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 )

MONDAY, APRIL 19, 1982

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

7049 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

ICBC opinion survey. Mr. Hall –– 7049

Funding of extended-care hospitals. Mr. Hanson –– 7050

B.C. Railway borrowing. Mr. Barrett –– 7051

Budget Debate

On the amendment.

Hon. Mr. Rogers –– 7052

Mr. Brummet –– 7054

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 7058

Mr. Lockstead –– 7061

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 7065

Mr. Levi –– 7066

Mr. Skelly –– 7069

Mr. Richmond –– 7073

Tabling Documents

B.C. Steamship Company annual report, December 31, 1981.

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 7073

British Columbia Cellulose Company annual report, December 31, 1981.

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 7073

MONDAY, APRIL 19, 1982

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. CURTIS: One of the honours

which this House can from time to time bestow upon public servants is

to invite them to the commencement of the sitting and to say a few

words. It's a pleasure today, I think for both sides of the House, to

introduce to all hon. members and to you, sir, Mr. Daniel Robert

Alexander — Bob Alexander. On Friday last Mr. Alexander commenced his

retirement from the public service of British Columbia.

MR. BARRETT: He's younger than i.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I know. It hardly seems possible that he could be retiring. He's younger than most everyone in the room, I think.

His

career has been entirely in the Ministry of Finance; it spans some 35

years. He started with the social security and municipal aid office as

a senior clerk, with a monthly salary of $180. I understand, in fact,

that he started prior to the commencement of the SS and MA tax, under

considerable pressure, as that tax was introduced many years ago. In

1949 he became a tax inspector, and in 1950 he commenced in the audit

function within the ministry, progressing to chief auditor. In 1965 he

was appointed Assistant Deputy Minister of Finance, under the then

deputy Gerald Bryson. In January 1981 Bob was appointed

comptroller-general, the position he left in retirement on Friday.

think that he exemplifies all that we say so often to each other and to

others about the public service of British Columbia. Perhaps the House

would wish him well on his retirement.

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Speaker, our caucus — and in particular myself and the member for

Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) — is shocked to learn that Mr. Alexander is

retiring; 35 years in public service and he doesn't look a day older

than 39. Mr. Alexander has suffered through many Ministers of Finance

and weathered them all well. I'm surprised, and a little bit

disappointed, that he has decided to leave public service, but I wish

him well in his future endeavours.

With the retiring of Bob

Alexander, and a number of other people who went through the very lean

years in this province when civil servants were spare and the salary

was sparse.... They pioneered the development of a non-partisan civil

service in this province that in the main has stayed non-partisan. It

has been an outstanding source of assistance, guidance and leadership

to politicians of all stripes who have asked for their help and

received it unreservedly. I want to thank Bob Alexander for that and

wish him well in the future.

MR. RITCHIE: It

certainly gives me a great honour today, Mr. Speaker, to introduce some

bright students from our province who are in your gallery. As you know,

our government sponsors the "Reach for the Top" program, and today we

have with us the winning team from Nanaimo Senior Secondary School:

Dave Long, Larry Reeves, Francis Chan, Peter Roosem, and their coach,

John Bradley.

We also have the runner-up team from Southgate Secondary School in Campbell

River, consisting of: Chris Luck, Diane Hobenshield, Carla Grebner, and their

coach, Gregg Mitchell.

With

them is the "Reach for the Top" coordinator from Ronalds-Reynolds Co.

Ltd. Would the House please extend a very warm welcome to these very

bright students.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I too

want to add a word or two regarding the retirement of our friend Bob

Alexander. Having worked with him as a minister and also having known

him before I was with the government through his capacity as director

of social services tax, I can say to all members that he's well

respected out there in the retail and commercial community as a highly

capable public servant. So I too want to wish him well for his

retirement.

MR. LEA: One Finance minister, one ex,

and two over here — I think it would be a lot safer with other

portfolios. There seem to be more ex-Ministers of Finance around here

than anything else.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the

Legislature to join me in welcoming a group of students and other

people who are working within government offices, along with their

professors from Lewis and Clark College in Oregon, who are in the

legislative gallery today watching us to see whether we do it better,

or to see whether we do it worse, or to see whether we do it

indifferently. So I ask you all to be on very good behaviour today —

and I'll try.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker. In the

gallery today visiting us from the lower mainland is a group of

representatives of parents' consultative committees in Vancouver,

Surrey, West Vancouver and Burnaby school districts. I want the House

to acknowledge them, and also the president of the B.C. Horne and

School Federation, Mrs. Helene Minishka, and the chairman of the

consultative committees for Vancouver, Dorothy Van der Ree. I would ask

the House to make them welcome.

MR. HALL: Mr.

Speaker. we are all here and we remain here because of the efforts and

assistance of good volunteers in our various organizations in our

constituencies. I'd like the House to welcome today, two such good

volunteers from Surrey–White Rock: Rita and Gordon Adamson.

While

I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker, I'd also like to welcome to the capital

city members of the provincial tourist association, who I had the

pleasure of addressing this morning. I hope that they enjoy their visit

to Victoria and that they'll meet the minister later on this afternoon.

HON. MR. GARDOM:

Mr. Speaker, I'd ask all members to join in a very cordial welcome to

Mr. Roland Bird from London, who is the former deputy editor of the Economist . He is visiting our province on a special assignment.

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Speaker. we have other guests in our gallery: Jennifer and Cathy

Hagen from that far-flung comer of the universe called Buraby, and

accompanying them, Vincent Varga from Calgary. I would ask the House to

welcome them.

Oral Questions

ICBC OPINION SURVEY

MR. HALL:

I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture with regard to his

responsibilities as the minister for ICBC. My question is: when did the

minister first become aware of an opinion survey, designed by Delphi

Consultative Surveys & Research Ltd. of Winnipeg, Manitoba and

conducted by Jacqueline Burns Marketing of Vancouver, which contains

partisan political questions?

[ Page 7050 ]

HON. MR. HEWITT: When I read the newspaper article.

MR. HALL:

Now that the minister knows of the survey, can he explain what the

Insurance Corporation of B.C. is doing asking political questions in an

opinion survey apparently paid for by corporation revenues?

HON. MR. HEWITT:

The Insurance Corporation of British Columbia carries out opinion polls

pretty well on an annual basis in order to be somewhat aware of what is

going on. This report is confidential; the newspaper

article even

comments on that. The results of the report have not yet been put to

the board of directors of ICBC.

ICBC is an over

$600-million-a-year revenue corporation, a large corporation that needs

to know what the public is thinking, both in general terms and in terms

of the needs of the public for the services provided by that insurance

corporation.

With regard to the political overtones that the

second member for Surrey may refer to, I am not aware that they were in

the report. I am not aware that the insurance corporation needs to know

the issues regarding gambling, marijuana and the use thereof, or giving

lottery tickets as compensation to the people who return the forms. I

will, however, say I am dismayed by what happens to Crown corporation

reports that are conducted by management people, or by corporate

companies hired by management people, in an attempt to get the feel of

what the public wishes and what their thoughts are in general terms and

in specific terms dealing with the insurance field. I find it very

unfortunate that coverage of that happened to be as it was in the paper

on the weekend. But I would say to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the second

member for Surrey (Mr. Hall) that surveys are done from time to time to

give a general feeling of what the public wants, and specifically

dealing with insurance matters. As I have mentioned, I am concerned

about the type of question included in that survey, and I am also

concerned about the availability of a confidential document.

MR. HALL:

Mr. Speaker, does the minister agree that Crown corporations are

entitled to spend corporation revenues on public opinion surveys asking

questions about political parties?

HON. MR. HEWITT: I

think the member's question was whether I agree that a Crown

corporation should ask questions regarding political parties. That is

the

interpretation I put on the question. The answer is no, I do not

agree with it.

MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, in light of the

fact that results of opinion surveys are routinely made public in other

jurisdictions, to prevent partisan misuse of such survey information,

is the minister now, especially in light of his latter day conversion,

prepared to table the results of the survey?

HON. MR. HEWITT:

No, Mr. Speaker. It is a management opinion poll to give information to

the management of ICBC. I will not use it as a "political foil," as the

second member for Surrey would.

MR. HALL: The

minister refuses to table the copy of the information. Will the

minister at least tell the House at some date what the survey cost the

corporation?

MR. BARRETT: That's confidential too.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

I have just one point of clarification. It is not "public funds" that

are spent on that survey. It is insurance premiums that are spent on

the survey, as the second member for Surrey well knows.

Interjections.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I think I've touched a soft spot.

I'd like to ask a question of the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke). Does he have a copy of that report?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, we cannot proceed until we have order.

MR. HALL:

In view of the fact that the minister will not not table the

information regarding the political material this Crown corporation has

sought from the public of British Columbia and will not table the cost

of that political survey, will the minister now seek cabinet approval

to use public funds to survey the public as to whether the Social

Credit Party has any credibility left at all in the matter of public

auto insurance?

FUNDING OF EXTENDED-CARE HOSPITALS

MR. HANSON:

I have a question for the Minister of Health. It is well known to the

minister that there is a critical need in greater Victoria, as

elsewhere in British Columbia, for freeing up acute-care beds in

hospitals that are occupied by long-term care people. Just recently, as

the ultimate absurdity in this government's funding of extended care

hospitals.... For example, the Juan de Fuca hospital here in Victoria,

operating seven units, is going to close beds as a result of inadequate

funding — leave them to empty by attrition. Over the next six months

they're serving notice to 128 on-call people and leaving 105

extended-care beds shut down.

How can the minister possibly

not decide to adequately fund these extended-care hospitals when there

are long waiting lists to get into the acute-care hospitals? Those beds

are occupied by long-term care patients. They need to go to an

extended-care unit, and those beds are going to be left empty because

of your funding. Have you decided to adequately fund extended-care

hospitals?

MR. SPEAKER: I think the second member for

Victoria has been in the House enough to know that the purpose of

question period is not to bring information to the House, but rather to

seek information from the administration.

MR. HANSON:

Mr. Speaker, it is very important to my region to get an answer to this

question. How can the minister justify the closure of 105 extended-care

beds?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I don't know

whether the second member for Victoria is using information culled from

a newspaper, a broadcast report, or where that information may be

coming from. He has reached a number of conclusions — based on what

information, I just don't know. I'll be pleased to advise the member

and the House as

[ Page

7051 ]

to the funding for Juan de Fuca for this fiscal year and any projected effect

it may have on the number of beds and patient-days for 1982-83. In very general

terms, the hospital has a net increase in its budget of approximately 10 percent.

I don't know what effect they may have decided it will have on their patient-days,

or the number of beds, but I'll be pleased to have officials look into Juan

de Fuca specifically to see what effect this year's budget may have on the

service they offer.

B.C. RAILWAY BORROWING

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Industry and Small Business.

I would like to ask the minister whether the government has decided

that the long-term borrowing forecast for B.C. Rail will be used to

fund interim borrowing during 1981-82 and 1982-83 for construction of

the Tumbler Ridge branch line.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the question is out of order because it's not urgent.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Leader of the Opposition may have a different question.

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Speaker, I'm asking the minister a question about B.C. Rail and the

Tumbler Ridge branch line. I'll repeat the question: has the government

decided that the long-term borrowing forecast for B.C. Rail will be

used to fund interim borrowing during 1981-82 and 1982-83 for

construction of the Tumbler Ridge branch line?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, the question is out of order on two counts: it is not urgent and it involves policy.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please. Hon. members, we are all aware of the rules of question

period. The question can he proffered, and an answer may not

necessarily be expected.

MR. BARRETT: You're ruling, then, that the question is in order.

MR. SPEAKER: I think that the minister himself is free to do with the question as he wishes.

MR. BARRETT:

As I understand it the question is in order, and I will repeat it to

the minister so he understands clearly what he's been asked in terms of

the expenditure of hundreds of millions of taxpayers' dollars that the

people of British Columbia are paying for right now. Has the government

decided that the long-term borrowing forecast for B.C. Railway will be

used to fund interim borrowing during 1981-82 and 1982-83 for

construction of the Tumbler Ridge branch line?

MR. SPEAKER: Further questions?

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: I have a question for

the Minister of Finance. Has the government decided that the long-term

borrowing forecast for B.C. Railway will be used to fund interim

borrowing during 1981-82 and 1982-83 for construction of the Tumbler

Ridge branch line?

HON. MR. CURTIS: There are a

number of matters with respect to funding of British Columbia Rail

activities which are still in the developmental stage insofar as the

government is concerned, and I am afraid I cannot assist the member

further on that particular point. It is a matter of developing policy.

MR. BARRETT:

Would it be incorrect, based on your answer, for any member of this

House to state flatly that the government has decided that the

long-term borrowing forecast for B.C. Railway will be used to fund

interim borrowing during 1981-82 and 1982-83 for construction of the

Tumbler Ridge branch line?

MR. SPEAKER: Before the

Minister of Finance answers I must caution members that Beauchesne

provides that repeating questions is not in order, not even by varying

their structure slightly. That is at page 171, sections (

c) and (d).

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I can give the member no guidance on that particular question at this point.

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to correct a

statement made by the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt). He

attributed to me, saying "Shame!" or some similar words, that somehow I

had a copy of his poll. Mr. Speaker, that political answer will only go

to the Socreds. I have not got a copy of it. And I think it's a

shocking, shameful thing.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. There is no point of order.

MR. LEA:

Mr. Speaker, I'd like your opinion or ruling. When members of the

opposition are asking members of cabinet questions during question

period, is it not up to you, sir, to decide whether those questions are

in order or out of order? In that it is true that it is up to you and

your office, then I wonder if you can instruct members of the cabinet

to keep their opinions to themselves and wait for the Chair; because it

takes time out of question period, which is precious time that we don't

want to waste.

MR. SPEAKER: On that point of order,

hon. members, there is one kind of question which is very difficult for

the Chair to rule on, and that is on the question of urgency. The Chair

could not possibly be apprised of every urgent matter in the province,

Therefore the question of urgency may be extreme in the view of the

questioner, and it may not exist at all in the eyes of the

administration. If the Chair is to rule on a matter of urgency, the

Chair has to leave that between the members.

However, I

think that it deserves reviewing that any question — even if it is in

order — does not necessarily bring an answer, and an answer cannot be

expected. I think the Chair has cautioned on that on several occasions.

[ Page 7052 ]

MR. BARRETT: I regret to raise with Your Honour a point of privilege which I will state briefly and then add to it a motion.

Mr.

Speaker, as soon as I could get your attention — we're just a few

moments from question period.... I asked in this House the following

question: Has the government decided that the long-term borrowing

forecast for the British Columbia Railway Co. will be used to fund

interim borrowing during 1981-82 and 1982-83 for construction of the

Tumbler Ridge branch line? The response of the Minister of Finance

(Hon. Mr. Curtis) was that the government has further ongoing proposals

and has not yet made a decision in this regard.

I bring to

your attention the statement made by the Minister of Finance to this

House on budget delivery day, and I quote from page 40: "Long-term

borrowing forecast for the British Columbia Railway Company will be

used to fund interim borrowing during 1981-82 and 1982-83 for

construction of the Tumbler Ridge branch line." The minister informed

this House on budget day that indeed the long-term borrowing forecast

for the B.C. Railway would be so used, and specifically named $100

million to do that; but when asked in the House today he made a

statement contrary to the statement made in the budget.

This

is a matter of privilege. The minister has misled the House, either on

budget day or in his answer today. I'm making by motion a request to

you, Mr. Speaker, as a matter of privilege, that this matter be sent to

a committee of the House to investigate why the minister has given two

conflicting statements to the House, one in his speech on the budget

and another in answer to the question today. This province is being

driven into massive debt on the B.C. Railway for Tumbler Ridge, and we

have been given two different answers.

I so move, and would appreciate some time on your ruling, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

For clarification of the House, the motion is not moved at this time.

If we find a prima facie case of privilege, it will be moved at that

time. The Chair will reserve decision.

Orders of the Day

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

On the amendment.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, it's clear by the clock that the world

is approaching a point of crisis. The sun has now set in the South Atlantic.

The Royal Navy is now steaming towards either the Falkland Islands or the Islas

Malvinas, depending on your point of view, and it's all very relevant to

this budget. The reason it's relevant is that the Argentine junta, the generals,

have decided to escape from the wrath of their own ineptitude, from the inefficiencies

of their bureaucracy, their unemployment and their massive inflation of well

over 100 percent. Instead of facing the reality of the problems that face their

nation, they have decided to pick on 200 small, relatively defenceless islands.

History will decide whom they belong to, but certainly the 1,600 people who

live on the islands, and their families and homes, did not deserve the wrath

of the Argentineans. The cost for the Argentineans to divert attention from

their plight — a self inflicted wound, I might add — is going to be massive.

Since

the days of Evita Peron, Argentina, which is an enormously wealthy

nation in not only people but in land mass and resources, has spent

more money than they've taken in. As a result of that spending, they

have had economic chaos, they have had disaster, and now they have

incurred the wrath of Mrs. Thatcher, the Iron Lady. While they may have

temporarily solved an unemployment problem by drafting into the

Argentine military everyone who could possibly be unemployed, they are

going to wreak disaster upon them. It's unfortunate, and I think we all

pray for the efforts of General Haig in his Kissinger-style diplomacy.

It's very unfortunate, but I'm sure if the people of the Falkland

Islands had asked the Home Office in London for some money for a

neighbourhood improvement or an airport expansion or a sewage treatment

plant or a radio station or a school or a college they would have been

turned down. One hour of this military chaos would probably exceed all

of the wishes of the people of the Falkland Islands for at least 15

years, maybe longer. I'm sure that already the military have expended

more money in this particular disastrous foray than the Falkland

Islands have ever produced in their entire time that people have been

able to produce a gross national product from these islands. I guess

this problem faces other countries as well; they have less drastic

measures. We see bankruptcies and near-bankruptcies in a number of

countries around the world. Every one of them face the same problem:

the governments fail to address the fact that their revenues were not

up to their expectations and their expenditures were well in excess of

what they could afford. They did the usual trick that governments do

and borrowed a little extra money.

It's interesting to note

that in this year none of the other provinces in Canada, except one,

has introduced its provincial budget, because they all face the same

problems. I think our Minister of Finance is to be congratulated for

having brought in his budget. Yes, it's traditionally later than it

normally is. Every other province is facing the same problem of trying

to come to grips with Ottawa as to all of the cost-sharing programs. I

think that by the time the other provinces file their budgets we will

see that we are relatively well off in British Columbia — in fact, very

well off, I think, would be the best way to put it.

There is

a new political force growing in western Canada which, quite frankly,

scares me. It is a political force known as the Western Canada Concept,

and it is based on what I think are some incorrect theories. It's based

on the fact that western Canada has, perhaps rightfully, been

shortchanged by eastern Canada; it's based on the fact that people in

the west are not happy with the protectionism that has been offered

industry in eastern Canada; it's based on a distrust of metrification

and all that metrification brings into the world; mostly it's based on

a dislike for the Prime Minister and a dislike for the national energy

program. I maintain, and I would think that every member of this House

would maintain, that it's possible to dislike all those things —

central Canada's protectionism of industry, metrification, and even

dislike for the Prime Minister and the national energy program — and

still be a very good Canadian.

This nation is very wealthy —

culturally because of Quebec, but not culturally because of Rene

Levesque. We are all very well off because of our association with

eastern Canada. Our poor neighbours in the east — and they are poorer

that we are; they are less fortunate in the Maritime

[ Page 7053 ]

provinces....

We've got a lot from them over the years: a lot of our immigrants have

come from there; a lot of us have come from there. We shouldn't throw

out the baby with the bath water. It is vitally important that we

understand what this nation is and why we want to stay together and why

there is every reason to think that in the passing of time the Prime

Minister, who is not totally invincible, will be gone. There will be a

new order in Ottawa. It is our Canadian heritage that we negotiate with

our neighbours internally in this country rather than split apart. If

we do, and if the Western Canada Concept grows, and if its people win

support and if that wonderful day comes when in their mind western

Canada separates, indeed western Canada will be a wealthier area;

indeed western Canada will be culture-free. It will probably be rid of

metrification and be rid of anything in the second official language in

Canada; they will probably be rid of the CBC. All of those things to

which they aspire will make us nothing more than a balkanized country.

And, just as sure as I'm standing here, we will be swallowed up by our

friendly neighbour to the south — or not so friendly neighbour,

depending on how you look at it. There is absolutely no way that

western Canada can stand on its own and have any credibility in the

world. As the rest of the country would split up around us.... Quebec

has had its temper tantrums; that is in their nature. Quebec often

threatens to leave. They are like a child at a baseball game who says,

"It's my ball and I'm going to go home. " We really know they can't

afford to leave. In their heart of hearts, even when they were fired up

with all the zeal they could muster, when they were asked the question,

of course they decided not to stay. They're not happy, but the way to

work these things out is to work them out together and not to separate.

The people in the province of Quebec have a lot more reason to feel

alienated than the people in western Canada do, because our alienation

is strictly based on economics, not on a feeling of cultural

inferiority or cultural suppression. That is what the people of Quebec

have had, have suffered through and have brought to the light of

Canadians, and I think it is now well received in the rest of Canada.

This

political party, which is in its very embryonic stages but is getting a

substantial degree of support and enthusiasm whipped up for it, is full

of platitudes and cheap political statements. But in their heart of

hearts I don't believe the people who support them would be supporting

them if they felt they could exercise their frustrations in some other

way and have a little more representation in Ottawa. I guess they feel

that the representation that we have in Ottawa is not going to be on

their side, and they feel uncomfortable about it.

I hope for

the sake of this province and of all Canadians that they're

unsuccessful in their quest for election in the province of

Saskatchewan at the present time. I hope they have a national

convention and that someone stands up and speaks his mind so that

concerned Canadians can judge them for what they say they are, rather

than for what they're touted as saying by a number of people who don't

officially represent them but claim to have membership.

Anyway,

Mr. Speaker, that's all I wish to say about the Western Canada Concept

party. I'm sure over the next year or so we're going to hear more about

them until we hear less about them or until we hear far too much about

them — whichever way it goes. I think that in the quiet and privacy of

the polling booth the people of British Columbia won't support the

position that the people of Olds-Didsbury did. I think when they woke

up in Olds-Didsbury on the following morning it was the greatest

surprise they ever had.

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to be

involved with the development of British Columbia Place, which is

proceeding at the speed at which it was proposed. It is a tribute to

all British Columbians, and it's a tribute to the workers of British

Columbia who are building this project, the engineers, the contractors

and the suppliers, because the project is proceeding on time and on

budget. You'd never know it from reading Maclean's magazine, but there are a number of people in the rest of Canada who are standing up and paying attention.

were recently interviewed and had great exposure in some of the

American cities which have come to notice what we're doing at B.C.

Place. On the Easter weekend we had an open house so that the taxpayers

of the province who were able to be in the city could have a look. It

was more than we expected. Despite the weather — the rain and the mud

and the rest of it — there were 10,000-plus sidewalk superintendents

who took time off to come down and wander through the project. That's a

number which not many people would have expected. In fact, Mr. Speaker,

one of the fascinating parts about it is that some television people

went down there and wasted a whole can of film trying to get what's

called the balanced approach, because they couldn't get too many people

who didn't like the project. It must have been a disappointment for

them, because no matter who they tried, they were very impressed with

the project — and well they should be, because it's a tribute to

everybody in B.C.

We do continue, Mr. Speaker; and for a

government project of any type. I don't think there has ever been as

much public involvement and as many public meetings. I'm going to take

pleasure in tabling these two documents. I don't know how often a Crown

corporation has been able to table a document in Chinese, but since a

lot of the neighbours of B.C. Place speak Chinese as their first and in

some cases their only language I m going to table this copy as well as

to public meetings which have taken place in a number of locations in

the communities around B.C. Place. We've had some rather strange

responses from some people. But in time, I think, the public have had

their opportunity to come and speak.

Mr. Speaker, recently

the Premier and other members of cabinet involved in Expo had

successful negotiations with the federal government in which the Prime

Minister — on the federal side, at least, assisted my colleague, the

second member for Vancouver South (Hon. Mr. Hyndman)....

This

morning the Prime Minister cut the ribbon to start the federal

government's pier at Expo. The commitment for the federal government to

become involved and to complete the trade and convention centre and

also to give us the commitment to assist in Expo has been warmly

received.

Some people were under the misapprehension that

B.C. Place was wishing Expo would go away. It's actually to the

contrary, Mr. Speaker, because we needed and wanted a tenant, and that

was the premise under which we first went into the venture. We're

delighted that they have finally not only decided to come but secured

the method of financing that they're going to use. I look forward to a

very long and interesting relationship with my colleague and the

members of his board as we proceed along to Expo.

The city

of Knoxville — in the next two weeks, I believe is going to open Expo

82, which is the world's fair on energy. I had the privilege of being

in Knoxville some time ago, and it was a deja vu; they managed to visit

unto us all of those nay-sayers and doom-and-gloomers that we're cur-

[ Page 7054 ]

rently

having visited under this very project. So I'm sure it's going to be a

success. I think with a diligent watch on the pennies, and on the

dollars as well, it's going to be a big help for B.C. Place.

Our

main goal at B.C. Place is to develop this largest urban renewal

project in the city of Vancouver — and probably, I'm told, in North

America. We've had a group of international design experts come and

look at our plans and our proposals. And, as I say, we're discussing it

with the public. The international experts — including some Canadians —

think our housing density is not dense enough. That's a matter which we

are still negotiating with the city of Vancouver. But, in the main, our

goal is to make affordable housing for working Canadians. I tend to

insist that we continue to work towards that goal, with a percentage of

housing for people who require assistance, and also a small percentage

of housing for those people in what I'd refer to as the upper income

brackets. But the great majority of our housing will be affordable

housing for working Canadians, and I hope that we can have an agreement

with the city of Vancouver so that we can proceed with that.

course, my colleague, the minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr.

Vander Zalm) and his pet project as well as the member for North

Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis), who is chairing the ALRT project, are

also working with us. They are currently realigning the Dunsmuir Tunnel

to accommodate the first branch of the ALRT line, which will not only

have a station at the stadium site, but will also have another station

at the far eastern side of the B.C. Place site.

Those two

programs together will, I think, make Vancouver the.... Vancouver has

all the physical attributes to make it a great city and it needs some

of the concrete and structural attributes. By the time these projects

are finished, Vancouver will sit on the map along with many of the

great cities of the world. It's a project that I know everybody

supports, although, of course, there's some occasional ventilation on

the other side about whether or not we should be proceeding with these

projects.

Mr. Speaker, on the weekend I had the privilege of

addressing the British Columbia Wildlife Federation's annual convention

for the third time, and that sets a record for Ministers of

Environment. In doing that I'm the first minister since Ken Kiernan to

go to three in a row and come out with my scalp.

It was a

very interesting convention. As members will know, the fees for angling

and hunting in British Columbia were increased by cabinet some months

ago. The B.C. Wildlife Federation represents all the member clubs for

hunting and fishing throughout the province. Not only do they support

the increase, but they also support the fact that a portion of their

increase has been given over to the budget of the fish and wildlife

branch, so there isn't going to be an increase in our production. We

have had a tendency to grow faster than the rate of growth of the

population.

Faster than any other growth is the number of

people who choose to use the outdoor recreational opportunities in this

province, especially angling. Last year we sold over 500,000 inland

fishing licences in British Columbia. Our several hatcheries located

around the province produced eight million fish, and our angler success

has gone down from about four fish a day per fisherman to about 1.4

fish a day. It's our desire and intention to increase that production

to a point where the success rate grows some more.

Another

group of fees included in the recent fee increases were the fees for

trappers. Included in the wildlife

section of this year's budget is an

amount of $50,000, which will be used to directly offset the cost

incurred by trappers who are going to retire their inhumane traps in

accordance with the government's policy of switching from the leghold

to the more humane killer traps.

I've announced that a

committee will assist me in this work. It is made up of a member of the

United Native Nations, a member of the B.C. Society for the Prevention

of Cruelty to Animals, the president of the trappers' association and a

fur biologist from my ministry. That committee of four will not only

make recommendations for further restrictions in our trapping

regulations, but will also advise how this particular money should be

spent and who should be assisted in the first year.

I might

add, Mr. Speaker, that this year 97 percent of the animals taken by the

trappers in this province were taken on humane traps. It's my hope and

desire that, with the assistance of these gentlemen, at such time in

the future as we are able to totally eliminate the trap we will do so.

In the meantime we are following the recommendations of the

Federal-Provincial Committee for Humane Trapping.

Mr. Speaker, every government can borrow money for worthwhile expenditures

to spend themselves out of a recession. It is a temptation that clearly has

been yielded to by thousands of governments, whether it is the government of

Canada or the government of the United States or others. Fortunately the government

of British Columbia has not had to do that in recent times. The difficulty is

that when you are in a recession and decide to borrow money for what is a poor

time and spend it again in what is a better time, nobody ever wants to say:

"The good times have now come and there will be no increase in service,

no increase in budgets and no program enrichments. Instead, we'll maintain

the status quo. We won't reduce any taxes, but what we're going to do

is pay off old debts." I've never heard that said in a budget speech

anywhere. I doubt that it ever has been said. What in fact happens is that the

borrowing just continues to grow. And that is a quagmire which this Minister

of Finance has worked very hard to try to avoid, and has avoided in this year's

budget. We have gone to the so-called "rainy day accounts" and we're

borrowing — we're dipping into the rainy day accounts. If President Reagan

decides that he wants to get re-elected, if the Republican caucus in the United

States decide that they want to try to turn around their housing industry and

if one or two other things happen, things are going to be better in British

Columbia again pretty soon. But that's an iffy question, because we're

not sure of the success.

I conclude my remarks this afternoon — because I had house guests this

weekend and the husband was from Britain and the wife was from

Argentina — I would give my prayers to General Haig and to those people

that some common sense can prevail before people get macho and decide

to start blowing holes through each other, because it may sound good at

the beginning, but it's awfully painful for everybody else involved.

Mr. Speaker, I will be supporting the budget and opposing this amendment.

MR. BRUMMET:

I think I can see why the members of the opposition are somewhat

reluctant to support the amendment that their leader moved, because it

really says very little and offers nothing in a positive way. While I'm

speaking of

[ Page 7055 ]

the

Leader of the Opposition, I think when he spoke in this House the other

day he made certain allegations and certain challenges in referring to

the WCC. In referring to myself as the member of the North Peace River

constituency, he suggested that I had in no way responded to the WCC

concept and that by not responding I had in effect given tacit approval

to the principle of separation which they are espousing. Mind you, I

believe that member does live in the small world of his own mind and so

takes no trouble to learn about what other people do in this province.

He uses the records of this House to make statements to the effect that

I had done nothing about the WCC. Well, I would like to correct that.

In my weekly MLA report of March 27, which I circulated to the media in

my area, I made the following statement:

suppose I should comment on the WCC movement which has recently

surfaced. Despite all the high-sounding rhetoric and a number of

unattainable promises, the only concept really different that they are

offering is independence for western Canada. I am old fashioned enough

to believe that divorce is not the best solution for settling family

differences. Other people may not see it that way, but that is their

democratic right. As for myself, though I am very dissatisfied with the

present federal system, I am not prepared to support the cause of

separatism, and I'm prepared to live with that decision."

further evidence of what I said, when the Leader of the Opposition's

comments were reported last week — and his attack that I had given

approval — the editor of my local newspaper came up with the following

comment:

"And the good NDP leader was in error on one thing at least

when he lambasted the Socreds on Wednesday for being soft on separatism. He

accused Tony Brummet of never publicly renouncing it and hinted that he might

even be sympathetic. I have talked with Brummet and I can categorically state

that he is not sympathetic to the WCC. Further, he has stated this publicly

both on the radio and in his MLA report published a few weeks ago in this paper."

I would hope that clears that up. I took my position and yet that Leader of

the Opposition uses this House to try to make statements attributable to me

or to my thinking, and I think he's acting in the usual irresponsible way

of trying to get out a message that is incorrect. I guess I shouldn't be

too hard on that Leader of the Opposition. After all, he is a man of principles

— many principles, one set for every occasion. I'm speaking against this

amendment, Mr. Speaker, because the budget that we have before us is a good

budget. It's realistic and it is responsible. It acknowledges the economic

conditions that we're facing at this time and it recognizes the need for

responsible financial management under those circumstances. That budget seeks

to resolve problems, not to compound them by increased taxation or by going

into operating debt. As I said, it is a responsible budget; it is responsible

action to deal with present circumstances and conditions. If I may, Mr. Speaker,

I'd like to use a little analogy from physics. We've heard a lot about

balancing the budget, as though that was something wrong. Yet the analogy of

a balancing scale could help to illustrate the point that if we have revenues

taken in on this side and expenditures on that side; it seems to make sense

to try to keep them in balance. That is what responsible financial management

is — it should be in government. In private industry — or anywhere else it

has to happen that way — revenues have to balance expenditures or the business

goes under. In business they have to earn the revenue; they cannot simply pass

legislation to extract more revenue from the revenue-producers. If that is kept

in balance we have good management. If, on the other hand, expenditures exceed

revenues it goes out of balance. If we assume that the fulcrum tilts in the

direction where expenditures outweigh the revenues generated, we have created

a situation that can only compound the problem. As illustrated, you then have

a downhill situation, and it can only go downhill in the future.

I could just carry on with the analogy, once we have this situation,

then we have an operating debt where the debt outweighs the revenue. Of

course, the only way to correct that situation is to take some of that

weight off the expenditures, and the only way you can do it is to take

revenue from the other side. What those opposition members can't seem

to understand — call it physics, — call it simple common sense — is

that when you have debt overbalancing the revenue, the only way you can

correct this is to take far more from this side in order to take the

load off this side. Every time you take far more from the revenue, you

just increase the tilt and the problem compounds itself. I think anyone

knows that to lessen that debt load takes a lot more from revenue, when

you consider interest, in order to create any sort of balance once

again.

They talk about this balancing. They try to create —

irresponsibly, in my opinion — the impression that they would do this

better by increasing government expenditure. I think it is

irresponsible of them not to tell the people that when they increase

government expenditures it comes from the taxpayers in one form or

another. We certainly had an example of that when their philosophy was

put to the test, when it was put into policy and into action. They

started out with a balance — as a matter of fact, better than a balance

— and in less than three years they just took from that revenue side

and kept adding to the expenditure side, so that it became completely

unbalanced and created real problems in this province. The people

realize that it might be an interesting philosophy, but when it was put

into action they created an imbalance that they would have to pay for

in the future. The people of British Columbia realized that and, to my

knowledge, there is only one case in recent history where a government

has taken that imbalance — that this opposition created — and managed

to turn it around in a short time. Fortunately they had been in only a

short time; otherwise it would have been much worse. The Social Credit

government was able to go back in and, yes, take more revenue — get

more things to pay for themselves so that the revenue side would

balance the expenditure side more on its own. They had to increase the

sales tax and they had to make a few hard moves in order to restore

that balance. I think it is interesting that British Columbia was on a

path of prosperity before the NDP came in in 1972, and within a short

time, after 1976 when the Social Credit government got back in, we were

again on the road to prosperity.

Now we hear a lot of talk

about how difficult it is, blaming this government for what is

happening. In the short term, certainly we could alleviate some of the

problems we are facing now by adopting the misguided socialist policy

that you prop the thing up by taking more money from those

revenue-producers, putting it back into the economy to keep more people

working. But they don't realize that doing so destroys the

revenue-producers, eliminates them, and sooner or later you run out of

money and can't keep the thing going in any way, shape or form.

[ Page 7056 ]

have to act responsibly and have to use the prosperity of the past

years in order to make do at this time. While we're making do, this

government is also injecting into the economy more than it's taking

out, and that has to be a fantastic achievement in a difficult time: to

put more back into the economy, to stimulate that economy, to stimulate

job creation. It is able to do that, to keep things going, and at the

same time is able to look at the major projects that are going to

restore our profitability.

I know we're criticized a great

deal for the northeast coal project. I know it is often attacked. I

would again say this is an irresponsible action by the opposition.

There are a lot of ups and downs in any program, in any project, and

they capitalize on every negative, minuscule item in order to try to

turn public opinion against the project, which is going to develop the

resources that can be marketed. They create false hopes by pretending

they could keep sawmills operating when nobody's buying the lumber.

That happens to be so typical of the socialist philosophy: Keep it open

somehow; don't worry about whether it sells, don't worry about where

the money comes from. Just keep it operating in order to keep people

happy right now. They don't seem to recognize that when you do that,

the day of reckoning is not far away.

So we have these

irresponsible statements by our opposition, who say: "If we were

government, we would have the woodworkers working." Doing what?

Stockpiling lumber? We have to create markets. Yet they protest against

the northeast coal. There is a market for coal. We've heard statements

that the markets are going to collapse. If the markets are going to

collapse, I find it strange that the buyers are upping the price for

southeast coal in negotiation, that they are increasing contracts in

northeast coal. In yesterday's paper there was indication of another

contract signed by another country, yet they're trying to tell the

people of this province that there is no market for coal down the road.

Certainly the Japanese are astute businessmen, and they are hardly

going to sign long-term contracts if they do not see that they're going

to be using the coal.

The other thing we hear so much about

is that the NDP would stop the northeast coal development if they were

government. Then they add a little rider so that they can sit on both

sides of the fence: " — unless the Japanese agree to our terms." Here

again, we see a completely unrealistic perspective on the world

situation. Just last week there was an announcement that the United

States is gearing up to try to develop their coal resources for export.

Other countries such as Australia and South Africa are building port

facilities so as to export something like 90 million tonnes a year. Yet

this irresponsible Leader of the Opposition says, "Well, we would

negotiate a better price." Do we really think we're the only place in

the world that has coal, and everybody has to come to our terms? No, we

have to be realistic, and this government is realistic. I think they

got a very good price for that coal. I think that coal will continue to

go.

The northeast coal we're talking about is only the

beginning, because when the railroads and port facilities are in place,

it will be that much easier to negotiate the next contract. As has been

proven by the southeast coal deal, as has been proven wherever the

facilities are in place, it is then easy to negotiate the sale of other

products that we can market. We have to be realistic in this world. We

have to consider more than how much we want for our product. You don't

sell anything until someone is willing to buy it and pay a certain

price for it. That's what we have to consider in this world.

We've

heard a great deal about the skilled tradesman shortage we're going to

have in this province. That is one problem that did not develop during

the NDP years in government. We did not have a shortage of skilled

tradesmen. As a matter of fact, we were needing fewer and fewer of them

all the time. I think it's a compliment from that opposition to say to

this government: Hey, you're creating a shortage of skilled

tradespeople. To me, isn't it wonderful that we're going to have a

shortage, that we can look at a shortage in the near future?

I'd

like to say at this time that I don't think we need to import skilled

tradespeople into this province. I think we have the opportunity to

develop our own. I think we have the people here who are willing to

learn. I think we do have to break out of some of the straitjackets

that we've got ourselves into in trying to say that before somebody can

do a skilled job he has to jump through so many hoops.

There

is a need for people to learn. There is a willingness by those people

to learn. Unfortunately, every once in a while they sit down and they

systematize it. They create a sort of program; they've got to program

the thing. So it does not happen any more. We have to have four-year

delays in getting skilled tradesmen. I don't think we need that. I

think we've got the people there right in our area who can do the job

and do it well.

I use history as an example: when the oil

and gas industry came to British Columbia, we did not have any skilled

tradesmen in that industry. Because the need and desire were there,

within a few years we developed a skilled workforce in the oil and gas

industry that is the envy of the world and is now being imported to

other parts of the world in order to help with their oil and gas

industry. That is a fact. That happened. Fortunately it wasn't

systematized to the point where it couldn't be allowed to happen.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

hear a lot about how if the NDP, the socialists, were in government

they would train all kinds of people; they would give training in

skills, they would provide this wonderful education. I come from the

field of education, and I'm very concerned about our young people being

able to get that education and the skills. But I'm also a pragmatist. I

think there is a need for them to have some place to use those skills

if they're going to acquire them; they need some place to use that

training. That is what our government is doing. They are doing the

training to the extent possible, and at the same time they are taking

steps for economic development so that those people will have some

place to go when they are trained and educated. There's not much point

in trying to train people when there will be no jobs in the future.

We've

heard a lot of criticism about these megaprojects. Mr. Speaker, if you

really analyze every one of these megaprojects, they are not the

monuments that the opposition tries to say they are. Every one of those

projects is thought out not only in terms of how we are going to

benefit while they are being built; they are also going to have

continuing benefits into the future. They are going to have many jobs.

They are going to attract other investment. They are going to attract

many other workers, and they are going to attract tourists and so on

from many places. So we are building projects and putting our people to

work, and we're also ensuring that in the future those projects will

generate more jobs and more revenue to keep the services in place that

the people in this province have come to expect.

[ Page 7057 ]

When

I talk about the services that the people in this province have come to

expect, I'd like to go back. I was in this province in the forties. I

also know that we were a have not province. For all of the picayune

attacks and criticism that we get now, I have to look at the broader

picture. It was when Social Credit came to power in this province that

they started developing, against the criticism of the opposition, the

energy projects in this province. They looked around the world and they

realized that energy is the key to industrial development, and that

industrial development is the key to prosperity. We have to use up our

resources, and we have to develop those resources. If you put that

together, as the Social Credit government did in the years before

1972.... They developed a supply of energy; they developed the

resources; they put in the transportation and communication links to

make them possible. Within a very short time, in historical terms, this

province came from a have-not position in Canada to be one of the most

prosperous provinces in this country. It had a setback, but for all of

the attacks, for all of the nitpicking from the negative opposition,

from 1976 on this province has prospered.

Yes, we have a

depression now — recession, if you like — but I'll tell you one thing:

even this opposition says we're going to have a shortage of workmen in

this province within a very short time. How then do they have the

audacity to say that we're ruining the province, when they say we're

not going to have enough people to do all the jobs that are coming up?

It's certainly not their doing, Mr. Speaker. It's Social Credit policy,

not socialist philosophy, that has made this province great and will do

so again.

You can look around: they're against any

electrical development; they're against any coal development for Hydro,

and yet all over this world, anybody who has the resources to develop

electrical energy is doing so. Why? To make it better for their people

and to attract industries. I know that in the last election they were

in favour of Hat Creek coal, because they had to be in favour of

something, but now I see they've changed that position again; now

they're against Hat Creek coal. They're committed to never having any

more hydro projects in this province, yet Ontario, Quebec, and all of

these provinces are doing everything they can to gear up their hydro.

Even Manitoba wants to build hydro projects — even under an NDP

government. At least they've got more sense than the people here

because they've been negative for so long that all they can see is

being against whatever is going.

When you talk about B.C.

Place or any of these projects, we're attacked for megaprojects. Even

Vancouver council — their mayor, I guess.... He's so committed to the

NDP here that he had to come out and vote against Transpo '86. You can

just check the records of February; the mayor of Vancouver voted

against Transpo '86. Fortunately more councilmen there had some sense,

and they voted in favour of asking the federal and provincial

governments to come to terms and please build Transpo '86 because it's

going to do great things for Vancouver. Yet the Vancouver members on

that socialist side were against it. I don't understand it. I'll tell

you one thing, that if the mayor of Vancouver and the socialist members

are against it, all you have to do is give us that money and put it out

in the rural or northern areas where people appreciate the kind of

thing that creates development, jobs and work. Yet, when the projects

are announced, oh, yes, they're there, saying: "Well, I think they're a

great thing, but we would have done it better."

About all

one can really say about northeast coal and some of these other

projects is that what you read out of the rhetoric is that our

opposition seems to be saying: "Well, look, we've got to find a

loophole here. We've got to find a catch, because this is too good to

be true; there has to be some sort of a catch." So they spend all their

time looking for that catch.

As I've said on a few

occasions, Mr. Speaker.... I use this analogy. We've done a lot of

riverboating, and we go up a lot of rivers, and some of them are very

shallow when we get anywhere near the top. I can tell you one thing,

Mr. Speaker: those of us who look for the channels, for the paths by

which you can get further up, always get much further up the river than

those people who look for the obstacles and say: "You can't get by

that." I think the same thing applies in government. This government

has made British Columbia prosperous. The Social Credit government has

made this a prosperous province, because they have looked for the way

to get there, and our opposition constantly looks for what blockades

there are. What are the obstacles? As long as they are looking at

obstacles, I hope they keep looking for them, because whenever you're

looking for obstacles, you're going to find them and you're not going

to get anywhere. So I'm certainly much more in favour of looking for

the channels and the paths that we can go up.

As I've said,

Mr. Speaker. they seem to like to capitalize for political expediency

on every negative little thing that happens — they cash in on them. In

life there are always good things happening and there are always some

setbacks, always some negative things that are happening in anybody's

life, in any company, organization or government — all you have to do

is look around. If you just look, you can always find something to

criticize. I guess their hope is that if they can find ten people here

against something and if they speak up on their behalf, they get those

ten votes; and if they find ten more against some other picayune thing,

they hope that in the long run that will add up. But I think the people

of British Columbia are much more broad-minded than that. They can see

the total picture, and they see these setbacks as details.

Talking

about irresponsibility, the second member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) has

gone to every paper in this province, as nearly as I can gather, saying

that the new lease policies are going to prevent access to recreational

lands. The fact is that in every case — in all the checking that I have

done — provision is made for any existing trails and roads that are

necessary to provide access. These are being provided for, much more

than they were in the past. Yet we have people upset because they say:

"You're not going to allow us to go across this land." The provision is

made for them to go across this land. Provision is made for them to go

across there. Mr. Speaker, as far as I'm concerned, that's

irresponsible; it upsets a lot of people, and it is not correct. But I

suppose that member relies on the fact that if you throw enough mud

some of it is bound to stick. I find that very irresponsible of that

opposition. I keep using that term "irresponsible," but I can't think

of a better term. I could go on for some time, Mr. Speaker, on this

irresponsible amendment to the budget, which says nothing positive once

again, but then we're used to that. It adds nothing. It offers no

solutions. If you sum it up in a nutshell, it says: "Hey, they're bad

guys, and that's all that we've got to say." Indicative of how weak

that amendment is is that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett)

talked about me, WCC, and a whole bunch of things and the member for

Omineca (Mr. Kempf), and spent very little time

[ Page 7058 ]

dealing with the budget itself, which presumably his amendment was dealing with.

Then

we have the situation where we've had very little support from that

opposition for that amendment and even a reluctance to get up and speak

in favour of it. So I think that's a pretty good sign of what that

amendment really has been saying.

Mr. Speaker, we've heard a

lot about the restraint program and the irresponsible attitude of that

opposition trying to tell people that if the socialists were elected in

this province we wouldn't have to have restraint, and that there are

certain people who don't have to be part of that restraint. In private

industry in this province, we have a very real restraint program going

on. It's basically because we do not have the markets for the goods

that we have. We have the goods, and we're trying to diversify those

markets, so we're going to be back on the road to prosperity very

shortly. But they are saying: "Oh, no, it doesn't take markets, all it

takes is government spending." They do not say that when you go into

that kind of debt you pay the price down the road.

Mr.

Speaker, I feel I'm getting very negative. I like to think somewhat

positive, and then you get some of these irresponsible statements of

that opposition where they are saying one thing to the people and not

telling them the whole truth. They say: "We can spend a lot more on you

and give you everything you want, and we're the good guys." They don't

tell them what happened when they tried it once; in three years the

good guys certainly didn't last as good guys, because they found out

that when you spend money, sooner or later you have to pay the bills.

The only place you get those bills from is those people that you've

been giving all those wonderful goodies to. So I'm in favour of that

restraint program. I think all of society has to participate in it. You

can't say: "Well, yes, we know that there is a recession on, but count

me out, because we have a party in British Columbia that says: 'We'll

support you. You can be counted out of this recession.' " You can't. So

I think they have to take their obligation. Many of these people are

willing to contribute their share in this restraint program in order to

bring the balance back, because they've seen it happen before and

they've seen the beneficial results from that.

One thing I

would like to conclude with, Mr. Speaker, on a more positive vein:

we've talked a lot about restraint and all of this money spending, but

as I understand it, this week in British Columbia and throughout North

America we have a week designated as Volunteer Recognition Week. Mr.

Speaker, I think we should recognize the contribution that the

volunteers in this province make to keep the whole system going: the

volunteer workers; the volunteer members of boards that work in many

communities in order to make possible the jobs that some people get as

a result of the volunteer and free efforts of those board members; the

volunteer members in the political parties who work very hard in order

to keep the grass roots involved in the process; and the volunteers

who, in so many ways in this province, Mr. Speaker, keep this system

going. I would hate to think what would happen if we ever get to the

point where we lose those volunteers.

I would like to

conclude my comments this afternoon by recognizing the contributions of

the many sincere volunteers in this province who make it go.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

Mr. Speaker, I have 40,000 good reasons for speaking for the.budget and

against this amendment that has been placed before us. We have 40,000

good reasons to speak against and to vote against this amendment, and

I'm going to give you some of them.

I'm going to start today

with a couple of happy and positive announcements. A lot of good,

positive things have been happening in our province, and I refer to a

very special event that occurred just in the last few days. Probably

Canada's best children's hospital was officially opened on Friday last,

and I'd like to pay tribute to our Minister of Health (Hon. Mr.

Nielsen) and to a former Minister of Health, now our Minister of

Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland), who

spearheaded that complex. Everyone who was there is proud of that

needed and very attractive facility. I know members on all sides of the

House will be proud of that facility, which will serve British

Columbians from the South Peace, North Peace and north Vancouver

Island. Children will come from all over the province, not just from

the lower mainland and the city of Vancouver. It's exciting to have at

last a sophisticated, exciting program that will address research for

children, because it's a highly sophisticated research and teaching

hospital as well. I think great things will flow from it. Parents all

over the province who have or will have children in need of care will

rejoice that this hospital is now finished, and it will be receiving

its first patients in May.

I want to give you another

positive announcement, a $42 million announcement that I had the

honour, on behalf of our ministry, to give today to the media and,

through the media, to the people of British Columbia. The announcement

is of increases in our GAIN rates. I'm proud of that announcement, just

as I have been proud of other announcements concerning help to the

needy which I have made on behalf of the Ministry of Human Resources

during the years I have had the privilege of representing this

portfolio. A $42 million announcement, in light of all the doom and

gloom we have heard, is, I think, an exceptionally good announcement at

this time. It addresses those people who are at the lowest end of the

economic scale in this province, those who are on income assistance,

and I'm really pleased that we've been able to announce that kind of

money today. It also addresses changes in policy in terms of bringing a

little extra help to single parents, which I think will be well

accepted by the single parents of our province.

I believe

this keeps our rates among the highest in Canada, and I would again

think members on all sides of the House would agree with that kind of

initiative. May I say that we're very fortunate in this province. Not

many jurisdictions could give that increase in any given province

across this nation today, and it's only because of the good fiscal

management of our province. The announcement reflects, of course, the

wishes of the people of our province, and I'm very pleased to have been

able to make it.

Mr. Speaker, last August we made a change

in policy on income assistance, and I want to reflect on that change in

light of today's announcement and in light of the budget amendment

before us. The amendment that we are debating right now does seem to

refer to people who are, according to the mover of the motion, in need

and unemployed. We have had a burden placed on us in our province since

the downturn in the economy, which, is, as everyone knows, a world

situation. We've been lucky in the past two to three years, frankly, to

have escaped. Many jurisdictions in this country have not escaped the

downturn. We are feeling the brunt of it now. We have felt it in the

lumber industry. We see the effects

[ Page 7059 ]

unemployment. We know that only 90 people of every 100 in this province

are actively employed at the present time; others are on unemployment

insurance, others are on income assistance.

I just want to

make this point regarding our change in policy last year: We put into

play a policy which said that, instead of going by age and so on, our

criteria for giving income assistance in this province would be

different starting in October. The announcement was made in August, but

eligibility was not based on any circumstance other than whether a

person was employable or unemployable. That was the change made.

I'd

like to tell you today that there have been so many success stories

since that policy has been announced that I really want to give credit

to all the staff in the Ministry of Human Resources. There were great

claims, when it was announced last August and since that time, that

there would be chaos in all our Ministry of Human Resources offices.

That's not so. What we have found is a staff that is committed to a

program to help people. That's what they've been doing. The success

stories we've had are exciting indeed. I really want to relate some of

those to you. What I really want to tell you about, because it's

working so well for us, is that very area which was given the highest

amount of criticism; that is, in the single-parent category.

Let

me give you some figures. Although we have a change in the economics of

our province in terms of unemployment, we had new cases coming on in

November 1980 that were something in the area of 8,362, but in November

1981 those cases that didn't need assistance any longer amounted to

8,027. In November 1981 the cases that came on amounted to 9,811, but

in November 1981 the cases going off amounted to 9,461. Even when

unemployment started to increase dramatically at the end of last year,

the numbers who left our ministry — in other words, getting independent

and going away from welfare — were larger in the latter months of the

year. I suggest that is because they were helped by our ministry, that

the new policy assisted greatly, and that we were able to give them the

individual opportunity planning which we had been planning for the past

two years.

Let me refer to that, because I think it's

important. If only everybody in the province could share the enthusiasm

and excitement that our ministry staff feels when they help somebody.

I'm going to give you a couple of case examples. These are actual cases

of people from different areas of the province. They come from Prince

Rupert, Vancouver Island, Trail, Mission, Vancouver and Victoria.

They're from all parts of the province in individual kinds of cases.

want to tell you about an 18-year-old boy. He'd been a child in care

for most of his life. Because he was a slow learner, this lad had many

problems at school and dropped out at grade 9 level. He had always

experienced difficulty in dealing with people in authority, so things

like working for a boss or for a teacher did not appeal to him. This

boy was referred, was put on a rehabilitation counsellor, was asked to

attend the youth job action program, and was successful in obtaining a

job in a furniture factory where he and is now enjoying his work and

fully employed.

I would like to share with you the case

history of a mother who is 28 years of age, has three children, is a

single parent, and had been receiving income assistance from the

ministry for nine years. As her children approached 13, she became

increasingly frustrated about her inability to afford the cost of some

of the extracurricular activities that teenagers need money for. Her

confidence had deteriorated owing to two failed marriages and her

picture of herself as an inadequate parent. She suffered from bouts of

depression and alcoholism. Her worker talked to her about the

Individual Opportunity Plan, and together they agreed on a plan of

action which began with placement in a job-readiness program, the

employment opportunities for women. Here she was involved in a group

situation with other women facing similar challenges. She had her ego

bolstered and decided to do some volunteer work at a senior citizens'

home. This work led to an offer of full-time paid employment, and she

is now receiving a very adequate income. She enjoys the relationships

that have developed with her coworkers and residents, and looks forward

to a long association with the company she works for.

I'd

like to tell you about a client who is single, aged 44 — a difficult

age to place, people would say. It's difficult to go into the job

market at 44 years of age, especially since he had been on income

assistance for 14 years. He suffered from various medical problems —

back pain, anxiety and depression. He felt demoralized by his

continuing need for income assistance benefits but had been

unsuccessful in holding down employment for any length of time. Our

ministry worker discussed the Individual Opportunity Plan with him, and

they looked at what steps were required for him to reach financial

independence. The health care division of our Ministry of Human

Resources was approached for specialized care for this man. They got a

successful diet therapy underway, they improved his wellbeing and his

sense of good will about himself and eliminated the depression. Through

the community health involvement program he was now ready to be placed

at one of the long-term care hospitals to be a friendly visitor to the

residents, just to get him sort of out of himself. The hospital found

him to be so uplifting and such a valuable asset to their team that

with encouragement he completed a long-term care aid course and now

earns $1,200 a month in that rehabilitation health-care centre. He

delights in his work with the elderly. Remember, Mr. Speaker, I told

you that he had been on income assistance for 14 years, and the lady

whom I spoke of earlier had been on income assistance for nine years.

can give you another example of a 33-year-old divorced male on income

assistance since 1979, who is now working part-time videotaping

weddings on weekends and full-time in projects in the videotaping

industry. His immediate income per month is between $1,500 and $2,000.

He had been on income assistance. He had a grade 12 education but was

filled with depression since 1979. His life turned around. I could tell

you about the 25-year-old divorced female, five months on income

assistance, who quickly obtained employer interviews after she had

taken the job action program through our ministry. She is now earning

something close to $5 an hour at a department store with a 30-day

salary review in the offing. There is a 50-year-old married man,

unemployed since 1977 and on income assistance for three years. He's

extremely proud. He was totally humiliated, demoralized and depressed

about receiving welfare. The client had virtually given up any hope of

ever finding new employment, although his past work history as a

furniture salesman was excellent. He had been rejected many times. He

was reluctant to attend the program; he felt embarrassed and ashamed

that others would see that he was on welfare. But he attended and he

tried. Initially he believed that he would not succeed. He wanted to be

a furniture salesman again. He attended the job action

[ Page 7060 ]

program — that's our three-week program

— and he commenced full-time employment on May 11, 1981, with an income

in the range of $30,000 to $40,000 a year. I can give you example after

example of people who have obtained good-paying jobs, those who have

obtained low-paying jobs and those who have obtained medium-paying jobs.

The

point is this: each and every person in this House has the capability

of channelling those who need help from us to us, and they will be

given help. If one can turn around the life of one person who needs

that kind of help and only lead them into the first step, whether it's

into a low-paying job or a high paying job, they will give that person

the kind of confidence and sense of wellbeing that they need, the kind

of thing they should have been given in the educational system and by

the family. It's the kind of thing that isn't always received by people

or the lot of people to have. May I just implore all members of this

House: the help is there; the help is real.

I'm going to

tell you, Mr. Speaker, the Individual Opportunity Plan works like no

social service has worked in this country before. I am so proud of that

program and the way our ministry has addressed it. It is the kind of

social service, the true help to the individual that we have wanted in

this province for years and years. I shared the success of the programs

with my ministry colleagues across this nation, and I'm going to tell

you that they don't have anything like it. They have been watching it

and seeking information on it because they would like to repeat it in

their own provinces. I tell you, British Columbia's example, once

again, is going to help other provinces to reach that goal. I just ask

each member in the House to please come to us and get that kind of help

for the individuals in your constituency, because I really feel that

you can help people as they have never been helped before.

Mr.

Speaker, we have had a lot of talk in this House about northeast coal.

I address this, as Minister of Human Resources, for a very real reason.

I said that I had 40,000 good reasons to speak in this debate and

against the motion before us.

I am proud of what we have

done to diversify this province in terms of our economic thrust. I am

proud of the fact that when one part of the economic sector grows weak

because of international markets we have some other sector of our

economic blueprint that is going to pick us up. Northeast coal is

certainly one of those challenges. It's a whole northern seaport with

upgraded rail routes to serve it. It's a major new access for Canadian

traders to the whole Pacific Rim market where half of the world's

population lives: our tremendous Pacific Rim with its tremendous

potential. It will give us a boost for our international balance of

payments, which Canada so greatly needs. It provides a whole new town.

you were to have a meeting today in this House of those who are

present, and ask what we could possibly do to give some impetus to the

northern

section of our province, to create jobs, we would say: build a

town. That will build houses. That will build roads. That will bring

highways and rail lines. That will bring a whole new group of people to

service it; truckers will get jobs and service agencies will get jobs.

We're

doing it, Mr. Speaker. We don't need a meeting. New highways, a new

town, a new powerline to fulfill a whole 75-year-old dream with a whole

new project called northeast coal, the most exciting thing going on in

this province and in this nation. We take 20 percent of the land-base

of this province, where only 2 percent of the population lives, and

here we have this exciting economic initiative on our doorstep. A whole

northern transportation system. Long-term contracts for coal, which

means long-term contracts for jobs, Mr. Speaker.

Do you know

that 5,000 jobs represents 10 percent of our total construction

workforce? The official opposition in this province wants to kill the

northeast coal development, and 10 percent of the construction jobs of

this province are represented by 5,000 jobs in B.C. in this year alone.

What an exciting development! We should all be so thrilled to have the

job impetus that we have — 5,800 jobs this year alone. Mr. Speaker,

think of the 2,100 direct mining jobs and the 2,900 indirect jobs.

Let

me just come down to the lower mainland. Our colleague the Minister of

Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers), who spoke earlier today in this debate,

spoke proudly of the British Columbia Place development — downtown

British Columbia. Mr. Speaker, do you know that without any input in

the years ahead, without any money out of the budget that has been

presented by our colleague the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis),

and without any dollars from the taxpayer, we have seen the whole

imaginative redevelopment — the biggest redevelopment in North America

— taking place right now in the city of Vancouver.

I really

had to feel disappointed with members opposite, who in this very debate

were casting aspersions on that British Columbia Place development. Mr.

Speaker, what better way, without any investment of tax dollars, but to

take that marvellous piece of property, underutilized all these years,

nothing but a slum area.... From two beautiful bridges that cross

over that area, one looks out at the wonderful sea and the mountains

and that exquisite area that is Vancouver, and then looks down on a

slum. And that's how they want it to remain? Yet, without any

investment from the taxpayers of this province we are converting that

whole north side of False Creek into an attractive, beautiful,

productive, job-producing area. I tell you that's the most inspiring,

imaginative, exciting program that we could possibly have put in at

this time in our history.

What other time to build

apartments, housing and places for our people to live? To put places

where people can do business; where hotels will flourish and bring in

the tourists; where we have parks and we have the Avenue of the

Provinces, marking each of the great provinces of this country as we

marked the independence and the return of the constitution this past

weekend. Now each of them is to be remembered in that exciting part of

B.C. Place.

Why the criticism, Mr. Speaker? Why the carping

negativism that we continue to get? Because the negativism will cloud

the issue. It will not get through to the people what is really

happening there: a stadium which will be paid off by the sale of the

property — where private-sector people will be able to bring in the

building, put in bid proposals — and will be self-sustaining. It is

incredible. It is a marvellous financial undertaking to present that to

the people — not just to Vancouver, not just the lower mainland; it

will be a proud downtown British Columbia for the total area of British

Columbia.

We're talking about B.C. Place with 2,000

construction jobs annually for the next 20 years — about 5 percent, if

you can believe it, of our total construction workforce at the present

time. And think about the 500 to 600 part-time and 50 to 60 full-time

jobs that some of our young people are going to be able to take on in

the stadium alone.

[ Page 7061 ]

When

I think of that marvellous place, B.C. Place, and that marvellous

stadium, almost up and almost ready to have the first game, aligned

with that marvellous redevelopment and then linked to that tunnel which

will carry the ALRT — a tunnel that is already there, underutilized and

not used by the public for these many years, and now to be connected

with the ALRT.... That has been promised for years and years in the

lower mainland. Promises, promises, promises! In the city of Vancouver

we could have built, for heaven's sake, enough rail lines, bus

services, ALRT — you name it — with the studies that have made on ALRT

these many years....

Today we see it already underway and

building through the efforts of the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon.

Mr. Vander Zalm). I have to give him credit for saying: "Look, we're

not going to waste any more time. We're going to go ahead and do it."

And he's done that.

That's exciting, and to think that we're

going to have that. What does ALRT do? It provides 7,000 construction

jobs, 1,000 manufacturing jobs and approximately 150 ongoing jobs for

maintenance after it is built. It will take people through that tunnel,

through the downtown area that is going to have ALRT and then out to

the other areas of Burnaby and so on. It will bring housing and jobs to

people. You know, I haven't even counted those in. But just think of

the new housing that's going to come from that, and the landscaping

jobs and the wiring and plumbing jobs, and all of the equipment and all

of the furniture that's going to be needed. We've got the greatest

future going for us — not just in the lower mainland, but everywhere in

this province. That ALRT is going to take people to Expo 86 and it's

going to be our demonstration project for Expo 86.

The

Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe), who worked so hard to bring Expo

to fruition, is now going to be able, with his imaginative lottery

scheme, to fund that all through a lottery — again, not through the

taxpayer's pocket. That's imaginative, that's exciting. What's more

exciting than anything else — and it's seldom said; it certainly isn't

said by those members opposite — are the 15,000 man-years of work.

Jobs, jobs, jobs. It means something for our international reputation,

but it means more in jobs.

It means a great deal in terms of

our ongoing technology and the kinds of exciting things.... Do you

know there hasn't been a world's fair in history that has not brought

to the fore the excitement and the newness of a new technology. And

this will be right on our doorstep. How many people over the years know

of a city, a province, a state, a country because of a world's fair?

Look at all the people who will be here. Those 16 million visitors will

go back to their place of business, their home, and they'll say: "Go to

British Columbia. It's the greatest place ever." It will be more money

and it will be more excitement and it will be more jobs. That's what

this government has a responsibility as any government has to do, and

we're doing it well.

I want to say a word about the trade

and convention centre in the city of Vancouver — first, because I don't

think you can stop me from saying it, Mr. Speaker. I'm very

enthusiastic about the trade and convention centre. You know why I was

always enthusiastic about it? Because of the jobs: 1,000 jobs in

construction, 1,000 full-time jobs created, and 1,000 on going and

part-time jobs. That's around 3,000 jobs for a trade and convention

centre, a cruise ship facility and a hotel that will be built there.

It's

a magnificent site — the most marketable site in the whole of the world

for a trade and convention centre. Do you know what that in itself will

do? People will come to a convention. There was one announced just

since the announcement of the go-ahead of the trade and convention

centre. In five days it will leave $5.5 million in the city of

Vancouver. It will then leave other dollars as those people visit the

city and go to other areas of the province to spend their money. Those

who are market-conscious will bring them to other parts of the province

through their efforts and good free enterprise kind of planning.

They'll start tours going to Penticton, Kelowna, Victoria, and Nanaimo

and will put in the kinds of things which will attract people and will

give them the message so they will go back home and say: "You've got to

visit British Columbia. It's so exciting. We attended a convention

there. I'm going to go back and take my family the next time." All

those things are going to happen.

The most exciting part of

it all is that through the efforts of our Premier, my colleague the

Provincial Secretary and Minister of Government Services (Hon. Mr.

Wolfe), myself and our colleagues who are involved in Expo 86, ALRT and

B.C. Place, we have put together a package so that now, very tidily,

the federal government... Today, I understand, the Prime Minister of

Canada is unveiling their plaque, which says there is going to be built

the pavilion for Canada, for this nation of ours, right on Pier B-C.

When

that is over and unneeded by Expo 86, it will become the most famous,

exciting and thrilling trade and convention centre ever built.

I'm going to tell you where all the negative people will be then.

They'll all be there at the opening. They'll all be there saying: "Me

too." They'll all be there saying: "Yes, we were for it all the time."

I was sitting in this House when the members opposite got up one by one

— I could name them; I've got quotes from Hansard — and said

that we shouldn't be doing it at this time. They said we shouldn't be

doing it at all. They said it wasn't going to be as lucrative as I

said. They charged us with all kinds of negative things. But I'm going

to tell you, it's going ahead today, as are ALRT, B.C. Place, the

stadium and northeast coal. Totalled all together, those projects

represent a total capital spending program of $3.6 billion; $1.2

billion actually will be spent during the 1982-83 fiscal year,

providing close to 40,000 jobs. Northeast coal, B.C. Place, ALRT,

hundreds of small-scale projects such as schools, hospitals,

courthouses and other capital projects are all underway and are all

going now, injecting, at a time when we need it most, the kind of

government funds and government initiative of private-sector funding

that is going to result in providing jobs today while building our

economic and social capital facilities for tomorrow.

started in this address to say that we have 40,000 good reasons for

voting against the amendment and for the budget. They are the 40,000

jobs that this government, this year and in years to follow, is

responsible for: 40,000 new dreams, hopes and initiatives. I'll vote

against the amendment.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I always enjoy

the presentation by that Minister of Human Resources. She makes her

presentation well, and I hope that after a few more years of experience

I can do as well — in the presentation.

I find it difficult

to swallow some of the figures the minister used — I'll go into this

very shortly — in terms of the unemployed, in view of the fact that I

have the official Canadian statistics before me, some of which I'll

read into the record at some point during my presentation.

[ Page 7062 ]

want to discuss one of the things the minister is very good at:

presenting individual cases where the ministry has been successful.

That's what the ministry is there for, and we appreciate those

successes. What the minister fails to talk about.... I intended to

discuss this item under estimates, but I'll just throw it in here. For

example, in one major community in my riding — it's not a big

community, but it's major to my riding — for months and months and

months I had made representation to the Ministry of Human Resources and

the minister to have a full-time Human Resources officer placed in the

community of Powell River. Because of high unemployment the Human

Resources people are overworked. We need an officer to deal

specifically with the handicapped at the request of a number of

organizations in that community. I understand budgetary restraints and

all of these things, but in the Year of the Disabled, in a community

that is a bit out of the way and at a time when people so badly need

this kind of advice, counselling and assistance, I was refused. This is

just one item that I'm discussing. After some three and a half months

of pleading and discussing with them, the ultimate answer was no. So

those 81 people identified as handicapped in that region are now

getting the services if they're lucky and if the weather or other

duties don't prevent a part-time worker from working sometimes one day

a month with the handicapped in Powell River from Courtenay. In that

brief period of time, she couldn't even get to know their names.

have another problem along the same lines. It's a most recent case — if

we're allowed to discuss these individual cases under this particular

vote, and apparently we are — of a young girl who is suicide-prone and

under observation at the Vancouver General Hospital. The point was that

they couldn't hold this 14-year-old girl. They phoned from the

Vancouver General Hospital and told the parents that they were going to

have to release her in the custody of her parents, and the parents were

beside themselves. I spoke to two of her psychiatrists and a social

worker personally and other people involved as well, but the net result

was that they said: "Look, we cannot keep her here. It's not that type

of an emergency situation. This is not a treatment centre. We

diagnose." So after a lot of fooling around, the fact is that the

hospital.... As a matter of fact, the director of Maples was very

helpful in this particular instance. They found an interim facility for

her until a place becomes available at Maples when it goes into

operation, which I'm kind of pleased about. But what I'm saying is that

because of funding cutbacks, these facilities for people like this —

and I can go on and on, and I won't under this particular vote — don't

exist, and there is no hope that they will exist, with the exception of

Maples, which is coming on stream and hopefully will be successful in

dealing with people like this.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Back

to the vote, Mr. Speaker. The basic premise of this vote of

non-confidence, which I'm going to support, deals basically with the

budget. The budget has been described in this Legislature on numerous

occasions by many members as a budget of deception for a number of

reasons: it is not a complete budget and we've had two unannounced

budgets prior to the main budget coming down, dealing with

overexpenditures approaching, it says here, a quarter of a billion

dollars. I thought it was more than that. Both of these budgetary

actions were taken outside of the announced budget by arbitrary cabinet

orders. So, Mr. Speaker, I don't think we're dealing with the real

budget here. What can I say? It's been described in this House so

often, I'm not sure that I want to go into a lot of details on the

thing. The fact is that the budget is not the correct budget that

should have been placed before the people at this time. If the

government had been — and it should have been — honest with the people

of this province, they would have come out and said: "Look, we've

budgeted for a deficit of some $360 million — at least, minimum — and

it will likely be a lot more than that." One of the reasons I feel that

the government will have to go to an election some time this year is

that their budget is a budget they cannot keep.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

My favourite member, the Minister of Transportation and Highways,

interjects. Mr. Minister, don't leave the House, because I've got some

words for you. I've got a message for you, so just hang tight, be cool

and we'll get to both of our favourite topics in about four minutes.

any event, I thought, for the record, that the minister and this House

should know that the actual unemployment figure for March 1982 was

officially 143,000, or 10.6 percent. This is the highest rate of

unemployment in B.C. since 1961, when the rate reached 13.8 percent. By

the way, the unemployment rate only a year ago was 6.8 percent, so you

can see what has happened in the meantime. Both the actual and

seasonally adjusted rate — 9.3 percent — are higher than the national

average. The "hidden unemployed" figure for B.C. is 64,000, bringing

the real total to 207,000, or 14.7 percent. I honestly believe that the

unemployment figure is higher than that, because they are neglecting to

mention the people who are not eligible for UIC benefits — young people

who may be living at home. There is a horrendous rate of unemployment

among young people in the province.

What can I say? I can

say this: in my own community of Powell River, where I live, UIC claims

have increased by 167.8 percent over the same period of January,

February and March of last year. In the Sunshine Coast area of

my riding — it does not have a large industrial base; it's the

fourth-fastest growing area in British Columbia, because a lot of

people are moving there to retire; it's a nice place to live, and that

kind of thing — UIC claims have increased by 75.7 percent, according to

Employment and Immigration Canada, over January, February and March

last year. That's a horrendous increase.

I can tell you from

personal experience.... I spend a lot of time in my riding, and I

get around the community quite a bit; but I did a good more than that

prior to coming down to this session. In selected areas of the riding I

went and canvassed a number of polls. No leaflets — I just went to the

door to speak with people. The message I got, among a lot of other

messages, aside from, "Leave me alone; I'm doing the laundry," and

things like that.... There was hardly a home that I visited where

people did not have somebody in the family unemployed — a husband or

wife, or both in some cases; a son or a daughter, a friend, or

somebody. They knew somebody out of work, or they were scrambling

desperately to hold onto their jobs and facing a lot of problems as

well.

When people are unemployed for any length of time and

there is no hope, the effects on family life are horrendous. I think

every MLA in this province operates a constituency office. I hope that

some of the MLAs spend some time in those offices; I know that many of

us do. The caseload of family problems that basically relate to lack of

income and

[ Page 7063 ]

the

lack of ability to pay the bills and meet commitments — mortgages, car

payments, sending the kid to school, whatever.... These are some of

the problems we face. As a result of government action — partly at

least, to be a little more honest — these conditions are not likely to

get better.

When I see in the budget that the government

anticipates a 23 percent increase in revenues from the forest industry

alone this year over last year, I have to wonder. I suspect that's why

some of my colleagues have described this budget as a deception and a

sham. For example, last week I had the opportunity of meeting, along

with some of my colleagues, some of the major people in the forest and

pulp industry in this province. There was a very serious discussion.

When the question "Do you really believe that the increase in revenues

to the province will be 23 percent more from your industry this year

over last year?" was posed, after they stopped laughing, they said: "No

way." The downturn in the economy is such that even if there is an

upturn in the economy, and basically the United States and Reagan go

into a housing policy and all these things that everybody talks and

knows about.... Even if all those things happen there is no way we

can have a turnaround so that the revenues and production will increase

that significantly this year.

I would like to take a couple

of minutes to discuss my own riding. They elected me, so I think I'll

discuss them. They'd like to know what I'm saying about them down here.

All this goes in Hansard .

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

The Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) says

he'll tell them. I would be pleased to see him in my riding, and to

take him out fishing and arrange a meeting for him, because I know that

every time he comes up to my riding I get another 500 votes. No offence.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Only 500?

MR. SKELLY: That's all that's left!

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, bring me back to order, because I forgot where I was at here. I was going to discuss the economy and....

HON. MR. GARDOM: Are you in favour of marketing boards?

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Why, of course.

I'll get back to the local economy in my own area. I think I should discuss that briefly.

The

largest single operation in my riding is the MacMillan Bloedel plant,

and they've just come off an almost three-week shutdown. They just went

back to work last Thursday. That is great. The problem is — the House

wouldn't know this — that the senior management of the company have

announced that there will almost certainly be two further shutdowns of

that mill this year. The effects of this first shutdown were bad

enough, but some of the employees were able to take part of their

holiday pay and time and that kind of thing. Two further shutdowns this

year have been announced, and there may be more, because senior people

within that pulp and paper industry have said that when the 13 percent

wage increase comes into effect, which was honestly negotiated last

year, it will put some of the operations in an operating loss position.

Therefore we can possibly anticipate further shutdowns in the pulp and

paper industry. This is an area of deep concern, particularly in

single-industry communities.

I would be remiss if I didn't

tell this House as well that Port Mellon shut down its operation this

morning. They employ some 500 people in that operation. This will be a

three-week shutdown, as I understand it, and they have announced as

well that there will be further shutdowns because of market conditions,

etc., later this year. That will have a very severe effect, not only on

employees but on the community as a whole.

I wouldn't

remember the Great Depression. I was pretty young at the time, but some

of the members like the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon.

Mr. Fraser) would remember it. He was a young man at the time. We have

never, since the Great Depression, had so many closures of small

businesses, particularly small family businesses. Thirty-one businesses

that I know of in Powell River alone have shut down since January 1 of

this year because of the economic climate of this province. Those

people hire maybe two or three employees, some of them, from time to

time. They are under; they are gone now. There are more closing down.

don't want to be a messenger of doom and gloom, but I guess what I am

saying is that this government has not come up with an economic policy

that is going to do anything to alleviate the economic conditions of

this province. I know that provincial governments cannot solve the

economic problems of the whole western world. We can't do that. We

understand that. When we had a relatively mild depression in 1975, Mr.

Speaker.... You weren't in the House at the time, but I should

remind you that the then-opposition accused the New Democratic Party

government of the day of all the problems of the whole western world.

Everything that happened in the province was the fault of the New

Democratic Party government at that time. We haven't taken that tack.

We've been relatively fair and honest with this government sitting

across the way from us, but what we're saying over here is that they

haven't done anything, they're not doing anything, they haven't shown

any imagination, and they haven't formulated any policies to help solve

these problems.

I'll tell you this, for our party and our

caucus and our leader: we have formulated policies. We have come up

with a number of policies to help alleviate the.... They are not

miracle solutions. They won't solve all the problems. There will be

further announcements. We're working. The Minister of Transportation

and Highways will be pleased to know that I'm preparing a

transportation policy that he can use to help solve some of the

problems on the coast of British Columbia at this time. But that's

another story.

Our party has come up with policies dealing

with forestry and economic recovery in many areas — training for our

students, educational programs, home- building programs and on and on.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

No, I'm not an expert on these topics, as the member across the way

said. I like to think that I know something about some of the subjects

I discuss. What I'm saying is: I didn't do this and our caucus didn't

do this alone. On this program that I'm discussing now, we met with

[ Page 7064 ]

knowledgeable

people from all over the province and outside the province. I think

it's a program that we as a party can implement, and it's a program

that will give people some hope.

But before I get too far

along on that.... Approximately two months ago the Premier got on

television and urged us all to practise restraint. I'm not going to

discuss the bill before the House. What I'm discussing is the Premier's

address to the nation in February of this year. He urged us to practise

restraint. Yet what do we find? We find that the government itself has

not practised restraint, either through its government actions or

through its various agencies and Crown corporations. I won't go through

the list here. There are something like eight pages of increases in

taxation — well over the 8 percent, 10 percent or 12 percent that the

Premier and the Social Credit government urge us to follow.

There

was a 300 percent water-rate increase to industry, a general B.C. Hydro

rate increase of 31.5 percent, and a medicare increase of 76.5 percent

for singles, 64.7 percent for couples and 50.6 percent for families. I

could go on and on. There are two other sections I wanted to mention.

My God, there was a 900 percent increase for marriage licences. I'll

skip the increases for mineral taxes and so on. Motor vehicle licence

plates were increased 38.9 percent. Is that following the wage

restraints the Premier is urging us to follow? There was a 100 percent

increase on driver's licences. These are items that affect almost every

citizen of British Columbia. Motor vehicle inspection — and the list

goes on.... Transfer of ownership of a motor vehicle was increased

by 200 percent. It's relatively minor, but B.C. Ferries shows a 13.6

percent increase over last year, in spite of the government telling us

and asking us to show restraint.

The government itself has

shown no restraint, particularly the cabinet. I have a list of the

cabinet members' travel, right out of the 1980-81 public accounts.

They're the government's own figures. Look at the Premier. He spent

$35,950 for ministerial travel. Where has he got to go to that's so

important? Rather than staying here in British Columbia and looking

after the economy, where is he travelling — Palm Springs, Acapulco or

Japan? Is that the way he's travelling? I think he is. At least that's

what the newspapers tell us, and I usually believe the papers.

The

list goes on and on. I won't go through every minister. I'm sure we'll

get to every minister in estimates, if we don't have an election before

we get to estimates. The total bill for ministerial travel alone was

$410,443. Do you know what the government could have done with that

much money to help alleviate some of the plight of some of the poor

people who are genuinely suffering out there, who don't have enough

food, who can barely survive, and who can't pay their rent or hydro

increases and all these other increases? Do you know what the

government could have done with that? But no, they went jaunting around

the world. Look at the Minister of Industry and Small Business

Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) — $39,819 for his personal travel.

Where was he travelling to? Tumbler Ridge. Does it cost that much to go

to Tumbler Ridge? He could have driven. The government jet would have

been cheaper.

So there you have it. Here we have on one hand

a government telling us ordinary people out there to practise

restraint, and on the other hand we've got the ministers themselves

just spending money left, right and centre, well in excess of the

restraint program that they want everybody else — primarily the working

people of this province — to observe.

Mr. Speaker, I see the

Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) in the House.

I have no intention of discussing with him at this time items that

normally should be dealt with under estimates, but I'd just like to let

the minister know a couple of things. The minister is very good; he's

usually in the House, and I know he's listening.

I know that

the subsidy to the B.C. Ferry Corporation has been reduced by some 25

percent this year, which means that there will not only be layoffs, but

that the 500 auxiliary workers who can normally expect to be working

over the busy summer period will be unemployed, and that there will be

some 80 to 100 permanent employees unemployed as well by late next

summer and next fall. Some of those people are being hit now, by the

way, Mr. Speaker. I'm not sure you know that. But that corporation,

with the approval of cabinet — it had to be, because we all know where

that money comes from — through Treasury Board, subsidies and these

things — $160,000 was spent to put logos on the vessels, the "B.C.

Spirit" which was a straight Social Credit political ploy, paid for at

the expense of the taxpayers....

Mr. Speaker, if I could

have the minister's attention for one moment, through you.... Mr.

Minister, there's one item which I really, seriously want you to

consider. At the present time the CPR has the Princess Patricia

available for purchase, I understand. I don't think this fine, old

vessel should be let out of the province of British Columbia. What's

going to happen is that the CPR is going to dump that vessel somewhere;

they're not going to keep it. It may go to — who knows? — Hong Kong or

the Falkland Islands. It's going to go somewhere. I think that vessel

is a heritage vessel and should stay in this province.

I see that one of my favourite ministers just walked in the House and I've got something for him eventually.

any event, what I'm suggesting to the minister at this time is that

there are a number of useful things that could be done with that

vessel. Perhaps because the Princess Marguerite has proved so

successful, we could have two vessels on that route. I'm not sure. I'm

quite serious about this. I don't know if that's a good idea or not;

some people say yes, and some people say no. But there are other things

that could be done — even as a tourist vessel over a five, six- or

seven month period. I'm sure it would be very popular to have some type

of, for another example, Gulf Islands run between Victoria, the Gulf

Islands and Vancouver — daily sailings. Why not? It's a nice vessel;

it's suited for that purpose. People from all over the continent, in my

view, would make reservations to sail on that vessel. I really believe

that that vessel, if we can manage it.... And I don't think the CPR

would be too difficult to deal with. I think that they would be

prepared to, with a letter of intent, for example — perhaps some cash

or some guarantee.... This government has a good credit rating — as

ours did — at the present time, and we don't generally break our word

in these matters. We keep our contracts. I would suggest hopefully that

the minister will start negotiations through his ministry to see if we

can preserve this vessel for the people of British Columbia. I think it

would be a profitable venture in the long run.

I'm pleased

that the minister is listening intently to this particular item. While

he is in the House, I just want to tell him that in terms of highways,

there are two other matters — they're not earth-shaking matters, and

they won't make the newspapers; nothing will happen directly on these

matters.... I would like to ask the minister quite sincerely about

these two relatively small matters relating to highways.

[ Page 7065 ]

One

of the situations is this. Where we have people, in rural areas

particularly, applying for subdivisions, going through all of the

agencies — the regional district, the ALR, local committees, and on and

on — and finally they get approval, and it goes to Highways.... I'm not

saying that Highways shouldn't have this right of approval, but we must

set up a method of approving and giving an answer to these people when

they are applying for these subdivisions.

I've got a case on

my desk right now, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker.... Three

years have gone by on a piece of property which is right on the

highway, and there's still no answer, and I can't understand it. Now

I've discussed it with the local people, the regional people, the

deputy minister and finally I wrote the minister and I got a response.

The minister's good that way; I always get a response. Their reason is

that they're short of people, but you can't keep people hanging on the

hook like that. I can't see why we can't have a system somewhat similar

to the.... I'm trying to be fair because I know the minister can't

answer. This is not estimates. Some states and some jurisdictions have

a method where at least the people can get an answer yes or no on a

subdivision application within a reasonable length of time. I know the

minister will take that under advisement. I know he'll have a response

for me in his estimates.

There's one other item which is

particularly bothersome in my riding. We have no end of people, from

Powell River right down to Gibsons, living on the lower side of Highway

101. Ever since I was elected, sometimes 50 or 60 or 100 people or

sometimes four or five, depending on the year, are flooded out every

year. The policy of the Ministry of Highways is that they will not take

any responsibility at all after the water leaves the highway and goes

through the culvert; it's totally the responsibility of the people on

whose private property it is. We started to do this throughout the

whole province, and I know very well that it would probably take up

half the budget of the Ministry of Highways to settle those claims if

we started doing that. Other things can happen. There are certain

instances where the Ministry of Highways, with a little bit of manpower

— they have the equipment — could do things to alleviate the problems

in these flood-prone areas. It's no big deal. In fact, you have another

agency set up for emergency flood relief and all those things. But in

these instances, you can go to the local Highways person and say:

"Look, if you extended that ditch another 150 feet, those three, four

or six properties would not be flooded out next year." It would save

everybody a lot of money, heartache and grief, and do the Ministry of

Highways a good turn at the same time. I think there should be some

flexibility there, but at the present time there isn't. We don't win

the majority of those cases. I say "we" because I'm not the only MLA to

have this type of problem. In fact, some of the MLAs on your side of

the House face the same problem. I just wanted to mention that before

we get to the estimates.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

was going to discuss the cutbacks in funding to educational programs,

particularly community colleges. The many programs that I'm personally

aware of...represented by three community colleges in my riding.

I've met with these people. I won't go through their financing

arrangements and all these things, but the fact is that some very major

programs, in my view, have been cut back. I know that they will be

discussed more fully. How could you cut back the drug and alcohol

program — just stop the program completely? Students in that program

who were halfway through their semester — or whatever — are out,

finished, and that's the end of it. It's a serious problem to our

province, and we're doing nothing about it; in fact, we're making the

situation worse. I don't know where to go. All I can say is: this

government is more interested in politics, secret polls — which are not

so secret any more — polls by ICBC, the results of which will never be

made available to us but, I'm sure, will be made available to the

government — political polling on taxpayers' money. The sad thing about

this poll is not the fact that it's happening; it's the fact that over

the last six or seven years the people of this province have become so

used to dirty tricks they just take it for granted that this

poll.... "Well, it's another dirty trick, so what can we do about

it?" That's what's happening. It's a state of mind which I don't

appreciate. So there'll be no vast public outcry. We'll raise heck in

here. We know it's immoral. We know it's unethical. They shouldn't be

doing it. The minister in question period today agreed they shouldn't

be doing it. But it's happening. It will happen again. So all I can say

to this government is: look, do your duty. Face the music. Call the

election. Call it now. Give the people of this province a chance to get

rid of you, and put in a good government. Let's go. Call the election.

HON. MR. GARDOM:

Mr. Speaker, this motion the opposition has produced says the budget

fails to take steps to preserve jobs, neglects to mobilize our human

and natural resources, and fails to establish policies that are

helpful. They have produced no options, no alternatives and no

suggestions, and not even any confidence in their own motion of

non-confidence. I would say this has been about one of the dullest

debates we've had in this House since I've been a member. The

opposition has all the force and the interest and the content of a

marshmallow that has been too long in the sun. That's what their

debates have been like.

Mr. Speaker, it's most peculiar, I

would say, to find a non-confidence motion truly unsupported by its

proponents — particularly when that motion was moved by a former

Premier of this province and by the leader of the official opposition.

I'd say that the best evidence of the weakness of this motion has been

the ridiculous sort of support it has received from the opposition

benches.

It was moved by the hon. first member for Vancouver

East and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett), and he was jolly

enough — indeed, he is jolly when he's at his best. But even the best

of humour can not validate this motion, and I would again say that it's

perhaps the mos