1982 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 32nd Parliament

Hansard

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

( Hansard )

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 14, 1982

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

6989 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Constitutional rights. Ms. Brown –– 6989

Public health inspection fees. Mr. Cocke –– 6990

Moratorium on Crown grazing leases. Mr. Hanson –– 6990

Tussock moth infestation of Douglas firs. Mr. King –– 6991

Shortages of seedlings. Mr. Nicolson –– 6991

Budget Debate

Mr. Barrett –– 6991

On the amendment

Mr. Howard –– 6996

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 6998

Ms. Brown –– 7003

Mr. Kempf –– 7006

Mr. Mitchell –– 7009

Tabling Documents

First Citizens Fund advisory committee annual report, 1981.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 7012

Insurance Corporation of British Columbia annual report, December 31 –– 1981.

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 7012

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 14, 1982

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today there is a group of women

who, like me, are wearing black armbands to symbolize their mourning for the

forgotten women of Canada. They, are members of the National Action Committee

on the Status of Women, which is joining Indian women in a day of mourning and

demonstration across Canada today to mark the fact that it has been 14 years

since the issue of equal rights for Indian women was raised by the report of

the Royal Commission on the Status of Women. That report recommended that

section

12(1)(

b) of the Indian Act be amended to eliminate the loss of status of Indian

women when they married non-Indian men. I would like the House to join me in

marking this day and in recognizing Lucy Al phonse, Pat Elander, Ruth Harding,

Shirley Avril and Valerie Naiad.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today is a group of ladies and gentlemen who are part of the Defend Educational Services Coalition, some of whom are well known. I'd like to

introduce them. I think most of them are in the gallery, but they are all in

the precinct: Mr. Larry Kuehn, who is president of the B.C. Teachers Federation;

Mr. Gordon Bryenton, president of the College Institute Educators Association;

Mr. John Conklin, president of the Camosun College Faculty Association; Janet

Laxton, vice-president of Local 7 of the Association of University and College

Employees; Josie Bannerman, also a member of Local 7; Maxine Zurbrigg,

first vice-president of CUPE; Mr. David Cadman, president of the Vancouver

Municipal and Regional Employees Union; and Sophia Hanafi, chairperson of the

Canadian Federation of Students, Pacific region. I'd ask the House to make

them welcome.

MR. LAUK: I'd like to join the Minister of Education in welcoming

these people to the gallery. He just mumbled over the name of this group — I'm

sure not deliberately. It is the Defence of Educational Services Coalition,

and it is the only province in which that exists.

MR. STRACHAN: On a happier note, I wonder if all members would join

me in wishing the hon. member for Okanagan South, our Premier, a very happy

birthday today.

HON. MR. CHABOT:

This morning I witnessed the greatest performance of skating I've ever

experienced in my lifetime, and I'm fairly adept at skating, having

been brought up in French Canada. However, I've decided to hang up my

skates because there is a new champion of ice skating here in this

Legislature. I am prepared to turn over to him my ice skates because of

his performance on CBC radio this morning in his response to the

restraint program. I'd like to send my skates over to the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. BARRETT: If I may respond to the ministerial statement, considering

the source of this award, I want to tell you that this is one of the finest

moments I've had in my 22 years in this House. For that member to send

me his skates when this government is on thin ice is an incredible performance.

If I may, I'll carry the metaphor further and say: "Why don't we

test the water on that issue?"

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. May we now return to introductions.

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce to the House a situation which

is maybe a little closer to the sunnier side of the mountain. The

member for Alberni, the hon. Bob Skelly, is also celebrating his

birthday today. Will everybody give him a Happy Birthday.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of good humour of the House I rise to ask leave of the House to make a statement.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it a ministerial statement?

HON. MRS. JORDAN: No, it's not, Mr. Speaker; it's a statement related to an apology.

Leave granted.

HON. MRS. JORDAN:

Mr. Speaker, during the budget debate a few days ago I recounted an

incident with which the hon. member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King)

took exception. I wish you, sir, and the hon. members in this House to

know that my remarks were based upon information which I considered

reliable. The hon. member for Shuswap-Revelstoke has denied the

circumstances to which I made reference, and as an honourable member I

unquestionably and unhesitatingly accept the hon. member's denial. I

wish to tender to that hon. member for Shuswap-Revelstoke and to this

House an apology for any offence which might have been occasioned by my

remarks.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I would like to ask the members to join me in welcoming His Worship Mayor Popovich from Alert Bay.

MR. SPEAKER:

Hon. members, it would of course be my wish that all hon. members would

be present at 2 o'clock, he appointed time when we call upon a visiting

clergyman for prayers. However, to those who find themselves unable to

be here and who are gathering outside in the Speaker's corridor, would

it be too much to ask for your cooperation and consideration, so that

the noise level would be such that prayers being offered would not be

interrupted? So ordered.

Oral Questions

CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS

MS. BROWN:

I have a question for the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations,

having to do with

section 12(1)(

b) of the Indian Act. Can the minister

tell us what steps he or his government are taking to ensure that the

protection of Indian women is incorporated in our new constitution?

HON. MR. GARDOM:

In response to the hon. member's question, I have to mention that

separate and apart from he specific issue you're speaking of, there is

built into the constitution itself the requirement for a constitutional

conference, which is to be held within 12 months of the pro-

[ Page 6990 ]

clamation

of the Canada bill by Her Majesty in Ottawa on Saturday. Insofar as the

specific issue is concerned, the Indian Act, being a federal statute,

will have to be considered, as will provincial statutes, in the light

of the new bill of rights. I would like to assure the hon. member and

all members of the House that work is already being started in our

province vis-à-vis an examination of our existing statutes. It will be

a difficult task, but it is underway and it has started.

PUBLIC HEALTH INSPECTION FEES

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health. The

government has stated its intention to extend the principle of user-pay

for health programs. The latest example of this is the creation of an

entirely new set of public health inspection fees which the minister

has estimated will provide a new $3 million in revenue to his

department. As this new user fee is being discussed today at a meeting

of chief health inspectors, will the minister tell the House who will

be asked to begin paying for the public health inspection services?

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

Mr. Speaker, if I heard the question correctly, the people who would be

asked to pay would be those persons who are receiving the service from

the health inspectors. That would be a wide spectrum of citizens in the

province. It would include restaurants, campsites, commercial swimming

pools and other organizations where they require inspections by health

inspectors, and a

schedule of fees is being worked on at this time.

MR. COCKE:

I have a supplementary question. I would ask the minister what the

rationale is for penalizing in this fashion the preventive aspects of

public health. They are not going out to provide a service to the

restaurant; they're going out to provide a service to the public — to

protect the public. Why are those people to be inspected being

penalized so that the public can't be as well served?

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

I don't consider it a penalty to be inspected by a public health

inspector with respect to services offered to the public. I don't agree

that it's a penalty to ask these people who are offering the service to

the public to assist in some relatively small way to cover the costs,

to ensure that they are providing services consistent with the

standards required.

MR. COCKE: What we see before us

is indirect taxation. The money will be raised from the public. I ask

the minister why he doesn't take the money out of the tax dollars that

are directed rather than indirectly taxing the customers all over the

province. It is sneaky taxation.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: In

a very direct way, those organizations and individuals who offer these

services to the public will be participating in the recovery of some of

the cost, which is paid for by the taxpayer. The inspectors are paid

from the public payroll; therefore, at the present time, 100 percent of

those costs are borne by the taxpayers of the province. In this manner,

by permitting fees to be established for the actual inspection, a

greater portion of that cost will be borne directly by the person who

is offering that service to the public and therefore benefiting from

that operation. It also ensures that the standards required by law will

be upheld at a cost that will to some degree reflect actual cost, but

in other instances probably will represent only a portion of the actual

cost to the taxpayer. I might add that it is certainly not new to many,

many jurisdictions, where cost recovery for inspections is very common.

MORATORIUM ON CROWN GRAZING LEASES

MR. HANSON:

I have a question for the Minister of Lands, Parks and skating. In

January of this year, the minister instituted a new form of Crown

grazing lease. Under the old lease arrangement, all existing roads and

trails were excluded in a blanket exclusion. In the new lease

arrangement, these roads must be specifically excluded for the public

to have access.

My question for the minister is, has he

decided to heed the numerous representations he has received from

outdoor recreation organizations, such as the B.C. Wildlife Federation,

the Outdoor Recreation Council of British Columbia, to institute a

moratorium on any new leases and allow public meetings to be held in

the various regions so that this important change can be debated?

HON. MR. CHABOT:

I'm sure the member wants to ask the question to back up his TV

interview earlier this afternoon. I do want to say that when we're

talking about grazing leases we're talking about only 2.5 percent of

that land which is held by grazing tenure. There are forms of grazing

tenure other than grazing leases: there are licences and permits as

well. There are 10 million acres of Crown land committed to grazing

here in British Columbia. Of that 10 million acres, only 250,000 acres

— 2.5 percent — of that portion is committed to grazing lease, which is

a more secure form of tenure. There is a justifiable reason for a

particular ranch needing this form of tenure. There was an attempt to

convert these grazing leases to licences. However, because of the

concern of ranchers who had held these leases, in many instances since

the turn of the century, they felt it was jeopardizing the kind of

security and the kind of ability they would have for fencing and range

improvement. Therefore, on behalf of the ranchers, we felt that we

should restore these leases which make up only 2.5 percent of the 10

million acres of land that is committed to grazing here in British

Columbia.

We have taken certain steps to make sure that

recreationists have a greater opportunity than ever before to have

access through these grazing leases that have been attached to ranches

in this province since, in many instances, the turn of the century.

We've asked interested groups, such as the B.C. Wildlife Federation,

the rod and gun club and other recreational and environmental groups,

to bring forward to us their interest in having access, be it by road

or trail, through this grazing lease. We're prepared to wait until such

time as representations have been made to this ministry through its

regional offices before we renew these grazing leases, to ensure that

access is provided to land beyond.

I'm not here to educate

the second member for Victoria, who tries to confuse the issue, is not

very knowledgeable of the Land Act and doesn't understand the

provisions of the Land Act, wherein there is the authority to exclude

certain lands from grazing leases. But I do want to say that a

moratorium, which he's suggested should be put in place, is not

necessary because we've taken the necessary steps to ensure that access

will be provided through grazing leases in this province. Never before

have I heard such nonsense.

[ Page 6991 ]

MR. SPEAKER:

Hon. members, questions with a scope that perhaps would lead the answer

beyond the ability of a question period to embrace maybe should be

asked in another form.

MR. HANSON: Supplementary. Can

the minister confirm the reports that are now coming in to these

interested recreational organizations that ranches in the Kamloops

area, well known to my friend on the opposite side, such as the Chutter

ranch, the Inskip ranch, and the Seven-O ranch, are now denying public

access? Is he aware of that?

HON. MR. CHABOT: The

member says that these ranches are denying access to the

recreationists. I don't know whether he's talking about deeded land or

leased land. He didn't identify it. I guess they have that authority if

it's privately held, Crown-granted land at some period of time. Maybe

it's justifiable. The member never suggested that he's talking about

grazing leases. I don't know what he's talking about. Please be more

specific when you ask questions.

MR. HANSON: These

lands are under Crown grazing leases. A member of my constituency

brought to my attention a five-page computer printout provided by your

branch, to go from A to B in the Chilcotin. Is this the policy of your

government for the access to recreational attributes of Crown grazing

land? Yes or no.

HON. MR. CHABOT: What's the question?

MR. SPEAKER: The question was whether or not it was a policy.

TUSSOCK MOTH INFESTATION OF DOUGLAS FIRS

MR. KING:

I have a question for the Minister of Forests. There is a major

outbreak of tussock moth infestation in the Chase-Pritchard area. This

is a pest which attacks the Douglas fir. I would ask the minister, Mr.

Speaker, what treatment program he has designed to combat this second

year of this very serious insect infestation, and when this program

might be initiated.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Yes, I am

fully aware of the infestation of tussock moth in the Chase-Pritchard

area, and also the tussock moth infestation in the Hedley and Cache

Creek areas and in many other areas of that part of the province. The

member knows well that we are considerably constrained in the control

measures that we can take, as opposed to those available to us a few

years ago. We are, however, designing a program and we're working in

very close cooperation with the regional districts insofar as private

land holdings are concerned. We will be initiating a program when the

proper time is here, and that time is determined by the development of

the insect, not by a time that a politician or anyone else may put on

it. When the time comes, we will have a control program; we are working

out what would be the best program to use.

SHORTAGES OF SEEDLINGS

MR. NICOLSON:

I have a question to the Minister of Forests, Mr. Speaker. Seedling

shortages have been a major constraint in meeting planned levels of

tree-planting in B.C. For example, in 1980 the minister recalls that

there was a shortfall of 2.5 million seedlings in the Prince George

forest region, 1.3 million in the Caribou forest region, 3.5 million in

the Nelson forest region, and 6 million in the Vancouver forest region.

opportunity appears to have presented itself in that the U.S. Forest

Service, which recently announced it would plough under 10 percent of

the 57 million conifer seedlings available for planting in Washington

this year, has said it is willing to sell them rather than plough them

under. Has the minister investigated the possibility of purchasing some

or all of the seedlings to ensure that shortages do not occur in

British Columbia this year?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr.

Speaker, we have not had shortages of seedlings in planned levels of

planting. We have perhaps at times had shortages in requested levels of

planting which are outside the silvicultural prescription for a

particular area.

Yes, indeed, we are aware of the situation

in Washington state where they may destroy seedlings, and ministry

staff are discussing with those seedling producers whether or not the

seedlings would be appropriate for British Columbia. If they are, we

would hope to make some arrangements with them.

Orders of the Day

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

MR. BARRETT:

I am pleased to take my place in this debate on the very last budget to

ever be brought down in this House by a Social Credit government, Mr.

Speaker.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Do you want to bet?

MR. BARRETT:

Well, Mr. Speaker, the former Attorney-General, the former Liberal, has

said: "Do you want to bet?" I find it interesting that that member

becomes extremely agitated about the fact that he has painted himself

into a political comer. The only party left for him to jump to now is

the separatists — that's the only group left. But the way things are

going in British Columbia you might have a chance to become their

leader. It is the Premier who has invited the separatists to support

Social Credit. There is a quote in the newspaper saying that he reached

out his hand to the separatists and said: "Come and join Social Credit

in the battle against Ottawa." I find that a most interesting

observation — that the Premier would encourage anyone who has a

commitment to separate this province from Confederation by asking him

to come and join and support Social Credit in their fight with Ottawa.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT:

The agitation of the former Attorney-General is something to behold. I

hope that he will participate in this debate, because it will be his

last, as I pointed out. If you don't lose the election....

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: You won't get nominated; it's Diane what's-her-name.

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: I've been through that hurdle; he hasn't been through one yet.

[ Page 6992 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. Let the hon. member get on with his debate.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I hope my time is not interrupted.

just want to say a few words about the impending constitution that will

now be a part of Canada's history, and make a couple of comments about

the prolonged debate toward that point. Nine of the ten Premiers signed

the agreement that will return the British North America Act to Canada

after these many years, and I welcome its return. I am disappointed,

and was disappointed at the time, that the province of Quebec did not

see fit to participate in the final decision, and I regret that there

is still a sentiment in that province, led by the Premier of that

province, towards separation.

Mr. Speaker, all is not joy

and happiness on what should be a very happy occasion. There are

serious concerns in western Canada, and there is a growing populist

movement around separatism in this part of our wonderful country. I

want to go on record as expressing the opinion that part of the reason

that the western separatists have found succour and comfort in the

communities within which they espouse their particular point of view is

the behaviour of the Premier of British Columbia during the debate

leading up to the return of the British North America Act and the

establishment of our constitution. It was that Premier who went around

this province calling the Prime Minister of this country an arsonist.

It was that Premier who set the atmosphere of seeds of doubt about the

governments come and go — and then, having done all of that in arguing

against Ottawa, flipped overnight, signed the agreement and became one

of the greatest supporters of Pierre Elliott Trudeau on this issue.

Hopping into political bed with Prime Minister Trudeau and expecting no

fallout from the poisonous statements that were made in terms of the

atmosphere around this debate is naivete at very best and recklessness

at worst.

Those people who espouse separatism in western

Canada have been fostered in that direction by the statements of the

Premier of the province of British Columbia, and we are now reaping the

results of his statements.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Well, to indicate that he wants their support in Social Credit.

Let

me go on record here and now: regardless of any differences my party

may have with the federal government of the day, let it be clearly

understood that we are Canadians first here in British Columbia. We

will fight tooth and nail for British Columbia's needs, but we will

never abandon the concept of a united Canada for short-term political

gain.

The Premier has not taken a definitive stand against

the Western Canada Concept. The Premier has not clearly spelled out

that the Western Canada Concept does not enjoy his support in any way,

shape or form. The Premier of British Columbia has not stated clearly

that he does not want any truck or trade with any members of the

Western Canada Concept, including their support within his party,

unless within his party he agrees to the idea of eventual separation

from the rest of Canada.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT:

The former Attorney-General goes "hah." This is the only time that he

gets to participate in any debate about intergovernmental affairs.

Other than being the administrative office for the arrangements to

Ottawa.... Every statement on intergovernmental affairs comes out of

the Premier's mouth, not from that minister. He has been sidetracked.

He has been reduced to the minister of fetch-and-carry — the gopher

minister. He's been told: "Go for this and go for that, and don't ever

open your mouth on any issue that I've got to say in terms of Canadian

Confederation or the unity of this country." I know that minister must

have been embarrassed by the Premier's statements on the Western Canada

Concept.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Well,

no, he's not a closet minister. No matter what you do, you could never

keep that minister in a closet. But his comments are left hanging crape

more than anything else.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's light work.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, it's light work, I understand that. But we don't want to burden him with those problems.

want to address some comments directly to the debate at hand, and

express regret that the government turned down an emergency debate on

unemployment in the province of British Columbia.

There are

over 150,000 people unemployed in this province. There are thousands of

people who had expected some leadership from this government at a time

of deep economic downturn, and have had absolutely no leadership from

this government. It spreads all the way from Fort St. John right down

to the comers of Vancouver Island. I want to point out that the largest

single meeting of the western separatists took place some six weeks ago

in Fort St. John, where 500 people jammed into a hall to hear the

speaker espousing western separatism, and the member from the

constituency has not yet publicly stated his position on the question

of western separatism. Is he one of the Social Credit backbenchers who

have been reported as having been speaking quietly with the

separatists? Is he one of the ones? Are you or anyone else on the back

bench? Stand up here now and declare that there have been no deals,

arrangements or conversations with those separatists so we know exactly

where you stand. There were 500 people at a meeting in Fort St. John.

What were they angry about?

AN HON. MEMBER: The national energy program.

MR. BARRETT:

That's what they're angry about. My good friend says they're angry

about the National Energy Board. They're angry at their MLA, who has

produced absolutely nothing for those people in that area. They are

angry at a government that has produced absolutely nothing for the

north — shutdowns, closures and bankruptcies, all under the aegis of

Social Credit.

The one northern member on that back bench

who understands this more than anyone else is the member for Omineca

(Mr. Kempf). When it comes to survival, that member has instincts that

are unparalleled in that group. It is my prediction that he will be the

first to jump to the separatists. As a matter of fact, considering the

nature of that party, they might

[ Page 6993 ]

even

consider him as leader. I can see it now: Frank Oberle and his pal

leading the northern separatists, fighting against Social Credit.

more serious note, though, is the fact that 500 people were attracted

to a separatist meeting in Fort St. John — and many more attempted to

attend that meeting and were turned away — and we have had absolutely

no statement from the individual MLAs concerned saying that they are

absolutely opposed to separatism. That statement should be made here in

this House and in their ridings as well. You can't ride that dangerous

hobby-horse. Once that bandwagon gets moving around separatism and that

populism gets going and politicians make silly statements like, "Come

and join us in our fight against Ottawa," you lead to the tacit support

of something that bears the seeds of destruction of this country.

Mr.

Speaker, I want to talk about the Premier's contribution in the budget

debate last year, and I want to go through some of the statements that

he made, particularly the personal attack he made against the member

for Vancouver Centre. Before getting to that, I want to take out a

couple of statements the Premier made to this House last year at a time

when the economy appeared to be booming, when employment opportunities

appeared to be unlimited and when Social Credit appeared to be riding

high, just faintly pushing away from its political skirts the last

memories of the dirty tricks campaign — the cover-ups, the Eckardt

commission and everything else.

On page 4529 of Hansard ,

on March 13, 1981, he said: "I want to say now that this government

rejects increasing the debt." He really said that. In this budget,

presented by this government to this House, as evidence to the people

of British Columbia where we stand fiscally, we have discovered that

the debt of the Crown corporations of British Columbia lids doubled in

the past six years under the leadership of that Premier and that Social

Credit government. He said that he didn't want to see the debt

increased, but he didn't mention the figure of doubling the debt.

This

budget not only reveals that the debt has been doubling, but every

single penny that was set aside by previous administrations, including

W.A.C. Bennett's and a New Democratic Party government, has been

squandered by this government. There won't be a penny left out of those

special funds in a year's time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to refer

you to some other comments that he made a year ago in flights of fancy

and absolute promise. The Premier said last year about the silviculture

program — I'd like the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) to hear

this; this was a promise to the House:

What about the other areas — reforestation

and silviculture? I can remember great speeches being made...by the

former Minister of Forests...when the New Democratic Party was in. But

I'll tell you, his rhetoric couldn't even match the solid performance

of the commitment to reforestation of this government that's in this

budget.

Within

one year after making that promise and presenting those figures in a

budget, that whole reforestation program is in serious danger of even

total elimination after serious cutbacks in one year alone. The Premier

says one thing one year and another thing another year. Things were

good last year, so he was rolling around making all these promises and

comments.

I believe too that he had some things to say about the mining industry. He

was bragging about how well the mining industry was doing in British Columbia

under Social Credit. He was commenting in his usual fair-handed approach, without

any personal allusions to people, saying that the former Minister of Mines had

misguided the mining industry in this province and that the Social Credit government

itself, alone, had been responsible for the revitalization of the mining industry.

I want to hold up a headline from that notorious independent newspaper known as the Vancouver Province .

I quote from the headline of Wednesday, March 31, 1982: "Only the

Thirties Were Worse for Mining in British Columbia." For those of you

who have some memory of behaviour and tenor of the debates in this

House, I ask: what would have been the reaction of the Social Credit

opposition had the NDP been in government and this headline came out?

They would have said that the socialists had turned the oil rotten in

the ground; they would have said that the socialists had driven out

every mining investment in British Columbia; they would have said that

the red barons of the New Democratic Party had destroyed the mining

industry of British Columbia. But when it all happens under Social

Credit, what is the excuse? Oh, it's the London metal exchange. I want

every British Columbian who has lost his job in the mining industry to

write a letter to the London metal exchange and tell them how angry

they are at that metal exchange turning socialist and ruining the

mining industry in British Columbia.

We all know that it's

world conditions that influence the markets for our products; but it's

funny that we only know them at some times and at others we don't. When

they were in opposition they were so irresponsible, so wild and so

bitter politically that they even blamed any change or fluctuation in

the international metals market on New Democratic Party policies. If

they really believe that it was the provincial government that caused

the problem — they are the provincial government today, and only the

thirties were worse for mining — they should resign and call an

election right now, as a result of their policies. There's not a word

about this now. I want to read you a few quotes, if you can handle it,

Mr. Speaker. I ask your indulgence. I won't read too many. You may have

known someone yourself who was in opposition in those days making wild

charges and accusations. It might be only a memory in Hansard .

It says here: "I believe the system of taxation we've put in for mining

is both just and fair." He believed that the system they put in for

mining taxation was just and fair. Look at the result of his taxation

policy on mining. Taking your theory when you were in opposition, that

the provincial government is responsible, then your policies are

responsible for the closure of mines in British Columbia. Can you have

it one way in opposition and another way in government? That's known as

hypocrisy or, to use a new favourite buzzword of the Premier, cynicism.

That's a $50 Ontario word. It costs us $65,000 a year to dig up those

$50 Ontario words. Let me read what it goes on to say:

do not create a high fixed cost for products when a volatile market

goes up and down, one that would make companies face the possibility of

shutdowns or remove the possibility of workers getting their fair share

of the value. You've got to remember that government competes for the

same dollars that profits are competing for and the workers are

competing for when they ask for wage increases. Government's hands

should never get so large at the table that it leaves no money for

either profits or wage increases.

My dear

friends, that was the Premier of British Columbia who said that

government's hands should never get so large as to take away any

profits or wage increases. I'm glad the Premier agrees. He nods his

head — it's good stuff. You bet

[ Page 6994 ]

your life it's good stuff; but there's a great gap between saying the words and meaning them.

Let's

take a look at the practice of this government, which has a real

ability to perform sleight of hand — words going one way and practices

another way.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: The hand in your pocket? It's a hand in the pocket that extends all the way through these particular increases.

There

is a hidden list of recent tax increases through user fees and charges,

hiked by the government without even reference to the Legislative

Assembly. In the last while, under Social Credit, there have been 130

separate increases in charges, fees and licences that this government

and that Premier have stuck their hands into people's pockets to grab,

without a single reference back to this Legislature.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: No, he didn't know it.

Our

researcher phoned the Deputy Minister of Finance and asked Mr. Bell, by

way of Mr. Bell's press spokesperson, Ms. Temple, if they would please

give the opposition an official list of every fee, licence and program

that has had an increase in the past 18 months. The answer over the

phone to our research staff — perhaps because it was a bureaucrat;

you'll correct this, Mr. Premier — was: "This information will not be

made available at this time." We asked for a complete list of every

increase and we were told, probably by a bureaucrat, not to give the

information out at this time.

Let's go through some of the

increases: coloured gasoline tax to farmers and fishermen, a 26 percent

increase between October 1981 and March 1982 — now I go back to the

Premier's statement, saying that we don't want our hands in pockets;

the business licence fee, 15 percent increase; the free miner's

certificate, up 150 percent to the corporation, up 400 percent for the

individual; all placer mining fees up 100 percent; guide outfitters,

assistant guide and angler guides,100 percent increase; fisheries small

storage plants,100 percent increase; fish buying stations, $50 — a new

fee; and fish processing plants,100 to 300 percent.

No. 7

out of 130 — this is just a little item that shows up on everybody's

light bill every month now; this is known as the water rate increase —

300 percent. This is the government that said that its taxation

policies for the mining industry were fair. The pass-on cost of the

water rate increase to Cominco mines alone will be an additional bill

of $9 million a year. What is the direct result, a contributing factor

to this? For the first time in its operation — and it has happened

under a Social Credit government — Cominco will be closing down its

whole operation this summer. We still don't know when it will reopen.

Will Bill Bennett be there at the ceremony for the closing? He loves

these kinds of ceremonies. He loves the ribbon cutting.

MR. SKELLY: He loves the B.C. spirit.

MR. BARRETT:

That's it! Will he show up at the number of closings that are going on?

Or will he go to Trail and announce a new lottery to keep Cominco

going? You can count on it. Patrick Kinsella and Doug Heal and the boys

will figure out that this lottery thing is a pretty good deal. I can

see it now. "Keep Cominco going. Buy a lottery on the date when you see

its reopening." It'll be a whole new twist on the Yukon freeze-breakup

on the river. "Take your chance on the exact hour and day that you will

see your jobs return here in Comino. Three chances for a buck, five for

two dollars. Buy them in bulk under Social Credit." If you say it fast

enough they'll go for the two dollar deal.

You know, that

great Social Credit leadership, in a time of crisis when thousands of

jobs are being lost, have also discovered another way of hyping up the

public: announce a project, cancel it; announce a project, cancel it;

announce a project and then mean it this time. We could have a new

lottery on that alone. Take a guess whether or not the government

really means this announcement today. Buy a chance for a buck and see

if denticare fees will go up. Buy a buck ticket on this promise by the

Premier and two to one he doesn't keep it. Take a chance on getting an

invitation to the announcements, not the announcements made here in

Victoria in front of a cynical, hard-bitten, wizened old press gallery.

No, Mr. Speaker, the government would never take a chance on announcing

anything to skeptical, crying reporters, all of whom have not yet been

converted through the coffee-clutch experience. I say "coffee clutch."

Some call it "clatch," but I call it "clutch", with appropriate kisses,

appropriate leaks and appropriate little cream in the coffee. "Come

down to my office," says the spider to the press gallery fly, "and I

will let you into a secret by and by." And then we will see the poetry

flow from the Premier's lips. "Why, I'll have a debate with the Leader

of the Opposition." What a joke. He says: "I'll debate the leader if he

promises only to talk about what I want to talk about, because I've got

the most important things to talk about. Naughty, naughty if he raises

anything that's of real consequence to the people, like jobs,

investment or debt or what's going on in the province of British

Columbia."

Yes, but to save the children of British Columbia

any traumatic experience of seeing two politicians debate, suppose we

can go on after 11 o'clock, right after "Second City TV." We could be

the two new western hosers, a whole new version of the McKenzie

brothers. There we are, frying the back bacon and laughing at the

taxpayers. "Didn't we do very well here in Victoria," playing our

little game, wink and a nod, nudge, nudge. "Everything is okay out

there because I said so last year."

You know, Mr. Speaker,

my colleague the member for Vancouver Centre was the subject of

personal ridicule and putdown and a sort of small-town jingoism attack

on a serious statement that he made about a prediction for the economy.

It's a pretty risky thing for a politician to stick his neck out. I

know of a whole generation of politicians who wait to take polls before

they decide what their policy is going to be. They've given up the old

business of licking one's finger in the wind and hoping for the best.

They hire the best pollsters in the country and ask: "Now what should I

say?" In the old days, it used to be: "Mirror, mirror, on the wall,

who's the fairest of them all?" The answer always came back the same

way. Now it's "Healy, Healy, on the wall, what does Kinsella say that's

best for all?" That's what we get, Mr. Speaker, that kind of response.

It's

that member for Vancouver Centre who predicted that we would be

bordering on a recession at this time this year. Every single one of

the specific predictions made by that member two years ago at a

political convention has tragically come true because he saw through

the fiscal, monetary and

[ Page 6995 ]

political irresponsibility of that government and that Premier which has led to the problem we have today.

colleague from Vancouver Centre predicted that there would be massive

closures and layoffs in the mining industry, and the Premier said: "Ha,

ha, ha!"

My friend predicted that there would be massive

layoffs in the industrial sector in this province, and the Premier

said: "Oh, there's the New Democratic Party and its spokesman. Don't

know what they're talking about. Negative! What are your plans?" I'll

come to them shortly.

Then when my friend predicted the

highest number of bankruptcies ever in the province of British

Columbia, the Premier got up and said: "There's the NDP — doom and

gloom boys. Everything is wonderful. It's going to be terrific."

The

record, tragically, because of the Social Credit governments in action,

has been exactly as predicted by the member for Vancouver Centre and

ridiculed by the Premier. If you stand by those words you said a year

ago, you should hang your head in shame and resign as the leader of

that government. When you read the litany of personal comments against

the member for Vancouver Centre without any critical analysis of what

the member was saying, it seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the Premier

doesn't have a grip on anything — absolutely nothing — in terms of

understanding the economy.

I was going to read the 130 fees

spelled out and raised by the government, Mr. Speaker, but I don't have

time. But here's a whole list in case anybody hasn't heard anything

about any one of these. It's interesting, as I go through page and page

of these: not one of these is specifically designed as an increase in

fees to millionaires in governments. As I rip off every one of these

lists of increases in costs, not one of them affects millionaires. I

wonder if that has any influence at all with the government and its own

philosophy.

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Speaker, let the record show that they laughed and giggled when

they were faced with the litany of what they've done. Oh, I know the

bitterest of them all are those two double-twins over there: the

urban-rich twins who abandoned the Liberal Party for power at any

moment, and now they get exercised.... I want to see the

Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) get so exercised that his hair

turns blue. I know there are very few people who can get under the skin

of the Attorney-General. I thank myself that when I remind him of his

past in this House I am one of them. Things must be really rough when

you've got the Attorney-General interrupting the debate. Things must be

really rough when you've got him agitated to that point.

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Speaker, I have never seen the member from West Vancouver so

agitated. Perhaps he will participate in this debate and tell us what

jobs he's going to create for the unemployed in British Columbia, and

how he justifies sitting there and participating in a government that

provides the substance of headlines in today's newspaper: "300 to Lose

Jobs in a Copper Mine Shutdown." That's under Social Credit.

The date is 1982. It's the Premier's birthday: April 14. Here's

the birthday present for the students of British Columbia. Happy birthday, kids:

"Student Job Scheme Cancelled." Thousands of students will be out

of work this summer as they try to get their education. Here's the real

birthday gift. of them all — the catch-22 in the budget that even the scrupulous,

doubting opposition missed. Even this group that has learned a long time ago

never to accept anything on face value from the Social Credit government missed

this one, Mr. Speaker. I don't say shame on our group for missing this.

You have still a bit of goodness left in your heart to believe that the government

would make a statement it would carry through on.

Look what those reporters found out. The welfare aid has a catch.

"Local mayors, who last week applauded the B.C. government's

pledge to assume responsibility for welfare costs, discovered Tuesday that Social

Credit's fiscal largess comes with a catch. The government revealed that

it will pay the local share of the welfare cost by diverting $17 million from

the Revenue Sharing Fund, which means less money for the municipalities."

What they are going to do is take the pea from this pod, shove it over to this

one and move it around three times and say: "Oh, what a lucky group you

are." It's the old Social Credit shell game. I don't blame you

for believing them for a while; but aren't we embarrassed to have that bastion

of left-wing politics, the Vancouver Province , expose this. My goodness gracious

me, had we done it in question period it would have been ignored. But here it

is right on the front page of the Vancouver Province .

I'm

going to write Mr. Sherman myself and express to him my shock that he

wrote an editorial last Sunday — or caused an editorial to be written —

cautioning the government not to have an election, If we need anything

more from a newspaper that would expose daily scandals like this, we

need the courage of an editorial board that says enough is enough.

Let's have an election in British Columbia as soon as possible,

Mr.

Speaker, just to keep in the spirit of the lotteries in British

Columbia — just to keep in the spirit of understanding how you must

fight your way through the maze out there.... Again. I stick to the one

newspaper, the morning newspaper, theVancouver Province , and a

headline of March 31: "Chances of Getting a Job 8 to 1." That's better

than a lottery ticket. Up in the East Kootenays the unemployment is

10.6 percent; in the West Kootenays it's 10.4 percent; in the Okanagan

it's 11.8 percent; in the southern interior 10.8 percent; 13.4 percent

on Vancouver Island; 15.1 percent in the central interior; 13.6 percent

in the Peace River country; and not a peep out of this government in

terms of concern or care or action for the problems they've caused,

directly related to their fiscal policies in this province.

One

direct example is the whole fiasco around BCRIC. Tens of millions of

dollars were gulled out of people's savings in investments and loans to

put into a company that the Premier espoused — shares to be bought

right from his office. The Premier sent a letter from his office and

told people, especially young people, some of whom may have had

mortgage payments to make and car payments to make, to go out and buy

these shares because it was a good deal and it would be an investment

in British Columbia's future. The Premier of this province directly

intervened by misdirecting private investment funds into a corporation

that was espoused in a letter from his office, and I quote: "I'm

writing today to

[ Page 6996 ]

you

personally to invite you and your family to participate in this

development as shareholders in the British Columbia Resources

Investment Corporation — you the individual citizen. The shares

represent real ownership of a portion of our province's resource

industries. The move will mean a greater opportunity for British

Columbians to guide their own destiny and, through ownership, stop

acting as moneylenders to others." Mr. Speaker, this government has

driven a whole generation of British Columbia into the hands of the

moneylenders — money that was borrowed from the banks, on the advice of

this letter, to buy shares in BCRIC.

Mr. Speaker, the

Premier cannot escape personal and direct responsibility for using the

Premier's office to directly involve himself in the marketplace and

direct investments of that corporation. At the time they were put in,

BCRIC had debts of less than $100 million in total and assets worth

$400 million. That corporation now has $718 million in debt, every

penny of it owed by the shareholders, many of whom he gulled into

becoming shareholders in a letter right out of his own office.

never talks about BCRIC anymore: "It's got nothing to do with me

anymore." It appears that it was a miracle. All of a sudden it

disappears. If BCRIC shares tripled in value tomorrow, guess who would

be the first one on television? Carefully, mind you, nowadays;

rehearsed, mind you, nowadays; but the first would be our shining

Premier saying, "See, I told you so. I knew it was going to be all

right." The most eloquent testimony of the Premier's consideration of

the worth of BCRIC was when he was offered BCRIC shares as payment of a

fine that he won in a court case. He said, "Don't hand that stuff to

me. I want money. I don't want BCRIC shares. They're not worth

anything."

At least one thing has happened in his home town.

There were 1,000 people out at a barbecue for the unemployed in

Kelowna. It's the biggest social event of the year. The Social Credit

annual strawberry festival in Kelowna has now been surpassed by the

barbecue for the unemployed. One thousand people came, uninvited. It's

the highlight of the social calendar in Kelowna to be unemployed and

get a free meal under Social Credit.

MR. SPEAKER: Your time has expired, hon. member.

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Speaker, I understand my time is expired, but that is only in the

House. I have much more to say, but to save embarrassing the Premier I

will keep the skates and send over for his perusal a thoughtful program

of employment that could be developed in British Columbia.

Because

the government has not done that, I am compelled at this point to move

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: This

House regrets that, in the opinion of this House, the Minister of

Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), as a result of extravagant budgetary

increases of more than 40 percent in the past two fiscal years, and by

encouraging uncontrolled budgetary overruns totalling more than $1

billion, has not only contributed to the economic difficulties in this

province but has failed to take steps to preserve the jobs of workers

in basic industries such as forestry, pulp, paper, mining and smelting;

has neglected to mobilize our human and natural resources towards a

strategy of full employment embracing manufacturing and secondary

industry; has failed to establish policies helpful to small business

people; and has also made no attempt to relieve our citizens of the

onerous burden of continued increases in the cost of living.

move this motion in the traditional spirit of non-confidence in the

government, and I ask every single member, particularly the government

backbenchers, to support this amendment to the budget. Let us get on to

having the people of British Columbia decide whether or not this

government is fit to serve. Let us have an election over this

amendment, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion

appears to be in order. It is seconded by the member for Skeena (Mr.

Howard) who, according to the practice of this House, now has the floor.

On the amendment.

MR. HOWARD:

I couldn't help thinking, when the Leader of the Opposition was

concluding his remarks about the lottery program and BCRIC, that the

same guy who sold us BCRIC is the one who's about to sell us on the

lottery program. That should make the whole program as suspect as

anything.

Interjections.

MR. HOWARD: Well, the same salesman.

Earlier

in the day, we had in the gallery some visitors representing the native

Indian community, people who are concerned about a particular aspect of

the federal statute and what this government is going to do about it. I

would, as a preliminary, like to point out to the House that for some

time we have operated in this province a fund called the First Citizens

Fund. In looking at what has happened to that First Citizens Fund, it

is obvious that it has been grossly mismanaged, and that careless

attention has been paid to the First Citizens Fund by this government —

by the Minister of Finance particularly, because the Minister of

Finance is the one charged with the responsibility of investing the $25

million so that the interest it earns is available for people of native

Indian origin in this province. All that this $25 million has been able

to earn in the last year or two, and all that it is projected to earn

in this coming year, is something in the neighbourhood of an 8 percent

yield.

ICBC, for instance, revealed in a public hearing to

the Crown corporations committee a month or so ago that it was able to

earn 15 percent last year on its investments, and if ICBC — a maligned

corporation — can earn 15 percent on the money it has, surely the First

Citizens Fund can do better than has been done up until now. I mention

that only because it is a subject matter of interest and because there

were people in the gallery today who had some concern about that matter.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Apropos

of the amendment, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to discuss the question of

budget increases over the past few years, because I don't think it's

fair to look at just one budget in one period of time completely

isolated from any other activity of government. We need to go back to

the time when this Minister of Finance became the Minister of Finance

and presented his first budget. In that year, this Minister of Finance

increased public expenditures, increased the expenditure of taxpayers'

money, by 21.5 percent over the year before. The Premier, some time

back, had always said and

[ Page 6997 ]

always

announced that it was government policy not to increase the level of

government expenditure above the inflation rate, and this Minister of

Finance in his first year in office increased expenditures by double

the inflation rate — 21.5 percent. That averaged out to $450 extra

expenditure for every man, woman and child in this province.

the following year — his second budget — he increased it again, this

time by 19.1 percent; that represented $490 for every man, woman and

child in this province.

This year he's trying to lead us to

believe from the budget figures on page 10 that the increase in

expenditure is 7.2 percent. That's an erroneous figure, Mr. Speaker;

that's an adjusted figure, juggled to present something which is not in

accordance with the facts. This year at the very best — and that

doesn't include the $358 million that he's pulling out of special

purpose funds — the budgetary increase is 13.3 percent, not 7.2

percent, as the minister indicated in his budget speech — another $400

per man, woman and child.

Mr. Speaker, when you put all

those together, that excessive squandering of public money, that

approach to spending taxpayers' money in somewhat the same way an

alcoholic would approach a free bottle of booze, is the reason why we

are in economic difficulties these days — just a complete disdain for

the position of the general public and the taxpayer. They're dipping

into their pockets with complete abandon and spending everything they

can get their hands on.

Let me just mention a few individual

instances which I think need to be reiterated. The result of things

like that is the closing down of Cominco — 6,300 workers out of work.

There's not a care on the part of this government about that. It's the

first time in the minds, I believe, of anybody who has known about

Cominco — or Consolidated, as it was known in the earlier days — that

it has had that kind of difficulty. I was born and raised in the mining

community of Kimberley, where Cominco exists and where Cominco was

mining. I was just a young kid during the 1930s. It didn't close down

then, but it's closed now, and the government sits quietly by and lets

it happen; they ignore the plight of those 6,300 people in the mining

game.

My colleague, the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), today referred to the Vancouver Province ,

indicating that Granisle Copper, in the constituency of my confrere

from Omineca (Mr. Kempf), was going to shut down for a year — 300

additional miners out of work. Not a cry, not a worry, not a word was

expressed on the part of this government about that. Granisle Copper,

as you may know, Mr. Speaker, is owned by Noranda, the same group that

was virtually invited into this province to take over MacMillan

Bloedel, a company that has not had a very savoury record insofar as

its concern about its employees. But that's down.

Kamloops

is another example in another riding of a Weyerhaeuser pulp mill

shutting down. There are people out of work there as well, and not a

whisper out of this government that it has a concern about it.

B.C. Timber at one time had a responsibility to the general public until our

Premier gave it away for a handful of paper. B.C. Timber has a number of sawmills

in this province: some in Skeena; one, I believe, in the riding of my colleague

for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy) ; one or two in Nelson-Creston; and one

in Omineca. Every one of those sawmills except one are shut down. All the sawmill

workers are out of work. They have a pulp mill in Prince Rupert on the verge

of closing, I am told, and not a whisper out of this government that it cares

a fig about the thousands and thousands of workers in this province who are

losing jobs every day of the week. The Eurocan mill in Kitimat is shutting down

its wood operation, and not a word from this government, not an expression of

concern at all.

show you how hypocritical or cynical — whichever is the appropriate

word that Your Honour will accept — the Premier is about this matter,

he went to Japan before Christmas upon invitation, I am told, of the

Japanese government. Upon his return he said: "I asked the Japanese

government if it would reduce or eliminate the 10 percent Japanese

tariff against white wood." Of course the Japanese politely smiled at

him and said no, they weren't interested in doing that. But if we had

had a government or a Premier who had any concern whatever about the

well-being of this province and the lumber industry.... At the time

that this government was giving away and preparing to subsidize to the

extent of $1 billion the export of northeast coal, the government

should have been in those discussions about coal and said to the

Japanese government: "If you want our coal, then we'd like you to take

some of our wood as well." And that would have been the time to

negotiate on the 10 percent tariff, not to go over before Christmas

upon invitation and then come back and say: "Oh, I asked them to reduce

the 10 percent tariff on wood." That is hypocritical for the Premier to

have done that. It would have been more meaningful if he and the

Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips)

had shown enough concern about employment possibilities in this

province for British Columbia workers as they did about the employment

possibilities of Japanese workers on the coal deal. If they would have

moved to deal with the Japanese government on that 10 percent tariff,

we would have had more people working in our sawmills today than exists

at the moment.

Do you know what we're doing? Here is a

government subsidizing northeast coal to the extent of $1 billion over

the next 15 years. At the time when it counted they completely ignored

the 10 percent tariff on white wood but issued permits to people to

export raw logs to Japan so the Japanese can take the logs and run them

through their sawmills, while our sawmill workers are out of work here.

We've got $5 million set aside in this budget for something called

"trade." Take the $5 million and instead of just wasting it upon a

group of civil servants here in Victoria, who so far don't appear to

have accomplished anything in the area of trade, work out an

arrangement with COFI to try to find offshore markets for our lumber

instead of continuing the practice of putting 60 percent of our market

in the United States basket and running into difficulty every time they

have difficulty in the United States.

Deal with housing. Try

to promote some affordable housing in this province. It is possible to

do it. The Leader of the Opposition has outlined on more than one

occasion in the last few months a mechanism for doing that, for giving

people the opportunity to borrow money at reasonable and decent

interest rates so that they can acquire, or have built, affordable

housing, accomplishing not only the provision of housing to people who

need it at affordable rates and affordable interest rates as well, but

also providing job opportunities for the forest industry.

while ago the Premier sent a report to his constituents: "William R.

Bennett, Your MLA Reports." There are a number of pages. He talks about

all sorts of things but there is not a single, solitary word about

housing. Yet this is a report to his constituents, people he

represents, while there are

[ Page 6998 ]

hundreds

and hundreds of people out of work and people have difficulty in

acquiring affordable housing. The Premier doesn't deign to consider

that a worthwhile thing to talk about in his report to his own

constituency. He isn't interested in housing, Mr. Speaker. He isn't

interested in attempting to provide jobs for the people in this

province.

In the forest industry we have 15,000 to 20,000

people out of work. In the mining industry we have about 8,000 people

out of work. Forestry has always been considered the backbone of the

economy in this province, and when it slows down and when thousands of

loggers and sawmill workers and pulpmill workers are out Of work, it

finds its way all through the rest of the economy.

That's

one of the reasons the newspaper reported just the other day a 60

percent increase in bankruptcies of small business — the direct

responsibility and result of this government's complete aloofness from

the whole program of trying to provide work in this province.

see the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) is on his feet. I see

he's not doing anything in any event, but I'm sure he reads the

newspaper. I'd like to draw to your attention — before he does leave,

Mr. Speaker — theVancouver Province , in which the headline

says this. Can you read it, Mr. Minister, from across there? He's not

interested even in looking at the paper, Mr. Speaker. That shows how

little he cares about the fact that it's a cold spring for Prince

George. It shows how little he, the Minister of Labour, representing

the constituency of Prince George, cares that 10,000 people in his own

city are unemployed. It shows how little he cares about the fact that

there is an 18 percent unemployment rate in the workforce in Prince

George, the very city from which the Minister of Labour comes. It shows

how little he cares about the fact that Prince George has the highest

percentage of unemployment anywhere west of the province of Quebec.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's in charge of manpower.

MR. HOWARD:

He's in charge of unemployment, not in charge of manpower. And he's

doing very well at being in charge of unemployment, having created that

situation in his own constituency.

He spoke the other day in the budget debate. I didn't hear him indicate he even knew how to pronounce the word unemployment.

is a shameful performance on his part and on the part of the

government. And of course his colleague the member for Prince George

South (Mr. Strachan) is in the same category: he hasn't yet deigned to

say anything about this either.

There's apparently no point

in doing this, Mr. Speaker, to try to convince the government of

anything, because they obviously aren't interested. But I have a sheaf

of newspaper clippings over the last few weeks showing instance after

instance throughout this province, in every constituency, of operations

shutting down, of people being laid off, of companies going out of

business. There are dozens and dozens of them. For 150,000 people being

out of work in this province, you need to have headlines like that in

order to show the case visually, and to show how, as a result of

complete disinterest, complete lack of attention, complete carelessness

on the part of this government, they can sit idly by and let it happen

and almost relish the fact that people are losing jobs in this province.

It's

very fundamental to the economy of any area that we need to deal with

the question of wealth production. That's the foundation of our

economic activity. It's the loggers, miners, fishermen, sawmill

workers, pulpmill workers and farmers — those are the people who

produce the wealth in this province. And it's that wealth that the rest

of us who are not wealth-producers live off of. It's that wealth that

keeps government alive, and for a government to have done as this

government did over the earlier two budgets — virtually to rape the

people of this province in terms of taxes and squander a 40 percent

increase in public spending over a two-year period — is unconscionable.

For a government to do that sort of thing and not have the courage

afterwards to be able to say: "We did that because we believed it was

right, and we are now prepared to go to the country in an election to

ask the people whether they thought we were right or not...." That's

the unconscionable part of it. Having created difficulties, caused

unemployment and permitted sawmills, pulpmills and mines to shut down

every day of the week, and not to have the courage to say that they're

prepared to take their case to the people — that's the unconscionable

and miserable part of it.

Here is a government that is more

interested in providing employment in Japan than in British Columbia;

here is a government that exports logs in the round — raw logs — to

Japan to employ sawmill workers there while our own sawmill workers are

out of work; here is a government that has enjoyed exporting every

single pound of copper concentrates that we produce in this province to

Japan to create employment for workers in Japan so that we can buy the

finished product — copper wiring and copper tubing — back again and

lose in the process; here is a government that enjoys very much the

prospect of taking a billion dollars from the taxpayers of this

province and subsidizing northeast coal in order to create employment

in Japan, not in order to create jobs here in B.C.

If I can

put it in summation and in its form, the budget is just a miserable

recitation of despair. Recession has been identified in a loose way as

being when your neighbour is out of work. When your neighbour loses his

job it's a recession. When you lose your job it's a depression.

Recovery will only come about when Premier Bennett loses his job.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you finished?

MR. HOWARD:

The only thing that's finished here is the integrity of the government

of which you are a member, and your own morality in politics.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House to speak against the amendment. I've

listened with a great deal of interest to the debate on the budget, and

I must say that it's been the weakest debate that I have ever heard in

this Legislature, because the opposition knows full well that this is a

good budget. It is a budget that provides leadership in this province

and that is envied by every jurisdiction, not only in Canada but in

North America, because of the prudent leadership and fiscal

responsibility of this government during the past six years. We will

see this province through some difficult economic times that are caused

not by the policies of this government but by world economic

conditions. Had it not been for the measures taken by this government —

the economic thrust taken by this government — this province would

really be in far more difficulty than it is today.

I have to recognize that the opposition is frustrated — very frustrated indeed. I watched their faces on the day the

[ Page 6999 ]

budget

was brought down. You could see the frustration forming because they

knew that this indeed was a good budget. There are no tax increases in

a difficult time in this province. It is indeed a balanced budget, one

of the only balanced budgets of any jurisdiction in North America, a

budget only possible because this government has planned and planned

well. Our financial ship is sound and based on sound fiscal planks; and

I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, our fiscal planks are in place and

will see us through the difficult storms which the entire world is

experiencing today.

I also had to listen with a great deal

of interest to the Leader of the Opposition. I'm not really sure

whether or not he is the leader, because they're fighting among

themselves as to who should be the leader. They are disunited,

disorganized, fighting among themselves on policy. They've been all

over the mat on northeast coal; they don't know whether they're for it.

But one thing they are united on, Mr. Speaker, is that they would close

it down if they were government.

I doubt if we should any

longer call the opposition the loyal opposition, because they're not a

credible opposition, and I don't think they do credit to what we have

seen in this Legislature as some good oppositions in the past.

listened to the Leader of the Opposition, a man who has high hopes of

some day being Premier and leading this province, and yet he goes

around and publicly criticizes and chastises and mocks — yes, mocks —

our number two trading partner, the Japanese. Now I ask you, Mr.

Speaker, how that man could ever lead this province and negotiate with

our number two trading partner after some of the public statements that

that man, who has aspirations of being the Premier of this province,

has made.

I also listened with a great deal of interest to

his condemnation of our Premier in the way he handled the constitution.

But where were the opposition when the constitution debate was going on

in this Legislature, Mr. Speaker? They were silent; they didn't have a

word to say; they couldn't make up their minds whether they wanted to

support it or be against it. There was no leadership at all emanating

from that side of the House. It was the leadership ability of our

Premier as chairman of the premiers' conference of Canada that saved

this country from ruination. For that man over there, the Leader of the

Opposition, to stand and make some of the statements in this House that

he made today on our Premier's stewardship during the last six years

leaves me somewhat dismayed.

Our Premier, Mr. Speaker, has

represented British Columbia and represented British Columbia well in

Ottawa and on the constitution talks. And as I say, it's his leadership

that he showed....

AN HON. MEMBER: That's lacking.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

His leadership, my friend, of which you're very envious, and of which

your leader is very envious. You are very frustrated with the

leadership that our Premier has shown, that this weekend we'll have the

constitution repatriated to Canada.

I also listened with a

great deal of interest today to the Leader of the Opposition's remarks

about the troubles that we're facing in the mining and lumber

industries today, But the difference between now and when they were

government is that the mining industry in British Columbia was facing

difficulty when they were government because of the policies of the

socialist government of the day. There was never a higher demand for

minerals or higher prices in the history of the mining industry than

during the time that they were government. With that, because of their

policies, the mining industry was pulling out of British Columbia.

1973, after the first energy crisis in the world, when they had an

opportunity to get the petroleum industry in this province rolling,

what was happening, Mr. Speaker, because of their policies? Because of

their policies the petroleum industry was leaving the province. As a

matter of fact, it wasn't safe to be on the road between British

Columbia and Alberta. You would be run over by oil-rigs pulling out of

British Columbia at a time when there was an energy crisis in the world

and they had the opportunity to do something with that natural resource

for the benefit of the people of British Columbia. They blew it.

There's a big difference today in the problems being experienced by the

petroleum industry, the mining industry and lumber industry than when

they were government, because it was their policies, not world economic

conditions. It was their policies that drove the industry out of this

province.

Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you something else,

and make no mistake about it. If there was an election tomorrow, the

mining industry of British Columbia would support this government, and

that's a far cry from the attitude of the mining industry when they

were government. Today there are plans being formulated and in the

formulation stage that when the world mining industry and the demand

for our metals picks up there will be new mines coming onstream. Those

plans are being formulated today. That's a far cry from when they were

government; there were no plans. Our mining engineers were seeking

employment in the Yukon and indeed in other countries. The difference

between today, Mr. Speaker, because of world conditions, and when they

were government is that today investors are still flocking to the

province of British Columbia. Every day, in spite of the recession in

the world, new plants are being opened up in British Columbia, new

investment is coming to British Columbia, and the only downside to that

investment and to the plans that are being made for future investment

is the threat of socialism still hanging over this province.

Mr.

Speaker, I was somewhat disillusioned by the Leader of the Opposition,

because he showed me during his speech today that indeed he is afraid.

He is afraid of our Premier who has shown leadership and statesmanship.

I can remember, when the Leader of the Opposition used to get up in

this Legislature and poke fun; oh, yes, frivolous remarks about our

Premier. There was one today. No, all he could do was read last year's Hansard , and not one single, solitary policy did he outline from his side of the Legislature.

listened also, with a great deal of interest to the member for Skeena

(Mr. Howard), and he continues to say that northeast coal is a billion

dollar subsidy. I suppose he thinks that if he states that falsehood

enough times people will believe it. I want to tell you that there is

no subsidy to northeast coal. As a matter of fact, the price for

northeast coal is being paid by the Japanese steel industry, and has

indeed led the prices and new negotiations for the southeast that will

put hundreds of millions of dollars into that area. Yes, it was because

of the prices negotiated for northeast coal that southeast coal was

able to negotiate not a 5 percent increase, not a 10 percent increase,

but in some cases a 25 percent increase. It was the highest increase

ever negotiated, because of the price being paid for northeast coal.

Yet the socialists over there continue to rant and rave that it's a

subsidy.

[ Page 7000 ]

it a subsidy when there will be a surplus return to the taxpayers of

Canada, to the federal government, over the 15-year term of contract of

$94 billion in escalated dollars? Mr. Speaker, I ask you: do you call

that a subsidy? Is it a subsidy when surplus revenues to the provincial

government over the 15-year contract on northeast coal will return $5.5

billion to the taxpayers of British Columbia? They say they would

renegotiate northeast coal. Well, I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker,

after some of the statements that have emanated from that side of the

House, I wouldn't trust them to negotiate the purchase of a needle and

thread for me.

What did they do when they were government?

The coal buyers came to British Columbia from around the world, and

they said the coal wasn't for sale. Then in a last-minute attempt, a

month before the election, they announced northeast coal. They hadn't

done any studies, they hadn't done any planning, they didn't have any

sales contracts, but in a last minute attempt to try and get a few

votes to win the election because they knew they were in financial

trouble, they announced northeast coal. Now that northeast coal is one

of the most successful projects ever undertaken by any government in

Canada, they're trying to criticize it. They're trying to say that it's

a subsidy. That's only one of their criticisms, but the fact of the

matter is — and make no mistake about it — that that gentleman who

stood here this afternoon, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett),

has waffled ever since he made the statement on July 8, 1981, that one

of the first things he would do if elected Premier of this province

would be to close northeast coal down. Then what happened?

MR. HOWARD: That's another lie, Don.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You're calling the Premier a liar! You're calling him a liar, are you?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'll ask the minister to come to order. I would ask the member for Skeena to withdraw his remark.

MR. HOWARD:

Gladly, but also the minister should be denied the opportunity to

continue to make those erroneous statements. That's all I'm saying. He

continues, unabated, to utter things which are not true, and he needs

to be brought to order because of that. I know the minister enjoys

doing this.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I have

asked the member to withdraw the remark. The member has withdrawn the

remark. That concludes the matter. The member has spoken, he will now

resume his seat, and I will recognize the minister. I would advise all

members that the use of that word which has been used very frequently

in this chamber in one form or another is not to be allowed in

parliamentary debate in this House or any other House. The member

continues.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I want to

go on to say — and I want to put it firmly on the record — that the

Leader of the Opposition answered a question in an interview in the Financial Times , June 8, 1981: "If you were Premier, what would you do about it?" — in reference to northeast coal.

"If we were in, we'd stop it tomorrow."

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

Oh, you're denying your leader said it? I didn't hear the Leader of the

Opposition come out and deny it when it was in cold print last June,

but I'll tell you what happened, Mr. Speaker: the member for Skeena

(Mr. Howard) and the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) got the Leader

of the Opposition in a comer and said: "Oh, you can't say that."

the debate last year during my estimates, the member for Coquitlam said

one thing, the member for Prince Rupert said another, the member for

Skeena said another, the Leader of the Opposition said another. They

have been all over the map. I'll tell you, I've never seen such a

disorganized group of crape-hangers in my life. Then in an

article in

my own newspaper last spring it said: "The New Democratic government

would cancel the northeast coal development." I tell you, Mr. Speaker,

I offered the member for Prince Rupert to pay the way of the Leader of

the Opposition if he would travel the line from the Peace River country

to Prince Rupert and make those statements at public forums. He didn't

do it.

He wouldn't go up there, but he thinks it's good to

say down in the southeast that he'd cancel northeast coal. Who stood in

this Legislature, Mr. Speaker, and said: "Oh, if you open up northeast

coal you're going to ruin the southeast"? What has happened? Not only

have southeast coal prices gone up, but more contracts have been

signed. Why? Because this government has shown leadership in putting

British Columbia into the world coal markets. We are recognized around

the world today as one of the most aggressive jurisdictions in the

world.

What are the benefits, Mr. Speaker? A new port.

Upgrading a rail line. Putting British Columbia into the world coal

market. They chastise it and criticize it and they're all over the map.

They don't know whether they're for it, against it or where they are.

Their leader says that they'd close it down tomorrow. What is the most

stable commodity being exported out of British Columbia? I'll give you

three guesses. It certainly isn't socialism.

MR. RICHMOND: Uranium?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

No, it's not uranium. Uranium from Saskatchewan? No, I don't think it's

uranium from Saskatchewan. What is the most stable commodity? It's

coal, and they would close the project down.

I want to go on

to talk for just a few moments about some of the projects that we

planned for that are in the planning stages and are going ahead today

and providing thousands and thousands of jobs for British Columbians.

These are projects the opposition has a tendency to forget. I don't

want to go up north. I don't even want to refer to the new southeast

coal mines that are being brought onstream down there, the new

investment and the stability of that area. It's one of the most stable

areas in the province of British Columbia.

MR. SEGARTY: What about the Crow rate?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: There again, they don't know whether they're for it or against.

MR. SEGARTY: They think they're for it.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: No, they don't know. You can't listen to anything they say because they change depending on which way the wind is blowing.

[ Page 7001 ]

But

I'm not going to talk about the north, the southeast or Vancouver

Island. I just want to talk about the lower mainland for a little

while. I want to tell you about just a few of the projects that are

presently going on due to the planning of this government and the

vision and courage of our leader. They are providing literally

thousands and thousands of jobs.

B.C. Place. Were the NDP

for or against a project that is providing thousands of jobs today and

is projected into the future? It's not a make-work project. Certainly

they were against it. It's a project that today is providing thousands

of jobs, yet they stand up here and frivolously talk about jobs. They

were against B.C. Place and the thousands of jobs it is creating today.

AN. HON. MEMBER: Like housing.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

And all the housing that it will create for the people. They were

against it — those negative nellies, those crape hangers, those

socialists over on the other side of the House. They were against the

stadium that will serve the people of this province for generations to

come and provide thousands of jobs. Those negative nellies and crape

hangers from the other side of the House, those socialists over there,

those negative, harping, carping socialists were against the stadium.

They were against B.C. Place and the stadium.

What about the

trade and convention centre? They were against the trade and convention

centre, a project that during construction will provide thousands of

man-years of employment in our construction industry, ongoing

employment for decades to come and will be the showplace for trade not

only for British Columbia but for all of Canada. It's going into the

fastest growing area in the world, the Pacific Rim. They were against

B.C. Place, the stadium and the trade and convention centre.

What

about light rapid transit? They were against that too. Those negative,

harping, carping socialists, those crape hangers on the other side of

the House were against the development of a light rapid transit system

in the lower mainland which, again, will serve the population of the

lower mainland for generations to come. Those negative nellies, those

negative, crepe-hanging socialists were against the light rapid transit

system, the trade and convention centre, the stadium and B.C. Place.

Yet they stand here and talk about jobs.

We seem to forget

sometimes all the things that have been going on for years. For

instance, let's take Lonsdale Quay. Who started that? It was started by

the British Columbia Development Corporation under the leadership of

the Social Credit government. It's providing literally thousands and

thousands of man-years of construction and will provide jobs for

generations. Those negative, carping, harping socialists were against

the development of Lonsdale Quay, the light rapid transit system, the

trade and convention centre, the stadium and B.C. Place, yet they dare

stand in this House and say that we haven't done anything to create

jobs. They've been against all those projects that have created

thousands and thousands of jobs not only during construction but for

generations to come. How dare they stand in this House and state that

they are against these projects and still talk about employment.

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, there is the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) mouthing off.

What

are we doing in New Westminster? A complete downtown redevelopment,

something that has courage and guts, and it's happening with the

private sector in it.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. HALL: Where?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

And you say: "Where?" I want to tell you that is one of the greatest

developments taking place in this province, and it's because of the

courage, the vision and the guts of this government — providing

thousands and thousands....

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

Are you against it, my friend? Sure, I'll go to New Westminster and

I'll tell them you're against it. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, they

were against the great development that's taking place in New

Westminster, providing thousands of jobs today and long-term jobs into

the future. Those negative, harping, carping socialists over on the

other side of the House were against the development of New

Westminster; they were against the development of Lonsdale Quay; they

were against the development of a light rapid transit system; they were

against the development of the trade and convention centre; they were

against the development of B.C. Place; they were against the

development of the stadium; and they stand here in this Legislature and

talk about jobs.

I want to tell you a couple of other

things, Mr. Speaker. When we were building a great new drydock facility

in Vancouver, the member for New Westminster stood in this House and he

was against that development — a drydock that is today providing

literally thousands and thousands of jobs. Oh, we had all kinds of

criticism.

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Now he's trying to renege.

Those

negative, harping, carping socialists have been against everything that

has ever happened in this province. The Leader of the Opposition says:

"So you're going to ship coal. You've got to ship it" — he demanded

that it be shipped — "in B.C. bottoms." Oh, we're going to build a

giant-sized shipbuilding facility just to build five or six boats to

ship northeast coal in? Then he'd say: "Well, if you subsidize the

shipbuilding facility, that's another subsidy." That gentleman — I use

the word loosely — well, anyway, the Leader of the Opposition, who is

going to be the great negotiator, did he negotiate, did he demand that

coal from the southeast, long established and shipped since 1968, go in

B.C. bottoms? No. Did he demand that the minerals that had been shipped

out of British Columbia for decades and decades be shipped in Canadian

bottoms? Did he ever demand that the lumber shipped from British

Columbia be shipped in Canadian bottoms? The answer is no. Did he

demand that wheat from Canada be shipped in Canadian bottoms? But he

thinks that he can go out there with all his huff and puff and

influence those who may not be informed about the real facts of life.

I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, we have a small but growing merchant marine in Canada.

[ Page 7002 ]

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

Yes, we have — small but growing — and if the federal government would

change their tax laws a little bit, those ships could be registered

under a Canadian flag. And maybe some day that will happen — but they

expect miracles — and I would like to see it happen. But the Leader of

the Opposition, looking in every nook and cranny, trying to find some

little thing to criticize about the greatest project in the history of

British Columbia, has had to come out with something so frivolous.

" Oh," he said, "we demand there be a steel mill built in British

Columbia." You know, you'd think that British Columbia was the only

country in the world that had coal. But I want to tell you, they thought that.when

they were in government.... When the coal buyers came here to buy coal,

which would have provided jobs which today would have been developed and would

have increased our employment by thousands of jobs, they sent them home and

said: "Leave the coal in the ground." Well, I want to tell you, Mr.

Speaker, that coal is an international commodity, and the Japanese don't

have to buy coal from British Columbia. They can buy lots of coal from China,

Poland, the United States or Australia. But they bought it from British Columbia,

and they paid a bonus. On the backs of the Japanese steel industry, we will

have what left for future generations? We will have a new port and an upgraded

railway system from Prince George to Prince Rupert, plus 77 kilometres of new

branch line from Prince George to the townsite of Tumbler Ridge. We will have

a new townsite in Tumbler Ridge. We will have new highways and a new power line,

all on the backs of the first two contracts, all on the backs of the Japanese

steel industry. Those negative, harping, carping socialists over there never

put a project together in all their life, never did a thing to show any leadership

when they were government. All they did was go around and buy something that

had already been put together by the private sector. Yet they call it a subsidy.

No wonder nobody pays any attention to them. No wonder.

listened to the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) again trying to

perpetuate the myth that we ship round logs to Japan, to the Japanese

lumber industry. Well, I know one thing: nobody pays much attention to

the member for Skeena because he does try to perpetuate these myths,

and when people find out the facts they realize he's all wrong. We

export less than 5 percent of the logs that we cut down in British

Columbia. Logs that are exported have to be surplus to our needs before

they are exported. I have gone to Japan and sat in their ministry of

forestry and agriculture, and they have said: "We want to buy your

round logs." And I have said, "No, you will not buy our round logs

because the forest industry is the number one industry in British

Columbia, and we're not going to export our round logs to you." At the

same time, being firm on that, we have increased the export of sawn

lumber, of 2-by-4s, to Japan, and that market is growing.

No,

we're not exporting our round logs. We're one country, one province in

the world that doesn't export. The United States has taken a leaf out

of our book and they're stopping the export of round logs. The

Philippines have stopped the export of round logs; Indonesia has

stopped the export of round logs. They're taking a leaf out of British

Columbia's book. We have had delegation after delegation come here in

the last four years to learn from British Columbia because we have the

best forestry industry in the world. And it's a forest industry that's

not under threat of being bought up by the government, as it was

between '72 and '75. It's a forest industry that is under the auspices

of the private sector.

I listened with a great deal of

interest to the argument from the members on the opposite side about

small business development. This government has done more for the small

business community in this province than any jurisdiction did before

it. You will recall what happened when the socialists were in

government. They brought in a tax called the Corporation Capital Tax

Act, whereby they took all of the capital employed by every small

business in this province and put a tax on it, including equity and

including borrowed capital. And now they yack about wanting to help the

small businessman.

It was a punitive taxation that they

brought in when they were government. Those socialists over there did

more damage to the small business community in this province than was

ever done before. Now they're going around talking to the small

business community. They're putting on the blue suits and they're

putting on the vests to try to cover up the red underwear, but it isn't

working.

This government has done away with that punitive

taxation to the small businessman. This government has brought in one

of the lowest income taxes to the small business community of any

jurisdiction in Canada. It is this government that brought in business

information centres throughout the province to work with the small

business community and to work with the Chamber of Commerce — not going

out and setting up a bureaucracy in every hamlet and city in the

province, but working with the small business community, helping them

to put on seminars. It is this government that brought in the

industrial commissioner program so as to have people out there in the

community to help the small businessman, to give him information, to

help him if he wanted to apply for one of our numerous programs. That

was done by this government.

What did they do to help the

small businessman? They put up the income tax and bought in taxes on

the capital that the small businessman employed. Yet they have the

audacity to stand up in this Legislature and say we haven't done

anything for the small businessman. And what would they do?

want to tell you what we have done for the small businessman. We have

created an economic climate in British Columbia such that we've one of

the best economies of any jurisdiction in Canada where the small

businessman can flourish.

MR. LAUK: Right now?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

Yes, even now, my friend, it's a better climate than in any other

jurisdiction in North America, or any other jurisdiction in Canada, and

it's because of the policies of this government. We have one of the

strongest economies in North America right here in British Columbia

today. That's a fact. It was this government that put on a business

seminar to assist the small businessman with his management; it was

this government that put out booklets and information and guides for

the small businessman; it was this government that brought in the

low-interest loans assistance program to help the small businessman; it

was this government that brought in the assistance to small enterprise

program to help the small businessman in this province; it was this

government that brought in the small manufacturers assistance program

to help the small businessman in this

[ Page 7003 ]

province;

and it was this government that started the incoming buyers program to

assist the small manufacturer to bring customers in and to sell, and

it's been successful.

What did they do, Mr. Speaker? The

first hundred loans they put out from BCDC all went bankrupt because

they were put out on political patronage and not on good business

principles. What we have done to assist the small business community

has been unequalled in any province in Canada. We have a market

assistance program that assists the small businessman to go out into

the international marketplace and find new markets.

Oh, I

notice the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) squirming. Yes,

that's a fact, my friend. Nearly the first hundred loans that were put

out by BCDC when he was running it went broke because it was put out on

political patronage and not on good business principles.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I'll remind the hon. member that....

MR. COCKE: Tell us about the Waddling Dog.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, I'll tell you about the Waddling Dog, my friend.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Political patronage has been ruled before to be unparliamentary, and I'd ask the member to withdraw that.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I'll withdraw political patronage and say "not on good business principles."

MR. LAUK:

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the comments by the hon. minister are

a slander not only to me and the board of directors of the BCDC but are

a slander to the many people that receive loans from the BCDC, a great

many of whom were identified quite clearly in their communities as

supporters of that member's party. I thank the hon. Speaker....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, that is not a point of order. The comment has been withdrawn and that's satisfactory.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'm sorry if I got under the member's skin, but I know he's a little touchy about the terrible job that he did when he was....

Interjections.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, it was this government that started the tourist industry development subsidiary agreement.

MR. LAUK: No, we didn't.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: It was this government that signed the first program with Ottawa.

MR. LAUK: No.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

They sat with it. They signed the general development agreement and

then put it under ice and left it for three or four years, or however

long it was.

MR. LAUK: Tell the truth.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

You didn't sign one subsidiary agreement — not one were you able to

negotiate. You talk about our Premier being able to negotiate with

Ottawa. When your leader went down there, what was he called in Ottawa?

"The big buffoon." He went down and represented the people of British

Columbia and got the name of "the big buffoon."

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. minister, I'll have to ask you to withdraw that too, please.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'll withdraw "the big buffoon."

Mr. Speaker, there are so many things that I would like to talk about today,

like the great things that are going on in the great province of British Columbia,

but I realize that my time is drawing to a close. I just want to state once

more for the record that one of the greatest projects in British Columbia is

northeast coal. I want to state it again. The question was: "What would

you do if you were Premier? What would you do about northeast coal?" The

Leader of the Opposition said: "If we were in, we'd stop it tomorrow."

Thank you very much.

MS. BROWN:

Mr. Speaker, the minister's voice is a hazard to the health of every

member in this chamber and even to those in the galleries. He is so

loud and so empty. There is so much noise and so little substance that

whenever he speaks all we get is noise pollution, in addition to facts

which he knows are incorrect. Every time he stands on his feet he

repeats that the NDP says the first thing it will do when it becomes

government is close the northeast coal project. He knows — he has heard

and he has been told — that that is not correct, which leads one to

believe that he is deliberately trying to mislead the House and

deliberately trying to mislead the people of British Columbia. The only

way to get him to shut up and tell the truth is going to have to be to

put a substantive motion on the table censuring him for deliberately

misleading the House. That's the only way we're going to get the truth

out of that minister.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

The hon. member has stated that the member might be deliberately

misleading the House, and I'm afraid I'll have to ask for that comment

to be withdrawn. Will the member withdraw? That is unparliamentary.

MS. BROWN:

Mr. Speaker, if you concluded that that was what I was doing, I

withdraw it. I was saying that one is being forced to believe that that

is what the minister is trying to do — that the minister is trying to

deliberately mislead not only the House but all the people of British

Columbia as well.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I'm sorry, that must be withdrawn.

MS. BROWN: However, if you misunderstood my statement, I will withdraw it, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The minister will come to order.

[ Page 7004 ]

MS. BROWN:

I think we should remind ourselves that we are talking about

unemployment in this province. Just to refresh the memory of the

government members who are sitting here, and those people in the

galleries, what we are talking about is over 200,000 British Columbians

who want to work and who cannot find work. After today's statement

about the cutbacks in funds for the youth employment program, and with

more and more mills and mines mentioning their layoffs each day, that

figure is increasing daily. We're not talking about world conditions;

we're talking about this government's actions and the result of this

government's actions in terms of massive unemployment in this province

at this time. For that minister to stand on his feet and talk about

this great government and the good things that it's doing clearly

indicates that either he does not understand the damage his

government's policies are doing to this province or else he does not

care.

I think we should remind ourselves again of the

figures. According to the statistics for March 1982, there are 143,000

plus the 64,000 hidden unemployed, for a total of 207,000 or 14.7

percent of all British Columbians who can work and who want to work.

They are unable to work because that government's policies have

resulted in massive unemployment in this province.

If he

wants to be reminded of some of the areas, most of which are

represented by some of his own members, there is of course the Okanagan

which has 11.8 percent unemployment, the central interior which has

18.1 and the minister's own Peace River riding which has 13.6 percent

unemployment. That's what the opposition is addressing itself to, and

trying to somehow encourage that government to get on with the business

of creating jobs, rather than continuing its practice of destroying

jobs — wiping out employment as a result of its very short-sighted

policies.

On Friday when I was home, I was walking in my

riding and one of the millionaire Socreds living in that riding stopped

to have a talk with me. I asked him what he thought his government was

doing. He revealed that he is no longer a Social Crediter; in fact, he

is now a member of the western Canada party. He started to tell me that

the two seats that he was sure would not be represented by Social

Credit in the next election were South Peace River and North Peace

River. This is an active member of the western Canada separatist party,

who was a very active Social Crediter. He's one of the millionaire

Social Crediters who are hurting as a result of this government's

policy. He has assured us that neither North Peace River nor South

Peace River will be represented by Social Credit whenever the election

is called. As a matter of fact, he said: "Don't press for an election

now. We need more time. The more time we can get, the more of those

Socreds we can wipe out. So don't press for an election. Get the word

to Barrett, because the western Canada party are getting their act

together."

What I really wanted to talk about today is one

particular group of unemployed who don't get discussed very often on

the floor of this House, and certainly never get mentioned by the

government. I want to talk about unemployment among women. It's not

possible, of course, when one talks about women, to talk about anything

else but poverty, since we constitute most of the poor people in this

country. But then when you start to analyze the poverty of women, what

it comes down to, of course, is the absence of jobs.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN:

The member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet) is so exercised by the

information which I've just brought to his attention about the jeopardy

in which his seat is that he will not shut up. If he were smart, he

would go home and start campaigning. Not that that would make any

difference whatsoever; he's still going to lose that seat to the

western Canada party. Nonetheless, he would lose by a smaller majority

if he would go home and start campaigning, rather than sitting down

here and hassling the very gentle member for Cowichan.

want to talk about unemployment, as I said, among the women of British

Columbia. Those figures which I gave you represent a large percentage

of women. We are told that 10.3 percent of the women in this province

are unemployed. In other words, 63 percent of the adult poor people in

British Columbia are women. Some of them, of course, cannot work,

because that includes a number of older and retired women. But of the

ones who do want to work and can work, as of the March 1982 statistics,

10.3 percent are unable to find employment.

What we have in

this province is a Minister of Human Resources and a government which

says women should go to work, women with small babies should go to

work. Once an infant has reached the age of six months you should leave

that infant somewhere and go to work. To ensure that the woman goes to

work the minister says, "If you don't work, we will deduct $55 a month

from your income assistance," knowing full well that that money is

going to be taken not from the woman but from the money spent for food

and other necessities for that infant. Despite that, we have a

government which, at a time when its own policies are creating massive

unemployment in this province, is deliberately sending people out to

work when it knows that there are no jobs for them.

addition to the 10.3 percent of women who are registered as looking for

work, we now have all of those women who are in receipt of income

assistance and whose babies have now reached the age of six months and

one day who are also going to join the ranks of the unemployed because

they have to go and seek work too, since the minister insists that

their income assistance is going to be cut back $55 a month. I think we

should remind ourselves of the kinds of figures we are talking about.

We are talking about people who are trying to live on just over $300 a

month, and who are now finding that their income assistance is going to

be cut either by $55 a month or $35 a month if they have a family.

I said before, 63 percent of the adult poor in this province are women;

10.3 percent of the women in this province are seeking and unable to

find employment. At the same time, we have a government which brings in

a budget which doubles the debt and doubles the burden under which all

British Columbians have to exist. They are creating, through hidden

user fees and hidden taxes, an additional burden on people at a time

when their own policies are increasing unemployment and when people are

going bankrupt faster than ever.

Some interesting things are

happening, as I said before. More and more we're reading articles that

talk about the fact that women are the last hired and the first fired.

We're finding retraining programs, apprenticeship programs and all the

money for job-creation programs being cut back, eliminated or wiped out

at the same time as the statistics are increasing.

For years

and years we were told that women work to buy frivolous things they

work so they can have their hair done every Thursday, or they work so

that the family can take a

[ Page 7005 ]

vacation.

That's not true anymore. That is not true anywhere in British Columbia.

Women work now because, despite the fact that families have two

incomes, they still can't make ends meet under the policies of this

government. Despite the fact that there are two full-time wage earners

in most families, they are still not making ends meet. Women are also

working because there are so many men who are not working. A large

number of the poor women in this country are married to unemployed men

or to men whose incomes are less than $10,000 a year. That's the

reality of the situation.

When we talk about women and

poverty, we talk about a government that doesn't care about people, a

government that introduces policies that deliberately exacerbate

unemployment. It not only creates it, it makes it worse and then it

turns around and wipes out the kinds of programs — whether they are

retraining, upgrading of skills, or re-entry programs — that women need

to get back into whatever labour market there is. The government wipes

out funding for those kinds of programs.

We find that you run into things like the

article written by Helen Bateson in the Province

on December 13, last year, in which she was talking about the sickness

of unemployment. What she was saying was that doctors are finding that

their waiting rooms are filling with both men and women who are

depressed, who are suffering from lack of sleep and other

stress-related illnesses. When they tried to find out what the root

cause of this is, they found that people are despondent over their loss

of jobs. They're finding that in many communities where, as a result of

the slump in the industry in that community — whether it's in the

forest industry or mining industry or whatever — people, because

they're losing their jobs, are becoming depressed, despondent, and

they're showing up in doctors' offices more and more often with these

symptoms. What the doctors are also saying is that they're finding that

there is an increase in the number of tranquilizers which they're

having to prescribe.

So we're becoming a nation of drug

addicts, really. That's what it's all about. More and more, people are

having to turn to tranquilizers and to drugs to deal with unemployment

and their depression as a result of this government's policies.

also have a couple of things happening in this province that haven't

happened since the Depression — and I'm talking about the soup

kitchens. I'm talking about the fact that for the first time, I guess,

since the 1930s, we now have soup kitchens in the province — not just

the ones attached to the Salvation Army, and not just the ones attached

to the Catholic Missions, but in other communities, other community

groups are finding that they have to start feeding people. Again, most

of the people using these soup kitchens are women and their children,

not only because the income assistance is not going far enough, but, in

fact, because in many instances, because of unemployment in the family

— whether their spouse is unemployed or whether they are — they're

finding that there just isn't enough money to meet the basic

necessities.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

The Ministry of Human Resources did a survey in which it questioned people

on income assistance — primarily single mothers — about their priorities: if

you could have what you wanted, in order, what would be your priority? What

they found was that 71 percent of the people interviewed said they wanted jobs.

They wanted to work. They wanted employment. That was their number one priority.

They didn't ask for an increase in the GAIN rate, they didn't ask for

an increase in income assistance; they asked for work, employment, and that's

not possible. That is not going to happen, because once again this government

has brought a budget down which has no job creation in it whatsoever. It's

a deceptive budget which talks about creating 9,000 jobs. Even if that were

true, it would still be a drop in the bucket with 207,000 people out of work.

It's a budget that talks about creating 9,000 jobs, and then when we examine

it more closely, as we always must examine any statement made by Social Credit,

we find that that is not the case at all; in fact, there is not going to be

one new job resulting from it. All the Minister of Finance has done has been

to go around and add up all the jobs which were already being budgeted for in

the Ministry of Labour and other ministries, put them together and make a speech

stating that they're now going to be creating 9,000 jobs. That's a

very, very cruel joke to visit on the people of British Columbia. It's not

true. It's dishonest. It's not a fact. Not one single new job is going

to be created. But even if it were true — even if, in fact, there were 9,000

jobs being created — it would still be totally inadequate when we realize that

what we're looking at is a figure of 207,000 people, the largest number

of people out of work in the history of this province, certainly since the days

of the Depression.

you realize that for the first time in the history of British Columbia

there are more families leaving British Columbia than there are

families entering British Columbia? Did you know that, Mr. Speaker?

Never before in the history of this province, under any administration

as far back as one can go — to the beginning of time and the beginning

of government — has there ever been a phenomenon like the one we're

experiencing now. There are more families leaving British Columbia than

there are families entering British Columbia.

Did you also

know, Mr. Speaker, that for the first time in the history of this

province there are more senior citizens leaving British Columbia than

entering it? You realize that British Columbia is the retirement centre

for people who all their lives have been freezing on the Prairies and

in eastern Canada. Everyone looked forward to growing old and retiring

to British Columbia. It's not possible any more, and after this budget

even more impossible. Now we find that there are British Columbia

senior citizens seeking other parts of Canada to live in, because they

cannot survive under the burden of taxes and hidden user fees and

upfront user fees visited by this government on senior citizens.

don't want to talk about senior citizens, because the way they have

been treated by this government is so disgraceful that my pride in

British Columbia doesn't let me want anyone to find out about it. I

don't want anyone to know how badly senior citizens are treated by this

government. I don't want anyone to know that they have not had an

increase in their supplement since 1976; that on January 1, 1976, they

started getting $38.88, and they have not received one penny of

increase since then. I don't want anybody to know that, and I hope that

the senior citizens who are leaving British Columbia are not telling

anyone about that, because that is a shame and a disgrace. This

government just brought down an $8.5 billion budget, and when you look

under the seniors' supplement you will find that that figure has once

again decreased, at a time when the seniors' population in this

province is growing by 11,000 per year — every year 11,000 people

become eligible. Yet despite that, the amount of money

[ Page 7006 ]

allotted

for that has decreased. So I don't want to talk about senior citizens.

I want to talk about the lack of employment for women. I have never

heard any member on the government side ever get up and speak in

support of women on any issue. As far as that government is concerned,

they don't even exist, which may be just as well, because as soon as

they find out that someone exists, they bring the hammer down on them —

another hidden user tax, another hidden user fee or something. So it's

just as well, Mr. Speaker, that they don't do that.

The

other thing about the unemployment figure is what it means to the young

people of this province — people between the ages of 15 and 24. Of

these, 19.4 percent, nearly 20 percent, can't find work. They want to

work, must work, need work and can't find work, as a result of the

deliberate policies of that government over there.

I don't

buy the argument often used by the government that they're dealing with

world forces over which they have no control. When they need $100,000

to go off and have a retreat, the world forces don't seem to be able to

stop them from finding that $100,000. They can take a ferry, they can

find helicopters. When they want to refurnish their offices — the

Minister of Labour, $1,000 per employee in his office — when they want

that kind of money, world forces somehow don't seem to interfere.

MR. HALL: Where is the London metal market then?

MS. BROWN:

That's right: where is the London metal market then? But when it comes

to services to seniors, when it comes to creating jobs for the youth of

this province, suddenly it's world forces, Mr. Speaker — these

mysterious world forces interfere.

We had a visit recently

from the recreation people, and they told us that originally under the

youth employment program they used to be able to hire 2,000 students

every summer. Now we are finding out that that program has been

eliminated, wiped out. How are those students going to survive? They're

told: "Don't go on welfare; you're a lazy burn if you go on welfare.

Don't go on unemployment insurance; you're a lazy burn if you go on

unemployment insurance."

Interjection.

MS. BROWN:

That's right, yet we find that 20 percent of those students — eager,

anxious, willing and wanting to work — are not going to be able to find

employment as a direct result of the policies of that Premier and this

government. That's the kind of reason why the opposition moved that

amendment to the Speech from the Throne. It's because we are appalled

that at the time, as I said before, when that government had the gall

to increase medicare by 21 percent, Pharmacare by 24 percent, the fuel

tax by 38 percent, the motor vehicle licence by 16 percent, the water

licence by 10 percent and bus passes for seniors by 60 percent....

Interjection.

MS. BROWN:

That's the increase on the bus passes. Do you know that if world forces

hadn't interfered...? If seniors had been protected the way furniture

in ministers' offices is protected, no senior citizen in this province

would even need a bus pass — the government could say that everyone

over the age of 65 or disabled can ride the buses free. The government

would have been able to do that with all the money squandered on its

furniture, its holidays, its retreats, its travel and its this and its

that. But they have their priorities, and people have never been a

priority with this government — only themselves.

There's a

35 percent increase for long-term care. Even the sick — the dead and

the dying. Nobody is safe from this government. They have the gall to

come into this House and say: "Aren't we wonderful. We didn't increase

your income tax. We didn't increase the sales tax." You have indexed

and mortgaged every British Columbian with your hidden taxes and your

user fees. Then you have the nerve to come in here and say:

"Congratulate us because we didn't raise sales tax or increase your

income tax."

MR. HANSON: It's the best government Japan's ever had.

MS. BROWN: That's right.

The

statistics bear repeating. The public debt has more than doubled since

these people became government in 1975. I think that the gallery should

hear, and the public should know what figures we are talking about. In

1976, when this government took over, there was a guaranteed funded

debt of over $4.6 billion. In 1978 it jumped to $6.3 billion. In 1979

that debt jumped to $7.5 billion. I'm talking about the debt, the

burden, the mortgage that this government is placing on the people of

British Columbia. In 1980 the province is staggering under a debt load

of $8.3 billion. We thought that it couldn't — that what goes up must

come down — but not when you're dealing with debt and this government.

We have been told by the people who can compute and permutate these

things that the provincial debt for this fiscal year is going to

increase to an astounding $10.4 billion. As a very wise and clever

accountant who speaks on behalf of this party worked out, that was