1984 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 33rd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 1984

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

3429 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Ombudsman's report on log-scaling. Mr. Macdonald –– 3429

Mr. Barrett

Mr. Reid

Transfer of funds to BCR. Mr. Stupich –– 3430

Lobbying of White Rock council by MLA. Mr. Blencoe –– 3431

Budget debate

Mr. Passarell –– 3432

Mr. Segarty –– 3434

Mrs. Wallace –– 3437

Hon. Mr. Brummet –– 3440

Mr. Gabelmann –– 3444

On the amendment

Mr. Cocke –– 3448

Mr. Mowat –– 3453

Tabling Documents –– 3453

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

MR. KEMPF: It's my pleasure to introduce His Worship Mayor

Bill Gilgan and Mr. Jim Pierce, the administrator of Burns Lake, who

are in your gallery this afternoon, Mr. Speaker. I would ask the House

to make them welcome.

MR. REE: In the gallery today we have three businessmen:

Trevor Neate, whose business is conducted in my constituency, and he

resides in the constituency of West Vancouver Howe Sound; Leo Hagel

from Victoria; and Jim Connolly from Vancouver. I ask the House to

welcome these three entrepreneurs.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I'm very pleased indeed today to welcome a

gentleman in the company of my assistant Miss Nina Gray, Ray Nestman.

Ray was recently elected director for Sooke. With his long experience

in that area. I'm sure he is going to contribute a great deal to that

board at the CRD. Would the House please welcome him.

MR. MOWAT: In the members' gallery today we have members of

the College of Dental Surgeons: Dr. Ron Markey, president; Dr. Serge

Vanry, vice-president; Dr. Roy Thordarson, registrar; and Mr. Ken

Croft. They've had meetings with the government. I ask the House to

make welcome the members of the College of Dental Surgeons.

HON. MR. ROGERS: There is a visitor to the press gallery

today from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Would the members please

welcome Joel Connolly.

Oral Questions

OMBUDSMAN'S REPORT ON LOG-SCALING

MR. MACDONALD: I have a question for the Minister of Forests.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Apologize first.

MR. MACDONALD: I will never apologize for asking legitimate

questions in this Legislature. This government is dancing to the tune

of big financial interests. They and you are determined to block an

inquiry. I don't see why big business shouldn't pay its taxes the way

ordinary people have to do, down to the last red cent. I will never

apologize.

AN HON. MEMBER: How about unfounded attacks?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: Say it outside, then. If you accuse them of lying out there, go ahead. Get out there and say it.

MR. MACDONALD: And stay out.

Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Forests. Mr. Williston. a respected former

Minister of Forests, in answer to a question as to whether the independent loggers

had been unjustly treated, said: "Well, unless a fellow with the integrity

of Tommy Thompson and some of the others are completely wrong — and I have

never found them to be wrong — then I would say they have, from the evidence

I was able to verify by Tommy Thompson. I came to the conclusion that they better

get the goldarned thing straightened out." Asked whether they got it straightened

out, he said this: "No, they haven't done a thing and I was wrong.

I said that if they put it out, they'd get it straightened out. Well. they

didn't get it straightened out, so I'm the guy they can laugh at."

In this case, of course, it's all the more reason why the ombudsman should

be doing his job. My question is: will the minister order a full public inquiry

at once?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members. as was mentioned yesterday, the

Chair tries not to bring these matters into question period, but

yesterday the point was made that the reading of telegrams, letters or

extracts from newspapers in the opening to an oral question is an abuse

of the rules of the House. I would commend that to all members.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, when the member for

Vancouver East gets his rather jumbled thought process straightened out

and can properly ask a question, I might be able to answer it. But I

have no idea what that member was mumbling about as he proposed a

so-called question.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, in another place — and I hope the

minister will listen to this; I'm sure he heard the first question too,

but he doesn't want to answer — Mr. Williston said this: "It was

probably three times as bad as the ombudsman said." He said this to

Barrie Clark, and it's public knowledge. Now I ask again: will the

minister, before he goes off to Germany or wherever it is — his Black

Forest Cake junket — order a full public inquiry into the allegations

in the ombudsman's report."

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, if the member who just asked

the question had any credibility whatsoever, I might attempt to answer

that mishmash of misquotes and isolated quotes that he just put forth.

In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, I cannot lower myself to even reply to

such a stupid bunch of nonsense.

MR. SPEAKER: Order. please.

MR. BARRETT: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the

Minister of Forests. Can the Minister of Forests inform this House

whether or not he has any confidence in Mr. Williston?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, I can certainly advise the House.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, can we assume that the minister has

full confidence in Mr. Williston as an employee in his ministry,

related to the matters at Ocean Falls? Do you have any confidence in

Mr. Williston?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, I don't know where that

member has been. Certainly he hasn't been around here. Mr. Williston is

not an employee of my ministry in any capacity, nor has he ever been since I have been a minister.

[ Page 3430 ]

MR. BARRETT: Is it true that Mr. Williston is a Crown employee related to Ocean Falls?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is as well aware of the answer to that question as I am.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Williston, an employee of the Crown and

related to forestry matters — a former forestry minister — has said

publicly that the financial matters involved in the ombudsman's report

may be three times greater than what the ombudsman has stated. Do you

think that those statements by Mr. Williston are accurate or not

accurate?

AN HON. MEMBER: Go ask him.

MR. BARRETT: Well, let's have a public inquiry to ask him. Bring him to the bar of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: The second member for Surrey.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the minister was getting up to speak.

MR. SPEAKER: The second member for Surrey may defer to the

Minister of Forests, who may wish to respond. If not, the Chair

recognizes the second member for Surrey.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the

Attorney-General relative to a news release published today by the

ombudsman and dated February 23. Can the minister tell the House what

in fact is the truth relative to the statements made by him yesterday

and the inference of the ombudsman, who makes reference to the fact

that he did not have sufficient information and that he didn't know

that criminal investigations were underway — or a copy of a letter of

the Deputy Attorney-General which he made reference to in his statement

the other day? The date of the letter was February 15.

[2:15]

Interjections.

MR. REID: I did it myself, unfortunately. I didn't have to steal it from somebody else.

To the Attorney-General: would you please answer, if you are in

receipt of the news release, what is the truth as has been printed

today by the ombudsman in his news release?

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, it is impossible to understand

quite what was in the mind of the ombudsman when he received the letter

of February 15 telling him about the criminal investigation, but he has

attempted in a press release today to give his version of that. It

would appear from that version that he doesn't believe that at the time

he was warned it was clear there was a criminal investigation underway.

That may well be what he thought.

The difficulty I have in responding to you is that I have Mr. Hughes' letter,

which I tabled with this House, in which Mr. Hughes did tell him that the RCMP

were asked to examine the matter to determine whether any criminal conduct might

be present. "I'm advised that that requested examination is now in

progress," he wrote. That would seem to be a pretty clear indication to

anyone that a criminal investigation had already been launched.

1 notice also that in the ombudsman's reply the following day when

he decided to publish, he referred in that letter to an examination. He

said that he didn't think he would jeopardize the RCMP examination into

allegations of criminality. He also said that he didn't think that the

publication of his report would jeopardize the RCMP investigation. So

it appears that he treated it as a criminal investigation. I'm just at

a loss to understand the statements that he made....

MR. MACDONALD: You're at a loss, period.

HON. MR. SMITH: You're at a loss, hon. member, to have the

courage to stand up here and acknowledge that you went after the

Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) on unfounded allegations and

apologize to the House.

I think you have to read the letter of February 15 and the

ombudsman's reply to it to find out what he thought, and not some

statement issued yesterday.

TRANSFER OF FUNDS TO BCR

MR. STUPICH: A question to the Minister of Finance. The

minister explained in the budget that the $470 million to be given to

BCR is not for direct repayment of debt but will go into the sinking

funds controlled by that company. Will the minister confirm that BCR

sinking funds have been used in the past to purchase bonds issued by

related provincial Crown corporations?

HON MR. CURTIS: In order to be completely accurate, I will take the question as notice and return to the House with the answer.

MR. STUPICH: Another question on the same topic, Mr. Speaker.

Is the minister able to give any assurance whatsoever that the $470

million given to BCR cannot be used to acquire bonds issued by related

provincial Crown corporations?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I think the question might be regarding future government policy.

MR. STUPICH: Another question, Mr. Speaker, along the same

subject. It might bring forward the same answer as the previous one,

but I'll try anyway. Is there any reason that these sinking funds

cannot be used to purchase bank paper which could be used to finance

the Tumbler Ridge railway line?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I suppose we are now getting to the nub of

the series of questions from the hon. member for Nanaimo. I would refer

that member and all members to the very clearly stated views with

respect to the Tumbler Ridge line in the budget document presented here

on Monday. I want to again make it abundantly clear that the

transaction which is proposed and which is dealt with in a bill now

before this House.... There is no intention whatever to use that fund

with respect to the Tumbler Ridge line. The B.C. Railway is expected,

and knows that it is expected, to carry that cost on its own, as stated

in the budget.

MR. STUPICH: This is a supplementary. The audited financial

statements for the B.C. Railway — the latest we have, December 31, 1982

— have notes to the effect that

[ Page

3431 ]

interest and repayment of the $455 million cost of construction of the Tumbler

Ridge line has been guaranteed by the provincial government. Is the provincial

government now withdrawing that guarantee?

HON. MR. CURTIS: No, Mr. Speaker, not at this time.

LOBBYING OF WHITE ROCK COUNCIL BY MLA

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, I have a serious question for the

Minister of Municipal Affairs: what investigation has the minister

undertaken into the actions of the first member for Surrey (Mrs.

Johnston) in lobbying for a rezoning proposal in which she holds a

beneficial interest, after the public hearing and before the final vote?

AN HON. MEMBER: What was that again?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member continues.

MR. BLENCOE: I'll ask my question again. It has been alleged

that the first member for Surrey tried to lobby White Rock council. I

wonder if the minister can indicate to this House if the government has

a policy to prevent this type of activity on the part of developers.

MR. SPEAKER: Further questions, hon. members? The member continues.

MR. BLENCOE: A supplementary question to the minister, Mr.

Speaker. Is the minister aware that when aldermen are influenced by

lobbying between the public hearing and final vote, the council

decision may be challenged in court, and will he advise what action he

is taking with regard to the involvement of a government MLA in such

lobbying?

MR. SPEAKER: Further questions, hon. members? The bell terminates question period.

MR. PARKS: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to standing order 26

on a point of privilege. I have just asked my learned colleague, the

second member for Surrey (Mr. Reid), for a copy of the information he

was referring to in his question to the hon. Attorney-General. As I

understand it, the office of the ombudsman is a position retained by

this parliament and in fact is responsible to this parliament. As I

have heard the assertions put forth in the representation of his press

release today and in particular the assertion contained in page 3 of

it, it states: "In effect, I was given virtually no information to

assist me in making my decision."

In hearing the response of the Attorney-General to the question of

my colleague, I would suggest that there has been a clear attempt to

mislead this House. If in fact you concur that there was an intention

by the ombudsman to mislead this House, then I would suggest that there

has been a terrible abuse of the office of the ombudsman and, I would

suggest to you, a breach of privilege to all members of this House. I

would ask you to rule on that question.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, on the matter raised by the member, the Chair

will undertake to review the matter and return to the House with a response at

the earliest opportunity.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, under standing order 26....

MR. SPEAKER: It's not a point of order, hon. member; it's a point of privilege.

MR. BARRETT: He mentioned standing order 26.

MR. SPEAKER: It's not debatable, hon. member.

MR. BARRETT: I want an

interpretation of standing order 26, used by the member. The member referred to standing order 26 — is that correct?

MR. SPEAKER: That's right, hon. member. All members who raise a

matter of privilege do so in essence under standing order 26, whether or not

the particular number of the standing order is referred to. It does not allow

members to get up and enter into debate. Therefore, hon. member....

MR. BARRETT: I'm asking on a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: You have a point of order?

MR. BARRETT: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: And the point of order is?

MR. BARRETT: Under standing order 26, whenever a matter of privilege

arises, it should be taken into consideration immediately. What I am suggesting,

Mr. Speaker, is that to take the matter into consideration includes a response

to the allegations made in the matter of privilege.

MR. SPEAKER: No, hon. member, that is not the case. The matter of consideration is one thing; the matter of a ruling is another.

Hon. members. earlier today the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard)

rose on what he alleged was a question of privilege. The member

complained of the circulation of a document by the Minister of Finance

(Hon. Mr. Curtis). The member took issue with the content of the

document. Differences between members over fact arise frequently and

are the subject of debate. However, differences of opinion or any

dispute over facts do not in any way impede or interfere with any

member discharging his responsibility in this House. It is to be

expected that there will be disputes over facts, but that does not in

any way constitute a matter of privilege. Further, the matter

complained of is in a document that is not before this House and, as

such, has no status except in debate.

I would refer hon. members to citation 19 in the fifth edition of Beauchesne's Rides and Forms

and page 70 of the twentieth edition of May. The House is presently

engaged in a general debate about the budget, and the member may wish

to raise his grievance in that discussion. In short, I can find nothing

in the matter raised by the hon. member for Skeena which would

constitute, even remotely, a valid question of privilege.

[ Page 3432 ]

Orders of the Day

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

[2:30]

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. PASSARELL: To continue on the budget debate that I

started this morning, another issue I would like to discuss that was

not addressed by the budget was Crown land. I think the member for

Omineca (Mr. Kempf) and I share concern on this aspect. When you look

at it, approximately 85 percent of the residents of British Columbia

live in the metropolitan areas. If we're looking at this high

unemployment rate that we have in this province — the 225,000

people.... I don't know if it's proper for more and more people coming

to the cities to try to find work when the work does not exist. I think

we're going to have to start looking at the hinterland for the change

that some economists talk about. More than 50 years ago, during the

Depression, the federal government allowed homesteading leases to

residents who would move out of metropolitan areas. I think this

government has forgotten how difficult it is to secure Crown land for

homesteading in the areas where my friend from Omineca and I live.

While bush life does not suit everyone, I think that opportunity should

be allowed for individuals who now live in urban areas, where there is

very little hope for employment, so they can go off and homestead. If

it's to get agriculture leases, timber leases or just homesteading

leases, it's a chance for some type of future, because there's very

little in the cities right now. Fifty years ago, Mr. Speaker, when the

homesteaders moved out from the urban areas, they brought their skills

into the rural areas of this country and into this province. They had

employment benefits. We took at the Peace River as one example. When

the homesteading leases and timber leases and the agriculture leases

were granted to people to come out of the cities during the Depression,

we saw issues being developed that helped the province and the country

through public works.

That's something that the government has fallen down in: public work

programs to benefit the unemployed. A quarter of a million people in

this province are unemployed. We also can look at the small business

that developed in the Peace River region and into the far north with

the development of the Alaska Highway during World War II. Small

business flourished.

My old friend, old Bob, up in the far north had another question

relating to bank profits, to go along with the budget here. Old Bob

wanted to know some issues concerning bank profits, which wasn't really

addressed in the budget either. We're seeing more and more bankruptcies

and foreclosures in this province, and he wanted to know why chartered

banks are making larger and larger profits in this province and across

the country — hundreds of millions of dollars — and nothing is being

done. If you took back in history, Mr. Speaker, prior to you and me

being born — I don't know, maybe my friend from the Cariboo was around

at that time — when the CCF, the NDP, and the Social Credit Party

formed, they had identical policies in both of their manifestos

concerning the banks. That's something that we've lost in the last 50

years. I don't think the CCF/NDP have forgotten about it, but certainly

Social Credit has. They had identical policies regarding the profits

and powers of the chartered banks in this country. It is surprising

that two political parties that sit....

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL Oh, I'd like to, but I'm so bloody sick that as soon as I finish this thing in 15 minutes I'm going home.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Moderation and temperance of language is always a hallmark in parliamentary debate.

MR. PASSARELL: Oh, yes. I always try that, Mr. Speaker. It's really the budget that is making me sicker.

If you look back on these two political parties, they have such

differences — as the gallery saw today just during question period with

the yelling back and forth. Just 50 years ago both of these political

parties, when they were forming within a close area of each other on

the Alberta-Saskatchewan border, as their number one issue believed and

stated in their manifestos that the banks were too powerful.

Another issue that old Bob wanted to know about was the cutback in the Highways budget.

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: He takes an extreme interest in what's going

on. He takes a good interest in even you. You're one of his characters

that he enjoys. He wanted to know if I could get a picture of you to

put into his outbuilding — an autographed picture.

Mr. Speaker, another question is the Highways budget cutback. As

we've seen in the budget highlights, the only ministry that hasn't been

cut back is Health. One of the concerns I have, living in the far

north, is roads and how roads are important to the tourist trade, which

is probably the number one industry in this province today, with the

recession, depression and the problems it has caused with the forest

and mining industries. Tourism now is our number one industry.

One of the concerns — and I know the Minister of Tourism agrees with me — is that....

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL Oh. well, probably it is. We're going to find

out for sure this summer when we see more and more tourists come to our

province. But the concern I have is with cutbacks in road construction

in this province. As the critic for the hon. minister, I have a

concern. If we're going to encourage tourism in this province — and

that's something that just can't wait until Expo 86 comes along two

years down the road — we have to have an excellent highway system in

this province, not just on the lower mainland but right across, up

through Prince George and the centre of this province, one of the

fastest-growing areas in all of western Canada, and into the far north.

Prince George is often referred to by northern residents as the gateway

to the far north. We need an excellent system, whether it's the Alaska

Highway, which is subsidized to a certain extent by the federal

government, or Highway 16 connected to Highway 37 into the Yukon and

through my

[ Page 3433 ]

riding. We can't cut back at this stage, when more

and more people are unemployed. We have to turn money into road

construction. Public works, as was done in the United States during the

1930s, is a similar process. This has to be happening now in the far

north to build our roads and benefit society.

Another issue going on, as I mentioned, is Expo 86. I see the

minister is in here right now. I was wondering last night, as I was

watching television, about that new spokesperson for the government —

is his name Ernie? — the guy with the flashing lights on his face.

MR. REID: Expo Ernie.

MR. PASSARELL: I hope Expo Ernie is not going to become the

government spokesperson. Is he programmed? Or does he just say what he

feels like saying if you ask him a question?

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: I saw him spinning around there. Maybe he even moves too fast to be a cabinet minister.

One of the other concerns I have about the debt, one that arouses my

personal animosity against the budget to a certain extent, is the one

issue.... As I said earlier today, there are some good points about

this budget. But the one I just don't understand — and it'll probably

be one of the few times that I ever agree with Mr. Michael Walker of

the Fraser Institute.... We both share the same concern for the $470

million to eliminate the historic debt of B.C. Rail. Michael and I, who

are sitting on different sides of the fence, both have to agree on

this. It's pretty hard to understand, particularly when Mr. Walker of

the Fraser Institute, who in many respects likes to look upon himself —

and I think the government likes to look upon him — as some kind of

financial guru in this province.... Why at this time spend $470 million

— almost half a billion dollars of taxpayers' money — to relieve this

debt of B.C. Rail? I don't understand it, Michael doesn't understand

it, and if we've got to where Michael and I don't understand it, who

really does?

If you want to retire a long-standing debt, and if you're really

going to get into this mode of retiring long-standing debts, I would

give this government one suggestion. Another debt you should retire,

and probably the longest-running debt in this country, is aboriginal

rights. Complete the aboriginal title. As the Nishga have said many

times: "Our land is not for sale." We're not talking about relieving a

debt in this province and across this country for money. You can't buy

it out, but you can acknowledge it. I think it's about time this

provincial government and we as a Legislature acknowledge that there

are aboriginal titles and claims in this province that should be

resolved. The B.C. Rail debt is a relatively new debt in this province,

while the aboriginal title owes the first citizens of this country a

debt that reaches back over 114 years.

I've got to keep on chewing this candy, Mr. Speaker, so I can talk. My throat is very sore.

Another question that old Bob wanted to know about was welfare slashes and cutbacks in the government.

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: No, Bob is 80-some years old. He worked for a

long time. He's on a pension now. I guess that in some regards you

people might call people who are retired on pensions welfare

recipients, for what they're given. Old Bob has a concern, too, with

some of the welfare cutbacks. Of course there are certain scam artists

who rip off the system for welfare incomes. but there are also tax

evaders who rip off the system too. My concern with forest

companies.... A lot of people rip off different things, and it doesn't

have to be just young, single people. Living in the far north, I have

seen some young people who would like the opportunity to work. That's

why there is such a high unemployment rate among young males in this

province and this country — between 35 to 40 percent of young people

can't get jobs. I don't think this is the time to go right across the

spectrum, across the board, and say, okay, because they're young.

single and male they should be cut back in their welfare. They wouldn't

be penalized at this time. There should be some type of mode to get the

deadwood out, but I don't think it makes up that many people. It's just

like the tax evaders. The majority of people go through and pay their

taxes: as much as we dislike doing it, we have to.

There's another concern I want to raise. Old Bob doesn't drive any

longer, but he shares my concern as Highways critic. It's something the

budget didn't really address either, and that's the vehicle testing

branches. All vehicle testing branches in the province will be totally

closed in another few weeks — March 9. I wonder when we're hearing more

and more, whether from ICBC or the health organizations across this

province: "By cutting back on the vehicle testing program you are

encouraging people to drive with ill-equipped and unsafe cars, which

can only lead to more and more accidents on our roads." It's bad enough

having the drunks going around. I think this government has taken a

strong position against drunk drivers, and I appreciate that. It was a

long time in coming, but there's a long way to go too. We can't allow

unsafe vehicles to be driven around on our public highways. By cutting

back on the vehicle testing branches in the lower mainland, we are

encouraging people to drive unsafe cars.

Before the program was cancelled by this government, it cost $5 to

have your vehicle inspected. It came out that if the figure were raised

to $5.50, the government would break even.

MR. REID: Not true.

MR. PASSARELL: My friend from Surrey says it's not true. When

you have your chance to stand in this debate, then I'll listen to you.

But don't interrupt me.

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell him you'll punch him out.

[2:45]

MR. PASSARELL: Not today. If I was feeling better I might do that.

But if we did raise that.... Some experts said that if we raised it

50 cents, we'd break even. Why don't we raise it to $6, $7 or even $10

to inspect a vehicle? The government would make a profit on it; it

might be small but it would still be a profit. There would be jobs for

the vehicle inspectors, who have been transferred to other positions in

the government or just laid off, given their walking papers. If we did

raise it $3 or $4 — or 50 cents, as some experts have said — the

government would be making a profit. They wouldn't be subsidizing

people to have their vehicles kept in I me. By the same token, what

price can we put on unsafe vehicles on our

[ Page 3434 ]

highways? The government really doesn't have a plan

yet for what they're going to do with vehicle inspections. They say

they are going to turn it over to the private sector. But look at the

Ontario program, where you can pay anywhere from $50 to $75 to have

your vehicle inspected. A lot of times that vehicle isn't even

inspected. You just come in, lay the 50 or 75 bucks on the table, they

give you a little decal and you drive off. I strongly recommend that

the government....

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: Not northern guys. We've never had a problem

with keeping our vehicles in good shape up north. That's where the

vehicle inspection is needed. To allow it to be privatized and allow

people to charge $50 or $75 for the decal is wrong by the same token

too. That is why the committee must sit and come back to this House

with some strong recommendations.

Mr. Speaker, I can see that the green light is on, and I am ready to go home myself and allow others to continue here.

I'd like a closing thought on this budget, particularly for the

community of Stewart, which saw its main source of income, Granduc, go

out of business and lay off hundreds and hundreds of people that live

in that far north community. I see that Stewart is becoming similar to

Ocean Falls. I would leave this thought with you: next election.... I

don't see any cabinet ministers in here now who were in Stewart in May

for the election.

MRS. WALLACE: I don't see any cabinet ministers here, period.

MR. PASSARELL: Oh, there are two: the Minister of Agriculture

(Hon. Mr. Schroeder) and the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Richmond),

but they didn't deal....

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I will close now, but it would be

encouraging that if next time the election comes up, if you are going

to come up and start talking about pro-development, you help the people

when the mines do close and don't just let them walk off and lose their

homes, as is happening in Stewart.

MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to follow

the member for Atlin, who always represents his constituents quite well

in this Legislature and is one of the more reasonable members of the

New Democratic Party in this assembly.

Before I get on to the budget debate, I would like to say a couple

of things that affect our country. This basically is a reflection on a

resolution that I put on the order paper. As you are aware, Mr.

Speaker, I have a resolution dealing with the use of nuclear weapons

and the efforts made by the Prime Minister of Canada in telling the

story throughout the world on the nuclear weapons issue. I think all

Canadians realize that the earth and its inhabitants, the sea and the

air are not the ownership of one single power group or one nation.

Therefore it is my belief that the efforts of the Prime Minister of

Canada have shown the power groups throughout the world that Canadians

are legitimately concerned and want to play a role in the reduction and

non-deployment of nuclear weapons. In the words of John Kennedy: "Peace

is a daily, a weekly, a monthly process, gradually changing attitudes,

slowly eroding old barriers, quietly building new structures. However

undramatic the pursuance of peace may be, the search must go on."

Whatever little contribution the Prime Minister of Canada has made in

that effort needs the full endorsement of every member of this assembly

and every individual of British Columbia.

It is a pleasure for me to rise today and debate the budget brought

down by the Hon. Minister of Finance just a few days ago. Basically it

reflects a position taken by the government of British Columbia and the

Premier of our province going back to February 1982 after his historic

meeting in Ottawa with fellow premiers of Canada and the Prime Minister

of Canada.

It is interesting to note that at that particular time the Premier

of British Columbia went down to Ottawa to urge governments to reduce

their spending, and he didn't receive the support or endorsement of

Since then many governments across our country have followed the

example of our Premier and the government of British Columbia in a

variety of ways. The budget brought down by the Minister of Finance the

other day clearly is the result of an effort put forward by an entire

team of ministers, including himself, to reduce government spending by

6.2 percent in the fiscal year 1983-84. Indeed all of the ministers of

our government are to be congratulated for the efforts that they have

put forward in developing that budget along with the Minister of

Finance.

This is the first government in British Columbia in 31 years that

has brought forward a budget with reduced expenditures. It is a budget

that clearly puts forward the priorities of the government and will

protect those areas that are of vital importance to each and every

member of this assembly — and that, of course, is the health, education

and human resource needs of our citizens in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, there are a few areas that I'd like to touch on in the

budget. I'm pleased to see that the expenditures for the Ministry of

Health have increased. I'll be talking more about that during the

Minister of Health's estimates. As the minister is well aware, we've

been trying to develop a new D and T centre in Elkford, and the

ministry is currently looking at providing funds for the planning and

the development of that facility, along with a new psychiatric ward at

the subregional hospital in Cranbrook.

Like my colleague, the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf), I am

disappointed that the rural airport development program has been taken

out of the budget. Living in a rural area of British Columbia, an area

that provides a great deal of the support resources for all of the

people of British Columbia — and I agree with our government's

statement in that regard, that the resources of British Columbia belong

to all of the people of British Columbia and that one community of

British Columbia should not get special benefits from those

resources.... It would be nice for the Minister of Transportation and

Highways (Hon. A. Fraser) to come up with some new and imaginative

program to help us with rural airport development in British Columbia.

I look forward to working with the Ministry of Transportation and

Highways to maybe come up with a more imaginative approach to the

development of small rural airports in our province.

Coming from southeastern British Columbia, I am also pleased at the

number of exemptions there are from sales tax in the new budget. I know

the Minister of Finance has consistently worked at that over the past

few years — the exemption of children's car seats, portable fire

extinguishers, bicycle and motorcycle helmets, along with a number of

other items which are now basically exempt from sales tax. It

[ Page 3435 ]

is a step in the right direction. Believe me,

coming from southeastern British Columbia, I am pleased to see the

reduction in the budget. It always worries me and, I'm sure, my

colleague, the member for Columbia River (Hon. Mr. Chabot), along with

the members from the northern area of our province, because the

temptation is there all the time to go out and raise new revenue and

increase sales tax and gas tax and so on. Living in a part of the

province where people have easy access to markets in Alberta.... It

basically provides a very unfavourable business climate in those areas

of our province. So I am indeed pleased that the Minister of Finance

has not gone out and increased sales tax at this particular time, as

this would have been a very regressive step as far as the people in

southeastern British Columbia are concerned.

I am pleased, too, to see that the government of British Columbia

has decided to retire the debt of the British Columbia Railway Company.

This has been suggested by the Committee on Crown Corporations and the

auditor-general as far back as 1976. I'm pleased, too, that it is the

government's stated policy that all new developments and expansions

with respect to the British Columbia Railway will be financed the same

as the line flowing from the northeast coal project to Prince George.

It's my opinion that resource development today must pay its own costs.

I'm pleased to see the government of British Columbia taking a major

step in that direction. One of the criticisms that you hear with

respect to the British Columbia Railway is that there are huge

subsidies to coal producers or to lumber producers, potash producers

and so on. I'm pleased with the government's stated policy of having

user-pay on our British Columbia Railway.

We should go back a little bit in time and see why continuing

restraint is necessary. As you are aware, pulp producers in Portugal,

Chile, Brazil and Argentina are increasing their pulp capacity and

making steady inroads into British Columbia's and Canada's traditional

markets. The current selling price for pulp delivered to customers in

Europe is $440 a tonne in the southeastern United States. The

break-even point of manufacturing a tonne of pulp is $360 a tonne. In

the British Columbia interior it is S460 U.S. a tonne. Clearly we are

in a very uncompetitive position at the present time. By the end of

this year it is estimated that the non-Canadian pulp producers will

have increased their share of the world pulp market by 2 percent or

750,000 tonnes, which is equivalent to 12 percent of all Canada's pulp

production in 1982. There is a very real danger of the loss of our

competitive edge in future markets. That, of course, is the core

consideration of this 1983-84 budget.

[3:00]

British Columbia must reduce the size and the cost of government.

Indeed, governments all across our country must reduce their size and

cost to allow industry an opportunity to compete favourably in the

future. Reducing our overall costs will attract new industry to our

province, will provide new investor confidence in our province —

confidence necessary to expand current pulp production, develop new

mines and factories, and invest in new plants and equipment. This

policy will provide job opportunities for those who are young and for

those who are displaced by automation and technological change in our

mining industry today. Indeed, I'm disappointed at the leadership shown

by the pulp union of Canada and its current president, Jim Sloan, who

would take the attitude that basically we have no problems in our

economy, who would refuse to look at it in a realistic way like the

president of the International Woodworkers of America, who has

demonstrated some sort of modern-day leadership in this regard. The

attitudes of people like Jim Sloan are outdated. If we need to make

changes today we need people who are not bound by the traditions of the

past, men who are not blinded by old fears and hates and rivalries. We

need people who can cast off the old slogans, suspicions and delusions.

In short, we must move into the twentieth century in terms of

labour-management climate. I'm pleased to see in the throne speech

where the Minister of Labour intends to bring in, through a

consultative process, new changes to the British Columbia Labour Code

that I hope will see the unions in British Columbia have more power

over their own affairs and over their presidents and executive officers.

Why we need continuing restraint is demonstrated by other areas in

our economy and our competitiveness in the world markets. The Transvaal

Coal Co. of South Africa has agreed to price cuts from their West

Witbarik coking-coal project. They've taken a reduction of 6.7 percent

in the cost per tonne of coal delivered to market, which now stands at

$41.50 U.S. per tonne. The Electric Power Development Co. of Japan

plans to import additional coal from Australia to its plant in Japan,

and they are also taking reductions in price. Current Canadian

suppliers say that they need an increase from their current price of

$69.81 per tonne in southeastern British Columbia. Clearly. Mr.

Speaker, there is a possibility there of a loss of competitive edge. We

must take great care that we don't make any changes in taxation or in

legislation that would disrupt that competitive advantage. The

recognize the competition that exists throughout the world. Basically

the window of opportunity is narrower for all of us. The loss of one

coal contract because our price is too high in southeastern British

Columbia, for example, would mean simply that we wouldn't get an

opportunity to bid on that contract again for another 15 years. While I

see members of the opposition continuing to say that we should pay

increased salaries to special-interest groups, I would never take the

position that we have to go out and increase taxes on miners and

woodworkers throughout our province and have them in turn need to

increase their salaries and lose the competitive edge altogether. We

must be very careful that we don't do anything to disrupt that.

Mr. Speaker, I listened this morning to comments made by the

Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen), and I enjoy his comments.

Basically, I associate myself fully with the comments made by the

Minister of Health in his speech this morning on the budget debate. The

minister was talking about recent discussions surrounding the city of

Vancouver and the position they have taken with respect to an

invitation that was given to Dr. Henry Kissinger to make a speech in

Vancouver to an organization that was trying to raise funds for charity

in that city. The comments made by the mayor and some of the aldermen

in Vancouver are indeed very unfortunate — that the leader of the major

city in our province and indeed our country would make such statements.

It is an affront to all British Columbians and all of Canada to attack

the motives of those people who would want to express their point of

view. It challenged the very right of people to speak frankly anyplace

in our country, and it's a strike against the foundation of the

democratic principles of our province and our country. Indeed, Mr.

Speaker, it's an affront to the thousands of Canadians whose graves are

all over Europe in

[ Page 3436 ]

defence of freedom and defence of freedom of

speech. The mayor and the city of Vancouver should be highly condemned

and criticized for their actions. It's the same when we look at the

city of Vancouver and those members of the New Democratic Party in that

city. I would have expected some of those members of the New Democratic

Party who are currently seeking the leadership of that party to call to

question some of their members in the city of Vancouver. I'm

disappointed that some of those leaders in the New Democratic Party who

had the insufferable gall last year in this Legislature to call this

little British Columbia Social Credit Party Nazis and fascists and so

on didn't have the courage to stand up and say to the mayor of

Vancouver, "Shame on you," and ask him to apologize. That is indeed

unfortunate. I would have expected those leaders of the New Democratic

Party, would-be Premiers, to come up with some new ideas on where they

stand on different issues, but I don't see any changes in those areas.

Earlier we talked about the development of resources in our

province, and about what a non-competitive situation would exist if we

priced those industries out of the market. We all remember what

happened to the mining industry in our province when the New Democratic

Party were in government. We remember what happened to the oil and gas

industry when that New Democratic government was in this province. All

three industries went into serious decline, and the economic health of

this province followed suit. The NDP took the ridiculous position that

oil and natural gas would be left in the ground. We know where the

member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) stands on the issue of resource

development in our province, and we know where the member for Prince

Rupert (Mr. Lea), the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) and the former

member for Shuswap-Revelstoke stand on that issue. But we don't know

where Mr. Vickers or Margaret Birrell stand with respect to resource

development in our province. The people of my riding would like to know

what their position is with respect to resource development, because

that constituency depends very heavily on it.

Interjection.

MR. SEGARTY: She talks about no giveways. The NDP took the

ridiculous position that the resource heritage of our province should

be handed over to Pierre Trudeau and Ed Broadbent to manage. The New

Democratic Party took the ridiculous position that resources should be

Premier, even went on record in support of resource ownership. He said:

"The province of British Columbia is prepared to surrender the

natural resources, related revenue, ownership, production, processing

and distribution." Fortunately for us all, that leader was thrown out

of office before he had an opportunity to give away British Columbia's

resource heritage.

The same New Democratic Party has always been against natural

resource development in our province, and we can assume that all of the

new leaders of that party are still against natural resource

development. We all know that there are 10,000 known mineral

occurrences in British Columbia, with many more waiting to be

discovered. You will find oil and natural gas by developing resources

and going out and finding them, not by adopting a policy of

non-development.

That's what this budget is all about; it's establishing a policy of

development. I find it incredible that the New Democratic Party would

want to give away British Columbia's resource heritage to Pierre

Trudeau and Ed Broadbent, trusting them to look after the interests of

British Columbia and western Canada. That would be like a fox looking

after a chicken coop.

The New Democratic Party would do away with the commitment,

initiative and active involvement by the private sector in developing

British Columbia's resource heritage. If events in the energy sector

are any indication, especially events in the last few years, that would

be a terrible mistake. Despite that, the New Democratic Party seems

willing to sell this province down the drain in order to achieve its

political objectives.

Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you that the path our government will

never choose is the path of surrendering to a philosophy with which we

cannot agree. Our programs must be aimed at expanding British

Columbia's industrial and productive capacity at a rate that shows the

vigour and vitality of a free economy. This is not a time to abandon

the drive, the optimism and the imaginative creative energy that have

characterized our country for the past 113 years. It's a time for

boldness and energy; it's a time for stout-hearted men and women to

turn dreams into reality and to make our province a great place in

which to live.

How can those members of the Solidarity organization and the New

Democratic Party fail to recognize all the great programs that have

been provided by the system of free enterprise: the social benefits we

enjoy in the area of health care; human resources programs; new

colleges in every region of our province; programs for the handicapped;

revenue-sharing to assist municipalities to provide services for their

communities; infant development programs; this beautiful building we

sit in, with all its marble; the ferries that go back and forth from

the Island to the mainland. These things were provided not from the

profits of government but from the hard work of individuals who are

willing to invest their money and pay their taxes. The reason we enjoy

the benefits we enjoy is that we have a good Premier at the helm of our

government and have created investors' confidence in this province and

have thousands of hard-working British Columbians who, on their own

initiative, are willing to take up the pick and shovel and do a hard

day's work. They expect rewards, and they will return what is needed to

be returned so that we as government can provide more programs for

those people in British Columbia and Canada who are less fortunate than

we are. We must show our people that this government can provide more

programs under an enterprising system and that socialism really doesn't

have a corner on the marketplace of caring for people. In fact, free

people, working together and showing initiative, can provide more

programs on an ongoing basis than any heavy-handed socialist government.

It would do some of those members of the New Democratic Party well —

especially Mr. Sloan — to return for a while to the country of their

origin. Perhaps it would do us all well from time to time to visit

other parts of the world, and perhaps we would come back to this

country far more appreciative of what we have to offer and the

opportunities that are available to us under an enterprising system.

The NDP's commitment is a commitment to the status quo: spend, spend,

spend. Today there can be no status quo, for we are at the

turning-point in our history where we must prove all over

[ Page 3437 ]

again whether our country can survive and whether a

province like British Columbia, with its range of alternatives, its

freedom of choice and its breath of opportunity, can survive. That is

the real question: are we equal to the challenge and up to the task?

That is the choice we must make. It's not just a choice between two men

and two parties; it's a choice between public interest and private

comfort, between national greatness and national decline.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand up in support of this budget, because I believe it is in support of national greatness.

[3:15]

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy listening to the

member for Kootenay (Mr. Segarty). He has such a beautiful Irish brogue

that it doesn't really matter what he says; the brogue is just so

beautiful I could listen to it hour after hour. I hope he never returns

to his country of origin.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Free vote!

MRS. WALLACE: Speaking of a free vote, Mr. Speaker, I

congratulate the member for Kootenay for placing the motion that he has

placed on the order paper. I hope that he and every member of this

Legislature sign the petition that is presently being circulated around

this province and across this country: the peace petition and caravan.

This petition is being circulated right across Canada and is being

carried back to Ottawa; that's the reason for the caravan. I hope that

member for Kootenay and every member in this Legislature sign that

petition, which calls on Canada to become a nuclear-free zone and calls

for a free vote in Ottawa on that issue. I hope that the signature of

every legislator from British Columbia is on that petition, and I

certainly hope the member for Kootenay signs it.

He made some interesting remarks about pulp and somehow indicated

that we would have a better pulp market if we kept the cost of

government down. I don't quite see how the cost of government is going

to control the cost of pulp.

It was interesting that he perhaps divulged more about what the

Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. McClelland) is proposing in his purported

legislation that is coming before us than has the Minister of Labour,

when he talked about bringing in legislation that would, in effect,

place governmental controls on the internal operation of trade unions.

That is in effect what the member for Kootenay said, and if that is

what the Minister of Labour is proposing to do, then indeed we are

going to have some hot times in British Columbia.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

There's not much to talk about in the budget. Certainly the things

that I am concerned about are completely overlooked in the budget. I

think I would like to begin my remarks by quoting from a recent column

by Mike Tytherleigh entitled "Food Bank Economic Symptom." He says:

"How do we put the Vancouver food bank out of business'? If we have the

answer to that question, then we'll have the answer to the critical

social problems of today." Then he quotes Sylvia Russell, executive

director of the food bank:

"'The fact that it exists is a terrible statement on

the state of everything in the country.' It's today's soup kitchen for

hundreds of families on welfare, many for the first time in their

lives, for whom the Canadian dream has become a desperate fight for

survival. Today there will be a run on the food bank. It's four weeks

since welfare was paid out. The lineups will form early at six depots

in the city, as families wait for a grocery bag to be handed out at 1

p.m. On hand will be volunteers with 2,400 bags of groceries packed and

shipped from the bank's warehouse. The food bank began in November

1982. Today the bank is stocked up every week by donations from some

400 collection boxes, supplemented by gifts from food companies.

"'It's not enough to look to the emergency. We exist

as a symptom of something else. Just giving people a bag of groceries

to survive on is not a longterm solution. I have a lot of problems with

that. I think we have to look to better solutions. We're not dealing

with the traditional unemployed, but a whole new group who never

dreamed they would find themselves in a food line.' The grocery bags

show the community cares, but for those getting them the recession is

not over, and there's no daily work. The crisis is still there. There

is distress and despair in the food line. There is also dignity and

courage, because it takes courage on the part of those who have fallen

out of work into the welfare lineups to accept basic help in a grocery

bag. But it can’t go on. They will gradually be lost to us unless we

tackle the problem of unemployment. We must offer something besides

despair and a little relief in a grocery bag. We must sustain the food

bank as an emergency, but plan to put it out of business as soon as we

can."

That's a sorry commentary on where we have come in British Columbia

in the last few short years — a province rich in resources, both

natural and human.

They talk about 2,400 hampers in a week in Vancouver. There are

three food banks in my constituency. One serves the south end: Cobble

Hill, Mill Bay, Shawnigan Lake. Lately I had occasion to write to the

United Way in support of a request for some funding, because they were

running short of funds. They average about five free hampers a month in

that small area. At Christmas they send out 20 additional hampers. They

sell groceries at cost. Their average weekly stock is about S500 to

dispense to the families in that area who are looking for help. Lake

Cowichan averages about two free food hampers a week. Their weekly

grocery turnover is $900. They're serving about 50 families in that

area, which represents something like 175 people. In the Duncan area

they have requests for something like four free food hampers weekly.

They have over 21,000 unemployed people registered at the Duncan

unemployed centre. They had 150 new registrations last month.

This morning I was talking to my constituency representative. There

were two calls this morning from people who were out of food and

desperate, asking where to go. Yet this budget and this government

would tell us that the recession is over and that we are on the road to

recovery. I'd like to believe them, but I don't see the signs of that.

If there is a return to recovery, it is very small. Even the Minister

of Finance indicated that it is very fragile. If we are to recover,

then certainly it is the responsibility of government to stimulate that

recovery, not stifle it. It seems to me that this budget will stifle

the recovery.

The move by the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy),

for example, is something that.... The disheartened and discouraged

unemployed who are talked

[ Page 3438 ]

about in this column are now, if they are

employable, going to have their food allowance reduced by a further $50

for the first month. If they are single, that's going to then be

reduced by $25 for a subsequent eight months. They are already in a

situation where they're lining up at food banks at the end of the

month, and now they're going to face a further reduction. In addition

to that, if they go out and earn anything — this is supposed to

encourage them to go out and get a job — if they go out and manage to

find something, whatever they earn is deducted. A single person under

26 years old is presently receiving $175 per month to cover their food,

clothing, transportation, cleanliness — to buy soap, anything like

that. If they have any recreation at all.... That's going to be cut by

$50. In addition to that, for the first eight months they will not be

allowed to earn one red cent without it cutting back on that allowance.

That's an incentive to encourage people to go out and get a job? That's

not an incentive, Mr. Speaker.

We see nearly half a billion dollars — $470 million — going to

retire the debt of B.C. Rail. My colleague from Atlin mentioned that

even Michael Walker of the Fraser Institute can't understand the

thinking behind this. If we have a fragile recovery, then this could

well be the thing that breaks that recovery. Just a portion of that

$470 million would have made it unnecessary for this stringent attack

on single people.

This government told us at one point, when they brought in a rather

— as I remember it — convoluted piece of legislation.... In among it

all was a little

section that talked about $45 million to B.C. Rail. We

were told at that time that that was it, that there would be no more

taxpayers' dollars going into B.C. Rail. Now we have $470 million this

year. That's 70 percent of our natural resource revenue. Next year it's

going to be 100 percent. The member for Kootenay (Mr. Segarty) talked

about resource-revenue sharing and seemed to indicate that was an

invention of this government. I would like to remind this Legislature

that it was the New Democratic Party that brought in revenue-sharing

with municipalities. They were the ones who introduced that. This

government is moving to put our natural-resource revenue to pay off a

debt, a debt that they said would not be incurred, and that would not

become a burden upon the taxpayers of this province.

This government, in its period of office, has spent not only its

current operating revenue and other forms of revenue, but it has

recouped every fund that was ever set up by the Premier's father, or by

the Leader of the Opposition when he was the Premier — millions and

billions of dollars in special-purpose funds that were established to

do a certain job, to provide funding for a certain function, and

they've all been recouped. They've spent it. On top of all the normal

revenue, and in addition to that, the debt has continued to grow. The

operating debt grows at $60 million a week. They have proven to me not

that they are good financial managers but that they are a disaster as

far as financial management goes. They are mismanagers.

[3:30]

The main reason the Ministry of Human Resources is required to meet

such phenomenal costs — that program has increased something like $300

million — is because there are more and more people with fewer and

fewer jobs. You can't fault a person who is on UIC, who runs out of UIC

and has to go on welfare, if there are no jobs — and there are no jobs.

The government talks about the jobs it has created, but they are a

pittance in comparison to the number of unemployed in this province. As

long as you have fewer jobs than people unemployed, no matter how you

move people around you're always going to have those unemployed. This

government is apparently unprepared to do anything about that. The only

thing they're doing is increasing it by their so-called lean and mean

government. They're getting rid of another 4,000 public servants this

year. A public servant is just as unemployed as is anyone from the

private sector. They're doing this in the name of cost saving and

stimulating the economy.

When I look at the figures in this budget and see the money

allocated for professional services and contracts and outside services,

I see that amount increasing. They're just moving it around. They're

going to pay it out to people who bid, or perhaps don't even bid. When

you hire a private firm, a consultant, a contractor or whoever, they

have to hire people. They have to make a profit if they're going to

stay in business. They have their overhead, their administrative costs.

That's all stacked on top of the cost to the government. The government

still has the cost of administering all those contracts. If it does it

properly it has to have a bid system. It has all those costs that are

hidden costs. We're duplicating the administrative costs, we're having

to add in a profit, and in the long haul it's going to cost the

taxpayer more to contract these things out than it would to have kept

their own employees doing their own jobs. That's exactly what the

budget shows. It's just moving it around and putting more money into

those areas than it's cutting off the salary sections. That's exactly

what it's showing. It's a gravy train...

AN HON. MEMBER: For their friends.

MRS. WALLACE: ...for their friends. Absolutely. No necessity

for bids. We've seen some rather strange things happening relative to

how various things are handled. That's the government's business, but

it doesn't spell a lower cost for the taxpayer, and that's the

mismanagement I'm talking about.

In my area — and I think it's fairly general — about 30 percent of

the people under 25 are unemployed. This is the time when we should be

encouraging those young people to go on with their schooling, to take

special training and to look ahead to the needs of tomorrow so that we

don't have to bring in people from other parts of Canada or the United

States or Europe to do some of those skilled and technical jobs — as

happens. I'm sure the Minister of Finance can tell you that. I remember

seeing an

article in the paper when he was advertising for 50 employees

outside this province for his own ministry because there were no

qualified people within B.C. This was a few years back. That's the kind

of thing that's happening. At a time like this, to be cutting out

student loans, to be raising tuition, to be making the standards

higher.... Enrolment is down; they have to curtail opportunity, so the

standards have to be higher in order to get in, making it tougher and

tougher for young people to go on with their further training. It's

utter insanity. No jobs. If they're on welfare, we're going to cut them

back by $50 and not let them earn any money for eight months. That's

supposed to encourage them to find a job, when there are no jobs. At

the same time we're downgrading every educational opportunity right

across the board. No opportunity.

Basically, as a result of this government's policy, over 60,000 jobs

are eliminated in British Columbia. At the same time we've had the

largest increase in unemployment in any province in the country. That's

the result of these programs. We've seen them in effect for a while

now. That's the kind of

[ Page 3439 ]

results we're getting. That's why we're having such difficulty getting out of these tough economic times.

I don't want to repeat things that have been said too much, so I'm

just trying to go through some of these notes that I have. I've talked

about privatizing and Human Resources.

I want to deal now with my specific critic role relative to this

budget: that is, the area of environment. Certainly what I have said

about professional services and contracting out is very true in that

ministry. We have seen a terrific change in supplies and services, from

$29.8 million up to $40.5 million — a 35.8 percent increase in those

outside services. As far as I can see from surveying the budget, that

is going to replace something like 100 employees who presently work for

the government. I would expect that if you look at the dollars —

there's really no reduction in the overall budget for the Ministry of

Environment — you will find that in effect we're going to pay more for

less. We're going to pay more for protection of our fresh water. If I

am right, then the persons who work in the standards and data unit of

water management are going to be or have been pink-slipped. The

minister will just not spend the budgeted money or else he will hire

outside consultants to do the necessary tests and maintain the data

base, relative to our freshwater standards.

That is something that we should be really concerned about. We're

fortunate in B.C. and in Canada — to this point in time — that we still

have pure water. But we're getting close to the point where we could

lose that. We're getting more and more industry and more and more

pollution. If we do not follow through on a program that has been very

sketchy, to say the best.... I'm thinking of one area in my own

constituency relative to Shawnigan Lake, where we have had a lot of

problems, because of development around there, with septic tanks

draining into the lake from schools, hotels and various developments.

Basing our water studies on data that has been collected some five,

six, seven, eight years ago, and never being able to persuade that

ministry that it should be a priority.... It's always put on the back

burner because there's something more important.

With the particular

section relative to water quality being so

decimated and leaving it to contracting out, I am afraid it is not only

going to be on the back burner; it's going to be pushed right off the

stove. If we come to a point where that water is no longer potable,

we're in a serious situation. We're into a very high-cost situation of

bringing piped water into a very thickly populated suburban area.

The economics don't make sense. I think that if this government, the

Minister of Environment and the Minister of Finance would look a little

longer and a little harder at the basic economics of good environmental

programs, they would find that a lot of their problems would go away.

Those programs are job intensive and labour intensive. Those programs

are protecting us from some pretty expensive future costs, and it's

critical that they stay in place.

Assistance to recycling is gone. A lot of the recycling depots are

just managing to struggle along. What is going to happen? We're

probably going to have some private company come in, and they will

accept anything they can make money out of — but nothing else. They'll

accept aluminium or something they feet they can capitalize on. That's

what private industry is all about. Private industry is not about

ensuring that all those other items are utilized in a meaningful way,

rather than left to cause more pollution or costly disposal. The

private company will get the profit, but the taxpayer will pay for the

disposal. That's not good economics or sound financial judgment.

The soil quality lab at Kelowna. I understand that is going to be

closed down. That is an important service that is provided to the

people of this province. We have a lot of conflict over our land use.

As long as you have a multiple land-use policy. which is something that

we have to have, one of the most critical ways for deciding what is the

best use of that land is to know what that soil is and what it can do.

Without that lab, we are going to embark, by guess and by gosh, in

directions that could well be the wrong ones. Research is one of the

things that is most important to any economy, and that is one of the

reasons why we in B.C. are doing so poorly. We put less into research

than almost any other province in Canada. We are about half of the

national average, and Canada is only about half of the national average

of countries like Germany, the United States and Japan. It is no wonder

that we are falling behind. It is no wonder that we remain hewers of

wood and drawers of water. We have never had the foresight or the

determination or the commitment to put money into research and

development to encourage industries in this province that will provide

jobs that are environmentally acceptable — that relate to our forest

industry, basically. That is what we should be looking at. That is our

number one product, and we should be doing as much processing of that

forest product as we can.

A few years ago I visited a friend up in Crawford Bay, in my friend

from Kootenay's riding. She had a nice little home there. I said: "You

know. I really like your house." "Oh," she said, "I bought it in

Calgary." I said: "You bought it in Calgary?" "Oh. yes," she said,

"they have a factory there that builds modular homes that fit together,

room by room, wherever you want them, and they will transport it for

you."

[3:45]

What do we do here? The mobile home was designed as a mobile home.

Because of the high cost of housing in British Columbia. the mobile

home has become the only affordable home — and that barely so for young

people in this province. Have we ever looked, ever spent any time, in

trying to see whether or not, with all our forest product right here,

we couldn't come up with some modular design whereby people could buy

three rooms and a bath, with an opportunity to add a dining room when

they needed it or an extra bedroom as the family grew? Have we ever

even looked at those kinds of things? I doubt it. No research. No

development. No time spent, no money spent in looking towards the

future, in looking to other opportunities. And that's simply not good

enough.

I want to deal next with health care. We have heard a lot about

health care — and the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) is in the

House at the moment. There are two kinds of health care — health care

and sickness care — and I submit that this ministry, this minister and

this government are caught up in a syndrome of sickness care. All their

money is concentrated on acute, extended or intermediate care in a

hospital. They have done nothing but withdraw the funds from the kind

of low-cost programs that are preventive in nature. There is a great

list of them. The homemaker service has been cut back about 15 to 20

percent in the last two or three years. That was a service that saved

this province thousands and thousands of dollars because it kept people

happy and well in their own homes. We hear the minister talk about the

tremendous costs of hospitals. Sure, it costs a lot if you're in

hospital. It costs a lot less if you can keep a person

[ Page 3440 ]

in their own home. That homemaker service did

exactly that. It has been cut and cut to the point where more and more

chronically ill and older people in British Columbia are being forced

to leave their homes and go into an institution. That costs dollars,

and that's poor management. Adult day care is another one that's down.

That's down about the same amount. Speech and hearing — oh, Mr.

Speaker, speech and hearing. I've raised this so many times. I picked

up my weekly paper, The Cowichan News ,

February 21, and I couldn't resist bringing it into the House. On the

front page there is a story: "Hospital Facing $200,000 Deficit." That's

just for a starter, as a result of the very stringent rules and

regulations of this minister and this government. That's the Cowichan

Hospital for the year 1983-84 — a $200,000 deficit.

On the same front page: "Psych Unit Out of Cash." Just before the

election last May, the minister announced that the psych ward was

finally going ahead. And it went ahead. It's practically built and is

very nice. I doubt it will ever be used because there's no money to

operate it. No operating funds. What kind of financial judgment is

that, to build a unit and then not provide any funds to operate it? How

does he think it's going to run? Are people going to volunteer and go

in there as psychiatric nurses? Are they going to cook the meals at

home and take them in? Are they going to take the linen home and do it

in their own laundry? It's ridiculous that they would spend money to

complete that psych ward and then not provide any funds to operate it.

That doesn't make good financial sense, Mr. Speaker.

On page 7 of the same paper: "Doctors See Danger in Ambulance

Changes." If you want an ambulance in Duncan now, you phone Victoria. I

understand that that special line from Duncan to Victoria is costing

$400 a month. The RCMP did the dispatching previously, and it cost $150

a month. But do you know why they did this, Mr. Speaker? It's not quite

that straightforward. The RCMP, when they got a call, dispatched the

ambulance closest — there are three ambulances, one in Lake Cowichan,

one in Duncan and one in Mill Bay — to the scene of the accident. When

they're called out, ambulance workers, who are all volunteers, have a

guarantee of four hours minimum, which seems reasonable. The ministry

wanted to do it through a centre in Victoria where they would know

which ambulance was on callout. If the one in Mill Bay had been called

out and the crew still had a couple of hours' time, and if they'd had

an accident in Duncan, then rather than call the Duncan ambulance

they'd call the one from Mill Bay, because it was cheaper. What price

human life, Mr. Speaker? It could mean a 15-minute to half-hour delay.

Is that restraint? Is that the result of restraint?

Another in that article: "Ear Doctor Hard To Find, Claims Health Ministry."

They're saying they can't find an audiologist. Two years they've

been looking and they can't find one. I go right back to my original contention

that if we are in fact so short of ear doctors, we should have been doing some

training and planning so we would have people qualified.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: It's a privilege to take my place in the debate.

Rather than deal with isolated instances of errors or problems that come up,

I think we should take a look at some of the basic principles in total context.

I don't care what system you deal with, there are always going to be some

glitches in it. Someone can always pick out an isolated instance, a specific

situation, and try to use that to leave a impression of something wrong. Certainly

the member who just spoke, and is leaving, has used that technique. Many other

members have used that technique. As an example, the ambulance service in this

province has been very much extended and very much improved. It is doing a good

service and is recognized by the people as an excellent service. Yet all you

point to is the odd example of a 15-minute delay and things of that nature.

You don't consider that people throughout this province are now being served

by that ambulance service. We deal with a specific, isolated criticism to try

to give the impression that generally the ambulance service is bad. I think

that's a disservice to the people who run the ambulance service and certainly

to this government, which supports it fully.

Regarding some of the basic principles of the budget, I think this

budget reflects the policy and direction of this government. That

direction was indicated last May by the people, in various ways

certainly.

I think you have to recognize some basic points. You need economic

revenue to maintain social service spending. I don't think anyone

anywhere will argue with that. You've got to have money coming in in

order to provide those services. We have seen in many cases excessive

growth in health, in education and in the Ministry of Human Resources,

yet this government recognizes those as the most essential and needy

services. If you look at the estimates contained in the budget speech,

you will note that there are cutbacks throughout government. Two years

or one year ago many statements were made that you cannot maintain

services if you cut spending, that you cannot maintain services if you

cut staffing, yet those services.... Certainly there are isolated

examples, but by and large those services are continuing. As far as I'm

concerned, we still have the best health system in North America, and

it's still improving. I don't think it is unrealistic to ask that

health system to try to cut out some of the spending that isn't

essential. With all that, and despite these times, you still have a 2

percent increase in the Health budget. That certainly indicates the

priority. You only have small drops in education and in the Ministry of

Human Resources. Certainly those are the ones that we consider

essential. The cuts in the other ministries are far greater. I think

that certainly points out the priority.

[4:00]

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I might mention that in order to generate economic revenue — in

whatever form, whether from resources or through taxes generated by

jobs and so on — you need economic activity. Without that economic

activity, you don't have the necessary revenue to maintain the social

services that people have come to expect. In order to generate that

economic activity, you need spending on economic development. Much of

that has been and will continue to be done by the private sector. If

anything, perhaps government has neglected the amount of spending that

has gone into economic development in order to maintain the

accelerating pace of increases in social services. Perhaps we have to

look at that. Yet the things we have done in the name of economic

development, the things we have tried to do.... The members on the

opposite side have attacked virtually every single one of these. They

are economic investments. They have produced jobs in the construction

phase. They ensure jobs in the future. Need I mention northeast coal,

where, if the opposition could have accomplished it, they would have

stopped the development.

[ Page

3441 ]

It turned out to be the one major project during a recession, with

the 6,000 or so people who got direct jobs in that — the continuing

people, the money it brought into the country. Much was said about the

government's portion of that economic investment. Very little was said

about that being far exceeded in multiples by what the private sector

put in, because of some government input into that. Yet had the

opposition had its way they would have stopped that development.

Talk about B.C. Place — opposition from the time it was conceived to

when it went into development, and even now in this new session we have

had sniping about the money that's put into B.C. Place. I just visited

the home show at B.C. Place last Sunday. I think that, if anything,

proved the versatility and the value of the B.C. Place Stadium. It's

not strictly a palace built for sports events. That is something, and

certainly the Grey Cup brought a lot of money into the province, and

the activities in there will bring a lot more in, but B.C. Place has

assured continuing jobs. I believe there were 19,000 people who went

through the B.C. Home Show on Saturday and another 21,000 on Sunday.

It's been setting records. In a couple of days this year, because of

that B.C. Place Stadium, there has been more activity than there has

been in years past at any B.C. home show. Add up all of the displays

that were put in there — and they had to be put in by people, and many

of them paid for — and the attendants who attended to those crowds of

19,000 and 21,000. Those are ongoing jobs. That B.C. Place Stadium is a

versatile, fantastic investment, and yet we hear this constant sniping

at it. Without those jobs and that revenue I'm certain we would be a

lot worse off in this province.

We get the same sort of sniping at Expo 86, and yet that has already

created many jobs. It's going to continue to create many jobs, and it's

going to bring millions of tourists into this province who are going to

spend money here. It has already brought in many countries who are

going to spend money in here. Yet we get sniping: "This is what

government shouldn't spend money on. They should spend it on

education." I'm not arguing. We still have the priorities — health,

education. social services and the Attorney-General's ministry — but

surely if those people on the opposite side stop to think, there would

be less money that we could spend on that if we didn't have some of

this economic development. We have industries in this province that

depend on markets. We have a great deal of talk from the socialists

opposite that what you should do is keep people working. "Keep the

factories rolling, but don't built any factories, " they say; and:

"Don't worry about whether you can sell the products." No factory — no

production of any kind, in the long run — makes any economic sense or

any sense in any other way unless you can sell the products.

We're very dependent on a world market. You don't sell to the world

by sitting here in Victoria and reading articles and newspapers. You've

got to go out there and talk to those people. So we're spending a few thousand

dollars in having our ministers travel out there to market the products that

we produce in British Columbia, and our jobs, our employment and our industry

depend on those markets. Yet every trip that a minister makes to try to sell

some of our products in the world is sniped at by those members opposite. What

would you have them do? Stay in their offices here and hope that the buyers

will come here when salesmen from every other country are going to them? You

have to recognize that travel is a good investment. You snipe at that and you

snipe at everything that is done to increase jobs and revenues in this province.

Yet you say you represent the people who want jobs.

In forestry, again, you're saying that we should keep planting

trees, we should keep the jobs open, we should keep the mills open. and

basically you neglect that other part: you can’t keep the mills open if

nobody's buying the lumber. That you have to recognize. By all means,

some of the members opposite will snipe at some of these things

continually and repeatedly, but how about some of the basic principles?

You can't have economic activity if you don't have somewhere to sell

the products.

Let me touch on another area. We've heard a great deal about the

budget, deficits, not deficits, there should be more borrowing and so

on. In any basic debt-counselling services.... Of course, the

opposition members would support that we should hire more debt

counsellors — anything that you hire. But the basic principle any debt

counsellor will tell any individual is that if you want to improve your

situation, first of all you deal with cutting expenditures to the

necessities. They will tell any individual that the next step would be

to clear off your debts and not to borrow more. To borrow more is only

getting yourself in worse. I think most members would recognize that

you have to cut expenditures down to necessities. You've got to clear

off debts, because they do hurt and make your situation worse. You do

not charge up things; you try and pay as you go to the extent possible.

Even in difficult circumstances they would recommend that you try and

save some money so that you can get into a cash-buying basis. The

upshot of it is that these counsellors will basically say that you

cannot recover by increasing debt. So what are we as a government to

say to those people: do as our counsellors say but not as we do? I

think that applies in individual circumstances. Certainly the same

basic principles apply to governments, and this government has

recognized that and is moving in that direction.

When we add up the deficits that have been accumulated in the last

year and this year, we're looking at, say, an accumulated direct debt

of some $2.6 billion by March 1985. That requires interest payments of

$237.6 million. That much is going out in interest. It could have been

a great deal more, without the restraint measures in the last couple of

years. So that means we could have been looking at $350 million or $400

million. If we took the advice of the opposition to just keep

borrowing, then progressively we would be paving more, from whatever

recovery is possible, on unproductive interest charges. Yet that is the

advice they are giving. When we embark on a plan to get rid of those

debts that have been incurred because of difficult times, we get sniped

at and told: "No. that is the wrong way to go." In other words, ignore

all the basic principles of money counselling. Just keep borrowing and

buy a few more votes — as they would — and never mind what happens down

the line. Certainly the federal example is right there before us if we

need any proof of how it just gets worse. It does riot get any better.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I'm very fortunate that even the sniping I .... I don't hear it, so that helps a bit.

Then they turn around and say: "Even if the debt turns out to be

less.... .. For instance, last winter you could not estimate the amount

of natural gas that would be sold, because even in Environment we can't

predict what is going to

[ Page 3442 ]

happen months ahead in the wintertime. But that

revenue increased and so the debt load is even less than estimated, and

I think anybody in his right senses would always be happy that the debt

is less than you anticipated. Yet we get accused of something wrong in

that. Quite frankly, any time a debt is less than what you had

expected, that is good, not bad.

There has been discussion of the debt repayment of B.C. Rail. Again,

I go back to the basic principles of money counselling that I was

talking about. The government recognized some four years ago that they

could continue their operations with B.C. Rail, that they could

actually operate in an economically sound way. They had not been in the

past, but that was brought about by good management. They could

operate, but they could not operate economically if they had to include

past debts which had been incurred because of resource development. In

other words, some of the measures were not strictly economic measures;

they were to try to open up the country and to try to open up

resources. I certainly would not apologize for that. We would not have

a lumber industry, we would not have sulphur coming out of Fort Nelson

and we would not have fuel being transported up there by rail in a much

cheaper fashion if it were not for B.C. Rail. That industry has brought

back, as far as I am concerned, far more than was ever invested in it.

But B.C. Rail accumulated the debt, so the government recognized that

if they were to give them $70 million a year to pay off old debt, they

could operate on a businesslike basis and carry on.

Having recognized that, we are now faced with a choice. Certainly

anyone can say you should have put off the choice or that you should

have done this, that or the other thing. The choice has really boiled

down to continuing to pay the $70 million a year on this old debt,

letting them go further and further into debt so that the interest

charges would continue to increase, or to do something about it. The

Minister of Finance has chosen to do something about it. The $470

million that is being added to the $113 million that is now in sinking

funds will allow the interest and principal to be looked after until

the debts are fully paid off, and they happen to be in agreements to

the year 2005. So that will look after that. Now the railway can

operate on a rational, businesslike basis.

Let me put it in these terms. Without that injection of $470

million, it is estimated that it would have cost well over a billion

dollars to satisfy that same debt the way we were going. If that

represents a saving of almost $600 million dollars by the year 2005,

that does make some sense. In other words, it goes back to try to clear

off your debts so that you can operate in a much better fashion. In

effect what happens is that the government, representing the people of

this province, will save that interest money which can then go into

social services instead of being pumped out on unproductive debt, and

the BCR can operate as it should, as a business.

There are so many things that have come from the opposition that it is not

easy to select the ones that one can try to straighten out. Let me refer to

the progress in the last couple of years. Things are being done more effectively,

more efficiently and at a lower cost than they were a couple of years ago. The

services are being maintained, and yet there were a lot saying that it couldn't

be done. Services are being maintained. People are looking for imaginative ways

to keep up the service to the public, and certainly in my two ministries I am

getting quite a few reports of people maintaining those services and doing the

job.

[4:15]

I think the people in this province have accepted that government

can't do everything for them. They have accepted the need to help

themselves. You hear such statements from the opposition that people on

social assistance are not allowed to earn a cent. That is ridiculous!

People are being encouraged to earn their own way — to earn any part

that they can.

MS. BROWN: That's not true! You don't really know what goes on with social assistance.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I would like to differ. I am sticking to the truth.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. All hon. members in this

assembly tell the truth, and to indicate otherwise to anyone in this

assembly is unparliamentary. With that said, I will ask the House to

remain courteous.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: It is a distortion of a situation, because

you don't mention the whole situation. I heard a member say earlier

that these people are not allowed to earn a red cent. People are

allowed to earn. Some members of the opposition don't bother to tell

the rest of it. They say: "Then that is deducted off the social

assistance payments they get." Correct. What you are saying is that

social assistance....

MS. BROWN: You don't even know that. It's not all deducted. They're allowed to keep the first $100.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Would you like to await your turn, Madam

Member? I'll give you the information in a little while and give you

some classic examples.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: You don't want to hear the truth.

Let's use the example of someone who is getting $1,000 a month in

social assistance. You're saying that if he can earn $200 of his own,

that assistance should go up accordingly. I guess that's socialism all

the way: if someone earns $1,000 a month, he should then get $2,000

from the taxpayers. You don't want to increase self-sufficiency; you

want to encourage people to stay on social assistance.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The member for North Island

(Mr. Gabelmann), the member for Burnaby Edmonds (Ms. Brown) and other

the members will have ample opportunity to join the debate when the

minister has finished.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I guess, Mr. Speaker, that while they are

so steeped in this socialist tradition they will always believe that

when you help a person who needs help — this is a basic principle — if

they then can partially help themselves, you should still continue the

same level of help. That is really where the issue lies: if someone can

help himself, you should still keep giving him the same amount of help

he needed before he could help himself. That, I guess, is socialism,

and that is why socialist governments insist on

[ Page

3443 ]

borrowing and killing the economy in order to keep

paying out. But it has to come from somewhere. They sort of take the

attitude: "Just put on enough pressure, and somehow the government will

look after everything." They neglect to mention that the government

represents the people.

I know they hold themselves up as representing the people — that

they represent the people and that the government is against the

people. What nonsense! Somehow or other last spring, when we said we

were going to go on restraint and cut government spending, the people

said yes and gave us a bigger mandate. Somehow or other the losers in

that election represent themselves as representing the true will of the

majority of the people in this province. What nonsense! They resort to

this business of attacking anyone and everything in the House, using

isolated examples, as I mentioned earlier. They paint a picture of

people starving in this province, and that's not true. They paint a

picture of people being turned away from hospitals, and that's not

true. People who need food in this province are not starving, as they

are in some of the socialist countries. Certainly they are not well

off, but they are not starving. I don't think you can show me one

example of starvation in this province.

MS. BROWN: Why do they go to the soup kitchens, then?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Again, I guess it's a matter of

connotation. How many people have starved? I'll accept the fact that

people are in difficulty, but certainly people have not starved.

Neither will I apologize for the fact that sometimes friends will look

after friends and not entirely depend on the government to do it. Don't

tell me about hardship. Our area was as hard hit as any other area in

this province. But those people are resourceful and have never been

used to being dependent on the government, except for some of them, so

they found ways to help themselves. I'll hold up my head in pride for

those people. Don't tell me about hardship. People have lost a lot of

their life savings, their life work, their initiative up there, but

they don't go around crying — they try to find some other way to do it.

Let me get back to my point. We have the NDP, inside and outside

this House, painting these pictures of doom and gloom. No wonder

someone once called them the negative, doubting people. They talk about

a forest crisis. They talk about pressure against development. They

would like to stop all development in this province. They try to block

anything that smacks of development or investment: northeast coal, B.C.

Place. All these things create jobs, economic activity and revenue.

They have tried to stop all of them, and have maligned this government

for doing that. The fact that these are not true.... Then they say

things like: "Things aren't happening and are not recovering." I would

say they are the greatest detriment to recovery that this province has

ever experienced. They broadcast across the nation to anyone who will

listen: "Things are awful in British Columbia. People are starving. You

can't get health service. You can't get this. All these things are not

true. They go out there and in that way try to discourage anyone from

investing in British Columbia. You are the greatest detriment to

recovery that this province has ever seen; you were when you were in

government and you have been ever since. You are doing everything

possible to hinder our economic development and recovery. I think you

sometimes lose sight of that. In your enthusiasm to attack us in

government — by the will of the majority of the people in this

province.... In your enthusiasm to attack anything and anybody, you

lose sight of the damage and the harm you do to the recovery process.

You might do a little introspection in that regard.

Even in this last situation, someone mentioned here earlier this

afternoon that the ombudsman should be doing his job. I don't think any

one of us could agree more. It was one of your members who said that.

Is it not his job to be sure of the facts? Is it not his job to act

carefully and responsibly, considering the effect of his position?

Certainly that is something that these people should consider once in a

while and act a little bit responsibly. Check out your research and

check out your facts before you go to the attack.

Let me give you a few examples of what has happened and the message that they

try to get out. The member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich ' ) has to attack the

budget — I guess it's just standard procedure — and make statements such

as:

"Because of the artful reorganization in spending estimates,

it will take many months to determine the impact on British Columbia society

of expenditure proposals tabled yesterday."

He said it very delicately — "the artful reorganization" — but there

is a pretty awful insinuation in that.

MR. COCKE: The truth!

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Let's examine some of it. Listen and you

might learn something for a change. You never research anything

properly. You've made so many accusations in this House that have

turned out wrong, you should be ready to be quiet at all times.

The member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) is not so delicate. He said, "Mr.

Speaker, that's hokum," and he was applauded for that statement.

Anywhere else it would be libelous. In an unprincipled way, he keeps

making accusations and allegations that are not true. "Take, for

instance, the office of the Premier." He points out that the estimates

for 1983-84 were $742.000. He said: "That is not true." Yet in the

estimates, when he refers to it as $660,000, etc.... If he had taken

the time to read properly what was going on there, I think he might

have learned something. The member for Skeena keeps referring to "a

false figure contained throughout." If he had taken care in reading the

estimates, he would have noted the following standard statement, which

appears on the lead sheet of each special office and ministry and

accompanies most tables. It says: "For comparative purposes only,

figures shown for 1983-84 voted expenditure have been restated to be

consistent with the presentation of the 1984-85 estimates.

Schedule A

presents a detailed reconciliation." Since this statement is repeated

more than 30 times throughout the estimates. It is both wrong and

insulting to suggest that the Minister of Finance is attempting to

mislead the Legislature. More than 30 times throughout those estimates

there is the statement: "In

Schedule A you will find the comparison of

apples to apples and oranges to oranges." Yet he has the audacity to

stand up, in the hope that so much is said in this House that perhaps

no one will read on and find out what has really gone on.

Let me give you one or two examples of what actually happened. If

the member had made the effort to look at

schedule A on pages 227 and

230, he would have seen the numbers from last year's estimates that he

referred to. For example, in the Premier's office, it says total voted

expenditure, '83-84 estimates, $660,799; transfer of employee benefits

charged back, $81,681; total voted expenditure,

[ Page 3444 ]

'83-84 estimates, $742,480. Yet he said in this

House, on the record, that the figures are false. He didn't read the

rest of it. He jumped quickly to conclusions — his standard procedure.

There are many more examples. I would recommend that the members

perhaps read

schedule A and take a look at that, and then accuse us of

not telling the truth when they have the actual facts and figures

before them. I think it's irresponsible for those members to constantly

stand up here and make accusations of misleading, false, dishonest and

untrue statements when the statements are true, honest and proper.

[4:30]

One could go on and quote that member indefinitely on I some of the

false allegations and false accusations he has made. Certainly we have

seen a lot of examples of how they have jumped to conclusions on a

number of these issues and then not even had the decency to apologize

to an individual when they're proven absolutely wrong.

Mr. Speaker, let me conclude by just saying that this budget is

honest, realistic and responsible. It's a courageous budget because it

does not take the easy way out; it takes the correct way out. Sometimes

it is far more difficult to take the correct and honest route than it

is, as some of the members opposite do, to just attack on any slight

pretence or any rumour or anything that they find. It is a plan for

economic recovery. It is a plan that says that we can't do it this year

without great harm, but we can, over a period of a few years, bring us

back into spending what we earn, not more than we earn. I believe the

people of this province are highly supportive of that. They said so

last May, they keep saying it to us, and I think they will keep saying

it indefinitely. It meets our election promises, and because it was put

out there it certainly meets the will of the people of this province. I

certainly cannot accept that the opposition members are the ones who

represent the people of this province. They represent some, but never

let it be accepted that those of us on the government side don't

represent what the people of this province understand and really want.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, just before recognizing the

member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann), the minister made some

statements with respect to another member's statement, and the word

"false" was used. Although the Chair didn't rule on it earlier or now,

I think it's incumbent upon all hon. members to avoid that type of

language, because it does have a certain implication. We may have

differences of opinion, but we should always be parliamentary in our

debate.

MR. GABELMANN: We no doubt have a lot of differences of opinion in this House, and that's not a false statement, I can assure you.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

I want to pick up on a couple of things that the Minister of Environment and

Lands, Parks and Housing mentioned in his comments. I must say that I'm

glad he continued at some length, because I've cooled down a little bit.

I was pretty angry about some of the statements he was making, particularly

in reference to this alleged individual who might be getting $1,000 from social

assistance. He may well have meant a family with a number of children, who would

have been receiving up to $1,000 or even more in the odd case if there were

enough kids. But the individual that he's talking about is probably receiving $325 or $350 a month, not $1,000.

Then he talks about what we socialists would allow these people to

earn on top of their social assistance. Well, at least hey should be

allowed to earn up to the poverty level. Wouldn't that be fair?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Let them earn as much as they like.

MR. GABELMANN: They can't earn as much as they like without

having the money deducted from their social allowance cheque, beyond

the $100 figure. What we would argue is that if you aren't going to do

the humane and proper thing, which is to bring those social assistance

allowances up to the poverty level, if not beyond, then at least allow

those people who are able to to go out and earn a few bucks to

supplement that meagre allowance with earnings of their own. Don't

discourage them from doing that.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: You do discourage them from doing it, because

every dollar they earn beyond $100 is deducted dollar for dollar. You

go further than that in some cases. I had a case in my constituency of

a person on welfare who wanted to make some pottery at home and sell it.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Did anybody stop her?

MR. GABELMANN: Yes, welfare stopped her because she's a small

businesswoman. She's not allowed to set up a business to supplement her

social assistance in the form of making pottery in her house to sell,

because she's then a business person, and business people aren't

eligible for welfare. What a policy!

AN HON. MEMBER: She can earn her own living with it.

MR. GABELMANN: No, she's not able to earn her own living with

it. She wanted to try to feed her kids properly. She loses her entire

eligibility for social assistance if she sells her own pottery.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: I'm saying that if a woman at home on welfare

wants to take some time to earn a couple of hundred dollars extra a

month, she can't do it if she sells those goods. That's the kind of

policy we have from that government. I'm not talking about the fact

that they are prepared to say to 200,000 or more people in this

province: "We don't give a damn that you have to try to survive on an

income lower than the poverty level — less than what is needed to

purchase the kind of food you need to have a nutritious diet." I don't

quarrel with the basic premise on the other side that we have to

develop industry and jobs. I don't quarrel with any of that side of it.

But there's another side to the human equation: that is, that there are

in this province 200,000 people who do depend upon the rest of us for

their livelihood at the present time. There are another 230,000 to

250,000 people collecting unemployment insurance who are also, to a

certain extent, depending upon the rest of us. There are many, many

[ Page

3445 ]

more who fall between the cracks of whatever meagre systems exist at the present time.

The kind of claptrap that we heard earlier from the minister of many

portfolios is a little hard to take. He said: "Debts are bad. Don't

borrow. Pay as you go." That's the motto of this government. That's

from a government that is deeper in debt per capita than even Trudeau's

government. They have borrowed.... When you add together the operating

debt and the Crown corporation debts, the per capita debt is higher in

British Columbia than it is nationally under that lousy Trudeau

government in Ottawa. It's higher in British Columbia, and they talk

about pay as you go.

They talk about pay as you go to students. Students are now supposed

to go to university for four years and come out of that four-year

training with $18,000 to $20,000 in debt. They don't have any problem

at all saying to an 18-year-old: "We are going to teach you what life

is all about. It's not pay as you go, it's borrow. Borrow $18,000 or

$20,000 in order to get an education." No grants anymore. Purely

borrowing.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nothing wrong with that.

MR. GABELMANN: Where's the pay as you go?

AN HON. MEMBER: I paid as I went. I worked for it.

MR. GABELMANN: I paid for my way through university too, and

I borrowed some money. I borrowed $3,000 under the Canada Student Loan

program. I had to pay my way too. I went out and worked every summer. I

remember that one summer I had a choice of four jobs and I took the

best-paying one. It happened to be setting chokers. There were three

other jobs that I could have had that summer and I took the best one.

Do you know that now, in the month of January, there are 70,000 people

between the ages of 15 and 24 who don't have work? Several hundred

thousand students will come into the labour market in May and June and

will not have work. Those kids don't have the opportunities that I had

in the sixties. There aren't any jobs for them.

Yesterday the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. McClelland) announced

this big summer employment program for young people between 15 and 24,

and older if they're students — a total of $10 million; 8,400 or 8,500

jobs of 40 days' duration, or perhaps more. Eighty-five hundred jobs at

most, $10 million — when there will be several hundred thousand people

in that age group looking for work this summer and unable to find it.

They say we should tell those kids that if they want further education

they should go out and borrow money. Those same kids, once they've got

their BA or their training from BCIT, won't be able to get a job and

pay back the loan. Would you, Mr. Speaker, as an 18-year-old today,

make a calculated decision to wind up as a 22-year-old with $20,000 in

debts and no job prospects? Of course not.

They also talk about pay as you go. Is it pay as you go in northeast coal?

Is it pay as you go at Expo 86? Is it pay as you go in B.C. Place? Is it pay

as you go in B.C. Hydro? Is it pay as you go in the B.C. Systems Corporation?

Is it pay as you go in the B.C. Buildings Corporation? No, it's not. They

adopt the same principle there that I and my family adopt when we borrow money

to buy a house. We recognize that some things in life need to be paid for ahead

of time. One's home is an example of that. Future prosperity in this province

is another example of that, but they don't accept that. They won't accept

that something they should be concerned about is people cutting trees seventy

years from now and processing those logs into lumber and more, They're not

at all concerned atoout borrowing for that investment.

Fm not an advocate of unlimited borrowing. Just five minutes ago I

was criticizing the massive level of debt in this province. Where we

fail as a society is in not sitting down and deciding which areas of

our economy warrant that borrowing, which areas of our economy can

sustain borrowing in order to assure future jobs and future prosperity.

We don't do it. We don't do it in forestry or in fisheries. We have the

potential on this coast — the west coast of British Columbia and

Canada — for a multimillion-dollar industry which could provide

thousands of jobs, and produce good exports to help our balance of

payments. What's the provincial response to developing the marine

resource on this coast? In the budget it's exactly the same as their

response to unemployment: don't mention it. Don't invest in the future

of this coast. Don't invest in the future of the land in this province.

Just invest in future projects that look good for the next election. I

admit B.C. Place looks good for the '87 election, or the fall of '86

election, as does Expo 86. Whose grandchildren are going to benefit

from that when there are no trees left in this province to sustain the

economy in British Columbia? So the minister's lecturing about

pay-as-you-go. It's all right to say "Pay as you go" when it comes to

the poor people, the unemployed, social programs, health care and

education, and when it comes to forestry and the fishery; but when it

comes to monuments and little gimmicks to win the next election,

there's nothing wrong with borrowing.

I don't think that members on that side of the House have any

comprehension of the levels of unemployment in this province. They

don't have a clue. What puzzles me is they talk about their policies

being helpful to their community — to the people who vote Social

Credit, the small business community. I've had more bankruptcies and

foreclosures in North Island than there are now businesses operating.

Why is that? In some cases it's because of poor planning and poor

management on the part of the business people. But for the most

part

it's because too many people aren't working. For the most

part it's

because there is no consumer spending. Even those people who are

working — and I cite the example of the people who work in Port Hardy

at Utah Mines....

MR. REID: Is it working yet?

MR. GABELMANN: Those people are making good money. That mine hasn't had a day off in decades.

MR. REID: What's the other one up there that's out of work? Western Mines?

MR. GABELMANN: Well, there's a strike on there. I wasn't talking about that one.

MR. REID: How long is that going to last? Are you doing anything about that?

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, the member....

MR. REID: Are you going to answer that?

MR. GABELMANN: I would if it was an intelligent question.

[ Page 3446 ]

The people in Port Hardy who make good money working at that mine —

there are 900 of them in the two bargaining units — aren't spending

their money, because they have no confidence in the economy of this

province. They know that they, too, may join the tens of thousands of

people who are on unemployment insurance or on welfare.

[4:45]

One of the things I find really curious, Mr. Speaker, is that we

talk about having 13.2 or 13.4 percent unemployment, and then this

month, in January's figures, we're talking about 15.2 percent

unemployment in B.C. When you count up how many people that is, based

on the labour force, it works out to somewhere around 20,000 to 30,000

people fewer than are collecting unemployment insurance — and that's

after you've deducted from the UIC rolls those people who are seasonal

or on maternity or on retirement, or any other of those categories that

aren't truly an unemployed state. We've got more people collecting

unemployed. Now how can that be? The reason we have that is that the

unemployment levels in this province are not in fact 15.2 percent, but

are more likely 20 to 22 percent.

We're talking about approximately one person out of every five who

does not work. When you look at the age group 15 to 24, the official

figures are one out of four not working. That doesn't include any

students who might be needing summer employment or employment between

terms. It doesn't include people who have gone home and quit looking.

We're probably talking about in the order of one out of three, not

counting students. What kind of lesson is that if the lesson the

government wants to impart to young people is one of the work ethic and

one that argues that people should be self-reliant? How can you be

self-reliant in an economy where young people are unemployed at the

rate of one out of three? We don't live in a society any longer, Mr.

Speaker, where the church, the family and the extended family provide

the support. We don't live in that rural nineteenth century society.

Members on that side of the House forget that the extended family is a

thing of the past. You can't go home to grandma. Parents can't go out

and have grandma look after the kids, because that family doesn't exist

anymore. When you have emotional problems, psychological problems or

other kinds of problems related to the fact that you don't have an

income, you can't go and talk to your priest or your minister, because

we've become a secular society.

AN HON. MEMBER: What if you happen to be grandma?

MR. GABELMANN: You don't live with the grandchildren if you are.

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if members of the House recognize the extent

of the involvement of the private sector in providing what should be a

collective responsibility? I'm talking here about the extent that trade

unions and other interested citizens are involved in providing basic

food services to people who would otherwise go hungry under the meagre

allowances provided by this government. In a single week in British

Columbia, somewhere in the order of 35,000 people — that's not the

children; that's people who come through the facility — are taking

advantage of soup kitchens and food banks in this province. That's an

ordinary week in February 1984. I see more panhandling on the streets

of Victoria than I did in Mexico City last fall, and that's a reality

in this province that we've never.... The member for Shuswap-Revelstoke

(Mr. Michael) raises his eyebrows. I'm saying that as a fact. Ten years

ago it wasn’t true in Mexico City, but I was there in November. We see

more panhandling here in Victoria than we did in Mexico City on some of

the main streets or boulevards.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: Somebody behind me says he's never seen a

panhandler in Victoria. There are 35,000 people having to supplement

their meagre social assistance or unemployment insurance — almost in

all cases social assistance — by going to the private sector, those

people who care. We have a responsibility to collectively provide for

the proper welfare of all of our citizens in this province, and we are

not doing it.

One thing really bothers me about the transient unemployed. We're

told by various levels of authority that we can expect for the next

two, three or four years to have the same levels of unemployment. But

it's different people becoming unemployed. We're changing the nature of

the kinds of people who are unemployed. In the month of January alone,

70 percent of the increase in unemployment was accounted for by women.

It's women, more so than men, and young people who are being forced

into unemployment. I have a hunch that if the government was truly

forthright in its defence of its programs, it would say: "We don't want

women in the workforce. We want them at home where they belong — if not

barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen, at least at home." By government

policy, everything they are doing leads to the conclusion that more and

more of the people being forced onto the unemployment roles are women.

It's a direct result of government policy. They don't have the courage

to say it directly, but you hear it by inference again and again if you

listen to the speeches in this House. They would prefer that we went

back to the old kind of society where women knew their place. "Their

place isn't at work; their place is at home. Whenever you have any

trouble, you can just go down to the corner and talk to the priest or

the minister and everything will get all solved again." That's the kind

of society they want. They haven't quite got the courage to say it, but

it's sure there by inference.

Mr. Speaker, I mentioned this earlier, and I'm just briefly going to

deal with it again. Yesterday the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr.

McClelland) — I see him in the House — announced the 1984 jobs for

youth program. I refer to it again because he is here and I just want

to ask him: what about the other 200,000 students this summer who won't

be able to be part of this 8,500-person job program? What about the

other roughly 200,000 people who will not be working this summer?

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: I did. You'll get your chance.

Interjections.

MR. GABELMANN: Unlike some of the members back here, I know the rules. I know I'll lose my place.

MR. REID: Oh, yes. If you ask a question, you want a decent answer.

[ Page

3447 ]

MR. GABELMANN: Lovely new gimmick! These students and these

young people are go