perhaps some of the problems that

beset us in this province and in every province in this nation would

not have been so difficult to bear during this time of a world turndown.

I'm

proud of what we have before us. I'll be proud to stand to support the

budget. Some of the new job-creating initiatives — just the capital

projects alone — that are in this budget are going to create jobs in

areas where jobs are so needed today. Where other jurisdictions are

closing down buildings, this province is building buildings and

creating work for the people of British Columbia. We have an economic

climate that is the envy of this nation. We are in the best place at

the best time, with opportunities abounding and ahead of us.

[ Page 7165 ]

closing my remarks on the budget, I believe the people of British

Columbia understand the kind of initiatives that are embodied in this

budget and will support this government in those job-creating

initiatives and in the responsible manner in which this budget has been

placed before the people of British Columbia. I support this budget.

MR. BARBER:

This budget would be more acceptable to the opposition and to the

people were its authors more acceptable to the opposition and the

people. If this government had any record for competence and

management, if they had even an ounce of proof they could offer to the

people that they knew what they were doing, it would be possible to

take their budgetary plans more seriously. The point is, this is

clearly and provably the most incompetent government that has ever

maladministered the affairs of the people of British Columbia. That's

just one reason why no opposition could support this budget: there's

some evidence to suggest that this group of bunglers opposite is not,

in fact, competent enough to deliver the goods they've tried to sell us.

you remember the Ministry of Deregulation? This monument to Socred

skill, this achievement in public administration called the Ministry of

Deregulation, is one more

article of proof — but not the only one, to

be sure — that Social Credit is the most provably and laughably inept

administration this province has ever seen. They ask us to take

seriously their ability to deliver on the goods promised in this

budget, and we remind them and the people of a joke called the Ministry

of Deregulation, announced several budget speeches ago, as the means

whereby this group opposite would somehow manage to clean up the

affairs of government to the satisfaction of business. They did

neither. They finished one business called Seaboard, and we had to

rescue it in an emergency session overnight once.

We cannot

support the budget because the government is not competent to

administer the financial affairs of this province. We cannot support

the budget because this is the same government which cooked up the

Ministry of Deregulation, which cooked up the $20 million bungle

involving the Princess Marguerite , the Rupert , the jetfoil and the Surrey .

This group of bunglers opposite, responsible for that $20 million

squandering of public funds, asks us now to believe that they are

competent to administer the budget which they wish us to support. They

are not competent, they are not administrators, they are not managers,

and if they were capable of earning a free-enterprise buck, that is

what they would be doing. Instead they are here at the public trough.

This

group of incompetents opposite, led by the former Minister of Health,

cooked up a ridiculous compulsory heroin treatment scheme. It was

illegal, unconstitutional, unworkable and a joke to anyone in the

profession who knows anything about the field. Fifteen million dollars

of waste later, the member for Langley (Hon. Mr. McClelland), being

personally accountable for that waste, has to abandon the scheme

altogether. But they tell us we should believe in this budget, that

their days of waste and squandering have ended. Not so. This group of

bunglers responsible for Seaboard, the Ministry of Deregulation, the Marguerite , the Surrey , the jetfoil and the Rupert

escapades, responsible also for an illegal, unconstitutional $15

million experiment that did not succeed in a program they called

"compulsory heroin treatment," now asks us to take them seriously when

they advance a budget, and to believe them just for a moment when they

tell us they are fit to administer it. They are not fit to administer a

popcorn stand, and they've proven it repeatedly in the last six years.

Do you want more evidence?

MR. LAUK: Yes, more evidence!

MR. BARBER:

The Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), who made up a

political fiction which she entitled the Secret Police Force of British

Columbia

(1975) Ltd. — a total, complete and unacceptable falsehood —

today asks us to have pity on her own incompetence, upon her own

admission, because it has taken her and her government the last six

years in office to realize there is something wrong with the way we

manage maintenance orders in this province, When some of us, who have

heard that speech before and have witnessed six years of incompetent

Social Credit government, are asked now to take her at her word that

even though she could not solve the problem in 1976, 1977, 1978, 1979,

1980 or 1981 — they've been in office all that long — she can solve it

in 1982 — or that she even wants to — we say that we're not prepared to

believe that. We've seen the record of incompetence, waste and

maladministration, and we've seen her personal record in the public

affairs of this province, making up fictions about a secret police

force. Why should we believe her any more than we should believe them?

They are not competent; they are not able; they are not managers enough

to deliver the goods promised in this budget.

My colleague

from Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) described the budget, in his opening

remarks. as one of deceit and despair. The deceit is now demonstrated

amply in the course of this budget debate. The despair is being

demonstrated day by day on the part of the people of British Columbia,

who recognize that this government has, first of all, more than doubled

the public debt of the people of British Columbia in the past six

years. They despair about our ability ever to finance that debt. They

despair about a government that would mortgage the future of our

children and grandchildren and create a situation of permanent debt.

and they despair of Social Credit, which has done all that in just six

years.

They despair of a government which is so careless of

public funds that we see, for instance, the Premier overrunning his

personal office budget by $150,000 in one short year. They despair

because they see the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander

Zalm) overrun his personal office budget by $25,000 in one fiscal year.

They

despair because they know that this is in fact a deficit budget. They

know that Social Credit has been running deficit budgets for the last

two fiscal years, and they know as well that the great likelihood is

that they will do so again next year. This is the government that has

doubled public debt in less than six years, and the people despair of

ever being able to pay their way out of Social Credit debt.

They

despair of a government that has forced the Crown in British Columbia

into the hands of the money-lenders at interest rates and at a scale

we've never seen before. They despair that this province will ever

again be debt-free, and they know that as long as Social Credit

continues in office it most certainly will be.

They despair

of a budget which, when produced, makes one claim about pay as you go

for B.C. Rail, and of a government which, in question period but two

brief weeks later, appears not to be committed any longer to that

principle and appears in fact not even to recognize that they themselves

[ Page 7166 ]

once

enunciated that principle. Mr. Speaker, if they can't even remember

what they said in their own budget, why on earth should the people of

British Columbia take that budget seriously, even for a moment? In the

minds of these folks opposite, it was not to be taken seriously for

longer than two weeks. But that was just one statement of many in a

budget that most do not accept.

This is a budget of deceit

and despair, as has a former Minister of Finance of the government of

British Columbia described it. The deceit is the pretence that this is

not a deficit budget when in fact it is — provably so. The deceit lies

in the fact that Social Credit has more than doubled the public debt in

the last six years and pretends it is otherwise. This is also a fiction

of an unacceptable sort. The deceit lies in the fact that they claim to

be creating jobs when in fact the rate of personal and business

bankruptcies in this province has never been higher and the rate of

unemployment has never been higher either. On what basis, Mr. Speaker,

are we to believe that this budget creates jobs, when in fact the

budget last year and the budget this year, by overtaxation, by

overspending, by overruns and by massive increases in the public debt,

has only driven people out of work, out of their homes and out of their

businesses? This is authentically a budget of deceit and despair, and

of course it is rejected by the opposition. It is rejected by the

people of British Columbia for the very same reasons.

MR. SPEAKER:

I must ask the hon. member if he is attributing the characteristics

talked about in his speech to any individual member of this chamber,

because if he is it must be resisted by the Chair.

MR. BARBER:

Of course it should be, Mr. Speaker, but I'm not and it's not. It's the

budget. It's the policy document, it's the claim of fiscal

responsibility this government makes, which we repudiate. It is that

claim, that policy and that budget which we describe as one of deceit

and despair. The minister himself, I'm sure, does not despair, even for

a moment.

It is a budget which has been denounced as a shell

game by the mayor of Coquitlam, Mr. Jim Tonn who in his capacity as

president of the Union of British Columbia Municipalities has described

its revenue-sharing claims to be be "fraudulent." Mr. Tonn is no New

Democrat, Mr. Speaker, as I'm sure you know. To say the least, he is

not a supporter of our party. To say the least, he is certainly no

supporter of the Social Credit Party either, because he was here on

opening day and he heard what the budget speech had to say about

revenue-sharing. He thought that it was an accurate statement. He

thought it was "wonderful." Like a lot of people who have experience

with, shall we say, used-car dealers, when they get the dammed thing

home and look under the hood, when they examine the fine print up

close, they discover it ain't so wonderful after all.

MR. HANSON: There should be a warranty on the government.

MR. BARBER: There is a warranty on the government, and it will expire at the next election.

Mr.

Speaker, never before has the president of the Union of British

Columbia Municipalities ever been compelled to describe a budget

document in one important aspect as "fraudulent," but that's what Mayor

Jim Tonn did, because he feels that municipalities have also been the

victims of policy deceit. The claim in the budget speech cannot be

substantiated by the evidence of the estimates. The claim in the budget

speech cannot be verified by certain bills which have come down later,

and which clearly chart a different course. Although we will debate

that course later, nonetheless Mr. Tonn has read those bills, and so

have we.

We know what they mean. When the president of the

Union of British Columbia Municipalities finds that one aspect of the

budget we are now debating is, as he put it, "fraudulent," then it is

surely incumbent on this government to either own up to what they have

done in regard to revenue sharing this year....

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please. Hon. member, as I have reminded members before this day,

you cannot put words into the mouths of other individuals which you

cannot use in this chamber. I would suggest that the hon. member use a

word other than "fraudulent."

MR. BARBER: I am only quoting the honourable mayor of Coquitlam, as you know.

MR. LAUK:

On a point of order, the proposition that one cannot quote other public

officials and other people in public life in this chamber is a very new

proposition indeed. That those persons might make statements that would

otherwise, directly through the mouths of members of this chamber, be

unparliamentary is one thing, but we have here a situation with the

president of the Union of British Columbia Municipali