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 )

FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 1982

Morning Sitting

[ Page

9385 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Job Creation Council of British Columbia Act (Bill M208). Mr. King

Introduction and first reading –– 9385

Financial Administration Amendment Act (No. 2), 1982 (Bill 86). Second reading. (Hon. Mr. Curtis)

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 9385

Mr. Stupich –– 9386

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 9389

Mr. King –– 9390

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 9395

Mr. Leggatt –– 9398

Mr. Kempf –– 9400

FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 1982

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

Introduction of Bills

JOB CREATION COUNCIL OF

BRITISH COLUMBIA ACT

On a motion by Mr. King, Bill M208, Job

Creation Council of British Columbia Act, introduced and ordered to be

placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of

the House after today.

MR. STRACHAN: I would ask

leave that the sixth report of the Select Standing Committee on

Standing Orders and Private Bills, respecting amendments to the

Vancouver Charter, be adopted — that's motion 29 standing under my name

on the order paper.

Leave not granted.

HON. MR. ROGERS:

On a point of order, I believe that when the member for

Shuswap-Revelstoke rose to introduce his bill he failed to move first

reading of the bill, and went from the introduction directly to the

tabling of it for second reading at the next sitting of the House after

today. Perhaps if Your Honour has the opportunity to examine the tapes,

we will find that the procedures have been in error. This side wouldn't

want that member to be deprived of his privilege of entering a private

member's bill.

MR. KING: I think the Speaker will

recognize that there were a number of calls from the government side

indicating that there were no catcalls. Perhaps the interjections

obscured the motion that was placed for first reading of the bill.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, just to make absolutely certain that the correct procedures are followed, we'll have the motion....

On a motion by Mr. King, Bill M208, Job Creation Council of British Columbia Act, read a first time.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I wonder if that hon. member has completed his legislative program for this session.

MR. KING:

Mr. Speaker, we do have additional legislation prepared, and if the

government is willing to move over, we'll get on with our program.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Not bad for a spur-line boy.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 86, Mr. Speaker.

FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION

AMENDMENT ACT (NO. 2), 1982

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr.

Speaker, I rise to move second reading of Bill 86, which would effect

amendments in sections of the Financial Administration Act, which was

dealt with in this Legislature at great length last year. Without in

any way reflecting on another vote, I would be, I think, remiss if I

did not refer members to the bill which was introduced on September 14

and dealt with over the following several days by my colleague the

Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Brummet), and I refer to

Bill 79. In part, Bill 86 should be viewed in the context of Bill 79.

addition, Mr. Speaker, members will know that the process of treasury

bills is not unknown in North America in particular, in Canada and in a

number of provinces — some five provinces, in fact. Most recently, the

province of Alberta returned to this particular financial instrument in

June. I think members on both sides of the House will know that the

monthly pattern of revenue moving to government seldom closely matches

that of expenditures, the money which moves out to the community and

the province from government. As a result, and as I indicated the other

day when this bill was introduced and placed on Orders of the Day ,

the government of British Columbia may find it desirable to operate a

treasury bill operation so as to smooth over any timing imbalances

which could emerge in the future, thereby reducing the cost of turning

to expensive alternatives. In order that members clearly understand

what we have in mind here, a least-cost treasury bill operation

undertaken by the Ministry of Finance would involve bills of short

terms: that is, less than 365 days.

Inasmuch as we are

amending the Financial Administration Act, I believe it would be

appropriate, without moving to committee debate, to touch briefly on

the amendment.

The amendment to

section 42 of the Financial

Administration Act allows for treasury bills to be refinanced where, if

necessary, it is efficient to do so for the purpose of smoothing

short-term revenue and expenditure imbalances. The amendment to

section

43 provides for the management of the consolidated revenue fund in this

way for a period beyond 365 days, which is not currently authorized

under the FAA. If the province, with this legislation available to it,

introduces a treasury bill operation, the market demands that it exist

for a period longer than one year, with investors looking to a

reasonably continuing availability of treasury bills of an issuer. This

is not to say that they need remain in place for an indefinite period

of time, but once a treasury bill operation is established by a

province such as British Columbia, it is unlikely that they would be

useful in place for under one year.

It will also be recognized that these are typically the shortest-term marketable

debt instruments to be used by government. I indicated that other jurisdictions

have made use of, and continue to make use of, this particular mechanism. The

Saskatchewan and Alberta all currently maintain weekly treasury bill operations.

I indicated previously that the province of Alberta returned to the treasury

bill mechanism, I believe in June of this year. For the information of members,

the approximate weekly size of treasury bills issued in Alberta is $40 million

— bills of three months' duration. At this particular time, bills outstanding

in that province equal about $520 million.

[ Page 9386 ]

Similarly,

it would be useful to examine other provinces. In Saskatchewan, the

weekly size of treasury bill operations is approximately $10 million,

again in three-month bills. The amount outstanding at the moment is

$130 million. In Manitoba, an issue of about $4 million per week — that

is, by auction — again three-month bills, for an outstanding total of

some $52 million at present. In Newfoundland, it's about $5 million

each week in three-month bills, with an outstanding amount at the

moment — according to the most recent figure available, which would be

quite up to date — of about $65 million.

Speaking again of

Alberta, the Alberta auction has been reinstated. It was suspended in

March 1978. I think it's interesting to note, in connection with the

decision taken by our neighbour province, that the cost of financing

from the heritage fund was judged to be too costly, because funds had

been fully invested at higher rates than would be otherwise available

to the province of Alberta. We have to be cognizant of that in British

Columbia as well.

There are some beneficial effects which

may be overlooked by some who are perhaps not fully familiar with

treasury bill operations. They help to develop the size of local

financial markets. Certainly one of the stated objectives of the

Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba governments has been to boost the

activity of financial markets in those several provinces.

will attempt to respond later to the questions which are going to be

raised by members in the debate of this amending bill. I now move

second reading of the Financial Administration Amendment Act (No. 2),

1982, Bill 86 on the order paper.

MR. STUPICH: The

government, in this resumption of the session that started a week ago

Monday, has been challenging the opposition to vote against some

legislation, and they have finally found one we are going to oppose —

along with Bill 80, of course. I think they've dropped Bill 80. But we

will be voting against the bill before us now.

I think we

should really be calling it, rather than the name that has been

associated with it, the bill that will allow the government to borrow

any amount of money, for any length of time, for any purpose. It need

only come back to the Legislature some time after the fact, some time

after the end of the fiscal year, after the House is in session again,

and tell the MLAs what it has done during that period. Any amount, any

length of time, for any purpose.

I do give the Premier his

due. I asked him, I believe on Wednesday, how he proposed to finance

election promises that added up at that point to some $1.6 billion,

when all the authorization he had was for a quarter of a billion

dollars; where was the extra $1.35 billion coming from? He said we

would find out in that sitting. Indeed we did find out in that sitting,

because at the end of it the government introduced this message from

the Lieutenant-Governor giving it the authority, if this legislation

passes, to borrow any amount of money, for any length of time, for any

purpose. Of course, the purpose we were talking about in question

period, and the purpose the Premier was talking about when he answered

my question, is to re-elect the Social Credit Party as the government

in the province of British Columbia. So even for that purpose it is

proper to borrow money under the legislation before us now.

How

times have changed, Mr. Speaker. In his remarks the Minister of Finance

tells us this is being done in other jurisdictions, that it's orderly

unlimited credit on it with the kind of conditions we have here is, in

part, responsible for the fact that we are going to run into a deficit

this year of some $20 billion. When you give spendthrifts like the

Premier's friends, Mr. Trudeau or Mr. MacEachen — since replaced — the

authority to spend any amount of money for any purpose, then you

guarantee you're going to run into a huge deficit. What the government

are asking the Legislature to do today is give them the same kind of

blank cheque, the same kind of credit card with unlimited credit, for

them to use for any purpose that comes to mind at any time, and borrow

any amounts of money without coming back to the Legislature, except for

the fact that they will have to come back and report. It is very

orderly, Mr. Speaker. It suits their purposes right now, and it has

going to suit the purpose of the government of British Columbia, if

this legislation is indeed passed.

Isn't it interesting, Mr.

Speaker? Although the minister talks about how orderly it is, how much

money it's going to save, how easy it's going to be to finance the

operations of government and how necessary it is, it's the first time

in 22 years of the province's history that it's been necessary to bring

in this kind of legislation. Mr. Speaker, you won't recall — you're too

young — but perhaps you will have read or heard of a former Premier of

the province, who was also Minister of Finance, shooting a flaming

arrow at a barge load of cancelled bonds. He missed, but the bonds

burned. At the same time he brought in legislation — I believe it was

called the Provincial Debt Authorization Cancellation Act. It was

legislation that amended the Revenue Act and made it legally impossible

for the government of British Columbia to borrow money for ordinary

operating expenditures. They could borrow in an interim period, but by

the end of each fiscal period they had to show that there were no loans

outstanding for the ordinary operating expenditures of government. That

was 22 years ago, Mr. Speaker. We still have that same party in office;

we still have spokespersons in that party talking about how bad it is

to borrow for groceries, what a crime it is to borrow and make future

generations pay for the expenditures incurred, how wrong, and they

would never do it.

The only time it has been done in the

history of this province prior to today was on March 31, 1976, when

they, once again, incurred a deficit for ordinary operating

expenditures. On that day they made grants to various Crown

corporations that put the province into debt in its revenue and

expenditure

section — its operating budget — so that it was necessary

for the government to borrow $271 million. That's happened only once

since Premier W.A.C. Bennett in 1960 introduced that legislation and it

was passed by the House. It was never necessary in the history of the

province to borrow again until this government that we have in now felt

it was necessary, for political purposes, to show that the previous NDP

administration had run up debts. For purely political purposes they

brought in this legislation and put the province into debt to the

extent of some $271 million. The only time since Premier W.A. C.

Bennett passed that legislation that it has been necessary for the

province to borrow money for ordinary operating accounts was for

political purposes on March 31, 1976.

[ Page

9387 ]

Once again — here we are, September 24, 1982 — for political

purposes, legislation is coming before us that gives the government the

unlimited authority to borrow. As the Premier pointed out, that

legislation is being introduced in answer to the question: where is the

government going to get the money to be able to deliver on the

political promises made in the hope that his party would be re-elected

to form the government in the province of British Columbia?

Short-term

revenue and expenditure imbalances do, of course, occur. The government

currently has the authority for short-term borrowing. What we're doing

here is giving it the authority to borrow long-term. There is a

limitation in the legislation now which limits these treasury bills to

365 days. We're not putting in a limit that would be 730 days or 1,095

days — that is, three years. There is no limit at all, unlimited time,

no assurance to the people of the province that when things turn around

this debt is going to be paid off.

[Mr. Mussallem in the chair.]

Mr.

Speaker, we cannot approve of legislation that allows this government

or any government to go out and borrow any amount of money, no limits

at all, for any period of time without some assurance that there will

be some program to pay this money off when the economy turns around.

They're not asking for that. They're not suggesting that there be any

limit or any repayment. They're saying they're quite prepared now to

lead the province, financially speaking, down the same road that the

Premier's mentor, Prime Minister Trudeau, has led the federal

government — to the huge debts that Canada now faces. The Premier is

quite prepared to follow Trudeau down that line and lead this province

into a debt it will never pay off, simply because he's determined that

there must be money enough to finance the election promises being made,

not in this House but outside of it, by his party at this time.

Interjections.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I hear some comments from across the way about

what they're going to do with this, and about what we would do. I expect

to hear 30 of those members — that leaves out the Speaker — apologizing today

to the members of the House and the people of the province, saying, "Look,

we recognize that we've done a bad job of handling the provincial accounts.

We recognize that for the first time in 22 years we have to go back on a promise

made by the former leader of the Social Credit Party, the former Premier and

former Finance minister, when he said that never again would the province go

into debt for ordinary operating expenditures." Every one of them agreed

that that was a good policy for the province of B.C.; but because of the mistakes

they have made in government, because of the promises they are making now in

their desperate attempt to make the people of the province forget what kind

of government they have been, forget the dirty tricks, forget the promises they

made that were broken, the promises that were not fulfilled, the promises made

in election campaigns, the promises never to put the province into debt for

operating expenditures, they are going to stand up now and apologize, saying:

"We were wrong. We didn't realize, when we were saying all those things,

that one day, for political purposes, it would be necessary to lead the province

into debt of incalculable amount, and we can't have any time limit on that.

We don't want to say to the people of the province that we're going

into debt, but we're determined to pay it off."

They're

not prepared to say today that someday this debt will be paid off, that

we will, when times are better, raise funds, not blow it on things such

as the publication that's going out now, which we are told cost 25

cents a copy to print. That's perhaps the cost of the ink. Twenty-five

cents a copy, Mr. Speaker? Two dollars a copy, perhaps. We'll find out;

well get a price on it, but $2 would be closer than two bits. A hundred

thousand copies would be $200,000.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

This

isn't the end of it. In answer to a question yesterday, I believe, the

Premier said: "Well, okay, so we made a mistake. We didn't say what

ministry was putting it out and we didn't say the government was

putting it out. We didn't really intend that space would be left so

that the Social Credit Party could put its stamp on it. It was really a

mistake. But when we come to the second edition, then we'll say what

ministry put it out." A hundred thousand was just the first run, Mr.

Speaker. How much is it going to cost for the government to get this

publication out to every home in the province so that the Social Credit

Party will be re-elected?

That's just one of the costs, one

of the things, no doubt, that are going to be financed by the bill

before us now that's going to give them unlimited power to borrow

unlimited amounts for any length of time. The TV stuff that was being

done: the figure first put on that was $100,000. We haven't seen

anything yet, I suppose. There's some concern as to the missing

numbers. What kinds of bills are going to come in yet, bills that the

government is preparing and has not yet introduced?

HON. MR. BENNETT: You've emptied the press gallery.

MR. STUPICH:

Mr. Speaker, I've done that before and no doubt I'll do it again, but

at the moment I'm trying to get the attention of the Premier and the

Minister of Finance.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I'm listening.

MR. STUPICH:

I know the Minister of Finance is listening; I give him that. I doubt

very much that any of the others is listening; I doubt very much that

any of the others will remember the statements they made about

dead-weight debt. The member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) takes

part in

almost every debate, and I expect him to take

part in this one. I

expect him to tell us that he has changed his mind about the

advisability of the provinces incurring this dead-weight debt. I

certainly look forward to hearing from that member on this issue.

look forward to hearing from all of them on this, because I think I've

heard every one of them speak about how bad it is to borrow for

ordinary operating expenditures. I certainly didn't expect the

government to bring this kind of legislation in before the election. I

think there were signs enough around that they were getting into

serious trouble financially, and that they would have to do something

to borrow money. They were other ways of doing it, of course. They

could have done the borrowing in the Crown corporations and had the

money come back to them that way. Remember the Clarkson Gordon report,

Mr. Speaker, and how easy it is for the government to

[ Page 9388 ]

shuffle

money back and forth legally between Crown corporations and the

government. But they're right out front with this one. They're saying

in this one that they want the authority. It's a very short bill. I

don't suppose there has been a shorter one introduced in the House. Two

very short sections, easily missed and easily misunderstood.

It's

not quite as confusing as the press release that was put out at the

time the bill was introduced. Even the Minister of Finance seemed

confused about the press release. All he did was hand it out; he

wouldn't make any comment on it at all. And the first reports that came

out.... The Premier said in the House that he needed this kind of debt

authorization bill in order to pay for election promises, but that

wasn't the reason given by the Minister of Finance. I'm not sure

whether they're in step yet. It's interesting, because this is the

first time I can recall seeing the two of them in the House side by

side since we got together on Monday a week ago. I think they're both

here to make sure that neither one says anything that the other can't

live with.

They're both partly right, Mr. Speaker. There's

no question about it. I don't doubt for one moment that the Premier was

telling the House the truth when he said the answer to where the

government was going to get the money to finance his election promises

would be given later in the day. And indeed it was given. So he was

telling the truth; there is no question about that, and I never doubted

it for a moment. I wondered what the answer was going to be and I

wondered why he didn't give it at the time. Certainly he's kept us

wondering what's going to happen ever since we got together a week ago

Monday, and we're still wondering. The suspicion is that he's wondering

too. However, he told us the truth. He told us he needed this money to

finance his election promises. He might have gone further and said: "We

need this money because we promised BCR that it would not have to

borrow for the rail extension for the northeast coal development." BCR

wouldn't have to borrow because the government was going to provide the

money. Obviously the government doesn't have the money to provide it.

The government is going to get it by this bill that gives them the

unlimited authority to borrow. So he didn't tell us the whole truth. He

told us that one reason he needs this money is to finance election

promises.

The Minister of Finance gave us his answer — that it's housekeeping — and

it is that as well. Certainly it extends his authority, and it extends it for

the first time so that borrowing can be done and not necessarily paid off at

the fiscal year-end. It extends his authority to borrow for as long as he wants,

which makes it very easy if the Minister of Finance is stuck with paying the

bills that the Premier incurs as he goes around making election promises outside

of the House, and as we get into these megaprojects such as northeast coal and

all the other developments — or the few very large developments that are going

on in a few communities. As those go on, the Minister of Finance is the fellow

who is stuck with finding the money, so from a housekeeping point of view he

has to have some way of providing that money. When the Premier says: "Look,

I need $1.6 billion for election promises," some Minister of Finance has

to produce. When the Premier says: "I need $1.4 billion for northeast coal

development," I believe it was, the Minister of Finance has to produce.

The Premier said: "We are going to run into the hole this year on our ordinary

operating accounts by as much as $1.7 billion dollars," and the Minister

of Finance has to produce. So the Minister of Finance is bringing in what he

calls "housekeeping," housekeeping that will allow him to meet the

commitments being made by the Premier in the name of the government. From the

Minister of Finance's point of view it's housekeeping. From the Premier's

point of view it's electioneering.

Mr.

Speaker, there wasn't the disagreement between them that appeared to be

the case at the beginning. The problem is that each one of them was

giving only part of the answer to the question of why this bill was

being introduced. Why it was being introduced at this point in time is

also intriguing. Is it because the government is going to the people

soon with these election promises and has to be able to show how it's

going to finance them? Or is it simply because the government is so far

in the hole this year in its ordinary operating accounts that it knows

it can't possibly get out of debt by March 31, 1983, or within a

reasonable time of that, and needs further authorization? It needs the

authority to roll over debts that are incurred for ordinary operating

accounts; needs the authority to borrow for one, two, three, five

years, and is in absolutely no position to tell the people of the

province that the one, two, three, four, or five billion dollars that

it's going to borrow within the next six months will ever be paid off.

They have no plan for paying it off; no plan that they are prepared to

share with the people of this Legislature; no plan that they are able

to share with the people of the province.

It would appear

they have no intention that the province ever again will be in the

position that it was 22 years ago, and was up until March 31, 1976, and

has been up until now. That is, the province of British Columbia is

perhaps the only one in Canada, with the exception of Alberta, which

has that tremendous Heritage Fund in a different account, that can say

it is not in debt for ordinary operating expenditures. We're now going

to join the ranks of all the rest of them, particularly the ranks of

the government led by the Premier's mentor and friend, Prime Minister

Trudeau. We're going down the same road that the federal Liberal

government has been leading us for the last ten or so years. It's a

complete departure for the members of the Social Credit caucus, the

members of the Social Credit Party. To this point in time there has

been no apology; simply an explanation from the Minister of Finance

that, after some 22 years of saying how bad it is to borrow for

groceries, they have now changed their minds because it's good

housekeeping, with a statement from the Premier saying that after 22

years they now believe it is important to have unlimited power to

borrow unlimited amounts of money for an unlimited time, because it's

important that the Social Credit Party be re-elected whenever the

election comes.

If the government has been trying to find

legislation that the opposition will oppose, they have succeeded. We're

prepared to vote for borrowing. In the past we have voted for borrowing

for specific purposes. We're prepared to vote for borrowing for a

certain time and a certain purpose. We have voted for such borrowing in

the past. We are not prepared to give this particular administration or

any administration this kind of authority, and we would certainly never

ask for ourselves authority that gives any government, any cabinet,

within the secret confines of a cabinet room, the power to commit this

province to borrowing unlimited amounts of money for an unlimited time,

for any purpose whatsoever, with not even a suggestion of a payback.

That kind of power should not be given to any cabinet in a democratic

nation anywhere in the world. Certainly we're going to oppose this

legislation to the best of our ability.

[ Page 9389 ]

HON. MR. BENNETT:

I intend to speak briefly. The member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) for a

short period was Minister of Finance in this province. He had that

distinction of being Minister of Finance during the period when the

province was rapidly going into debt, when the rate and extent of the

financial difficulties were not expressed to the people of the

province. He was part of that government that fled to an election

without squaring with the people about the state of the financial

problems of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, which they

set up. All the assurances that there was no problem are still there

for students of history to see: the newspaper accounts of the

day...that there was nothing wrong in the accounts of ICBC or the

government. But those problems became very real and were a shock to the

people of the province after the election was over.

I don't

think that governments, then or now, have the right to hide the

people's financial affairs. That's why this government, through an

all-party committee, created the post of auditor-general to provide

accounting to the people of British Columbia. That's why the first

Minister of Finance in this government met our commitment that, by

bringing quarterly financial reports, that situation couldn't happen

again.

The first quarterly financial report has shown that

British Columbia, as part of Canada, North America and the

industrialized world.... Government revenues are facing problems in a

recession. The recession has gone on longer, has been deeper and went

down much quicker than government anticipated — not just ours, any

government. The private sector in B.C., Canada, the U.S. and all other

parts of the world.... Our government has shared those problems with

the people.

I find it odd that the member for Nanaimo would

act as though this government is embarking on some wild financial

course, when the Minister of Finance has already shared with the people

the extent of the problem we have within our boundaries. This

government has shared with the people of this province the solutions

that we offer — solutions that have been rejected out of hand by that

opposition. This government introduced a program of restraint on

government spending — not just on our spending but also on other public

agencies, municipal governments, and on educational and health care. We

have introduced that, and we have shared with the people working in

those areas the extent of the problem, and the challenge to help us

resolve it in this difficult time.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

If we can make our restraint program work — and it is working, much to

the dismay of the noisy member for Alberni, who is chirping from his

seat once again, the member who is famous for having said in this House

that the NDP make up their own facts....

MR. SKELLY: You're a liar.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Withdraw, please. That statement must be withdrawn.

MR. SKELLY: I guess I have to withdraw that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you very much.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Members should know that the way to prevent this province going into

deficit is to manage prudently, to, in fact, in some cases make the

very hard decisions that this government has been making — and has been

criticized for by the members of the opposition — in trying to preserve

essential services for the future, making sure that those health

services and the absolutely essential services in education can be

preserved by having to curtail, suspend or cut other services that,

while they may be desirable, are not affordable. The fact that the New

Democratic Party has voted against those attempts and attempted to

seize some political advantage by utilizing every case they can is

working a hardship on the people; it has not made it easier. But that's

the solution to managing the people's finances.

The solution

is not to give away, or promise to give away, government money that's

not recoverable. The member for Nanaimo says that this government has

made promises that will plunge us into debt. Our mortgage and housing

program is recoverable from those who receive the helping hand during

the three or four years in which our government — unrepresented in the

national parliament — is unable to change the disastrous economic

policies pursued by the Trudeau government, aided and abetted by the

encouragement he receives from the small New Democratic Party group in

that parliament. I find it strange that the member for Nanaimo would

suggest that this government, which has led the fight against financial

irresponsibility at the federal level, would dare to suggest that we

encourage deficits for the sake of deficits, debt for the sake of debt

— and he criticized the federal government's $20 billion deficit; he

criticized it as we have criticized it. But only recently, when that

deficit of $20 billion became known — a deficit that will have helped

to double the national debt in the last four years; that's all the debt

incurred by the national government since Confederation, through two

World Wars, through a Depression — their own national party leader, Ed

Broadbent, was advocating additional spending that would add $5 billion

to that debt and that deficit. It would not be a $20 billion deficit if

Ed Broadbent and the New Democrats had their way — and they are

spokesmen in that national parliament — it would be a $25 billion

deficit. The twisting, turning, cynicism and hypocrisy that surrounds

the way in which Canadians and British Columbians can resolve our

economic problem isn't providing the type of cooperation the Canadian

people and the people of British Columbia should expect.

politics are being played, then let us see clearly who is playing those

politics. To do one thing and say another, to do and say anything at

this time, instead of assisting and supporting the government in its

attempts to lead our people through one of the most difficult times

we've ever faced.... Oh, they say they're financially responsible, when

their record in government was one of the most disastrous in the

history of this province. Only yesterday their leader spoke in

Vancouver. Was he talking about providing a program that had

recoverable moneys from those who would need a helping hand, rather

than a handout, in our mortgage and housing program? No. That's not a

long-term debt. That's assisting our people, and they'll pay it back.

Was he talking about what is the large part of our assistance to small

business, which is recoverable in the way of affordable money now so

they can create jobs, where the bulk of the money would be repaid? Was

he talking about about that kind of responsible program, as you would

expect he would have done, the way the member for Nanaimo, the former

Minister

[ Page 9390 ]

Finance, spoke in this House? He talked about giving away revenue which

we're going to earn in the future, supposedly from gas, in an industry

in which, if he doesn't know, the federal government is now taxing us

to the extent that our province doesn't get the revenue that we should

from our own natural resources. Small comfort to us or to him, because

he was the one that was willing to give it all to Ottawa just a few

years ago. When he commits that future revenue to give to municipal

governments, not to people, for a whole myriad of unnamed projects, who

knows what Taj Mahals they'd build? What he is doing is committing

general revenue which would go to help hospitals and schools and

services in this province. What a nonsensical proposal, in light of

what has been said by that member for Nanaimo today. They have no

shame. They'll promise anything, speak one way in here, another way out

there. They have no sense of the economy, no sense of responsibility.

They attack the government's cost-saving measures which are for the

benefit of the people, preserving services for the future. Mr. Speaker,

they are talking in all directions. They have no plan; they have no

commitment except to try and preserve jobs for themselves. They speak

against our proposals, voting against us, twisting and turning.

Mr.

Speaker, this financing can be there to assist. If all the top

management, if all of the sense of direction we're trying to give to

curtail and match government expenditure with what have been falling

revenues.... If that fails, I want to tell you, Mr. Member for Nanaimo,

I'm not going to be the one to close hospital beds because you said we

shouldn't have the authority to have the money. I won't see those

services shut down. Those are essential services. Don't give me that

nonsense. You talk about the housing and mortgage scheme. Of course

this can be used to assist our prospective homeowners in a plan that is

a helping hand, not a handout like you've been offering. I saw that

silly pamphlet you churned out in panic last spring or early summer,

where you promised to give free gifts. The usual expenditure, no

recovery, no responsible payback.... It wasn't a helping hand. You

offered handouts. Mr. Speaker, that is incorrect....

AN HON. MEMBER: Is this one you're talking about?

HON. MR. BENNETT: No, I'm talking about that silly little document you turned out earlier this year.

Mr.

Speaker, this bill can provide the Minister of Finance with the

opportunity to raise funds at the most affordable rates we can get, not

committing us long-term to provide the assistance for the housing and

mortgage scheme. It provides it in the early period when the demands

and the amount will be small. They will grow as a loan to our people to

get them through this period at affordable mortgage rates. They're only

too willing, when a helping hand is extended, to pay it back. Maybe the

member for Nanaimo hasn't learned that our people don't want handouts;

they just want government to give them a helping hand and a sense of

direction.

This will give the minister a chance to raise

that money using this vehicle. When there is a sizable amount that

would warrant a longer-term issue, the minister can go to the market,

he can pick his time when rates are favourable, and the market has

stabilized. In the meantime he will have had the ability to raise that

recoverable money in a most responsible way. I find it shocking that

the member for Nanaimo says they're going to vote against this bill.

They're going to vote against the opportunity right now.... After

supporting the housing and mortgage plan in this House, they're going

to vote against the way we'll finance it. After all the mealy-mouthed

speeches about how they care about people, they'll vote against the

safety valve to keep those services operating. After all the tough

decisions that we're making in the restraint program — which they

opposed — to help people and preserve services, they're going to vote

against the safety valve that will maintain those services. If the

program cannot work as completely as we had hoped....

there is a government anywhere that's going to try to match the

people's spending with their ability to pay, it's this government. If

there's a government that can ensure future services to people, because

they're managing the finances well and responsibly so that we have

programs that can be afforded in the future, it's this government. If

there is one government for the times in this province and this

country, it is this government. I support this motion.

MR. KING:

Out of that rather irrational diatribe we were just treated to this

morning, the Premier said one thing correctly. He said that if there's

one government that's appropriate for these times, it's their

government. They are, indeed, the government that has created most of

the economic problems in British Columbia today. The most amazing

thing, the most Alice-in-Wonderland kind of performance is not going to

change hard reality, which is that this government has held the reins

of office for the last seven years. It's most amusing to see them try

to deflect all the problems that they themselves manufactured through

their profligate spending and overindulgence onto the opposition. It's

a neat trick, I suppose, in the Legislature, but it's one that the

astute body politic of British Columbia is not going to buy.

was not I who called the government gutless; it was one of their own

cabinet ministers. I think it aptly applies at this particular time,

when that government is afraid to go to the polls to test whom the

people will hold accountable for the state of the economy, for the

300,000 British Columbians who are unemployed at the moment. You have

been identified as gutless by your own members. I challenge that

government to demonstrate otherwise and to issue the election writ.

Let's put it to the people of British Columbia. That's what should

happen. That would be the most healthy and positive thing that this

gang of lazy, unimaginative has-beens could do for the provincial

economy today. The best thing they could do for the provincial economy

is to stand down, issue the election writ, and let's get on with

injecting some new blood and some imagination into our affairs.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

railed at the opposition for speaking against their proposals. I

suppose what he wants is an absolute dictatorship here with no

opposition to scrutinize and criticize the government's proposals, such

as they are. Is that what the Premier is inferring? He said that all of

the debt that this government is now going to plunge the province into

by this bill that's before the House will be repayable. It should be

noted that those who borrow money under the homeowner

mortgage-assistance program know precisely when they have to pay it

back — a maximum of four years. Under this bill there is no such

deadline placed on the Minister of Finance. He is asking for a blank

cheque from the Legislature to borrow undisclosed amounts, without any

deadline or

schedule of repayment. He is asking the Legislature for an

absolute

[ Page 9391 ]

blank

cheque to plunge this province into debt. This opposition is not going

to remain silent in the face of that kind of irresponsible bill.

The

Premier amuses me. Clichés are not going to answer the problems. He is

a master of the simplistic cliché. He'll do anything to avoid his

responsibility, as a government and as a political party, for accepting

the state of the economy as it is, under the administration for seven

years of that particular government. All he does when he speaks is

attack the opposition, not deal with economic issues. Does he really

think the people of British Columbia are naive enough to blame the

opposition, who are in a minority position in this Legislature, for the

sorry shambles that the provincial economy is in? What kind of madness

is that? Is the Premier of the province of British Columbia a rational

person? Is that a normal reaction from a reasonable man? I suggest the

people of B.C. should be doubly concerned, after hearing that kind of

talk from the Premier, as to whether or not we have rational leadership

in British Columbia.

Let's talk about the bill precisely.

Yes, the opposition acknowledges that we have very difficult economic

times, and we don't blame it all on this government. World conditions

and national conditions in this country have combined to create

economic hardship throughout the western world — no question about it.

That is not to say that the provincial government can simply slough off

all their responsibility on international conditions or on the federal

government. The provincial government is elected to deal with the

economic circumstances we live in. What we are here for is to debate

the effectiveness of the provincial government's programs. We don't

blame them for the total recession. We think they've been ill-advised

in some of the programs. We think they have suffered from inertia, by

allowing the depression to go on for such a long time before they even

recognized it. It's not very long ago that the Minister of Finance

wouldn't even utter the word "recession." He said on television: "Oh,

horrors, don't say recession." Three hundred thousand unemployed

working people in British Columbia know what it is. It's more than a

recession to them, Mr. Speaker.

The first thing that's

required is some honesty. Everyone agrees that restraint is necessary

in difficult times. What we debate about is an equitable program of

intelligent restraint, applied to areas that we can live with. We do

not believe that in exercising restraint the health system and

education system should be gutted and destroyed in this province. We

believe that the Minister of Finance and his government should put the

cards on the table, not come in here with a bill seeking a blank cheque

to borrow unlimited funds, with no

schedule and no commitment for

repayment. Is that good financial management? That is scandalous. That

is a blank cheque to plunge the people of British Columbia into debt

are, what the

schedule is for repayment, or any of those other prudent

financial pieces of information any guarantor should have. The

taxpayers of the province are indeed the guarantor of the debt that

this Finance minister is prepared to plunge the province into. He

should be honest and put forward, not in a quarterly report that may

come down the pike....

HON. MR. CURTIS: What do you mean, "may come down the pike"?

MR. KING: They're usually very late.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Oh, nonsense.

MR. KING: They're usually very late, and they're usually very incomplete in terms of financial information.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Shame!

MR. KING:

Shame, indeed. Mr. Speaker, this minister should put the cards on the

table and let the province know precisely what the financial conditions

are at this time.

A while back the Minister of Finance was

saying, "Well, it may be a $1 billion deficit." Then the Premier comes

up with a different figure. They're dying all over the place, and no

one knows who to believe. They cut back and they gouged the health

system and the education system so that sick people needing hospital

beds cannot get their elective surgery. Then they come out with a fancy

brochure that is going to cost thousands of dollars in British

Columbia, and they expect the taxpayers to fund that. They come out

with all manner of election promises on the eve of an election that

they said last week they didn't have any money to afford. They're not

believable, and in my view they have no credibility left in terms of

being accountable to the people of the province. There's no

accountability associated with this bill at all.

The

opposition in this Legislature would be absolutely derelict in their

duty if they allowed this bill to pass in its present form, which is an

open-ended permit — an open-ended credit card, as my colleague said —

to pile debt on the shoulders of the people of this province for the

operating purposes of the day-to-day government business, and to fund

the desperate election promises of this particular government.

understand that the brochure being mailed out yesterday and today is

costing the taxpayers $25,000. The minister has a copy of it in his

hand.

AN HON. MEMBER: An excellent brochure!

MR. KING:

"An excellent brochure," they say; $25,000 of the taxpayers' money. I'm

sure that's just what the unemployed people of British Columbia needed

— $25,000 of tax money socked into the rat-hole to pay for the

aggrandizement of the Social Credit Party. I'm sure, Mr. Speaker, that

what the collapsing small business sector needs right now is the

wasting of taxpayers' funds on that kind of scurrilous behaviour by

Social Credit.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You lost your credibility years ago.

MR. KING: Well, let's talk about credibility. We see them throwing away $25,000 on Socred propaganda....

MR. SPEAKER:

Hon. members, it's possibly time to remember that we're dealing with a

specific bill here. The debate is becoming more wide-ranging than the

scope of debate permits. I would ask members to bear that in mind when

addressing this particular debate.

MR. KING: That may

be so, Mr. Speaker. I was trying to answer some of the points made by

the previous speaker, who was not called to order in terms of his

rambling speech, which

[ Page 9392 ]

had little to do with the bill and constituted more of an attack on the opposition.

Let's

talk about credibility. Here's a paper that was produced back in

February 1978: "Towards an Economic Strategy for Canada: the British

Columbia Position," Premier William R. Bennett. Here's what he had to

say:

"Deficits and surpluses: There has been

much public discussion and concern with government deficits in Canada.

Most of these concerns are dealt with by the recommendations on

government spending and monetary policy. Even with a reformed, less

ambitious fiscal policy, however, it will be necessary for governments

to run deficits in slow-growth years. But these must be balanced by

offsetting surpluses: specifically, governments should, over a

five-year period, plan to balance deficits incurred in some years

against surpluses in others. Governments should develop and publish

five-year budget plans indicating planned approaches to matching

deficits and surpluses over that period."

What

happened to that policy? Here's a government that has exhausted every

special fund that existed as a surplus in the province of British

Columbia, and it's only now, after we are in effect financially

prostrate, in terms of any surplus, that the government proposes to

plunge us further into debt by borrowing for operating purposes.

much for that policy. The more important one was related to monetary

policy. Here's what the Premier of the province advocated to the

federal government in 1978: "The Bank of Canada's current monetary

policy, which is largely in harmony with this view, should be

supported. The definition of the money supply and the methods the Bank

of Canada uses to control it should be subject to research and review."

In other words, the government of British Columbia was advocating the

very monetary policy which their friend Pierre Trudeau was pursuing

through the Bank of Canada: high interest rates to slow down inflation.

Well,

that's what we have today, precisely as advocated by this government

and as implemented by their friend Mr. Trudeau. The social consequences

of that policy are to be seen throughout the length and breadth of this

province: in the soup lines, in the collapse of small towns and small

businesses; a bankruptcy rate higher than at any time since the 1930s;

an unemployment rate higher than at any point since the 1930s. You got

your way. You influenced your Liberal friends to bring in the type of

monetary policy spelled out in the Premier's own document. He can't run

away from that; he can't blame that on the opposition. That's his

statement, Mr. Speaker. He has to live with it. And they talk about

hypocrisy, consistency and credibility. I'm overwhelmed and appalled at

the brazenness of this government, who are able to get up in the face

of demonstrable failure and claim that they've succeeded. That takes

some gumption. I would be hanging my head in shame if the economic

record of my government was anywhere near the shambles that that gang

has created.

There's another matter relating to this bill.

The opposition is being asked to sign a blank cheque, apparently on the

basis that we should trust that guy. Then, surely, we have an

obligation to look at the record of that government in terms of

financial and economic forecasting, in terms of consistency and policy.

I thumbed back through some of the budget documents that this

government has introduced over the last few years. Let their own words

tell the story, not mine. In the budget of 1977, just a few years ago,

here's what the Hon. Evan M. Wolfe, the Minister of Finance at that

time, had to say: "Mr. Speaker, when I introduced the 1976-77 budget I

expressed our commitment to a policy of balanced budgets." So much for

Social Credit commitment. That was five years ago. He had some other

choice comments to make. In the conclusion, page 27 of the budget, he

had this to say: "However, we have taken the necessary steps to place

this province, and its people, in a position to benefit from the

economic upturn as it develops. We have restored the affairs of this

province to a sound financial footing and improved the management of

the people's money." They've improved it all right. For the first time

in 30 years, today we have a bill before us that will plunge us into

direct deadweight debt. So much for the commitment.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Let's

have a look at the 1978 budget. On page 5 of this budget the same

minister, Hon. Evan Wolfe, has this to say: "This budget is possible

because of this government's good management of public funds. This good

management has promoted a sound provincial economy. This sound economy,

in turn, has created, and will create, new and permanent jobs." Where

are those permanent jobs today? "This sound economy will increase the

support for and the quality of social services to people." Tell that to

the health industry today. Tell that to the educators and the school

children who are suffering at the tender hands of the new heavy-duty

Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm). Here's what it says on

page 6:

"The British Columbia jobless rate has

stabilized and shows improvement, while the national rate continues to

deteriorate. We are well armed to meet the economic challenges. Our two

budgets have allowed us to regain control of a runaway growth in

provincial government spending. We have practised restraint in

government spending, unlike other governments which have indulged in

deficit financing, only to suffer the hangovers of inflation and

economic immobility."

Did they ever believe that words like

that would come back to haunt them on the day that they're introducing

a bill to borrow unlimited, undisclosed and unaccounted borrowings to

finance the day-to-day operations of the government?

AN HON. MEMBER: Uncontrollable borrowing too.

MR. KING: Uncontrollable borrowing by an uncontrolled government.

Let's

read on — it's really too much. The Premier got up and talked about

hypocrisy this morning. You know, his arrogance is absolutely

overwhelming. It goes on: "As a result of restraint, we now possess

financial reserves that we can harness to create new jobs, and

permanent jobs, in essential areas of our provincial economy — jobs not

for today but for the long term." That was in 1978, only four years

ago. Where are those reserves? All spent. Where are the jobs? Three

hundred thousand British Columbians are unemployed and unproductive

today because of the financial policies and the financial squandering

of this government. It's too much. Sound policy. The only sound from

that government is the sound from that minister with the leather lungs

— all sound and no content.

[ Page 9393 ]

Interjections.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, empty vessels always make the most noise, and there is the epitome of the empty vessel.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Order, please. I ask the Minister of Industry and Small Business

Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) to not interrupt the member who is

speaking. Perhaps if the member speaking could avoid personal

reflections on other members, we could maintain the debate in order.

MR. KING:

I apologize for being personal, Mr. Speaker. I certainly didn't want to

hurt the member's feelings, although I doubt that I did.

Mr. Speaker, they talk restraint and reserves; they talk about sound financial

management. They have all these clichés: sound management, deadweight

debt — all the terrible, dire things that happened with every other government

but theirs. Now here they are, back with cap in hand, reaching out their avaricious

little hands, asking the opposition to grant to them unlimited credit-card borrowing

on behalf of the people of B.C., borrowing that will saddle the people with

deadweight debt for years to come, with no accountability.

What

is their record? Mr. Speaker, their record is more notable for

revelling in expensive wine at public expense and attending Broadway

shows at public expense.

AN HON. MEMBER: Guttersnipe.

MR. KING:

"Guttersnipe," he says. You don't want the truth told in the House. You

want everyone to forget your little peccadillos on Broadway. Is that

it? When you come in here and claim to be sound, cautious and prudent

financial managers and you ask for unlimited authority to borrow, then

I believe we should talk about Broadway. I believe we should talk about

the Pouilly-Fuisse wine that your fine friend revelled in. What

happened to him, by the way? Where did he go?

Mr. Speaker,

what about the ads — the money they frittered away to try to get on the

Vancouver Canuck bandwagon? What kind of a chintzy, political trick is

that? What about the Provincial Secretary handing out $1,000 cheques at

a bowling game on Saturday night to his friends, who hadn't even

bothered to apply for it? Is that sound financial management? That is

the worst kind of irresponsible custody of public funds that I have

ever heard of by any government in Canada. They come in here and say:

"We have a record of sound management." My God, Mr. Speaker, what

brass! In the face of all of their misdemeanours, in the face of their

shocking ineptitude, in the face of their crass politicking at public

expense, they would claim to be intelligent and prudent stewards of the

people's finances. They're unbelievable.

MR. BARBER: Remember the Marguerite ?

MR. KING: Oh, yes, everything they did for the tourist industry. They killed the Marguerite ,

and after the minister was shown up as being totally incapable of

supporting any of the statements that he made regarding the safety of

that vessel and the cost of repairs, they had to put their little tails

between their legs and bow to the wishes of the tourist industry in

Victoria and restore that vessel, after massive waste of funds as well

as massive damage to the tourist industry. It that a record of sound

and intelligent management?

MR. BARBER: Remember Seaboard?

MR. KING:

Seaboard overboard, Mr. Speaker. Everyone remembers when they came in

here, and in error — in their ineptitude and in the irrational and

intellectual fog from, which they seem to operate — they struck down

and dismantled, removed the licence and certification from, a

flourishing insurance business in the province of British Columbia.

Then they had to recall the Legislature after one of our members drew

it to their attention that, in their error and ineptitude, they had

killed a thriving business in the province for no good reason. They

hustled back the Legislature, which cost the people of British Columbia

about another hundred grand, to put that insurance company back

together again. That's their record of sound financial management.

MR. BARBER: Who remembers the Ministry of Deregulation?

MR. KING:

Oh, deregulation. I don't want to get into that. Poor old Sam Bawlf is

leading a private life somewhere now, I hope. I hope it's more

profitable for him than his activities were for the people of British

Columbia when he was a minister of the Crown.

Mr. Speaker,

it's incredible, and the Premier thinks that he can sweep this all

aside with his glazed-eye diatribes about how wonderful they are. It's

just incredible. I don't believe it.

Let's read a bit more

about the things they have said, those great Ministers of Finance on

that side. Here's a nice cliché from page 6 of the 1978 budget: "Now we

are harvesting the results of our good management to provide a secure

future for our people. Now we are on the move." How do you like it? How

do you like it for a starter, citizens of B.C.?

AN. HON. MEMBER: Work with Bill.

MR. KING:

Work with Bill, yes. I am spending more time trying to assist

businesses in my constituency on the verge of collapse. Mr. Speaker,

the interesting thing is that the only source of any salvation for any

of them is through federal funds, through the Federal Business

Development Bank. There's a closure on any provincial assistance. This

government's policies have resulted in a major, widespread collapse of

small business. They have frozen any funding whatsoever to assist them,

but they go around kicking the slats out of the federal government,

saying, "Hey, all our problems are created by you because you're

running a deficit." Then they run down there with their hand out

saying, "We need more money from you to run our programs and to save

our businesses that we are killing through our policies." My God, Mr.

Speaker, how hypocritical can they be?

As the last straw,

after kicking the feds around for lo these many years, they are now

embarking on precisely the same policy that they have been attacking

over the last ten years. They're going to bring in a little bill here,

slide it in, allow themselves to issue treasury bonds to finance their

shortfall in current accounts and in the day-to-day operating expenses

of government, paying salaries and issuing social assistance. Beautiful

British Columbia, land endowed with bounteous riches and natural

resources, is finally brought to its economic and financial knees to

the point where it has to borrow to meet day-to-day operating expenses

by that gang of financial wizards. Would you believe it? What a record.

And they still have the gall, the unmitigated effrontery, Mr. Speaker,

[ Page 9394 ]

stand

up and say: "Look at how wonderful we are — it's all the opposition's

fault." You'd think that we had been holding the reins of government

for the last seven years. I bet you that the people of the province

wish we had been.

I've got to read on. I don't want to

remind those people of all their empty words and gestures. But let's

read on just a little bit in the budget.

"We're on the

move," he says. "We're doing all this without eroding our social

programs." I want the school trustees, the students and the teachers

who are losing their jobs to listen to that. "We're not eroding our

social programs. In fact, we're expanding those programs in all

directions." Heaven help us.

"Mr. Speaker, there are not many provinces in Canada that

can boast of the combination of balanced budgets and social programs that British

Columbia provides, along with encouragement to the private sector, particularly

small business and individual entrepreneurs." Those small businesses and individual entrepreneurs need more than encouragement

today.

you know what Cal Knudsen said the other day when he was on the Jack

Webster show? I think a lot of people watched it. He said: "We are not

in a stage where we are contemplating expansion. Indeed we are in a

survival mode." A survival mode. That's the euphemism for trying to

stave off collapse at the hands of Social Credit.

MacMillan Bloedel, a large forest company with a record of good

management in this province — certainly rich in resource wealth — is in

a survival mode, which means they are trying to hold out over this

Social Credit–induced recession, where does that leave the small

entrepreneur without the capital and without the cash flow that a firm

like MacMillan Bloedel has? Heaven help us, Mr. Speaker.

"This budget mounts a direct attack on the province's unemployment

problem by dedicating millions of dollars to job stimulation." Where are

the jobs? Where did the millions of dollars go? I don't see the jobs. Where

did all the money go, anyway? What happened to all of those special funds that

both W.A.C. Bennett and his successor, Hon. David Barrett, held in trust for

a rainy day? You've surrendered them all. You've spent them all. You've

frittered it away.

need a full accounting. We know about the high living. We know about

meals in Asia that cost $9,000 — one meal by a cabinet minister. She

was on government business, and maybe she sincerely did some good for

the province, but don't you think $9,000 is a little bit rich for

anyone's blood? Don't you think that's the kind of a symptom and symbol

which is a bit hypocritical, when at one and the same time the

government is asking everyone else to show restraint? What kind of a

gang are you, anyway? No wonder the former Minister of Municipal

Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) calls his colleagues gutless. They're

his words, Mr. Speaker, not mine. No wonder the Minister of

Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) says the

Premier doesn't sparkle in debate. He hasn't got a great deal to

sparkle about. With this sorry record I don't think I'd ever speak

again if I were in his shoes. I think I'd go away in a comer somewhere

and hide my head in shame.

We're getting closer to the

current time. Here's the 1979 budget — just before this Finance

minister took over. What were they saying then? This is relevant, Mr.

Speaker, because today they are asking us to give them a blank cheque

to borrow. I think it's important, in considering that request by the

government, to consider their record. Have they any credibility in

economic forecasting? The statements I've excerpted from former budgets

show that all their forecasts have been out by a mile. They show that

they had no grasp whatsoever of the impending problems that this

province and other parts of the country were going to face. They were

elected to do better than that. They were elected to be more prudent,

in terms of planning the financial and economic affairs of the

province, than they have demonstrated themselves to be thus far.

the 1979 budget we have on page 6 the following statement: "This

government has reduced the average annual rate of increase in

provincial government spending from 27.5 percent to 8.4 percent, or by

70 percent, at the same time as increasing services to people and

reducing taxes."

The other point I want to make is that over

the last two years, particularly in the last year, we have seen this

government load on the backs of the taxpayers the most punitive kind of

cost increases I have ever witnessed in the province. We have seen them

raise the ferry rates and the health insurance and hospital insurance

rates. We have seen them increase the cost of the Insurance Corporation

of B.C. We have seen them increase the cost of recreational land, held

by constituents of mine and all through the Okanagan and the north part

of this province, to the point where the average little landowner, the

average worker, can no longer afford to have a recreational lot on a

lake because of the onerous taxation this government has placed on it.

Despite the fact that most of these recreational lots have absolutely

no services whatsoever, not even highway access — many of them go in by

boat — no electricity and no sewage, this government has piled taxation

increases on them to the point where they're having to bail out and

relinquish that land to rich foreign people, destroying our right to

enjoy, within our own home, the beauty of our resources.

[Mr. Mussallem in the chair.]

had word yesterday from my home town of Revelstoke that the handicapped

centre has been cut back some 500 hours in their funding, so that the

handicapped of the community are going to be without training, without

therapy, without the ability to gain any education and be somewhat

productive. So much for their expansion of social programs. The final

hypocrisy is that at one and the same time that they are cutting down

service to the handicapped in Revelstoke and in Salmon Arm, the

district office of Human Resources has referred six more clients to

them. They've referred six more clients to the Hub centre in

Revelstoke, cut them back 500 hours on the funding and said: "Now you

survive." That's the social program of Social Credit. That's the

financial irresponsibility. That is the crassness — indeed, the cruelty

— in terms of their priorities in managing the affairs of this province.

Yes,

we say there is a need for restraint. But as we demonstrated last year,

we think there's a need for restraint in the affluent living habits of

cabinet ministers. We think there is a need for restraint in putting

out fancy political brochures at public expense. Our priorities would

be to maintain health services for people, a decent educational

opportunity for our children, and decent programs on decent levels of

funding to the handicapped throughout British Columbia. That's where we

differ from them — in terms of priorities. We care for human beings.

[ Page 9395 ]

HON. MR. HEWITT:

I'm pleased to rise in support of Bill 86. We've heard some comments

this morning from the opposite side of the House regarding their

strategy. We've heard attacks on our past record and our proposals for

the future. One comment that came home to me was made by the Premier,

and it was commented on by the opposition after the Premier finished

speaking. The Premier stated that in 1975 there was no problem, but

B.C. was in trouble — and in trouble they were. But that party didn't

tell the public of this province about the trouble they were in. The

difference is that when the NDP were in government, they never told the

people. They tried to sneak in the back door by calling a winter

election, but the people found them out.

Nobody denies that

there is economic difficulty in this province today — not just in this

province but in other provinces and other parts of the world. We have

identified that problem. The Premier has identified that problem for

the people. We haven't hidden it; we've placed it out front where

people can see it. We have developed an attack on the problem,

developed solutions for the problem — strategies for both the short

term, to which this bill relates, and the long term. I say we are

successful in trying to achieve our goals because we have used a

cooperative method — the provincial government, local governments and

the private sector — not just by making grandiose announcements about

how much money the government will provide to municipalities if it's

elected. You'll recognize the comments I'm referring to, which were

made by the Leader of the Opposition when he spoke to the UBCM

yesterday. Just throw the money out; don't look at the productivity of

that money.

Comments were made by the member for

Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) about wanting to keep the people in the

dark. We have provided an economic recovery booklet that they

identified as a political piece of literature. But it is a message to

the people of the province about what the government is doing. It would

be unfair for the government not to place before the people the plans

we have developed. To just sit in this chamber and hold those plans to

ourselves is foolishness. We must get a message out to the people.

The

member for Shuswap-Revelstoke made the comment about keeping the people

in the dark, but it is this party, as government, that brought in the

auditor-general to ensure that the taxpayers got value for their

dollars, as well as the proper recording of the dollars spent by the

government. They commented on the quarterly reports. As most

businessmen and government officials throughout this province and in

Canada and the world will tell you, those quarterly reports are the

most complete interim financial documents anywhere in Canada. The fact

that they can be produced and made available within four to five weeks

after the closing of a quarter is phenomenal, to say the least. That

party kept the people in the dark because they didn't have the

wherewithal to develop the type of programs and procedures that make

sure that from time to time the people of the province are informed as

to the financial well-being of the province.

You know, they

have commented on this bill, Mr. Speaker. Quite often, I must admit, as

government we end up getting some fairly critical press concerning

actions of government. Today there was an editorial in the Province ,

and I just want to quote from it so that the opposition knows there is

a news medium out there that does report an opinion from time to time

on the editorial page that does indicate a message to the public. They

may want to change their strategy and vote for the bill rather than

against, because they do most of their research out of the newspaper

anyway. It's headed: "When Debt is Necessary."

"...Victoria has apparently caught a strong case of

common sense. Recessions are cyclical, and it may be dangerous policy to reduce

social programs too far just to make sure governments stay out of debt.

"There will be nothing wrong in a short-term B.C. deficit

financed by treasury bills. But at least in principle a treasury-bill operation

is a perfectly defensible strategy at a time like this."

The Minister of Finance has recognized that, and recognizes that in order to

have that flexibility to deal with an ever changing financial marketplace, he

has to have the use of the treasury-bill approach at this time.

What

we have developed in this Financial Administration Amendment Act is

part of the package to return this province to prosperity. If you look

at the total picture, if you go back to February 1982 and take in order

what has been developed.... A restraint program was announced; the

first restraint program in Canada was announced by the Premier on

February 16. Let's look at how many of the provinces have fallen into

line, recognizing the leadership that was shown by the Premier of

British Columbia in February 1982 — also the federal government, with

their 6 and 5 percent restraint program. That was the first step —

phase one, if you will. Beyond that comes the economic program to give

stability, assurance and encouragement to the private sector. The bill

that was brought before the House by the Minister of Industry and Small

Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), regarding assistance to the

small business community of this province in manufacturing, processing

and various other sectors recognizes that small business is the

backbone of our economy. So we've identified that area and developed a

strategy to assist in that area.

Mortgage assistance. To

those people who are in their homes, and who are frightened because

they don't know what their interest rate is going to be, we have

provided a breathing-space of three years to give them encouragement.

Bill

82 shows that the Crown corporations of this province have a

responsibility, and we have limited increases for those Crown

corporations to 6 percent. As the president of ICBC said, that ceiling

is a challenge to ICBC and a challenge to the motoring public of this

province. But there is an all-out effort by ICBC to meet that challenge.

have shown leadership in restraint. We have shown leadership in

identifying where we must give stability and encouragement to the

people of the province, and we have said to our Crown corporations that

they have to play a part too. In doing that, we will encourage the

private sector to look at their price increases and to attempt to keep

them within limits. Also, wage settlements by people in the private

sector should take into consideration what government has done in

showing leadership by saying to its Crown corporations: "Hold to your

limits." We are assisting small businesses and assisting homeowners who

are faced with high-interest-rate mortgages. It's working, Mr. Speaker,

and this particular bill gives us that flexibility that we need so that

we can carry on with some of those economic recovery programs.

It's

not just British Columbia; it's the whole of Canada and the rest of the

world that has suffered. We have a situation in which we have probably

had it too good for too long in Canada. If we had recognized it several

years ago, the bullet wouldn't be so difficult to bite. Nevertheless,

here it is, and

[ Page 9396 ]

we're

dealing with it at this particular time. One thing we have recognized

as government is that it isn't government that has the money or makes

the money; it's the people who pay the government the money, and we

redirect it. We have a responsibility to assist the people of this

province through difficult times.

We have a member for

Coquitlam, who I'm sure will get up in this debate and give some very

interesting comments about his theory on the coal industry in this

province — at which time, hopefully, we'll have to bring him to order

again, because he's always three months behind the times.

took the lead in this country with regard to restraint. Every minister

in government was given a challenge, and every ministry and the staff

of those ministries was given a challenge to cut their expenditures in

order that we would not place an excessive burden on the taxpayers. We

then moved from there into those other governments that deal with

people — the municipalities, the hospitals, the school boards — and we

dealt with the problem of the government employees. Through discussion,

and again through leadership shown by our Premier, we came to an

agreement, and have worked on and resolved the issue of government work

stoppage. For that I compliment not just our Premier but those people

who sat through the sessions, both on the union side and government

side, and brought that thing to a resolution.

We also showed

leadership by making a rollback in MLAs' salaries in this House. We had

a contract; the contract was a bill that said we would have an 11.9

percent increase on January 1, 1982. We recognized that we had to show

leadership, and we rolled it back to 1.9 percent and agreed to no

increase in 1983. I make that point because I think the message has

possibly not got out as well as it should as to how the government and

opposition have recognized that politicians must not just complain

about large settlements, but should also recognize that we should play

a

part in the recovery.

Mr. Speaker, we've received the

cooperation of many organizations and groups. Municipal councils have

come forward and have done an excellent job; hospital boards; the

doctors, with a $30 million payback; the school boards are dealing with

their issues, and they're coming along. The majority of the school

boards, as I understand it now, working with their teachers, have

resolved the issues that they were faced with. I think we have now

pretty well completed our "restraint program"; all the parts of the

puzzle are in place. Controlled government spending at all levels has

been achieved.

We move to the private sector. We move to

assistance of the homeowner, as I said, not a counterattack but, in my

opinion, an attack on high interest rates and an attack on the

possibility of their losing their homes because of the renegotiation of

mortgages at rates higher than they can pay. In giving that type of

assurance that we have through that program, we have also given an

ability for a person to buy their first home. That will have a

tremendous effect on the construction industry in this province,

because if people are going out and starting to buy, then the builders

are going to start to build once again.

What we've done

— hopefully what we've done — by dealing with restraint, by giving

encouragement to homeowners, by giving encouragement to small business

people, and by looking at this type of bill we've got before us.... We

are looking at a change in attitude. For far too long we've had a

negative attitude because things have been bad. Now, with all those

things in place, you're seeing a positive attitude coming forward.

Interjections.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

I was just wanting to give you my thoughts with regard to attitude.

Some people say, I guess, that we're in a crisis situation. I've heard

that word used many times. If we're in a crisis situation, I want to

give you some hope, Mr. Member, because the Chinese word "crisis" is

made up of two characters; one of those characters means danger and the

other character means opportunity. Mr. Speaker, I'm looking from the

positive side, and I'm saying that this is the time that we have an

opportunity to recover in this province, provided that we have a

positive attitude. I just want to indicate to you that this book, more

than any other publication at this point in time, in my opinion, will

give that positive attitude to the people of the province, provided it

gets to the people of the province. If I had my way, Mr. Speaker, we

wouldn't be printing.... I don't know how many we have printed at the

present time, but I'd want to print one million copies and get one to

every adult in this province, to understand what we've done, to

understand what we're going to do, to understand that there is light at

the end of the tunnel and there's no train coming the other way. That's

what the opposition would continue to tell you — negative, negative,

negative.

If we had a room in this province big enough to

house two and a half million people, and if we put the Premier on the

stage with a large sound system to speak to them for half an hour, the

people of this province would change their attitude from negative to

positive. Unfortunately, we don't have a big enough room. We don't have

a big enough room to put up there that man who has a positive attitude.

But if we could put this book in everybody's hands and they could read

it, they would begin to understand that it isn't all doom and gloom, as

the opposition would tell you from time to time.

I want to read you a short story — a parable, if you will —which I read not too long ago in one of the bank's newsletters.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

It's not the Bank of Commerce, Mr. Member. They wrote a whole story

about you in the Bank of Commerce. Even the president got in on that

deal.

I want to read this, Mr. Speaker, because I think it's

worthwhile. I'd appreciate it if you'd keep the opposition quiet

because there's a message here.

MR. LAUK: Yes, that message was given in 1932 — the same message.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

I don't know whether I should really give this story because it may

take up too much of my time. I'll put it aside, and if I've got enough

time I'll get to the story.

There's no question that the

economy of this province is down. I talked about attitude. We have

layoffs, closures, high interest rates, a depressed dollar. But look at

what's happening. Right now we're bumping along the bottom of a

recession, but there is rehiring going on. Incorporations are taking

place. I know, because I'm the minister responsible for the Companies

Act. Hundreds of companies are being incorporated every month, so some

people out there are positive. The

[ Page 9397 ]

high

interest rate that we experienced — I think the highest prime rate was

over 22 percent in 1981 — is now down to under 15 percent. Mr. Speaker,

there is a positive change, but unfortunately we don't hear about it.

The Canadian dollar isn't at 75 cents anymore; it's over 80 cents, so

there is a change. As I say, we're bumping along the bottom, and

there's a responsibility.... Unfortunately, there is no press gallery

here, but there's a great responsibility to get the positive story out.

That responsibility is partly the government's through this type of

brochure that we have prepared, and, also, Mr. Speaker, through the

news media. Let me give you some examples.

Friday, September 24, 1982, from the Province :

"IWA layoff figures declining." That's a fairly positive statement —

that's today. They could just as easily have said: "Unemployment in

forest industry down by 8 percent"; because it is down by 8 percent. I

don't deny that it's gone from 37 percent to 29 percent, but darn it

all, it's down! When are we going to get the message across that things

aren't all gloom and doom? The Vancouver Sun , September 23,

1982: "Sawmill offer blackmail." Wouldn't it be nice if the news media

said: "Turkeys for Christmas in Hazelton." At the sawmills in Hazelton,

the employer said to the employee: "I'm going to bring you back to work

although the market's not good enough, but I figure I've got a

commitment; but you've got to take 80 percent of your regular salary."

Headlines: "Blackmail." Wouldn't it be nice, Mr Speaker, if they said:

"Turkeys for Christmas in Hazelton." Wouldn't the people in Hazelton

get a little bit of enthusiasm.

The Financial Post —

I'm not talking just about our papers. This happens to be September 25,

1982. I guess it's a weekly edition and it's dated tomorrow. It says:

"Some brighter spots peeking behind the gloom." In very small print it

says: "A declining inflation rate." It says: "An energy industry

turnaround." It says: "A profitable investment climate." Those are

positive statements, and isn't it unfortunate that we can't get those

in the headlines instead of hiding them in the little news articles

somewhere in the back of the paper.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Today,

Friday, September 24, we have: "Jobless Rate High Till 1986." Doesn't

that make the employer and the employee in this province feel good?

That's Canada. In the Times-Colonist it says that in the United

States 3.3 percent inflation — in very small print in

section D, page

3; that's the size of the article. Wouldn't it be nice if the paper

said on its front page: "U.S. Winning Fight Against Inflation." If it

said that — and we export a lot of our stuff to the U.S. — a lot of the

businessmen in this province and in this country would take heart.

What

we need is a signal. We need something out there. We need everybody's

cooperation. That's what the Premier said from day one. He said it last

November at the first ministers' conference. He was turned away. He

came back and said it to the people in February. He said it again in

July, when we had to go one more step down that road of restraint. Yet

it wasn't until after the second go-round that the other provinces and

the federal government finally began to look and say: "Hey, maybe he

hasn't got a bad idea."

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: He was right.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Your darned right he was right.

Then

yesterday in Vancouver we get — and it's a great picture of him

speaking to the UBCM: "Barrett Eyes Job Plan." Well, the Premier's

whole strategy, the Minister of Industry and Small Business

Development's (Hon. Mr. Phillips) whole strategy, the Minister of

Finance's with this bill, is to get productivity. I think there was one

comment made on the news by a mayor at the UBCM meeting who said: "They

don't understand, because if they lend us or give us 90 percent to

build a new community centre, to do roads, or whatever it is that the

Leader of the Opposition mentioned in his speech, there is no

productivity, there is no ongoing thing." If they gave them 90 percent

to build a community hall, the taxpayer (

a) pays the 90 percent; (

b) pays the 10 percent on his taxes for the rest of the capital

expenditure; and (

c) pays the ongoing cost for something that does not

produce.

The key to this recovery we're looking at is that

people go to work to produce a product. But if you're just going to

build new buildings, with nothing flowing out of those buildings in

productivity, you are not going to solve the problem.

Interjections.

MR. KEMPF: I'll tell him myself.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please. All hon. members will have an opportunity to tell

anything they like when they have gained the floor. But at this time

the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has the floor.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

In my home town there was a news

article early this summer: "Brenda

Mines Closing; 460 People Laid Off." And the

article said it was a

temporary closure. Three weeks ago in a column called "Penticton

Potpourri" — in other words, the miscellaneous articles column; in an

article that big it said: "460 Rehired." Down below it said: "Brenda

Mines rehires their 460 people." If we had turned that around, and in

the pot-pourri

section it had a small thing: "Brenda Mines Closes for

Six Weeks," but the day they brought them back to work it was bright

red headlines in the Penticton Herald, saying, "460 People Back At

Work," do you know what would happen? I'll tell you what would happen:

the restaurant owners in downtown Penticton would look at that and

they'd say: "Gee, I'd better hire Bessie Smith Friday night, because

those miners are going to be celebrating. They're going to bring their

wives out for dinner. They haven't had it too good for too long." So

Bessie Smith would come in and get four hours' work. The clothing

stores would say: "Hey, these guys are back to work. I'd better build

my inventories." We all know that inventories are at an all-time low.

They have to be because store owners, car dealers and everybody else

cannot carry those inventories. They order clothes to build up their

inventory, because 460 guys who are making top wages are going back to

work, and they're going to buy something.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

My friend from Vancouver Centre just slides over this. This is the only

thing that's going to turn us around. The attitude of the people is

going to turn us around; otherwise there'll be people like that first

member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) who make statements that a bank

is going to go broke and put the fear of God in every

[ Page 9398 ]

shareholder

and every depositor in that bank for weeks. That statement cost people

thousands and thousands of dollars. There was even talk of a class

action against him at one point.

MR. SPEAKER: Order,

please. Hon. minister, members, possibly the opportunity might be at

hand to look at the bill, the Financial Administration Amendment Act

(No. 2). It's a very short bill; I believe it's about four lines. At

this point I think we can determine that we have strayed significantly

from the principle of this particular bill. I realize there are

references that must be made, but at this time I think I must urge

members and the member presently on his feel that we must return to the

principle of the bill before us.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I appreciate your comment, Mr. Speaker. In second reading I hope you will give us a little latitude.

What

I'm attempting to do is to indicate that there has to be a change of

attitude; otherwise recovery will take an awful lot longer. The bill,

put out by government, allows for short-term borrowings to give us

flexibility. By financing the various programs we've put into place and

by getting the best rate at the best time, as the minister said, we

will assist in that positive attitude being developed in the minds of

the people of this province.

I told you about the fact that

Brenda Mines closed. I tried to indicate that if you have the right

attitude and get the right message, the right signal, whether through

these programs or through the news media, people are going to start

thinking positively, and we'll see the recovery take place. If we don't

do that, it's going to be a long winter and a long time for recovery.

That is possibly the reason I strayed from the bill. I was attempting

to indicate that we, as the government of this province, have to

develop programs that attack the recession from all sides. We don't

counterattack; we don't put up defences; we don't talk doom and gloom.

We attack the problem; we've done so on all fronts. All we have to do

is make sure that the signal, the message — whatever you want to call

it — gets out there. In the end, what we do in here isn't going to mean

one darned bit, as opposed to what can be done if the people outside

get enthusiastic about this province again and look to development. The

only small bit we can do is to redirect the taxpayers' money, given to

us through various forms of taxation, not into make-work projects, as

they would in the NDP.... You have to look at the area of productivity

and generating additional dollars.

I went through the

scenario of the restaurant owner bringing in one lady for four hours,

and how businesses are increasing their inventories, and by doing that

somebody somewhere else gets back a job. It's basically the ripple

effect taking place, if the economy starts to move, but if you want to

talk doom and gloom, it's going to be a long time in coming.

appreciate the latitude that you have given me, Mr. Speaker. I would

just say that this bill, Bill 86, is part of our economic recovery

package. If in putting forward this package and financing it we get the

right attitude out there, then our recovery in this province is going

to be a lot swifter than if we sit back, do nothing and talk about doom

and gloom, as they propose on the other side of the hall.

I'm pleased to support Bill 86.

MR. LEGGATT:

First, I want to deal briefly with the remarks of the minister, who

seemed to find two key areas where he identified the cause of the

depression. The first area was the NDP government of 1972. That was the

first one; he identified it very clearly. It is Dave Barrett's fault

that we're in this kind of trouble today. Dave Barrett caused all these

layoffs. He laid a fairly heavy message on the House today about the

evils of that terrible little government. But you're a decade out of

date. You know, it's 1982 now; we're in a whole new ball game.

The

second villain, the thing that's really causing a depression — perhaps

even more important than that poor little Dave Barrett government — is

bad press. It's a bad press depression. If the press would only stop

being negative, all those people would go back to work. It's just a

case of getting through to the media and we can solve all our problems.

MR. LAUK: It's Marjorie Nichols' fault.

MR. LEGGATT:

It's Marjorie Nichols' fault, right. It's Marjorie's fault that we're

in this depression. It's because she hasn't given the Premier or the

minister the right kind of press. Now if only they would stop putting

those little bits in the corner — those little bits that say "Five

People Hired" — as headlines, and take away those "4,000 Laid Off in

the Forest Industry" stories and put them under the classified ads,

we'd all be okay. Everything would be coming up roses in the province

of British Columbia if only the press would quit nattering and giving

us all this negativism. What incredible naivete! What an incredible

statement from a minister of the Crown, who finds this depression the

worst, certainly, since 1935. Right now our unemployment levels are

above that level, because in fact they didn't have the kind of

socialist cushions that we have today, which are keeping the engines of

capitalism working, at least very slowly.

How is the NDP

going to vote on the bill, and why are we going to vote against the

bill? We're going to vote against the bill, and I'll tell you why.

First

of all, there would be no reason for this bill to come in front of this

House unless this government were broke, bankrupt. That's a fact.

That's why the bill is before us. It might be that if it were another

government we could consider voting for the bill. But because this

government ran on fiscal responsibility over and over and over, and

tried to inherit the mantle of W.A.C. Bennett, they have no mandate

from the people of British Columbia to have this kind of legislation

none whatsoever

The only alternative is to pull this bill

and call an election. That's the answer, because the people of British

Columbia have never given this government a mandate for open-ended

borrowing. They've always run on the platform of fiscal responsibility.

The fiscal responsibility people are now opening the doors to the bank.

The fiscal responsibility people, who've talked balanced budgets over

and over and over, have a bill before us which gives them a Visa card,

a carte blanche, with no time limit, and the sky's the limit on public

borrowing.

Today is the day we should, I think, respect

the memory of one of the great political figures of the province. I

think today is the day, and I say this with all seriousness.... While

we may have had our disagreements with him, one of the great political

figures in British Columbia was W.A.C. Bennett. W.A.C. Bennett

understood that if you keep your debt down, you don't have to tax quite

so much to service that debt. It was a fairly simple proposition, but

it made economic sense. The people of this province understood that and

gave him mandate after mandate, because they understood that if

[ Page 9399 ]

didn't get over our heads in debt, it wouldn't cost them so much in tax

money. It was a fairly efficient way to run things. Pay as you go isn't

a bad idea.

AN. HON. MEMBER: What happened to the government that took over?

MR. LEGGATT: I'll tell you what happened to the government that took over. Do you want the answer to that?

Interjections.

MR. LEGGATT:

The deficit this government is facing is $1 billion; the government of

1975.... If it had a $200 million deficit, I'd be surprised. In fact,

it didn't have a deficit. They pulled a little funny-money trick and

loaded the deficit after they came to power; we all know that.

terms of fiscal responsibility, I want to get back to one of the great

political figures of this province, W.A.C. Bennett, a man who surely

would cross the floor of this House today, if he were sitting in this

House; a man who would take his Social Credit Party card and rip it

into shreds if this happened. This is a sad day for W.A.C. Bennett. I

guess it's kind of sad in another way, in that if Russell had taken the

job instead of Bill, we might be in a different position; I don't know.

Mr.

Speaker, they don't have a mandate to present this bill, and they don't

have a mandate to govern. That mandate was squandered along with $900

million of special funds that were in place when this government took

office, money accumulated by the previous Social Credit administration

and by the NDP administration at that time. And here you are, my

friend, broke.

AN HON. MEMBER: How can you say that with a straight face?

MR. LEGGATT:

How can you present this bill with a straight face? You have squandered

the special funds. Where are they, Mr. Minister? Tell us where they

are. Am I wrong? Is it not $900 million? Is it only $500 million? How

much have you squandered, Mr. Minister? Get up in your place on this

bill and tell us how much the special funds are and how much you have

squandered. I think it's close to a billion dollars since this

government took office.

MR. KEMPF: How would you know? You were in Ottawa. Why did you leave Ottawa anyway?

MR. LEGGATT:

To try to get rid of the worst government this province has ever had.

That's why I left Ottawa. I m still trying, and I'm going to continue

trying.

Yes, $900 million in special funds. The government

wouldn't present this bill unless it was broke, unless it was bankrupt.

But I think the people of the province are going to issue a writ of

foreclosure pretty soon. I think they're going to appoint a receiver

pretty soon, because this government is in a financial shambles, and it

knows it's in a financial shambles.

All of this prattling

that I've heard since I came to this House about the federal NDP

support of the federal Liberal government; all of this nonsense about

what terrible spendthrifts they were in Ottawa! The facts are that if

you take the debt per capita in British Columbia imposed up to now by

this government — God knows what they're going to do in the future when

they get this bill — it's $4,000 for every man, woman and child in the

province. The federal debt is $4,000 for every man, woman and child in

Canada.

MR. KEMPF: Why didn't you stay in Ottawa and do something about it?

MR. LEGGATT: Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee. There they are, that Socred-Liberal coalition in a financial catastrophe.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

guess you could have called those special funds the beginning of a

heritage fund for the province. Saskatchewan had a $4 billion heritage

fund. In Alberta, the heritage fund was approximately $11 billion; I

think it's now probably down to about $8 billion. Why hasn't this

province set aside a heritage fund for its population? Are we that much

poorer than Saskatchewan? Are we that much poorer than Alberta? Surely

good management of our resources — the magnificent forests, the

magnificent mining industry — would have produced a heritage fund. What

have we now? We have a negative heritage fund. We don't have anything

in the bank. That is bad management, atrocious management. That is

fiscal irresponsibility, it's economic insanity. It's a Liberal–Social

Credit alliance, a fiscal alliance. It is an interest rate policy that

was made both in Victoria and in Ottawa. The presentations to the

federal government in 1978 and thereafter encouraged high interest rate

policies to control inflation, and that has brought us to the position

we're in now.

It's all very well for the Minister of

Industry and Small Business Development to say that we have to gear up

the engines of the small business community to get the economy rolling.

I understand that. We voted for that modest little bill, which won't do

very much. The facts are that small business is in such terrible shape

that they won't come and get the money. The minister didn't even spend

the money he had available to him last year. The reason is that this

economy is so bad that people don't want to spend government handouts,

because it just means they're wasting their time trying to put that

business together. When the government criticizes an NDP program which

says: "Let's let local communities get the engine of the economy moving

by building recreational centres, and by building needed services in

the local community...." That is the spur, the light and the hope that

will ignite the engine of our economy again. All we've seen in this

House is a sort of deathbed repentance.

This is a kind of

on-the-road-to-Damascus thing. Here you are saying: "The private sector

has to do everything. We don't want to give away handouts. We won't

give out the peoples money. We must fire teachers. We must get rid of

civil servants. We've got too many of those people."

MR. MITCHELL: Shutting down hospitals.

MR. LEGGATT: Shutting down hospitals, and suddenly a deathbed repentance.

MR. KEMPF: Name one hospital that's been shut down.

MR. LEGGATT: Ward after ward.

[ Page 9400 ]

Now

the problem is that those people whom you are throwing out of work buy

products that small business people and small manufacturers have to

sell.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: One

moment, please. I'll ask the hon. member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) and

the hon. member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell) to not

interrupt the member who has taken his place in debate.

MR. LEGGATT:

Now the engine of the British Columbia economy will not move, and small

business will not flourish at all.... They don't want your handouts.

What they want are customers with money in their pockets to buy their

products. It's this government that has denied them that purchasing

power, denied them that money. That's why small business isn't working.

That is why this economy is in such terrible shape. No, it isn't the

media that's causing the depression. And it isn't the NDP in 1972,

1973, 1974, or even 1975, which has caused this depression. That

coalition is part of an alliance of right-wing philosophers who have

created a depression out of high-interest rates. They are a part of

that Friedmanist high-interest.... That is what they're about. They're

trying to create in the province of British Columbia the ideal state.

The ideal state would be a typical South American banana republic where

all of the funds were held by a very few people at the top and the rest

of the peasants simply struggle to survive. That's the ultimate in this

kind of philosophy, which brings high interest rates, which throws

people out of work, and which says: "The only way to get the engine of

the economy going is through the top. Don't put any purchasing power at

the bottom, because they won't appreciate it. They'll be lazy, and they

won't work. My God, if you give them food, they'll expect to be fed the

next day as well." That's the philosophy that has destroyed what is so

good about western free enterprise. Western free enterprise has always

been supported by those socialist engines of unemployment insurance and

medicare. They are the backup to that system that made it work. These

right-wing people are the worst enemy that freedom has seen, because

they're destroying the western economies. They are destroying them one

after another.

Now we are looking at the rating of our

credit in British Columbia, which the minister loves to gloat about,

telling us about his triple-A rating. We now look like we're about to

embark on paying for operating out of borrowed money. Buy your

groceries with this borrowed money. How many shows on Broadway is it

going to take to convince them that we've still got a good credit

rating. It's going to have to be more than just the "The Best Little

Whorehouse in Texas." He's going to have to go to the symphony and the

ballet. He's going to have to make the rounds. Even that won't work,

because our credit rating is dependent upon whether we're borrowing for

operating. The key to a credit rating is that you must not borrow in

order to operate; you must have the courage to tax high enough to

operate. Every government that wants to slip away into this kind of a

debt morass always does this. They want to promise more than they can

deliver, so they will not tax on a pay-as-you-go basis. What this

government is doing is promising the sun, the moon, whatever it can, in

a desperate gamble to be re-elected. The gamble is not going to work.

You see, one thing the public has is a good understanding of what you

stand for. Now they don't know what these guys stand for. They used to

think they knew. Now they stand for something they have opposed since

Social Credit began: deadweight debt. They are now standing for that

kind of fiscal mismanagement the federal government has been famous for

for so long. Let's not hear any more comments in this chamber about the

squandering Trudeau. These guys are peas in a pod. They're doing

exactly the same thing. Half the cabinet are Liberals.

The

triple-A rating is gone. It's funny how these people look at the

economy in terms of who you help. When Dome goes to the wall, guess

what happens? That Liberal-Socred coalition decide that Dome is going

to be saved with the taxpayers' money. When one of my little businesses

in my community is against the wall, how much has this minister

intervened to prevent foreclosure? How many times has he tried to stop

small businesses going against the wall? But when it comes to Dome

Petroleum and we find many of our major banks totally tied in to the

financial structure of Dome Petroleum, they have to be saved.

Massey-Ferguson and Chrysler and Lougheed — all of those giant

corporations that don't need it — are getting all the welfare they

want. That's free enterprise.

We are looking at one of the

great mental revolutions of our time. I don't know how they're going to

handle this one on the hustings, but it's going to be funny to watch —

how they favour open-ended borrowing after all these years. What are

they going to say?

MR. LAUK: "We were only kidding."

MR. LEGGATT:

That's the line. "We were only kidding, folks." In fact, it's not a bad

slogan. How about that? The Social Credit slogan in the next campaign

is: "Honest, we were only kidding, folks."

MR. BARNES: "A dime without debate."

MR. LEGGATT: How about "A dime without debate"? That's a good one. Do you think they'll go with that one?

Interjections.

MR. LEGGATT:

That's right. They want to debate every dime, but when it gets over a

thousand, let's not debate it, folks. It's too important to debate.

is a deathbed repentance. It's not even a repentance; it's a bill for

which they have no mandate whatsoever to present to this House. They

should simply withdraw the bill and ask the public of the province of

British Columbia right now: "Shall we have open-ended debt in this

province? Shall we change the whole philosophy of our party? Shall we

join the Liberals in a great coalition to run this country and this

province? Return us to office," is what they're going to tell us. "Let

us borrow ourselves into prosperity, and everything will be coming up

roses." They aren't buying it where I am, and I don't think they're

buying it anywhere else.

MR. KEMPF: It's quite

apparent that the member who just took his place doesn't listen in this

House. I spoke yesterday of the heritage fund. He talked of the

heritage fund in the province of Saskatchewan. He asked why British

Columbia didn't have a heritage fund. I have to respond with two

answers to what the member said. First I have to respond, in regard to

the heritage fund in Saskatchewan, by asking the

[ Page 9401 ]

member

for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) where that heritage fund disappeared

to when the new government took office. Where were the dollars? You

still haven't answered that question.

What I have to say

about a heritage fund in the province of British Columbia is again in

the way of a question to the member for Coquitlam-Moody. I realize that

he wasn't here at that time, but where was that heritage fund during

the three and a half years of the NDP? They left it in the ground. It

was their philosophy to leave our resources in the ground. Where was

the heritage fund when that little member over there was part of a

socialist government in the province of British Columbia? "Don't do as

I do; do as I say" — is that your philosophy, Mr. little member for

Vancouver Centre?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will remind the

hon. member for Omineca, and also the first member for Vancouver

Centre, that personal reflections are unparliamentary. I commend that

to all members of the House.

MR. KEMPF: I only say what I see, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It's still unparliamentary, hon. member.

Interjections.

MR. KEMPF:

Mr. Speaker, I had no intention of standing in debate on bill 86, until

the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich).... I see he left his seat

immediately he sat down after entering in debate. I decided then, in

regard to what he said about me, to stand and speak in this debate. He

practically dared me, Mr. Speaker. It really wouldn't have mattered.

Had he not done that, I would have stood anyway in response to the

member for Coquitlam-Moody, who comes in here espousing his socialist

philosophy and expects this House or the people of this province to

believe it.

The member for Nanaimo dared me to stand and

speak against this legislation, because I once said I was against

government borrowing — government borrowing to meet not only everyday

expenses, but to meet any expenses. And I am; I haven't changed my

philosophy in that area, not one little bit. I'll vote for this bill,

and I'll tell you why. I'm against government borrowing of any kind,

but I'll speak on and I'll vote for this bill,

The member

for Cowichan-Malahat says, "two-story Jack." You read my columns; I

know you do; you talk about them in this House, so you know perfectly

well that that's a total fabrication of the truth. You read my columns

so you know what I say in my constituency.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is the hon. member imputing any dishonourable motive?

MR. KEMPF:

None whatsoever. I'm glad she reads my columns — it may teach her

something. Mr. Speaker, in British Columbia we're caught up through no

fault of our own....

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF:

I know the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) likes to use that as a

political ploy. The NDP might think that, but I'll tell you, the people

out there don't.

Mr. Speaker, we're caught up, through no fault of our own, in a worldwide recessionary situation.

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF:

You don't believe that? You say that's untrue? Mr. Speaker, I'd like

the member for Alberni to stand up and say that he doesn't think that

that is true, that he doesn't think we are caught up in a worldwide

recessionary situation in the province of British Columbia.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. All members will come to order.

MR. KEMPF:

Mr. Speaker, The markets for our commodities which our industries

export.... Maybe the member for Alberni will doubt this as well — that

we are an exporting province.

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF:

Raw logs — yes, at a time when you can't sell what you can manufacture

out of them. I think it's good. You think putting 350 loggers out of

work on the Queen Charlotte Islands is good? I don't. I differ with my

colleague the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) on that issue,

and I say that here today. That is a renewable resource, and when you

cut those trees, they'll grow again. Maybe we have to cut a few of

those trees during these times to keep our loggers working — and export

them. When times are better and we can cut them, make a product and

sell that product, I say that's great, fantastic. When we can't sell

that product — and we're an exporting province — then I say we should

sell what we can to create what jobs we can in this province.

Mr.

Speaker, we're caught up, through no fault of our own, in a world

recessionary situation in this province. We're an exporting province.

Markets for our products have all but disappeared. Resource revenue to

the provincial treasury is down at this time almost 60 percent from

where it was last year.

MR. LEVI: You're broke.

MR. KEMPF:

No, we're not broke. If we were broke, and were like you were in 1975,

Mr. Member for Maillardville-Coquitlam, we'd call an election. That's

what you did. You panicked. You didn't come in with a program; you

didn't come in with a bill to this House. You didn't want to launder

your dirty laundry in front of the faces of the people of British

Columbia. No, they didn't do that, Mr. Speaker. They ran and hid and

called an election.

Any government having any responsibility

to all of the people that they opt to serve has that responsibility to

keep essential services — services which could be considered groceries,

I suppose, Mr. Member for Coquitlam Moody, but day-to-day services on

which the people of this province are dependent. Because of the world

recession, we are unable in this province to tell at this time when the

upswing will begin or even where the bottom will be. We can't tell that

at this time. Nobody can — neither those on this side of the House nor

those on that side of the House.

Given the scenario, what is

it that we would do? What is it that the socialists opposite would do,

given the same scenario, should you be in the position of a government

on this

[ Page 9402 ]

side

of the floor? What would you do — abandon? Absolutely. The member for

Burnaby Willingdon (Mr. Lorimer) hit it right on the head. They'd call

an election. That's what they'd do, Mr. Speaker. They'd run and hide.

They'd abandon the people of British Columbia, as they did when they

went broke in 1975, during good times. During good times that party

opposite, when they were government of British Columbia, went broke.

What did they do then? They called an election. Are they suggesting

that this government...?

Interjections.

MR. KEMPF:

Mr. Speaker, would you settle that member for Coquitlam-Moody down?

He's really bothering the very soft-spoken member for Omineca, and I

take offence at that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. KEMPF: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

But

is that what they're suggesting we should do — that we should run and

hide, like they did in 1975, when they went broke during good times? Is

that what they're suggesting we should do? They'd run and hide, like

we've seen them do many times in this House since 1975, when they ran

and hid. We've seen them run and hide in this House. I would suggest

that that's exactly what they would do were they government at this

time. They wouldn't bring a bill into this House to ensure that the

essential services to the people of this province would continue. No,

they wouldn't do that. They'd run and hide, and leave all of the bills

like they did in 1975. We remember. The Minister of Finance remembers.

He remembers the drawers full of unsigned cheques and all of the bills

that were never paid by that administration.

We remember

that, Mr. Member. You ran and hid, and that's what they're suggesting

this administration should do at this time. We should abandon the

people of British Columbia. We should call an election. That's all

those people over there can think of: "Call an election." It's the same

old story. We should opt to run and hide and not ensure the people of

British Columbia of the essential services that they must have on a

daily basis. That's what they're suggesting.

They're

suggesting that we throw this province into chaos. That's what they

would like. I heard the member for Coquitlam-Moody expound his

socialist beliefs; yes, that's what they would like. If you read the

doctrine, it calls for chaos. That's exactly what they'd like, you know

— to throw the province into chaos. They do it all the time. That's

what they would do in an attempt to win an election.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Speaking of chaos, perhaps we could come to order.

MR. KEMPF:

Mr. Speaker, I'm no further out of order than the member who just took

his place. I'm just answering some of the questions and setting

straight some of those misleading philosophies that that particular

member seems to have. It's totally against my inner philosophy that

government should borrow money to pay for everyday services, but as the

Premier said this morning here in this House, it's a relief valve; it's

an insurance policy; it's just in case; it's in the event of, Mr.

Member for Coquitlam-Moody. The socialists over there, with their

leader — whom I saw in the House for a few minutes this morning but who

hasn't been here for the last four days — might choose to run and hide,

particularly if there was a tough political decision to be made.

will not run from the facts. The facts are that we are caught up in a

very serious world recession, and we intend to stand and do something

about it. That's what Bill 86 is all about. We will ensure the people

of the province of British Columbia that their essential services will

not disappear. We will assure the young of this province that they will

have an education, whatever the events. We will assure the sick and the

aged of this province that they will have the care they require on a

daily basis, whatever the events.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Mr.

Speaker, that's what I call leadership. I think the people of British

Columbia realize that's what leadership really is. Yes, it's a tough

political decision to make, and it's tough for me to stand in this

House and speak in favour of, and vote for, government borrowing,

because I don't believe in it. But given the facts at this point in the

history of the world, it's an absolute necessity in order to ensure

that our people have essential services. Lead, not run and hide, as the

socialists would do. Face a politically difficult decision; face that

decision.

I've got all sorts of things to say. I have an awful lot more....

MR. SKELLY: No, you haven't.

MR. KEMPF:

Yes I have, Mr. Member. I've got a lot more to say in favour of this

bill, a lot more to say in regard to the ineptness of that group of

socialists over there. So I move adjournment of this debate until the

next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.