1982 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 32nd Parliament

Hansard

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

( Hansard )

THURSDAY, APRIL 15, 1982

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

7025 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

TMA takeover of Inland Natural Gas. Mr. Macdonald –– 7025

Northeast coal. Mr. Lank –– 7025

Mr. Leggatt

Use of prisoners for ship-conversion work. Mr. Macdonald –– 7027

Budget Debate

On the amendment

Mr. Strachan –– 7027

Tabling Documents

Labour Relations Board annual report, 1981.

Hon. Mr. Heinrich –– 7028

Workers' Compensation Board annual report, December 31, 1981.

Hon. Mr. Heinrich –– 7028

Budget Debate

On the amendment

Mr. Lea –– 7028

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 7033

Mrs. Wallace –– 7036

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 7040

Mr. Cocke –– 7042

Tabling Documents

Document relating to size of public service in B.C., 1872-1981.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 7044

Budget Debate

On the amendment

Mr. Davis –– 7044

Motion

Reaffirmation of commitment to country. Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 7047

Mr. Howard

THURSDAY, APRIL 15, 1982

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, a delegation

representing the Canadian Federation of Students is in the gallery or

precinct this afternoon. They represent a generation of students who

ask only that they be given the same opportunity that other generations

of students have had. Their names are Gordon Moore, Gene Beuthien,

Regina Costa, Rudy Van Berkel, Imtiaz Popat, Andrew Mackie, Donna

Morgan, Jean Kirk, Sophia Hanafi and Russ Collier. I'd ask the House to

make them welcome.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I would ask the

House to welcome Mr. Michael Allerton and Donald Cook. Donald is

president of the Vancouver Symphony Society and Michael Allerton is

managing director.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, with your

indulgence, I would like to explain why I have my arm in a sling today.

I've had a number of inquiries and I think it would save me time if I

simply explained. It's nothing to do with my opposition to the

government's heavy-handed programs, and I haven't had any fights with

the Sergeant-at-Arms. It is the result of a skiing trip that I took to

Cypress Bowl about three months ago, believe it or not. I unfortunately

fell and tore a ligament and it took me three months to realize that it

hurt. That's the truth. I was well-conditioned for hard knocks and

pain, having been a football player for many years; however, I wasn't

getting much sleep so I went down to the emergency this morning. They

suggested that I had better put this thing in a sling and immobilize it

for a while or I'd be operating with the use of only one arm. Thank

you, Mr. Speaker, and I hope no one will be inquiring during the next

few days about this sling.

I would like to introduce two

people who are with us in the galleries: Mr. David Cadman and Mr.

Gordon Bailey. Mr. Cadman is president and Mr. Bailey is secretary of

the Vancouver Municipal and Regional Employees Union. I would like the

House to make them welcome.

MR. SPEAKER: Now would you like to hear about my scars? [Laughter.]

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: I just couldn't resist.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, would you like to hear about my sore jaw?

behalf of the Minister of Transportation and Highways, the Hon. Alex

Fraser, I would like to introduce to the House three members from that

great Cariboo riding. With us in the galleries is His Worship Mayor Tom

Mason, who used to be an old pal of mine in the Ford business; with him

are Alderman Saini and Alderman Cobb. I hope the House will make these

gentlemen from the great city of Williams Lake welcome here today.

Oral Questions

TMA TAKEOVER OF INLAND NATURAL GAS

MR. MACDONALD:

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

Petroleum Resources. Did the government on Tuesday last make any

approaches through the minister's department or any other department of

government to the Utilities Commission or the Supreme Court of British

Columbia to forestall the takeover by TMA of the shares of Inland

Natural Gas?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. MACDONALD: What did the government do at that last moment?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

Mr. Speaker, this question has been the subject of question period on

another occasion in the House, and at that time I assured the second

member for Vancouver East that the government intended to intervene in

the matter of the TMA takeover and that we would intervene at an

appropriate time, which would be when a public hearing was held. That

still remains the objective of the government and we intend to

intervene when that public hearing is held, which I expect will be in a

matter of a week or so.

Without treading on the

Attorney-General's (Hon. Mr. Williams') responsibilities, I can say

that we have today passed an order-in-council under a

section of the

Utilities Commission Act, which allows us to give direction to the B.C.

Utilities Commission, instructing that Inland Natural Gas not proceed

with the transfer of shares until such time as the public hearing can

be held, that a full review of the share transactions take place, and

that interveners and others have an opportunity to ensure that the

transfer of shares, should it take place, is in the best interest of

the people of British Columbia.

MR. MACDONALD: I have

a supplementary question. Have the shares not yet been transferred to

Anderson and Ben Macdonald? Have they not picked up the shares?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, it's our understanding that that share transaction has not fully taken place.

MR. MACDONALD: Fully.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: It has not taken place at the present time.

NORTHEAST COAL

MR. LAUK: To the

Minister of Industry and Small Business Development. Tokyo Doeki Ltd.

and Mitsui Mining Co., 40 percent equity owners of the Quintette Mine,

have indicated that they are concerned about the possibility of

construction overruns and wish to bail out of the northeast coal

project by trying to sell their interests. Can the minister confirm

that this is the reason why neither Teck nor Denison have been able to

arrange long-term financing totalling in excess of $1 billion for their

mine developments in the northeast?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

In answer to the member's question, the name is Tokyo Boeki Ltd., for

your information. There are negotiations going on from time to time

between the coal companies and their partners in Tokyo and their

partners in France, I would presume. I will not confirm or deny press

statements to the effect that they're bailing out. I think that's a

statement by the member opposite which I will not confirm or have

anything to do with, other than to say that the project is proceeding,

and from the reports I get finance is proceeding. There will be other

great announcements in the very near future to prove that this great

project has been well designed and is coming in on budget and on time.

[ Page 7026 ]

MR. LAUK:

The reports that we have are that these two 40 percent equity owners

are seeking to sell their interest to the very steel mills that will be

purchasing and using the metallurgical coal from this area of our

province. This kind of vertical integration means that they control the

source of their supply, the price and the future negotiations for

contracts. In other words, they will be negotiating with themselves.

Has the government decided that this arrangement can take place and is

consistent with government policy with respect to the northeast coal

project?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I cannot be responsible

for information that that member seems to dig up. If it is like most of

the information emanating from that side of the House, it isn't founded

on any great basis. However, having said that, I think that

negotiations that take place between the owners of the coal companies

are their business. They have the responsibility to bring the mines

onstream. I must add to that that if the steel mills in Japan should

decide to take some equity position, it would not be unusual and it

would not be the first time that it has happened.

MR. LAUK:

If these companies, Boeki and Mitsui, do withdraw, has the government

decided on some form of subsidy or guarantee to the private sector part

of this coal project?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I was just trying to determine if the question is hypothetical. The minister wishes to answer?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I was just going to say, Mr. Speaker, that it's a very hypothetical question. Therefore I don't think I'm going to answer it.

MR. LAUK: Has the minister met with Teck or Denison to discuss this important withdrawal of these two major partners?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

I have to state again that the member seems to be trying to put out the

fact that Tokyo, Boeki and Mitsui mining are withdrawing from the

project. I would suggest that that statement is unfounded.

MR. LAUK:

I take it then that the minister is denying the public reports that

both these companies are desirous of selling their interests. Is that

not the case?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I read that report in the Vancouver Sun ,

I believe it was. I gathered from the

article I read that they were

interested in disposing of a portion of their interest. I just go by

what I read in the newspaper. I didn't gather from that report that

they were trying to dispose of their entire assets. So, you see, the

information on which the question is based is, I would say, unfounded.

MR. LAUK: Well, when a bookie takes a bet and he figures it's a bad debt, he tries to lay it off.

question is to the minister. The British Columbia Railway is now

borrowing upwards of $200 million to continue construction of the Anzac

line. The government has not budgeted to pay BCR for the cost of

construction. What steps has the government taken to ensure payment to

this Crown railway to cover their construction costs?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

Well, Mr. Speaker, as you know, I'm not an expert on the rules of the

House, but I would suggest that that question hinges on future

government policy.

MR. LAUK: Last year the government paid BCR $45 million by special warrant. Has the government decided to do the same this year?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, that member has been in the House almost as long as I have, and he knows that that question is out of order.

MR. LEGGATT:

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

Business Development. One thing does seem clear, and that is that

neither Teck nor Denison have been able to get their financing in place

up to now. Would the minister advise the House what, specifically, the

bonding arrangements are with regard to both Teck and Denison and the

developers of the two projects — the private side — to guarantee that

the minister hasn't squandered a pile of public money into the Anzac

line? What are the specific arrangements which will require those two

companies to complete their end of the deal?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: In answer to the member's question, I would have to say that the taxpayers of British Columbia are well protected.

MR. LEGGATT:

I know the minister would want to bring us into his confidence and

expand on that phrase, "well protected." What is the protection that

the taxpayers of British Columbia now have legally in place to

guarantee that both Teck and Denison meet their end of the deal and

complete the private sector? What are they? Are they insurance

guarantees? Are they in writing? Are they by letter?

MR. SPEAKER: It could be a very lengthy answer. Are we prepared to...?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

Mr. Speaker, it won't be a very lengthy answer. I realize that member

hasn't been in the House very long, but there was sufficient time

during my estimates last year and there will be sufficient time during

my estimates this year for that member to ask the question. He's been

discussing this and trying to put out the information that the coal

company's finances are not in order. That's information for which he

will have to be responsible.

However, I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the question is not urgent.

MR. LEGGATT:

The question my colleague asked the minister dealt with the attempt by

Tokyo Boeki and Mitsui Mining to lay off their investment into the

steel mills. That will mean that we have an international vertical

integration with regard to the coal resources of British Columbia. If

the steel industry becomes both the seller and the buyer, we will not

get a fair price for British Columbia's product. My question is this:

what policy has the minister in place to prevent that kind of

international integration whereby we will not receive a fair price for

our product?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I'm not really a past master of the rules of the House, or anything like that, but I

[ Page 7027 ]

would say that the member's question draws an inference and is therefore out of order.

USE OF PRISONERS FOR SHIP-CONVERSION WORK

MR. MACDONALD:

To the Attorney-General, Mr. Speaker, 17 inmates from the Chilliwack

Community Correctional Centre are now engaged in the conversion of two

vessels at Surrey Docks. The Sunshine Queen

from the old B.C. Ferries fleet is one of them. The boats are now owned

by Gulf Oil and they've contracted with Canarctic for the conversion.

These inmates are getting $4.50 an hour and I like to see the work

being done, but they're displacing regular union work in a commercial

field in a time of high unemployment. Is this the policy of the

department?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I would take the

question on notice, as the particular circumstances to which the member

refers are not known to me. I can say, however, that the policy was

established during the time he was the Attorney-General.

HON. MR. GARDOM:

Mr. Speaker, as House Leader, and as notice to the House, I would like

to inform the House that I will be filing at the table a motion

proposed and moved by myself, and seconded by the Hon.

Attorney-General, that this Legislature regrets the publication of an

editorial in the Province dated April 15, 1982 relating to a decision given by the Speaker of the House on Tuesday, April 13, 1982.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, if I might have the leave of the House to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM:

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I introduce to the House

and bid a very special welcome to Sir John Biggs-Davison, Member of

Parliament for Epping Forest, who is on a speaking tour across Canada

for the Monarchist League of Canada, and to Miss Molly Ingram, the

chairman of the Victoria branch of that league.

Orders of the Day

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

On the amendment.

MR. STRACHAN:

In the time that I have left, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to comment further

on a few items that are left: the restraint program, comments made in

the amendment by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) about the

small business program. I would also extend my very, very best wishes

to the hon. member visiting us from Westminster. I understand he has

been in Prince George, and I sincerely hope he enjoyed himself there.

any event, with respect to the restraint program, Mr. Speaker, I wish

to make a few comments with reference to the small business assistance

that is mentioned in the opposition amendment, and some comments

regarding restraint as it applies to education. First of all, I guess

the underlying reason behind the restraint program is the fact that our

government, the Premier, the Minister of Finance and cabinet had to

take a hard stance and begin recognizing the way things were around us.

As a government, we have to recognize the world around us. No

government can go along with their heads in the sand and pretend that

things are fine out there in the real world. The restraint program was

not invented; it was not fabricated. It is a realistic answer and

approach to the state of the North American economy.

In the

private sector there is restraint, and for a lot of people in this

province it is entitled "layoff." That is how the private sector is

restrained. If there is no more profit to the company, dividends aren't

paid and unfortunately men and employment have to be cut back. That is

a very hard-line restraint that the private sector takes. Our province

had to recognize that there was this problem in the private sector,

problems with general revenue, problems that we had to face, and in

fact we did, with an eminently fair and realistic restraint program. As

a matter of fact, it is interesting that most of the comments we heard

as government members — I am sure hon. members opposite might have

heard the same comments; I know the Premier did — were that our

restraint program wasn't tough enough. That is one of the criticisms

we've heard on this side of the House. But it is eminently fair to all

concerned, and it does recognize the problems that our North American

economy is going through. Of course, essentially what it does is get

the taxing authorities' hands out of the taxpayer's pocket. I would

submit to all hon. members that that is an admirable program to embark

on in this time of our economic history.

A few comments

about teachers. I know the hon. first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr.

Lauk) has spent a lot of time, as I said earlier, with teachers and

teachers' representatives. It is ironic that if you travel through a

riding and speak to many teachers, as I have, you learn that by and

large the rank and file of the teachers who are out there in the

classroom doing a good job, recognizing what is going on in the world

around them, are in favour of the restraint program themselves. I think

that fact has been amply demonstrated to the British Columbia Teachers

Federation, and I would submit that the teachers have a more realistic

view of the current economic situation than their own federation does.

I think that has been evidenced in the last six weeks.

guess the one comment I thought of as soon as I heard about the

restraint program and spoke to my school board was that we might even

see things improve in the classroom because of the program. It is no

secret to me as a former trustee, and I'm sure it's no secret to many

of the members here who have served on school boards or who have been

teachers or principals, that when times get tough and your budgets get

down you look for your best people. I know, for example, that right now

as the spring staffing starts to take place, the principals will he

starting to protect their best people and make sure that their best

staff are in place in September. The administration and school boards

will be doing the same thing in light of the restraint program: they

will be ensuring that their best, most productive teachers are in place

for September, recognizing the budget constraints ahead of them.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please. I would like to remind the House that in the presence of

bills which are on the order paper which perhaps care for this matter

in detail, we must not now go into the debate which those bills

anticipate. A casual reference, of course, is in order, but certainly

the debate on that particular measure should be saved until that time.

[ Page 7028 ]

MR. STRACHAN:

A fair comment, Mr. Speaker. Just briefly, I would expect we could see

some improvement in the standard of teaching because of this.

There

has been a concern from some college students, some of whom are in the

gallery today — I am again speaking of the restraint program in general

and not of specific legislation — about tuition increases. I think it

is fair to point out to this assembly that in post-secondary

institutions, when you consider inflation and all the other factors

involved in the way we relate the economic conditions of our time,

student tuition is 38 percent down in terms of inflation in the last

ten years. I don't think our students have a big problem there. As a

matter of fact, British Columbia has the lowest post-secondary tuition

in Canada. I think that is something we can all be proud of.

Reference

is made in the amendment to the fact that our government and our budget

does not recognize the concerns of small business. We know that the

NDP, the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea), the member for Nanaimo

(Mr. Stupich), went around the province and had hearings on small

business. One thing that's almost laughable is the letterhead they

used. I'll just describe it to you. It's on Legislative Assembly of

British Columbia letterhead. It's called "The Standing Committee on

Small Business, " and I'm prepared to table this if it is wished. "The

Standing Committee on Small Business will be holding hearings in

Dewdney." This came to me from that hon. member, but I have one from

Prince George as well.

Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to say

that they misted the House, because that's unparliamentary, and I

certainly won't say that. But I must tell you it was certainly

misunderstood by the constituents in my riding, as I'm sure it was

misunderstood by the constituents in Dewdney, when they saw "The

Standing Committee on Small Business," with the names of the members

appearing here. The member for Prince Rupert and the member for Nanaimo

are listed on Legislative Assembly letterhead, and it appears, in fact,

to be an official document, when it's just something from the NDP

caucus. It is not a standing committee of this House, and if it weren't

so laughable I think some of us on this side might try and raise a

point of privilege. Considering the source, I guess there's not much

more we can say.

The last point I want to make is a comment

again with respect to the Leader of the Opposition's amendment and how

he would in fact support small business. That's contrasted when one

reads of a statement made by the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr.

Lauk) to some students and printed in a college newspaper. When asked,

"Should business participate in vocational training?" the first member

for Vancouver Centre used a very steamy word, which I won't repeat in

this House. In fact, he was saying that we should tax them greatly. I

guess that's the best way I can paraphrase that. I find that quite

hypocritical, Mr. Speaker, when we see a motion from the Leader of the

Opposition saying that we're not supporting business. Yet a member from

that party is advocating heavier and heavier taxes for business and for

vocational training. I find those views quite inconsistent, and they

certainly don't do anything to add to the credibility of the opposition.

Mr.

Speaker, in closing, I thank all hon. members for their attention. I'm

fully behind the budget. It's a fair budget. It reflects the economy of

today. I wish to close by saying I'm totally opposed to the amendment.

It really doesn't stand for anything, and it doesn't really say

anything that isn't covered in our budget. I would ask all members to

defeat it.

MR. SPEAKER: The Minister of Labour seeks the floor.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I apologize, but I attempted to get your attention earlier. I was in error for not jumping up quick enough.

I would like leave to file two reports.

Leave granted.

Hon.

Mr. Heinrich tabled the Annual Report of the Labour Relations Board,

1981, and the sixty-fifth annual report, for the year ended December

31, 1981, of the Workers' Compensation Board.

MR. SPEAKER:

Just so the House understands, leave is not required for the filing of

reports, but leave is required to interrupt the proceedings. The member

followed the correct procedure.

MR. LEA: I've been

listening very, very closely to the member for Prince George South (Mr.

Strachan) and I found his theories fascinating. When certain economic

indicators are in place, the birth rate is higher than it is when the

economic indicators are at other points; I believe it was that when

times are good, more babies are born. I've personally never found that

my passions rose or fell with economic indicators, but I now know. I

thought it was a rather learned speech.

As is the practice

during this discussion on the amendment, I noticed that the member for

Omineca (Mr. Kempf) and the member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr.

Ritchie) took the opportunity to read last year's speeches that they

made in the House, so I thought it would only be fitting if I were to

delve into the past and not read my own speeches, like they did, but

maybe look at some speeches from others in days gone by.

AN HON. MEMBER: Major Douglas' speech.

MR. LEA: Not Major Douglas, no. It's far too complicated for the present Socreds.

Mr.

Speaker, you'll recall, as you were in the House in 1975, the last time

that this province faced any economic turndown of any significance —

not as bad as the one we're in now, but it wasn't very pleasant for the

people of British Columbia in 1974 and 1975 when we had an

international economic turndown.

I'd like to go back to 1975

and review some of the comments made by the then Leader of the

Opposition during the budget speech. At that time, of course, the

Leader of the Opposition was the member for Okanagan South (Hon. Mr.

Bennett), and is now the Premier. I won't dwell on it, but there are a

few passages that I would like to read from Hansard of that year. You might find it somewhat familiar.

page 286, March 3, 1975, Mr. Bennett is criticizing the NDP

administration of the day, when we brought in the budget. A little

later I may even get to some quotes about jobs from the Minister of

Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot).

Interjection.

MR. LEA: You had some beautiful things to say about housing in those days. I'm not sure you'd like to hear them today, though.

[ Page 7029 ]

The

Premier at the time was chastising us for not accepting full

responsibility for the economic recession. As a matter of fact, the

Premier felt that we were blaming Ottawa and that it was really unfair.

The Premier said: "It must be noted that this government," which was

ours at the time, Mr. Speaker, "which took all the credit a year ago" —

that's all the credit for a buoyant economy — "must now search 3,000

miles across this country, or around the globe, to attach the blame for

the continued deterioration in our resource economy, because never have

British Columbians seen a budget with so many scapegoats, none of whom

live in British Columbia. They took all the credit when things were

going right, and now the Minister of Finance would have us believe — in

advance he's prepared his scapegoats (a little aside he threw in) —

that it's Ottawa's fault, the Americans' fault, the Japanese' fault,

when nothing goes right, but not the fault of the government of British

Columbia, not this government of British Columbia — no, no, no."

That

was one of the Premier's little remarks in 1975. You might think I'm

delving into the past to make a point, but at this time in 1975 the

Premier, the then Leader of the Opposition, had some things to say

about the Tolmie government, so he went back a little way too.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: It's extraordinary, isn't it?

The Leader of the Opposition at that time, the now Premier, said:

Now let us apply the realism tag to the estimate side. Never

in the history of the province, since the days of the Tolmie government, have

so many "ifs" been ascribed to estimates of revenue, Mr. Speaker.

Estimates of revenue from natural gas will come true if the federal government

raises the export price. Much-needed assistance for local government will be

available if Ottawa comes through. Estimates from personal taxation will be

met if the economy improves in May. In almost every case this so-called budget

of realism will become fact only "if", Mr. Speaker.

has a bit of a ring to it, doesn't it? We listened just the other day

to the budget of this government, and they say they will be doing

certain things, like raising $250 million for housing "if" the federal

government comes through. The reason we're having problems today in

British Columbia is because those dirty people in Ottawa are doing this

present government in. We say that in 1975 there was an international

recession, and as a government we had to try to deal with the problems

of international recession and poor markets.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: That was a B.C. recession.

MR. LEA:

The Minister of Municipal Affairs says it was a B.C. recession, and we

want to take full blame, Mr. Minister. It was our government in 1975

that put down the housing starts in the United States.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: I know we did. You see, Mr. Speaker, they don't like this very much.

Let's see if there are some more quotes we can go back to in 1975. The Premier, the then Leader of the Opposition, said:

Now it is particularly interesting to note that the estimates

of welfare contained in this budget and estimates of revenue from the forest

sector do not support the optimistic character of the revenue predictions. The

federal government's share...

Oh, here we go again.

... of programmes — mostly welfare payments to this province

— will increase by over $200 million. Is that optimistic? Estimates of revenue

from the forest sector are off approximately one-third from last year, and neither

of these critical elements of this budget support the Minister of Finance's

contention that the economic climate will improve sufficiently to give this

budget any measure of credibility.

Does

this sound familiar? In that statement the Premier, when he was Leader

of the Opposition in 1975, admitted that the reason we were suffering

was that housing starts were off in the United States. The Minister of

Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), with his economic knowledge,

says it was our fault.

AN HON. MEMBER: He wasn't here, though.

MR. LEA: No, he wasn't here.

like this one particularly. Did you notice the Premier not too long ago

on television talking about the new lottery that's going to supply the

cash for Expo 86? The Premier loves lotteries today. I'd like to have

you hear what he said in 1975 about lotteries and about the plight of

the ordinary working people in this province, This is the then Leader

of the Opposition talking about the now Leader of the Opposition when

we were in government.

This man (he was

referring, of course, to Barrett) believes that there is something

wrong with the system which exists in a vast province like British

Columbia where he, unless he wins a lottery, will have to wait until

his children approach school age before he can think of affording to

take them to a home of their own.

The Premier was absolutely

disgusted. He thought that things were so bad in 1975 that the only

possible way anybody might even have a chance of owning their own home

or carrying out a project was to force one of those dirty lotteries on

the people of British Columbia.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Who was the Premier in 1975?

MR. LEA:

The Premier in 1975 was the first member for Vancouver East (Mr.

Barrett). The Leader of the Opposition at that time was the present

Premier, who was just absolutely disgusted that we were sort of running

the province like a lottery. In those days the present Premier thought

that lotteries were bad because they taxed the poor. Today he loves

them. Talk about hypocritical attitudes.

The member who just finished speaking was talking about education and the finance for education. Let's go back to Mr. Bennett.

The

expenditures for universities on capital are now well below the

increasing capital provided in the late sixties and up until 1972, When

the inflation factor is applied to the 1975 figures, the case that the

universities are falling into a period of neglect becomes quite

apparent.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: We changed that in 1976.

MR. LEA:

You changed it! "The $12 million provided this year, because of that

inflation, is the equivalent of having a cutback on university capital

expenditures...." It is history revisited.

Oh, here's another one on page 293.

[ Page 7030 ]

This

minister has found it necessary to go international with his grandstand

act in order to try to balance this budget. You can bet that if he

doesn't balance a year from now or six months from now, he'll blame it

on Ottawa. It will be Ottawa's fault, not his fault, not accountable in

British Columbia. They are already preparing where to present the

blame. It's the first time the excuse has been developed well in

advance of the fact, and in this budget they've developed their excuse

early.

Can you imagine all the Ottawa-bashing that's gone on in the last couple of years?

AN HON. MEMBER: We ought to do away with Hansard .

MR. LEA: It should be illegal to read Hansard ,

eh? Oh, I've got some more for you. You'll really like it. That's why

in 1972, when we came to office and discovered that we were the only

province in Canada without a Hansard , we thought it might be

worthwhile to put one in. The government now feels that that was a

mistake. I think you probably voted against it at the time.

AN HON. MEMBER: We should have.

MR. LEA: Yes, you should have.

Oh,

I love this one, Mr. Speaker. You can recall last year, when all the

municipalities were trying to put together their budgets and couldn't

get any word from Victoria as to exactly what sort of a budget they

were going to receive, they were quite upset. The Premier was quite

upset when he was the Leader of the Opposition in 1975. He said:

The

farce in all this, of course, is that municipalities are in the process

of settling budgets. Now, Mr. Minister of Finance, the municipalities

are settling their budgets now — not next month, not midsummer, but

now. They need to know now, not some airy-fairy, iffy promise developed

in the research and publicity department....

Isn't it good

stuff? You know, for those of you, like the Minister of Municipal

Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr.

Heinrich), the member for Kamloops (Mr. Richmond), the member for

Omineca (Mr. Kempf), the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis)

and the member for Yale-Lillooet (Hon. Mr. Waterland).... You weren't

here; you don't know the real irony of listening to what your own

government is saying today, because you weren't here to have heard what

they were saying in 1972, 1973, 1974 and 1975. Mr. Speaker, I can

actually understand why those people on that side of the House who

weren't here feel some sort of indignation, why they really believe

that we're the bad guys and they're the good guys. They actually

believe that the budget they brought in is a good one. They don't

understand the history of what's been happening in this province for

the last decade, so it's understandable that they could be mistaken.

Oh,

Mr. Speaker, you were here when the Liberals were in the House. As a

matter of fact, the present Minister of Finance was a Conservative in

this House, and what he had to say about Social Credit and the kind of

budgets that Social Credit brought in.... You know, I'm going to save

those for his estimates, because the present Minister of Finance really

didn't like very much the kind of budget he brought in the other day —

not back in 1973 and 1974. Now the Minister of Universities, Science

and Communications from Point Grey (Hon. Mr. McGeer) hated them. He

absolutely hated Social Credit and the kind of funny-money juggling of

books — cooking of books, as he used to call it — that Social Credit

used to do. As a matter of fact, do you know what the minister used to

accuse Social Credit of? He used to accuse them of overestimating their

revenues and underestimating their expenditures.

AN HON. MEMBER: No!

MR. LEA: Oh, he did. Now he votes for it.

Let's

just take a look at the forest revenues and the projections for this

year. We have it on very reliable information that in the United States

today they have a ten-month backlog of already built housing available

for sale. If the interest rates were to come down to a reasonable rate

in the United States tomorrow, there is ten months of housing on the

market that would have to be swallowed up before new housing would come

on stream. I asked the people from the forest industry: "What does that

mean to us in British Columbia? If there is ten months of housing

available, already existing, in the United States, how long would it be

before our economy, in terms of forestry, would pick up to make some

significant difference?" The answer was: "Eighteen months to two

years." I can say I wasn't happy to hear that. I would like it if our

forest industry would pick up yesterday; no one in this province is

happy to hear those kind of statistics.

But, Mr. Speaker,

how can the Minister of Finance and the Social Credit government

estimate an increase of the magnitude that they have in forest revenues

for the coming year, when industry itself and statistics from the

United States, where the housing starts have to take place, say it's

not true? Industry disputes strongly the projected estimated revenues

from forestry in this province that are in this current budget that

we're discussing. Statistics and information from the United States say

that we were absolutely right on this side of the House, that there is

no way that the housing market in the United States can grow in any

significance to give the kind of revenues that are projected in this

budget. Yes, Mr. Speaker, we are looking at the old Social Credit kind

of budgeting: overestimating the revenues and underestimating the

expenditures, only this time they had to clean out the cookie jar to

even get through the first six months. They've had to go in and rob all

the special purpose funds that were set aside over the years in order

to get by even the first six months in this current budget.

For

those reasons — and those reasons alone — I believe it would be

possible that we could be in an election before we ever see the fourth

or final quarterly report on this current budget, because there isn't

any way that the expectations in terms of revenue, as put forward by

the Minister of Finance and his government, can be met. I don't think

there is anybody in this room that believes that they can be met. I

don't think there is anybody in this room who doesn't believe that the

expenditures are underestimated, and that there isn't any way the

expenditures can be kept down to the way they're represented in the

budget book. It's laughable, Mr. Speaker, that the government

backbenchers, who know as well as we that this budget is not an

accurate estimation of revenues and expenditures, will actually get up

and support it when they know it's not true.

I'd like to

deal with what the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) had to say yesterday

about democratic representation. The member for Omineca was chastising

this side of the House for not coming down here and doing what our

constituents wanted us to do. He said that we were down here acting

[ Page 7031 ]

like

individuals, and that we had no right to put our individual thoughts

forward in debate — that we were required by democracy to come down

here and give the views of our constituents.

He shakes his

head. Yes, he did say that, and he believes that. I would like to point

out to you how stupid a remark like that really is, because it's not

the basis of our democratic system of representation. I will give some

examples. Let's take some controversial issues: say gun control. Can

the member for Omineca assure this House that everyone in his riding

feels exactly the same way about gun control?

MR. KEMPF: The majority.

MR. LEA: He cannot even accurately say the majority.

MR. KEMPF: Yes, I can. How do you know?

MR. LEA: I don't, and neither do you; that's the point.

Mr.

Speaker, in our form of government we are elected in our individual

constituencies to come here and be individuals. We are elected to come

here and to assess legislation and then to give our individual views as

we see that legislation. If the majority of the people in our

constituency don't agree with the views that we have given, then there

is a democratic option, and that's to vote us out and to replace us

with someone else.

When the day comes that we come into this

Legislature and give our views as reflected in polls, that's the day

representative democracy will end. That's the day we will no longer

have the kind of democracy our forefathers put together. As a matter of

fact, I see one of the dangers to democracy as government governing by

poll, instead of leading, instead of individually getting together,

discussing and coming to a policy conclusion.

That's what

this government is, Mr. Speaker: they are into the electronic gadgetry

age of taking polls. Whatever the polls say, they'll do. They don't

think for themselves. It would be nice to come into this House and to

actually be able to disagree with some policy that they thought of and

put forward, or agree with it. That isn't how they work. They're the

kind of government that does polls. It's almost like having government

by referendum when you do polling to the extent that this government

does.

It's a dangerous precedent for democracy — very

dangerous, because we were not elected to come down here to this House

to take popularity polls and then design our programs and policies

around those polls and bring them into the Legislature. We were elected

not to follow polls, but to lead. That government, if they are

reflecting the member for Omineca's feelings — and I believe they are —

are absolutely in error as to the theory of democracy and how

representative democracy works. I see electronic poll gadgetry as a

damaging, dangerous thing for the future of democracy, and I see this

government governing in that way — not sitting down as a group

examining the facts as they are available. That's what they've done in

this budget.

MR. KEMPF: There's never been an electronic poll in my constituency.

MR. LEA: Oh, Mr. Speaker, he's such a devil, isn't he. He can't say that. For him to say that is absolutely stupid.

MR. KEMPF: Tell me when there was.

MR. SPEAKER: The member for Omineca will come to order.

MR. LEA: How do you think they do Gallup polls?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The member for Omineca will come to order.

Interjection.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: The member for Omineca will come to order.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. LEA:

Mr. Speaker, what we're seeing here is an amendment talking about

putting people to work, about doing something to try to help small

business get through what are very difficult times. The member for

Prince George North (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) was appalled and laughed in

ridicule that my party would take the time to go around the province

and hold public hearings to talk to the small business community and

listen to their problems and their solutions to those problems. I can

understand why they're nervous about it, because they have never done

it.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: The member for

Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie) says we were deceiving. In other

words, as a member of the Legislature I sent out a letter to the small

business community on Legislative Assembly paper. It was perfectly

legal and perfectly moral. What they think was deceiving was the fact

that the NDP were actually going out and talking to somebody whom

they've always considered their constituency whether they did anything

for them or not.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to talk about a few

things that the small business community did say to us and tell you

about some of the problems they're having. It makes them nervous, Mr.

Speaker; they don't like the NDP talking to the small business

community. It makes them a little nervous. I will say one thing about

the member for Kamloops (Mr. Richmond). He carried a fair report of our

meetings on his radio station in Kamloops. I didn't hear it coming from

him; I heard it coming from the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr.

Hewitt), the member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie) and the

member for Prince George North. They're afraid that we were actually

going to go out and talk to the small business community and find out

what the problems are and what some of the solutions are.

Mr.

Speaker, the small business community in this province is suffering as

it has not suffered since the 1930s. That's what they told us:

bankruptcies, high interest rates and a cavalier, insensitive policy by

the Canadian chartered banks. We were told that consistently across the

province by the small business community. Yes, high interest rates are

hurting them, but the policy of the banks is hurting them just as much

as the high interest rates themselves.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

[ Page 7032 ]

They

talked about their cash flow. They talked about the fact that their

customers, the trade unionists and other workers in this province,

don't have money to go into the small retail shop to buy clothing and

other necessities of life. They talked about not having cash flow and

how it was the worst that it has been in their memory. Mr. Speaker, it

wasn't only businesses that had been in business for one, two, three,

four and five years. Businesses who have been around this province for

50 years are suffering. They said: "Who is going to help us?" They're

not getting anything from the provincial government. Nothing. Now you

can smirk, you can laugh, you can do what you want. All I am doing is

telling you what the small business community told us when we were

travelling around this province about the kind of dire straits they're

in — the worst they've ever been in. Banks are phoning at 11 o'clock in

the morning and saying: "Your line of credit is called in and we want

it by 3 o'clock this afternoon or you're out of business." Businesses

are asset-rich and cash-poor because of the bad economic times. And

this government is doing nothing to help small business and they know

it.

The minister responsible for small business got up

earlier today and he talked about some of the things they've done in

the past. You know, Mr. Speaker, some of the things that he talked

about are good. The counselling services that the minister instituted

are good. There are good things that this government has done for the

small business community. But in their time of trouble, the government

has completely forgotten them, and they're in trouble today.

From

one end of the government to the other, they're asking for their

Legislature to help them in some way to get them through the bad times.

Mr. Speaker, because there is no help forthcoming from this government,

I'm going to tell you what I think is going to happen. We're going to

see people who have been in business in this province for ten, twenty,

thirty and fifty years go out of business. It's not because they're bad

managers, and it's not because they lack the entrepreneurial skills to

advance, to build and to have their businesses succeed; it's because of

the bad economic times that we have. If we allow those people to go out

of business, we are going to lose some of the best management and

entrepreneurial skills that have taken years and years and years to

build up in this province. They're going to be gone, and they're not

going to be coming back into business — a lot of them.

What we have to ask ourselves is whether it isn't worthwhile for us to

try in some way to help those people stay in business, as opposed to letting

them go down the tube and then helping somebody with no experience get started

later on. That's what we're going to be doing. You know, there's

hardly any help at all to keep some smart, good-management, enterprising family

in business, but there's all sorts of help to get people into business why've

never been in business before, and that's wrong because we're going

to lose some of the best skilled people that we have. And who's going to

replace them? It's going to be replaced by Suzy Creamcheese and all of those

national chain stores that we see popping up in all the shopping centres throughout

the province. The small, community-oriented business person — your next-door

neighbour who runs the grocery store down the street — is no longer going to

be in the community serving us; it's going to be managers representing chain

stores out of Toronto and New York and everywhere else, and the indigenous small

business community in this province is going to be disappearing unless this

government does something to get them through the hard times that they're

facing.

Mr.

Speaker, in almost every instance the chamber of commerce was there

making representations to our committee, along with other organizations

representing small business, along with individuals who were concerned

enough to come out and talk with us. They also had some solutions.

Almost unanimously across this province, they deplored the fact that we

have been drawers of water and hewers of wood and that we've paid scant

attention to adding wealth to our resources before we ship them out to

the international marketplace, and they realize that as long as we

continue with this insane policy put forward by the Social Credit, we

are going to be forever doomed to being the first hit when there's a

recession in the United States and the last to feel the upturn when it

does upturn in the United States. That's been our history. They

understand that we're going to have to put new products into the

international marketplace if we're going to survive.

The

small business community said: "That's a concern of ours. In that case,

we feel one of the priorities is research and development and that our

future is research and development, " When I told them that last year

out of government money — out of almost $7 billion — we spent a lousy

$8.1 million for research and development in this province, they were

aghast.

MR. RITCHIE: You're wrong.

MR. LEA: They were aghast, and I'm not wrong. You'd like it if I were wrong, but I'm not.

That's

what this province, through that government, spent on research and

development last year. Our future depends on it. It's the same as

cancelling the money for reforestation. When our future depends on

spending money now, then that money should be spent. Whether it's

reforestation or research and development, we can not afford not to

spend that kind of money.

Mr. Speaker, can you imagine a

farmer walking out to 100 acres of land and saying: "Well, I think I'll

only plant 50 acres this year, because I don't want to spend the money

for the seed for the rest of my field to bring on a product for the

future." That's what the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) and

this government are doing; they're not willing to spend money for seeds

that will ensure that we will have a crop so we'll have wealth. They

somehow think that the resources themselves are the wealth. The

resources are the richness, but until we apply technology, mind and

strength to that richness and turn those resources into something else,

it is not wealth, it is only a rich resource. In order to balance a

budget, they're not willing to spend any money on tomorrow in

reforestation or research and development.

The small

business community also said — I must be being effective, because I see

the member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie) has turned his back,

which he usually does....

MR. RITCHIE: So much nonsense.

MR. LEA: So much nonsense, eh?

The

other thing that was pointed out was that in other jurisdictions like

Japan, West Germany and other nations, through help from their

government, the business community is much more effective and much more

aggressive in

[ Page 7033 ]

chasing

international markets for their products. And Sweden. They are all much

more aggressive in helping their business community go out into the

world and sell commodities on the world market. As a matter of fact,

two of those small business people in Burnaby not only were thoughtful

but also brought us documentation on the setting up....

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

I will ask all hon. members to please remain quiet and not interrupt

the hon. member who is now taking his place in the debate. I understand

that the previous Mr. Speaker has already warned that we cannot

interrupt, and so I will ask all members to remain silent and allow the

member who has the floor to continue speaking.

MR. LEA:

Not only did they make suggestions that we should follow the example of

other countries in more aggressively chasing down new marketplaces for

the products we already create and in research and development to bring

new products on. They suggested to us.... It wasn't Len Friesen,

although I'm sure he would agree. One of the people was Vick Stusiak in

Burnaby, and others. They suggested that this province should set up a

B.C. trading corporation and that as a government we should put some

seed money into a B.C. trading corporation so that it more aggressively

seek out markets for our goods in the world. We think it is a good

idea, and it is now part of our policy. Should we become government we

would move on that suggestion — not only that suggestion but research

and development, a B.C. trading corporation.

We also have

suggested in our policy paper that in order to create some economic

activity in the province.... Unlike them, in 1975, we don't blame them

for the international downturn in the economy. Unlike them we are going

to put a positive suggestion forward, and we did it in our policy

paper: we should give tax incentives to the manufacturing industry at

this moment to replace old equipment or equipment that could conserve

energy, especially if that equipment were to be purchased in British

Columbia or Canada. That wouldn't be a panacea, but it would create

some economic activity, especially in the forest industry.

Now

is the time to be investing money in our future: new equipment,

creating some economic activity; research and development to try to

bring new products on, especially products that could be brought out of

more research and development in forestry, mining and fishing — the

industries that we already have. In this budget they didn't put one

worthwhile proposal of spending money now to make sure that when the

economy picks up we in British Columbia are better equipped to cope

with that buoyant new economy equipped with new efficient machinery,

machinery that is more conservation-oriented, a trading corporation to

better sell our products throughout the world and some incentives so

that industry at this moment could be putting in machinery that would

be more efficient and therefore more productive for the future.

There

was not one positive suggestion in that budget. All they did and have

been doing for the past three years is to tax and overtax an already

existing economy with no thought for the future and fresh out of ideas

as to which way they can go. They may ridicule the fact that our party

went out and talked to the small business community and other business

people who weren't so small. Maybe they can ridicule that we listened

to them. Maybe they can ridicule that we actually took some of those

suggestions and put them forward as policy because we think they are

good ideas of how we can prepare ourselves with some limited economic

activity now and in a more efficient and productive way for the future.

There is not one word in this budget, and that's why I'm voting for

this amendment,

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I rise to take my

place in this debate and voice my strenuous opposition to the

ridiculous amendment that is before the House at this time.

The

member for Prince Rupert is always a very entertaining gentleman. He

likes to read from history. Some others of us do as well. Does the

member for Prince Rupert remember in 1975 when he made one of his most

infamous statements? I will quote from the Vancouver Sun of

July 31, 1975: "Highways Minister Graham Lea thinks tourists from the

United States and campers and trailers should be banned from British

Columbia." That minister believed that the tourist industry in British

Columbia, I guess, didn't provide any economic activity in this

province. Mr. Speaker, I have a great long list of quotes from the

minister of....

AN HON. MEMBER: Potholes.

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

Minister of potholes, yes, indeed. I have a great long list of quotes,

but I wouldn't like to embarrass the member for Prince Rupert, so I'll

just tuck them aside and use them for my bedtime reading because I like

to giggle and laugh as I go to sleep.

The member for Prince

Rupert is suggesting that the forest industry right now, and I guess

the mining industry, go out and buy a whole bunch of replacement

equipment. He feels that by providing some kind of a tax incentive,

that industry will go out and spend hundreds of millions of dollars to

replace the plant equipment that they have in place now. I wonder if

that member really realizes that that industry is fighting tooth and

nail to survive in this current recession, and no matter what that

member offered in terms of incentive, there is no way that industry now

has the financial capability of going out and replacing manufacturing

plants.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're a defeatist.

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

I have sat here, Mr. Speaker, very patiently and I have listened to

more doom and gloom in the past few days. It's no wonder that some of

the people in British Columbia, especially in the NDP ridings, are

getting somewhat depressed, because I'm sure that is the type of thing

they hear all the time.

Let's look at the amendment, Mr.

Speaker. It says that "the budget has failed to take steps to preserve

the jobs of workers in basic industries such as forestry, pulp and

paper, mining and smelting." Well, it was referred to this morning by

the member for Prince George South (Mr. Strachan) that the Leader of

the Opposition has suggested that the government of British Columbia go

out and buy sawmills that are shutting down and keep the people

working, keep manufacturing lumber and plywood and, as you said, Mr.

Speaker, when you were not Mr. Speaker this morning, produce a product

that is in oversupply in the marketplace. Of course in order to do

that, we would have to tax the people of British Columbia. Really what

that member is saying is that we will

[ Page 7034 ]

tax

the people of British Columbia in order to subsidize lumber for the

people in the United States and Japan and in our other market areas, To

me that sounds like a pretty ridiculous solution to a very serious

problem.

The people in Sweden did that a few years ago. When

they had a socialist government, they purchased pulp manufactured in

Sweden and kept the manufacturing of kraft pulp going, They built up

tremendous inventories of pulp and they prolonged a very serious

recession in the pulp market far beyond the time when it should have

existed. They depressed the entire world pulp market and almost put

their country into bankruptcy. That is the type of policy being

espoused by the NDP — those negative, doubting people on the opposite

side.

I suppose that the opposition will also buy the

mineral products from the mines in this province that are also

suffering a very serious recession. They will use taxpayers' dollars to

buy mineral products and thereby subsidize Japan, Great Britain and the

European countries who buy our mineral products. That's great; I'm sure

the people in British Columbia will love to see their tax dollars used

to subsidize foreign countries to buy our products. This is the same

party that is objecting to the government of British Columbia building

the infrastructure to bring on a vast northeastern coal development,

because they claim that we will be subsidizing the Japanese with the

purchase of our coal. At the same time they're suggesting and urging us

to subsidize these foreign buyers for all the products that we use in

British Columbia. It really doesn't make very much sense to me.

Mr.

Speaker, I recall in the 1970s — and I don't want to dwell on that very

bad part of our history to any great extent — when we did have a

recession late in the term of that previous government. I recall that a

year or so before that we had the most buoyant metal prices — copper

prices at least — that we have ever had in the history of this

province. It was at that time when copper was selling for $1.50 a

pound, and one of the most important parts of our mineral industry, the

exploration industry, was not exploring for mineral products because of

the negative policies and oppressive taxation policies of that

government. At that time, in the 1974-75 period, when prices were

depressed and the companies were losing money, they were still paying a

three-cent- or four cent-a-pound royalty to a greedy government, and of

course that killed any incentive to explore for or develop mines and

hastened the closure of many mining operations in British Columbia at

the time. That is the party that says: "We want to encourage the

business industry in British Columbia," and yet did everything they

could to discourage them.

The socialists created a

depression in British Columbia during the best times that other parts

of our mineral industry in this country have had. British Columbia is

now weathering this very serious recession in much better condition

than all other parts of North America. Sure, it is tough. It is tough

on a lot of people and there are a lot of people unemployed. Most of

our manufacturing companies in British Columbia — those that

manufacture wood products, those that develop and produce mineral

products — are losing money at a very rapid rate. The survival of some

of those companies is in jeopardy. We are not heaping extra taxes on

those companies at this time. We are trying to do everything we can as

a government to help those that are continuing to operate to continue

to operate.

That party opposite claims to be in favour of

business, in favour of the private enterprise system, in favour of

people with initiative and in favour of entrepreneurs. Yet when they

had the opportunity to demonstrate what they would do as a government,

they did everything they could to drive people right out of this

province. Even today those same things are being said. They say they

are for the small businessman. They want to encourage him. The first

member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) was very recently asked — this

is reported in the Vancouver Community College newspaper on March 12,

1982 — if there should be a balance whereby corporations paid for more

vocational and technical programs. What did that member say? He said:

"I prefer to tax the beep-beep out of them." The expletive is deleted.

That is the kind of attitude that that party has. Tax the

beep-beep-beep right out of the private sector. Coddle our radical

friends and give away everything that some of them may wish to have.

Let's

look at what's happening in British Columbia. Members refer to the

cancellation of our reforestation program. Last year we planted 89

million seedlings in British Columbia; this year our nurseries will

produce 97 million seedlings. To me that is some cancellation. This

last year, while our province has been fighting recession, we have had

tens of thousands of man-days of work created in our forests through

forest management, work that would not have existed if we had had the

forest non-management policies of that previous government. Tens of

thousands of people who would not otherwise have been working this year

have worked in forest management in British Columbia. That party and

their policies have suddenly discovered forest management and are

saying: "If we were the government we would do stand-tending work,

spacing and thinning, and we would plant trees to create jobs." I don't

know where they've been, because that is exactly what is happening

today. People are working in forest management in the province, they

are planting trees and they are enhancing the state of that resource.

Under the programs which are outlined in our budget and in my ministry

budget, we will continue to do that this year. I feel very fortunate in

having the type of government we have, which acknowledges the

importance of that industry and provides me with over $331 million in

this budget to keep people working in the industry and to keep our

forest management up to a level far superior to any other level in this

country — or most of the world, for that matter.

They say

there are no jobs, no opportunities for small business. That was a part

of this motion we have before us. "The government has failed to

establish policies helpful to the small business people in British

Columbia." Fantastic. Has that party ever heard of the small business

enterprise program that is being carried out today in my ministry,

where we are committing a very substantial part of the total allowable

cut in our forests to a small business enterprise program which will

give opportunities for small business people in the forest industry to

have direct access to Crown timber and to log it, to harvest it and to

market it? In addition to the small business enterprise program in

harvesting, we also have tremendous opportunities for the small

businessman in the forest stand-tending work which I have already

described to you. There are literally hundreds of small contractors

going out every day, doing stand-tending work to improve the value of

our forest resource in British Columbia.

The opposition says

nothing has been done to maintain or create jobs in this last year. In

this last year coal production in this province was up 15.1 percent

over the previous year, which was also substantially up. That coal

didn't mine itself.

[ Page 7035 ]

It was mined by coal-miners who had jobs working in that very positive and buoyant industry.

1980 our capital investment in British Columbia was up over 26 percent.

In 1981, when we have been fighting a recession, capital investment in

the private sector has been up almost 17 percent. All that investment

certainly creates jobs. In 1981 our housing investment in British

Columbia was up 44.6 percent. Our utilities investment was up 32

percent. This investment creates jobs, Those houses don't build

themselves. Carpenters and tradesmen are required to build houses in

British Columbia. That activity created a great deal of work and

employment in this province.

Because of that type of

investment in British Columbia, the recession which has taken place

throughout North America in the last couple of years has been very late

in coming to this province. Confidence in the future of this province,

because of an investment climate we have created, has delayed the

arrival of that recession. It wasn't until well into 1981 that we began

to have layoffs and the real impact of this international and North

American recession hit British Columbia. That is why our Minister of

Finance has brought in a budget that will continue to create and

provide employment opportunities to large numbers of British Columbians.

am not denying that it is going to be a tough year, because indeed it

is. We acknowledge that. I think that we on both sides of this House

acknowledge that. In spite of the recessionary period we are in,

business investment in British Columbia during 1982 will still be very

positive and will be up 6 percent over the previous year. This didn't

just happen. It happened because of some of the megaprojects which are

so despised by members of the opposition.

Northeast coal. I

really don't know where they stand on this. They don't like it and they

like it. I think the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) would like to

have a coal port built in his riding, but he doesn't want to have

coal-mines developed because that is somehow creating too many jobs,

and the government might look good if they develop jobs by developing

our natural resource. But he can't be against the coal port because he

would be criticized in his riding. Anyway, they are attempting to ride

two carts at one time. They are attempting to have a foot firmly on

each side of the fence.

Quite frankly, I think the people of

British Columbia are really confused as to what the NDP really stands

for. Those negative, doubting people opposite are against the Anzac

spur line as a part of the northeast coal development, which will

expend $336 million in 1982. Rail lines and tunnels do not build

themselves. They will employ a great number of people in British

Columbia. Emil Anderson Construction Co. from my constituency in Hope

is one of the prime contractors on one of those tunnels. A lot of my

constituents from Hope and the southern part of British Columbia have

employment opportunities because of the initiatives taken by this

government to promote that northeast coal.

The Quintette and

Bullmoose properties will spend in excess of $400 million this year as

they start the construction of those mines. Those mine plants don't

build themselves. They require workmen, tradesmen and labourers — a

large number of British Columbians — to carry out that development

work. Those are jobs. But the opposition, claiming to be for jobs and

criticizing our government because we're not doing anything to create

jobs, is against these projects. The federal government will be

spending over $100 million in 1982 on the coal port in Prince Rupert.

They are against northeast coal. They have to be against the coal port,

and therefore have to be against the jobs that will be created in

Prince Rupert by a $103 million investment.

The advanced

light rapid transit system in Vancouver will be using a capital amount

of approximately $80 million in 1982. What is it — 1,700 jobs this year

that will be created there? The opposition is saying: "No. We should

have some kind of rapid transit system in B.C. but we don't like that

one so we're not in favour of that either." I haven't found anything

Yet that they are in favour of, yet they are in favour of jobs.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

The

stadium — fantastic. The member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell) said we

shouldn't be building that stadium in Vancouver when people are out of

work. He's saying we should shut down the construction of that stadium.

Well, let's indeed shut it down and put another thousand people out of

British Columbia. They're against everything that's creating

opportunities and jobs in British Columbia.

They're saying

that we're drawers of water and hewers of wood. Sure we are. We are

drawers of water, hewers of wood and miners of minerals, and we should

be damn proud of it, because it's the mainstay of our provincial

economy. But there's also a great deal of other manufacturing taking

place in British Columbia. All they have to do is get out of their

offices and go out and have a look around British Columbia and see some

of the things that are happening. The Ocelot methanol plant in Kitimat

is a further upgrading of our natural resources that will lead to a

fertilizer plant, either by that company or by some other company,

depending on which company can offer the best benefits to British

Columbians. That is further upgrading our natural resources. The CP Air

jet engine overhaul plant, which will service that corporation for

their international aircraft use, is here in British Columbia. There

are thousands and thousands of small businesses and large businesses in

British Columbia expanding our manufacturing base.

The

Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development has a very

aggressive program to ensure that when major projects go ahead, the

procurement of the necessities of those projects is made available to

small businesses in British Columbia. As a part of the approval process

for major developments it is required that these companies make their

shopping list available to the government, so that we can go out into

the private sector, which is what we're doing, and make sure that if

there are any opportunities for small business people in British

Columbia to sell parts, machinery, equipment and services to those

companies on those major projects, then they will have an opportunity

to do it. Literally hundreds of small plants are springing up all over

this province to do just that. But those people refuse to look at the

successes that do exist in this province right now.

Mr.

Speaker, this government doesn't sit back, wring its hands and cry doom

and gloom. We do things to make things better. Things were better last

year than they were in the rest of this continent. They are better this

year, and this recession will end, as they all have in the past. Those

stronger companies that survive will be here when it's over. Our future

is secure.

The member for Atlin, I mentioned, suggested we

shut down the stadium. The member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson)

said you should find some way of using those pulp logs and encourage

something to happen. Again, I guess they have been reading some of the

papers that my ministry has

[ Page 7036 ]

distributed

and have thought: "That's a good idea; we'll make that a part of our

policy too." I think the member is aware of the fibre supply study for

the southeastern part of the province, which is being accepted by the

industry as the first step in determining ways of using that fibre. I

know that as our market conditions and economic times improve we are

going to see some very major capital investments in that part of the

province to utilize a lot of the fibre, where until now it has not been

economic to do so. In order to encourage this we are suggesting certain

incentives to increase utilization of those lower-grade materials. The

member for Nelson-Creston obviously heard what we are doing, read our

papers and agreed with us, and he suggests that that would be a good

policy for them.

The member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) remarked

about the aloofness of this government from the problems of the worker

in industry. I have gone through a rather long list of the things this

government has done in order to provide jobs during these recessionary

periods. It certainly does not demonstrate an aloofness from the

problem.

Mr. Speaker, in my job as the Minister of Forests I

have made a great number of concessions which will provide cost savings

to the forest industry to help them survive this recessionary time.

The

member for Skeena said this Social Credit government is relishing the

fact that people are losing their jobs. As far as I know, there is only

one politician in British Columbia who has ever gone on record as being

happy with the fact that things get difficult in British Columbia. We

recall in 1976 when the Leader of the Opposition, the leader of the

negative doubting people, the chief negative doubter, spoke to the

Maritime School of Social Work in Halifax. He said: "Things are getting

worse in British Columbia, and I'm loving every minute of it." Shame,

Mr. Speaker! That's the type of comment that these people make, yet

they claim to be concerned about the working people in British Columbia.

They're

delighted with the fact that we're having a recession here, because

they think if there's a recession they may have a better chance of

being elected the government. Well, don't hold your breath, my friends.

You created a recession in British Columbia in good times; heaven help

us if you are ever here during a real recessionary period, because we

would have to shut the gates of British Columbia.

The Leader

of the Opposition, in his comments, said the reforestation program is

being cancelled. The member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) and the member

for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) asked why we are cancelling our

reforestation program. As I mentioned previously, Mr. Speaker, with 89

million seedlings planted last year and a production this year of 97

million, does it sound like we're cancelling our reforestation program?

Interjection.

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

Absolutely. At some point, perhaps 200 million a year will be needed,

but we do not know enough about our forests to be able to make that

type of statement definitively at this time. You can talk to any

professional forester you wish in this province. They helped us develop

our reforestation program; it's a good, aggressive program, and it will

continue.

Just one comment, Mr. Speaker. The Leader of the

Opposition, in his comments, accused our Premier of doing a flip-flop

on the constitution because our Premier showed the leadership needed to

insist that the rights of our province be protected, versus the Barrett

proposal to give away our resources to Ottawa. By pulling the premiers

together, our Premier, who is the chairman of the premiers' conference,

demonstrated the leadership that was needed, and made sure an

acceptable constitution was agreed to by the provinces. Our Premier in

effect saved this country from further fracturing and splintering by

showing that leadership as chairman of the premiers' conference.

There's

only one politician in British Columbia who likes to get into bed with

Trudeau. He likes to get into bed with Trudeau and offer him our oil,

our resources, all of the things that we need in British Columbia to

carry on our economy. Those types of bedmates deserve each other.

Mr.

Speaker, the opposition can't stand the leadership that this government

has shown in making sure that our industry, our workers in this

province, weather this recession. I'm against the amendment proposed by

those negative, doubting people. I congratulate the Minister of Finance

(Hon. Mr. Curtis) on a very positive budget. This is the budget that

the people of British Columbia need, and because of this budget I'm

sure the opposition realize they've had the biscuit. Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I'm inclined to

feel a little sorry for the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland),

who puts on a show of bravado and stands in this House trying to

convince us that his forest and range management fund has not been

destroyed and depleted, that it hasn't been confiscated to be used for

other projects in the downtown

section of the lower mainland, or used

to attempt to balance the budget.

It's very interesting, Mr. Speaker, that today we all seem to be involved in quoting Hansard . I would like to quote from Hansard

as well, May 14, 1980, when the Minister of Forests was introducing the

act — Bill 6, I think it was — that set up the fund which was to

provide for the management of our forest resource and our rangeland. At

the time, he said some rather interesting things, Mr. Speaker:

you will recall, and as you know by the budget before this House now,

the Ministry of Forests will be substantially increasing the moneys

allocated to it over the next five-year period by an amount equal to

about 34 percent in 1980 dollars....

In order

to assure a continuation of funding over the years, and especially

during those parts of the years which, for reasons set down long

before...we are making provision in this bill for [money] to be used

over a five-year period to provide this continuity of funding for

forest management work.... All the silvicultural techniques we use are

not things that we can start and stop year by year; there must be

assurance that funding will continue through the years and will

actually, in our case, increase....

So this

bill is a part of a more fully realized commitment of this government

to the need to invest more and more money in this very important forest

resource....

This government has made a

commitment in accepting the five-year management program. This bill

before us today is a part of that commitment, a part that will assure

that this funding will not be intermittent but will be continuous and

will give the Forests ministry, in cooperation with the private sector,

the opportunity and the chance to do an excellent job in forest

management.

That's what the minister said when he introduced

the bill that set up the fund, and now that the fund has been

demolished, destroyed, and that funding taken unto the heart of the

Minister of Finance to use as he sees fit, along with members

[ Page 7037 ]

of the Treasury Board, we have no assurance that that continuing funding is available for forestry.

You

can't spend the same buck twice; you can only spend it once. If you're

spending it in a vain attempt to try to balance your budget, or if

you're spending it to create megaprojects in Vancouver, then you're not

going to be able to spend it on the forest resource. That fact is

becoming more and more evident to more and more people around this

province.

They talk about job creation. The jobs created by

the funds set aside for forest and range resource management were

certainly just as valuable and important as any jobs that are going to

be created in construction in downtown Vancouver. In fact, we know that

the jobs that were being created in forestry were jobs for British

Columbians; I'm not so sure about the construction jobs in downtown

Vancouver when I recognize that one of the major contractors there has

a major shareholder headquartered in Edmonton. I wonder just how many

of those construction jobs are going to go to British Columbians and

how many are going to go to people outside this province.

it's a sham, Mr. Speaker, to try to tell us that they're going to spend

the same number of dollars or more dollars for forestry at the same

time that they're withdrawing that fund and proceeding to use it for

other things. You can't spend the same buck twice.

Forestry,

of course, is of prime importance to me in Cowichan-Malahat, where it

is 90 percent or more of the economic base. We have sensed for a long

time the problems facing that industry. We sensed it in a very real way

when Western Forest Products moved in and took over the Honeymoon Bay

operation. We sensed in a very real way that jobs can certainly

disappear at the hands of corporate mergers. We sensed it and we warned

the minister. I have a letter that the minister wrote to the chairman

of the committee there back in February 1981. This concerns a petition:

"I have just now returned to my office and by this letter will confirm statements made to you at our meeting in Lake Cowichan.

made it a condition of my approval of the ITT takeover that the new

owners must make every effort to continue employment in the wood

manufacturing plant at Honeymoon Bay. I have since our meeting

discussed this matter with the directors of Western Forest Products and

have reiterated the takeover conditions to them. As a result of my

discussions I have the sincere feeling that they are making every

effort to fulfill this commitment."

Well, that's a lot of fine words, Mr. Speaker. The letter goes on:

"In

discussion with them a proposal was presented which, if carried

through, will resolve the problem of wood supply to Honeymoon Bay. My

ministry will be pursuing the proposal with Western Forest Products,

and I feel confident that the details can be worked out in the near

future. As a result of my discussions with the directors I'm even more

confident now than during my meeting with you that the wood supply

problem can be solved.

"Please convey the

contents of this letter to your colleagues, and I may assure you once

again that I'll make every effort to ensure that Honeymoon Bay remains

in operation."

Well, we know the history;

we know what happened. Those were fine words, but they meant absolutely

nothing. On Wednesday those workers at Honeymoon Bay were advised that

next Friday — a day and a half later — was their last day at work; 358

of them, some of them with 30 years' seniority — out! That minister,

Mr. Speaker, has the power under the Forest Act to prevent that from

happening. But instead of action we got a lot of fine words.

Unemployment

came very early in the forest recession in the Cowichan Valley, and it

has, of course, continued. It's of grave concern to constituencies all

around this province, I'm sure, because forestry is our number one

industry. We in Cowichan are no exception, because it is the major

source of our economic revenue. Every time I go into Duncan I find that

another small business has closed its doors because there are no longer

customers. This is going to worsen; a lot of those people have been

collecting unemployment insurance for some length of time, and it's

going to run out. When that happens, the situation is going to become

even worse, yet in this budget this government tell us they're creating

jobs in the forest industry.

At the time of the Honeymoon

Bay closure, I talked to the Minister of Forests and asked him for some

kind of concentrated reforestation program in that area which would put

some of these people to work. He said: "We're looking at it." Well, I

guess he's still looking at it, because I haven't heard of one person

laid off at Honeymoon Bay who has found a job in any reforestation

program.

I also contacted the Minister of Lands, Parks and

Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) and asked for his assistance. We have a lot

of parks in that area and we need more. We need additions; those parks

are very crowded. It's a great potential tourist centre. Was there any

money forthcoming to build up those parks and improve them? "We're

looking at it." And they're still looking at it, but there are no jobs,

just promises. Promises — that's all that government is ever good at.

They don't deliver on the production of jobs.

I'm very

interested to hear the members for the north speak about the great

employment source that northeast coal is providing. I happen to have

here the latest statistics for the first quarters of 1981-82 and 1982

on unemployment insurance claims, and it's very interesting when you

look at some of the areas. For example, in Dawson Creek, which is very

close to the northeast coal development, the number of payments going

out of the UIC office averaged 784 for the three-month period in 1981;

in 1982 it had increased to 1,504, a 91.8 percent increase in the

number of people collecting unemployment insurance in Dawson Creek. And

you talk about the creation of jobs with northeast coal! Really, if

that is the kind of result it is showing, a 91.8 percent increase in

registered, recognized unemployment in that area, it's certainly not

doing an adequate job in creating jobs. Fort St. John went from 608 in

1981 to 1,327 in the first three months of 1982, an increase of 118.3

percent in that part of the north. And northeast coal is supposed to be

doing a job for unemployment in the north and in all of British

Columbia. Obviously it isn't working.

The government isn't

taking the steps that are required to provide jobs for the working

people of British Columbia. They're not prepared to take those steps.

They are far more interested in juggling figures, and that's what

they're doing. They are juggling figures to try to prove that somehow

there is going to be money available to balance the budget, there is

going to be money available for megaprojects in downtown

[ Page 7038 ]

Vancouver, there is going to be money available for northeast coal.

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE:

"Doom and gloom," the minister says. It's very unfortunate that that

government has created this atmosphere that promotes doom and gloom in

British Columbia. It is they who have had a major

part in bringing us

to the point we're at today.

There are measures that could

be taken. I recall the night in December when we adjourned so abruptly.

We tried to prolong that session to get some action from that

government. During the course of that night's debate, this side of the

House offered to that government 19 positive suggestions, things they

could do, steps they could take, measures they could invoke that would

get the economy going and get people back to work; but all they did was

adjourn and go home. No action! No nothing! A throne speech was read,

debated, passed and that was it. There were no bills, no legislation

and no action that would actually create some jobs. Instead we go home

from the first part of December until the 5th of April. Yet every day

the unemployment situation worsens, the economy worsens and there is

nothing done by that group over there to prevent that downward spiral

that has been going on for months.

One of the things that

really concerns me about the budget is the fact that in those funds

that are being dissolved, nine of them relate to agriculture. The one

I've mentioned, the forest management and range resource, of course,

also relates to agriculture. That minister responsible for lands, parks

and housing announced not too long ago about the wonderful things that

were happening with the range resource renewal program: how many acres

or hectares and how many animal units. Now the funding for that has

been taken out of that fund and put into the Minister of Finance's

control. No more is there going to be money available for that range

renewal program. You can't spend it two or three times; you can only

spend it once. If it's being spent on other projects, you can't spend

it on range renewal.

The list is extensive. Agricultural

Credit Fund. If ever there was a time that there was a need for funds

available for agricultural credit purposes, it is now. Certainly the

Minister of Agriculture and Food (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) has been most

reluctant to provide any assistance in the way of interest rebate to

the farming community. That is one of the real sore points with the

farm community: he has not been prepared to keep the commitment that

was made when that interest rebate program was brought in to reimburse

the farmers to a reasonably sized interest payment that they are able

to cope with. Instead of doing that we find that farms are refinancing,

getting rid of some of their operation or reducing their size because

they simply cannot cope with the interest payments. Certainly the Farm

Credit Fund, while not related to that, is part and parcel of that

whole business of financing of the agricultural industry. That is no

longer there.

The Agricultural Land Development fund is

another one that's gone that farmers need very badly. I am sure you are

aware of that in your constituency where there is a large farming

community that needs funds to develop some of that land for production.

That fund is no longer available to that farming community.

The

Crown Land Fund, of course, was a fund that related to a great many

types of things, including agriculture. There was the agricultural

land, the recreational land, and land for housing. The minister loved

to talk about what a great program it was. Back in August of 1980 when

he introduced the bill, he said: "Through the Crown Land Fund, the

ministry...."

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE:

Yes, in 1980 you introduced the bill, Mr. Minister, that set up the

fund. You said: "Through the Crown Land Fund the ministry is assisting

local governments in financing the development of residential

subdivisions and sewer and water servicing. The fund in the ministry is

going to develop rural lots and recreational lots plus agricultural

parcels...." All those things. We on this side of the House had some

disagreement with just how you were doing it and whether it was wise to

take some of the land you did out of the forest reserve and use it for

agriculture and housing and so on. We had some disagreement but at the

same time the principle of a fund to provide for disposition of Crown

land to citizens of British Columbia was a good proposition. You said

so; you introduced it. Now the fund is gone. It is no longer there.

There is no provision. That, of course, affects agriculture too because

agricultural land was involved.

The Dairy Producers

Protection Fund is gone. The dairy producers have been facing some very

serious times because of their escalating costs. Their costs go up with

the inflation rate. Their return goes up with a ten-year delay, as you

well know, Mr. Speaker. You will recall the days when we sat on the

committee that looked into the cost of food. We had several long, hard

lessons on how that formula worked. The dairy industry certainly needs

some kind of assurance that the government has funding available to

ensure that that industry will be protected, because milk is something

that we have to produce here in British Columbia for British

Columbians. In these kinds of times, Mr. Speaker, that fund is needed

to protect the agricultural community.

The Domestic Animal

Protection Fund. You've taken that out of the hands of Agriculture and

you're trying to farm it back out to local governments. You had a fund

set up that was going to provide seed money for them to establish

protection areas where dog control would be brought into being. Now the

money is gone. No more seed money for those municipalities. So what

happens? Are those municipalities and local governments still going to

be held responsible for dog control in those areas, with no funding

from the government? Apparently that's the direction the government is

intending to go in. That certainly affects agriculture, because without

some responsible measures of dog control, the farming community is in

dire straits, particularly the sheep farmers.

The Farm

Income Assurance Fund. It's very interesting to find that that has been

withdrawn. There was a commitment made to the farming community, when

the land reserve act came in, that the Farm Income Insurance Act was

established in cooperation with the farming community to ensure a

viable return to the farming community. That was done under the New

Democratic Party, and ever since the change of government that program

has been chopped away. There's been a dragging of the heels.

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: Yes, you may go now, Mr. Minister.

[ Page 7039 ]

The

Farm Income Assurance Fund has been chopped away with a dragging of the

heels and a settling for old plans. I'm told that the amount of money

in this year's budget is little more than enough to cover the deficit

that will occur this year on the beef plan. The fund was set up to

ensure that funds would be available to cover that kind of deficit. If

the money in the budget is all gone on one plan, what happens to the

other plans, Mr. Speaker? We've now dissolved this fund, put it into

the hands of the Minister of Finance, told him to use it for Pier B-C

or the convention centre or the stadium — or that's what we're

proposing to do in the budget — and somehow that's going to create more

jobs than we could create by leaving those funds available for the

agricultural community.

I'd like to point out to you, Mr.

Speaker, that the agricultural industry has one of the highest

multiplier effects of any industry. For every one job in agriculture

you create four, and some economists say as many as five, jobs in other

industries. It has a very high multiplier effect. It also costs much

less to create a job in agriculture than it does to create a job in

mining, for example.

It's poor economy and it's shortsighted

philosophy to withdraw these funds from the agricultural community at a

time when we're soon going to be very dependent upon our British

Columbia production for a great many of the foods that we consume

today. Imports are becoming less and less available.

That's

going to mean that we really need to ensure that we have our

agricultural community around to be able to fill that need — not just

for British Columbia, but perhaps for all of Canada — because we have a

very unique climate here where we're able to produce a great many more

things than they are in other parts of Canada. That opportunity is

going to be thrown away, because if the farming community through lack

of funds from this government is forced to retrench and to fold and to

disappear, we're not going to have that knowledge or that expertise to

grow the food that we're going to need.

Even more, Mr.

Speaker, it's going to put more pressure on our agricultural land. If

the farmer's viability is threatened, then he is going to be forced to

pressure government and the Land Commission for the opportunity to do

something else with his land.

It's a double-edged sword. The

withdrawal of funds like this is a real threat to our future food

production, to the preservation of our agricultural land, and it is

certainly not going to create any more jobs in any other industry than

it would if those funds were left where they are and used for the

intent decreed by this Legislature when it passed that legislation. If

those funds were used for that purpose, we would find a great deal more

job creation than we will in other purposes to which they might be put.

Mr.

Speaker, we're often accused on this side of being negative and

doubting. Well, if being opposed to the kind of sham and hypocrisy that

this budget proposes to sell to the people of British Columbia is being

negative, then I am certainly negative, because I am opposed to that

kind of an approach. If being doubting is to doubt that this government

is really levelling with the people of British Columbia in the budget

proposals it's submitting, and if being doubting is to doubt that their

proposals are going to resolve the unemployment situation or create any

real jobs in British Columbia, then I'm doubting.

That's the

job of the opposition — to point out the shortcomings in government

proposals. It's been a very easy job with this government because their

proposals are so full of shortcomings and so full of holes. We have

made many positive proposals in the Legislature and out of the

Legislature. That government has always chosen to ignore them, In the

seven years I have sat in this Legislature, one amendment presented by

the opposition — it was presented by the member then for Burrard, I

think, and now for....

HON. MR. WATERLAND: One good idea in seven years — that's a pretty good record for you.

MRS. WALLACE:

We've had a lot of good ideas, Mr. Minister of Forests, but only one

that that government was prepared to accept. It was a very minor

amendment that was accepted by the then Attorney-General, the now

Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom), and the then

Minister of Labour, the now Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams). It

was accepted and incorporated into, I believe, the Companies Act or

some such legislation. But that's the only recommendation that's ever

been presented from this side of the House that that government has

been prepared to listen to. They sit there with their ears closed, they

ignore the positive suggestions, they get up and call us negative and

doubting, and they absolutely ignore the things that we suggest can be

done.

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: We have

done that, too. I remember when the labour legislation was introduced.

How many amendments did our critic, the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford)

propose for that labour legislation? Every one of them was turned down.

You'll see that government, in subsequent years, will be introducing

those same amendments no matter what stripe that government is, because

the loopholes that she talked about at that time are now becoming very

evident.

You don't listen on that side of the House. You're

happy to talk about us being negative; you close your ears to any

constructive criticism; you go on your merry way taking us down deeper

and deeper into a greater depression and more and more unemployment;

and you sit there trying to blame the opposition for your shortcomings

— trying to blame us for your failures.

I think we should

send every member a copy of our "let's get to work" program. There the

ideas are outlined, the research is done and the statistics are there

for job-creation programs — a $300 million program that would create

something like 35,000 jobs. It's all there. Have you read it, any of

you? Have you even considered initiating any of those suggestions? I

doubt it, Mr. Speaker. I doubt they've even read it. They wouldn't

consider it, because it happens to come from this side of the House.

It's high time that that kind of confrontation politics stopped in this

province of British Columbia. Times are too serious to be able to

afford the luxury. It takes the best brains from both sides of this

House to put together a policy and a solution to the problems that are

facing us.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Interjection.

[ Page 7040 ]

MRS. WALLACE:

You see, that's the kind of comment.... The Minister of Forests.... The

brains on this side of the House are down at that end pointing to the

two government members that sit on this side. That's what I'm talking

about, Mr. Speaker. This is absolute ignoring of the democratic

process, really, because the democratic process is supposed to be a

discussion of a matter and a solution using the best possible ideas,

regardless of which side of the House they come from. That government

is not prepared to take that road. That government is not prepared to

work for the best interests of British Columbia. Instead, they are only

prepared to work for their own self-perpetuation, if you will.

Certainly we've seen many times over the expensive increases that have

gone on with their own particular administrative costs. Yet all the

time that that is going on, we see cutbacks in the services they are

offering to the citizens of British Columbia.

It becomes a

rather futile task to stand in this House and speak in favour of the

kind of programs that we on this side believe would be effective and

beneficial, because we know that they're not going to be listened to.

Yet, because we believe in democracy and we believe the process has to

and must be made to work, we continue to do it. We continue to stress

the kind of positive suggestions that are included in our program. We

continue to point out to that government some of the shortcomings and

the pitfalls that are evident in the measures they are proposing, and

we continue to hope that they will move in a direction that will be

beneficial for all of British Columbia in these very difficult times.

We continue to hope, but I don't see it happening.

HON. MR. WOLFE:

Mr. Speaker, it thrills me to take my place in this debate. I do treat

it as an honour to take an opportunity to say a word or two,

particularly about the amendment to the budget speech. I have been

looking very carefully at this amendment, and I propose to vote against

it, because it places a great criticism on the government for its lack

of attention to providing jobs in the budget. Imagine the audacity of

such an amendment.

I am going to comment very briefly,

before I do so, on the subject of lotteries. A lot has been said today

about lotteries, and I think it is right to say just this: there is a

myth regarding the purchase of lottery tickets that, in effect,

lotteries are a tax on the poor, that they are a tax on those who can

ill afford to buy such luxuries. Actual research done by people in the

business disproves this categorically. In actual fact, based on

thorough research, those who buy lottery tickets are a complete

cross-section of the economic community. The highest concentration of

those who buy lottery tickets are among those with incomes between

$10,000 and $30,000 per year. You have people of all income strata,

more or less uniformly, who buy lottery tickets today.

Our

provincial budget this year is $7.3 billion. Last year $7 billion was

raised through taxes, transfer moneys from Ottawa and so on. Moneys

from lotteries in British Columbia generate about $100 million in a

given calendar year, and out of that provide about $20 million for most

worthwhile projects. That is not something that anyone in this House

would argue with. I just want to lay to rest this very common myth that

it is a tax on the poor. Nothing could be further from the truth. In

fact, everybody across the income spectrum is buying lottery tickets.

Look at an example of just a handful of projects which have been

assisted through lotteries in the last two months. These are recent

lotteries grants: a Little League ball diamond in White Rock, $2,450; a

woodworking centre for the Campbell River Association for the Mentally

Handicapped, $45,000; Esquimalt Anglers Association to help build a new

park at Fleming Beach, $14,000; Vancouver City Stage Theatre, equipment

including new furnishings and lighting, $6,400; Penticton Retirement

Tune-agers, 54 musicians between the ages of 60 and 87 who perform for

seniors in the Okanagan and who will be playing for seniors in Langley,

Vancouver and White Rock next week — this grant is for portable

theatrical lighting — $1, 570; and Burnaby's Bonsoir Seniors'

Recreation Centre for ongoing recreation programs for the centre's 300

members, $3,000.

Mr. Speaker, those are just a few of many

small grants which go out each month on the basis of lottery tickets

purchased in British Columbia. I could mention larger ones, such as the

new program which is going to provide $100,000 for home renovations for

paraplegics — a brand-new program in British Columbia that has not

really been sufficiently announced, organized through this ministry and

the Association for the Handicapped. That's $100,000 for individual

projects totalling $5,000 — home renovations for the handicapped.

Lotteries can do this kind of thing where other programs are unable to

do so. To say nothing of the fact that lotteries in British Columbia

are providing $2.7 million on an annual basis for health-care research,

over $4 million to assist fitness and amateur sport — travel grants and

all the other assistance that goes to organizations — a similar amount

of over $4 million to cultural projects and organizations, and, of

course, $1.2 million to the Heritage Trust this past year. I'll just

say at the outset that a word needs to be said about lotteries and the

myth that they are a tax on the poor.

Mr. Speaker, I also

want to allude to remarks in this debate associated with the so-called

misuse of special warrants by this government. I heard the member for

Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) alluding to the use of warrants by this

government. He categorized them as being an irresponsible expenditure

of public funds without debate. He also referred making expenditures by

special warrant as hiding in the secrecy of cabinet. Let's just lay the

warrant story to rest, because in the warrant contest this government

comes second — a long way back in second place. You only have to look

at those terrible years of 1972 to 1975. In the 1973-74 fiscal year

there were 122 special warrants; in 1974-75, 116 special warrants. In

this past year this government put through 22 special warrants. You can

bandy these figures back and forth. The allegation is always that we're

cooking the books, that we're putting through moneys in an

irresponsible manner behind that great big cabinet door. The important

thing about warrants is that all governments need to use special

warrants for expenditures that are considered very necessary at the

time and in the public interest. The important thing is that through

good management you have the cash flow to be able to afford to use a

warrant at the time. That is what is significant as far as the taxpayer

is concerned. So in the matter of the battle of the warrants — I'm

referring to the comments made by some of the opposition members — we

come second in that contest.

I would like to once again

refer to the amendment to the budget speech and to the terms in there

which criticize this government, which express lack of confidence on

the basis that "this government has failed to take steps to preserve

jobs." Mr. Speaker, didn't somebody over there read the budget speech?

You could cite half a dozen different pages in there that place a

strong focus on jobs. I'm sure the members over there don't want me to

read for the record here in the

[ Page 7041 ]

House a litany of the jobs created by the budget. Do you want me to do that?

MR. MACDONALD: It won't take long.

HON. MR. WOLFE:

Well, it would take quite a while. Since you're interested, you see

this government is creating jobs — not jobs in the civil service paid

for by the people of this province, but jobs in the private sector;

jobs with a spinoff effect benefiting the entire economy; jobs

throughout the province, not limited to one area or one sector of the

economy; jobs that put skills to work, not make-work jobs that do

nothing but cost the taxpayers vast sums of hard-earned money.

Let's

take Expo 86: 6,300 on-site construction jobs; 4,200 jobs within the

operation of the world's fair; 1,700 concessionaires; 2,400 exhibitor's

jobs; 500 retail and restaurant jobs as a result of Expo 86 itself. And

a great proportion of these jobs are the young, 18- to 24-year-old

category, traditionally a high-unemployment group.

How about

B.C. Place? There are 450 on-site jobs already. Are you against that,

Mr. Member for Vancouver Centre? I think perhaps he is against B.C.

Place. He's on record, I believe, as being against it. There will be

2,000 jobs each year for the next 20 years as B.C. Place develops some

12,000 housing units and space for commercial, retail and office sites.

The trade and convention centre, which is going to become a fact of

life through the negotiations of our Premier, will provide 1,000

on-site construction jobs, 1,000 full-time jobs when it's in full

operation, and a further 1,000 part-time jobs when operating. Mr.

Speaker, that's a lot of employment created by the initiatives of this

government. We also have ALRT — rapid transit — with 1,700 construction

jobs, 1,000 manufacturing jobs, and additional jobs when it is

operating: it comes to almost 150 operating jobs, because the system is

automated. Northeast coal will provide 9,000 jobs for transportation

and townsite and mine development.

Mr. Speaker, there are over 50,000 jobs accounted for in this budget of this Minister of Finance.

How

does the opposition propose to find jobs? Well, they showed us what

they'd do about that kind of thing. They proved it during the years

when they had an opportunity to do so. I'd ask them to deny that during

that period they hired an additional 9,000 employees in the public

service complement of this province. Believe me, Mr. Speaker, that is a

sizeable increase in the numbers in the civil service. The doors were

really swinging open, and the people were walking in. In those three

years the size of the civil service increased by 28 percent. That's how

they create employment: by simply opening the doors and hiring a lot of

public employees. That's not how this government approaches that

problem.

Interjection.

HON. MR. WOLFE: The

member over there says that's nuts. I'll table the information. Mr.

Speaker, I'll be happy to table information which shows that they

increased the numbers in the public service by close to 9,000, for a

total increase of 28 percent, if you want me to table that information.

They're nodding their heads up and down. That's right. They haven't

really looked, so I'll be happy to do that.

Mr. Speaker,

what impact did that have on the unemployment of the day? Let's stop

and think about that because the unemployment percentage in those years

increased from 7.2 percent to 8.5 percent in 1975.

Mr.

Speaker, we know, as it has been explained here, that we had a serious

recession in 1975, in part due to international factors. Certainly the

answer to alleviating that situation did not lie in the massive hiring

of public employees. The taxpayer of today will not tolerate that type

of government action.

I want to refer to the major thrust of

the criticism which I have heard to date regarding this Minister of

Finance's budget speech. That lies in their finance critic, the member

for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich), who referred to this budget as a dishonest

budget, a masterpiece of deception, a budget of dishonesty. He alluded

to the fact that the indication that the budget is balanced is a

dishonest assertion. Great words, Mr. Speaker. They should hang their

heads in shame. He also stated that people want to let the light shine

in.

Mr. Speaker, I want them to get this down, because they

will well remember the budget of 1975. Members across the way who were

in the cabinet in those days will well remember; it gives them a sick

feeling in the pit of the stomach, I know, to think of the budget that

was fabricated in those days. The difference is this. They wound up

with a deficit of $400 million in one year — not bad work for a

12-month operation. Did anybody know about it? Nobody knew about it.

There's the difference. Because today we've got quarterly reports,

we've got an auditor-general, we've got a new financial administration

act, we've got complete accountability. People in this province today

know that if we've got a problem at any time, they're going to know it

all the way through the year. They didn't know it in 1975. That

government sat on financial chaos and hid it from the people of this

province. They had a shortfall, a budget which was forced to balance,

and they kept that situation under wraps until the election took place,

an auditor was called, and senior civil servants went public to

disclose the fact that there was a serious financial situation.

There

is this basic difference in the modus of operation in the management of

our financial affairs today, in that we have complete disclosure,

quarterly reports, an auditor-general, and a completely new financial

reporting system. Our Finance minister has made it very clear that we

have financial problems today, that he's engaged in certain projections

which may or may not be realizable, and if they are not, which could

possibly be the case, he'll have to take more serious corrective action

as the year goes along, but the people of this province are going to

know through these accountability measures. That's the measure of this

government.

In conclusion, I think that we should stand back

and look at this budget, not as politicians but to return to the role

of a taxpayer. The average British Columbian who works hard for a

living, the average British Columbian who sees a degree of economic

uncertainty in his future.... What do I as an ordinary taxpayer see

when I look at this budget? I see responsible fiscal management. I see

a budget that gets the most value for every one of my tax dollars that

are spent by government on my behalf. From the spectators' gallery,

what do I see in this House? I see the opposition regurgitating over

and over again — a predictable reaction. It's certainly a sad

commentary on legislative cooperation. As a taxpayer, I see the need

for cooperation in this House, but in reality all I can hear are the

standard time-worn clichés of an opposition that hasn't the ability to

look around and listen to British Colum-

[ Page 7042 ]

bians.

They don't want politicking; they want leadership from this House. The

taxpayers want those triple-A spenders over there to get serious about

the economic and social well-being of this province.

You

know, when the road is smooth and times are good, the opposition's

attitude can be sloughed off as cute, but not today. Today the people

of this province demand leadership and responsible solutions to

difficult economic problems. They want their government to take the

lead, and they want politicians to work together for the common good of

this province. Now, more than ever, it is imperative that those

triple-A spenders cut the political nonsense and admit that this new

budget is the responsible position that is needed for these difficult

economic times.

As a cabinet minister and government MLA,

I'm proud of this budget, but more importantly, as a British Columbian

and a taxpayer, I am relieved that this budget takes into account the

various economic situations facing us today. It's certainly

entertaining to sit across from these triple-A spenders and listen to

their nonsense. I sit here and look across and see only one alternative

offered from the other side. That alternative is spend, spend, spend.

And why not? That's all they figure taxpayers are good for: supplying

more and more money so government can spend and spend and spend. And

when the taxpayers say, "No more; enough is enough," — those triple-A

spenders go elsewhere and borrow money, but they keep on spending and

spending. Really, that is the only solution offered by the opposition.

When the spending is done and when the triple-A spenders have departed

this earth and gone wherever good little socialists go, who's left

holding the tab? That's right — the taxpayers, the children of

taxpayers and the grandchildren of taxpayers.

Getting into

debt is easy. The opposition did it very easily when they were

government. Getting out of debt is not easy. Taxpayers will recognize

the validity of this argument. The triple-A spenders are not even

listening. They can't abide the thought of a balanced budget. They

can't abide a surplus being saved for a rainy day. These concepts are

alien to them. As a result, they should never again be given a chance

to come within ten feet of the public purse. They are bad news. After

all is said and done, they are nothing more than triple-A spenders and,

what is worse, they would spend other people's money. Meanwhile, in the

real world, our Minister of Finance has brought to this House a budget

that the taxpayers of this province can be proud of. This budget is a

strong statement from this government that, yes, one province can do

something, one province can make a difference. In the end, what we do

with and for our province is ultimately up to us, the people of British

Columbia.

So we've got a budget that deals in realities. It

takes a strong stand on creating opportunities, in saving British

Columbians from cuts in the public service, in maintaining a balanced

budget and in ensuring future generations the opportunity to spend tax

dollars on services rather than on interest to money-lenders.

Mr.

Speaker, this budget doesn't have to justify itself to those across the

floor. It has the practical support of British Columbians; after all it

is they who are paying the bills. This budget doesn't have to

accommodate the negative, predictable attitudes of the triple-A

spenders. It has an entire province to care for.

This

is not the time to play politics. All I can say is that when times get

tough, the tough get going, and I warn those in the opposition to join

us or to stand aside, because British Columbia is coming through, and

nothing — not the opposition, not poor economics, not the doom- and

gloom-sayers, not the negative, doubting people.... None of them is

going to stop this province from going forward. Mr.