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)

TUESDAY, APRIL 20, 1982

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

7087 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Tabling Documents

Forest and range resource program 1982-1987.

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 7087

Oral Questions

Royal Bank forecast of B.C. economic growth. Mr. Hall –– 7087

Sale of Kootenay Forest Products Ltd. Mr. King –– 7088

Northeast coal. Mr. Leggatt –– 7088

Budget Debate

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 7089

Mr. Gabelmann –– 7092

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 7096

Ms. Brown –– 7099

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 7103

Tabling Documents

Report of committee of selection.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 7107

Mr. Howard

Mr. Barrett

Division

TUESDAY, APRIL 20, 1982

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: Today I should

like to introduce three persons, one of whom normally plays a very

important daily

part in proceedings on the floor here. Mr. Alan

Hutchinson joined the staff of the Sergeant-at-Arms' office almost 25

years ago and for more than a decade has been our Sergeant- at-Arms.

During that time, Mr. Speaker, the record shows that the mace has been

well protected. The record also shows that even the largest of our

members, when asked by him to do so, have left this chamber peaceably

in the face of the impressive countenance of Mr. Hutchinson. He at all

times has been a very conscientious custodian of the best traditions of

the office of Sergeant-at-Arms.

Would members therefore

today please join me in welcoming three persons to the House today: Mr.

Alan Hutchinson and his wife Nel, both from Victoria, and their

daughter visiting from St. Albert, Alberta, Mrs. Margaret Minty.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

The priest who led us in prayers a few minutes ago is from the

constituency of Saanich and the Islands. Perhaps the House could

acknowledge the presence today of the Rev. Ivan Futter of the parish of

South Saanich.

MS. SANFORD: I'm going to ask the

members to pay particular attention this afternoon to the parliamentary

rules, because in the gallery today we have a group of people from the

Parksville-Coombs area who are members of the Toastmistress Club there,

and they will be watching us very carefully this afternoon. I would

like to introduce Kathleen Davies, Alice Denslow, Irene Wood, Marion

Johnson, Phyllis James, Margery Bates and Claire Garthus. I ask the

House to welcome them.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, in the galleries today is Mrs. Angelina Degrazio from Golden. I'd like the House to join me in welcoming her.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

I'd like the House to welcome a delegation from the National Farmers

Union. They are in the gallery this afternoon and they met with the

Social Credit committee this morning.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the House to welcome Nelson Riis, the Member of Parliament for Kamloops, who is in the precinct today.

MR. MUSSALLEM:

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to introduce today the largest

delegation of young people that have ever come to this Legislature. I

think it's a record up to the present time. We have 170 grade 11

students here from Maple Ridge Secondary School, and some of them are

in the gallery at the present time. They are under the direction of Mr.

Edmonds. I can assure you that moving a contingent of this size is

almost like moving an army, and I think Mr. Edmonds should be

congratulated. They also have with them Mr. Ken Dockendorf, Mrs. Pat

Robinson, Mrs. Raymond, Mr. Archibald and Mr. Wiens. These teachers are

doing this on their own time, and I must compliment them on the effort

they take in this work for the children of our schools.

MR. BARNES:

Mr. Speaker, Mayor Mike Harcourt and Alderman Harry Rankin of the city

of Vancouver are in the precinct. I'd like the House to make them

welcome.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, in the

members' gallery today are two prominent forestry consultants: Mr. Bob

Wood, formerly the chairman of the Forest Policy Advisory Committee,

and Wes Cheston, who is also a former member of that committee and an

associate of Mr. Wood. Would the House please welcome them.

Hon. Mr. Waterland tabled the five-year forest and range resource program for the years 1982 to 1987.

Oral Questions

ROYAL BANK FORECAST OF B.C. ECONOMIC GROWTH

MR. HALL:

My question is to the Minister of Finance. On page 5 of the budget

background papers the minister buttressed his optimistic claims about

B.C.'s economic growth by citing the Royal Bank of Canada forecast of

1.5 percent growth for 1982. Following the budget, the Royal Bank

dropped its forecast to zero growth for 1982. Has the minister now

decided to table revised estimates and a revised revenue forecast in

view of this further evidence that he has overestimated revenues to

balance the budget?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, the

question makes a couple of observations with which I do not agree, but

I will attempt to answer the member. For the record, it should be

observed, I think, that the background papers do not go out over my

signature; they are the Ministry of Finance's.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Let's hear the answer, hon. members.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Speaker, the opposition would not find it possible to understand

the full accountability which we have provided through the Ministry of

Finance. The background papers, therefore, are produced by the

ministry,

whereas the budget speech which was delivered in this House

is the statement of the government.

With respect to the

specific question: yes, I'm aware that the Royal Bank of Canada has, as

of yesterday, forecast a lower growth rate than that on which the

budget and our estimates forecasts were predicated. I think, however,

that there are those on both sides of the House who know that

economists do tend to disagree with each other from time to time. We

have not based our forecast on any one particular forecast from any one

particular source. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that to do so would be

irresponsible.

MR. HALL: I have a supplementary

question, Mr. Speaker In view of the fact that the Royal Bank — over

the last ten years certainly one of the most optimistic forecasters in

the Canadian economic community — shows in their forecast issued

yesterday that B.C.'s economic growth is for the first time in memory

below the Canadian average, is the minister now prepared to recognize

that his taxation policies have ground economic growth to a halt in

this province?

[ Page 7088 ]

HON. MR. CURTIS: That's a conclusion with which I do not agree.

MR. HALL:

Although the minister may not agree with me, if B.C.'s economic

problems are the fault, as he and his leader say, of international and

extraneous conditions, does the minister have an explanation for the

fact that, unlike previous recessions, B.C. Is now projected behind the

Atlantic provinces in economic growth?

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Again, I refer the member to the fact that we have one forecast at one

particular part of the year. The question overlooks the main theme of

the budget and policies of this government — that is, for the

stimulation of employment through the course of this fiscal year, job

creation and activities which I think will perhaps within a relatively

short space of time indicate that the Royal Bank forecast is very

pessimistic, as I think was admitted yesterday by one of the spokesmen

for the bank.

SALE OF KOOTENAY FOREST PRODUCTS LTD.

MR. KING:

I have a question for the Minister of Forests. Yesterday it was

announced that B.C. Timber had agreed to sell Kootenay Forest Products

to Crestbrook Forest Industries, subject to the approval of the

minister. The minister has frequently expressed concern regarding

increased corporate concentration in the forest industry. Since

Crestbrook has a foreign parent, and in view of the fact that recent

mergers have resulted in substantial losses of jobs, has the minister

decided to hold a full public inquiry into this proposed sale, and has

he decided to report the results of that inquiry to the House?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: In answer to the member's question, no.

MR. KING:

Has the minister decided to use the power granted to him under

section

50 of the Forest Act to require Crestbrook to maintain all existing

jobs at Kootenay Forest Products and at Crestbrook Forest Industries in

the event the sale is approved?

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

The ministry, or the minister, has not yet decided what the outcome

will be of this proposed agreement between two companies in the private

sector. However, if it is to the benefit of the province of British

Columbia and the employees of these companies, then I think it would

have a good chance of being approved. One of the things that would

concern me most is the continuation of employment, and if indeed the

transfer is approved I would make it a condition of the licence that

the company maintain a manufacturing plant in Nelson. I cannot assure

the member that every existing job will continue forever, because

forever is a long time. They will be required to maintain manufacturing

plants in Nelson if it indeed is approved.

MR. KING:

As I understand it, the minister has appended that kind of caveat to a

merger or a sale in only one incident so far. I hope he will not only

give an undertaking through

section 50 that the jobs will be preserved,

but that all of the existing plants will be kept in operation as a

condition of that sale.

NORTHEAST COAL

MR. LEGGATT:

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

Development and concerns another aspect of the northeast coal project.

Would the minister confirm to the House that the security for the

public investment in the northeast coal project in the Quintette

section is a floating charge against the assets of Quintette mines

issued in the form of a debenture?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

I am very glad the member asked the question, because never before in

the history of British Columbia has a project been put together in

which there are so many guarantees and so much protection for the

taxpayers of British Columbia. Furthermore, never before has there been

a project with so many provisions for cost recovery, and never in the

history of this province, or of any other province in Canada or any

state in the union, has there been a provision for cost recovery of

public highways. We have, Mr. Speaker, a $60 million debenture signed

by Quintette which protects the taxpayers of British Columbia for every

cent that's been spent. Furthermore, I would like to inform the House,

since the question was asked, that last summer, when the province was

proceeding with this great project and we were building highways and a

powerline, when we were making provisions and doing our homework for

the construction of that great railway so that the project could be

brought in on time, the taxpayers were protected for every cent this

province was spending.

MR. LEGGATT: In view of all

the guarantees that he's told us the taxpayers of the province of

British Columbia are receiving in this wonderful coal project, would he

advise us whether or not the taxpayers are protected against those

people who loan money to the Quintette project and get security against

the assets of that mine? Is the British Columbia government in number

one position or in number two position in terms of loans to the

Quintette project?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: The opposition,

no matter what kind of a guarantee we had, would be picayune. Whether

it is the James Bay project, the St. Lawrence Seaway, the Athabasca Tar

Sands, the Pine Point railway or the development of the southeast,

there have never before been guarantees like the ones we have on this

project to protect the people of British Columbia.

MR. LEGGATT:

In the event that the Japanese advance money for the Quintette project,

and the Quintette people are now seeking that investment, I take it the

minister is telling us that the taxpayers of British Columbia are going

to rank ahead of the Japanese investors. Is that what he is telling us?

Come on, stand up in the House and tell us that is the position on that

mine.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I'll never

convince these negative nellies on the other side of the House. I

listened to the Leader of the Opposition the other day talk about

overruns. I want to tell all the taxpayers in British Columbia that

there are no overruns on the construction of the British Columbia

Railway Anzac line. It is on

schedule and there are no overruns. I know

you're trying to find something wrong with that. We did our homework.

We weren't like the NDP when they announced northeast coal. There were

[ Page

7089 ]

studies done. In one breath they say they're against it; in another breath

they say it didn't make any sense 50 years ago; in another breath they

say they'd close it down. They're all over the map on northeast coal,

and they will continue to throw doubt on that project. In a year when we need

employment in this province, it is creating over 10 percent of the construction

jobs in British Columbia — 5,800 jobs. It's not a make-work project; it's

a project that is going to leave over 10,000 permanent jobs in its wake, and

those negative nellies, those negative NDP, continue to harp and be critical.

The entire Japanese steel federation is behind it. The banking system in Japan

is behind it. The Japanese government is behind it.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please. The scope of an answer should not exceed the scope of

the question. However, I must remind hon. members that those who wish

the protection of the Chair in calling for order should first of all be

sure that they themselves are in order.

MR. LEGGATT:

I hope the minister will calm down a little, because I realize there's

a blood pressure problem in the House, and we don't want to get too

excited. I hope the minister will listen very carefully.

What

are the assets to which this floating charge debenture is going to be

attached when and if the government is called upon to realize its

security on the project?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Quintette

coal is owned 45-odd percent by Denison Mines Ltd., a Canadian mining

company. It also has two major partners in France who are investing and

who will also, as I've said time and time before in this House....

Investment brings a market and that's what we're after. Coal happens to

be the most stable commodity that we are exporting from British

Columbia today, in spite of their negative...and they'd close it down.

Coal today is — and will continue to be — the most stable commodity

that British Columbia is exporting, because there are long-term

contracts with built-in prices and built-in escalation.

also have some partners in Japan, just as the Greenhills project has

with their partner in Korea. B.C. Coal — Kaiser — when they started out

had a list of ten companies including some steel companies in Japan

which had partners.

It has all been done before, but never

with a guarantee, Mr. Speaker, and I can't make those negative nellies

across the floor realize that.

Orders of the Day

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: It is with

pleasure but with traditional regret that I rise in my place to speak

to this motion before the House, Mr. Speaker. As has always been the

case in the past, we are aware that the passage of this main motion

will result in your leaving the chair for a period of time while we

deal with other matters, and therefore it is a matter of regret.

I suppose it is also a matter of regret in speaking to this motion that the

members of the opposition traditionally have been so incapable of placing before

this House matters of a positive, constructive nature with respect to budgetary

and economic affairs of this province upon which this House might deliberate.

Instead, as has been traditional in the past, we have been treated to a repetition

of speeches which those of us who have been in this chamber for many years have

heard before. This morning's contribution by the second member for Vancouver

East (Mr. Macdonald) was an example of the recycling of an old speech with a

few new twists added. We've heard it all before. We've also heard the

twists before, because it is something we have come to expect from that member.

He is more concerned with innuendo and smear than he is with facts. He is more

concerned with the headline which he has carefully orchestrated for himself

than he is with a careful consideration of matters which should be before this

House.

Interjection.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Having heard that aside, may I say that it has been a matter of

tradition for lawyers to say that the client who represents himself has

a fool for a lawyer and a fool for a client. The only circumstance that

I have ever known where that failed to be the case was when the hon.

second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) represented the hon.

member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) in a recent lawsuit in this province.

The client may have been a fool, but he engaged a lawyer, which made

him a double fool.

The second member for Vancouver East

raised a matter with respect to the acquisition of a company in this

province which is a public utility, namely Inland Natural Gas. I just

want to comment very briefly upon what has taken place in order that

there may be no doubt about the actual circumstances, not those that

have been placed before this House in sort of a comic-opera way by the

second member for Vancouver East. When the notice was first made public

of the intention of a corporation to acquire a controlling interest in

Inland Natural Gas, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum

Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland) of this province and I were naturally

concerned, as was the government, because in the regulation of public

utilities in this province, throughout this country and throughout all

of North America, one must always be concerned when there is an

indication of change in ownership and control of a public utility,

being the monopoly which it so often is. We also recognized, however,

that in the offer that was being made to acquire the shares in the

company it was clearly specified that the offer was conditional upon

the receipt of the approval of the Utilities Commission of this

province — which, again, is quite proper. It was determined by me that

it was inappropriate in those circumstances for the government of

British Columbia to intervene before one of its own regulatory

agencies. This is standard practice in all jurisdictions which regulate

public utilities.

The offer was made public and then we

recognized that there was a change in the offer. The amended offer

removed the condition requiring approval by the Utilities Commission of

British Columbia for the transfer of shares which might be acquired as

a result of that offer. The government was then concerned that there

might be attempts on the part of persons acquiring the shareholding

control of Inland Natural Gas to circumvent the approval requirements

of the Utilities Commission. Without hesitation, in consultation with

the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources and with the

[ Page 7090 ]

government,

I gave instructions that the government of British Columbia would

intervene in those proceedings, not for the purpose of opposing such

applications as might come before the Utilities Commission but of

ensuring that in the course of hearings before the Utilities Commission

all those factors would be elicited which need to be properly

considered in order to reach a decision in the public interest. There

is no question that when changes take place in ownership of public

utilities, there is the prospect that there might be an impact upon the

customers who use the services of those utilities. There is a range of

matters which need the careful consideration of the regulatory agency.

was also clear that explicit in the public offer for the acquisition of

shares in Inland there was to be considered in the future, before the

end of this year, the possibility of a merger with a company which is

federally regulated. There is also the possibility that if a

satisfactory merger cannot be achieved, there might be some further

changes in the exercise of control over Inland Natural Gas. All of

these matters require the careful consideration of the Utilities

Commission.

Since intervening, it has been the consistent

position of the government of British Columbia to ensure that the

hearings before the Utilities Commission be conducted in such a way

that the fullest possible examination can be made of whatever plans may

be in store for Inland Natural Gas, again to ensure that the public

interest is fully protected.

All of these suggestions made

by the second member for Vancouver East with respect to other private

matters associated with this transaction are of no consequence as far

as the Utilities Commission or the government of the province of

British Columbia are concerned. We are there to ensure that the public

interest is protected, and we have taken such steps as we can

appropriately take under the legislation of the day to ensure that that

public interest is protected.

MR. LAUK: What about the integrity of the government?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Mr. Speaker, I have no need to be concerned about the integrity of the

government, because it has taken the position before the Utilities

Commission and will do so as required to ensure that the public

interest is protected. The customers of Inland Natural Gas, and all

those persons who may be affected in any respect by a change in

control, will be matters to which this government will direct its

attention.

MR. MACDONALD: You're kind of late, aren't you?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Mr. Speaker, the second member for Vancouver East speaks about being

kind of late. The only thing that is worrying the second member for

Vancouver East is that he had prepared himself for the speech he made

this morning and the actions of the government have proven that he's

wrong.

The difficulty that the member for Vancouver East has

is twofold. One is that he can't recognize that the legislation which

is being followed in this respect is legislation which he introduced on

the floor of this House — obviously another piece of legislation which

he hasn't bothered to read. The other thing that he doesn't quite

understand is that the steps that have been taken by this government

under the amendments to that legislation, which we introduced, have

given us the opportunity of giving specific directions to the Utilities

Commission with respect to the way in which they will handle this

particular application.

So far as credibility of a

government is concerned, the actions of this government, since we have

intervened, have shown clearly that the government has no interest in

the matter except the public interest, which is our responsibility.

Mr.

Speaker, there's only one further thing I wish to say about this

matter, because it is pending before the Utilities Commission and we

will await the outcome of the public hearings that will take place. But

I must say one thing. The second member for Vancouver East sometimes is

so candid that I don't believe he knows what he says or writes. He

appeared before the Utilities Commission in this matter and, in his

anxiety — as is always the case — to get his version of the story on

the record, he filed his submission with the Utilities Commission. I

want to refer only to one part of his filing.

Interjection.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

It's the one significant part. I'd be happy to file the whole document.

I'm sure that the member will be so embarrassed when I'm finished that

he won't want to have it read.

He went through the same kind

of fictional story in his submission that he went through in this House

this morning. He concluded that it was a grand design. Those were his

words. "This is the grand design," he said in his submission to the

Utilities Commission. He says: "However, there are just two obstacles.

One is the B.C. Utilities Commission" — and obviously the hearings that

they are going to hold — "appointed by the government of British

Columbia." He admits that's one of the obstacles to the grand design,

and the other is — and I quote: "the winning of the provincial election

by the Social Credit government" — that's the second obstacle that

stands in the way of that man being able to ensure that his grand

design takes place.

That's a solid admission from that

member that he is hoping, in his opposition to this matter, that those

two obstacles prove to be the case: firstly, the hearing before the

public utilities commission; and secondly, the winning of the next

election by this government. I want to assure the member, Mr. Speaker,

that the public utilities commission will do its job, and I also wish

to assure him that this government will win the next election.

I'm

sure that the Leader of the Opposition is wishing now that he hadn't

put that member up as a smokescreen in the competition with Bob

Williams. He's saying: "My God, I chose the wrong man."

Mr.

Speaker, I enjoy the opportunity to comment on matters which are raised

by members opposite, but I think it's more appropriate that we address

ourselves more seriously to the matters which affect this province and

this country.

During his remarks last Wednesday, the hon.

Leader of the Opposition had things to say about our new constitution.

The events of last weekend attended by the hon. Premier and some of his

colleagues, and by the Leader of the Opposition, were significant ones

as far as Canada and its future are concerned. There isn't any person

in Canada who has not carefully considered that the stage which we have

presently reached in our constitutional development is but a beginning

point for a new, exciting Canada, one in which we can make our own

destiny. I trust that we will in the future, with the support of all of

our sister provinces, be able to ensure that the design is one which

will meet the needs and aspirations of Canadians now and in the future.

[ Page 7091 ]

must, however, make a couple of comments about the process through

which we have been, and in so doing I would like to pay my particular

regards to the hon. Premier and the hon. Minister of Intergovernmental

Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) for the role which they have played in the

process to date. It's not recognized, and I think it is time that it is

placed on the record.

Following the failure of the

constitutional conference in September 1980 and the decision by the

national government to proceed in its own direction towards

constitutional change, I was associated with four of the provincial

Attorneys-General in the initiation of the legal action which

eventually resulted in the important and significant decision of the

Supreme Court of Canada. But legal actions in themselves, Mr. Speaker,

are not sufficient, nor are judicial decisions. I have to advise you,

sir, that those actions, once launched, were followed very quietly by a

decision taken by the hon. Premier and the hon. Minister of

Intergovernmental Relations that they would work, and continue to work,

with the other provinces and with the national government in attempting

to achieve a solution to the impasse which was reached in September

Very quietly, steadily, with a great deal of effort,

it was possible to achieve a measure of accord amongst the provinces in

April 1981, which in turn led to further discussions at the national

level. Representations were made in Britain. When the decision of the

Supreme Court of Canada came down, the work done by the Minister of

Intergovernmental Relations with his colleagues in the other provinces

placed us in a position whereby under the leadership of the Premier of

this province we were able to bring the matter full circle until in

November 1981 the accord was reached that enabled the government of

Canada and nine provinces to indicate their support for patriation and

a new constitution from which we could make this beginning. We still

have a long way to go, but without that hard work and dedication of the

Premier and my colleague, I am satisfied that the events of last

weekend would never have occurred. Canada would, I am certain, still

exist, but we would still be in the throes of bitter debate with

respect to the future of this nation. Instead today we are in a

position where we can commence to build the Canada which we all desire

and deserve.

We are debating the budget. The budget of this

province for the forthcoming fiscal year is one which has been

presented by the Minister of Finance after the most difficult review

and consideration that has ever had to be made in this province. As a

province and a nation, with the other nations of the world, we are

facing difficult economic times. We in this province are fortunate that

by the exercise of reasonable and timely restraint with this budget we

can provide for the people of British Columbia the measure of public

service which we have come to expect to be our good fortune. I

unhesitatingly support the budget introduced just a few weeks ago by

the Minister of Finance because it provides for the people of British

Columbia a solution to these current problems without, as has been the

case in other jurisdictions, creating a level of despair and causing

even greater concern than that which the economy itself brings to bear

upon us all.

We are concerned about the level of

unemployment, yet if one carefully reads this budget and considers the

implications of the measures which the Minister of Finance has

introduced, it will be clear that with every effort that can be made

those people who are suffering loss of employment today will be

restored to their gainful employment at the earliest possible

opportunity.

I sometimes wonder what it is that we are

trying to do in this country by creating attitudes of despair. It was

emphasized by the Leader of the Opposition when he spoke in this House

last Wednesday. He had the benefit of one of our newspapers. The

headline published that day was: "300 to Lose Jobs in Coppermine

Shutdown." This headline helped the Leader of the Opposition make his

speech which was critical of this government and its budget.

I read that same newspaper on Tuesday of last week, I found, not on the

front page or in banner headlines, but in

section B, page 12, down

under an advertisement for career opportunities — an internal auditor,

a junior estimator — a story which I thought would be given headlines.

"200 Workers Called Back. B.C. Forest Products' plywood division in

Victoria will call 200 employees back." It seems to me that our

priorities are a little mixed up. I would have thought that 200

employees called back to work would have got the headlines. What kind

of a society have we developed? What kind of an attitude are we to

develop in this country which will ensure restoration of the confidence

which is so important for us? We have headlines which are bad news, and

on page B-12, hidden at the bottom of the trust ads, is all the good

news.

Interjections.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I

thought the Leader of the Opposition was quoting this paper with

delight. I thought he was indicating support for what this paper did. I

would have thought that the opposition, being so interested in ensuring

that what was right was considered before this House, would have

referred to the Tuesday story rather than the Wednesday story. I

suppose it is not appropriate to talk about good news,

hate to disappoint the opposition because I've got some more good news

— good in one respect and bad in another. In the Ministry of the

Attorney-General we have one of our most important responsibilities in

the administration of justice, which is the provision of court services

throughout the length and breadth of this province. One of the problems

which faces us is the growing use of our courts and our judiciary. Just

by way of example, we handled 278,000 cases in 1976-77. I might point

out that in the provincial court of this province in 1976-77 we handled

278,000 cases. By 1982-83 that had risen to 364,000, and in the next

fiscal year we expect to handle more than half a million cases in the

court system in British Columbia. That is excluding traffic. If we

include traffic cases, we will add to that another 330,000 cases a year.

The growth from 1975 to 1985, excluding traffic, is estimated at

3,000 cases per month. This places very great strains upon our system.

That is why I was delighted, during the course of the budget introduced

by the Minister of Finance, to hear that among those ministries whose

capital projects have been approved was the Ministry of the

Attorney-General. Therefore, because we are all concerned about

unemployment, I think that the opposition might be interested to know

that projects have been approved to completion in this budget — some of

them at the tender stage today — to a total value of $91.5 million,

providing 700 man-years of employment. They include a new courthouse in

Kamloops with twelve courtrooms; a new courthouse in North Vancouver

with four courtrooms; in Port Alberni — the member's not here — a new

courthouse costing $3.6 million, with two courtrooms and a hearing

room; in Vanderhoof $1.3 million for a one-room courthouse; in Ashcroft

[ Page 7092 ]

$1.1

million for one courtroom and one hearing room; in Kitimat — the

member's not here — $1.1 million for another one-courtroom courthouse.

In addition, on the corrections side, we are already engaged and will

continue over the next two years in the replacement of Vancouver Island

Regional Correctional Centre — normally known as Wilkinson Road Jail —

for a cost of $38.9 million.

Those are the projects for

which design has been completed and tenders have been or are being

called. In addition, we have been given authority to commence planning

and design for projects totalling $263 million, which will create

another 1,400 man-years of employment.

Mr. Speaker, that

optimistic forecast has been made by the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr.

Curtis) who recognizes the strength of the economy of this province and

the strength engendered not only by the private sector but by the kind

of budgetary support that is available from this government. These

create jobs. During question period today we heard more questions about

northeast coal and I think it's appropriate that these questions are

asked. But when one is asked questions which seem to probe into the

northeast coal concept, one fears that criticism is being expressed.

For once, I wish the opposition would let us know whether or not they

want northeast coal to go ahead. Nod your heads.

AN HON. MEMBER: They're winkin' and blinkin' but they aren't noddin'.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Do you want those 8,000 jobs or don't you want those 8,000 jobs? I'll

tell you one thing, Mr. Speaker. If the opposition doesn't want it to

go ahead and doesn't want those 8,000 jobs, I wish they would leave

this House for a couple of days — we can look after it — and go up to

the Anzac Mine. Go around those construction camps Go through each one

and say: "We don't want northeast coal We don't want you to have a

job." I wish they would do that. If they did that and could then come

back and report to this House that all those workers in all those camps

said to them, "Go back and tell the government we don't want our jobs,"

maybe we could listen to some of the criticisms they offer with respect

to northeast coal.

Mr. Speaker, the fact is that the working

men and women in this province recognize that it is the programs, the

projects, the policies of this government, including the policies

implicit in this budget, that ensure they have jobs now, and will have

jobs in the future.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

What

we are seeing in the course of the debate in this House so far is the

reaction of, as one of my colleagues said, "the negative, doubting

people." I think that's wrong. Not negative, doubting people; negative,

desperate people is what they are. They're so desperate for something

they can put forward, apparently as a position to support their

political ambitions, that they would attack the working men and women

of this province, and would espouse attitudes which, if accepted by the

government, would ensure that those working men and women join the

ranks of the unemployment.

Mr. Speaker, in support of this budget I have this to say in conclusion: This

budget, like previous budgets of this government, will provide for the future

of this province. It is realistic. It is one within the scope of the people

of this province to sustain and it is one designed for their betterment.

HON. MRS. JORDAN:

Mr. Speaker, with leave of the House, I would like to make an

introduction. I would ask you and the House to join with me in

welcoming 40-odd senior citizens and their organizer, Mrs. Eleanor

Down, here from the Vernon and District area to enjoy the legislative

proceedings this afternoon. We will all have dinner together tonight

and they will continue a very happy visit throughout Victoria. Would

you please extend them a warm welcome.

MR. GABELMANN:

When I became involved in politics, I never thought we would be reduced

to debating issues using questions such as, "Have you stopped beating

your dog?" That is really the closest parallel I can think of in terms

of the question that the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) puts to

us in talking about northeast coal, and that other members of that side

of the House have put in terms of other projects and proposals in

British Columbia. Politics is a little more complicated than simply

phrasing a question in that way and then demanding a yes or a no answer.

Before

I begin my comments this afternoon, I want to say that a month or so

ago I spent three or four days in the southeast coal region of British

Columbia. I've not had the benefit of the helicopter tours of the

proposed northeast project, but as a result of that southeast tour, and

the realization that within three and a half years there will be twice

as much coal being produced in the southeast as is proposed for the

northeast, I think I have some idea of the scope and monumental nature

of such projects. There is no one in this province, not in this party

or in the other party, or in any other political party, who is opposed

to the rational and proper development of those resources and other

resources in this province. We want to do it in an open way, we want to

do it in an economical way, in a rational way, and we want to make sure

that unemployed taxpayers in many parts of this province are not using

their limited resources to subsidize foreign interests. That is what we

are afraid is happening, and the questions we ask have a lot to do with

trying to get more information about it. So to the Attorney-General,

Mr. Speaker, I would not answer, nor would I expect him to answer the

question: Have I stopped beating my dog lately?

I do want to

say one good thing about the Attorney-General. He has carried on a fine

tradition in that ministry, one which has existed, as far as I can

recollect, through the latter years of W.A.C. Bennett, through our

administration and through both of the current Socred

Attorneys-General: a tradition of the non-partisan, non-political

administration of the justice system, particularly in the probation

services and in that area of corrections. I say that honestly and

unabashedly. I think the service is very good; it's non-political and,

as a result, is held in high esteem in most communities, if not all

communities, in this province. I think every person who has held the

job of Attorney-General during the last 15 years, every person I know

about in respect to this particular part of that ministry, should be

proud of the way that has been handled. I wish I could say the same

about Human Resources lately, Mr. Speaker.

On to the budget.

What is the purpose of a budget, Mr. Speaker? I'm not sure that

question has been asked or dealt with in much detail during this

debate. Some would say, I think, that a budget is simply an accounting

process. Some others would say that it is a device governments can use

to maintain the status quo in society, if the government of the day

feels the particular status quo is appropriate. Or I think we could say

that a budget is a statement of the government's

[ Page 7093 ]

position

on where the economy is, and where it should go. I would argue that a

budget should be the instrument in our society for dealing with

distribution of income. While it does also in some ways affect the

creation of wealth, something that's very important in our economy and

that must never be neglected, it must also spend some time dealing with

the redistribution of income. That is particularly true at a time when

income is being redistributed in a faster way than ever before out of

the hands of the poor and into the hands of the rich, simply because of

high interest rates. Today, those who have make, and those who haven't

don't make. While that massive redistribution of income is going on in

the private sector, any government with any sense of social purpose

would understand that it has a responsibility to attempt to stem that

tide, to attempt to redress that imbalance.

In looking at

how the budget impacts on the economy of the province, if you were to

put it in simplistic terms you could say to yourself: Okay, we will do

as Sterling Lyon and others — notably the federal government lately —

have attempted to do. That is, we will put all of our eggs in the

baskets of megaprojects, and we will hope that the jobs that can be

created by that massive infusion of billions of dollars in a small

number of projects will be the fuse that kindles the economy.

would argue that on the other hand, putting money into the hands of

consumers, who would then buy consumer products that are needed —

essentials in life — would, in fact, create more jobs in this province

and would create, in the long term, a healthier economy than trying to

revive the economy through megaprojects. If those people who are now

not spending on house-building, automobiles, new kettles and various

products, such as a new pair of shoes, a jacket or a new pair of

running shoes for the kids.... If people were spending money on those

kinds of items, we would generate more revenue, more jobs and would

create a better society than we do through the megaproject choice.

That's not to say, given good times, that each and every one of the

particular projects that's underway at the present time wouldn't be

worthwhile.

I think I've said before in this House that I'm

a bit of a sports fan and a bit of a jock in that sense. I enjoy the

fact that we're going to have a football stadium in Vancouver, but I

don't think anybody in my riding can afford to pay for that football

stadium this year, and it doesn't look like they can afford to pay for

it next year. Why can't we wait until times are better before we build

a football stadium? That's the kind of question that needs to be

debated and answered. Why all of a sudden do we have all of these

projects at a time when we can't afford any of them? I suspect that

there's only one reason for it, and that's that we're on the slippery

path down to an election. There needs to be some visible evidence of

activity by the government before and during that election, and they're

hoping that the hosting of a Grey Cup game, or the opening night

Whitecaps game might give them some particular leg-up in a 1983

election, which is when I happen to think it will be called.

Those things are going on at a time when unemployment is at record levels,

not only in this province and this country but, in particular, in those parts

of this province that produce the wealth — areas like in my constituency. Those

areas do produce the wealth, I say to the member for Vancouver–Point Grey. A

community like Tahsis estimates that approximately $17 million to $20 million

worth of income tax is generated in that community. The net benefit they receive

from government services in exchange for that is about $1 million or $1.5 million,

and they put in $17 million. They don't go to Vancouver to enjoy the football

stadium. They're not employed in northeast coal. They're forgotten at

a time when soon, in many cases, unemployment insurance cheques are going to

run out. If you think there's a crisis now in this province, just wait until

the UIC entitlement begins to run out, as it will, for thousands of loggers

and lumber-employed people in this province.

There

was some laughter in the House the other day about soup kitchens. I

noticed the Premier giggling at the time about the symbolic soup

kitchen that was outside the buildings on opening day, April 5. In my

riding there is a real soup kitchen that fills a real need and is

feeding — it varies — 30 to 40 people a day. Most of those people would

not otherwise be having lunch. Many of those people — and I have talked

to some of them — have not eaten for some time. For many of those

people that is the one meal they get. That's a fact of life that's a

reality that I don't think is understood at all by members of the

government in this province.

I don't think there's any

understanding at all about the increase in wife-beating and child abuse

as a result of that unemployment. There are massive increases. I don't

think there's any understanding about the increases in stress, tension,

family breakdown and, in fact, suicides, as a result of that high

unemployment. As a result of that high unemployment, at a time when

those kinds of stresses and strains occur within the family, we don't

get what we need, which is increased and improved social services; we

get cutbacks. Just when we need the improved services, we get the

cutbacks. What kind of rational, intelligent government would make

those kinds of decisions?

Mr. Speaker, there is much to do,

many jobs to create. There are forestry rehabilitation projects,

silvicultural projects, replanting, thinning, spacing and fertilizing —

a variety of things that need to be done that could create hundreds and

perhaps thousands of jobs now when we need them, which in turn would

create jobs 60, 70, 80 and 90 years from now, when we will also need

them, because our forests will be in better shape. But what do we do?

We eliminate the one fund that was established to provide that kind of

job creation and forest rehabilitation.

What's going on in

terms of programs by this government for enhancing the resources of our

oceans, lakes and rivers — the fish and seafood resources that could

help to feed a hungry world? How much work, energy and effort is being

put into that? About as much as is being put into land-based

agriculture — just about nothing.

Tourism is another area in

which jobs could be created around this province — not just in downtown

Vancouver but around this province — if there was some effort to

enhance the tourist facilities, if there was some effort on the part of

the government to do things that would enable those people involved in

the tourist industry to better attract people to this province. But it

doesn't happen.

Those are just three simple areas —

forestry, fishery and tourism — which are all labour-intensive, all

designed to enhance the future of the province, all designed to make

people's lives better today and much better tomorrow. What happens?

Nothing.

We get major projects like B.C. Place. An

opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to house perhaps thousands of people who are

not properly housed now because they cannot afford the cost of rental

accommodation in the lower mainland. An oppor-

[ Page 7094 ]

tunity

to say: "We will put a reasonable mix of housing on the north shore of

False Creek; we will make sure that we do not continue to saturate the

market with luxury apartments; we will provide affordable housing in

the downtown area, so that people who work in the service industry in

that part of the city of Vancouver will be able to live there, putting

less strain on the transportation system." What's the response?

Minimal, window-dressing, enough only to try to be able to say they're

doing something.

We have a chance today with the amount of

land that's available in this province to say to the co-op housing

movement, which is bursting at the seams in one sense, in the sense of

waiting lists, and is straining the seams in another sense — in terms

of how much co-op housing is available — "Okay, there is all this land.

Let's go to it. We will contribute to the co-op housing movement in

this province by writing down the cost of land in the way the federal

government writes down the cost of the mortgage." What do we get?

Nothing. It would create jobs as well as better housing. Carpenters

could go to work and so could many others in the building trades.

There

are a variety of programs and initiatives that could be taken, Mr.

Speaker, but none of them have and none of them will, simply because

there is no more money. Having committed a billion dollars or so to one

project, they have no more money for a variety of projects which could

enhance and preserve communities which are dying in this province —

some of those communities are dying literally and some emotionally, but

many of them are in death throes in one way or another. I don't say

that we can come out of this recession all by ourselves in British

Columbia — we obviously can't — but there could be much more done by a

government that wanted to make sure that they were doing something to

alleviate particularly bad economic times. Their answer is one or two

major projects. My answer is yes to those projects when the time is

right and when the money is available; but in the meantime there should

be a redirection of that kind of money into job- and labour-intensive

projects in the community that serve a community need.

What

does the budget do for health and education, two particular concerns of

mine? We have a severe alcoholism problem in this province; it is

probably the most abused drug. It is certainly a fact in my

constituency, where lifestyle is such that alcoholism is very much a

part of day-to-day living. We have very few resources for treatment of

alcoholics in this province. Two very valuable sources were located in

the constituency of my colleague in Comox, Pidcock House and Pacific

House, which were funded through the Ministry of Human Resources. They,

quite properly, said this should be a responsibility of the Minister of

Health — Health looks after alcohol and drugs — so they passed it on.

But in the passing on of it, of course, it gets dropped, and a

valuable, cheap resource for the taxpayer — not $300 a day, like the

acute-care hospital beds will cost, but 10 percent of that or less — is

now lost.

We have a change in the delivery of alcohol and

drug treatment programs. What is the result of that? We lost a

community-based, active alcohol and drug program that relied on

numerous volunteers and certainly was very effective in my riding, and

is now dispirited and not very effective at all. It will come back in

sometime, but in the meantime we lose a few years.

What does

the budget do for public health programs which, in my riding

particularly, are in desperate shape? In the Upper Island Health

District, which is mostly my riding and also includes that of the

member for Comox (Ms. Sanford), we don't have enough public health

inspectors, we don't have enough public health nurses, we have

virtually no speech pathologists or nutrition services. Mental-health

programs and nurses are in desperate supply. There is a shortage of

audiologists, home-care nurses, VD nurses — although I understand there

is a new term for VD.... All those kinds of public health programs

which save taxpayers' money in the long run are not being provided.

Why? Because the government is determined to cut back its spending this

year. It doesn't matter much to the government what the costs are going

to be in 3 years or 5 years or 15 years, because they know they will

not be in government then and they will not be responsible for the

budgets that have to be presented to pick up the pieces that are

created by the desperate shortages in public health that exist all over

the province, I think, and certainly in my riding. Restaurants are not

inspected, swimming pools are not inspected. Why!

Then you

look at hospitals. It is the effect of the restraint program. I know we

can't talk about that in detail, and I won't. In Port McNeill, what do

the people who run the hospital say? They can't live within its budget

now. We are already down to a skeleton, and now they are faced with a

6.1 percent increase in a rapidly growing area in an inflationary

industry, health care. In Alert Bay they just don't know how they're

going to deal with the situation. That also goes on in the other

hospitals.

I mentioned education. Again, we can't talk in

detail at this point about the changes proposed by the Minister of

Education (Hon. Mr. Smith) with respect to property tax. I won't go

into that kind of detail except to say that in Vancouver Island West

School District, which primarily includes Gold River, Tahsis and

Zeballos, they have effectively lost 92 percent of their tax base by

this change; 8 percent of their tax base is left to the district.

Residential property taxes will double and triple in many cases.

Worse

than that, in many respects — very much worse than that, in my view —

is the fact that education itself will have to be cut back. Some of the

programs that they're trying to implement in that area will have to be

eliminated: special education, giving kids a chance to get out of the

bush and into an urban area perhaps once a year; sports; travel; and a

whole variety of important programs. Computer technology is a good one.

Wouldn't it be nice to have a computer machine that belonged to the

school district, so that in this computer age kids could look at

computers and see what they're all about? One of the teachers in Gold

River loans the school his own computer. That's with the existing

structure. What's going to happen with the new one? What kind of job

training and job-skill programs are being provided at a time when we

know we're going to need skilled people? We're talking about importing

20,000 people from outside the province to do various jobs for which

B.C. unemployed people are not trained. At the same time, they have cut

down the programs at the various community colleges. They have cut back

on the computer science programs at the university. What kind of logic

and sense is there to that kind of budgetary process?

think it means that they know they're going to lose the election, but

they want to end up the year in the black and lead us into the

succeeding two to four years. We would have to pick up all of those

costs and those debts, and that they could say that we're spendthrifts.

Mr. Speaker, the public is beyond that in their thinking. We no longer

have to worry about that scenario working. It may have worked for them

in 1972-75, but it won't ever work again.

[ Page 7095 ]

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

started these comments talking about the purpose of the budget. For the

rest of the time that I have, I want to talk specifically about one

group of people in our society who are always left out. They are

referred to on occasion but never with any regularity or any

consistency by governments at all. They are the working poor. My

colleague, the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly), made some reference

yesterday to problems faced by the working poor. I want to do the same

today.

Society has recognized very clearly those people who are on welfare.

We know who they are. We know how many of them exist. We can identify

them. We usually scapegoat them, too, but that's another issue.

We can identify those unemployed people because we can look at the

StatsCan figures and the UIC figures. We know how many they are.

They're identifiable because many of them are trade union members and

their unions keep records as well. They're identifiable, they're there,

they are visible, and we show some concern for them.

But we don't very often pay much attention to a group which in 1977

numbered about 51,000 families in B.C. according to the National

Council of Welfare — a number which I now think would be well over

60,000. You might say these families are part of the working poor.

Here are just a few figures. I know they're dry, but I want to put

them on the record, Mr. Speaker. Of all of the families who are poor in

British Columbia, 50 percent are employed. In British Columbia today —

I should say last year, the latest figures — we have 12 percent of

Canada's working poor. We are one of the have provinces, one of the

rich provinces with about 10 percent of the country's population, and

we have 12 percent of the country's working poor families. In 1973 we

only had eight percent. That's a 50 percent increase in our share since

Two-thirds — or 65 percent — of the working-poor families in this province

rent. Obviously, 35 percent are homeowners. Interestingly, we learn that the

working poor under the age of 25 in this country and this province are highly

educated — many with high school and many with post-secondary training. The

only kinds of jobs they are able to get are not the ones they were trained for

or have studied for, but rather are service industry jobs at a minimum wage

or not much more.

Finally, in this list of figures, an important one: nearly

70 percent of single-parent, working-poor families are headed by women.

So what we have in this province are about 60,000 working-poor

families, and 70 percent of them are headed by women who are actually

working but are poor by minimal standards defined by the National

Council of Welfare.

Mr. Speaker, one of the problems that face the working poor is the

question of mobility, and education is one of the things that gives

people mobility. I think the National Council of Welfare puts it very

well when they say that the working poor are confined to a marginal

labour market characterized by low pay, limited opportunities for

advancement and often unstable jobs and enterprises. I think that says

it very well.

What are some of the solutions? What are some of the things that we

could be doing if those people who drafted budget were interested in

doing so? Well, the first thing that immediately occurred to me was

that the minimum wage could be increased. In my naivete I thought that

would be a simple comprehensive solution: simply increase the minimum

wage. There would no longer be any working poor. On closer examination

I discover that that is only a partial solution.

Those who suffer most are family heads who work at minimum-wage

levels. The larger the family, the greater the distance between its

income and the poverty line. More often than not, the family might be

financially better off on welfare, even if we were to increase the

minimum wage level by 50 percent overnight. Even though it is not by

itself the answer, it is a partial answer and a part of the solution.

Yesterday the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) unwittingly used some figures

that I had planned to use, and I'm going to use them again and repeat them.

The minimum wage in B.C. in 1974 was 48 percent of the average income. Today

it's 35 percent. In other words, eight years ago people on the minimum wage

were making about one-half of the average income in the province and they're

now making one-third.

Another statistic picks the last 15 years and divides them into

groups of five. We look at what the real change in the minimum wage has

been. Between 1965 and 1970 the real net benefit change in the minimum

wage was a positive plus 20 percent. Between 1970 and 1975 it was a

plus 23 percent. So there were some gains being made by the working

poor at hat end. But between 1975 and 1980 there has been a net drop of

14 percent — minus 14 percent in relation to the minimum wage and its

real percent of change compared to wages in general. They were making

gains from 1965 to 1975, and they're dropping back now.

What

can the government do and what could the budget do to begin to redress

some of those imbalances? One of the facts of life, as I pointed out

earlier, is that 70 percent of the people who are in this category are

women. Many others are disadvantaged for other reasons. That's one of

the reasons I support the affirmative action concept of equal pay for

work of equal value. Because by those kinds of mechanisms, by the

reverse discrimination — and I acknowledge it — of affirmative action,

we could begin to pull that group of our society but of that perpetual

poverty. We can be guaranteed that most of the children from those

families will carry on in that poverty, as will their children and

their children after.

Even the Employers Council is more progressive on this issue than this government

is. Even our friend Bill Hamilton, an honest Tory, is more progressive than

this particular government. In March 1982 the council urged employers and government

best way to address the problem.

Mr. Speaker, what we require is some very real income redistribution through

the mechanism of the budget, and we've not seen it. Over the last few years

we've seen an increase in what is one of the most regressive taxation mechanisms

in our society, the sales tax — a 50 percent increase from 4 percent to 6 percent.

The user-fee concept for every possible government service is a regressive tax.

It hits the poor first and hardest. As a philosophical approach to taxation income

tax was developed to attempt to allow for a system which had the people who could

afford to pay paying, and those who couldn't afford to pay not paying. That

has een subverted in spades by this government this year.

How

do poor people face the reality of medicare increases when the limit on

their income goes up by 2.8 percent this year, in terms of their

eligibility for a subsidy under medicare and denticare, a program that

now requires that poor people

[ Page 7096 ]

pay

at least 25 percent of their dental bills? I'm not talking about people

on welfare, as I said earlier. I'm talking about the other 50 percent

of the poor in this province who are actually working and who do not

receive the benefit of these subsidies. That 50 percent of our society

is supported by social assistance of every kind, which includes

medicare subsidies, denticare subsidies and those other kinds of

subsidies that exist, to the extent of 4 percent of their total income.

These are people who are making $5,000 to $10,000 a year. They get 4

percent from social assistance, so they receive virtually none of it.

What changes have been made in the income tax exemptions in this budget

to deal with that problem? Nothing. I could go on and on with a whole

list of fee increases, but I won't.

I want to talk about day

care. In this province, more than half of all mothers work, but there

are only 4.1 day-care spaces for every 100 preschool kids. Where are

those kids in the daytime? Where are those preschoolers when the

mothers are working? They're not in licensed day care. Where are they?

Has the minister responsible ever wondered, when she goes to sleep at

night, just where those kids spent yesterday and today, and where

they're going to spend tomorrow? I think if anybody studied that

question the answers would be appalling.

I said earlier that

65 percent of those working poor are renters, yet rent control is being

eliminated by the government as part of its budgetary approach to

favour the rich once again. Where do those people live? Does the

government have any understanding at all of a family situation where a

mother and three kids are in two-bedroom apartments, and what stresses

that creates? They're trying to pay the rent every month: as much — and

I can document it — as 60 percent and 70 percent of their income. I

wonder if the government has ever given that any consideration.

the face of all of those problems, which are identifiable and

demonstrable, what does the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon.

Mr. Chabot) do? He decides to end, by phasing out the assisted rental

program, a program by which poor people can have part of their rent

paid by government on a needs-tested basis. But, no, this government

decides that that program is not necessary any longer. Their commitment

to public housing is nil. It's demonstrable also by the fact that there

are still 10,000 people on the waiting list for subsidized housing at

the B.C. Housing Management Commission. There are tens of thousands of

others who, if they knew about it or thought it was worthwhile, would

also put their names on that list.

I'm going to close by

quoting from a brief that was presented to the NDP economic task force

for the family. This is a brief from a person who works in the

government service and has the benefit of a union contract. She

describes the fact that she is among those working poor. The evidence

is clear in that respect.

What does she suggest governments

do? First, it should provide inexpensive, quality day care. Her net

income is $1,100 a month. Two kids cost $440 a month for day care. Her

apartment's $600. What's left? Does the government have any

understanding of the fact that people in its employ — people who are

members of the B.C. Government Employees Union — can in this day and

age take home $1,100 a month and have to pay $600 for rent and $440 for

child care? What do they have left for anything else, particularly when

their husbands take off and don't pay the maintenance?

She

talks about affordable and comfortable low-income housing and cheap,

reliable transportation. I'm going to close with a direct quotation

from her brief:

"When the union that

negotiates on my behalf goes to the bargaining table this summer, the

least they can ask for is an increase of 20 percent in our wages, yet

we have already been told the most we will get under the wage restraint

program is 10 percent. The government must understand that if they do

not wish to spend money on wages, then they must spend it on services.

Should those services be available to low-income families, our earning

power would rise without a penny increase in income. However, if the

government persists with their policy of taking money from the

low-income family through cutbacks in social programs and wages, there

will be hell to pay. The legacy of this government will be felt by many

generations of British Columbians; it will be seen in the faces of our

children and their children.

"I trust that you

will point out to those legislators who have perpetuated this cruel and

ruthless administration that the sins of the father are indeed visited

upon the son."

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I want

to say I'm very happy to take my place in the budget debate, the first

opportunity I've had to say a few words, and I'd like you all to listen

— not compulsory, of course, but it would be appreciated.

would like to first of all say a word or two about the riding of

Cariboo, that I have the honour to represent, and to tell you that

things are pretty rough in the riding of Cariboo. But the people have

determination. It's heavily oriented to forestry, cattle-ranching and

mining. Over and above the economic problems, we've had a very

difficult winter. I get a kick out of hearing other members of this

House say how difficult things are. I appreciate that, but at the

present time we have loggers trying to make a living in the riding of

Cariboo who are today working in eight feet of snow. So weather has

been a downer since the New Year, as well as the economic climate for

the products we produce in the Cariboo, caused by world and Canadian

prices. In spite of all that, Mr. Speaker, they have maintained about

65 percent production and they have alternated their employment. I

would just like to go on record publicly to thank the employees and the

employers, whether they're big or small, for the terrific job they've

done under very trying conditions since last fall. They're not prone to

blame government for everything and expect everything from government,

but they are certainly very concerned about the produce that they send

to the world markets and the poor return they get on that.

For

the forest products there isn't much sign of improvement in that

market, which is mainly dependent on the U.S. market. Of course, in the

Canadian market there is no big sign of an increase in price. As a

matter of fact, to get orders at any price is a problem throughout the

province and certainly not peculiar to the Cariboo. So under these

conditions it's very difficult. We have companies in the riding of

Cariboo — not large companies — that last fall had equities of five

million dollars. Today their equity is gone, because it's been used up

in trying to keep their business and their crews in operation. The

straight operating loss is eroding their equity position and naturally

they're concerned — everyone is concerned. We can only hope that things

will turn for the better, and the sooner the better.

[ Page 7097 ]

Regarding

the cattle market and the producers of beef, I guess the Cariboo ships

more to the markets than anywhere else in the province. They're

operating at an all-round loss in their operations because of the

market price for beef at home in Canada as well as in the United

States, and it's very difficult for them. On top of that, the heavy

winter they've experienced has increased their feed costs and so on,

which really only adds insult to injury.

I might say that in

the riding of Cariboo, in spite of all this, a new pulp mill went on

stream in my hometown of Quesnel in November, 1981, with an investment

of $100 million. It is working first-class, and that company is to be

congratulated for getting that on stream under the difficult conditions

that existed.

Another observation I have is that while

government can help somewhat in the case of the forest industry.... I

don't hear anybody in here say this, on either side of the House, but

the government is assisting the forest industry. Our operators are on

minimum stumpage throughout the province and I am sure that our

operators appreciate that. The government is also doing other things in

the interior that the operators appreciate. If they can find timber a

little closer to the location of the production of that timber — and

where they hadn't planned on logging, but it is more economic now, with

the depressed market — the Forest Service is allowing some of this to

happen. I just say that all of these things are greatly appreciated,

but we certainly haven't got the solution to the long-term problem,

which is: when are we going to have decent markets so our operators can

at least recover their costs? It is quite a serious condition that they

are operating under at the present time and have been since about

October 1981, created by world prices, world markets, world financing,

whatever.

So much for the Cariboo. I would like to say a few

things about job creation and what this government has done about job

creation. It is spelled out, it has had lots of publicity, but I'd like

to name a few megaprojects, as I think they are referred to by some of

the press. Call them whatever you want, but B.C. Place I consider to be

a big asset to all the citizens of British Columbia. It is under

construction. Our citizens can now see the stadium, and I am sure all

citizens will be proud when it is completed. As far as the stadium

part

is concerned, my information is that we will use it in the fall of

1983. That has been subject to many things that have happened — a lot

of criticism and so on. Basically, in my opinion, the majority of the

citizens of the province agree with this and are glad to see it going

ahead. With the jobs it is creating, it is certainly a good asset for

the province.

I would like to make this observation. I know

the people on the other side haven't been sure — as they aren't of so

many things — whether to criticize it or not, but mainly they have

criticized it for what, in their opinion, it lacks. I get a big kick

out of all the greater Vancouver projects and the attitude of Alderman

Rankin and Mayor Harcourt. I understand they are in the precincts

today, and I hope they are listening. Whether you like it or not,

Alderman Rankin and Mayor Harcourt criticize everything, and we in

British Columbia all know that that is a foregone conclusion, no matter

what it is unless they thought of it.

The B.C. trade and

convention centre. Thanks to our Premier and our government, that is

sorted out and now going ahead, along with Expo 86. That was really

quite a deal. Ottawa didn't have $8 million to close the other deal.

When our Premier got through with them, they put up $134 million.

am going to take the Premier to the racetrack with me someday. It would

be a big help to me, I'll tell you, when you can make deals like that.

hear the Leader of the Opposition being critical about lotteries. I'd

remind the Leader of the Opposition that he's let me down very badly.

Where is he today? The, Leader of the Opposition yapped his head off

from January until March: "Call the Legislature. Get on with the public

business." But he uses his usual hit-and-run tactics: he hits and then

he runs and we don't see him for another week.

Back to

lotteries, I think the opposition was quite critical of a lottery to

raise funds. I'd like to get the record straight, Mr. Speaker. I stood

in this House and sat in this House roughly where that man is sitting

that came from Ottawa. He still hasn't found himself. I stood up and

voted for Premier Barrett and his government when he made lotteries

legal in this province in 1974. It was his government that brought them

in and made them legal, and I can't understand what's turned him. I

really can't understand it, but it's the usual doubletalk that I do

understand. Just read the records of this House for 1974 and it'll give

you quite a story on who voted for and against authorizing and

legalizing lotteries. The former Provincial Secretary, now the second

member for Surrey (Mr. Hall), brought the legislation in, if I recall.

I wish the second member for Surrey would have a little quiet

discussion with his leader and tell him to straighten himself out

regarding his position on lotteries. As usual he's saying one thing and

acting another way. There're a shining example.

Rapid

transit is going ahead too — $700 million or $800 million by this

government. We've had talk about that for 30 years and now we're

finally getting some action. Construction is starting in 1982.

Interjection:

HON. MR. FRASER:

I don't know whether Mayor Harcourt and Alderman Rankin agree with that

or not. The last time I saw them talking about it, they couldn't agree

between themselves. Stay tuned. I think whoever is running for election

for mayor of Vancouver better be careful under the conditions that

exist there now.

Another item, Mr. Speaker, that you'd be

interested in is the Annacis Island crossing. That gang over there is

against that. I just want to reaffirm that it is going ahead. Thirty

million dollars has been spent on it, and $30 million more will be

spent in this fiscal year. It is in the budget and will create jobs.

Interjections:

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, The minister has the floor.

HON. MR. FRASER: Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, if they want to heckle, tell them to get to their own seats.

For

the information of the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) the

Annacis Island crossing is going ahead. When you go home on the weekend

be sure to tell your friends in Burnaby. The Burnaby council thinks

it's great.

Northeast coal. We've heard a few words from the

House about northeast coal — all very interesting. We have that former

MP from Ottawa saying a lot about it. He really hasn't got himself

oriented back in British Columbia yet. I'll take you up there sometime,

Mr. Member, and show you around.

[ Page 7098 ]

Northeast

coal is going ahead, as well as the port at Prince Rupert. We will have

another port in our province — again talked about for the last 50

years. I heard a very interesting story, Mr. Speaker, that the member

for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) has banned the Leader of the Opposition

from going to his riding because he's saying some pretty bad things

about northeast coal, which the member for Prince Rupert doesn't want

repeated in his riding.

Interjection.

HON. MR. FRASER: Well, they're against it. The member goes home and says that they're all for it.

have a few more things to say, but all this northeast coal is going

ahead and people are at work at the present time. While I'm discussing

northeast coal, Mr. Speaker, I have also heard the opposition say that

it creates job for people in Tokyo and Toronto. I'd like to report to

this House only the contracts that have been awarded by this ministry

in relation to northeast coal and who actually got the jobs. I'm

referring to the building of the new road from Chetwynd to Tumbler

Ridge, a distance of 58 miles. I'm going to read them off and allay the

fears of citizens of the province as to who are actually getting these

jobs. These jobs have all been awarded, and the people are all at work

or about to start work.

First

section from Chetwynd to

Martin Creek, awarded to Geddes Contracting, Kelowna. Kelowna is in

British Columbia; it's not in Japan or Ontario.

I might also

say, with reference to all these contracts to which I'm referring, that

they were awarded on the basis of low bidders. The Geddes contract was

awarded for $3, 424,000 and will create 50 jobs in 1981-82 and another

50 jobs in 1982-83.

The next contract is from Martin Creek

to Upper Martin Creek and is awarded to Miller Contracting in Langley,

B.C., in the amount of $6,295,000. They're either at work or about to

commence work, weather permitting. I want to repeat that their address

is Langley and not Tokyo or Toronto.

These are all

B.C.-owned and -operated companies. They're really happy to hear the

Leader of the Opposition say that all the jobs are going to Tokyo and

Toronto and everywhere else but to our B.C. citizens. He is sure

helping your party a lot. Keep on peddling that baloney because it

really helps.

The next contract is for the stretch from

Upper Martin Creek to Gwillarn Lake and was awarded to Attachie

Construction of Fort St. John, B.C. Not Tokyo. Not Toronto.

The

next contract from Gwillim Lake to Meikle Creek was awarded to Attachie

Construction, Fort St. John — again the low bidder on that

section of

road.

From Meikle Creek to Bullmoose Creek, the next contract is already awarded to Miller Contracting of Langley, B.C.

From

Bullmoose Creek to Tumbler Ridge West the contract went to View

Construction of Kamloops. Well, that doesn't sound like Toronto or

Tokyo to me.

The next contract from Bullmoose Creek to

Tumbler Ridge went to Dawson Construction, Vancouver, owned and

operated by a pioneer construction firm in British Columbia and still

in operation — I believe third generation.

Two other bridge

contracts have been awarded. I think the Minister of Agriculture (Hon.

Mr. Hewitt) referred to the award to Kenyon Construction of Penticton

for the Twidwell Bend bridge.

The last contract awarded so far is to Kingston Construction of Burnaby for the Dickebusch Creek bridge.

all, Mr. Speaker, $43 million worth of contracts have been awarded

under northeast coal, and all to British Columbia contractors — and

good ones. So when you hear the pie-in-the-sky from the Leader of the

Opposition, give it the credence that is due, which is nil.

I've

outlined some of the things our government has done or is doing to

create work and advance society in our province. I am aware that the

NDP have come out with a platform creating jobs and so on. I didn't

cost it exactly, because I stopped when it came to $5 billion and it

didn't say anywhere where that money was coming from.

Interjection.

HON. MR. FRASER:

Well, I could be subject to correction there. I stopped when it hit $5

billion because that was enough for me. I couldn't see how you or

anybody else could finance that, other than by running deficits — like

they did when they were in government. We are still paying for that.

They left us with $260 million and we've paid about half of that. We

have the other half that we are still paying on. We've had to put that

off so we can have funds to create jobs for 1982.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Interjection.

HON. MR. FRASER:

He mentions the public debt. I am very well aware of that — guaranteed

by the province of British Columbia. While you were government I don't

know what you did about it. You continued to increase the public debt

for worthy purposes such as B.C. Hydro. Are you suggesting we cut that

out and not create that? Don't talk out of both sides of your mouth.

You should practise what you preach. You didn't do a thing about

retarding Hydro in any shape or form, and that is where the major debt

is.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, order

in the House will be assisted greatly if the minister addresses the

Chair and is not interrupted by other hon. members.

HON. MR. FRASER:

I would like to mention a matter that comes up from time to time:

leadership. I think we have a fine Premier and a fine leader. I would

like to sum up his achievements, such as his very hard work on the

constitution. I was amazed to hear the member from over in the boonies

over there say on television the other day how hard the NDP worked on

the constitution. That really amazed me. However, be that as it may,

our Premier was the chairman of the premiers, and at least we got it

finalized. He certainly doesn't take all the credit, but he deserves a

lot more credit than he has been given, not only by the opposition but

also by members of the press across this nation. I compare that to the

leadership shown by the Leader of the Opposition, particularly his

leadership when it comes to nominations. That is really interesting.

They

had a little bit of a family squabble in Rossland-Trail. Do you know

what the Leader of the Opposition did there? He let the incumbent sit

and hang out to dry by himself. But lo and behold, he set up a

nomination convention for himself and the second member for Vancouver

[ Page 7099 ]

East

(Mr. Macdonald). That was really interesting to follow — the great

charade put on for the benefit of the voters and the public of British

Columbia. Poor old Mr. Chips, Bob Williams. He got taken in again. They

had to buy him off to get him to step down when the Leader of the

Opposition lost his seat in Coquitlam in 1975. It was $80,000 to get

the member who had been elected to step down. Here they pick on poor

Bob again in 1982. I suggest it was just a big pizzazz put on to

impress the press and the public. It was all prearranged. Bob had no

intention of coming back or winning. You know what happened? The two

carpetbaggers won again. The one carpetbagger from Coquitlam got the

nomination again and the other one.... It is not really fair to call

him a carpetbagger — I am referring to the second member for Vancouver

East — but he is certainly borderline inasmuch as he is an aristocrat

from Point Grey.

HON. MR. GARDOM: You are attacking my constituents.

HON. MR. FRASER:

Sorry. I apologize. As far as Vancouver East is concerned, I have a few

friends there too, and they tell me the second member for Vancouver

East has no fixed address in that riding at all. However, it was a good

exercise for the press. News was dead at that time of the year. The

public may or may not have believed it when they read it. I just say it

was a charade to try to show a different image; it was all organized;

it was all put on. They might fool some of the people some of the time

wearing three-piece suits and so on, but they've still got their red

underwear. When we go to the polls, they'll find that out.

I'd

like a few members of this House to apologize for things they have said

here. I don't think it should happen in public life, and if it does

happen, I think they should be big enough to stand up and apologize. I

refer to the Vogel case. While the former Attorney-General (Hon. Mr.

Gardom) and the now Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) are well able

to handle themselves, I want to speak on behalf of Mr. Vogel and tell

you that the most disgraceful episode we'll ever see in this House

happened in March of 1980. There were charges and insults by those

members over there — and I have a list of their names, which I'm going

to read off — over a man who went to the highest court in the land and

was found not guilty. What did they use? A reporter. Imagine using his

evidence in this House and treating it as fact. It's an absolute and

utter disgrace for anybody to do that, let alone elected people who

should know better. There's puffery every day in the press, on radio,

television or whatever, and you have to have enough brains to figure

out what is fact and what is fiction. They chose to ruin an individual

who was a really good public servant.

Believe me, regardless

of what happened to that man in court, it will affect him and his

family for the rest of his life. Don't forget it. I think they are

taking advantage of their privilege in this House as elected persons.

The least they could do is to apologize. They haven't enough gumption

to apologize. Absolute political chicanery is a they were pulling.

That's all it was, and that was proven in the highest court in the

land. That's, again, why they should apologize. The members are: the

first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) ; the member for Burnaby-Edmonds

(Ms. Brown) ; the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) ; the first

member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) ; the member for Coquitlam-Port

Moody (Mr. Leggatt), that poor fellow who left Ottawa and is still

lost; the member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Lorimer) ; the second

member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald), and also the first member

for Vancouver East (Mr. Barrett). They should all apologize to that

family, which certainly went through a lot. But you didn't help one

little bit, and all of you should be big enough to apologize in this

House. It was a disgraceful episode by public people for what they

thought would be political advantage. I don't think this place is made

a better place by those cheap tactics.

The other item that I

want to discuss, and I know you'll be interested, Mr. Speaker, is the

next election. I have an announcement to make. I hope the Premier isn't

listening. He might be.

Interjections.

HON. MR. FRASER: I think, Mr. Speaker, that you could bring those members to order when I have the floor. I didn't bother them.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. FRASER: I just want to say this: Yes, there will be an election, and no, it won't be called by Marjorie Nichols of the Vancouver Sun . Neither will it be called by Allen Garr of the Vancouver Province .

Neither will it be called by Dave Barrett, the Leader of the

Opposition. It will be called in due course by the Premier of British

Columbia, who's got the responsibility to do so. I'm sure that he'll

call it after he's listened to all sides — he's entitled to listen to

everyone. Then we will have an election. So, Mr. Speaker, I hope you

appreciate my announcement. I imagine it will put to bed any further

talk about an election in British Columbia.

Before I sit

down, I want to again congratulate the Minister of Finance for bringing

out the only balanced budget in Canada. By the way, it's the first

budget — and I wonder why — of any province in Canada. I wonder what

they are holding back about, no matter what province it is.

I'm quite happy to support the budget.

MS. BROWN:

I think it's a good thing that I'm following the last speaker, because

after at least 40 minutes he didn't discuss the budget even once — not

one single thing in the budget. I can't say that I blame him, because

it's such a disastrous budget. I can understand why he wanted to talk

about everything and anything except the budget.

Now it's my

turn. I want to talk about the budget. Before doing that, I just want

to congratulate that minister on his nerve. It must take a lot of nerve

and gall for any member of the government benches to stand in this

House and accuse anyone of abusing the privileges of this House. There

has never been a government or opposition or any other elected body in

the history of this province which has abused the rules of this House

the way your government has. It really takes nerve on the part of that

minister to stand and talk about demanding apologies and using quotes

from the press. You have a minister over there who doesn't even bother

to use quotes from the press when she chooses to slander people. It

really takes nerve and gall on the part of that particular minister to

accuse members of the opposition of abusing the privileges of the

House. Even if we tried to emulate them, we couldn't. They are so far

ahead of us when it comes to knowing how to abuse and twist the rules

of the House. I certainly hope that I don't ever again hear any member

over

[ Page 7100 ]

there talk about abuse of the rules and privileges of this House.

I said before, the other thing I hope they'll be careful about doing is

playing around with initials. Everyone is now playing around with

initials, including the municipal councils. Whenever they think of "s"

all they talk about is sham and shell games.

I see the

Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) is running. That's

all that minister can do. Anyway, I'm going to talk about the budget,

and I'm going to talk about the Minister of Municipal Affairs and what

he's done to the municipalities as a result of this particular budget.

I'm going to quote from the newspaper, despite the fact that the

Minister of Transportation (Hon. Mr. Fraser) says it's all puffery. I'm

going to quote the president of the Union of B.C. Municipalities, Jim

Tonn, who referred to what that minister and his government have done

to municipalities as a scam — using the letter "s" — and a shell game —

again using the letter "s." They like to play around with initials; I

think we should. When we think of the letter "s," now the

municipalities are talking about a scam and shell games. In today's

newspaper, Alderman Stusiak, who is not known for his commitment to the

New Democratic Party, used that same term. He referred to what that

minister is perpetuating on the municipalities as a shell game.

case you're wondering what I'm talking about, I'm talking about the

budget. I'm going to explain to you, Mr. Speaker, what the budget said

about this great gift that the budget was going to give to the

municipalities. The budget told us that no longer would the

municipalities have to bear the cost of welfare. That was going to be

taken away from them; they were going to be relieved of this incredible

burden; and now they are going to have so much more money to provide

services to the members of their municipalities. Lo and behold, to

their horror they discovered last Tuesday that not only were their

grants going to be slashed almost in half, but in addition four new

programs for which they had never had responsibility before were now

going to be added to their responsibilities. That, Mr. Speaker, is what

they're referring to as a shell game and a scam. I'm just quoting —

these are not my words. When I think of the letter "s," I think of the

word "sleazy," but they use the words "scam" and "shell game." In

talking about the budget, that's how they describe it.

What

the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) has done

through this budget is to say he's going to be lifting the welfare

costs, but it's not going to be done this year, it's going to be phased

in. This year he's going to start out by lifting $17 million from the

revenue-sharing — this is during the transition period. However, Mr.

Speaker, because the municipalities operate on a different fiscal year

than the provincial government, in fact all of the municipalities have

already come up with the first four months of their welfare costs from

January to April. That's already been done. The great gift of a year is

really worth eight months anyway — it's really not worth a year. In

addition, as I said before, what does this really mean to the

municipalities? Maybe I'll give some general figures first in terms of

the whole province, and then I'll speak more specifically about Burnaby.

Mr.

Speaker, under the guise of withdrawing welfare costs from the

municipalities, the minister at the same time slashed the unconditional

revenue-sharing grants by something like $63 million. So he's giving

with one hand and taking with another. I don't think the municipalities

would have been upset about that, if he were giving $63 million and

taking $63 million, but that is not what he was doing at all. In fact,

he has taken something in the neighbourhood of 76 percent of the budget

that used to be an unconditional grant and returned something in the

neighbourhood of about 42 percent. Who comes off the better on a deal

like this? Certainly not the municipalities. That's what triggered

Mayor Harcourt, Jim Tonn, and Aldermen Stusiak and Drummond in Burnaby

to refer to this gift, which was announced in the budget, as nothing

more than a scam and a shell game. Since we are now playing the game of

the alphabet — the game which the government started — we should always

remember the letter "s." What the letter "s" stands for is not just

"social" in Social Credit; it also stands for "scam" and "shell game."

As I said, that's not my word; my word is "sleazy." When I think of "s"

in terms of Social Credit, that's all I think about.

However,

Mr. Speaker, apart from the difference between $63 million and $43

million, there are also these four programs which the municipalities

were told on Tuesday of last week that they are now going to be

responsible for. These are programs that traditionally have been

handled by the minister's department itself.

And now,

specifically, Burnaby. What does it mean? In 1981, Mr. Speaker,

Burnaby's unconditional revenue from the provincial government was

$10,071,201.

Oh, the minister left. You see, this is what

happens when you try to discuss these kinds of issues with the Minister

of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) — he takes off.

MR. HALL: There are only four Socreds left.

MS. BROWN: That's right. There are only four of them sitting in the House.

Anyway,

Mr. Speaker, this year, 1982, the unconditional grant from the

government was slashed from $10 million down to $5,758,912 — a decrease

of $4,312,389. At the same time the minister said: "Well, we are going

to pick up the tab for the welfare costs; you're not going to have to

pay that." Well, Burnaby has figured out what its welfare costs are

going to be, based on what it has paid out already in welfare costs in

the first four months. Burnaby figures that its welfare costs are going

to be in the neighbourhood of $2,047,646.

That is what it

would have cost Burnaby if they had had to pay all the welfare costs

themselves. However, the provincial government has deducted $4,312,389

from that. If the provincial government had given Burnaby exactly the

same amount of money as it gave Burnaby in 1981, if in 1982 Burnaby had

received the same $10,071,201 that it got in 1981 and had paid its own

welfare costs it would have been further ahead by something in the

neighbourhood of $3,711,266. As a direct result of this gift which was

bragged about in the budget — this wonderful, tremendous, good thing

that was being done for the municipalities — Burnaby is going to end up

with $3,711,266 less in its pocket than it had in 1981.

To add insult to injury, the minister announced last Tuesday that

Burnaby now has to pick up the tab for all its sewage costs, all its

undergrounding, all its restructuring in terms of its boundaries and

its mobile homes. Not only is Burnaby robbed blind of something in the

neighbourhood of $3.7 million, but in addition the taxpayers of Burnaby

now have to pick up an additional $964,000 just for the sewage costs

alone. I have no idea what the undergrounding and the

[ Page 7101 ]

other costs are going to be. What Burnaby is facing as a result of this budget is a loss over last year's revenue of $4,675,266.

the representative for Burnaby-Edmonds, there is absolutely no way that

I could endorse a budget that does that to my constituency. I cannot

sit in this House and remain dumb and silent while that government is

robbing the constituency of Burnaby blind. I have to speak out against

that, and I am going to have to vote against this budget, if for no

other than reason than what that Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon.

Mr. Vander Zalm) and that government are doing to the municipality of

Burnaby. I am sure you will understand, Mr. Speaker, why it is that the

two aldermen from Burnaby said in today's Sun

that as far as they were concerned the minister's announcement was

"dishonest, " that it was a "shell game" that the minister was talking

about, and that the only way Burnaby is going to be able to deal with

this is to ask the staff to accept a reduction in wages and to forgo a

salary increase in 1983, to pare $2 million off its own municipal

budget and, in addition, to increase commercial and industrial taxes

something in the neighbourhood of 30 percent.

That is what

is going to happen to Burnaby as a result of this budget. Burnaby is

going to find that it has to come up with additional funds to deal with

this "scam" and "shell game" which results in their having over $4

million less to deal with in terms of supplying services. It is going

to have to increase its commercial and industrial tax by 30 percent, it

is going to have to pare $2 million from its budget, and in addition

they are going to have to approach the staff and ask them to take a

reduction in their wage and to forgo an increase in 1983.

the same time that Burnaby is having to do this, they are having to

deal with all the increases in terms of hidden taxes and user fees

visited on them by the provincial government. At the same time as the

people who work for the municipality are going to be asked to take a

cut in their wages and to forgo an increase in 1983, they are going to

have to deal with a 21 percent increase in their medicare rates, a 10

percent increase in their water licence, a 16 percent increase in their

motor vehicle licence, an 11 percent increase on cigarettes — that $3

million that suddenly appeared in the Minister of Health's (Hon. Mr.

Nielsen'

s) budget to pay for public health services.... They're going

to have to deal with those increases in transportation costs — the bus

fares have now gone up for everyone — and in addition, senior citizens

with bus passes have to deal with that 60 percent increase in the cost

of their bus passes, the 35 percent increase in the cost of long-term

care — if they need to use it — and, of course, the 24 percent increase

in their Pharmacare cost.

I don't think that the people of

Burnaby would begrudge the government's withholding funds if that meant

that the services were still there, But what they're finding is that

they're paying more in taxes through user fees and hidden taxes, and

the services are being cut at the same time. They're expected to stand

up and applaud when the Minister of Finance says: "Isn't it wonderful?

I didn't increase your taxes." In fact, the taxes have been increased

and were increased long before the budget came down. There is

absolutely nothing that anyone could do about the announcements of the

increase in medicare, Pharmacare, fuel tax, motor vehicle licence,

water licence, bus passes, long-term care and all of the others —

apparently 131 user fees and hidden taxes — that were inflicted on

people.

There is nothing we can do about it, nothing at all.

As I said before, I know my constituents well enough to know that they

would not have objected to paying the increases if the services had

been there. But the services are being cut and the taxes are being

increased. The shell game and the scam is being perpetrated on them,

and they're supposed to stand up and applaud because there wasn't an

increase in sales tax and, allegedly, there was not an increase in

personal income tax. On their behalf, I am saying that there is no

applause for this budget.

The second group of people who are

really clobbered by this budget — and the people I want to talk about —

are the senior citizens. I want to quote from page 14 of the budget,

where the minister said: "We will not compromise the high standard of

services to the needy and the elderly in British Columbia."

Let

me tell you how this government does not compromise its services to the

needy and the elderly. First of all, we learned from the budget that

there is going to be a 23.1 percent decrease in the provincial

supplement, Maybe I should give you a bit of information about the

provincial supplement. One of the things that the New Democratic Party

government did was to put into place a basic supplement for those

senior citizens who received old age pensions and the guaranteed income

supplement, to ensure that their income didn't fall below $200 a month.

That was a commitment made in the 1972 election. and it was one of the

very first commitments to be honoured after the government was elected

at that time.

In December 1975, it was passed that that

supplement should be increased to $38.88 to come into effect on January

1, 1976, and the budget set aside for that supplement to make it

possible was $37.3 million. Since that time, there has not been an

increase of even one cent to that supplement. Today in 1982, as it was

on January 1, 1976, despite inflation, the increase in the cost of

living, and everything else, that supplement remains $38.88. You know

as well as I do, Mr. Speaker, that you cannot buy in 1982 for $38.88

what you could have bought in 1976 for $38.88.

Whether it's

bus fares, hydro rates, telephone, electricity, food or housing,

everything has increased. But that supplement has not increased by one

cent since that time. Furthermore, the amount of the budget put aside

to be spent on that supplement has steadily decreased since 1976. As I

said, the money put aside was $37 million in 1976. In 1981 it was $25

million. It had dropped by something in the neighbourhood of S 12

million. This year we learn from the budget that there's a further

decrease of 23.1 percent — down to $19.6 million. So when this

government talks about not compromising the high standard of services

to the elderly, bear in mind that $37.3 million has now dropped to

$19.6 million, and there has not been a one cent increase in that

$38.88 since this government took office in 1976.

The number

of people receiving the supplement has also decreased drastically. In

1976, when this government first took office, there were 97,198 senior

citizens in this province who received that supplement. As of March 31,

1982, that number had dropped to 67, 569. Bear that in mind, Mr.

Speaker, the next time you hear this government talk about its

commitment to the elderly of B.C. That number is steadily decreasing

and will continue to decrease, because the only commitment that this

government has is eventually to wipe out that supplement.

[ Page 7102 ]

this government is allowed to remain in office very much longer, there

will be absolutely nothing in the budget for this supplement and there

will be nobody left in the province receiving this supplement, despite

the fact that we learn from statistics that there are 11,000 people

every year reaching the age of 65. So the seniors' population is

growing almost as rapidly, if not more rapidly, than the supplement is

decreasing. Eleven thousand people a year reach the age of 65 and the

supplement continues to decrease from 97,000 down to 67,000.

You've

heard speeches on the floor of this House about British Columbia having

the best income assistance to the needy in the province. Let's compare

that supplement. As I said, in British Columbia it's $38.88. If you

compare other provinces with supplements, in Ontario it's $48.88 and in

Alberta it's $85. So keep that in mind, Mr. Speaker, the next time you

hear how really great and wonderful we are in terms of treating our

elderly.

Let's look at another area in which this budget

really has been a hardship on the senior citizens and the elderly of

the province. The shelter aid for seniors, the SAFER program, which is

supposed to help elderly people to be able to afford decent

accommodation.... And there's some convoluted formula worked out

whereby if your rent exceeds 30 percent of your income, 75 percent of

this will be picked up by the government up to a maximum — to the

ceiling. As a result of the government's refusal to raise that ceiling,

despite the fact that the cost of housing is increasing, and despite

the fact that many houses — or suites or apartments, as the case may be

— that were covered by rent control in the past are now outside of

that, that ceiling has not been adjusted. We find from this budget that

there really is no intention of adjusting that ceiling, because the

amount of money in the budget that was set aside to defray the cost of

the SAFER program in 1981 is the same amount of money set aside in the

budget to defray the cost of the SAFER program in 1982.

have also discovered that as a result of the government's refusal to

adjust that ceiling upwards so that seniors can remain eligible to

receive the SAFER, fewer and fewer seniors are qualifying. Rents are

going up and the ceiling remains static, so fewer and fewer seniors

qualify.

Last year there was something in the neighbourhood

of 12,500 seniors who qualified. Of these, only 1,500 were couples.

Today we find that number has decreased to 11,350 seniors and that just

slightly over 1,000 are couples. In 1978-79, when the program was in

its heyday, something in the neighbourhood of $12 million was allocated

to defray the cost of it. In the 1982-83 estimates we find it is $9

million, exactly the same amount as was estimated for it in 1981-82.

Again, as with the supplement, it is very clear that the government has

no commitment to saving the program, but is in fact in the process of

phasing the program out, wiping out these kinds of services to seniors.

Bear that in mind the next time you hear the Minister of Finance or

anyone talk about the high standard of services to the elderly in B.C.

Another

area is the day centres for seniors. The day centres are very useful

for healthy seniors. The government tends to take the attitude that all

the senior citizens in B.C. are sick. In reality it is only 5 percent

of the people over the age of 65 who would come under the heading of

being not healthy. Most senior citizens in British Columbia, through no

fault of the government, are healthy, and they do use the seniors' day

centres. What do we find? This year there is 19.5 percent less money in

the budget to defray the cost of those day centres than there was in

1978. I wouldn't even compare it with 1981 or 1980 or 1979. There is 19

percent less in the budget than there was in the 1978-79 budget. It is

very clear for everyone to see that the government is committed to

phasing out this program. The services that the senior citizens have

demonstrated they need and that they use — the supplement, SAFER and

now the day centres — the government appears to be in the process of

phasing out. They're clobbered by this budget.

I am sure

that when the critic on Health speaks he will talk about the dental

plan, so I don't want to go into too much detail on that except to say

again that this is another area in which the service to the seniors has

been clobbered by this particular government. There are fewer people

eligible for it and it is costing more than when the plan was

originally introduced.

There was a 60 percent increase on

the bus passes. I want to confess that when I looked at the budget and

discovered that the amount of money put aside to cover the cost of bus

passes was higher than it was last year, my heart leapt. I was excited.

I thought: "Oh, goody, they are doing something for the seniors. They

are going to phase out the cost of the bus passes. Now people over the

age of 65 who use the public transit system are going to be able to use

it and not pay anything for their bus passes, because, in fact, it

isn't going to cost the government that much to do just that." Imagine

my horror when I discovered that that increase was really just to cover

the cost to UTA of the bus passes, that there was no attempt either to

cut back or to phase out. I believe that there is one way in which this

government can demonstrate its commitment to the elderly of the

province. That is to phase out the cost for those bus passes. Once you

can demonstrate you are over the age of 65, if you need to use public

transit you should be able to use public transit. I think that is the

least the government can do, especially when we recognize that they are

in the process of phasing out the income supplement, phasing out SAFER,

phasing out the day-care plan and increasing the cost of the denticare

and Pharmacare premiums.

So I'm making a suggestion to the

Minister of Finance which I'm hoping he will take to the Treasury Board

on behalf of the Minister of Human Resources, that is that the cost of

the bus passes should be eliminated. Senior citizens and disabled

people who can use public transit should be allowed to use it free of

cost. I think that when the minister sits down to do his permutations

and combinations he'll find that it really is not going to cost the

government that much. I would like to make that suggestion to the

Minister of Finance. I notice he's listening, so I know he is going to

rush off and get his calculator and do that. I want to be able to

congratulate you, once it happens, so that's the reason I'm suggesting

it now.

The other way in which seniors are being badly used

by this program, of course, has to do with the 40 percent increase in

Pharmacare. In fact, when the deductible was raised from $100 to $125

by this government, it was estimated that that would eliminate

something in the order of 100,000 claims. This is another hidden tax.

This is another user fee. It is another financial burden that senior

citizens have received from this government.

I can't support

this budget, as I said earlier. I can't support it because of what it's

done to the municipality of Burnaby, and I certainly can't support it

when I look at it and see what it is doing to senior citizens in this

province.

[ Page 7103 ]

Mr.

Speaker, we keep hearing about this job creation; these 5,000 jobs that

are going to be created by this budget. Some 207,000 British Columbians

are looking for work. How are we supposed to applaud a budget which

absolutely robs the treasury of all its savings and everything else and

then creates 5,000 jobs. There are 207,000 jobs that need to be

created. I notice the Minister of Labour (Hon Mr. Heinrich) listening

carefully. There are 207,000 jobs that need to be created, plus all of

those jobs for the youth which were wiped out when the youth employment

job-creation program was eliminated.

AN HON. MEMBER: Prince George needs 5,000.

MS. BROWN: That's right; his own riding.

understand that the government is going to take a bold initiative and

that in fact the government has established a committee which is going

to get into the business of serious job-creation. I was excited about

that until I heard who was chairing the committee. It seems that it is

going to be the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy). I

hope I'm wrong, because if the minister of Human Resources is going to

be chairing this job-creation program, then we are in serious trouble

indeed. Mr. Speaker, all one has to do is to look at that minister's

record in the area of job creation. When the minister talks about her

individual opportunities program, her job-skills program, and her

job-training program — when we look at those things that she brags

about, in terms of job creation — we have to say to ourselves that if

that's any indication of the quality and quantity of jobs that are

going to be created, then forget it; don't even bother. Any of the

cabinet members who are invited to sit on the committee with her should

decline with thanks.

Her record is very clear. We have never

in the history of this province had as many people on welfare as we

have now. Not even when the present Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon.

Mr. Vander Zalm) — who was the worst Minister of Human Resources that

we have ever had — was the Minister of Human Resources did we ever have

as many people on welfare as we have under this minister, and the

number is increasing. This minister stands in this House and brags

about job-creation programs, gives a speech in which she talks about

three jobs which have been created since her vaunted individual

opportunities program was put into place and immediately gets appointed

to head a committee to create employment.

I want to plead

with the government — and it is not often that I do that — that if in

fact that appointment has not been entrenched in the charter of rights,

please don't go through with it. If there is any possibility at all of

changing that appointment, I think it is the time for the Premier and

the cabinet to take a look at it. Under this government and under that

minister we now have in this province something in the neighbourhood of

121,000 people in receipt of income assistance.

I didn't get

a chance to talk about all the terrible things the budget is doing to

education, but I'm going to do that under the Minister of Education's

estimates. In particular, I'm going to talk about BCIT in Burnaby and

about the very disappointing decisions the school board had to make in

terms of closing elementary schools and cutting out special programs

and other programs in the education system in Burnaby.

closing, I just want to point out, as the member for Nanaimo (Mr.

Stupich) did when he was here, that the burden of debt which this

government has visited on this province is increasing. To use his own

figures: in 1976 the debt was $4.6 billion; in 1978 it jumped to $6.3

billion; in 1979 it jumped to $7.5 billion; in 1980 it jumped to $8.3

billion; and this year it is going to be $10.4 billion. What this

budget means is increased taxation, increased debt and a cutback in

services — an absolute burden on the people of British Columbia. They

cannot afford this government and they cannot afford this budget, and

the first opportunity that this government can give the people of

British Columbia to demonstrate that fact to them, I hope they will do

so.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: It is indeed a pleasure to

have the opportunity of participating in this debate, though I must say

that being somewhat near the end of the list of speakers, much of what

I would like to say has already been said a number of times, so I can

really only comment on some of the things as they particularly affect

my ministry and similarly also comment on some of the statements made

by members of the opposition. Obviously there need to be some

corrections made to some of the statements that have been made even

this afternoon.

The budget, without a doubt, is the best

budget ever in that it is no trick to come up with a budget when there

is plenty of revenue coming in and when the economy of the province and

the country and the world is reasonably buoyant, but when the whole

continent, the whole country and all of the provinces are in trouble

and economies everywhere are affected by world trends, for a minister

to come forth — as our Minister of Finance did — with such a positive

budget is certainly a matter for congratulations and for commendations.

It is not only a balanced budget, but it is a budget which has

relatively no tax increases and it is a budget which creates almost

50,000 jobs. It is a budget such as we have not seen presented anywhere

in the country and a budget which probably no other government anywhere

could present in this day and age. I am certainly pleased that we have

such a very positive budget, a budget which will help build British

Columbia and which will make it a still better place in the country and

in the world.

I am also pleased that although a decision was

made in early 1976 that we should pay off the debt which was left to us

by the NDP government before that, a decision was made to try to spread

the repayment of that over a number of years to spread the shock.

I'm

pleased that this year we will introduce legislation allowing us to

refinance the debt left to the province by the NDP so that this money

can be used in job creation. That's extremely important, because I

think the decision in 1976 was the right decision. It was certainly a

decision for government to make as to whether it would shock the people

with the NDP debt immediately in one year, or whether it would spread

it out. The decision was made to spread the NDP debt.

This

year there will be legislation, so we're told by the Minister of

Finance, allowing us to use for job creation the moneys that would

otherwise go to repay that NDP debt. It's a wise choice, it's a good

choice. I think certainly it also tells British Columbians that we have

to consider very seriously where our province would be, had the

socialists been given the opportunity to carry on. Where would this

province be, had the socialists been able to carry on? Where would we

be with respect to industry, with respect to jobs? And what

[ Page 7104 ]

would

the unemployment situation be in the province today had the socialists

carried on as they did during the years 1973, 1974 and 1975?

Again,

Mr. Speaker, I believe we have the best budget ever, and that it

provides many opportunities for growth at a time when growth is needed.

The budget was well presented. It's a pity, and certainly unfortunate

for British Columbians that they were not able to watch the

presentation of