1984 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 33rd 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, FEBRUARY 28, 1984

Morning Sitting

[ Page

3497 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Budget debate

On the amendment

Mr. Howard –– 3497

Mr. Reynolds –– 3498

Mrs. Dailly –– 3501

Hon. A. Fraser –– 3504

Mr. Barrett –– 3507

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 1984

The House met at 10:06 a.m.

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

On the amendment.

MR. HOWARD: One of the problems we have in British Columbia,

insofar as job creation is concerned, is that we have tended to put all

our eggs in one basket — certainly insofar as the lumber industry is

concerned. Over about the last 30 years we have tended to have

governments with a view of relative aloofness from economic activity,

the result being that the path of least resistance is followed by

industrialists, corporations and those entrepreneurial forces in the

economy.

The path of least resistance in the economy has led us to rely

unduly upon the extraction industries employing the fewest number of

people and upon the export of our natural resources in either their raw

or their next-to-raw form. By doing that, while the industries and

corporations involved in the extraction and exploitation of the natural

or raw material resources of the province may themselves benefit as far

as their balance sheet is concerned, the fact is that we create jobs in

other countries by exporting the raw materials. It is employees and

workers in other countries who transform those raw materials into

manufactured, semi-manufactured, finished or semi-finished products,

and in many instances sell them back to us. So while we may — and we

simply use arbitrary figures for analysis purposes; they're not the

actual figures because they would vary from industry to industry — get

$1 for something we sell in its raw resource form, it costs us $5 to

buy it back in its finished form. The extra $4 in that equation, that

situation, goes to pay workers in other countries to transform those

materials into finished products. That doesn't work to our best

interests.

We have had — and are still facing — some difficult economic times

in our province. Part of the problem, and a contributing factor in a

major sense insofar as government is concerned, is that with one brief

exception we have had, over the past 30 years, governments with the

exact same economic philosophy — namely, one of being relatively aloof

from activities in the economy. As a result, we have economic progress

or change that is undirected and willy-nilly. The forest industry may

want to go in one direction because that suits the forest industry at

that time. The mining industry has another narrow perception of its own

value and its own worth as to what it wants to do. The aluminium

industry wants to do something else, and does. We have had — in the

absence, I suppose, rather than on the positive side of things — a kind

of negative industrial strategy of reacting to what is taking place in

the economy. Industry moves; government reacts. Industry decides that a

certain place is going to occur; government responds to those

activities out there. The result is that we don't have any coordination

for the whole of the province of British Columbia; it's simply a

government, aloof from the realities, responding to the realities

rather than taking

part in some direction and planning.

Let me read a passage from page 2 of the budget: "We shall require a

higher degree of responsibility and cooperation from all segments of

society: individuals, government, business and labour." I subscribe to

that concept. We on this. side of the House have argued for a long

period of time that that is a concept which needs to be put into

effect, not just stated. That is a concept which needs to have some

flesh, bones and blood to it, not just words written by an advertising

agency thinking that those words sound nice.

[10:15]

The reality is that while the Minister of Finance says we need a

higher degree of responsibility and cooperation, we have a government

that believes in confrontation. We have a government that believes that

it can boot workers in the pants, whether they work for government or

private industry, and then turn around the next day and say: "Hey, we

want to get some cooperation from you." It doesn't work in that

fashion. There's a denial by government action of the concept that it

enunciates in the budget about requiring responsibility and

cooperation. Where's the example? What is happening with respect to

putting into effect that very worthwhile concept of cooperation from

all segments of society?

Yes, we do need a coordinated industrial strategy, and I'm talking

just about the economy now and not about social questions, morality or

industrial policy involving government, industry and labour, to mention

the three major groups that the government itself mentions in the

budget speech. We need to get those groups together in an open way to

examine what we can do to chart the course for the future. What can we

do to revive faith and hope in humanity about its future? What can we

do to revive the concept of productivity? What can we do to revive the

human spirit and let it have a contributing part to play in what

happens in this province? We can't do that by empty words in a budget

that says that's what we should be doing. when in the real activity of

government just the opposite is occurring.

I'll give you a case in point. We've advanced before the concept of

cooperation — of the same level we think necessary at the provincial

level — at the industrial plant level. A couple of years ago I had

occasion to spend a fair amount of time discussing the question of

productivity in two sawmills owned by B.C. Timber in my home town of

Terrace with the unions involved, with the company, with the Truck

Loggers' Association — and the northwest truck loggers were interested

as well — with a view to establishing productivity committees similar

to the accident prevention committees in those plants. Everybody

thought it was a fine idea. The company in particular agreed that it

was its responsibility, because it was the common factor throughout

both the logging operation and the sawmills — in its relationship with

independent contractors — and that the company should take the

initiative in starting the ball rolling in that direction. But not a

thing occurred.

There was nothing wrong with the concept. We need to revive the

concept of an involvement in productivity, by legislation if necessary

— not by force, or by intimidating legislation, or by demanding or

imposing legislation, but by legislation that may set the tone and

perception of what is necessary insofar as increased productivity is

concerned.

We need to have the cooperation of government, industry and the

worker to deal with the subject matter of new products, of changes in

the workplace, of new technology. I've heard a number of people in the

forest industry, for example,

[ Page 3498 ]

say that unless the sawmilling capacity in the

province of British Columbia is modernized, unless it moves in the

direction of using computers and high technology — which is the

buzzword of the day, I suppose — to a greater extent, it will not be

able to compete on world markets, period, regardless of what the wage

level is. Yet there is very little recognition of that requirement on

the part of government because government has a position of relative

aloofness from the forces and the factors that exist within the

economy. It pays lip-service to the concept of the marketplace and says

that's what should prevail, without recognizing that the concept of the

marketplace is really inimical in many instances to the broad

requirement of the economy as a whole.

There are a number of other thoughts I have about economic matters

that relate to productivity gains, computers, high technology and the

question of the need for leadership from government and the need to

revive hope in mankind and womankind in this province, to get things

rolling along. I will leave those until another occasion; we'll have an

opportunity during estimates of various ministries to explore those

ideas further. But I did want to set out those initial thoughts about

what needs to be done, and hopefully it will lay the groundwork for

being able to deal with these subjects in more detail and more

substance when we get to the point of being able to deal with estimates

or legislation.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Skeena sat down a little quicker than I expected.

The amendment to the motion by the New Democratic Party is that

"this House regrets that, in the opinion of the House, the hon.

Minister of Finance, by his failure to even mention, much less address,

the most obvious problem of record unemployment, has denied many of our

citizens the right to participate in our society and has thereby

condemned them to a life of subsistence." All I can say about that is,

"poppycock." If the members from the NDP were to listen to the Minister

of Finance and to his budget and the programs that are happening around

this province and also delve into what is happening around this

province.... I would be embarrassed if I was a member of that party and

had to vote for this motion that they've put forward. I can quite

happily say my constituents are going to be very proud of me for voting

against this amendment that the NDP are putting forth.

The member for Vancouver East, as I listened to him on Friday, said

it's time we stood up for ordinary people — a common statement we've

heard from the NDP. They forget to mention that we have one of the best

standards of living in the world and one of the best provinces to live

in in Canada. The ordinary people in this province, compared to other

parts of the world, are doing very, very well. I would suggest that

they forget to talk about and to highlight the programs for the

unemployed we have in this country.

When the budget came out, I noticed a story in the Vancouver Province

about a 42- or 43-year-old lady who was saying that she was getting

$850 in unemployment insurance, and how tough it was going to be

because of this government's budget. I think it speaks very well for

not only this province but for this country that someone who is single,

42 and unemployed can collect $850 a month from the taxpayers while out

seeking employment. Look at the handicapped. Where else in the world do

the handicapped and unfortunate people have the benefits that we have

in this country and this province?

That is why I cannot understand the members from the NDP when they

want to talk about the ordinary people, and what they would do for the

ordinary people. It is the ordinary people of this province who voted

this government back in on May 5 and saw fit to make sure that the NDP

never formed a government again in this province. It is ordinary people

who are important, and that's what our policies.... Our policies are

not there for the labour unions or for the rich; they are there for

every citizen of British Columbia. That is what this government is all

about, and that is why it has been in power, with the exception of a

very short period of time, in my lifetime. This government has done

such a great job that the ordinary people keep on returning it to power.

I can understand the NDP's frustration of sitting there, because

they never propose anything concrete. If they could sit down and tell

this government how they would manage the economy with the world

economy the way it is, and if they could tell us how they would create

jobs, wouldn't it be a lot nicer? I made a few notes when the members

were speaking the other day. They talked about job-creation. The

Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. McClelland) has put out a little card for

all the students in this province to go around looking for work and

looking to enterprise to get jobs. The members were knocking it,

saying: "We don't need cards, we need jobs." That is the idea. I

couldn't wait to get back to my office here and say: "Let's get a whole

bunch of those applications and cards and get them into the

constituency office and get them down to the local newspaper. Let's let

every young student know in my constituency that the card is available

to them in any numbers they want so they can go knocking on doors, and

let's get our share of that budget." Let's teach those young people

that there are jobs out there, Mr. Speaker.

It is no wonder that this NDP have been in opposition for so long. I

can't imagine, if I were a student.... I have taken the clippings of

what they said about job-creation programs for students, and I'll make

sure my constituency.... Because they don't like it. They'd probably

say: "We'd put $20 million or $30 million in. Let's outspend them on

these programs." That's their reaction to good programs of the Social

Credit government — to outspend the good ones we do and knock the heck

out of the ones they don't like. I'm proud that this government brought

in this job creation program, and I'm proud of the loan program for

students going to university in this province. I think they're very

positive aspects of a good government, and they're things that the

people of this province appreciate. That's why they re-elected us in

the last election.

Mr. Speaker, the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) may want to

talk about jobs. She said that there's an increase in violence among

families in this province. Well, I don't believe that. I don't think

the member for Burnaby-Edmonds has the facts to back up those

statements. She loves to talk about violence in families, violence with

children, violence with women. But the facts she quotes are just not

there and they're not accurate. I would suggest that the NDP, who want

to create violence by suggesting that people like Henry Kissinger not

come to this province and who want to bring out the rent-a-crowd....

They stand in front of the hotel where people have paid good money....

They're employing people in this province for the dinner — over 1,000

people wanted to pay $150 to listen to a great world statesman. What

did the NDP in this province do? They encourage the rent-a-crowd to go

out. They encouraged it to jump on somebody's car — jump on the

Cadillac. There must

[ Page

3499 ]

be something wrong with the guy who has the Cadillac, because they'd like

to jump on his car. They encouraged spitting at the Lieutenant-Governor. The

NDP likes to put down all the establishment things. They don't want to talk

about creating jobs. Henry Kissinger created jobs in this province when he was

here. He created some good jobs for working people in the hotel industry in

this province, which is one of the highest paid industries in the world.

MR. REID: That guy would make a good Socred.

MR. REYNOLDS: Well, Henry Kissinger may not know the term

Social Credit, but he certainly would have a philosophy that I would be

proud to hold, because I think he's a great world statesman. I'm proud

that he came to this province and had a chance to speak.

[10:30]

Bill Vander Zalm is going to be in charge of looking after some of

the Pope's visit here. That's a good job for him. He'll create other

jobs, because he's obviously going to have to bring people in to help

him. What happens? The NDP members in this province chastise that: he

should announce whether he's going to run for mayor or take the Pope

around. Why should he be any different than anybody else? He's a

citizen in a free country. If he decides to run for mayor somewhere

down the line, so be it. I would hope that if we're going to talk about

jobs.... If Mr. Vander Zalm were to run for mayor of Vancouver, we'd

certainly have one more unemployed person in the province. But he's a

lawyer, anyways, so I guess he can always go and find a job. There's

always somebody to work for if you're a lawyer. But Harcourt would be

gone. Maybe that's why he wants a quick decision from Mr. Vander Zalm.

The NDP talk about creating jobs. Why don't they go and talk to some

of the IWA members who would like to be working today but can't cross

secondary picket lines? The pulp workers can't settle their contract,

so what do they do? "Let's put everybody else out of work so we can get

our contract settled." Isn't it time this government started thinking

about stopping secondary picketing?

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on! Put the province back to work.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. REYNOLDS: At a time when North America, the world, Canada

and British Columbia are in one of their most difficult periods, what

have we got? Union members fighting each other on picket lines over the

right to go to work. We have wives and children saying: "Get out of

town. Let my daddy go to work. Let my mommy go to work. We need the

money." We've got to keep this province going, and I suggest that the

NDP are being totally irresponsible when they put forth this motion.

We have the bus workers. Sure, they're going to go to work. They're

going to wear their T-shirts to work. One guy was wearing a Paul Revere hat

or something today, saying he was going back to the old times. They say: "We're

not going to let the manager tell us what routes we have to work. We're

not going to let the manager tell us what schedules we have to be on. You the

people get up and fight the bus company because they want to tell us how we

should be doing our work." Well, that's what the management of the

bus company is for. They're there to decide which routes are profitable,

which routes we have to work. I can remember when all these transit drivers

yelled and screamed because there were some cutbacks. Instead of a bus coming

every 15 minutes, they made it every 20 minutes; and instead of coming every

half an hour, they made it every hour. These were at times when there were three

or four people riding the buses.

MR. REID: Sometimes none.

MR. REYNOLDS: Sometimes none; that's true. The bus drivers

yelled and screamed about that. They said: "No, you can't do that. It's

going to affect the people." Well, the three people who were taking the

bus learned to go five minutes later, or learned that there was only

one every hour. When only three people an hour take it, why should all

the taxpayers be subsidizing the system? But that's the type of

mentality that this New Democratic Party supports, and that's why they

can never form the government of this province again.

The member for Burnaby-Edmonds said: "We're looking for jobs, not

cards." I don't know when she was last in Burnaby, but I see her on the

ferry quite often. I assume that when she goes home she must look

around her constituency. The ALRT –– 1,500 jobs currently, right in

Burnaby. This government can't be accused, like a Liberal government

can, of passing out all the bucks to Liberal constituencies. The heart

of one of the greatest programs in this province is right in Burnaby,

in that member's constituency. Fifteen hundred jobs currently in

Burnaby. The ALRT maintenance centre — this government could have

chosen to put that maintenance centre in a Social Credit riding. If we

were a Liberal government we would have done that. We certainly

wouldn't give it to a New Democrat. But no, this government is building

the maintenance yard right in Burnaby — right where, it should be, and

where it's going to create....

Interjection.

MR. REYNOLDS: We know there's one member there, but there are

some other members too. If you were a Liberal and could get only one

out of three, you certainly wouldn't have any benefits in your area.

They'd all be in the hometown ridings, because that's the way the

Liberals in this country operate. If you don't vote Liberal, you don't

get any goodies. We certainly know that in western Canada. But this

government doesn't operate that way. We give the member for

Burnaby-Edmonds lots of goodies in her constituency. There's no

discrimination in this government. We don't discriminate because you're

an NDPer; we look at all the people of British Columbia fairly, the

rich, the poor, the middle; we treat everybody fairly, with a good,

well-managed government.

She also said: "a cruel, vindictive government." I can't think of a

government, of a group I've worked with in politics, that's had more

compassion for people who have problems.

This NDP group wants to talk about unemployment. I was listening

earlier in the debate to the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich), and I

want to talk about accuracies.

MR. BLENCOE: Sad days for British Columbia.

MR. REYNOLDS: The saddest day in British Columbia was the day we elected a New Democratic government. He

[ Page 3500 ]

talks about the Solidarity movement, that great

associate of the NDP, getting their two rallies together. I can

remember the rallies back in those years, in forums and buildings all

across this province, against this New Democratic government. They

weren't all in one place, because we couldn't have gotten them all in

one place; there wasn't anywhere big enough. But every room that held

3,000 or 4,000 or 5,000 people was filled across this province, yelling

and screaming about the undemocratic government we had with the New

Democratic Party when they were in power. It didn't take very long for

the voters to realize that they'd made the greatest mistake they'd ever

made in the history of the province when they elected the New

Democratic Party. I wish the first member for Vancouver–Point Grey

(Hon. Mr. McGeer) were getting up, because he could give us the rhyme

as only he can do.

It is so interesting to sit here and listen to the second member for

Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) come in with his snide remarks about how this

province is being run. It must be very frustrating for him to sit here

and see how well the Social Credit government operates, and how messed

up his caucus is when he has to go in that caucus room. We have leaders

from the New Democratic Party saying that no-fault is good and another

one saying that it is not very good. Some of them are for and some are

against. They're a totally divided party, and they can't even put

together a unified debate in this Legislature. We see that all the time.

HON. MR. McGEER: They can't stand listening to each other when they make a speech.

MR. REYNOLDS: That's very true.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to give you some quotes from the member for

Skeena (Mr. Howard), and talk about other things that I've been looking

at in this area of job-creation, because that's what the amendment is

all about. It was very interesting last night when we talked about jobs

in this province. We want to talk about education, which is one of the

largest budget items and creates a lot of jobs. In an editorial in the Vancouver Sun

last night Vaughn Palmer talked about this new group of University of

B.C. economics professors who call themselves the B.C. Economic Policy

Institute.

Interjection.

MR. REYNOLDS: The second member for Victoria says they got to

me. I love reading what they put out, because I love fact as well as

fiction. The second member for Victoria probably didn't read this

column last night, or he wouldn't be saying they got to me. He talks

about the facts and figures this group puts out. Mr. Speaker, I'd like

to quote Vaughn Palmer's editorial because I think it shows that there

are some people who do some research and check out.... I'm not saying

that the Fraser Institute is always right or always wrong, because, as

I said in my previous speech, we can agree or disagree with them. But

their philosophy is one that I support.

This group of University of B.C. economics professors call

themselves the B.C. Economic Policy Institute. It sounds like the

Fraser Institute. It's a good name. Nobody would know what they really

were. Vaughn Palmer says:

"...doubts arise from the comparisons Professor Allen makes to support

his contention that 'B.C. already has one of the smallest educational systems

in Canada.' He finds that B.C. spends less on education than do other provinces

that already have one of the highest ratios of students to teachers in the country,

and that it has one of the smallest percentages of any provincial population

enrolled in post-secondary education. That sounds like damning evidence. But

he has chosen to express education spending as a percentage of the total personal

income of everyone in the province....

"For example, four of the highest spenders on

Professor Allen's table are the maritime provinces, where incomes are

lowest. That doesn't mean that they have the best education system any

more than the fact that wealthy provinces like B.C., Alberta and

Ontario are at the bottom of the table....

"One can also draw differing conclusions from

Professor Allen's survey of pupil-teacher ratios. B.C.'s ratio, 18.69

pupils per teacher in 1982-82, is one of the poorest from the point of

view of the teacher, but Ontario is an even greater offender. Yet

Ontario's system is not necessarily inferior to that of B.C."

So says Mr. Palmer. An interesting comparison is then given, Mr. Speaker:

" New Brunswick jams more students into the room with

a teacher than does B.C., and still spends more of its tax base on

schools than this province does. That certainly suggests that

pupil-teacher ratios and spending, as Professor Allen defines it, don't

correlate."

[Mr. Kempf in the chair.]

I think that is a very important point. The NDP go across this

province telling people that we spend less on education than all

maritime provinces do in each of their areas, but they don't tell them

that the reason they're higher in those areas is that the gross

national product in those areas is so low that when they take a

percentage, it certainly comes out higher than the percentage in

British Columbia. They don't want to talk about the dollars per student

we spend, because then this province does very well and comes out on

the top. That's the problem the New Democrats have. They go across this

province giving those figures, yet the average British Columbian knows

that we have one of the best education systems in the country.

What they don't understand is the fact that a lot of people from

other parts of Canada have moved into British Columbia in the last few

years. When I moved to British Columbia 20 years ago, I think the

population was 1.5 million. Now we have three million people. Those

people are moving to British Columbia because it's the greatest

province in Canada to live in. Those are people who had their children

in other schools across Canada, like the system in Quebec, which has

got to be one of the poorest in this country, and they realized how

good the education was when they finally got their families to British

Columbia.

MR. REID: They're abandoning Manitoba.

MR. REYNOLDS: They sure are abandoning Manitoba. You only

have to read what's happening there. That's one of the problems that

the New Democrats have. They don't want to admit to the people of this

province that it's well-run, that

[ Page 3501 ]

we provide the handicapped, the poor and the underprivileged with a better place to live in than anywhere else in this country.

In looking at the B.C. School Trustees' report — talking about

education as between Ontario and British Columbia — I see that 16

delegates are going to visit Toronto from May 23 to May 31. Of course,

we're paying their return air fare; onsite transportation to

educational institutions and meals are provided. I just wonder why we

have to send 16 school trustees to Toronto. I don't know whether we are

sending them first-class, business class or economy, but in these times

of restraint I really wonder what those 16 school trustees are going to

learn in the province of Ontario. I would suggest that they would do

just as well if they got in their cars and drove to the state of

Washington, or if they read some material. Isn't it time that all these

people started looking at the public money — money that is raised by

taxation — and saying: "Is it necessary to spend this money doing these

types of things?" I don't see the New Democrats getting up, yelling and

screaming when some of these groups start to travel, because a lot of

them tend to be socialist organizations that like to travel, to get

together and talk about how bad the government is.

MS. SANFORD: Cabinet ministers should read some articles, too.

MR. REYNOLDS: Oh, the member for Comox wants to talk about

cabinet ministers. Well, I'll tell you that there isn't a cabinet

minister in this province who travels on a trip who doesn't bring back

millions of dollars of business to British Columbia. I would like to

see what dollars these school trustees are going to bring back to

British Columbia when they get their little vacation in springtime in

Toronto.

MR. BLENCOE: How much did Don Phillips bring back?

MR. REYNOLDS: Don Phillips brought back orders like you wouldn't believe, Mr. Member from Victoria.

I guess if they could learn to read, Mr. Speaker....

Some of these members don't want to read, except for the socialist

manifesto. If they would just read the reports that come out....

Interjection.

MR. REYNOLDS: He was too young to sign the Waffle Manifesto, but their leader wasn't.

The ministers who are travelling for this government.... The

ministers who went to India have Indian delegations coming back to

Canada who are going to spend millions of dollars in this province. Why

aren't the New Democrats honest about it and say: "The only reason

we're mad is that we're not where you are. We can't be out travelling

the world, to the socialist countries to tell us how to socialize the

province a little bit more." They wouldn't want to sell them anything;

they just want to import them: "Let's bring a few more socialists in

here."

[10:45]

Do you remember Bob Williams, Mr. Speaker? He said: "We'll scramble

the omelette so well that you will never unscramble it." How hard he

tried. Thank God the people of this province got rid of them after

three years.

As I said earlier, I want to congratulate the Minister of Finance.

He is sitting here, and is one of the ministers who has been listening

to most of the speeches from both sides of the House. The budget has

been well received across this province. The member for Victoria is

hearing it from his constituents, I know, because most of us are here

during the week, and we have to go around Victoria and see a lot of

people. They are telling us that they like the job that the Minister of

Finance did in his budget. They know the restraint program is working

in this province. They know that when recovery comes, this province

will be the first one out of it, and we will recover.

Interjection.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, it's nice for these NDP people to

sit here and laugh and chuckle — they'll still be chuckling after the

next election. Some of them will get re-elected; it's inevitable. It's

good for the system; we need an opposition. But I sincerely hope that

the new leader of that party really tries to whip the group together,

because they could use a positive approach as to what they want to do

in British Columbia. They might even come up with an idea we could

steal from them once in a while, but I haven't seen one in all the

years that I've been looking. There are no positive proposals. If they

want to talk about jobs instead of this negative motion, why didn't

this party put forward some proposals in their motion? If the NDP even

had any political smarts, they would put something in there that would

embarrass us to vote against it. It's not embarrassing to vote against

that motion. It's nonsense.

Interjection.

MR. REYNOLDS: One of the members says that they probably

couldn't agree. They have a party of 22 people, probably in about nine

different factions now in the leadership race, who can't agree on how

to attack the government. They could have put a motion forward that

would be embarrassing, but they don't even have the smarts for that.

Any party that is not smart enough to do that couldn't create a job in

this province, and that's why they will never be the government of this

province again.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that it's a

pleasure to follow the previous speaker, but I cannot be sincere and

state that. The member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound, who just spoke....

MR. R. FRASER: Great speaker!

MRS. DAILLY: He's a great speaker for the Socreds, all right.

He has no subtlety; he lays out clearly for the people of British

Columbia the right-wing, neo-conservative philosophy of the Socred

government, which some of the members over there are a little too

clever to speak about in quite such raw terms as that member delights

in. But I'm glad he does, because we know that he's been put up by the

government. He's the hit man, and expresses very clearly just what kind

of philosophy the Social Credit government is basing their policies on.

We've been telling the people of British Columbia, but I'm glad that

member is articulate; if he keeps talking like that there'll be no

question in the minds of the people of

[ Page 3502 ]

British Columbia what kind of a government they really have to deal with.

For example, he ranted on about the NDP not having any job-creation

ideas. Obviously he has only listened selectively to our members, many

of whom throughout this debate have posed ideas for job creation. If

you took the time to go through Hansard , I think you would find them. I intend to mention a few myself today.

I would find it almost amusing, if it weren't sad, that the only

job-creation project which the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound

came up with today was to have more dinners for Henry Kissinger. If you

recall, he kept telling the House that one way to create new jobs for

people is to have more VIP dinners. I'm sure all those unemployed of

all ages out there must feel very comfortable knowing that the Social

Credit answer to unemployment is to have more dinners for Henry

Kissinger. The interesting thing about those VIP dinners is that many

of the people who came to them are obviously Social Credit supporters,

because they're about the only ones who can afford to come to that kind

of dinner today. Most of those people paid over $100, and most will be

able to claim it as an expense on their income tax. That's the kind of

job creation which that member talks about.

Interjection.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to take up time

giving my personal opinion of Henry Kissinger — not in this debate. I

wish I could, however, because it is completely opposite to that

member's.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I don't think a debate on unemployment, with so many people in the

province waiting and hoping for some answers from this government and

from the opposition.... I'm sure they don't want us to indulge in a

debate on a former American diplomat who came to Vancouver to speak. I

think it would be a waste of time.

The other point that shows very clearly where the Social Credit

government stands philosophically was when that member said something

which shocked me, even coming from that member. He actually referred to

school trustees going across Canada to a convention, and questioned why

they should be going at a time of restraint. Do you know what he

actually ended up with? He compared school trustees going across Canada

with the dollars which he claims — but he can't validate it or back it

up — his cabinet ministers bring to B.C. by their trips. Nobody's ever

been able to back this up for us. The Minister of Industry and Small

Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) has made many trips out of

this province. The interesting thing is that it's costing the taxpayers

thousands of dollars, but we've never had a report yet. Not one report

from that minister on exactly what he's been doing and specifically

what jobs he's brought back. He's talked about pie-in-the-sky things,

but we've never had any specifics. It's a tragic thing that a minister

of this province can travel all over this province, paid for by the

taxpayer, and he has no responsibility to come before this Legislature

and give us a specific report. That minister, of course, never does say

anything specifically. Maybe it's better not to ask him, because we

would just be treated to another wild, arm-waving speech that has no

substance.

But back to what the member said, which even I found shocking: "Can

those school trustees who go back east bring back dollars? Of course

they can't." In other words, he was saying: "What good is it for those

people to travel when they can't bring back dollars?" Doesn't that show

exactly where the philosophy of the Social Credit is at? They don't

think there's any importance in this world to a person travelling to

come back with ideas, with thoughts — with ideas that they can put into

action in their school system. Mr. Speaker, you know this, because you

were a school trustee. I know that you went to some of those

conferences. I agree that you don't get too much out of some

conferences, but you manage to find something in every conference that

you can take back to your own district which will help improve not only

the quality of education but often save money for your district. I

remember finding that when I was on the school board. I was pleased to

find out what other school districts were doing to save money. To have

that member stand up and say they can't bring back dollars....

Everything is equated in terms of dollars, not people and not ideas.

Heaven help this province if it's going to have to be ruled by that

kind of thinking even for another month.

Interjection.

MRS. DAILLY: I'm trying to be positive. Compared to most of the members on the government side, I've been very positive.

It's absolutely necessary to refer to the last speaker, because the

debate we are indulging in in this House is supposed to be an exchange

of ideas. I can't refer to my ideas without also referring to my

opponents' ideas. I think that's what makes debate interesting. I would

hope so.

Back to the situation we're facing today with unemployment in my own

district in Burnaby. I want to give you an idea of some of the figures

that the people of Burnaby are facing. In January 1982 there were 2,057

people registered at the Burnaby Canada unemployment centre. This was

excluding those who were on unemployment insurance claims for sick

leave or maternity leave. These are not people who entered the market

for the first time; these are people applying for or eligible for

unemployment benefits. In January 1982 there were 2,057. In January a

year later, under the Social Credit famous restraint program, which is

entirely a myth and just a lot of words....

Interjections.

MRS. DAILLY: Let's deal with facts. I want to deal with

facts, not myths. The facts are that in '82 there were 2,000 people on

the unemployment roll seeking benefits. In 1983 under the Socred

restraint program we have 4,757 people. A year later, in January '84,

we have still more than 4,000 people, double from the time that this

infamous — I won't say famous any more, Mr. Speaker — restraint program

of the Social Credit government came in. Burnaby's unemployment has

doubled.

I would say to you that even if I were not a politician or even if I

were not an opposition member, I would have to say what's happening in

my province and in my community. This government brings in a so-called

restraint program saying everybody has to pull in their belts. "Trust

us. We're going to make things better. Everything's going to be great

in B.C. if you just support our program." Yet a year after that program

[ Page 3503 ]

has been in, the unemployment figures have doubled.

I don't think you have to be a politician or read a great deal about

economics or unemployment to say to yourself: "There's something wrong

here." This is the point I'm trying to make. If we just look at the

facts, we see that the restraint program of the Social Credit

government isn't working, so we have to ask: why not?

[11:00]

We concede, and we always have, that times have been tough all over

the world. But the interesting thing is that other provinces in Canada

and the United States are picking up. But somehow or other, good old

B.C.... According to the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr.

Reynolds), everyone is just flocking to B.C. I'd like to have the

figures to back that up. Of course, he's noted for just making his

general statements with no backing up. How could people flock to a

province which at the present time has the highest unemployment rate in

Canada? They aren't fools. According to the figures I have here, in

January '84, region 2, which is the West Kootenays alone, 23.6 percent,

one of the highest. As my colleague from Burnaby-Edmonds said, it is

the highest in Canada — 23.6 percent for one region. In January 1983 it

was 51.6 percent, and now in 1984 we have 23.6 percent, which shows a

slight improvement, for which we are pleased. But my concern is that

there is nothing lasting. This government says to us — and the previous

speaker just stated — that the NDP hasn't any answers, just quick

little projects. Most of the things that he mentioned to us today,

including the ALRT one, are not permanent work. The sad thing is that

when the ALRT does go in there may be spinoffs, but as far as the

average person goes, let us remember that most of those buses may be

automated. So what happens then to all the employees who are presently

being used? One has to say that we'd better look at the projects that

the Social Credit government is also bringing in to question how

long-range they are. Even the jobs up in the northeast coal: how many

of those jobs, at a cost of over $200,000 per job, I believe, are going

to be there permanently, particularly with the problems that the

government is now having with the price of coal?

If they were not sad, some of the comments by that member for West

Vancouver–Howe Sound would be absolutely ludicrous. But unfortunately

he probably does go out on the circuit and prattle away and use those

generalized statements that show a completely right-wing

neoconservative philosophy that is not going to bring us out of our

problems, as has been shown in England and in most of the countries

which have adopted these simplistic theories of turn back the clock,

let's go back to the good old days and everything will be okay. What

the members of the Social Credit are not doing is addressing the

problems of today to look to the future, when it comes to jobs. That's

the area I want to deal with. To do that, of course, you have to study,

as we would hope the members of the cabinet would be doing with all

their staff, and say: well, if there are no particular jobs for many of

our young people at this time, then would it not be better to put them

into proper training and train them for the jobs of the future? But

this government isn't even doing that. Most of these jobs that they're

bringing up here, such as those the Minister of Universities (Hon. Mr.

McGeer) is bringing up, are going to be low-paying. Women are going to

be used, because they consider that women are the ones who can stay at

the poverty level, unfortunately. This is an attitude some people have.

It's not good enough. The NDP says: wouldn't it be much better to take

some of those pools of money, some of which are being used for very

questionable projects by the Social Credit, and put them into some job

training for the many young people who are out of work today?

He referred to the Minister of Labour's great press release about

jobs for students. Mr. Speaker, we certainly agree with anything that

will help students earn their own way so they can get through

university. Nobody's going to knock that. It's a student program. But

the problem is that the majority of the unemployment today is out there

with a lot of unskilled high school dropouts. And from what I

understand, that program would not be applying to these young unskilled

males and females out there. I hope I can be proven wrong. I hope you

can tell me how that program will deal with those who are really

seriously in trouble. I'm thinking of the under-25-year-old who is

unskilled and who is not a student. I would like you to spell it out to

me. I hope one of your members will.

Mr. Speaker, if you can show me that that program is geared to help

the unskilled, the non-student, as much as the student, who

unfortunately is going to be coming more and more from an elitist class

in British Columbia, then I will accept your words. But from what I can

see from that program, it is not helping those at the moment who are

unskilled, come from low-income families, and do not and will not be

going on to university or post-secondary education. I want to know if

it is helping them in nearly the same proportion as it will be helping

those who can go on to education in our post-secondary institutions,

which must be done, because I know that the Social Credit government

has moved back in their support of the outright grant system for

students.

Everything is topsy-turvy with this government. Of all the times to

make it more difficult for a student to get to university, this is not

the time to do that. And yet this government has taken that step. I

know that most students today say it is becoming increasingly difficult

for them to get to university because of the lack of jobs. Maybe this

program will address that to some degree, but at the same time this

government is making it increasingly difficult for the students by

removing rent controls. Already word is coming out that vacancy rates

are going down. There are going to be fewer places to rent, which means

the prices of the apartments that the students must rent will go up. At

the same time you are creating these barriers for them, you are also

going to remove the grant portion of their loans. What is going to

happen here is that we will be back again to the old elitist system

where those who have parents or wealthy relatives who can help them are

going to have far greater opportunity to go to university than those

who don't.

I think the tragedy of the Social Credit government is that with

their policies they are going to continue to turn the clock back. All

the gains that have been made in the last 40 to 50 years to bring about

equality of admission, to give everyone the opportunity, no matter what

their income is, to move on, are all going to be reversed. Yet the

member from Vancouver–Howe Sound actually stands up and says in this

House: "We're the party that believes in treating everyone equal." I

contend that the Socred policies are doing exactly the opposite.

At the moment I am concerned that there is really no massive program

coming out of Labour or Education which would be looking at the future

for our young, unskilled people. You just have to take a walk into town

in any city in this province today to see the tragedy of these young

people walking around with nothing to do. I know it must affect all of

[ Page 3504 ]

us. I'm sure the Social Credit members feel the

same as I do. I'm sure they have relatives and friends who are out of

work. Everybody must be touched, in some way or another — some more

than others. You obviously want to help them as I do, but what I

contend is that your policies are not helping us, because you are not

thinking to the future. You are obsessed with building things instead

of people, and the two have to go together. I referred to that when I

spoke on the main motion just a few days ago. I don't think anyone

could put it better than an economist whom I have already referred to

the Social Credit to read. I know that the Minister of Agriculture

(Hon. Mr. Schroeder) ran right out and got the book by Robert Reich,

and I know that he is reading it. He is going to be converted very

shortly. I'd like to quote an interview with Reich:

"'A false dichotomy is made between economic expenditures

and social expenditures. Spending on plant and equipment' — which is the

Social Credit approach — 'is seen to be good and hard and tough and spending

on people to be somehow soft, ineffective.

"'This view is 100 percent the opposite of the way we

should be thinking,' said Reich. 'Spending on new plant and equipment

isn't going to get us back on our feet. Much of our problem today is

that new plant and equipment can be set up instantly anywhere in the

world. What is going to get us back on our feet, the key factor of

productiveness today, is the quality of our people.'"

This is something that the Social Credit members do not seem to

comprehend. When you make Education cutbacks, you are affecting the

quality of the education of our children. When you make it harder for

people to get to university, everyone suffers. I am talking about

academically qualified people. The

article continues:

"Skilled people aren't enough. They have to be

skilfully managed. Modern management no longer means the shiny new

systems of the Harvard Business School,' said Reich; it means instead

the old human virtues of participation, equity, security."

It is interesting that the Social Credit are always talking about

getting back to the good old days. The NDP believes in the old, human

virtues of participation, equity and security.

I think this is something that the Social Credit government must be

really seriously faulted for: they are not providing the framework for

equity and participation by the workforce. As a matter of fact, it is

the opposite. The member from West Vancouver–Howe Sound today brought

up the matter of unions fighting unions. You know there was almost a

sense of.... I won't say, "glee," but I heard a member from the

opposite side laughing. You have to ask yourself: why is union fighting

union? I accuse the Social Credit government of building such an

atmosphere of confrontation in this province with their restraint

program and their legislation that they have contributed to this

worker-against-worker situation that's happening in British Columbia.

It is on the heads of the Social Credit government. When people get

insecure, made so by a government that seems to have purposely created

insecurity, then they turn on each other; it's a human instinct. No

worker wants to fight another worker, but you only get those kinds of

scenes in a province that has an anxiety about the whole province,

where people are constantly afraid. This government has created that

atmosphere. Reich gives a good example here. He says:

'If you look at the companies which are growing most

rapidly — IBM, Du Pont, Hewlett-Packard — you are struck'" — he's

talking of course about the United States — "'by the extent to which

they'" — these big companies — "'practise participation, security and

equity. There isn't a great deal of difference between the pay of the

highest and lowest employees. There is a great deal of consultation

about new products, improvements, changes in the workplace. There is a

high degree of job security.'"

We're accused of not being positive. These are the kinds of things

we feel the government in charge should be encouraging in meetings with

union, with labour and with government. This government seems so afraid

of entering, they claim, into the economy and the marketplace. If you

won't touch that, at least enter into having meetings and trying to

build up a lack of confrontation in this province.

[11:15]

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

We keep hearing: "You can't do things for people. They've got to do

them for themselves." The interesting thing is that that philosophy

does not follow through for the big boys and girls of the province,

because when it comes to assisting the large corporations, this

government certainly seems to have a fear of taking them on, as is

witnessed in this recent business over the scaling problem. That is not

an area which I'll enter into now, because it's not to do with my

debate at this time, but I know others will. But it's really laughable

when the Social Credit members stand up and say, "You've got to get out

there and fend for yourselves," and yet we find that they are quite

willing to give subsidies to large companies and corporations to come

into this province. At times I'm afraid the results will be to benefit

not the citizens but only the pockets of those corporations. That's

why, as I've said many times, we're on this side of the House and

they're on the other.

The fact that they won the last couple of elections....

In the long run, I'll tell you, they won't continue to, because they

had the opportunity through propaganda and access to millions of

dollars of the taxpayers' money to put across their right-wing

rhetoric, which created fear and insecurity in the people of British

Columbia. I want to assure you, Mr. Chairman, that there is a

grassroots movement springing up in this province which is seriously

questioning the policies of a government which puts plants, equipment

and machinery entirely ahead of people, and does not see that people

are still the major resource of our province. If you lose their

cooperation and create insecurity in the people of this province, I can

assure you that that government will soon be turned out — and the

sooner the better.

HON. A. FRASER: I enjoyed the remarks of the last speaker,

the member for Burnaby North. She was going to tell us all about the

opposition's employment program, but I'm still listening and waiting. I

didn't hear too much.

Before I forget, Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you that I'm opposed to

the amendment and will be voting against it, and I'm all for the budget

and will be voting for the budget.

MR. BARRETT: I'm shocked, Alex.

HON. A. FRASER: I'm sure you must be.

[ Page

3505 ]

I'd like to congratulate the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis).

He and his staff had to come up with two budgets in a short period of

about eight months, and this does put a heavy load on that ministry I

congratulate them for the good job they've done in this short time.

There is lots of financial information from the last budget and in

this budget. I would like to remind the House that things have changed

a lot in the last seven or eight years in our province and in this

Legislature, and remind you that I guess we're now financially

better-informed in the Legislature than we ever have been in the

history of our province. I refer to quarterly reports brought in by the

Minister of Finance, which bring us roughly up to date on the position

we're in. I observe the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) asking:

"Where's the quarterly report?" I get a real kick out of that, because

when they were government they didn't have any reports of any kind, let

alone quarterly reports.

The other thing brought in by our government was the auditor-general

— appointed, I believe, in 1977 or '78. She does an excellent job, and

this is further financial control. So, you know, things have moved a

lot since the Leader of the Opposition led the government not too long

ago — 1972-75, in case you've forgotten, Mr. Leader.

MR. BARRETT: How about the ombudsman?

HON. A. FRASER: Well, yes, this government brought in the

ombudsman too. He sure is entitled to make all the reports he wants,

and he's making lots of them.

We didn't have any of these reports to bring us up to date, and this

is certainly helping not only members of this Legislature but also all

the citizens of this province. I would remind you that we still have

the estimates in the Legislature, and remind you that when they on that

side were government they forced estimates through the House without

even a vote. I experienced that. So again, things have changed. The

opposition — and I was a member at that time — were told to sit down

and shut up, and dry up. Anyway, the votes were going through — right

from that table. That happened here. We don't see any of that happening.

MR. BARRETT: Closure — 20 times last fall.

HON. A. FRASER: Well, you know, when you were just rounding

up and churning up old history, it was about time that something was

brought to a conclusion.

Mr. Speaker, this budget has the first reduction in money in 31

years. To me that means that, hopefully, not as much will be required

from the taxpayers, who are the citizens. We're not going to take their

money and spend it in the abundance we have before. We're going down

the other way.

This budget budgets for about a $670 million deficit, compared to

the approximately $1.3 million the Minister of Finance says we'll

probably have by the end of March 1984. This is a definite good turn

for all the citizens of the province. It has cut the anticipated

deficit in half. I also get a big kick out of people observing that the

deficit would be less than $1.6 billion, and they say that in a

critical vein. I only say that I hope the deficit is less than $1.3

billion. I don't see that we should be criticized if we can reduce the

estimated deficit.

I guess we all have philosophical differences. the NDP believes that everybody

should work for the government and our party believes that the private sector

should be the generator of jobs. We want to create a climate in this province

which furthers investment, so that the private sector will create the jobs.

We don't want to hinder the private sector any more than we have to, and

this is our philosophical difference. We've had an experience in British

Columbia to go by. When the NDP formed the government in 1972-75, they entered

into all kinds of enterprises: sawmills, pulp mills, chicken factories that

manufactured left wings, and car insurance. They operated farms, and they bought

every bus they could get their hands on and took those over — bus lines all

over so that we're still paying for that exercise in socialism. Gradually

we're working our way out of it, but it's still costing. I think the

Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) said yesterday that on the

buses alone owned by government in the last six or seven years.... The deficit

alone, because they are owned by the government, was $50 million. I think we

can do a better job than that in the private sector, and that's the way

we're going on that specific item. The private sector will supply the service,

and we don't have to subsidize any bus rides.

MR. BARRETT: Are you going to sell ALRT? C'mon, Alex. Billions are being blown on that.

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I want to say something about

leadership. We don't have the problem they have on the other side.

Their leader up and ran away from them last June or July; he left the

NDP opposition in limbo by announcing that he was stepping down. They

have had their problems ever since, and it is reflected in this

Legislature to a great degree. A vacuum was created. They're all out on

the leadership trail, and this place is really irrelevant to those

members over there. I don't think that should have happened. As far as

our leader is concerned, you bet. He's our leader, and we're real proud

of our leader. We don't have any leadership problems.

Getting back to restraint and recovery, our Premier Bill Bennett

brought it in as a policy in February 1982. We also fought an election

on the basis of restraint. We won that very handily. On behalf of our

leader, I might say that he has taken insults from all over the place.

He now stands out in Canada as a real leader trying to control spending

of government and effect restraint and recovery, which other people

example: it is completely out of control. When they get to the level of

a $100 billion budget and boast about it.... You can certainly see it

when you pay your income tax. As Canadians we can't afford to go on

like that.

MR. BARRETT: You just upped the income tax.

HON. A. FRASER: Regarding income tax, I might say to the

Leader of the Opposition that we should be getting a lot more. We're

sending a lot more back to the capital than we get back.

I get a great kick — and I'm glad my colleague the Minister of

Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) is not here,

although he is different than other professors because he stands and is

counted as an elected official — out of all these professors making

their observations about different things in government, whether it's

budgets or whatever it is. I don't pay too much attention to them,

because I consider that they've got a conflict of interest.

[ Page 3506 ]

MR. BARRETT: And you don't have a conflict of interest, eh?

HON. A. FRASER: No.

We fought the election on May 5 on restraint, and we won it handily. I know that the Leader of the Opposition....

I'm delighted to see him here when I'm speaking; I'm highly

honoured. The very few times he is here, he shows up when I have

something to say. Back to the election of May 5. As I said earlier, the

NDP fell apart, and the leader said he was stepping down. The next

thing was Solidarity — they took over as opposition in British

Columbia. One observation, as I saw things unfold in the latter part of

1983, is that I think you people should be.... It should be pointed out

that we had the legislative session and then we had, unfortunately, a

strike in the public service. You people went on strike too, and I

think your wages should be deducted for that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hah!

HON. A FRASER: Well, there wasn't one of you who came into

the Legislature, to your offices, from November 1 to 13. You should

have your salaries cut for that.

Interjections.

HON. A FRASER: Absolutely! You weren't here, and there were

lots of people looking for you. What were you doing going on...? You

had nothing to do with the strike.

Interjections.

HON. A FRASER: I was here. They were looking for you, young

fellow, all over the place. And when are you going to get those illegal

signs down off your constituency office?

[11:30]

The other thing they are quite concerned about....

They have a lot of people over there vying for leadership. That is

all going to be resolved, though, in my opinion. Bob Williams is coming

back, and he will lead the whole bunch of you, regardless of who is

named the leader. I know that my good friend the second member for

Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) is pretty worried about that. That's

where all that leadership ruckus will end up. He'll be back, and I

guess rightly so. He stepped down for a fee of $80,000 to let the

present leader of the opposition get back in.

As I said, the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) is waiting for

her job creation and so on. I want to deal with that a little. First

I'll mention the ALRT. All the people on that side are opposed to the

ALRT. They said so. That creates jobs. I'm not going to get into the

figures, but it's probably 1,500 now. It provides the transportation

system they've been waiting for on the lower mainland for years. When

you say we haven't any job programs, you should get your blinkers off

and go out and take a look.

Let's talk about B.C. Place. In spite of you and in spite of the

council of the city of Vancouver, B.C. Place has generated lots of jobs

and will continue to do so. So don't sit over there and say we haven't

done anything. As a matter of fact, the observation we get over here is

that they feet our government is maybe getting a little too involved in

generating projects and we should leave more to the private sector. But

B.C. Place is a really successful development. You opposed all that,

and so did the socialists on city council in Vancouver. Yet that goes

ahead and creates jobs. I can't understand why you're against that.

Regarding other projects of this government, let's deal with Expo

86. This government went after that Expo 86, and they got it. It's

already generating jobs in our province, and will continue to do so

until the fair is on in '86. Hopefully there will be permanent jobs

following that. I don't know where you get the idea that's in this

motion that we haven't any job generators. And these are just a few

projects.

I know you won't like hearing it, but I want to deal with another

project, one that is not government but which our government took a

position on. That's to deal with getting rid of the Crow freight rate.

Not taking credit for it, but I remind the Legislature, and

particularly the opposition, that we brought that subject up in the

Legislature through a motion last year and our government went on

freight rate. I make these observations on the resolution. It was

resolved by the parliament of Canada but all the socialists here were

against it. All the socialist MPs of British Columbia were against it —

Sid Parker from Revelstoke, and Kristiansen from the Kootenays.

Interjections.

HON. A. FRASER: They were MPs for the prairie grain farmers;

they weren't MPs for the province of British Columbia. They were

playing prairie politics. They've never paid their share of the freight

rate on their commodity, but the lumber shippers from British Columbia

did. The NDP wouldn't have anything to do with resolving that inequity

in the transportation system. Now people are already at work on the

major projects to upgrade the system so that we can get a better

transportation system in Western Canada, and in all of Canada.

I want to tell you where it's effective in B.C.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. BARRETT: You're in bed with Trudeau.

HON. A. FRASER: Sure, sure. When it's for the good of the

country, you've got to forget.... At least you should support the

politics of your own province, not support the politics of the prairie

provinces. That's all it was.

MR. BARRETT: You're in bed with Trudeau. Shame on you!

HON. A. FRASER: You don't like to hear it but....

Following resolution of the Crow freight rate, a sum of $5 billion

is going to be spent in British Columbia upgrading the two rail lines —

CN and CP. I'm now going to tell you where it's going to be spent, and

when.

First of all, it's projected over the period 1983-1993, and the

amount is approximately $5.4 billion in our province. This is talking

about jobs, Mr. Speaker. You'll be interested in this because it

affects your riding. Here is where the money will be spent. Also, the

Transport minister for Canada, Lloyd Axworthy, told a meeting that the

railways are required to get their goods and services from Canadian

suppliers wherever possible, and in particular from sources in the

region where a particular project is taking place. His discussions with

the

[ Page

3507 ]

railroads indicate a willingness to live up to this

statutory requirement. Just to answer the catcalls over there, there's

a statutory requirement under the agreement that the railroads have to

abide by. The projects announced so far go about one third of the way

toward the ministry's estimate of $9.5 billion in total spending in the

western provinces over the decade. Among the CP Rail projects, the

biggest is the Rogers Pass tunnel, which will cost $600 million with

its associated bridges and track. I might say on the tunnel that it's

my information that they're almost ready to call the tenders on that

now.

The next items of expenditure in our province are: $21 million for

double-tracking in Revelstoke; $50 million for a new yard and

car-repair shop at Golden, which is actually under construction; $25

million for improved communication around Field, B.C., on the edge of

our province; $15 million for a new train-control station at Sparwood

in the Kootenays; $55 million for the purchase and installation of

concrete ties in British Columbia; and $10 million for a new

operational control building in Vancouver. That's the CPR.

Among the CN rail projects announced so far are $940 million for

upgrading and double-tracking much of the Valemount-Vancouver line,

which I think you'll know has already started creating jobs; $570

million to upgrade the B.C. north line to Prince Rupert, which is the

line running from the B.C.-Alberta boundary right through to Rupert;

$150 million to overhaul yards in Vancouver and North Vancouver; $60

million to expand and upgrade facilities at Prince George, including

upgrading the yard and buildings and a new locomotive-maintenance

facility; various other upgrading projects at Kamloops, Boston Bar,

Blue River, Smithers, Terrace, Endako, McBride, and other B.C. centres;

$6 million at Ridley Island, Prince Rupert; and $1.8 million at nearby

Watson Island. Our government went on record to get a better

transportation system, and we're happy that the jobs are now being

generated. When the opposition says that we haven't done anything about

jobs, I think they should brush up their memories just a little.

The other thing I might say is that at the end of all this will be a

world port at Prince Rupert, one that everybody has talked about. Our

government generated it with northeast coal. Now with the railroad

system changed, we're going to have a second world port to the world

markets that are so vital to the economy of our province.

A lot has been said about northeast coal, which this government

definitely led on. We're quite satisfied that we're right. The

opposition again opposed everything regarding that all through

construction. Now we have a brand new community of Tumbler Ridge in our

province with approximately 3,000 gainfully employed — talking about

employment. The other thing that is not mentioned very much is that we

also have a brand new transportation system for the northwest part of

the province, including an upgraded rail line, and, as I said earlier,

a world port at Prince Rupert. I don't understand why these people are

so much against that.

Dealing again with the budget for a minute, there has been talk

about paying off the debt on the railroad. I am indeed happy to see

that the debt has been paid off, because if it wasn't, maybe we'd lose

the railroad. I have a personal story that will take me a minute to

tell. My dad was the member for Cariboo from 1912 to 1916, and he got

defeated because of the then Pacific Great Eastern Railroad. I don't

want to see us lose the railroad because we haven't paid the debts, so

I'm delighted it has been paid. I don't want to lose on that issue,

because it's the lifeline to the interior and the north of the

province. I know the people in the lower mainland and on the Island

don't realize that, but there is nothing wrong with what happened there

at all.

Interjection.

HON. A. FRASER: There's that little fellow, the second member

for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe), talking about jobs. If you'd be a little

more objective, maybe things would go better for you.

Interjection.

HON. A. FRASER: The Leader of the Opposition said to speak

through you, Mr. Speaker, but if you would be a little more objective,

maybe your community would be better off than always being negative on

things that take place.

The amendment reads that "the most obvious problem of record

unemployment has denied many of our citizens the right to participate

in our society and has thereby condemned, them to a life of

subsistence." Well, Mr. Speaker, that's why I said at the beginning

that there is nothing further from the facts. This great province has a

great future. Because of this government's support and active

participation in many exciting projects, as I have mentioned, many

opportunities will be available for employment in our province at the

present time and in the immediate future of, say, five years. The NDP

opposition are on record, as they always are, as opposing all these

exciting future projects. They will have to live with those decisions

and tell the voters of this province why they always have the Negative

Nellie approach. I'm sure they're going to have to change their

thinking or they will never be government. I don't think that will ever

happen, regardless of how many leadership campaigns they have.

Mr. Speaker, I am really honoured this morning with such an

audience. As I said at the beginning, I oppose the amendment and will

vote against it, and I support the budget and will vote for it.

[11:45]

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I find it a singular honour to be

able to follow the Legislature's best-known punter. He calls them at

the track the way he calls them in the House. He's a loser at both

places. It's a great opportunity for me to deal with some up-country,

home-grown fertilizer that's spread down here with the ability and

efficiency of an elderly gentleman who remembers the 1916 campaign. He

was on a horse and wagon campaigning for his father at that time, and

is continuing with the same literature. Today we had a little example

of good old down-country, Huey Long style of politics. If it moves,

blacktop it, up in his riding. He's done a pretty good job of that.

I want to deal with just a couple of things. I hear the minister's

stomach grumbling and growling at 15 minutes to 12. I wouldn't like the

cabinet to miss a meal. I know that all those people out there in the

soup lines and soup kitchens for free handouts of food appreciate the

minister's speech today telling them how wonderful things are. But

there are a couple of inconsistencies in the minister's speech that

have to be addressed before lunch. I thought I'd just pick out a couple

while everybody is still gently asleep and won't be too upset with it.

For instance, the minister says he wants to privatize the bus system

because, if I may emulate his auditor-general-

[ Page 3508 ]

like approach, he said: "It's costing us a lot of

money. We subsidize it every year." Are you going to sell the ferries,

Mr. Minister?

MR. COCKE: They already have.

MR. BARRETT: You already did that, and you're paying twice to

buy them back with that deal with those Ontario sharpie finance firms.

You mortgaged the house, and you're paying for it twice to buy it back.

You owned the ferries once. You're the only outfit in the world that

sold the ferries for the chance to buy them back at twice the cost with

a trust company in Ontario. That's what they're doing. Isn't that a

smart move? You've got to really get up early in the morning to figure

out a way of selling something you own for the chance to buy it back at

twice the price with a bonus. Those Ontario sharpies skinned you. It's

a lucky thing you don't wear a toupee; they would have taken that too.

Then you've got the nerve to get up here and talk about that

nonsense of selling off the buses. Why don't you sell ALRT? You're

getting in a hole to the eastern banks for hundreds of millions of

dollars that the children of this province and their children's

children and their children's children will have to pay off because of

your dumb-bell financing on ALRT. And you sell off the buses — hundreds

of millions of dollars taken out of the pockets of the taxpayers of

this province. Why don't you privatize that? Who would buy it — Conmac?

Don't kid yourself. There isn't anybody who's going to buy the ALRT.

That is going to cause debt in this province for generations. You've

got the cheeky nerve to stand up and say: "We're going to privatize it."

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Then there were a couple of other things that you said — not to

rough you up too much before lunch. There goes a member from this

House, walking out now. He might as well. They've wrung their hands of

him. He was the Chairman of the Crown Corporations Committee that was

supposed to audit the books of the Crown corporations. What have they

done with that, folks? Why, they've eliminated the Crown Corporations

Committee. No more checking into those books. No more of that grubby,

dirty-fingernail, up-country search into those accounts, boy. We'll

hide those books as fast as we can. And you alienate that poor,

hard-working member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) who gave his great all and

sacrificed for that committee. He'd even do it voluntarily, not for the

money. What are you smiling at?

And then there's this pious stuff about how they cut the budget. I

mean, you know, that has really got to be good old Barnum and Bailey

and Fraser cornpone. Guess what's going on, folks? They cut the budget.

Pssst! You want to know what they didn't cut? Pssst, come back here in

the alley, folks, and we'll tell you how we work it. You see, we cut

the budget by $25 a month to the poor, because we've got to line them

up for their soup with their little begging bowls. Meanwhile, back here

in Victoria, where the peasants will never find out what's going on,

they've doubled the travel budget for cabinet ministers and their

senior staff. Oh, boy, I can see them now, getting on television and

saying: "Oh, we cut the budget here, we cut the budget there — here a

cut, there a cut, but not for us. We're waxing fat. We travel to Hong

Kong, Bangkok, Tokyo and everywhere else in the world. We even go to

Germany for some Black Forest cake." They never once mentioned doubling

the travel budget for cabinet ministers and senior staff. Did you hear

that before, folks? No. Guess what. Do you think they're going to say

that over there? Don't shake your head, Mr. Speaker; I don't want you

to participate in this debate. But I want to tell you that they'll not

be running around British Columbia telling the folks: "Hey, we doubled

our travel budget." They are becoming the transportation experts of the

world — SST, Orient Express, anywhere in the world, there they go.

Shhh! There goes another cabinet minister. Pssst! There goes another

one. They never travel on the same plane. They don't even buy group

fares. They've got so much money they go first class — up there,

drinking the cocktails and the martinis, telling the folks how they cut

the budget, and laughing all the time with the stewardess. I can see

them dozing off in the first-class cabin and the stewardess waking them

up, saying: "Oh my, you must have had a lovely dream with that big

smile on your face" — the big meals down in their bellies, and the

booze washing it down, saying: "We cut the budget." Yahoo!

Where are they? These guys are producing travelogues on their own 16

mm films. Can you see them coming back with their slides? "This is my

latest travel. I was in Birmingham, Alabama, and I chartered a plane

over to Hong Kong. I learned how to eat with one chopstick." Can't you

see 'em? This is the biggest bunch of phony government members that I

have ever seen. They double their own travel budget, and they say:

"We've sure taken it out on the poor. I want everyone to stand in line

for a bowl of soup." Not to be angry; not to be upset; just think,

every $25 a month cut off your welfare cheque is helping the cabinet

ministers of British Columbia travel. What a sacrifice! My goodness,

look at this brilliant group of sacrificing cabinet ministers who have

given up so much to come into public life. Don't they deserve to travel

first-class with filet mignon sticking in their ears and booze going in

the other ear. What a bunch of hypocrisy! You think it is a big joke to

double the budget for travelling cabinet ministers. They have their

nerve to go around saying that they cut the budget. Some poor little

old lady wants some jam with her toast at the end of the month; she

can't have it because the boys and girls have got to travel. One of the

girls came in here yesterday with that big tiger on her blouse — did

you see that one? That's the new slogan: "Hold that tiger." You can't

keep them down.

AN HON. MEMBER: Put a tiger in your tank.

MR. BARRETT: Put a tiger in your tank with the taxpayers'

money: you got it right, man. You'll never hear one of them going

public on television saying: "Well, we have to double our travel budget

because we are sacrificing so much." But I have to thank you for one

thing: when you are out of town, there is less grief. That's one

benefit.

Then I hear the minister talk about the Crow rate and the prairie

farmers. They're in bed with the Liberals. The CPR got free land right

across this country, and they never lived up to their original deal.

You're touting for the CPR? I never thought I'd see the day when a

Socred cabinet minister would stand up defending the CPR, which got

away with murder in this country and is still getting away with more.

And you're praising the CPR. If they don't like the original deal, why

doesn't the CPR give back the land? That is the kind of free

enterpriser they have over there, Mr. Speaker: give the free

enterprisers everything. The CPR has hosed this nation right from

inception, and now they have got away with more, and

[ Page 3509 ]

that minister is right in bed with Pierre Elliott

Trudeau. I can see him up in the Cariboo saying: "I don't like

Liberals." Down here he is praising them. I can just see a mug shot of

him with a big buss right on the cheek with Pierre. Do you think they

will ever see that picture up in the Cariboo? Oh, no, no. Political

room-mates. That gang is in bed with Pierre Trudeau — all of you in one

big bed with the blankets over you. What's going on? The CPR still

comes out, and they're not pregnant. They've done very well.

Mr. Speaker, the other nonsense that the minister pedals here.... He's

a nice fellow — nothing personal, Mr. Speaker — but he pedals an awful lot of

nonsense and horse feathers. I've just started, and I don't want to

upset the cabinet ministers' lunch. They all have to have a good meal before

they take off and travel again to the four corners of the world so they can

continue that great travelogue — putting salesmen on the road. They send the

Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) to sell

coal to Australia. You've got to be a real genius to figure that one out.

One of the biggest coal producers in the world has swiped half of our market

into Asia and they send the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development

to sell coal to Australia. They couldn't sell it in Newcastle, so they sent

him to Australia. It takes brains to figure out ways to waste money. You guys

don't even do that. You just throw it up in the air. You say: "Anything

that stays up there is the taxpayers'; anything that falls to the ground

is ours." What an outfit!

Mr. Speaker, I think that I'll save the rest of my time for later on

this afternoon. I just want to end with a little admonition of

straight, up-country homily to the minister who just spoke: "Don't kid

the troops. Have a little fun. Smile once in a while." When you come in

here and tell us how you cut the budget and double your own expenses,

at least do it with a little grace and humour. It's all a big joke,

isn't it? It's a tragic joke to the people of British Columbia. I move

adjournment of this debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Schroeder moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:57 a.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1985,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada