1982 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 32nd Parliament

Hansard

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

( Hansard )

TUESDAY, APRIL 6, 1982

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

6895 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

B.C. Ferry Corporation. Mr. Lockstead –– 6895

Mr. Hanson

Licence fees for guides. Mr. Hall –– 6896

Licensing of fish plants. Mr. Lorimer –– 6896

Mr. Lea

Cost of free miner's certificate. Mr. D'Arcy –– 6896

Increased tax on coloured gasoline. Mr. D'Arcy –– 6897

Budget debate

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 6897

Mr. Hall –– 6901

Mr. Segarty –– 6904

Mr. Lea –– 6908

Hon. Mr. Hyndman –– 6912

Ms. Sanford –– 6915

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 6918

Tabling Documents

Knowledge Network of B.C. annual report.

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 6918

Science Council of B.C. annual report.

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 6918

Technical Committee annual report.

Hon. Mr. Rogers –– 6918

Ministry of Environment annual report.

Hon. Mr. Rogers –– 6918

TUESDAY, APRIL 6, 1982

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I'd like to make

an introduction and to officially welcome Major Amos, who led us in

prayers today. I had the opportunity to attend with him the dedication

and opening of the new Harbour Lights facilities in Victoria, in which

the government has been a financial participant. But we're also going

into the second century of service of the Salvation Army, and I think

this House would like the major to know — and to carry back to his

comrades — our very best wishes and our thanks for the tremendous work

they do for the people of this country and our province.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

I have the pleasure of introducing a number of constituents from my

riding today from Powell River: Mr. Dave McKendrick, Mrs. Diane

McKendrick and their two sons. From the beautiful community of Lund are

Miss Etta Mack, Zoael Mack and Lesya Williams. I ask the House to join

me in welcoming them.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr.

Speaker, I would ask the House to give a warm welcome to two

constituents of my colleague the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe)

and myself. From Vancouver–Little Mountain we have visiting the House

today Mrs. Elizabeth Schwartz and her son Paul.

MR. LEGGATT:

I would like to welcome to the Legislature two friends from Port

Coquitlam. Jim Black and his family — Sharon, Patrick and Karen — are

here visiting. While I'm on my feet, Mr. Speaker, would you welcome my

constituency secretary Gwen Ranger and her children, Nadine and Stewart.

MR. RICHMOND:

Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today is a well-known businessman from the

constituency of Kamloops, the president of Gavex corporation. I'd like

the House to welcome Mr. Gary Sorensen.

MR. BRUMMET:

Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today we have four visitors from Fort St.

John: Mayor Brian Palmer, Alderman Wayne Gretzinger, Alderman John

Herron and city manager Roy Blackwood. I would ask the members to make

them welcome.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I would

ask the House to recognize and welcome Marie Woodruff, who is a grade

11 student at Mount Douglas high school in my riding.

Oral Questions

B.C. FERRY CORPORATION

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transportation and

Highways. In yesterday's budget the B.C. Ferry Corporation's highway

equivalent subsidy was substantially cut. The estimates indicate that

the corporation will be axed by more than $15.9 million. Can the

minister confirm that there will be a reduction of sailings and

curtailment of services by the B.C. Ferry Corporation this year, as

well as substantial fare increases.

HON. MR. FRASER:

In answer to the member's question. I just wasn’t sure what he said,

but I think he is implying that we're going to reduce service and

increase fares. I want to tell you that B.C. Ferries is the largest and

finest ferry fleet in the world and that we are going to continue to

keep it that way.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Well, as usual the minister did not answer the question. He is noted for not answering questions, but we will try again.

MR. SPEAKER: To the question, please.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

Since 1976 the ferry rates between Tsawwassen and Swartz Bay have more

than doubled from $5 per car and $2 per person, to $12.50 per vehicle

and $3.50 per passenger. Can the minister tell this House to what

extent the ferry rates will be increased as a result of the highway

equivalent subsidy and the slashing of the $15.9 million from the

corporations's budget? The minister should be able to answer that one,

Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Is this a question of future policy, or is this policy already in place?

HON. MR. FRASER:

To answer the member, first of all, and his first

preamble that the

ferry rates have gone from $5 to $12.50. I think if you compare

anything else you have to buy you'll find that's pretty modest over

this period of time, in view of inflation, fuel costs and so on. The

fares on B.C. Ferries are still one of the best bargains in British

Columbia. Regarding future fare increases, they'll be decided when

required.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, can the

minister tell this House what the Ferry Corporation intends to do with

500 auxiliary employees who will not be hired over the busy summer

period as a result of this budget? What are you going to do with those

500 people who won't be employed this year, Mr. Minister? Tell us.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I'm not aware of what the member is talking about.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

I want to ask the Minister of Highways and Transportation, as he is not

aware of what we're discussing on this side of the House, if he is

still a member of the board of directors of the B.C. Ferry Corporation.

Does he attend those meetings?

HON. MR. FRASER: I am a member of the B.C. Ferry Corporation, and I attend all their regular board meetings.

MR. HANSON:

To the Minister of Transportation and Highways. Vancouver Island, like

the rest of the province, is in a severe recession. At the same time

your ministry has cut the amount of money going to the B.C. Ferry

Corporation by 25 percent. This will do one of two things or both:

reduce service — reduce sailings — or increase fares. This will be

devastating to small business and tourism on Vancouver Island.

Will

the minister advise this House if there is going to be any reduction in

service or increase of fares in this coming season? It is outlined in

the budget that there would be no

[ Page 6896 ]

reduction in service. Will he confirm to this House that there will be no reduction in sailings?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the question anticipate? If the question is whether a decision has been made, it can be allowed.

MR. HANSON: Has he decided to ensure that there will be no reduction?

HON. MR. FRASER:

We're not going to run a lot of boats if they're empty, I'll tell you

that. We have a quite substantial reduction going on in ferry traffic

to Vancouver Island. Are you suggesting we should run them empty?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, hon. members. We have a question here.

MR. HANSON:

I have a supplementary question to the same minister, Mr. Speaker. If

British Columbians can afford a vacation this summer, they will be

vacationing within British Columbia. Will the minister confirm that the

run between Swartz Bay and Tsawwassen is already reduced from five

vessels to four vessels for this coming season?

HON. MR. FRASER:

No, I can't confirm it. I have nothing to do with the daily operation

of ferries. They put on ferries as traffic demands it and they give an

excellent service.

MR. HANSON: Further supplementary,

Mr. Speaker. It is a well-known fact that during the peak periods of

the summer months the B.C. Ferry Corporation operates five vessels. One

is a supplementary vessel and that vessel is being taken off. Will the

minister confirm that fact?

HON. MR. FRASER: I'll have to get the information. I don't agree with your observation. I'll have to check with B.C. Ferries about that.

LICENCE FEES FOR GUIDES

MR. HALL:

I have a question on behalf of the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) and

the member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet) to the Minister of

Tourism. The licence fee for guide outfitters, assistant guides and

angling guides was hiked 100 percent on April 1. In light of present

economic conditions, how does the minister justify this imposition,

which is well in excess of the inflation rate, on the B.C. tourist

industry?

HON. MRS. JORDAN: I appreciate the member's question. Since being

Minister of Tourism I have tried to help the House understand that tourism has

been declared a basic resource in the province of British Columbia for many

reasons, including the fact that if we are to have a tourism industry of the

future or if we are to have resource enjoyment at the same time by our own citizens,

then tourism must work within the confines of sound resource management. That

is the policy of this ministry, and we stand in full cooperation and work very

closely with proper resource management.

LICENSING OF FISH PLANTS

MR. LORIMER:

I have a question for the Minister of Environment. The costs of

licensing fish-storage plants and processing plants was increased from

100 percent to 300 percent on April 1 of this year. A new fee has been

imposed on the fish-buying operations. In light of the fact that

British Columbia imports some $100 million worth of fish products

annually, how does the minister justify this hidden tax on the

fish-processing industries of British Columbia?

HON. MR. ROGERS:

A paper was presented a year and a half ago to the fish-processing

industry in this province, at which time we announced that we would be

consulting with the industry before there was any increase in fees and

that there would be an increase in services provided by the Ministry of

Environment to the fish-processing sector. The increase in fees was

done in consultation and agreement with the fish-processing sector.

MR. LORIMER:

I have a supplementary question. I note that in the increases to the

fish cold-storage plants the large plants have had no increase,

whereas

the small plants have had an increase. Can you explain why there's a

difference?

HON. MR. ROGERS: I will take that

particular part of his question as notice and give him a specific

answer because it's quite detailed, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LEA:

I have a supplementary for the Minister of Environment. Could he tell

me whether this new licensing scheme — the difference in fees between

the small and large processing plants — is the reason that B.C. Packers

have announced in the last couple of days that they will be closing

their small B.C. plant in Prince Rupert and moving everything, in a

consolidated economy-of-scale move, into Vancouver, and that there's

going to be a number of shore workers out of a job in Prince Rupert?

HON. MR. ROGERS:

The company had the courtesy of informing me of their plans and did not

indicate that they were the result of the increase in fees. I would

suspect that if you examine the total magnitude of their operation the

fees would be of such minor consequence that they would not be such as

to determine whether or not they would make that move.

MR. LEA: Then what did?

COST OF FREE MINER'S CERTIFICATE

MR. D'ARCY:

I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum

Resources, who is wearing his Mines hat today. For ten years in this

House we have all been hearing the Social Credit Party tell us all

about the value of individual initiative to this province. Well, on

April 1 of this year the cost of an individual free miner's certificate

was increased by 400 percent. Can the minister explain to this

Legislature and the people of B.C. why there was this massive tax

increase imposed on individual initiative, particularly in the face of

the plight facing the mining industry in British Columbia today?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

That fee increase was one of a number of fee increases which were put

in place so that this government could develop programs during a time

of severe economic downturn to ensure that jobs are created around

British Columbia and that the economy is improved to the extent that

the mining industry and every other industry in this province can

continue to flourish.

[ Page 6897 ]

MR. D'ARCY:

Perhaps the minister can explain to us then how a fivefold disincentive

to free mining in B.C. is going to create jobs in British Columbia.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

Mr. Speaker, I think it is on public record. I know the Mining

Association of British Columbia made public their brief to the British

Columbia cabinet not too long ago, in which they pointed out that there

had been discussions with the government of British Columbia,

particularly the economic development committee of cabinet, regarding

some increases in fees which the mining industry would be pleased to

see put in place, providing that we could guarantee that there would be

some increase in the service that was offered to the mining industry.

We have given that commitment, and it's been done in full consultation

with the mining industry in British Columbia.

INCREASED TAX ON COLOURED GASOLINE

MR. D'ARCY:

I have a new question, Mr. Speaker. Just before we leave this subject,

though, perhaps the minister could table the names of those prospective

free miners in B.C. he consulted before he made this decision.

the past five months the tax on coloured gasoline used by farmers and

fishermen in this province has increased by 26 percent, while we know

that the rate of inflation in this province is substantially less than

that. The question, Mr. Speaker, is: why was it deemed necessary to

impose a hidden tax far beyond the rate of inflation, one which imposes

directly on small business industries and private operators in this

province, who are really suffering the effects of economic recession

and high interest rates?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Who's the question to?

MR. SPEAKER: The question is addressed to the Minister of Energy?

MR. D'ARCY: Yes.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

Mr. Speaker, I think it's been generally accepted in this House that

the questions should be directed to the ministers who hold

responsibility. I'd suggest that's a matter for the Minister of Finance

(Hon. Mr. Curtis.)

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, before

we proceed to the next order of business — may I have the attention of

the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources as well — the

members should be aware that the light-timing control system is not

operative today. If hon. members who have the floor would like to watch

the Speaker, we will do some hand signals to let you know how much time

you actually have left. I hope that's satisfactory. Agreed?

Orders of the Day

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased to have

the opportunity to start off the debate this afternoon. As MLA for

Boundary-Similkameen, on behalf of my constituents and as a taxpayer,

I'd like to compliment the Minister of Finance for bringing in a budget

that recognizes the needs of this time in our history. He dealt with

fiscal responsibility by bringing in a balanced budget. We've seen now

the second step, you might say, after the Premier's announcement with

regard to a restraint program. This budget shows leadership. And for

the record, although we all do have the book, I would like to read from

the conclusion of the Minister of Finance's remarks yesterday. He

stated:

"This is a leadership budget — to lead

us through the storm. This budget will attain the objectives I have set

out to meet. First, it will provide economic stimulation in the short

term while building the economy for the long term. Second, it will help

to ensure that restraint is shared equitably among all British

Columbians. Finally, it will protect and enhance the quality of public

services in our province."

Mr. Speaker, I think that sums up the content of the budget that the Minister of Finance brought in yesterday very well.

The

member for Nanaimo, the Finance critic (Mr. Stupich), appeared this

morning to lose his enthusiasm. I noticed that for the first time in

the several years that I've been in this House — the member for Nanaimo

usually is quite succinct in his statements — he just didn't seem to

have it this morning. He certainly didn't have the support of his

caucus, because we only had two or three people backing him up all

morning long until they called them in at noon. The member for Nanaimo

attacked Herbert Hoover — I don't know what that has to do with British

Columbia — and he attacked R.B. Bennett, the previous administration of

this country. He quoted from the Nanaimo newspaper, and I think at one

point in time he even admitted that it was his own article. I believe

that was correct, yes. He was quoting his own column. But it was

basically doom and gloom by the Finance critic for the NDP.

tells that story of doom and gloom, but you notice he never mentioned

the triple-A credit rating that this province has. He states that the

businesses in this province are looking for leadership, but he didn't

state that Mr. Hamilton of the Employers Council came out with positive

statements about this budget this morning. They've tried, if you can

recall, Mr. Speaker, to have an NDP committee on small business going

around this province under the guise — to a certain extent — that it

was a House committee. They attempted to mislead the public, but really

what it was was a forum for their potential NDP candidates for the next

election to appear before the committee made up of the member for

Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) and the member for Nanaimo. I think they had

two or three people show up at just about every meeting they held, but

they were usually their NDP candidate prospects.

Mr.

Speaker, the member for Nanaimo also mentions the agricultural budget.

He had some time in the Agriculture ministry, and he mentioned this. I

want to tell him that what is in a government budget does not reflect

the success or failure of the farm community in the province. There are

benefits given to the farm community as they are to all other sectors

of our economy in the budget that we have today. There is no sales tax

increase, and that benefits our farm community. There are no corporate

or personal income tax increases, and that benefits our farm community

as well, Mr. Speaker.

I can tell you that in the main our

farm community out there don't want any more government involvement.

All they want is the opportunity to grow and to develop with their

markets, and as Minister of Agriculture and Food I can tell you that

that is the main thrust behind my ministry. Our objective is to assist

in allowing them to grow and prosper with their markets. We have had

some pretty good success. We have had increases in farm gate receipts;

we have had increased production in milk, in poultry, in floraculture,

in cattle numbers and in hog. It is a fairly good success story in the

agriculture community of this province.

The Finance critic, the member for Nanaimo, hangs his hat on user fees. As a matter of fact, most of the opposition in

[ Page 6898 ]

question

period have been talking about increases in fees. Mr. Speaker, it seems

to me that a user fee is a fair way to obtain some payment for services

rendered. Although they will attack that — I guess that probably is

their strategy for the rest of this budget debate — what would they

rather do? Would they rather generate revenues to operate our people

services in this province by increasing sales tax? Is that their

alternative, or do you look to user fees where the user who benefits

from that service picks up part of the cost? I suggest that the user

fee concept is a fair way and the person who is paying that "tax" is

getting a service for the money he is expending.

Or would

they see the alternative as deficit financing, as opposed to increasing

taxes or as opposed to user fees? I'd suggest they would probably con

the public of this province into thinking that all is well, in the

meantime mortgaging the future of our children in paying for debt

incurred by the government. They did it in the past, Mr. Speaker. I can

tell you that this government has a commitment that we will not

deficit-finance, and we will pay as we go.

I think the

member for Nanaimo talked about increasing the mining licence. Can you

believe this? He has an awfully short memory, because it seemed to me

that their Minister of Mines brought in something that was called a

"super royalty," otherwise termed "Yukon Development Tax." In other

words, all of the mining industry moved out of British Columbia and

went to the Yukon because of the tax that was put on the mining

companies in the province — a 105 percent tax, Mr. Speaker.

The

member for Nanaimo brought out his 25 items. He said he was only going

to talk on a few and he went and listed them all — I believe the New

Development Program (NDP). I suggest it didn't say anything, but I

would suggest also that the people of this province should judge them

by their actions in the past. Remember the 1972 promises: a new deal

for the people. Remember what they left in December of 1975: new debt

for the people (NDP). They left a bankrupt insurance corporation and a

near bankrupt province. Remember the election call in 1975? At what

time of the year was it? The middle of the winter — December 11, 1975.

I'll tell you why. They were afraid to bring in a budget and then go to

the people, so they had to get the vote first so they could bring in

that bad budget of '76. Mr. Speaker, this party as government doesn't

just make promises or 25-point program proposals; this government acts.

This government creates jobs and economic development. I don't have to

tell you about northeast coal and what it's doing for this province in

job creation. The whole northeast sector of this province has the

opportunity to expand and to create jobs for our young people and to

create economic benefits second to none.

Let me just read

you a few comments about Expo '86 and its ability to create jobs. With

capital construction projected in current dollars to 1986 at $140

million, it would create $970 million in incremental activity. The

project will also create over 15,000 person-years of new employment and

provide $187 million in direct tax revenue to senior levels of

government. And the trade and convention centre and cruise ship

including its participation in Expo '86, will generate 1,000 on-site

construction jobs and create 1,000 full-time and 1,000 part-time jobs

when operating. That is forward thinking, Mr. Speaker, in job creation

for our people.

For ALRT, the automated light rapid transit system, spending of $718 million

between 1981 and 1986 will include 1,700 on-site construction jobs and will

provide another 1,000 jobs in the manufacturing sector.

B.C.

Place, with its $126 million stadium well under way, already has 450

people working on the site. As it moves into construction of the 12,000

affordable housing units, office space, commercial facilities and other

amenities, B.C. Place expects to provide an average of 2,000

construction jobs a year for 20 years as the project is fully developed.

Those

are not 25-point proposals, not comments without any background, not

any analysis of how their points are going to be financed. This party

as government is taking action and is providing the impetus to ensure

that the economy of this province is second to none in Canada.

The

member for Nanaimo, who is a chartered accountant, neglected to say

that Mr. Cook from the Institute of Chartered Accountants this morning

on CBC said this was a courageous budget. Another economist, Mr.

McAlary from B.C. Central Credit Union, who has had some pretty good

runs, I guess, at this government in the past, in his comments said it

brought a sense of relief to taxpayers of this province. This

government is not hitting British Columbians with more taxes. In his

opinion, at this time more taxes would be counter-productive.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

The member for Nanaimo says no bad news is good news. Well, here is

some good news: "A Good News Budget." That's a headline in the Province .

We haven't had very good press from time to time but the people of this

province, to whom you denied yesterday the right to hear and see the

budget speech, are at least getting some of the message.

Not

directly related to the budget, but I think something that should be

commented on, is the Premier's restraint program that he announced in

February, restraint in public spending. The opposition has been very

quiet regarding the restraint program. They're just not sure which way

to go. They don't know whether to come out for or against. But I can

tell you that the Institute of Chartered Accountants of British

Columbia did come out and make a statement. They stated that they

endorsed Premier Bennett's announcement of spending restraint

guidelines for the public sector. "The provincial government has

recognized the basic principle that spending cannot exceed income. Its

resolve to live within the bounds of its sagging revenues is

commendable. Its action, if successful, will mean better economic times

when activity picks up again." That's from the Institute of Chartered

Accountants, which that member over there — the member for Nanaimo, the

opposition's Finance critic — is a member of. You would think he would

stand up in this House and make some positive comment on what this

government is doing to ensure the economy of British Columbia is sound

and has the ability to expand. But we haven't heard from them. All we

hear is doom and gloom.

This is the most important budget at

this time of economic difficulty in Canada. This government and the

Minister of Finance have shown the way for the rest of Canada.

want to touch again on what I mentioned before lunch today. I want to

apologize to the people of this province on behalf of the member for

Skeena (Mr. Howard) and the first member for Vancouver East (Mr.

Barrett). Those two members contrived yesterday to deny the public of

this province the opportunity to see and hear the budget speech. The

[ Page 6899 ]

member

of Skeena and the first member for Vancouver East attacked the office

of the Speaker, and even after hearing your explanation, Mr. Speaker,

regarding why the TV system was set up the way it was, they denied the

right of the people of this province to see coverage of the budget

speech. They put forward petty, chippy arguments to deny the people

that right.

It's almost as bad as the Leader of the

Opposition's comment when the Premier made his speech on television

regarding the restraint program. You may recall what the Leader of the

Opposition did. He started talking about $15,000 worth of office

furniture after the Premier made a speech which indicated where this

province was going with regard to control of public spending. The only

thing the Leader of the Opposition could come up with was some offhand

comment about furniture purchases. It's pretty sad, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. BENNETT: And he demanded equal time.

HON. MR. HEWITT: He demanded equal time too. I recall that, Mr. Premier.

The

Skeena and Vancouver East MLAs speak for all the people in their

constituencies. They may not know this, because they probably don't

visit their ridings too often, but in Skeena we have 43,799 people —

that's as of the 1981 census; I hope the member for Skeena made a note

of that, because he's probably still going on the 1971 census — and the

member for Vancouver East has 87,776 people in his riding who were

waiting patiently yesterday to see that budget speech so they could

understand what was going on. You denied them that right. I can tell

you, Mr. Speaker, that those constituents are angry.

I want

to give you a little insight as to just what might have happened. You

will recall when the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), I

believe, happened to make an announcement of the Minister of

Education's (Hon. Mr. Smith'

s) program regarding school property taxes.

He made the announcement the day before our Minister of Education made

his statement.

In watching yesterday's exercise, I have to

tell you that those two members, the one from Skeena and the one from

Vancouver East, could possibly have acquired a copy of your notes, Mr.

Minister of Finance. They had to work really hard, because they

couldn't find anything wrong with your budget speech. They had to dream

up some scheme to deny the people of the province the ability to hear

that speech yesterday. I want to make sure that we consider that

possibility, because it was a very good speech you made yesterday.

We're going to have to make sure that the message you gave yesterday

goes out to those 43,000 people in Skeena and the 87,000 people in

Vancouver East so they have an opportunity to hear what you said

yesterday. Yesterday's action in this House by those two members was

petty and unbecoming of members of this House. If nothing else, they

should apologize to the people of the province.

The humorous

part of all this is that we went through the exercise yesterday of not

being able to have television coverage in this House, and this morning

the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) stood up and said: "Mr.

Speaker, I want to introduce a bill intituled Televising of Debates in

this House." Why don't they get their act together? One day they say

they don't want it, and the next day the member over there introduces a

bill to bring television coverage to the House. I'm just wondering

whether or not we've got leadership problems over there, or if they

don't caucus anything over there.

Can you imagine what the

voters think out there? They see one headline saying: "NDP" — that's

the no-disclosure party — "Stops TV Coverage of the Budget in the

House." Then today, because the press always reports new bills that

come before the House, they will see: "NDP" — that's the no-decision

party — "Introduces a Bill for TV Coverage in the House." You can

imagine the confusion to the voter out there in trying to figure out

what the opposition is trying to do. But it also shows confusion in the

House, on that side of the House. It shows very little if no leadership

on that side. I'm sure the second member for Vancouver East (Mr.

Macdonald) probably wishes that Bob Williams won the nomination just

about now.

In a somewhat more serious vein, the balanced

budget. The Minister of Finance brought in a balanced budget. Ministers

of Finance on this side of the House have brought in balanced budgets

since our election in December 1975. We made that commitment when we

ran in '75; we made that commitment when we ran in '79. It is that this

government will pay as it goes. This government will not mortgage our

children's future. We have maintained that commitment and the Minister

of Finance has indicated to us all.... We're certainly aware that we

have difficult times at present, not just in British Columbia but also

in the rest of Canada and the United States, and we have to work our

way out of those difficult times. The attempt by the Minister of

Finance yesterday in bringing in no tax increases — no increase in

sales tax, no increase in provincial income taxes — does give our

people a breather. In doing so, he has also made the commitment to

control government spending.

We have looked at how we work

our way out of the economic downturn. We've established a Cabinet

Committee on Employment Development. On Housing there has been an

allocation of $132 million plus a new bond issue, called B.C. housing

and development bonds, which should raise up to $250 million. This fund

of some $380 million will give us the opportunity to give assistance to

our people who want to obtain a home. It will create jobs. It will

stimulate our construction industry. But most importantly, Mr. Speaker,

this type of fund and this type of administration of that fund can give

us the ability to identify those areas of opportunity and give us the

ability to act, as opposed to not being able to respond quickly to an

opportunity that presents itself. And I commend the Minister of Finance

for providing those funds and giving us the ability to work our way out

of the situation we have today.

We also give British

Columbians — and this is a key point, I think — the opportunity to

invest in their province. We give them an investment mechanism whereby

they can put their money to work within British Columbia, and I think

that's important. I'm pleased to be a member of that committee, and I

look forward to having discussions and working toward identifying those

areas of assistance in the coming months.

We also look to

the future in this budget, because we're dealing with energy

independence and energy self-sufficiency. The Minister of Universities,

Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) has brought forward his

methane cars, his compressed natural gas and his propane and has

promoted these in the last few years. Removing the provincial fuel tax

on propane and compressed natural gas for motor

[ Page 6900 ]

vehicles

is an incentive to switch from gasoline to this new energy. The $200

grant for conversion to compressed natural gas will be a further

incentive to the motoring public. In the end we will see that energy

independence in reduced cost to motorists, because we have a government

that looks to opportunities that face us in the future as opposed to

dwelling on the downside every time. Instead of being negative, this

government has been positive. We are looking to new methods and new

ways to ensure opportunities for this province.

Agriculture and Food.... Let's think a minute of the opportunities for

conversion to compressed natural gas and propane on the farm. I know my

critic in Agriculture over there is nodding her head, and she probably

agrees there are opportunities here for the farm community to cut their

costs by converting to propane or compressed natural gas. Cost saving

on the farm — I'm all for that and I think that's an excellent move.

the budget — and I know the member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr.

Ritchie) will be most enthused about this — is that expanded list of

sales tax–exempt items, particularly, Mr. Member, the front-end loader

affectionately known as the Bobcat. I think that's great. I'd just like

to compliment the tenacious member for Central Fraser Valley — the

Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) nods his head — who saw a

problem, met with the farm community and met with me, and put forward

the concept: look, here is something that government, because of its

size, has overlooked, and there is a need out there to provide this

relief. I'm pleased to say, Mr. Minister of Finance, you came through

with flying colours.

I would just like to say one thing, if

I may, as Minister of Agriculture and Food, looking to the future. I

would like to see the opportunity for the farm community to have a

sales tax–exempt card, identifying a bona fide farmer so that he could

go and purchase farm equipment supplies without the sales tax. Mr.

Minister of Finance, I hope I'm as tenacious and successful as the

member for Central Fraser Valley. Maybe we can work towards that goal.

One

further item should be mentioned: that is the rollback of MLAs'

salaries to 8 percent. I want you to know — and I think the public

should know — that this rollback originated with this government

recognizing the need for restraint in all sectors. We get criticized

sometimes as politicians for getting too well paid. We had legislation

before us, as you know, that provided us with an automatic increase

each year. We got our automatic increase, but we also sat down and

said: "If we're going to provide leadership and if we're going to put a

control on government or public-sector spending of 12 percent, let's

show leadership." So the Minister of Finance has brought forward a bill

which will reduce our increase of 11.9 percent to 8 percent. I

compliment him for doing just that. I don't want the people of this

province to feel that the NDP — that's the "no decrease please" party —

had anything to do with this rollback. This is a bill that will come

forward by government. That party over there will have to consider

whether they will support it. I'd suggest they will.

Just

remember — because you're known by history in many cases — that when

that party came into power in 1972 there happened to be an increase in

the amount of 100 percent in one fell swoop. A 100 percent increase in

salaries was brought forward by that government at that time. I'm

hoping that by showing that leadership other government bodies and the

private sector will follow our lead in controlling their spending and

their increases in this fight against inflation.

The

opposition, in my opinion, is stymied, confused and not sure what their

position with the public is at the present time. This government has

shown leadership and action on a number of fronts. The megaproject, of

northeast coal, which we're not sure if they're for or against or in

between — and they aren't sure either.... I want to show what sort of

economic activity spins off from the megaproject. You think of a huge

project in the northeast, but it filters all through our province to

small business and large business, depending on what the supplier and

manufacturer have to offer.

In my city, Penticton, two

companies have received contracts from northeast coal. Atco, which

employs a number of people from Penticton in manufacturing industrial

trailers, received a contract of some $9 million to provide trailers

for the northeast coal construction area. That's jobs in Penticton. I'm

very pleased to see that. We also have another company, which the

Leader of the Opposition will get a kick out of, I guess. Kenyon

Construction got a contract to build a bridge for $2.8 million.

Now

the background of Kenyon Construction is that Mr. Sid Kenyon, the

founder, is one if the staunchest supporters of the NDP or the former

CCF. He's a really nice gentleman and a good businessman in my

community. His company, run by his son Al Kenyon at the present time,

is getting the contract to go up there and build a bridge, because they

have the expertise for a highway bridge. They have expertise in this

area, and they're going into the northeast to build the bridge and to

assist in the economic development up there. Jobs, Mr. Speaker — jobs

for the people of Penticton, companies in Penticton.

There's

a list of a number of other small companies that get work: View

Construction in Kamloops, Goodbrand Construction in Aldergrove, Jaemar

Construction Co. in Surrey, Scarmar Construction Ltd. in Coquitlam.

Prince George, Kitimat, Kelowna — all over the province there is

economic activity because that megaproject is going ahead in the north.

It's not just the coal companies or the Japanese buying the product.

It's the economic activity that's created by that project: B.C. Place

with recreation, housing and, most importantly, downtown redevelopment

of Vancouver; Pier B-C with a tour ship facility and a convention

centre. This is most important, as the showplace of the Pacific is

Vancouver. The opportunity is there for tremendous economic activity in

the coming years. Expo '86 is the showplace of the Pacific Rim for the

world to see.

Although the Minister of Municipal Affairs

(Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) is leaving at this present time, my next comment

was on ALRT, automated light rapid transit, a modern transportation

system for a modern city. Mr. Minister, you are to be commended for

your efforts in that regard.

Mr. Speaker, those are economic

activity items that will show that this government is forward thinking

and doesn't just look at taxation or moving dollars around but has a

strategy and a plan which will result in a better lifestyle for the

people of the province of British Columbia. The restraint program I

mentioned regarding controlled government spending is not hardship but

is just saying "let's live within our means," and that's important.

could go on. I notice that you've given me the signal saying I only

have a few minutes left, but I just want to say in all sincerity that

I'm proud to be part of the team that is not afraid to address the

issues and to act. It's very easy to be politically expedient and go

into deficit financing in order to be the good guys and then blame the

Canadian or interna-

[ Page 6901 ]

tional

market because our economy is in a mess. It can be very easy to do

that, Mr. Speaker, but I just say to you that this Minister of Finance

and this budget has addressed the issues and said that we will live

within our means. There are too many governments who have deficit

financing and now find themselves having to put a heavier and heavier

tax burden on their people or go further in the hole each year. I just

want to again compliment the Minister of Finance for addressing the key

issues in this budget: restraint, economic stimulation and maintaining

services to our people. It's the best darned budget this House has seen

in many a year, and it has my wholehearted support.

MR. SPEAKER: Just before I recognize the member for Surrey, the member for Prince George South seeks the floor.

MR. STRACHAN: I wonder if I might have leave to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

MR. STRACHAN:

Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of you and all members of the House, I'd

like to introduce some guests from Prince George. Would you please

welcome Dr. and Mrs. Vern Fraser.

MR. HALL: By

coincidence, I've followed the Minister of Agriculture a couple of

times since my re-election, and on both of those occasions I've

listened to his speech with a great deal of interest. I find it

interesting because he spends all his time talking about us. You know,

we pay that gentleman in excess of $70,000. I would have thought we

might have heard something today about agriculture. I thought we might

have heard a word about one of the most important Crown corporations in

the province — the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, which is

in a hell of a mess. Instead, for two minutes, between 2:54 and 2:56,

we heard two phrases about agriculture. One was about the energy

propellant to be used for agricultural vehicles and the other one was a

plea to remove sales tax from the agricultural sector. That's all we

heard from a minister who is paid in excess of $70,000 to look after a

portfolio.

Out of the 35 minutes that he used up in his

budget contribution, he spent at least 20 of them talking about us. Mr.

Speaker, if you want to know anything about us, ask us. I think we'll

be able to tell you a better, more detailed and accurate account of

what we stand for than that member over there.

I also want

at this time, before I begin my basic remarks, to pay tribute to

another member of the House, the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich), who

I think this morning, under a great deal of difficulty, on behalf of

the opposition, put forward a detailed criticism of the budget on short

notice. Working since he got the budget papers yesterday, he produced a

first-class piece of work to help the public of B.C. understand the

budget as it really is.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Whilst I am discussing that, how sad it is that the days when we used to have

a budget and a weekend used to pass, in which the whole of the community — not

only the business community, not only the labour community, not only the scholastic

and academic community but the political community as well — could look at the

budget papers and have some time to respond, to do some research and to come

forward with a sensible and well-planned debate on that budget, are now gone

with this government that plays fast and loose with the timing of the House.

There seems to be no reason. The Minister of Finance, when he was downtown in

December of last year, told the financial community roughly when the budget

was going to be. There is no real reason why it couldn't have been Friday

afternoon. The budget was printed Friday afternoon. You know that. But instead

you people over there play this silly game of "first you see it, then you

don't." If you want to play that game, that's fair enough, but it really

doesn't get you any marks at all.

Yesterday

we saw for the first time the new book of estimates in the new format.

There were a number of points of order raised immediately about this

new format, one which I consider to be most unsatisfactory and which I

think most members of the House, as well as other members of the

community who deal with this particular document, will find

unsatisfactory.

I want to deal with the matter of the

changed form of the estimates. The minister has attempted to leave the

impression in the House that the opposition should and could have known

all about the changes and that we were protesting insincerely yesterday

afternoon. Mr. Speaker, what are the facts?

On August 11, in

a letter addressed to me as strictly confidential, signed " H. A.

Curtis...." He signed it "Chairman." I don't know what he's chairman of

but it's signed "H. A. Curtis, Chairman, Ministry of Finance." In a

letter addressed to me as strictly confidential, he deals in three

pages with some suggestions about what various members of his staff are

doing regarding the format of the estimates, the number of meetings

he's had with people all over the country and with comptrollers, a new

accounting policy, program management, reallocation of funds,

accountability, and a whole variety of subjects. I did get in touch

with the minister, contrary to what he said yesterday afternoon. I got

in touch with the minister, told him I was interested in pursuing the

matter, and asked if he would be good enough to send me the estimates

that he referred to in his letter — namely, the ones from Saskatchewan

and New Brunswick. He will remember that conversation, I am sure, if

you care to ask him.

However, the conversation did produce

another letter on August 28, this time addressed "personal and

confidential" and again signed "Hugh A. Curtis. Chairman."

"Mr. Hall:

Enclosed

please find excerpts from the estimates of expenditure for the

provinces of Saskatchewan and New Brunswick. As you are aware, the

changes we are proposing in the format of our own estimates are based

in part on current practices in these two jurisdictions. For several

years Saskatchewan has employed a reduced number of votes concept, and

according to our information this has not weakened the Legislature's

control over ministry expenditures. The main difference between the

structure of Saskatchewan's estimates and the structure we are

proposing for British Columbia is that while Saskatchewan has separate

votes for ordinary, capital, investment, loans and advances, we feel

that these categories should be included in single votes and be

distinguished by object code of expenditure."

[ Page 6902 ]

That's entirely different from that which has appeared on our desks in front of us.

Mr.

Speaker, I'm telling you that anybody in this House receiving any

letter from the Minister of Finance that says they're discussing a new

format of expenditures, but they feel that categories should be

included in single votes but be distinguished by object code of

expenditure, would not be aware in the slightest what they were doing

in terms of rearranging the format of the estimates. I consider what

has happened to be a complete abandonment of that second paragraph in

that letter on August 28.

"Should you wish further information or a briefing from ministry staff,

please do not hesitate to contact me," it says. Mr. Speaker, I want to

point out to you at the same time that these letters are dated August 11 and

28. This was after the session was prorogued. This was after we'd all been

sent home, this is after we've all been told to go home and wait until the

public interest required us to come back here and deal with the question of

a committee. Either these were sent to me as the Chairman of the committee or

I do not know why they were sent to me at all. My committee can't meet unless

the House is sitting.

Mr.

Speaker, it's another example of despair and deceit, and I'm not

putting up with that kind of nonsense. We met once again in November to

prorogue. There has been no opportunity to call the committee together

again.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Why not?

MR. HALL:

Because we met for an hour. It was your timetable, Mr. Premier. Since

then there hasn't been a committee, and until you tell your leader to

get cracking there won't be another committee because you won't have

your select committee meeting to choose and staff the committees. Mr.

Speaker, to receive a letter dated August 11 and 28, long after we

prorogued — or, I should say, adjourned indefinitely, which is almost

the same thing as far as this government is concerned — is, to say the

least, to beg the question. Mr. Speaker, those are the facts. After the

session adjourned indefinitely, letter number one came. I responded and

asked for more information, and on August 28 letter number two came.

Mr. Speaker, the promises, the intentions and the hints contained in

those letters have not come to pass. Nowhere is the identification

continued in these estimates; nowhere is it possible to compare last

year with this year.

What is the history of estimates in

this chamber? What is the history of estimates that this government has

done? I was amazed when I came back here in 1979 and found out, for

instance, that no longer in the minister's office are the number of

personnel hired and working in the minister's office listed. In the

session of 1979 I asked the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) for a

breakdown of everyone in the minister's votes. It had to be given to me

as a written question on the order paper. That never used to happen;

for 20 or 30 years the estimates contained a breakdown of the

minister's office and staff. Now we don't even find standard codes of

expenditure. As the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) said this afternoon,

for them to have abandoned the standard objects of expenditures

throughout all the pages of estimates and then gratuitously put them in

the last two pages of the book is like finding two pages of Sanskrit at

the back of the book; they have no reference at all to that which went

on before. They are really, I think, abandoning any pretence at all of

providing information for the members in the House.

Interjection.

MR. HALL:

How can there be accountability? Following the amalgamation of all the

money in the minister's offices into one figure, with no breakdown as

to which were clerical staff and which were appointments of other

descriptions, we had these marvellous lines, "recruitment savings" and

"efficiencies achieved," making nonsense of any real investigation of

this so-called blue book. That's been the history of the estimates.

understand what estimates are; estimates are guesstimates of what is

going to happen. Nobody is going to be particularly held to task over

the fact that the estimates are altered in terms of shortfall or

overrun, as long as it is recorded and is understood, as long as the

program is identified. When I say "held to task," I'm talking about

legal task or accountancy task — they will be held to political task

too, as I am going to tell you in a second.

Mr. Speaker,

those are the kinds of things you have to start off with, and it seems

a very poor start for a new financial accountability statute passed

just a short while ago — a new day was supposed to have dawned. What

have we seen during this time? We've seen these kinds of exercises in

our budget books. We've seen, for instance, overruns. I just mentioned

that. There is nothing particularly wrong with an overrun. What we want

to know is why and what it was spent on — all those kinds of things.

But this government on the other side seems to have a passionate desire

to hide overruns and pretend they don't exist, when in actual fact this

government on the other side has averaged in excess of $200 million a

year in overruns. That has been the record of your government: 1976-77,

$84 million; 1977-78, $215 million; 1978-79, $221 million; 1979-80,

$283 million; 1980-81, $228 million, for a total of $1,031,000 in

excess of $200 million per year of Socred overruns.

And now

in 1981-82 we have a $134 million overrun. That includes $300,000 for

ministers' offices alone. Because we don't have the kinds of

comparative figures we should have, I can't split that figure out yet,

as to whether it's wasteful travel, wasteful furniture, wasteful

overtime or just waste. But I know it's $300,000 for ministers' offices

in the 1981-82 overruns.

Already, in five days of this new

fiscal year, April 1 to 5, before we got here — because you can't pass

special warrants once we're here — you've pushed through $103 million.

You knew we were coming. You sent me a telegram inviting me here. You

knew I was coming, but before I got here you shoved $103 million

through the cabinet. You could have put it on the table here. It makes

you feel not wanted. It makes you feel as though you're in the way.

I'll tell you, there is somebody in the way, but I've got a sneaking

suspicion the public is going to get rid of them soon.

the same time as the Minister of Finance and the Premier have been

stating that there is no debt — it's pay-as you-go; we just heard the

Minister of Agriculture talk about pay-as-you-go — they've lumbered the

whole population of British Columbia with nearly $12 billion worth of

guaranteed debt. By the time we sing "Auld Lang Syne" around the

Christmas tree at this year's end, it will be about $12 billion worth

of guaranteed debt. That's not a happy Christmas present, I would

think, for the people who live in British Columbia in 1983. Since that

Premier has been in charge he has seen the guaranteed debt of this

province go up 77 percent. This year it's going to go up more.

[ Page 6903 ]

That

Premier's been in charge these last 12 months, and we've seen the

permanent public service go up this last year alone from 34,847 —

first, by 143 people appointed by order- in-council and then by 536

additional positions you've filled in these last 12 months — to a total

of 35,526. Never in the history of British Columbia have we spent so

much money or had so much debt or had such a big public service to look

after it all. And you say you are against big government. I don't know

how you've got the cheek, the brass gall, to stand there on your

election platform and say that you are going to get the government off

the backs of people. The mind boggles. I still don't know what happened

in '75. I'll give you credit for that. But I'll tell you that it isn't

going to happen again. No, sir. There's a lot of us who've learned an

awful lot since then, I'll tell you.

The overruns last year

by special warrant — not just the famous special warrants that I can

remember the Premier talking about when he was in opposition but the

special warrants that went to the public service and to the Minister of

Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy).... There was a $30,000 overrun in

the Minister of Agriculture's office. Those are the kinds of warrants

we're talking about: coroner's office, B.C. Parole Board, minister's

office in the Attorney-General ministry, minister's office in Energy,

Mines and Petroleum Resources, minister's office in Lands, Parks and

Housing and minister's office in Municipal Affairs. If you had all the

furniture they've bought since January 1976 and added all the furniture

bills together, it's in excess of $500,000.

While all that's

going on, Mr. Speaker, that direct debt is going up. The government

came to power on a basis of getting the government off the backs of

people, and they have increased it by 77 percent. In the year ahead

it's going to go up again. Never in the history of Canada have we seen

a country and a province so poorly served by our provincial and federal

government,

The actions of our Premier and Prime Minister Trudeau have shown them to be,

in my view, the twin villains of despair, as double digit inflation continues

unchecked. Yet the governments act only in ways that attack workers and retired

people who need and deserve some measure of security. Take-home pay that lasts

to the end of the month and pensions that fully meet living expenses....

Mr.

Speaker, the placement and the juggling of figures in the budget is of

little interest to the constituents of Surrey and White Rock. I'm being

asked what the government is doing. Why did the government let the

months of last July, last September, last October and November, this

January, this February and this March go by without doing something?

Eight and a half months! They could have been addressing the growing

problems of the eighties instead of this creative bookkeeping and

flimflam political sideshows that we've been seeing down in the B.C.

media centre and other productions masterminded by the TV experts that

you've brought in from elsewhere.

Surrey-White Rock

residents, Mr. Premier, through you, Mr. Speaker, live dead centre in

the fastest-growing area of the province. Yet they're paradoxically

disadvantaged by the many stupidities of the old political games that

have been played not just by politicians but by the small "p"

politicians in the health industry, in the transportation industry, in

the education industry and in the development field. There's not enough

attention from any of our big human services ministries. They're always

behind, and always attempting to catch up. I want to just catch the

attention of the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) here. It's

almost too late, but they're about to embark on a multi-million dollar

community college program. It's almost too late. It should have been

started five years ago.

Mr. Speaker, unemployment is still

the number one issue in my riding. It's still the number one issue in

the province. Unemployment is 25 percent in the forest industry. The

jobless rate for young people is 20.7 percent — one in five. Our

colleges, schools and universities should be turning out bright,

confident young people who will take their place with their skills

utilized, sharpened, honed by experience in a British Columbia and a

Canada that's fulfilling the promise that we — and I include the

Premier in this — as politicians have so easily and so lazily promised

for twenty years.

Instead, Mr. Speaker, the infrastructure

that we should have for those youngsters — and the Minister of Labour

knows what I'm talking about — the secondary industry that should be

the companion to our natural resource extraction, our logging and other

prime industry, is being built using the value-added money that could

and should be ours. It's being built in Malaysia. It's being built in

Taiwan, in Korea and in Thailand. Mr. Speaker, we are fast becoming a

resource-rich colony, storehouse for the aggressive and highly skilled

nations that share the Pacific Rim with us.

I’m no gambler,

Mr. Speaker, but I'd like to wager that the arguments and tensions

about skills and skill shortages that go on between the Minister of

Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich), the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith),

and the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr.

Phillips) are a source of embarrassment to their colleagues and to the

Premier. They've got to be.

I've talked to college

instructors, college directors, board members and so on. We are just

not doing what we should be doing. Recently I attended a briefing and

budget session at Kwantlen College. We learned that the number one

question that industry asks when contemplating locating in B.C., or in

the lower mainland in particular, deals with the supply of skilled

labour, not these other questions you often hear. That's the number one

question that's asked, and we have been kidding ourselves that we think

we can answer a simple yes to it. Mr. Speaker, when we have dealt off

that question with the easy answers, we will continue to kid ourselves

and we will continue to cheat our youngsters of their real future.

are giving our products away. We don't negotiate, we don't market

aggressively and we don't educate or fit our young people with the

appropriate skills. That's why we are destined. as I see it — and this

view is shared by people who do not share my political faith at all,

people on the other side of the political spectrum — to be taken

advantage of. That's why. Mr. Speaker, we will be to Japan and to the

other industrial nations of the Pacific what Africa and India were to

Great Britain and Europe 100 years ago. And that's a dreadfully

sobering thought. If we don't do something about it very, very shortly,

it will be too late to start to do something about it.

can't say that we don't know. You've got the information; the Minister

of Labour has the information; the Minister of Education has got the

information. We can't say we don't know. We can't say you haven't been

there to find out. The cabinet has travelled at taxpayers' expense

further, faster, higher and more often that any other cabinet in

history. So you travel further than Magellan, Marco Polo, Scott of the

Antarctic and the Russian orbiting dog all put together. Let

[ Page 6904 ]

nobody

ever call this lot cheap politicians — they're expensive politicians.

They cost a fortune; $410,000 they cost us last year. I'm not talking

about what they do when they go away; I've not got the figure to

complain about that. Just getting there they spend $410,000 in

travelling expenses in the last year, compared to $220,000 the year

before. That's almost double. For the last year that's just ended six

days ago I anticipate their travelling expenses will probably be in the

$600,000 to $700,000 range. That's $30,000 to $35,000 a year for each

one of the 20 of them to keep them moving around. Now $30,000 to

$35,000 a year for a peripatetic cabinet minister is too much.

Mr.

Speaker, recently the leader of our party offered, through a variety of

proposals, an economic recovery program that would get British Columbia

back to work, and would rearrange the spending priorities that are

giving so much distress in the area of health care in my riding and in

the area of other human services. He offered 26 points, among which was

a plan for the tourist industry. That plan recognized tourism for what

it is: a major generator of external revenue for the province.

the way, Mr. Speaker, it was the New Democratic Party government

between 1972 and 1975 which was the first government to put forward a

statement of policy about tourism. The statement of policy was given to

all members and was widely distributed. It can be found in the records

in the annual report of 1974. Any member can see it here. It is a

one-and-a-half-page document. The trouble with the opposite side is

that they don't really want to know what our government did about

tourism. They prefer to believe their own propaganda. Nevertheless, Mr.

Speaker, ours was the first government that issued a definitive

statement on tourist policy, which we were very proud to do at the

time. The figures in this document, of course, need updating, but the

policy is still good. Curiously enough, it is not too dissimilar to

that which the current minister is actually adhering to.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Based

on that policy, our convention decisions and our wisdom since those

days, some ten or so days ago the Leader of the Opposition, in his

economic recovery program, dealt with a tourist policy — the first

ever, as I say:

"Tourism is a major generator

of external revenue for British Columbia. It's an industry that

requires planning, financial support and cooperation between the

private and public sectors. To provide higher levels of employment and

the creation of new travel enterprises, we propose the establishment of

a tourist development fund which would achieve direct employment

opportunities through planning, upgrading and construction of public

and private tourist facilities. That fund would incorporate current

provincial aid through TIDSA and several other programs. It would

participate in low-interest loans, guarantees and venture capital to

assist B.C. tourist operations. The fund would vigorously pursue

additional federal assistance and provide new provincial money as

detailed below."

It goes on for three pages, which I have here.

The

highlights were to establish that fund, and to deal with the projects

selected through regional boards of industry and community

representatives to ensure non-partisan-decision-making procedures.

Another highlight of the paper was to arrange for an immediate

construction-improvement program for publicly owned facilities such as

campsites, small boat moorages, breakwaters, etc. We estimated that

would provide 1,000 jobs this year. We would commit funds and we would

think that that would be a very sensible thing for this government to

do. Convene cooperative negotiations to make sure that the various

regions of the province make those cooperative and that each one of the

areas has on record in its plans and in its projects a whole catalogue

of development plans — from the East Kootenays, through Lillooet, the

Kettle Valley Railway, Vancouver Island, Lakelse Hot Springs, Salmon

Arm and so on. The list goes on, and each little local area has its

share and its catalogue.

Those are some of the things that

could have been going on. Some of these things we've been discussing

this afternoon should have been going on since last fall. You will

remember, Mr. Speaker, that last November and December we had that

short debate, ended on a rancorous note, when we were sent home after

dancing at the ball and picking up a paycheque. I don't think that was

working for the interest of the people. If there is any merit at all in

that which was presented by the Minister of Finance yesterday, if there

is any merit at all in any of the programs the Premier has announced in

the last two weeks, why weren't they doing them in November? What was

wrong? Why weren't we working then? We knew what the figures were. This

isn't a new crisis we're in. This isn't a new discovery. We've known

what was going on. The Minister of Finance has been telling us what's

been going on. What I think makes this whole exercise so annoying to

those people in the public and private sectors, in the business

community, is to see laziness instead of dealing with the problem.

the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) said, government itself is big

business. Government can't take a laissez-faire attitude; they can't

sit back and wait and see. They've got to take a leadership role in any

solutions that are going to help the growing lists of unemployed, the

growing numbers of people who are distressed. Instead of all those

wasted months that I've read out, if there is any merit in the

government's position, we should have begun. Instead, we got this idle

response yesterday.

In 1981, Mr. Speaker, when you sent me

that telegram after four months of adjournment only to be followed

seven days later by another adjournment, that was the time to have been

working. Mr. Speaker, this attempt to mislead is reflected in the

deliberate padding of resource revenue, this deceptive budget. Mr.

Lanskail himself has said today that a 25 percent increase in revenues

is too optimistic. Already the people are looking at that budget and

realizing that it's an exercise in creative mathematics.

The

budget of juggled figures will not do. Nor will committees of cabinet

ministers or renamed stabilization funds. That's Ontario style, not

B.C. style. That won't wash here. What's needed is for you, Mr.

Premier, to take the people of B.C. into your confidence, to produce

the kind of programs that my leader announced ten days ago. I think we

can get B.C. going again, and I think we can put in some muscle and

some effort and some leadership to lead this province back into the

proper days that it should be enjoying.

MR. SEGARTY:

I take my place today, Mr. Speaker, in support of the budget brought

down yesterday by the hon. Minister of Finance. I do so with mixed

feelings; not mixed feelings about the outstanding budget itself,

delivered by the

[ Page 6905 ]

Minister,

but feelings mixed with sorrow for the outrageous display of

partisanship displayed here yesterday by the opposition. It robbed the

people of this province of the opportunity to see and hear one of the

most important pieces of public business that we will see this year. It

is a right, Mr. Speaker, that has developed over the past decade in

response to the people of British Columbia and their desire to become

more involved in the democratic system.

This incredible

ill-manned assault on our Speaker, our Clerks, who are servants of our

House, and our professional public servants, is a bitter and an

ill-conceived ploy of the pettiest political partisanship. It was in

that respect a sad day for democracy in British Columbia, as those who

have been seconded by your office, Mr. Speaker, were also the subject

of abuse and innuendo. I know that the people of British Columbia will

not forget who pulled the plug on democracy in British Columbia

yesterday.

Earlier this year, the Premier of British

Columbia made a special appearance on television to announce a

comprehensive and far-seeing program of government restraint. It was a

bold and imaginative step towards dealing with the economic problems

that are causing so much hardship and distress here in British Columbia

and across the Canadian nation.

In announcing his program,

the Premier showed very clearly that the government of British Columbia

is ready to shoulder its share of the heavy burden of these difficult

times placed on each and every one of us.

As you know, senior salaries in the public sector have been frozen

and guidelines of 10 percent have been placed on all other positions. A

built-in flexibility recognizes special need factors such as guild

trade shortages, productivity and historical relationships. Working

people in British Columbia in the private industry and small business

are already bearing the heavy burden of restraint that these difficult

times have brought on us, brought on by massive federal government

debts. Too many are without jobs and the livelihoods of many more hang

in the balance. Government had to take strong action, Mr. Speaker, to protect the private sector from the rapid escalating costs

of many important government services and programs.

Today one dollar in five produced in our province is spent in the provincial

public sector. The province's Crown corporations, school boards, hospitals

and others employ one in six of our people. The challenge therefore was to bring

the ever-rising cost of government under control without imposing mass layoffs

on public-sector employees. To keep as many people working as possible a ceiling

on government spending and government pay increases had to be set. Those ceilings

are as realistic as they are flexible. A 12 percent ceiling will be applied

in a flexible manner, taking into account special needs.

This

is not a band-aid nor is it a quick fix. It is a difficult compromise,

but one that can provide the people of British Columbia with the

quality of life that they expect and one that will safeguard our

capacity to sustain that quality of life in the future.

The

challenges are enormous and demanding, Mr. Speaker, and courageous

action is needed to bring British Columbia back to a level of

prosperity that we enjoyed less than a year ago. It will be a long

uphill struggle, let us not make any mistake about that; it will be a

struggle that will take the combined efforts of each and every one of

us if we're to win through to the end. It is a conflict that we didn't

start, waged against an enemy we didn't seek, thrust upon us by a

variety of circumstances, but one that we cannot and must not lose. It

is a battle from which there can be no retreat. The battles of life are

never fought by choice, and we have no choice but to fight this battle

to a successful conclusion.

Although we have never before

been called upon, Mr. Speaker, to face such a merciless adversary, no

province in Canada is more ready to enter the fray, no people more

determined to win the fight. Their future and the safe, secure future

of our children and those who come after us is at stake. When the fight

is over and we have conquered inflation and high interest rates, the

people of Canada will say to us that we were the first and that British

Columbia showed the way. Peace, economic security and stability have

always commanded a high price, and in the past Canadians have always

been prepared to pay that price. We are ready to pay it now, for pay it

we must, so that we don't have to have much higher prices in years to

come. This battle is for our future; it is for the future of our

province. It has to be fought and won, for the alternatives are

unthinkable.

In every corner of British Columbia the

government of British Columbia has joined hands with industry and

working people to build a strong and prosperous economic base. It is a

base on which we continue to build communities in which each and every

one of us can fulfill our aspirations through our combined efforts.

the northeast and southeast of British Columbia massive coal

development projects are turning untapped resource potential into a new

era of growth and tremendous opportunity for our province and our

people. The northeast and southeast coalfields will provide permanent

job opportunities for thousands of British Columbians to apply their

energy and to grow with our province. The new townsites of Tumbler

Ridge, Sparwood and Elkford, and the expanded townsite of Fernie, will

actually be the home for thousands of British Columbians, providing

schools for their children, services for their needs, facilities for

their enjoyment and opportunities for their families to grow and work

together.

By 1990, Mr. Speaker, we expect to be exporting

from southeastern British Columbia alone 28 million tonnes of coal per

year, creating thousands of job opportunities and providing an

ever-rising standard of living for our strong and vibrant communities.

In 1981 coal export contributed $1 billion to the British Columbian and

Canadian economy. To provide facilities to handle the increased

productivities from our industries, major expansions are underway. The

hands in developing port facilities on an enormous scale. In the

northwest corner of British Columbia the $290 million Ridley Island

development will handle millions of dollars of exports each year,

linking the rich farmland of Canada's western provinces with the

mineral, forest, petrochemical and resource wealth of our northern

provinces and with the vital Pacific Rim markets. To handle the growing

production pouring through from southeastern British Columbia, a $47

million Roberts Bank port facility is currently underway that will

double our capacity to export coal in the next few years, and that's

nearing completion. But unless our rail network can continue to deliver

the products of our industries to our coastal ports, our efforts will

be useless.

It is absolutely critical that our industries

are not restricted by a perverse system of railway freight rates.

Potash, coal and lumber can no longer continue to subsidize grain

exports from our prairie provinces to the Soviet Union. While grain

growers in our prairie provinces are paying 20 percent

[ Page 6906 ]

the transportation of grain under the archaic Crowsnest Pass agreement,

other users are paying $15.25 a tonne and are frustrated by the

inadequate facilities.

I would expect, Mr. Speaker, that all

of those members of the New Democratic Party who are elected from the

province of British Columbia and serve in the House of Commons would

British Columbia in their initiative to rationalize the railroad

system. Instead they have formed an alliance with the NDP governments

of Saskatchewan and Manitoba and supported their ridiculous position.

Working British Columbians should remember that in the next federal

election. When that comes around they should fire those members of the

New Democratic Party for not standing up in support of the job security

of thousands of British Columbia workers in the resource and

transportation industries. The losses to our railroad system resulting

from the transportation of grain under the archaic Crowsnest agreement

will be $2.4 billion over the next four years — $2.4 billion of

Canadian taxpayers' money to subsidize grain exports to the Soviet

Union. And those ships, Mr. Leader of the Opposition, are not built in

Canada, nor are they manned by Canadian crews. That money, Mr. Speaker,

should be spent in providing jobs for Canadian workers by developing

automated traffic-control systems, special rolling stocks and extensive

double tracking of our railroad system. All users of our rail system

must share equitably in the immediate task of expanding our western

railroad capacity to meet the heavy demands of our growing western

economic base. And I fully support, along with the government of

our western railroad system.

This is the only way that we

can be certain of our ability to get our products to market and secure

the thousands of jobs for British Columbians, particularly in the

resource industry in southeastern British Columbia. We must provide the

leadership and vision today. We cannot place tomorrow in the hands of

those who would be content to stand still. We cannot turn our destiny

over to those who would wait and see and advocate hesitancy as though

it were the answer to everything. We cannot entrust our fate to the

fearful and the weak, to the self-serving or to those members of the

New Democratic Party whose only philosophy appears to be "to hell with

them," or "we will bring this province to its knees," or those NDP

members who would tell the employer community in British Columbia to go

to hell or who would go around this province talking to small business

people. They accused them in this Legislature last year of fiddling the

books. The future belongs to those who are bold and imaginative and

have the courage to take opportunity in both hands and shape this

country as far as they can for the common good of all Canadians. The

future belongs to those with the foresight to recognize the problems,

the wisdom to see the solutions and the dedication and leadership drive

necessary to implement them. We must plan ahead to maintain the growth

of our province, particularly our great forest industry. While the

slump in our foreign markets has brought our forest production to 45

percent capacity, we are now looking beyond the present and building up

a resource for future British Columbians. A total of $1.4 billion will

be spent over the next couple of years to ensure that British

Columbia's future is secure for those who follow us.

We have an obligation to make certain that future British Columbians will benefit

from what we do today. The security of our province can only be assured

if we don't depend so heavily on those resource industries that are subject

to forces outside our control. Our government has been working hard trying to

diversify our economic base and they will continue to do so in the next few

encouraged secondary industry under the travel industry subsidiary agreement.

This has created thousands of jobs since 1978 and we have spent $38 million.

In many cases these are jobs for our young, our inexperienced and those who

have relatively few skills to rely upon.

The

British Columbia Development Corporation is developing grassroots

participation by individuals through regional economic development. In

Delta a new jet engine overhaul plant will employ 400 people and on

completion will employ 1,000 people. This plant has been established by

Canadian Pacific Airlines in cooperation with the British Columbia

Development Corporation. In Kitimat a new methanol plant has been

established, and other petrochemical products are being actively

considered. Our young people will share in the future economic growth

of our province, Mr. Speaker.

The Ministry of Labour and

Manpower are taking steps to develop and enrich apprenticeship training

programs in British Columbia. In January 1980 there were 13,800

indentured apprentices in the province of British Columbia. This year

that number has already risen to 19,000 participants. These are

particularly in the trade skills of heavy-duty mechanics, millwrights,

carpenters, electricians, plumbers and automobile mechanics. This

growing opportunity continues to improve the lifestyle and raise the

standard of living for thousands of young British Columbians.

Many

indicators of our economic performance point with optimism to our

province. British Columbians continue to be the best-housed people in

all of Canada. In 1981, Mr. Speaker, British Columbia had only 11.3

percent of Canada'a total population, but 23.4 percent of all housing

starts in the Canadian nation took place right here in British

Columbia. Current plans for a profit-making B.C. Place will add an

additional stock of 12,000 housing units in the lower mainland.

The

time for growth and expansion is not far off and we are on the

threshold of a great new future for our people. It is time now for

direct action. This is not a time for hesitancy. There is no security

in evasion, members of the opposition. This is not a time for

irresponsibility, or for saying "To hell with them," or threatening to

bring this province to its knees. That might get you guys a headline

today, but it doesn't do a darn thing toward paying next week's family

food bill. This is not a time, members of the opposition, for looking

the other way. Problems don't simply disappear just because they're

ignored. This is not a time for digging in your feet.

If the

necessary steps are taken now, promptly and decisively, we can avoid

sliding backwards into a bottomless pit of inflation and deficit

financing. You don't get a triple-A credit rating — the highest credit

rating available in North America — by turning off investments,

encouraging huge debts and generally discouraging the provincial

economy. It takes sound financial planning and the courage and

leadership necessary to carry it out. This is a time for boldness and

determination, boldness in the action we take in the next few months

and the determination to do what we must together to achieve our goals.

This is a time to squarely face that which lies ahead and to deal with

the difficulties that confront all of us.

[ Page 6907 ]

Oh,

yes, we have heard those members of the opposition call the restraint

program a heartless program. We see those few political leaders in the

teaching profession, who are out of the mainstream of teachers, use

their membership in the New Democratic Party to stage protest rallies

because they claim we're cutting back on education. In some instances

school boards throughout the province have asked for 47 percent

increases. They get a 12 percent increase and they call that a cutback.

Do they not realize that all those programs — programs such as health

care, such as education, human resources, those beautiful colleges we

see in every region, those attractive schools we see in every community

of this province, revenue-sharing to assist municipalities, infant

development programs, the ferries that connect the Island to the

mainland, our highway system — were not provided from the profits of

government, but were provided by the hard work of British Columbians

who are willing to take up the pick and shovel and do a hard day's

work? Do they not realize that those working British Columbians in the

private sector and in the small business community of our province are

under the most brutal of mortgage restraints? In many cases they are

without jobs at all, and others are considering rolling back their

incomes in order to keep their employers solvent. In direct contrast,

those teachers and public servants enjoy a high degree of job security

unknown to anyone in the private sector. Do they not realize that

governments have no money of their own, that they can only pay out what

they take in in taxes and other revenue?

This is a time, Mr. Speaker, for putting aside our self-serving goals. It's

a time for the realization that, whatever our personal and political beliefs,

we must all work together to ensure the future prosperity of our province. People

working together with courage and determination can accomplish their goals.

Don't they realize that the enemy is inflation and high interest rates,

and that strong leadership and sound fiscal management are the only answer to

this very serious problem?

I predict, Mr. Speaker, that the rate of inflation will decline in British

Columbia by 3 percent this year and by 2 percent the following year. This will

strengthen the purchasing power of our wages and salaries, protect people

on fixed incomes, increase the standard of living for British Columbians and

protect British Columbia's stability and security. In these times of economic

troubles throughout the world we must be very cautious and prudent, and not

incur debts that will burden us for years to come. Such ill advice that would

come from the leader of the opposition would hold us back when we should be

striding forward.

We need only look at the sorry state of the federal government to see where

mismanagement and carelessness can lead us down through the years. As a nation,

Canada is almost $135 billion in debt, which is $4,900 for every man, woman

and child in this country. Last year 22 percent of federal government spending

went to service the national debt. That's $614 for every man, woman and

child in our country, $15 billion each year just to serve the interest on that

debt. This money should be spent providing jobs for Canadian workers, education

for our children and security for our senior citizens. The annual deficit this

year alone at the rate of $16.7 billion is the equivalent of over 500,000 jobs

for Canadian workers. While other provincial governments have followed the philosophy

party opposite when they were in government, our government continues to pay

its way as it goes without asking future generations of British Columbians to

foot the bills.

Rather

than costing us everything, this position encourages investors to turn

to British Columbia to help us build a strong and prosperous economic

base. Since 1979 new investment and economic expansion has resulted in

an increase of our employed labour force in the amount of 118,000

workers. British Columbia, with only 11.3 percent of Canada's

population, created over 20 percent of the jobs in Canada last year.

British

Columbia continues to be a province of opportunity for Canadians. But

to maintain our fortunate position we must work together. There are

some in this province who will be willing to jeopardize our future for

their own personal gain and to protect an antiquated and failed

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

Those

who would obstruct our efforts to equitably evolve a system of fairness

to all British Columbians are leading us down the garden path to social

disintegration. We need only look at other countries throughout the

world and see what happens when countries turn upon themselves and tear

themselves apart. Our greatest strength as Canadians is in our ability

to work together, to reason, to compromise and work with a sense of

solidarity and a commitment to our common goals. We must continue

together with one another and with other Canadians to maintain that

commitment so that we may work out our differences with integrity, with

tolerance and with mutual respect.

British Columbia faces

great challenges, greater than any it has faced before in the history

of our nation. We must continue to grow while protecting our unique

western lifestyle, preserving the beauty of our natural environment,

developing new energy resources without paying a massive price in terms

of our wilderness. We must continue to be leaders in human rights, both

in the attainment of our social goals and as an example for the rest of

our country. We must continue to integrate those groups in our society

who have been excluded from the central role of our prosperity and

decision-making, our educational institutions and our social

institutions.

The majority of our population are women, and

their potential must be fully recognized and included at every level of

top priority in tapping the energy and creativity of our people. We

must work together, focusing our energy and creativity so that all

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

of future prosperity. The pride, satisfaction and achievement and

contentment that goes with the accomplishments should be our common

aim. I know that we can reach beyond the jealousies and doubts that

sometimes divide us. The pursuit of strength, progress and peaceful

change that comes from independent judgment, shared ideas and the

courage to turn them into reality is not beyond us.

To be

courageous requires no magic formula, no special combination of time,

place or circumstances. Opportunities to be courageous, when courage is

needed, come to all of us more than once in our lifetime. How we use

those opportunities, the courage we display on those occasions, becomes

the true measure of all of us. The courage and initiative shown by our

Premier in the program of restraint is a true measure of a leader.

should now, from one end of this country to the other, fall in solidly

behind our Premier and do what we have to do to preserve our future. We

know it can be done and we know

[ Page 6908 ]

how to do it. Now is the time for British Columbians to show the rest of Canada that it can be done and that we are doing it.

You've

all heard the old proverb that says a journey of a thousand miles

begins with a single step. Let history record today that we in British

Columbia, under the leadership of our Premier, began that journey and

that we're taking that step together.

Mr. Speaker, I support the budget.

MR. LEA:

Mr. Speaker, I don't think we have to elaborate too much on the cooking

of the books. It's pretty obvious to us now that that's what's been

done. Once again it's the old Social Credit flimflam: overestimate the

revenues and underestimate the expenditures. When you look at the way

the books have been cooked, you can't help but think of the word

"deceit." And when you look at deceit, you can't help but feel despair.

The people in this province must be sick to their stomachs, and real

Social Crediters must be turning over in their graves.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: I thought I saw you the other day in "Quest for Fire."

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. LEA: Oh, I've aroused the beast in Jack. Mr. Speaker, that's about all there is to him.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Order, please, hon. members. Again I would caution members on both

sides of the House that parliamentary language is to be observed at all

times during our debate; it makes for an orderly House and the

effective use of getting across our respective points. Also, if we

address the Chair it does help in the debate.

MR. LEA:

Today we're addressing the sixth budget in a row that has not been

balanced. For the first three years after the re-election of Social

Credit, we had surplus budgets. That doesn't mean that they were

balanced; that means that they were surplus budgets. In other words,

the Social Credit government took more out of the economy than they

spent in the economy; they took more money from the people of this

province than they intended to spend in the current fiscal year in

which they were applying their budget. For the past three years we've

had deficit budgets. There hasn't been one year of a balanced budget in

the six years that this government has been in office — not one.

What

are they doing this year? They're throwing their hands up in despair

and they're saying: "You know, there's really nothing we can do about

it. It's outside forces. It's the international marketplace. It's the

international demand. It's international money. And here we are, poor

little British Columbians who can't do a thing about it." Nothing,

except reach into their pockets to get some rainy-day money. But we

have to ask whose money it was — that rainy-day money that they're

pulling out. It's the money that they took out of our pockets through

excess taxation for three years in a row —1976, 1977 and 1978.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: My leader wouldn't either, Mr. Member.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: No, he wouldn't.

Interjection.

MR. LEA:

There's a minister who has committed taxpayers' money in the hundreds

of millions to northeast coal, and he says: "By gosh, I think this year

we're going to get the last rite of the cost-benefit analysis." After

we've spent money, after we've committed money, the minister says: "Now

we're going to give you the cost-benefit analysis." It's not finished

yet.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You announced it in 1975 and didn't have any studies done.

MR. LEA:

In other words, the minister is admitting he is wrong, but he says:

"You did it too. I'm wrong but if you did it too, it's all right for

me." Is that right, Mr. Minister? That minister doesn't know the first

thing about economics. He may know how to kick a tire on a used car,

but that's about the extent of it; then he'd buy it if the tires were

flat, because it's a Datsun. That minister has been hoodwinked more by

the Japanese than Pearl Harbor in the Second World War. He's been

hoodwinked from one end to the other of the international marketplace,

and then he comes back in here and says: "Look, now we've committed

ourselves, now we're spending all the money, we're going to have a

cost-benefit analysis, maybe next year."

Let's take a

serious look at our economy and see what's been happening, not only for

the last six years but for all of the years that Social Credit has been

the government in this province; 20 years from 1952 to 1972, and now

for another six years. We have been a province that has not managed

resources wisely.

I'd like to share with the House some

meetings to do with the timber supply analysis studies done by the

Ministry of Forests, meetings I attended on the Queen Charlotte Islands

not long ago.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you have them with you?

MR. LEA: Yes, I do have them with me.

There

are 33 timber supply areas in this province. Thirty one of them have

been approved for new allowable cuts. The thirty-second, which is on

the Queen Charlotte Islands, is being put to the people now in public

hearings. The chief forester will soon be making his annual allowable

cut in regard to the Prince Rupert timber supply area. He'll be making

one more after that in the riding of the member for Atlin (Mr.

Passarell) up near Cassiar. The Forest Service said: "Here's what's

happening. Within 30 years, there's going to be a complete falldown in

the timber supply area on the Queen Charlotte Islands. We're going to

go from 580,000 cunits a year down to 233,000 which will be sustained

by natural regeneration. But don't worry, because there will be two

things that will make it all right. One is that we are supposing that

over the next few years there are going to be great advances in

technology, which means that we can go after some of those areas that

are environmentally sensitive now with our current technology." That's

fine, and they're probably correct, but they said: "The real thrust

that makes it all right to keep cutting the same annual allowable cut

that we're doing now is the fact that the government of British

[ Page 6909 ]

Columbia

is going to be putting money into a reforestation program. If they

weren't going to do that, we could not continue with the annual

allowable cut that we're cutting now."

What do we see when

we come into this Legislature? The whole guts cut out of the

reforestation program. In other words, those annual allowable cuts are

a sham, because there is no reforestation program that this

government's going to carry out. As a matter of fact, they're

cancelling the money and the program and are cutting the guts out of it

altogether. Yet 31 of those timber supply areas have already been

approved with annual allowable cuts based on the fact that we were

going to have a reforestation program, and now we haven't.

Shouldn't

every one of those tree-farm licences be opened up? Shouldn't every

timber supply area be opened up for public scrutiny again, in light of

the fact that we have no reforestation program? The answer is yes. The

people of this province were hoodwinked by a government that went out

and sold annual allowable cuts to our forest industry based on the fact

that there was going to be a reforestation program that is no longer

there. Do we not deserve better than that from a government that says

they're going to work for the people and for the economics of this

province? There isn't anyone in here that would say that that makes any

sense, regardless of what side of the House, except maybe the Minister

of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland), the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr.

Curtis) and the Premier. They must have been the ones who decided to

cut out the reforestation program.

AN HON. MEMBER: They were told to cut it out.

MR. LEA: Told to cut it out by whom?

AN HON. MEMBER: Fraser.

MR. LEA: Probably, because he doesn't understand anything about the economics of this province.

The

Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) said that the member for

Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea), the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) and the

standing committee on small business were really trying to fool the

people because they used the Legislative logo on the letters they wrote

to them. Is there any member of this House who doesn't use the

Legislative emblem on the paper he sends out when writing to the people

of this province? We all do.

As a matter of fact, I got the

word to the member that he could sit and listen to the problems of the

small business community in his area, but he didn't show up.

I'd like to share with you a few of the things that the small business community did say to us in those public hearings.

AN HON. MEMBER: There weren't enough people there to have a crowd.

AN HON. MEMBER: How do you know?

MR. LEA:

Because he sent one of his fascists out to keep an eye on us. It was

probably a good personal friend. Why not? Birds of a feather.

Where

have we been going wrong in previous budgets, and where are we going

wrong today? We're going wrong in the fact that every budget that this

minister has brought in has been a budget to deal only with the

problems of today and never for the future of this province.

you know how much money we spent last year out of government revenues

in research and development to look for new jobs, to look for new

products that we can put into the marketplace of the world and

therefore increase our economy? Yes, we believe in balanced budgeting

also, but with one small difference. We believe that the economy should

grow so that new revenues can come in and we can balance the budget

that way. We don't believe that you just let the economy go to blazes,

don't look at research and development, don't worry about bringing new

products on, don't look at new marketing schemes for selling those products

in the world, but just literally tax the present economy into the

ground. That's what they've done. They have persistently and

consistently over six years taxed the British Columbia economy right

into the ground — user fees, tax fees, everything increased. You know,

they've now got the gall to come in here and say that they've actually

managed the economy!

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

They've

managed to put the economy down into the doldrums and ruin the hopes

and the aspirations of every business person and every working person

in this province. That's why they're in despair, Mr. Speaker. They

realize in their hearts and in their guts that this government doesn't

care about the future. They only care about the future as long as it

pertains to the next provincial election. That's all. That's all they

care about. They don't care whether the future has more jobs for our

children and our children's children; all they care about is whether

they have jobs for themselves and jobs for their friends. That's all

they've ever cared about.

AN HON. MEMBER: From Toronto.

MR. LEA:

Well, those are their friends from Ontario, from the Big Blue Machine.

I heard there was a deal, Mr. Speaker. I heard that Mr. Davis in

Ontario would supply people from the blue machine to Mr. Bennett if Mr.

Bennett delivered the Conservative vote to Mr. Davis when he runs

federally. I don't know if there's any truth in that. Mr. Speaker, can

you imagine the hardship visited on Mr. Kinsella, the personal

secretary to the Premier? Mr. Kinsella, I'm afraid, is going to have to

live on his $65,000. There's no raise! Sixty-five thousand a year is

all he's going to get. That's restraint, boy! That's the kind of

restraint that most people in this province would like to live with.

They'd like to have $65,000 a year frozen.

What else did

they do, Mr. Speaker, with their little restraint program that the

Premier announced with no program? After the teachers had received

their raise, they are now going to freeze school budgets. You can't

pull back the raise, because that's not in the terms of the agreement.

So where is the school budget going to have to cut back? Not in wages

to teachers, as they would have you believe, but in programs to

students. Programs to students is the only area that the school boards

have to cut back in.

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of

things that are needed if the future is going to belong to us. Number

one, we have to look at some way of adding more wealth to the raw

resources that we take from British Columbia before we ship them to the

international marketplace. If we don't do that, there is no future. If

Ronald Reagan could wave that magic wand around and all of a sudden

housing starts were magically up in the United States and the whole

British Columbia economy

[ Page 6910 ]

kicked into high gear, there wouldn't be enough jobs to go around.

The

economy that we could get from our industrial complex running at full

tilt would not supply enough jobs for the people of this province. In

other words, we'd still have a great many unemployed and we'd still

have a great many small businesses in jeopardy. So what can we do?

Last

year, out of a budget of close to $7 billion, this government spent a

paltry $8.1 million on research and development — money spent to look

for new, innovative methods to bring new products onstream for new

markets. They spent $8.1 million out of almost $7 billion. Mr. Speaker,

that's not good enough.

If we are going to go into the

international marketplace and compete, we then have to take a look at

bringing new products on and new marketing procedures so that we can

sell those new products plus the old products in a wider range than we

have in the past. What has this government done about that, Mr.

Speaker? They haven't done a thing.

They've taxed us. What

have they done in terms of the intermediate and small business

community? They have done nothing. They have taxed them. You know, it

isn't from the giant companies that innovation comes. It isn't from

giant companies that we can see new, innovative products coming

onstream; it's from those small struggling intermediate companies that

are clawing at the edges to try and exist around the edge of those

large companies.

It wasn't Chrysler, it wasn't General

Motors and it wasn't Ford that came out with a better engine in terms

of non-pollution. It was a small motorcycle manufacturer by the name of

Honda. Don't look for innovation from Macmillan Bloedel. You could look

for some from Doman. You can look for innovation from the small and

intermediate businesses in this province that will bring on new

products if given the chance. But how can they do it when they've been

taxed to death by a government that's only concerned about its own

welfare and its own destiny, not the destiny of this province?

Mr.

Speaker, you know and the members opposite know that I'm speaking the

truth, that the only healthy balanced budget is one that is balanced by

a growing economy putting new products into the market and selling

those products in an aggressive and meaningful way. That's the only way

that we're ever going to balance the budget and do it in a healthy,

economic way. You cannot balance the budget by taxing the current

economy to death and hoping that you can balance your government books

when the economic books of the province are thrown completely out of

kilter. That is what this government's done. They haven't paid one

minute of attention to what's happening in the small business community

in this province or in the medium-sized businesses of this province.

They have concerned themselves with what they call megaprojects.

I think it would pay the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development

(Hon. Mr. Phillips) to take a look at the history of megaprojects and exactly

what those megaprojects have done for regional economies. At one time in Prince

George, when there were more than 300 of what they called gyppo logging projects

around Prince George, each and every one of those gyppo logging outfits bought

their supplies and their needs from the residents and the community and the

small businesses of Prince George. Megaprojects? The people who deal in megaprojects,

those giant corporations, don't buy locally. They buy from their subsidiaries

somewhere else, indeed, if they aren't subsidiaries themselves. They are

not the greatest thing in the world for a regional economy. Through experience

we are learning that that's not the way to go.

a matter of fact, when the entire western world is starting to take a

look at the centralized economy that we have with some worry — I think

with well-grounded worry — when the whole world is taking a look at a

decentralized economic system and a decentralized system of government,

this government is going to a centralized system more and more and

more. More of the decisions that were made at one time at the local

level are now coming into this province's capital to be made by a small

group of people we call cabinet. More and more and more we see the

industrial and economic decisions that were once made at the local

level being made further and further away from the local area — in New

York, in Japan, all over the world, eastern Canada. As we see those

local decisions in our own economy slipping away from us, we also see

local government decisions slipping away from us into either Victoria

or into Ottawa. A government that says they are for the people, that

they want the people in this province to make the decisions that affect

them.... This government has gone exactly the other way around, in

terms of schools, in terms of municipalities, in terms of regional

districts. Every one of those areas has had powers taken from them and

transferred into the cabinet rooms in Victoria. Economically they have

gone the same way. They have systematically gone out to destroy the

small business community and the medium-sized business community.

Mr.

Speaker, you don't have to take my word for it. If the member for

Boundary-Similkameen (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) had come on those public

hearings with us, he would have heard the small business community in

this province saying exactly what I'm saying. You know, they didn't

come in there and say: "We're in love with the NDP." They have some

misgivings about our party. But, you know, they have some misgivings

about you. At one time they assumed that you were on their side. Now

they know very well you're not. They say to us: "Our big worry with you

as the NDP is that we see you involved with big unions, and we don't

really like that." I am being honest with what those people said to us.

They said: "Now we see Social Credit on the side of big business and we

don't like that." They feel like they're between the devil and the deep

blue sea. They don't feel they have a friend in government. Let me tell

you they don't. They have a friend in the opposition, but they don't

have a friend in government.

The small business community

and the medium-sized business community said that no more are they

going to assume that Social Credit is on their side. What they are

going to do is to take a look at the policies of both major parties in

this province and for the first time they're not going to be voting

with an assumption, they're going to be voting with the party with the

best policy for them. We've got it, and the small business community is

starting to understand that we've got it. What I can't understand is

someone like the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development

(Hon. Mr. Phillips), himself a small businessman, who has forsaken the

very place that he comes from in favour of playing toady to the large

corporate world. The Premier — his background is small business — is

himself playing toady to the big corporate giants in North America and

around the world. This has to be the most toady government I've ever

seen. One person described them as the willing messengers of the large

corporate world, and they're stumbling all over themselves to deliver

the message. It's true. There's not one thing in this

[ Page 6911 ]

budget

that would help the small business community in the dire straits

they're in, not one. But take a look at the NDP policy, Mr. Speaker.

They

come in, this government, and they say: "Do you know what we're going

to do? We're going to tax the chartered banks another $50 million in

British Columbia." Big deal! When small business people and citizens

are losing their houses and losing their businesses, this is not the

time to worry about whether we're charging the banks enough; this is

the time to worry about whether the banks are charging us too much.

There's not one word in the budget about that. No, they won't bring in

a program to stop the banks from coming in and taking our homes and

businesses. Do you know why? They did it in Saskatchewan and Manitoba,

and they'd rather die than do anything that the NDP has done anywhere.

They'd rather have us lose our houses and businesses than follow a

program brought in by the New Democratic Party, no matter where.

Look what they did with the Marguerite .

They didn't examine it to see whether it was a good, strong thing for

Victoria, for Vancouver Island and for the tourist business. They

cancelled it because the New Democratic Party had started it, and they

had to swallow it, because they made a stupid, arrogant, political

mistake. They've had to eat it like they've eaten crow on so many

things. Mind you, Mr. Speaker, they're going to eat crow on this

budget, because it is not a budget for the future; it's a retrenchment

budget. It's a budget that says: "Let's hope the world solves our

problems, because there is nothing we can do. Let's take our money out

of the bank; let's put it into current expenditures and hope that Mr.

Reagan's high interest policy solves all our problems." Is it going to?

AN HON. MEMBER: No way.

MR. LEA:

You're right, and that's what your waiting for? You're waiting for

Reagan's program to solve our problems? That's what the Minister of

Finance said, right on page 2.

AN HON. MEMBER: Say it again.

MR. LEA:

I don't have to say it again; the people in this province are going to

be saying it again. The people of this province know what this budget

is about. I only have one regret: if I had known it was as lousy as it

was, I would have let them televise the damn thing — editing and all.

Even with the editing they couldn't clean up this piece of flimflam.

This is the flimflam budget of all time.

Mr. Speaker, since

the last time we were in this House discussing a budget, they have

raised user fees and other taxation measures by $450 million, and it

doesn't show up in this document. But we're paying it on one of the

beauties of all time, Mr. Speaker. They said: "You know, we've got

water flowing down to the sea. It's just being wasted. Now, what if we

were to charge them a bit more for the water? You know, we can't just

have water running freely down to the sea, there is a charge for it,

you know. It costs money to have water running down riverways. As a

matter of fact, we should raise it up to the world price for oil."

That's what the minister said. Now, when a minister is confused about

the look of water and the look of oil, you've got to be worried about

what else he's confused about. He can't tell the difference between oil

and water. What is that he puts on his hair — on both sides? Oil or

water?

Mr. Speaker, what a sham. We're actually going to

charge B.C. Hydro another $100 million rather than let it slip into the

ocean unpaid for. And what are we going to do? We're going to tack the

$100 million onto people's hydro bills. Every time you turn a light

switch on, every time you turn on a machine of industry, we're going to

pay for it through the consumer end — a hundred million bucks, because

they can't tell the difference between oil and water.

MR. COCKE: Bob Bonner noticed that too yesterday.

MR. LEA: I'm sure Mr. Bonner noticed that yesterday; he's taking the flak for for a stupid decision by this government.

Mr. Speaker, you watch television and you see them out at the physiotherapy

unit for children who have real physical problems. They showed the problems

that they were having, because of the funding from government, keeping this

place running to help those children. Quick edit and flash, over to the Minister

of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen), and he said: "Well, you know, that's

what restraint's all about. Sure, people want to maintain programs and start

new programs, but that's not restraint. Flash — back to the hospital, and

there are those poor children struggling to learn how to cope. Some of them

are even just struggling to learn how to physically move from one place to another,

and it's hard for those children to understand that that's just the

nature of restraint.

Hydro bills are up and spending to help the physically disabled — even children — is

down, and they tell us: "Well, you stupid fools, don't you understand?

That's what restraint is all about. There's no reason why the child has

to crawl from this place over to there; he can just stay where he is."

So he may never learn to walk, but, as the Minister of Health says:

"You dummies, don't you know that's restraint?" Then they have the gall

to come into this House and actually be proud of what they've done.

After raising the taxes, licence fees and user fees for the elderly and

for children who have to learn how just to even move, they've started

charging us for water going down to the sea, and they come in here and

say: "Gee, aren't we so economically wise. We're going to balance the

budget." After they soaked us for a year on every imaginable thing that

they could think of, they come in here and say, "Well, there's no taxes

this year. Oh, by the way, there's nothing we can do about the economy,

but we're going to wait until about the middle of the year, and if

Ronald Reagan's high interest rates really work, then we're going to

have some more houses to build in the States and our markets will pick

up and our economy will be buoyant."

At the same time, out

of the other side of their mouth, they say that Trudeau is nuts for

allowing high interest rates. Well, we've always suspected the mental

prowess of the Prime Minister when it comes to economics, but why is

Trudeau wrong and Reagan right? How can that be? How can they praise

Thatcher and Reagan for their economic programs and condemn Pierre

Elliott Trudeau for exactly the same kind of program?

MR. HOWARD: It's called schizophrenia.

MR. LEA:

Well, I don't know whether they'll have any place to go. They may have

cut the funding to those places where they can deal with schizophrenia.

I know that there are 19 new people who should maybe take a look at

those kinds of places, and I think they're all called "honourable" —

even outside the House.

[ Page 6912 ]

Mr.

Speaker, they aren't proud of this government. They aren't proud of

this budget. Down where they live, they're sick in their stomachs from

a budget that hurts people, but they'll put that aside because their

own political hides mean more to them than the people or the business

people in this province. All they care about is themselves. I don't

think it could have been said better than by the ex-honourable Phil

Gaglardi when he said: "My friends, it's greed that makes the world

turn around." It's their credo. They are a self-interested group who

believe that greed is the order of the day. They've brought in a budget

to prove it, and what they left out of the budget were the most unfair

taxes of all. They didn't have the nerve to put those in. They thought

that we and the people of British Columbia would forget that they're

cutting off funds so that small children can learn how to walk. They

thought that we'd forget that the Minister of Finance can't tell the

difference between oil and water.

Can you give me one good

reason why we should charge ourselves the same price for water that the

Arabs charge us for oil? Is there one smidgen of common sense that

could tell us why we charge ourselves the same for British Columbia

water that OPEC countries charge us for oil? It's called deceit, and it

leads to despair. If ever the people in this province needed a

government that would lead them with hope and talk about the future and

the need for new trees to be grown so that our timber industry can

thrive and prosper — not only for us, but for the future.... That would

be some hope for people.

I guess it would come as a surprise

to the government that most people out there don't think that greed

makes the world turn around. Most people out there believe that

cooperation is the key. Most people realize that without cooperation

there is no civilized behavior. Most people realize that we have a

greater responsibility than just ou