1984 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 33rd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 29, 1984

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

3537 ]

CONTENTS

Ministerial statement

Resignation of Prime Minister. Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 3537

Mr. Howard

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

B.C. Government News. Mr. Howard –– 3537

Transit worker negotiations. Mr. Macdonald –– 3537

Security programs division. Ms. Brown –– 3538

Kemano project. Mrs. Wallace –– 3538

Westwood motor sport park. Mr. Rose –– 3538

Bus safety. Mr. Passarell –– 3538

Sale of Pacific Coach Lines. Mr. Blencoe –– 3539

RCMP report on Ministry of Tourism. Mr. Macdonald –– 3539

Budget debate

On the amendment

Mr. Ree –– 3539

Mr. Lea –– 3540

Mr. Stupich –– 3542

Mr. Passarell –– 3546

Mr. Rose –– 3548

Mr. Hanson –– 3553

Mr. Lockstead –– 3556

Division –– 3558

Mr. Parks –– 3559

Hydro and Power Authority Amendment Act, 1984 (Bill 13). Hon. Mr. Curtis

Introduction and first reading –– 3560

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Prayers.

RESIGNATION OF PRIME MINISTER

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, in light of the announcement

this morning from the Prime Minister that he is surrendering the mantle

of leadership of our nation, I'm sure that this Legislature would wish

to formally recognize his years of service to all Canadians. Since his

election to the highest office in our land in 1968 it is fair to say

that our Canadian political history has been one of the liveliest on

record, if not the liveliest; not necessarily always serene but

certainly never dull. Whether one agreed or disagreed partially or

completely with the direction and policies of the Prime Minister, there

is no question that he triggered and stimulated thought among all

Canadians. I think everyone must recognize and indeed congratulate,

despite personal political beliefs, the stature that he has achieved

for our country and for himself in the theatre of world affairs and his

most significant international credentials.

On the world stage, Prime Minister Trudeau certainly enhanced

Canada's role and our country's recognition and respect as a world

leader in the search for universal peace. We all hope that his

successor, whatever his or her political stripe may be, will carry on

and further that quest in the interests of all mankind.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, the views expressed by the

government House Leader accord with those which we would express as

well. Prime Minister Trudeau indeed has served his country and this

nation with determination and distinction. Perhaps if one could single

out a lasting contribution that he made to this nation it was the

patriation of the constitution so that it became and is now a Canadian

document, rather than a document of the Houses of Parliament at

Westminster. He also had a concern and a vision about world affairs,

probably to a greater extent than any other Prime Minister in our

history, with the possible exception of the late Prime Minister

Pearson, who was at one time the Minister of External Affairs of this

nation before becoming prime minister himself.

MR. ROSE: I would like to introduce and have the House

welcome my constituency secretary, Mrs. Gwen Ranger and her friend

Olga, who is visiting us this afternoon from San Francisco.

Oral Questions

B.C. GOVERNMENT NEWS

MR. HOWARD: I would like to ask the Provincial Secretary

about the "rag" that is currently being distributed through the mails

in British Columbia, and whether he can confirm that the government has

spent something in the neighbourhood of $150,000 to $200,000 to print

and distribute 1.1 million copies of this throughout the province on a

householder mailing basis.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, first of all, the B.C. Government News

publishes the same type of newspaper that was used by a former government of

this province, between 1972-75, to inform the people of British Columbia of

the activities of government. We have brought down a budget of substantial taxpayers

dollars, a budget in excess of $7 billion, and I think the people of British

Columbia have the right to know where their dollars are going to be expended.

That is why we decided to issue the B.C. Government News , which was issued previously

and frequently by a former government of this province.

MR. HOWARD: I notice that he didn't answer the question. One

hundred and fifty thousand bucks of taxpayers' money in a time of

restraint, and you don't give a good goddamn about it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Clearly the member has gone well

beyond the bounds of parliamentary and acceptable language in this

chamber, and I must instruct the hon. member to withdraw the remark. In

the parliamentary tradition, I'm sure he will.

MR. HOWARD: In the parliamentary tradition I wish that the minister would have acted accordingly as well.

AN HON. MEMBER: What do you need, another headline?

MR. HOWARD: Certainly I withdraw them.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member.

MR. HOWARD: It's a disgusting display on that minister's part, though.

AN HON. MEMBER: You've always been disgusting.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

TRANSIT WORKER NEGOTIATIONS

MR. MACDONALD: A question to the second member for Surrey as

chairman of the Metro Transit Operating Company, a Crown corporation

responsible to this Legislature. Why has he intervened in the

negotiations now going on with the union, with a statement that those

negotiations and the contract will never be exempted from the

provisions of Bill 3?

MR. SPEAKER: Further questions, hon. member?

MR. MACDONALD: Well, I've asked....

HON. MR. CHABOT: Next order of business.

MR. MACDONALD: I've struck out completely. What's the matter?

AN HON. MEMBER: It's not the first time either.

MR. MACDONALD: That's the first time in two years that that member has been struck dumb, although I don't think he had very far to go.

[ Page 3538 ]

To the Minister of Human Resources, and this is a serious question.

Negotiations are going on.... I don't want to repeat the whole

question, but the second member for Surrey (Mr. Reid) has indicated

that in no way will a collective agreement be exempted from the

provisions of Bill 3. Do you agree with that?

[2:15]

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, the second member for

Vancouver East is well aware that we do not interfere with

negotiations. We have not interfered and will not interfere, and we

will let the collective bargaining process take place accordingly.

MR. MACDONALD: A supplementary to the hon. minister then.

Negotiations are going on, and I understand a negotiating team is

trying to work out acceptable language governing layoffs and recall. If

they do, they'll make an application to the commissioner, Mr. Peck, for

exemption from the provisions of Bill 3. Does the minister agree that

that's a reasonable proceeding and that she won't interfere with it?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I don't plan to interfere on the floor of this Legislative Assembly or outside this assembly.

SECURITY PROGRAMS DIVISION

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the

Attorney-General. It has to do with an item in the budget, which was

tabled last week, on the funding for security programs. Will the

minister advise why B.C. needs a security programs branch and what work

is to be performed by that branch for the $440,000 budget allocation?

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I will take that question as

notice. It would seem to me to be a matter better dealt with under

estimates, or even under the budget debate, but not as a question. I'll

take it as notice.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, this is a new question, because this

is a new item. I wonder if at the same time the minister would bring

back and table in the House detailed policy directives and operating

instructions on what the security programs branch is going to do. Could

he do this prior to consideration of the estimates. We'd like to know

what the branch is going to do. Is this the secret police finally

coming out into the open and being funded, or what is it? Why do we

need a security branch, and what is it going to do? If he does that,

Mr. Speaker, it might inform him at the same time as it is informing us

that there is such a thing happening in the province.

MR. SPEAKER: It could be encompassed by the first question, which was taken as notice, hon. member.

KEMANO PROJECT

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of

Environment. I recently received your advice that Kemano is holding

public information meetings in March and April, and I'm wondering

whether the minister is prepared to advise the House regarding the Blue

Paper that his ministry completed last fall, I believe. Can he advise

us whether or not that Blue Paper relative to the Kemano project is now

completed?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: No, Mr. Speaker, I'll have to take that question on notice.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, when the minister is trying to

find the Blue Paper and find out whether it is completed, would he also

consider bringing back to the House information whether or not he is

prepared to file that report in the Legislature prior to these public

meetings?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Speaker, first of all I would have to

determine which Blue Paper. There are a great many papers that we have

in the ministry. I'll take it as notice and then decide what to do with

it.

WESTWOOD MOTOR SPORT PARK

MR. ROSE: I have a question to the same minister. The

minister is aware that his department has a planned housing development

on part of the land that has been occupied for years by the Westwood

race-track in Coquitlam. I would like to ask the minister if he could

tell us if he intends to proceed with the housing development and land

development for housing in 1984 or in some subsequent year.

MR. SPEAKER: That's future policy, hon. member.

MR. ROSE: Well, I wonder if the minister would mind taking

that as notice, because I'm certain that if I write to him he'll give

me a reply. It's really important, because the people who operate that

race-track contribute to the financial base of Coquitlam and Moody. If

the land isn't needed for housing, is the minister considering leasing

it to them on a year-by-year basis? At the moment they have to get out

of that place this year, and they would rather not.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The answer to the first question is: in subsequent years. The answer to the second question is yes.

BUS SAFETY

MR. PASSARELL: I have a question to the Minister of Human

Resources, who is responsible for B.C. Transit. Last week the minister

made a statement regarding safety inspection on buses. The minister

referred to the current operating contract for Victoria and Vancouver

but failed to mention the contract provisions that all transit vehicles

shall be inspected annually at provincial motor vehicle testing

stations. I wonder why the minister kept this information from her

statement previously.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I thought that I had implied

that in my answer. Also in the answer was a commitment to come back to

the House with a broader explanation plus information on another

question relating to the same subject. I had hoped to have that

information today. I think I will have it in tomorrow's question period.

[ Page 3539 ]

SALE OF PACIFIC COACH LINES

MR. BLENCOE: I have a question for the same minister

responsible for the sale of Pacific Coach Lines, Mr. Speaker. It has to

do with the contract between Gray Line and PCL. Is there a clause,

Madam Minister, requiring the Gray Line to continue to serve all of the

same Vancouver Island communities that are currently served by PCL?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: In making the public announcement I did

state that there is a commitment by the company to follow the same

routes. But in view of the specifics of the question, I think I would

prefer to take a look at the contract itself and come back to the House

with further information. Generally speaking, so the member will not

alarm the travelling public of Vancouver Island, I would like you to

know that what I said at the press conference announcing that sale

holds true today. The agreements now in place on the three lines follow

the same towns and communities that were serviced before.

MR. BLENCOE: I appreciate the response from the minister.

There is some concern among those communities that you may be saying

that the service will continue but that there is some discussion

whether or not it will be once a week or once a day or once a month,

Madam Minister. I think that should be clarified. At least they can be

shown that that kind of service will continue.

A further supplementary. Because of the discussion not only in this

House but also outside this House in terms of the sale, is the minister

prepared to table in the House the contract between PCL and the three

buyers?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I would like to make two observations.

The first reference to once a week, once a month or once a year is

exactly what I had hoped the member wouldn't place in the minds of the

people on Vancouver Island or anywhere else. I had hoped the member

would congratulate the government for being able to bring together an

offer that does retain a service within the private sector, knowing

full well that the private sector appreciates that for these past years

this line has been heavily subsidized by the people of British Columbia.

On the second part of your question, as to whether I will be willing

to table the documents, Mr. Speaker, I would like to take that question

as notice, as well as those other questions.

RCMP REPORT ON MINISTRY OF TOURISM

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, a short question to the

Attorney-General. Have you received the RCMP report on irregularities

in the Ministry of Tourism?

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, the final report on that

investigation is forthcoming shortly, and I will be making a statement

on it at the earliest opportunity.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today we have

Mayor Ivan Messmer, mayor of Penticton, and the administrator. Mr.

George Paul. I'd ask the House to bid them welcome.

Orders of the Day

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

On the amendment.

MR. REE: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated yesterday, I'm standing

here against the amendment to the motion moved by the opposition, and

in support of this budget.

At the beginning of the session today I listened attentively to the

comments by the respective House Leaders concerning the imminent — I

hope imminent — resignation of the present Prime Minister of this

country. I appreciate the platitudes that are due him with the years he

served in office and the international recognition he has given Canada

in that forum. But, Mr. Speaker, I also recognize that during his

tenure and under his government the national debt of this country has

grown to such an extent that any single radical economist ten years ago

could not have foreseen it.

MS. SANFORD: You tripled the debt in seven years.

MR. REE: I realize that. I realize the federal debt has tripled in seven years.

Interjection.

MR. REE: That's all right. You always need snipers,

Mr. Speaker, two years ago the federal debt was forecast to be $12

billion. It ended up close to $30 billion. This year the federal debt

is anticipated to be $30 billion or $31 billion. I forecast it will be

closer to $45 billion by the time the year ends. This debt has to be

repaid one way or another. It is that repayment that has interfered

with and affects the performance of this province in industry and in

growth in the next number of years. There are basically two ways to

repay that debt. Firstly, by taxes, and such a method will certainly

reduce the economic growth of the whole country. Secondly is certainly

by inflation, which is historically the method by which the debt of

this country has been repaid in the past 25 to 30 years.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

It is with respect to that method of repayment that compliments

should be given to our Minister of Finance for his present budget.

Maintaining the deficit within this province at a minimum will allow

the people of the province to benefit in the future by a minimal

taxation within the province, compared to excessive taxation or

excessive inflation to repay the federal debt. We will be in a better

position here than elsewhere in the country to recover and grow from

the recession we have been experiencing. I think the Minister of

Finance and the government of British Columbia have shown leadership

during the economic problems of the last few years, leadership in

restraint which has been followed elsewhere in Canada and leadership in

restraint which has been followed elsewhere in the world. It's this

continued

[ Page 3540 ]

leadership that is going to assist us, this

leadership which has reduced the provincial budget for the first time

in 31 years. No other federal or provincial jurisdiction in North

America has had a reduced budget.

AN HON. MEMBER: Louisiana.

[2:30]

MR. REE: They're a state, Mr. Member, when you know your geography. The words were "federal and provincial jurisdiction."

The reduced size of the budget bodes well for this province,

particularly when during this year we are continuing to suffer the

effects of the recession. During this year there is going to be some

growth. We may not see any improvement in the unemployment picture, but

I think we will see some improvement in the employment side. Additional

people coming on stream will increase the numbers employed. During this

year there will be an increase in productivity. People's expectations

have become less. They are not expecting to receive the wages and

increases they have in the past; they are not expecting to receive

benefits or assistance from government as they have in the past. This

message is getting out to people. This is a period of adjustment, a

period of levelling economically within our province, and I think we're

going to come out of it stronger in the long run.

Mr. Speaker, I was out the other evening to a group — the Greater

Vancouver Library Federation, to be exact — and I had the pleasure of

announcing that their funding assistance from the government for this

next year, the 1984-85 fiscal year, would be the same as they had

received in the previous year. That group were delighted. They had

anticipated, as have a great number of people, that they would be

receiving less, because most people have been. But one of the reasons

they have received the same funding is because they have established

restraint within their organization over the past few years. They are

running the libraries in the greater Vancouver area to more clients

than they ever have before with fewer employees than they've had

before. They are showing a considerable increase in productivity.

AN HON. MEMBER: Even fewer employees?

MR. REE: Yes. It is with that that we're going to show growth in this province, because there will be increased productivity.

Unfortunately there are still a great number of people who

anticipate continuing in the lifestyle we have had. I don't think it's

going to happen. We can no longer have two cars in the carport, the

recreational vehicle, the fishing vessel and the holidays we've had

before. None of us in this province really have the productivity to

afford that.

We cannot expect the same as we have enjoyed, and it is with lower

expectations and higher productivity that we are eventually going to

recover from the recession. I think this budget, being less than it was

last year — and I would hope maybe next year the same or even less than

this year — will assist us to come out of the recession with, as I say,

reduced expectations.

In presenting the budget the Minister of Finance made some comments,

and I'd like to repeat them if I may. He was discussing certain changes

in property taxes that we've seen in this budget, and he submitted

certain legislation with respect to that. Apropos of his discussion of

that, there are two paragraphs that I'd like to repeat.

Despite these measures, concerns have been expressed

to me, both in my recent consultations and previously, that British

Columbia's taxation of business is somewhat higher than in competing

jurisdictions. To ascertain whether this is the case I've commissioned

a study of the tax burden on a variety of types of business in several

jurisdictions. The analysis is complex and difficult because of

differences in tax systems. Nevertheless, I expect to use the results

of the study as a basis for a consultative process to be undertaken

this summer.

In conjunction with these discussions the government

will conduct a thorough review of the impact of taxation on economic

development. Consideration will be given to innovative tax measures for

stimulating new investment by large and small businesses.

Mr. Speaker, I commend the Minister of Finance for this program of

review of taxation toward encouraging investment in this province. One

of the biggest encouragements for investment is a stable set of laws in

taxation so that industry, when it is looking to invest within the

province, will know what the rules of the game are. I ask the Minister

of Finance to consider this in his reviews, consultations and

deliberations. Business, when it is investing in the province, has to

know what the rules of the game are, and they cannot have the rules

changed quickly without prior notice; secondly, the rules should not be

changed retroactively. When they play the game, they want to know the

rules throughout the game. When they've won the game, they don't want

to be told they've lost because the rules were changed after the game.

I ask the Minister of Finance to consider that very seriously in his

review.

There is one small aspect that I would commend the Minister of

Finance on. In my constituency I had a gentleman come in and see me one

time whose wife was on oxygen, recommended by her doctor because of her

illnesses. He was having to purchase portable oxygen tanks and oxygen

valves for control, oxygen equipment and oxygen to maintain her life,

so that she could function in her home and outside. Without the

purchase of these she would have been confined to an acute-care

hospital. At the time the gentleman spoke to me he was paying sales tax

on the purchase price of the equipment and oxygen. I took that matter

to the Minister of Finance, and I am pleased to see in his budget that

as of the day of presentation, February 20, oxygen and oxygen equipment

under medical recommendation have been removed. I commend the minister

for that.

I started off talking about the gentleman who is going to be

vacating his office in Ottawa. I made a comment that he has been the

leader during a time of very high budget deficits that are going to

affect every man, woman and child living now and being born within the

next 30 years in this country. I turn to that gentleman, offer him his

hat and say: "What's the hurry?"

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I just can't pass up the opportunity to

make a few comments on those of the previous speaker. The member for

North Vancouver–Capilano said that he thought it would be a good idea

if Prime Minister Trudeau would leave right away, because the Prime

Minister and his government since 1968 have tripled the national debt.

As far as I know, those figures are fairly accurate. But I don't know

why he wants him to resign over that. Is it because it took this

government only eight years to triple the provincial debt, and that the

Prime Minister took too long? Is he a piker? I think it is indicative

of that side of the House — not all of them, but

[ Page 3541 ]

some of them — that they cannot, even for a moment,

be gracious. Every year since 1968, with the exception of nine months,

the Prime Minister of this country has served this country to the best

of his ability. He has served us with vigour, and he has given us new

style. We may not agree with everything that his government has done,

but he has served this country and served it well. On the day of

resignation, we can at least give him the respect for having been the

Prime Minister of this country for all those years.

Mr. Speaker, they will be glad to hear that I'm not going to take

too long today, but I would like to point out that there are two major

areas of concern that this budget should have addressed. It didn't even

make an attempt in either area. The first and foremost area that we

have to understand is that we are not in what could be called an

ordinary recession; in other words, it isn't going to be the same kind

of economy in the future as it was in the past.

A recession is when you're dealing with a continuing economy and

there's a dip in that economy; in other words, an economy that is

continuing but isn't producing all that well for the moment. This is

not an ordinary recession in that sense. We are leaving one economic

order and going into a new economic order. We are going through a

transitional stage. We have been since the early 1970s. The effect of

the economic revolution we are going through is being felt by many

citizens and businesses in this province. Through no fault of their

own, they are the victims of an economic revolution.

The budget does not address that question. The budget does not

address how we leave this old economic order and go into a new one of

value-added industries that we must go into. By that I mean that if it

is impossible for us, say, in our copper industry, to compete in the

international marketplace because of new industries or new producers

coming onstream — such as Zaire and Chile, who are selling below their

own production costs for balance of payment purposes for their

respective countries and because they are heavily in debt to the

international financial system — then we cannot produce copper when

we're meeting that very unfair cut price from new producing countries.

The other problem is that the usages for copper are being downturned

because of new technological advances — such as fibre optics and

plastics. Those are the kinds of problems we're facing.

When I talk about value-added industries, I'm saying that if we

cannot produce copper cheaper than Zaire, or more efficiently than

Chile, then possibly for a value-added interest we should be looking at

producing the kinds of technical skills and technology that would allow

us to sell smelting and mining systems to Zaire and Chile. We should be

heading in that direction. Our educational system and our economy

should be designed to take us there. Yet there is not one word in this

budget that shows the government even suspects for a moment that we are

going through an economic revolution. and that we have to go from an

old into a new economic order.

[2:45]

Mr. Speaker, what could be more irresponsible? One of two things are

happening. This government does not know that we are going through this

industrial revolution. Which means that they have no right to sit in

those government chairs. To be that ignorant of the economic world

around them as government should make them consider resigning. Either

that or they do know it is going on, and they don't have one single

answer to address the problem, which would mean that the same course of

action would be desirable — that they get out of the way. Either lead

or get out of the way and let someone else lead. That part of the

budget does not deal with our future or with the new economic order. I

think most citizens recognize it as a challenge we have to meet in this

province and not be discouraged. It's a challenge that we as

legislators should be willing, anxious and able to meet. For this

budget not to address that issue leaves one on this side of the House

wondering — and I'm sure leaves the people in this province wondering —

why it is that this government either doesn't know about the problem,

or is not willing to address it.

The other area this government has not addressed is the severe

dislocation that is happening to citizens of this province because of

the economic revolution we are going through. People in the fishing

industry are being dislocated. I suppose '"dislocated" is a nice

economic term to describe the human misery that comes from people

losing their jobs through no fault of their own, through businesses

going out of business not because they're bad business people, but

because they've been caught as victims in an economic revolution; and

through no fault of their own, the human misery, after spending your

entire lifetime either working at a job for wages or working for

yourself in business, of seeing those years of hard work disappear and

your future look bleak. Human misery, and the human misery brought

around by this economic revolution, has not been addressed in this

budget.

As an example, 25 percent of our young people under 25 have no work

and, for the most part, no opportunity to gain employment in the

immediate and foreseeable future. What is the government's answer? They

say people 25 years old don't need as much to eat when they're

unemployed as do people who are 26 years old. That's sounds like a bit

of fuzzy-headed thinking to me, Mr. Speaker. Doesn't it to you? What

the government is saving to someone 25 years old is: "If you want to go

to work, then go to some other part of the province." Does the

government really not understand that there are young people who are

willing and able to work in every community in this province, and there

is no work?

Interjection.

MR. LEA: Yes, there are always people in an economy who don't

want to work or who are slackers, but they are few. And that is a

constant percentage of the employment figures. But when you are

reaching figures of 15 and 16 percent and, if you had an accurate

figure, possibly 20 percent in this province, you can’t convince me

that that many people, that many citizens in our province, don't want

to work. They do want to work, And you can't convince me that 25 to 30

percent of people under 25 are lazy oafs who have no desire to work.

They do want to work.

This government has not addressed the serious problems of

dislocation and human misery that this economic revolution is taking us

through. There is no better example than the fishing industry at

present. We have a fishing industry that is in serious crisis through

the bad management of two senior governments — the province of British

Columbia, in terms of protecting habitat, and the federal government,

which has the overall management of the fisheries. They have let down

British Columbia, let down Canada and let down the fishing industry in

this province through bad management. Through that bad management on

the parts of both governments we have a fishing industry that is in

crisis. Is this government not going to speak up for the fishermen in

this province who are

[ Page 3542 ]

being dislocated, through no fault of their own but

through the bad management of their elected governments? Are they not

going to stand up and say: "We're not going to allow a person who has

spent 30 or 40 years in the fishing industry to be thrown on the ash

heap"? Is their answer that people who are victims of this revolution

should go on welfare? Those fishermen have no pensions. Many of those

fisherman have been in the business all their lives, and even if the

retraining programs were there, many of the people affected by the

dislocation in the fishing industry wouldn't be able to take advantage

of them.

Rather than throwing the people who are dislocated in the fishing

industry onto the ash heap of welfarism, would it not be better to

treat them with dignity, as citizens of this province? Would it not be

better to say to some of those fishermen who are being dislocated: "We

have work for you in cleaning up habitat making sure that the streams

in this province can produce fish for the future"? That would be a good

investment in the future. Would it not be better to invest in that,

rather than to put $470 million into a sinking fund to pay off debt on

the BCR? Would it not make more social sense? Would it not make more

economic sense? Would it not be better for others in the fishing

industry who are being dislocated to have the opportunity to retrain?

Wouldn't it be better if the educational system in this province had a

system of taking these dislocated British Columbians and putting them

into training programs and educational program that would bring a

return to us in the future? Wouldn't it be better economically and

socially? Wouldn't it be better to invest in our human capital?

We have two opportunities to invest money for the people who are

being dislocated from the fishing industry. We have the availability of

work, to make sure that our salmon-spawning rivers, our

herring-spawning waters, and the whole habitat that produces fish in

this province would be put into better shape so that our stocks would

come back. It makes sense. This government hasn't spoken about that,

Mr. Speaker. Do you know what they hope will happen? They hope that

people will think it is a federal responsibility and that no one will

point an accusing finger at them. But it is not only a federal

responsibility; it is a provincial responsibility. Even if it were a

federal responsibility, these are British Columbians we are talking

about, and if the government of British Columbia will not stand up for

them, who will?

By necessity, the concerns of citizens should be the concerns of

government; otherwise why have a government? I am sure that many

fishermen could be employed in productive wealth-creation for the

future. I am sure that other fishermen and people affected in the

fishing industry could be retrained and educated to bring us wealth in

the future. There is also going to be a portion of those people who are

being dislocated who will not have the availability or the ability for

training. There are some who will not have the ability to work in

habitat protection and create wealth that way. What about them? What

about people who have no pension plan? Are we just going to say to

them: "Sorry, it's all over; you are no longer citizens of worth; you

are no longer citizens who have a right to dignity in our society, even

though you may have spent the last 40 years of your life working hard,

investing money and producing for the people of this province and

Canada"? Why is this government not standing up and saying it's not

good enough that we throw these people who have spent their lifetime

working on our behalf, as well as their own, onto the ash-heap of

welfare? We must take a look at giving these people a decent pension so

that they can spend their senior years with dignity and a feeling of

self-worth.

We all know and admit that the problems in the fishing industry are

serious, and that there has to be a buy-back plan for fishing boats. We

know that there is too much capital and too much efficiency out there

chasing too few fish. But for the federal government to talk about a

plan that will buy the licence back to pay off the bank and leave the

fisherman with a boat with no licence, which is virtually worthless, is

immoral. For this government that represents British Columbians not to

take a stand with the federal government, but to stand in stupid

silence, is more than any British Columbian should have to take.

It is not good enough, Mr. Speaker. This budget does not address the

dislocations and the human misery of people who are the victims of an

economic revolution that is no fault of their own. Where does this

budget fail? It fails in both the short term and the long term. It

fails because it does not look to our citizens who, through no fault of

their own, are going through misery, and it fails because this budget

doesn't take one tiny little step into the new economic order. It

completely misses on both counts. Anybody who doesn't support the

amendment to this budget is not standing proudly as a legislator and

saying: "I support British Columbians, and I will vote for this

amendment because this budget does not address the problems of British

Columbia and British Columbians."

MR. STUPICH: I think I'll start by reading the amendment,

just to refresh our minds as to what the amendment actually is. It was

moved by Mr. Gabelmann and seconded by Mr. Cocke that the motion that

Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the House to go into Committee

of Supply be amended by adding the following: "but this House regrets

that in the opinion of the House, the Hon. Minister of Finance, by his

failure to even mention, much less address, the most obvious problem of

record unemployment, has denied many of our citizens the right to

participate in our society and has thereby condemned them to a life of

subsistence."

The government might argue that the debt load that the federal

government has loaded onto itself and the debt load that the provincial

government has loaded onto itself is the reason why governments

generally are prevented from doing anything about the unemployment

situation.

[3:00]

1 was rather interested in the remarks of the hon. member for North

Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Ree) in talking about the federal deficit as

though that were a crime and ignoring completely the provincial deficit

and the history of that deficit and what's been happening there. He

might well read page 63 of the budget to see just what has happened in

the last 13 years, most of which was under this particular

administration. It goes back to 1971. It shows that the direct and

guaranteed debt of the province of British Columbia has increased every

year from 1971 through to 1983. There's no argument about that.

Whatever government was in office, the debt was going up. It also

showed that from 1971 to 1975 the debt as a percentage of the gross

provincial product decreased every year. During the last part of the

W.A.C. Bennett administration and during the whole of the NDP

administration the debt as a percentage of gross provincial product

decreased. While the total debt was going up as capital works were

being constructed, we were well able to handle it because the gross

provincial product was growing even faster.

[ Page 3543 ]

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Then the Socreds were re-elected, and the picture changed

immediately. The debt as a percentage of gross provincial product

started increasing, and did so for three years in a row. It decreased

slightly for the next three years. And in the last three years, 1981,

1982 and 1983, it has climbed faster than ever before. In 1983 — in

this table — it exceeded the proportion in 1971 for the first time. At

the end of 1983 the debt as a percentage of gross provincial product

was 28.2 percent, which was the first time it exceeded the proportion

in 1971 when it stood at 27.4. Certainly this administration should not

be talking about the debt of the federal government, when for the first

time we've come within shooting distance of the debt per capita figure

for the federal government. We have nothing to be proud of here in the

province of British Columbia when it comes to measuring our debt load

per capita or in proportion to the gross provincial product. We have

nothing to be proud of when we're talking about the way we've kept the

economy moving; indeed, that has not been the case in the last ten

years.

The 1983-84 budget estimated a deficit of $1.6 billion. If we are

heading into such a deficit, it would be the first time in the history

of the province since 1971 that a budget actually forecast a deficit in

the province. It's not only bigger than anything we had before; it's

far and away larger than the total provincial budget in the last year

when a deficit was actually forecast in the province of British

Columbia. To go from nothing to $1.6 billion in one year is really

something for the government to be ashamed of. Of course, I'm relating

this to the nothing forecast the year before. We all know that that

forecast was a political rather than financial statement. In fact, the

latest figures we have for that year show a deficit of $978 million. So

in reality the deficit was 60 percent larger than the one that was

truly there, rather than going from nothing up to a total of $1.6

billion in one year.

At the time the Minister of Finance forecast the $1.6 billion

budget.... I think it's interesting, Mr. Speaker. That was on July 7.

By that time he had the experience of two full months — April and May;

June was behind him, but he didn't have the figures. By the time the

budget was drafted in the month of June, the minister had the

experience of two months. Certainly in Finance they knew better, and I

would think they would have communicated with the Minister of Finance.

It was obvious at that time that the deficit was grossly overstated. I

spoke within hours of the Minister of Finance delivering his speech and

said at the time that it was overstated by some $500 million. Over the

months since then various economists from UBC — I'm not sure about

Simon Fraser, but UVic too — and a number of newspaper analysts,

columnists, etc., have come to the conclusion independently. None of

them noticed that I said it on July 8, but they have since come to the

conclusion that the deficit is overstated in the neighbourhood,

generally, of half a billion dollars. They're saying roughly $500

million, which is what I said, as I repeat, on July 8, 1983.

In the budget that came down last Monday, the Minister of Finance is

revising his figure. I can recall the Minister of Intergovernmental

Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) in particular reacting to me saying that

the deficit was overstated and saying that I would eat those words one

day and that the government was quite correct in estimating the deficit

that high and that he wished that I was right in my estimate. He's not

here today for me to throw those words at him again now, but the

Minister of Finance is now admitting that the deficit, instead of being

$1.6 billion, is likely to be $1.3 billion — $300 million less than the

figure forecast a year ago. Mr. Speaker, he's still wrong. He's still

overstated. As I look at the figures for the deficit and as I see that

expenditures are pretty well in line with what was budgeted — a little

higher....

The government is spending a little more money than was budgeted last year, but its revenue is still grossly understated.

If we look at the figures for the nine months — and we do have the

nine-month report.... I would like to have been able to compare this

with last year's and the year before that and the year before that. It

used to be, in the old days, that we got a nine-month report regularly.

Now we get a ten-month report or an 11-month report or whatever,

depending on when the budget happens to be coming down. It's nice to

have it more up-to-date, but it makes them....

MR. REE: We didn't get any interim reports in 1972-75.

MR. STUPICH: The comptroller-general has been issuing these

reports for as far back as I can go, Mr. Speaker. The member says he

didn't see any between 1972 and 1975. He wasn't here, but the

comptroller-general has been issuing these reports for a long, long

time. I don't know when they started. It was going on when I was here

in 1963, and it kept going until the present administration took office

and stopped bringing a budget down before the end of the fiscal period.

In any case the most recent one that actually dealt with nine months

that I could find in my files was one for 1976. By comparing the

figures for nine months I find that, not on the average but regularly,

the picture for nine months is not as good as it is for the full

12-month period. The figure for nine months shows an expected deficit

of $707 million, On that basis I would project that the deficit would

likely be some $900 million rather than $1.3 billion at the end of the

fiscal period. However, the Minister of Finance tells us that

expenditures are going to be higher than budgeted and that revenues are

likely to be lower than this would indicate, and on that basis says

that the deficit will probably be $1.3 billion. I say again that he is

wrong.

Even if the deficit per month which has been, over the last nine

months, $78.6 million doubled in the remaining three months of the

year, the deficit for this year would still be $1.18 billion rather

than the $1.3 billion that the Minister of Finance is predicting. So

I'm going to stand by the estimate that I made last July 8 based on the

interim financial statements that we had at that time for the first two

months of the year. I'm going to say again that when we see the final

figures for the year ended March 31, 1984, the deficit will not be the

$1.6 billion originally estimated; it will not be the $1.3 billion

given to us last Monday, but will be about $1.1 billion.

The point of all this is that if the government said a year ago, "We

can handle a deficit of $1.6 billion" — and certainly there was no

indication in the budget that the government was going to have any

problem handling it; they had all kinds of ways to deal with it but no

money for job creation; as a matter of fact, there was money for job

creation in there — and they could do all this and live with a deficit

of $1.6 billion.... If that were the case, as soon as they realized

that there was more revenue coming in than was expected, they were in a

position to do something about the worsening unemployment situation in

the province of British Columbia.

This amendment takes the government to task for having done nothing last year and proposing to do nothing in this

[ Page 3544 ]

budget before us now to deal with what is still a

worsening unemployment position in the province. They have the money to

do it. They could have lived with a deficit of $1.6 billion — they told

us in the July 7 budget. The deficit was not going to be $1.6 billion,

and they knew it. That has been since proven. The figures show that it

was less than was estimated and, as I say, Mr. Speaker, less again. So

there is no excuse for the government to have ignored the tragic

unemployment situation in the province the way they have.

What have they done about it? I just want to look at a couple of

expenditure items in Table 6 of the budget that came down last Monday.

One ministry is supposed to be doing something to encourage new

business development in the province. The minister travels the world

round, over and over again, and is supposed to be doing something to

increase our trade possibilities to build up business opportunities

here in the province. Let's look at his budget. How much was it in the

budget that was presented July 7, 1983? I don't expect you to remember

the figure, Mr. Speaker; I wouldn't have. It was $140.9 million. With

that kind of money he might have been able to do something, in spite of

the fact that he's away so much. Things might have happened. He has a

ministry and something positive might have happened. But how much was

spent? According to the estimates for the full year ending March 31,

1984, not $141 million but $49 million — roughly one-third of what the

Legislature voted. And that's the ministry that was supposed to be

creating new employment opportunities.

That wasn't the only item in the budget for new employment

opportunities. Employment development account: they proposed to spend

the whole $245 million. The Legislature voted $245 million for an

employment development account and $141 for the Ministry of Industry

and Small Business Development, a total of $386 million. That's quite a

bit of money when you're talking about a deficit of $1.6 billion. The

government obviously was expressing some concern in the budget when we

voted $386 million, in those two items alone, for job creation. They

spent approximately $100 million less than that.

But what are they proposing to do in the year ahead? The situation

is worse. The number of bankruptcies is higher than ever before.

Unemployment rates in B.C. are still far ahead of most other Canadian

provinces, and getting worse day by day, week by week and month by

month under this administration. You'd think they would realize that it

was necessary to do something about it if they wanted to serve the

people in the province. So what are they doing? There is no employment

development account at all. The $245 million was spent last year, and

that's it. There's no provision for any employment development account.

In the Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development there is not

the $141 we voted last year, not even the $49 million that was actually

spent — or that will be spent, according to the revised estimates — but

some $2 million less than that. Yes, that is one ministry that should

really be doing something to try to get the economy moving, and instead

of that they say: "We're spending less in that ministry. The only

ministry where we're spending more is Health. Aren't we good? Aren't we

great? We're making sure that nothing positive happens in the province

of British Columbia. We're cutting back on our spending, even in the

Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development." What a shocking

attitude for the government to take at such a time in the economic

history of the province.

We have another budget this year, another deficit forecast of $661

million, which includes an amount of $470 million that is being granted

to BCR to take care of its old debt. Just how important is it today,

February 29, 1984, to take care of this old debt? Four hundred and

seventy million dollars is a nice chunk of money for BCR, and certainly

they do have old debts to take care of. Some of them will come due

between 1983 and 1987; some $34 million is due in that period. That's

an average of a year away. But that is only $34 million out of $470

million. Another $40 million will come due between 1988 and 1992. That

is six years away. Why are we borrowing $40 million today to give to

BCR to provide for a debt, some of which does not come due until 1992?

Some of it doesn't come due until 1993 to 1997 — I'm taking the oldest

ones. We're borrowing $237 million now to provide for a debt that does

not have to be paid back until 1993-97. Mr. Speaker, $383,348,000

doesn't come due until 1998 to 2002, and the balance of $45 million

doesn't come due until 2003-2005. That all adds up to $740 million,

more than the $470. There are sinking funds that reduce the figure.

[3:15]

My point is that BCR doesn't need that money now if it's being given

to BCR to provide for old debts, because those old debts don't come due

for many years down the road. But that $470 million would replace the

$470 million left out of the budget this year that was in last year but

wasn't spent last year. The government has the financial wherewithal.

It's able to get this money; they have expressed no concern about being

able to raise the money. They could finance a job creating program had

they any will to do so. They have no interest in financing projects to

put the unemployed to work. There are many; we've talked about them in

the budget debate. In this particular debate I think I shouldn't be

specific, other than to say: think of the tremendous job that could be

done in forestry, and think of all the pressure from all of the groups

outside the House, the people working in the industry, the university

professors concerned about the future of the province with respect to

the forests and the effect this will have on our economy when we have

mined our forests. As I said in the budget speech, Mr. Speaker, it was

a mistake to have a mining engineer looking after our forests. His

attitude is, as with mining ore: "Cut and get out." Unfortunately we've

been doing that too long in B.C., when it comes to looking after our

resources, and we should not be handling our forest resources in the

way we handled our mining resources.

The Minister of Finance said not only that this money was to be used

for old debt, and specifically not for Tumbler Ridge.... He made quite

a point of saying that. When I asked whether or not we still had the

same guarantees with respect to Tumbler Ridge, I erred; I should not

have said guarantees, but the same responsibility to make payments for

interest and capital. That was the question I intended to ask, Mr.

Speaker, because as I read the financial statements, the provincial

government is committed to make all interest payments on a further $450

million, not just interest but the capital-repayment as well.

Reading from the financial statements, note 4, "Tumbler Ridge Branch Line":

"In 1981 the railway began construction of the 130 kilometre

Tumbler Ridge branch railway line to the coalfields located in northeastern

British Columbia. Since the inception of this project, the government of the

province of British Columbia has granted

[ Page 3545 ]

$2,700,000, purchased $45 million of share

capital, and arranged the railway's interim financing to construct the

branch line. The government of the province of British Columbia intends

to retire the interim financing" — that's the capital, Mr. Speaker;

we're talking about $450 million — "with equity capital financing."

In other words, we're going to buy more shares in

the BCR or contribute more capital, as one reads this note, to the

extent of some $450 million. I can recall being told in this

Legislature that not one cent of taxpayers' money was going to go into

the subsidizing of the export of coal to Japan. Certainly the financial

statements indicate otherwise. They indicate that the whole capital

cost of this line, estimated to be $450 million, will be paid for by

the taxpayers of British Columbia when through their government they

buy the shares in BCR, or contribute capital — whatever way it appears

on the balance sheet.

Reading further from the note: "Until such time as the interim

financing is fully retired, the province intends to annually subscribe

for equity capital equivalent to the amount of interest capitalized" —

not just the amount of money borrowed to construct the line, but also

the interest capitalized in the cost of that line — "and to provide

annual grants equivalent to the amount of interest charged to

operations." Then it goes on to talk about the total cost of the line.

If we have all that money to pay for the export of coal to Japan,

surely we can do something about the tragedy of unemployment in the

province of British Columbia. We have money to give to BCR, which

doesn't need some of it until the year 2005. We have money to pay the

total cost of the Tumbler Ridge line, which was built solely to provide

coal for Japan. We have money to do all those things, but nothing to do

the things that need to be done here in the province of British

Columbia, which could be done by the thousands of people lined up in

the province waiting and hoping for some employment opportunity. The

government's answer to all this is to cut back on the spending in the

Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development, to have the

minister travel more and do less, and to cut out the employment

development account completely.

The $661 million deficit forecast this year is $1 billion less than

the figure last year. The government says: "Isn't it great? We've

actually reduced the figures." Well, I told you two areas in which

these figures have been reduced. They claim to have reduced the

estimates for 1984-85 — and I remind you, Mr. Speaker, they're just

estimates. How much comparison there will be between those figures and

the final figures, I leave it to time to answer. But in any case,

that's all we have.

The estimates are $56,800,000 less than the revised figures for last

year. The revised figures for last year are higher than the original

figures. When we dealt with the budget in July 1983, we were told that

the expenditures would be $8,445,000,000. We're now told to expect them

to be $8,446,800,000 — a difference of $1,800,000, which is close

estimating, Mr. Speaker. If the figures come out to that figure, then

the Ministry of Finance is to be congratulated for coming so close on

the expenditure side. They boast about a reduction of $56,800,000 in

total expenditures without explaining that in one area alone they have

reduced expenditures by $247 million — in the area of creating

employment opportunities. There is $2 million less for that Industry

and Small Business Development ministry, and $245 million less for the

employment development account. That's a total reduction of $247

million. As I said earlier, if we compare the original estimate given

to us on July 7 of $386 million in those two areas — $386 million

compared to $47 million now — it's a decrease of $339 million. And the

government says: 'Aren't we great? We've reduced total expenditures by

S57 million, and to accomplish that we reduced the employment-creating

opportunities in our budget by some $337 million." Mr. Speaker, is that

progress? Is that looking after the needs of the people of the province

as the Lieutenant-Governor urged us to do in his opening speech? I

think not.

This government has been successful in one thing only. Had they

deliberately set out on a move to destroy the economy of British

Columbia and had some really intelligent people working for them doing

it, then they couldn't have succeeded more than they have done in the

last year. There's no question about that, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of

Finance said something rather revealing in his budget speech. I

mentioned this before, and it's worth mentioning over and over again:

"The recovery in the United States was led by consumer spending." On

July 7 of last year he did everything within his power to make sure

that consumer spending in B.C. would decrease. In the budget before us

now the government has taken a further step to make sure that consumer

spending decreases even further. By every measure of accomplishment

that it is possible to devise, B.C. has done worse than the rest of

Canada. There's only one way in which we've exceeded the rest of

Canada, and that is in the destruction we've done to our own economy.

Mr. Speaker, in the budget last July the minister threatened some

300,000 people in the province — those are the figures used by the

Provincial Secretary — that 25 percent of them were going to be fired

without cause. That's one in four. There are at least four people in

the House right now, and if we were working as employees rather than as

MLAs, one of the four would be gone, if that formula were to apply to

us.

In every government office, in every municipal office, every school

board office. every Crown corporation office, everyone working there or

out in the field would be aware that for every four of them, one of

them was due to be fired without cause. There were some changes in that

legislation after, but I'm talking about the budget of July 7. Mr.

Speaker, none of those four would go out and spend any more than they

absolutely had to. The sword was hanging over all four of them. Even

after one of them had gone, it might be a different four. They still

didn't know; and they don't know to this day which of them may get

their notice next. People like that aren't going to spend money. It's

not just the four who are working for the government, or the 300,000

who are working in the total public service. They have friends and

relations, and they visit people they know, and when they passed on

their discouragement and their concern about what was happening to the

B.C. economy, then the rest of the people in the province would also be

influenced not to spend money.

It's small wonder that retail sales have not increased in B.C. the

way they have in the rest of the country. It's small wonder that the

recovery that was led by consumer spending in the States and in some

parts of Canada just hasn't taken place in the province of British

Columbia. The Minister of Finance, as I said, and the government — he's

not doing it himself; I can appreciate that it's government policy —

have done everything they could to make sure that consumers didn't

spend money, with the result that personal savings in

[ Page 3546 ]

the province of British Columbia are higher now than ever before.

Listening to the Minister of Finance read his budget, one would

think that he had some recognition of what he had done by saying that

the way to recovery is to increase consumer spending. If you do

increase consumer spending, you increase demand and then stores and

small businesses sell stuff. If they are selling stuff, they have to

buy more from wholesalers, and wholesalers from the producers — it

works right down the line. What's the point in trying to encourage

business people to spend more money expanding if they aren't able to

sell what they are able to produce with their present facilities? You

have to increase consumer demand. You have to persuade consumers to

spend, especially when they have large savings.

The government has taken exactly the opposite tack, and they are

doing it again in the budget before us now. That is why this amendment

was moved, Mr. Speaker, if for no other reason. All of the other

services being cut back are important — there's no question about it.

But by increasing employment the government is increasing revenue for

itself and would be increasing consumer confidence. It would be doing

something to get the economy moving. By getting the economy moving, by

increasing consumer confidence and employment, the government in turn

would eventually have enough revenue to start replacing some of the

services that have been taken away from the people of British Columbia.

Why did the government choose to go against even its own best

advice? Why have they abandoned the people of British Columbia through

this policy of continually saying to the people, who have been the

victims of the government's policy and the victims of the depression

that we're now in, that they are the ones who are going to have pay

more and more to get us out of this hole that we're in? They are the

least able to pay. Why not get the economy moving? Why not do as the

minister said they did in the States; that is, to increase consumer

confidence and consumer spending?

Mr. Speaker, 25 percent was bad enough, but what did we hear in the

budget a week ago Monday? The minister is now saying that in some

ministries, in some areas of services, the figure may go as high as 50

percent. Even if there was some feeling that the worst is over, the

program of firings started in July 1983.... We're now eight or nine

months beyond that, and maybe we can start breathing again; maybe we

can start relaxing because we're doing our job — not us, but the public

servants generally are doing their job — and look forward with a little

bit of confidence to the future. Then they are hit with this budget to

the effect: "We haven't really started to get rid of you yet. We're

going to get rid of up to 50 percent in some ministries." If anything

could have been calculated to have done more damage at this time, I

can't imagine what it would be. Why? I don't expect the Minister of

Finance to answer me today, but I expect to be asking that question

again and again. Perhaps one day I will get the Minister of Finance to

comment on it. Certainly there isn't anything he could have done that

would have been worse for the economy of British Columbia, and I use

his own words to prove that to him. It is true that B.C. deficits are

very high. They are very high because the government has destroyed the

economy of British Columbia. They have discouraged everyone in the

province against any possible plans they might have for improving the

economy.

[3:30]

When I spoke in the budget debate, I mentioned figures on

unemployment, bankruptcies and services being done away with. Every one

of these things is a measure of the degree to which we have failed in

British Columbia. This particular amendment deals with unemployment.

There are many things that could have been done, and my colleagues have

been talking about some of the specifics. I say again that the one we

could move into most readily and quickly with the largest long-term

gain would certainly be in forests. We've abandoned our forests to a

greater degree than ever before under this administration. Apparently

there are no plans to build up that resource.

Mr. Speaker, the government stands condemned by its own words. It

has taken the wrong remedy. It is doing nothing positive to try to

increase employment opportunities. Even some of the members on the

government side of the House ought to recognize how wrong the Minister

of Finance and the government are and should support this amendment. I

don't really expect it, but if they were to read it honestly and to

measure what this government has achieved with any degree of honesty,

they could do no better than to vote for the amendment currently before

the House.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Speaker, are we going to have a rousing debate here?

There are a number of issues, and I want to talk about the amendment

in relation to the great constituency of Atlin. The first one I would

like to discuss is Stewart, the largest community in the Atlin

constituency, which is having unemployment problems with the closing of

Granduc. Imperial Oil is pulling the plug in Stewart.

Interjection:

MR. PASSARELL: It was getting so dead that I just had to coax

the member from Taiwan to get up and start yelling. Now he walks off. I

thought we'd wake up some people and get the gallery going. Is he

catching another plane to Japan this afternoon — or London or the South

Pole? That would be a great selling spree down to the South Pole.

Penguins? I chased him right out of the House. We know the game.

The community of Stewart is finding itself caught, as many rural

communities are, with depression and recession and the problems of a

resource-based town when the company closes. Stewart is the largest

community in my riding, and the problem is that when the only mine in

town closes, the community is caught, because you just don't go off to

another mine three or four miles down the road or off to another

business.

It is fine for the government to stand up and talk about its

employment program, which I haven't seen but is supposedly there

somewhere in fantasy land. The community of Stewart involves hundreds

of individuals who no longer have a mine to work in. I'll be one of the

last ones to ever say that a government should come in and buy a mine

that is not a profitable operation just to keep jobs, because that's

silly. You can't go out and buy a mine to keep people working. There

has to be some kind of middle-of-the-road program to help these

individuals. They have homes, their families are there, they have

mortgage payments, car payments or truck payments. Now that the mine is

down, what is there for them? I found the number of cabinet ministers

who travelled to Stewart during the May election last year interesting.

They were

[ Page

3547 ]

saying how great free enterprise is. There is some

merit in it, and by the same token, some bad. Now that the mine is

closed, where are all those cabinet ministers who came in?

Another issue I'd like to discuss are some ideas that I have with

regard to job and industry development in the province. W.A.C. Bennett

believed in public enterprise. You just have to look at his record with

the ferries and B.C. Hydro to see his interest in public enterprise.

There is a need for government in the role of creating employment in

this province, as well as there is the role of private enterprise. I

have some ideas for job and industry development that we could be

using, working in conjunction with public and private enterprise.

The first one is mini-hydro projects in this province. When it comes

to hydro development, we have always thought that we have to build big

and spend big. We are finding the money is no longer there to build

those giant hydro projects. There is, as well, no need for the power

any longer. What I would like to look at is a program for job creation

in the far north with mini-hydro projects.

The federal government has a very similar program, which they call

the slow-poke program. The slow-poke program is for development and

generation of power, but what the federal government wants to do in

small communities is to put in nuclear reactors. I don't particularly

want to see nuclear reactors, but we could by the same token allow

private enterprise to go out and work on some of the small streams and

rivers in the north and throughout this province to develop power for

the power grid instead of building large dams. We should allow private

industry the opportunity to go in and develop power generation for

local consumption. This is a step that I would like to see happen.

Another one is public enterprise — something that comes up quite

often down here in Victoria, and I think the media likes to play games

with it — for the use of garbage to generate power. We are having a

problem on the mainland of finding areas to dump the garbage from

cities. It is becoming more and more of a problem. Using garbage,

instead of just finding more and more dumps. Money and jobs can come

out of garbage if we look at it realistically.

Third issue: resource and development. Right now we export many jobs

by exporting our resources; we're a resource-base province. By the same

token there's a role here for British Columbians in secondary or

primary industry if we use our resources for the benefit of the people

of this province, allowing public enterprise as well as private

enterprise to play a role in the research and development of this

important area.

The fourth area I'd like to talk about where we could have job

creation in this province to help the 225,000 people who are presently

unemployed is a greater emphasis on sea farming. I am certainly sure

that we could develop the expertise in this area, as many of the

Scandinavian and European countries are moving further and further into

sea farming

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Our largest industry in this province is probably forestry, and yet we're

finding problems in this area with world market prices, and problems in our

own province with regard to this industry. I would like to see co-ops set up

in small rural communities where seedlings could be grown. We have many large

tracts of Crown land in this province, and certain communities could be allotted

certain Crown acreage. Seedlings could be developed on those acreages and then

sold to the multinationals as part of the conditions of tree licences. They

would have to buy the seedlings from communities in the areas where they operate.

I look particularly to TFL number 1, the largest tree licence in the province,

which is in my riding. It makes no sense to bring seedlings from the state of

Washington to TFL number I to plant, when we have so many people unemployed.

It would be a good community job-creation program for young people, in which

they could have free Crown land to develop seedlings and then sell them back

to the big forest companies.

Another issue I'd like to raise is that maybe we could put the word

out that there's a gold rush in the province of British Columbia. It

might be a novel idea. I'm looking at putting the word out in the world

press. We can see how many members of the press here are interested in

the debates going on in this Legislature. There is so much going on out

there with regard to small placer operations. If the opportunities were

there for small placer operators to go in and have a gold rush in

northern British Columbia.... It seems that more and more regulations

are coming down to keep the small placer operator from going ahead, in

the spirit of free enterprise, and doing the job. Placer operations are

not usually major operations dealing with foreign companies; they're

individuals who live in the province of British Columbia as Canadians.

But the opportunities are falling away from them.

In the far north, the area I represent, in the Yukon the federal

government has come in with new placer regulations. I know my friend

the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) has probably heard about these. The

federal government is trying to....

[3:45]

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: That's right. We've got to get rid of them and

allow the individual free enterpriser to go in and start working our

rivers and streams. The federal government has come in with new

regulations when it comes to placer operators, and it's almost

impossible for these individuals to secure a piece of property and be

able to operate a placer operation without causing some kind of a

problem that some bureaucrat in Ottawa or Victoria thinks will destroy

the environment. I'm one of the first individuals.... I live in the

north and I want the environment of the north to be protected, but

placer operators don't go out and destroy the environment.

An individual I refer to time and time again in my speeches, an

operator who has been working a claim since World War II, was told last

year that he had to close. Some bureaucrat who came up from Victoria

said he was putting too much mud into the river. He wasn't even in

operation yet; it was the spring runoff that had come in. They closed

him down, as they do a lot of placer miners in the far north, because

of the spring runoff. They said there was too much mud running into the

river and destroying the fish habitat. But there are no fish in the

river where this individual has been mining for the last 30 years. I

doubt if there ever were fish in this stream a hundred years ago, let

alone what old George is putting into it. It was the spring runoff.

When the snow goes in the springtime, a lot of mud runs into the creeks

and streams.

Interjection.

[ Page 3548 ]

MR. PASSARELL: Well, we've got to watch him, Mr. Member for

Omineca (Mr. Kempf). If we let these bureaucrats make any more

decisions for us in the far north, they just might do that. I think a

little more common sense would go a long way when it comes to

development in this province.

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: No, no, Mr. Member for Vancouver South, you

don't understand about old Bob. Old Bob is somebody you would probably

support. You'll have to talk to my hon. friend from Surrey here to

bring you up to date about old Bob. Old Bob has learned one thing about

the information I sent him. He has such a novel use for it. He's

finally realized he has to take the staples out of the material I sent

him. It's a lot smoother without the staples.

The last aspect I'd like to talk about, when it comes to the

economic problems that face us here, is the use of large make-work

programs. I don't think they work. I don't think they're valuable. In

the 1930s President Roosevelt was able to use large public make-work

programs, which were successful at that time. I don't seriously think

that large make-work programs at this stage in time are going to

benefit anyone. They might provide some short-term employment, but the

amount of taxpayers' money needed to provide this kind of program....

In the long run, I don't think it would be beneficial to either the

taxpayers or the employees.

I gave seven positive ideas on development and job creation on this

amendment. I think there has to be a lot more debate, putting minds and

heads together to start coming up with some alternative programs,

whether it's mini-hydro projects or looking at British Columbia as a

new gold-rush area. We can't allow 225,000 people to be unemployed in

this province. This is a great and rich province. It makes no sense to

have a quarter of a million people unemployed.

MR. ROSE: I always enjoy the enthusiastic one-handed applause

I get when I get up from the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) sitting

over there fiddling with his pencil.

Naturally, I suppose, I'm going to support the amendment. I think

it's a particularly important one, when we consider the level of

unemployment we have. The fact that this concern has been omitted from

the budget is, I think, rather cruel and heartless.

The other day a speaker complained that the language of the

amendment wasn't very graceful or elegant. I think I'd be inclined to

agree with him; the wording is a bit awkward. But that really isn't the

point. It's pretty awkward when you haven't got a job too. As far as

I'm concerned, too many of our people in this country don't have jobs,

and maybe they're not going to get them back either. As the member for

Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) said, I don't think it's going to be something

that we're going to work our way out of or restrain our way out of. I

think there's a whole new technological age coming. I know this is dull

stuff, but it's inevitable. It's happening all over the world.

AN HON. MEMBER: We understand better than you do.

MR. ROSE: Well, I'm not so sure you do appreciate that as

well as we do. I understand that even jobs for engineers are hard to

come by now. Some of them even have to run to be elected in the

Legislature, jobs are so tough to oversee. There are these public jobs,

the snout-in-the-trough jobs — but there aren't enough to go around. A

few of us are lucky; we get in the public trough. But many don't have

that; they have limited means and limited access. Some group of people

has to be concerned about that. The concern of the government over

there is for what they believe is best for the economic health of the

province. I don't deny that they believe this. I happen to think

they're wrong. I happen to think they're heartless in many ways. I

think they're cruel, really, but I don't doubt their sincerity. These

Khomeinis of economic fundamentalism really believe that what they're

doing is the right thing. I know that if we can say anything about the

Minister of Finance, we can say he is sincere — even when he's fooling.

I'm not sure that everybody really understands the extent of the

problem, and how soul-destroying it can be. I don't think they

understand for certain, either, that it isn't something we're going to

get over simply by tightening our belts and hoping that the poor will

pay for our recovery. We have had a recovery, of sorts, over this last

year, but unemployment hasn't gone down appreciably, and the province

is in a dreadful state. It's even worse than it was in December. I must

admit to the Minister of Finance — and I do this graciously — that over

January our unemployment is down marginally. Whether or not that can be

claimed as a great victory for our new restraint policy, I'm sure it

will be. I don't think it's got anything to do with it, myself, but a

lot of people do.

I think that, in contrast to improving things, you've killed the

boom. I think we were on the verge of recovery, and your budget and all

your bills that came along last July killed it. I think you're going to

have to take the blame for it. We're going to hang it on you anyway,

even if you don't accept it. You'll deny it, of course. You've killed

the boom, that's what you've done. We are on the brink of recovery all

over Canada. Look at the last year.

MR. R. FRASER: It started in Ottawa as of today.

MR. ROSE: As a matter of fact, it didn't start in Ottawa or

anywhere necessarily. You claim that you're concerned about the debt in

Ottawa as part of our economic downturn. I can recall when the

provinces had all the surpluses and the feds had all the debts, because

of transfer of payments. I understand that, too. And that wasn't very

long ago. Now the provinces have all the debts, along with Ottawa —

triple the debts in about seven years.

Bankruptcies in B.C. are the highest in Canada. They went down everywhere else in Canada. Here they are in this morning's Province :

"1982 the Worst Year Ever for Canadian Bankruptcies." There were 41,843

in Canada, of which 3,234 were from British Columbia. Last year

bankruptcies in Canada drifted down, but the bankruptcies in B.C. last

year jumped 25 percent. You can look into various reasons for that, as

this particular author, Ken Bell, did. He blames the real estate boom,

allowing people to borrow beyond their means without proper equity. But

you can also say that if you kill consumer spending and consumer

confidence to spend, that's going to contribute to some of the

bankruptcies. There's no escape from that either. We tend to hang that

on you, and there's no reason why we shouldn't. If you're going to take

credit for the good things, you also have to be able to take the blame

for the bad ones, not blame the world markets. That's not good enough.

[ Page

3549 ]

Where are these unemployed people? Here we've got 12.7 percent, or

85,000 people, living in Vancouver, many of them attending

soup-kitchens. It was estimated that there were 35,000 homeless people

in the city of Toronto. They're doing a whole series on CBC this week

on the homeless, the people without any shelter, living in Toronto — in

one of the richest countries in the world — attending soup-kitchens and

various other handouts, and sleeping in drop-in centres or shopping

centres. There is not a word, not a jot or tittle in the budget about

our concern for the unemployed.

What are we concerned about? Are we concerned with battering wages

down to the point where we make this place safe for investment? I'm

told that we have something like the fifth-highest investment rate per

capita in the world right here in British Columbia. Why do we need to

do this?

Victoria: 16.2 percent, or 18,000 people, living in Victoria are

unemployed. They like to be unemployed. Welfare recipients drive

Cadillacs. They love to be unemployed, you know. They like that soup.

AN HON MEMBER: What are the MLAs in Victoria doing about it? Nothing.

MR. ROSE: The MLA in Victoria is here doing his job. He's

doing his job, and attempting to get the federal government, since the

British Columbia government won't do anything, to come in here and drop

a little money on the place. That's what he's attempting to do.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about the 400 jobs at Yarrows?

MR. ROSE: I see the chorus over here is yacking about Yarrows. What the chorus should....

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: I wasn't going to bring this up. I think the fact

that there are 400 jobs created at Yarrows is a good thing. I don't

deny that at all; why should we knock it? But let's tell the other

half: you had planned $30 million to be spent in Victoria, and you cut

it to $9 million. Is that really going to help those 16.2 percent or

18,000 people unemployed?

The Kootenays have 10 percent unemployment; the West Kootenays —

23.6; the Okanagan — 18,000 people or 17.8 percent; the southern

interior — 11,000 people, or 19 percent; the lower coast and the lower

mainland — 101,000, or 13 percent; Vancouver Island — 14,000 people, or

18 percent; the central interior — 15,000 people, or 16 percent; the

Peace River and the northwest — 5,000, or 11.8 percent....

AN HON. MEMBER: Would you like us to follow the New Zealand experience?

MR. ROSE: I suggest to my hon. colleague, who shares at least one of

the municipalities with me, that there are ways of approaching this problem

that are not necessarily the Australian or the Now Zealand approach. But it

certainly isn't this kind of Khomeini approach that you're undergoing

at the moment. That hasn't done a thing. It's put more people out of

work. As far as the benefits are concerned, we have in British Columbia one

of the lowest benefits in the western world, in terms of the unemployed. In

unemployment insurance the Canadian rate is far below the German, British or

French in real dollars.

What we have to deal with is the number of people who are

unemployed. What we're trying to talk about is the number of people who

need jobs: over 200,000 of them here. You can't get out of that.

Unemployment has dropped by 1 percent across Canada in the last 12

months.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's a start. The infrastructure's in place.

MR. ROSE: You can't eat the infrastructure. I think what

you're suggesting is that somehow if the world recovers we'll be in

shape to take advantage of it. In the meantime, you're quite willing to

sacrifice literally thousands of people with dumb stunts to cool off

the recovery. The recovery was here. You killed it.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's just rolling.

MR. ROSE: It's rolling, all right. It's rolling backwards. That's where it is. Bankruptcies are up, and all the rest.

[4:00]

AN HON. MEMBER: Show me statistics.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say to my hon.

friend that I went over a number of those statistics before he came in.

Since he's tuned in late with his ears, I wonder if you'd mind asking

him to tune out with his mouth for a little while. I think that would

be a helpful contribution. If he wishes to get up and speak, I'll yield

the floor to him in about, oh, half an hour from now, when I have him

thoroughly disgusted and thoroughly cornered with the brilliance of my

arguments and the logic of my presentation. But in the meantime, I find

his shouting somewhat distracting.

But I would like to tell you a little bit about this. I'd like

people to know: who are these people who have to be put out of work for

the good of the country? Who are these people who have to be given

unemployment or welfare as a solution to their problems? Young people.

The unemployment of young people across Canada rose from 12 percent to

20 percent in two years. In British Columbia it's 25 percent. For those

with a university or post-secondary education it's only 8 percent. And

what have we done about that? We've cut back on our funding for

educational institutions. At a time when people are unemployed, we give

the kids a card and say, "Go and create yourself a job; we'll give you

this card, " while we cut down and raise fees to the point that even if

they do get a job, access to the universities is going to be seriously

limited. These are the people who are particularly vulnerable.

Older workers used to be secure, but no more in Canada. Because of

the decline in manufacturing, the person who had.... He was immune to

recessions. He found it almost impossible to believe that he would be

out of work, especially if he was a business executive or somebody with

training. Now we have, as I said earlier, engineers and business

executives out of work, and if they're over 50, they have a great deal

of difficulty finding employment, because they're too high-priced,

they're overtrained and too many people feel that they're overpaid. The

solution to that is $10 million. Give the kid a card. He goes down to

the A & W. He was working there anyway for $3 an hour. If he has

the card he can

[ Page 3550 ]

be taken on by the A & W, and now the

government's going to pay for half of it. And they say: "Oh, well, that

won't work. It's only for new workers." I know what happened in the

bridging program. The federal....

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Well, it was a federal-provincial make-work

program. When you guys backed out of it, it became a federal program.

But it was a federal-provincial program.

Reforestation, which was once handled by paid IWA workers for the

big wood corporations.... They suddenly found themselves laid off, and

they became part of the bridging program, because their wages were

subsidized. The same thing is going to happen here if we don't watch it

very carefully. But $10 million is a piddling program anyway in terms

of the need. You give the kids $10 million for a summer work program

and take away $14 million in grants, which you gave them last year to

go to university.

HON. MR. CURTIS: The loans are still there.

MR. ROSE: Of course they are. You remind me of the Liberals.

Lester Pearson campaigned all over the country in 1965. He said: "Ten

thousand scholarships." But when they got into power it became 10,000

loans. Last year 18,000 kids were unable to pay their loans. They

defaulted on those loans because they can't get any work. So here's

another group of people, young people and.... And women; they're going

to be the last hired, the first fired, the lowest paid, the

part-timers....

MR. PARKS: That's nonsense and poppycock.

MR. ROSE: It's true. The incidence of part-time work in this

country has been climbing — not because people want to work only part

time, but because the jobs are only there for part time. They work with

no frills, no benefits or anything like that, for stores like Eaton's

and Woodwards' and other places where they don't have to pay any

fringes. Yet the number of people among the part-time workers who want

full-time work has doubled in two years. I'm trying to document this,

which was ridiculed as "poppycock," and I can document it. You can

always yell and ridicule, as you are wont to do, as a method of

argument, but StatsCan says that women's wages are less than 65 percent

of men's wages, and part-time workers are three times as likely to be

women as men,

Another thing: when we cut back on the public service or the service industries,

we destroy jobs for minorities and women. In the United States, teaching and

general work in the public service have been the largest employers of visible

minority groups and for women. If you cut back on the public service you cut

back on opportunities for both minorities and women, so they are going to be

hit too.

Native people: in this country unemployment rates for natives run

from 30 to 80 percent. There are terrible conditions in many of those

places. The disabled: unemployment rates well over 50 percent. We took

50 bucks a month away from them. This is grudging. This is really cheap

stuff. Small businesses: I've talked about the bankruptcies. Farms.

Single-industry towns like Stewart and Alberni are nearly devastated.

And somehow this is supposed to help us out of our troubles. I don't

understand how that works.

Here's another StatsCan figure: the after-tax corporate profits in

this country in 1983, third quarter, rose 92 percent over the same

period in 1982. Unemployment dropped 1 percent.

MR. REID: Surely 1982 was a benchmark.

MR. ROSE: I don't have the figures for 1984, but we'll have a

look. I'll bet that when you get a look at 1981.... Well no,

unemployment hasn't changed much in those years. The 1982 corporate

profits were down; I know that. They were lower than 1981, but they

were about the same as 1983. If you look at the graph, you will see

that they still went up dramatically between 1983 and 1984 — damn near

doubled — but unemployment didn't drop. So this idea of increased

productivity as a cure for unemployment is a lot of nonsense. We're

going to find ourselves one of the most efficient peoples in the world

if we carry on with this automation, and among the most destitute. You

lose intensive job opportunities when you automate. I don't think there

is any alternative but to automate. I'm not suggesting that we're going

to be King Canutes and tell the tide to go out; we aren't. But we

certainly should stop these old chants of some sort of....

It sounds like some economist dancing around the fire shouting

incantations like, "Free enterprise! Restraint! Can't spend your way

out of debt!" — all this kind of stuff. It doesn't get us anywhere.

What we have to do together, all of us, is to sit down and examine

where we are. Where are we in terms of our economy? You talk about a

benchmark. Is this a period from which there is no return? We won't be

going back to the large manufacturing, labour-intensive kinds of

activities that we once had. When we do that we've destroyed the middle

class, and when we destroy the middle class we destroy the purchasing

power and taxing power that the middle class provides, because they

have decent wages. You can't get much tax money out of welfare or

unemployed people.

MR. REID: But you can't get much money out of people who make no money in business either.

MR. ROSE: The thing is that if most of your....

You're a businessman, and I'm quite sure the second member for

Surrey (Mr. Reid) is quite a good businessman. But if your customers

haven't got any money, they're not going to buy any automobiles. How

many millionaires shop at the local supermarket? Not very many. The

businessman in the small....

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Oh, they send the chauffeur; they don't go personally.

By and large in the small towns such as Langley or Mission, or any

one of these burgs that are part of our beautiful province, the

businesses are supported by people of average and middle income.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Lots of them could be, because there's lots of

money being made in Langley, so we can't be against that. But I'm not

making a point about the number of chauffeurs driving Daimlers.

What I'm attempting to talk about is that unless we have a well-paid group of people, we're not likely to have very good

[ Page

3551 ]

business. Business will not be good in these local

stores, and I don't want to go over again what we said about Qualicum.

From a study made there we learn that 23 teachers were fired and an

additional 35 jobs disappeared. That's not going to be much help to the

chamber of commerce or any other group of people in Qualicum, neither

the 23 who were fired nor the 35 who lost their jobs because the 23

didn't provide the business, which was one-and-a-half again.

I have attempted to suggested to you, Mr. Speaker, that there are a

lot of people working part-time. Profits have gone up, and employment

has not gone down. It has gone up in British Columbia. The business

climate is not improving; just ask anybody in the real estate business

these days. The business climate in British Columbia is not improving.

A lot of people on the other side of the House are going to shout, "How

great thou art, " this Khomeini of economics. But I haven't seen it

reflected in the earnings of the people and in business in British

Columbia. I don't think we're going to do it. You're not going to do it

by cheap wages; you've got to have decent wages. People have to have

decent incomes or they're not going to be purchasing things.

In the United States they're talking about a consumer-led recovery.

You can't have a consumer-led recovery if there is no confidence. The

profits have gone to investment abroad.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Employees are not going to be paying many taxes if they're all on welfare. There are ways....

Let me tell you how we're getting rid of some money. Here's the

federal budget for 1983 — increased corporate tax incentives by over

$2.6 billion over four years. That's $2.6 thousand million, and that's

a lot of dough. What were these tax incentives for? Were they because

the Liberals, Socreds and Tories love the corporations? Well, partly.

But the other part was the theory that if you gave them those

incentives, they would invest here and would provide jobs for our

people — which is a laudable motive. I don't think we can necessarily

be against that, but they don't provide the jobs. They take the profits

and they invest them abroad. That's what they've done with their money

over the last two years.

AN HON. MEMBER: The forest and mining industries?

MR. ROSE: Not them, but that's....

There are petroleum incentive grants of $8.1 billion over five years. What

have the feds cut back on? They've cut back on payments to the provinces

by $5 billion — money for people, education and health. They didn't cut

back as much as the province did. The minister is complaining loudly, wailing

and crying and saying that the business of denying the province the right to

raise its own health fees was mischievous. This treasury got $100 million extra

this last year from the feds. They spent $40 million on health. What did they

spend the rest on? Roads, railroads, holes and coal? I don't know, but it

didn't go to health. Now we've got an 8 percent surtax on our income

tax. It's not that I object to paying for health through income tax; I happen

to think that's the way it should be paid for. I don't think there should

be any limit on it either. If a guy makes $20,000 a year, he should pay his

8 percent. If he makes $100,000 a year, he should pay his 8 percent on his

income tax. I have no objection in principle to that. I have lots of objections

to a rotten and unfair tax system, because that's what we have, but I have

no objection to the idea that we should pay for health care out of taxes.

Kids are battering down the doors of our post-secondary educational

institutions because their courses are being limited. The feds

increased the funding $27 million last year. What did the province do?

The province cut it $27 million, so they had a $54 million decrease.

This is what's happening to our economy. We have a combination of a

double whammy between the feds and the provinces, and that's very

difficult for us.

[4:15]

Let's get back for a little to the business of incentives. If you

have to give $2.67 billion in tax incentives to the major corporations

to create jobs, then some evidence should be there that they've created

them; but they haven't. I think Government should give money in terms

of incentives only when those jobs actually appear as jobs. You hope

they will spend it on jobs, and they invest the money abroad or they

give the money back to shareholders or they pay it out to increasing

modern equipment so that they displace even more people. I don't think

that is a reasonable use of taxpayers' money.

Real investment has gone down 14 percent in this country since 1980.

It has reversed itself. In spite of all the money that has been given

out — $2.6 billion and $8 billion in PIP Grants. not all of it spent

yet — real investment is down 18 percent. In spite of all the money we

have been shovelling out, we haven't realized the grant we're giving in

terms of unemployment or investment. What is this government going to

do? Are they going to make it easier? Are they going to give them some

more? Are they going to use a larger shovel? I don't think that is fair.

You are worried about an extra 8 percent tax on medicare when you

have deflected $51 million out of the pot, far more than what your tax

will collect anyway. I don't think they really believe in medicare, Mr.

Speaker. My friend and former colleague, our health critic in Ottawa,

Bill Blaikie, had this to say in a recent newspaper article:

"At worst, these arguments come from a right wing that

would have governments spend less money on social programs by

transferring the costs to various users of these programs. This would

enable the business sector to get even more tax breaks from the

government as an incentive to investment and as an offset against the

declining profitability of their businesses and the declining

international competitiveness of their products, due not to the decline

of the worker productivity, as many argue, but rather to global

economic conditions manipulated by the very multinational corporations

whose freedom to do so they would vigorously defend, and to the social

and environmental limits of the economic model in which they now work."

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

That is perhaps a bit tortuous as a quote, and not particularly

gripping, but I think the suggestion here is that to increase the

amount of giveaways to corporations it is necessary to cut down on the

number of social services. If you cut down on the number of social

services and throw more people out of work, it seems to me that you are

causing the very thing you are trying to cure. That is my objection to

what the government is doing and what they intend to do.

What shall we do about all these things? We have an economic model with which this side basically disagrees. We

[ Page 3552 ]

don't like what they are doing. We think it is

wrong and dumb-headed. They think it is the right thing to do, and they

are the government. I guess we are stuck with it until there is another

election or people rioting in the streets or something like that.

MR. REID: Good ideas are good ideas no matter where they come from.

MR. ROSE: Well, maybe we should have a look at these ideas.

What are we going to do if we have a situation where we are going into

technological change. We are not going to have the labour- intensive

industry we once had, and we need to provide work for our people. We

can't say that we won't have any automation or hooking the computer to

the satellite so that we have instant communications. All this sort of

thing is going to require two distinct kinds of people: highly trained

software and hardware developers, the engineers of the computer, and,

of course, the drones to put together the chips, who will ultimately be

replaced by automation. That sort of thing has been going on in Taiwan

and Korea for some time. It may not be in the future. We may be able to

have our own drones here, but ultimately they will be automated as well.

If this would lead to a tremendously new lifestyle of leisure and

pleasure and fulfilment, that would be fine, but that isn't what has

traditionally happened. The benefits of this automation have mainly

gone into profits. It hasn't been distributed to the working people,

except through the unions, and unions are getting smaller. In the

United States unions are dwindling. It may happen here that there is

going to be a combined effect of a deliberate attempt to get rid of

unions and find their roles changing.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: I hear from my left, Mr. Speaker, somebody talking

about "cooperation." I think that is a worthy objective. I would

certainly rather have seen that than the confrontation we had here last

July. You're beating them over the head with an olive branch.

MR. REID: Inside or outside?

MR. ROSE: Anywhere. It's like motherhood used to be:

everybody's in favour of cooperation as long as the other guy does all

the cooperating.

What do you think we need to do if we're going to handle this

business of transition into automation? I think one of the first things

we need to do is increase the involvement of the people affected in the

technological chain. People are not going to be rushing out saying:

"Hey, I've got a terrific job here as a secretary; replace me with

three word processors." If that is going to be the future, then people

are going to resist it. So if there is going to be new equipment in a

mill or shutdown decisions by corporations, there have got to be

changes that involve the people in the decision-making. We can't just

show the Luddite approach but must proceed with a reasonable kind of

planned, cooperative introduction of these things. As I say, we're not

King Canute.

The second thing is that there are layoffs and costs associated with technological

change, and you've got to have severance pay provisions, pre-notice provisions,

something that takes the sting out of these things. We haven't been very

good at that up till now. And we have to share the benefits.

Why should one group...? Sure, we've had a terrifically difficult

time in the last couple of years. We began to recover in 1983 but, as I

pointed out earlier in my remarks, this recovery has not been shared.

There has been a recovery of profits, but there hasn't been a recovery

in employment. That is where all these things that have been happening

are unfair. Who gets the benefits? We all share in the recession, but

who shares in the recovery?

We've got to do these things and try to avoid the disruptions and job losses that are caused by the introduction.

Mr. Speaker, we have an institution in this country called the Canadian Institute

for Economic Policy. They did a recent paper on the economic problems of the

country: "The Unemployment Problem and What To Do About It." I'm

not saying that....

Interjections.

MR. ROSE: Will you guys shut up for a little while! It's very distracting, you know. Go outside and fight.

Some of these people who are on here would probably be dismissed as

dewy-eyed socialists, liberals, leftists and academics, so therefore

they can't be practical people because "they ain't never met a

payroll." But I'd like to name some. We have a consultant,

Lieutenant-General W.A. B. Anderson — he's a public servant; he's been

in the army, I guess. He's a Lieutenant-General; most of them have been

in the army. Mr. Robert Baldwin, research department, CLC; Professor

Diane Bellemare, Department of Economics, University of Quebec at

Montreal; John Cornwall, Economics, Dalhousie; Arthur Donner,

consulting economist, Toronto; Walter Gordon, chairman of the Canadian

Institute for Economic Policy; John Grant, director and chief economist

of Wood Gundy Ltd., Toronto; Mr. Honderich, the publisher of the

Toronto Star — hardly a left-winger, that one; Mr. Michael McCracken,

president of Informetrica Ltd., Ottawa; Professor Frank Reid, Centre

for Industrial Relations, University of Toronto; Abraham Rotstein,

professor and vice-Chairman, Canadian.... I'm just giving you an idea

of the kind of mind and the kind of people who have gone to work on the

problem of unemployment. I know it doesn't concern the government or

the minister particularly, because I understand he's got another form

of employment that he'll soon be fulfilling — and I wish him all the

best in his new job, because it's a lovely place, and he'll be able to

see a lot of nice shows there. I'd like to come and visit him when I

come over the next time.

Here's a

summary of some of the suggestions that this group made last summer.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Are you trying to get rid of me?

MR. ROSE: No, I'll really actually miss the minister. That's my problem: I keep missing him. I aim to hit him, but I keep missing him.

Here are the various proposals that were made for reducing the level

of unemployment, as summarized hereunder. I'm just going to read them

and maybe comment parsimoniously on one or two of them. The expenditure

— this is for all of Canada — of about $3 billion over two years on

public works at the municipal level. They have covered their tracks

here by saying at the beginning that these reputable economists believe

that the deficit is not the source of inflation, so we could quite

easily spend that kind of money.

[ Page

3553 ]

Mr. Speaker, I just finished my introduction, but you tell me I have

two minutes left. Well, let me go on then, but I won't comment on this.

Proceed with improvements and upgrading the railway transport system.

Apparently that's underway — I hope so. That was the promise of the

Crow. Stimulate the housing industry. Build about 40,000 single

detached units in the next calendar year. Bank of Canada should be

instructed to lower interest rates so people can buy those houses. The

hours of work, the lifetime of work, should be made shorter. They said

that if you have five people in the plant and you can only afford four,

wouldn't it be better to hire the five, have each one of those people

take one day off, and pay them their unemployment insurance? So you

have five people working four days instead four people working five

days. It's the same cost to the system.

We should stockpile certain things such as nickel, until the markets

improve, assisted publicly. We should stop levying surtaxes on people.

Suspend and limit the period of provincial retail sales taxes and

federal consumption taxes. All manufacturing companies, regardless of

ownership should be reviewed, and we should be buying Canadian from

Canadian manufacturers, and they should have a holiday from certain

profits if they are going to export their stuff. The decisions

respecting implementation of proposals made by the task force on

Canadian motor vehicles, parts and the industry should be implemented

as soon as possible. What that means is simply this: other countries,

notably Mexico, Argentina and Australia, have the cars that are sold in

the country built in that country, and we don't. That's one of the

reasons we lose jobs. I know the reason for it: we've got a tremendous

export surplus with Japan, and the minister wants to keep that. I don't

blame him, but I don't see why, if Mexico can build cars, we can't in

British Columbia — more than just 100 little Toyotas.

There is going to be a debate going on for the next ten years about

the distribution of wages. The content of work has really just started,

and it's going to become more urgent all the time.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I wish to take my place in speaking in support of the amendment.

[4:30]

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

It is clear from the budget speech that this budget offers no hope for the people of Vancouver Island....

AN HON. MEMBER: How about Victoria?

MR. HANSON: Particularly Victoria, Mr. Member.

I recount to the House the demise of the local economy over the last

few years, as a result of the ineptitude and passivity of this

government in playing any kind of leadership role in this community,

particularly on Vancouver Island but more particularly right here in

the Capital Regional District.

Mr. Speaker, I know you remember that it wasn't that long ago that we had

150 federal jobs here in this city with the RCMP headquarters. There was a payroll

of something in the area of $6 million a year plus spinoff services, supplies

and other ancillary industries that were support networks for that administrative

centre. Only in Quebec is the RCMP headquartered away from the capital city

— it's headquartered in Montreal rather than Quebec City — and here in British

Columbia the shift was made to move that operation over to the mainland. That

was a net loss of 150 direct jobs and probably an additional 250 indirect jobs.

We also saw, in this hemorrhaging of our economy, the transfer of

the CN Express — a relatively small operation, but a money-making

operation in terms of breaking even for the federal government — a

federal government Crown corporation. That particular communications

agency moved onto the mainland.

We had a major fish-processing plant — the Oaklands plant, which

operates under permit from the provincial government for the processing

of fish. As you know, the buying and processing of fish is under

provincial regulation by the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing and

the Ministry of Environment. The passivity and ineptitude of the

minister responsible allowed the Oaklands fish plant to close its

parent company, which was a joint venture with the Marubeni Corp. and

the Hoko Fishing Co. of Japan. They were operating a number of plants

in British Columbia, and they decided that they would close the plant

here — a seven-year-old plant — and make the fishermen steam from the

west coast of Vancouver Island all the way through the Strait of Juan

de Fuca over to Richmond to sell their fish.

The result was that the fishing fleet of southern Vancouver Island

has been shifting over to the mainland. Clearly, if they can't sell

their fish for processing here, other than to B.C. Packers, which takes

fish in the round for flash-freezing down off Dallas Road.... But there

is no opportunity for them to moor their vessels in Victoria, sell

their fish here and have it processed so they could then take the

capital they get for their fish and invest it in the local small

business community in equipment purchases, manufacturing of marine

technology goods, stores and so on. What we have on this Island is an

economy in demise. The light manufacturing industry, of which fishing

and fish processing is a major part.... In fact, it rivals the

Vancouver-Richmond-Ladner area in the number of vessels — about 1,000

vessels in southern Vancouver Island and about 1,000 in the Fraser

delta area. But we're losing that needlessly because the government in

its ineptitude refused to take any kind of direct action through the

regulatory process to ensure that that plant stayed open. A number of

studies have been done which indicate that it's a viable operation. It

employed, as you know, in a three- or four-month period up to 500 to

600 people. It could have operated year-round as an anchor to our local

economy.

But what's been happening, Mr. Speaker, is small manufacturing

operations.... The Labatt's brewery, which had 200 people working two

shifts, is closed. It was a heritage building. It was the only brewery

on Vancouver Island. It had one local union serving that plant. It did

not ship its product off the Island. It had 45 percent of the market

share of Vancouver Island, and yet it was deemed by Labatt's to be more

profitable to move its operation over to the brewery in New Westminster.

The point of making some of these historical remarks is that this

trend to decline continues. I'd like to cite a couple of statistics.

The value of shipment of goods in manufacturing from the capital region

in 1972 was $177 million. The total of all of Vancouver Island was $803

million. This includes all manufactured goods, primary industry

activities, pulp and paper, fish plants and so on — small

manufacturing. What has been happening is that in 1979, the most recent

comprehensive figures we have, the capital region had a total of $380

million for a total Vancouver Island share of $2 billion.

[ Page 3554 ]

The proportion of the capital's share declined sharply over just

this brief period of seven years. Of the total value of goods shipped

from Vancouver Island, the capital's share was approximately 25

percent, and now it is something in the order of 12 percent.

There is no economic strategy for Vancouver Island. There is no

overall plan at all. One of the factors which is impeding any

development on Vancouver Island is the excessive tariff for commercial

traffic on the B.C. Ferries. The commercial rate is calculated by the

amount of footage for those tractor-trailer trucks. It's something in

the order of $2.60 per foot. Clearly, when a company setting up

business on Vancouver Island takes into account services and goods

required in light manufacture, that cost of doing business is an

impediment. In fact, it is pushing small businesses over the edge and

out of business.

Light manufacturing used to account for a very large component of

the employees working here in this area. I have some figures from a

report produced in 1981 called: "A Study of the Projected Growth of the

Economy of Vancouver Island." It's a government publication put out by

the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. It states that in 1972

there were on Vancouver Island 5,000 employees in manufacturing. Seven

years later, in 1979, the number was almost identical. You have growth

in industries, but at the same time a falling-away of a large number of

small businesses. The success rate, in terms of the population growth,

has not been consistent. The population on Vancouver Island is

projected to grow markedly over the next 17 years. I'd like to find

that graph for you, Mr. Speaker. I think you'll find it interesting

that the provincial government has not to any degree anticipated the

kind of projected growth potential, or in any respect answered the

question of what people on Vancouver Island will be doing for a living.

Everyone is either going to be collecting social assistance or be on

unemployment insurance. If there is no plan to provide value-added

employment opportunities on Vancouver Island, clearly this population

increase will not be accommodated. I'll try to find this statistic, Mr.

Speaker.

The present population of Vancouver Island is 475,000. The people

are paying taxes for a transportation system which happens to be on

water rather than on asphalt. We are being double-taxed because of the

usurious rate structure for the fares. I can't believe it when I read

that sign as you drive out to the ferries. They give the rate for a

car, plus $4 for each passenger. For people who have to travel

frequently on that system, that is an incredible cost. It comes to

about $28 one way for a driver, a passenger and a small vehicle. It's

incredible. This study projects that the population of Vancouver Island

in 2001 will be 735,000, up by more than a quarter of a million. Only

17 years from now we're projecting an increase in population of a

quarter of a million on this Island, but there's nothing in the budget

that indicates any long-term plan to create employment to stabilize

industry or provide any kinds of incentives for key marine-oriented

industries, or for technology that could be related to our

resource-based industries in logging and mining. There are no real

tourist plans. There is no real research and development plan. There is

no clear structure that will anticipate any kind of livable region for

Vancouver Island.

I would commend this report to the Minister of Industry and Small

Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips); his interjections clearly

indicate that he has not read it. He does not know how gloomy the

prognosis is in terms of the lack of planning by this government. Under

1.2, Policy Matters, it says:

"The economic development of Vancouver Island is determined

to a large degree by the policies for development adopted by the government

of British Columbia and the residents of Vancouver Island. Such policies can

be mutually supportive of development if they are developed effectively, or

they can be contradictory, hence restrictive and restraining."

Clearly the policies of this government are restrictive and restraining. The

fares for commercial rates on the ferries are too high. They impede business

on Vancouver Island. We are a part of British Columbia; we are not a separate

province.

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I would mention to that new,

first-time.... that one-timer from Maillardville-Coquitlam down at the

other end of the room, the man who doesn't understand the rules of this

House, that under the New Democratic Party government the ferry system

was funded out of general revenue as a transportation system, in the

same fashion as are highways in your riding and in the other tidings in

this province. It was paid for out of general revenue. No subsidy was

paid. It was regarded as a service, in the same way that a hospital or

school or road is funded. What we have under Socred wreckonomics is

punitive double taxation of the people who reside on Vancouver Island.

They pay their taxes for highways and schools and so on, and the Social

Credit government double-taxes them with fares whose structure is

totally unjust.

[4:45]

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I would commend that member to read

the highway b