1982 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 32nd Parliament

Hansard

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

( Hansard )

MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 1982

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

9403 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Cost of government advertising. Mr. Stupich –– 9404

Effect of water-licence fee increase on metal mines. Mr. D'Arcy ––

Government appointees running for political office. Mr. Lauk –– 9404

Export of electricity. Mr. D'Arcy –– 9405

Unemployment in B.C. Ms. Sanford –– 9405

Impaired-driving courses. Mr. Macdonald –– 9405

Financial Administration Amendment Act (No. 2) –– 1982 (Bill 86). Second reading.

(Hon. Mr. Curtis)

Mr. Kempf –– 9405

Mr. Lauk –– 9407

Hon. Mr. Richmond –– 9410

Mr. Lorimer –– 9412

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 9413

Mr. Cocke –– 9414

Mr. Mussallem –– 9417

Mr. Howard –– 9420

Mr. Nicolson –– 9424

MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 1982

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. BENNETT: All members of the

House, and indeed all British Columbians, I am sure, will join me in

paying tribute to the memory of Ma Murray, who died on Saturday at the

age of 95. For 70 years her witty and often acid pen kept many public

figures in this province on their toes. She was blunt, forthright and

opinionated, but never malicious. Some of her most notable targets, my

father among them, admired her honesty and integrity and referred to

her as a friend. Although Ma Murray — I say I "Ma," because nobody ever

called her Margaret — was born in Kansas and did not come to British

Columbia until she was 24, to my mind she portrayed the true British

Columbia pioneer spirit, a spirit that built this province.

behalf of the members of the Legislature and all the people of British

Columbia, I would like to extend our sympathy to her daughter Georgina

and her family. We shall not see the like of Ma Murray again in this

province, I do believe. She provided one of the most colourful chapters

in the history of our province — a province which she adopted and loved

so well.

MR. HOWARD: It's indeed a sad honour to

associate ourselves with the words of the Premier of this province with

respect to Ma Murray. British Columbia has indeed lost a remarkable

person. Personally, on more than one occasion in Lillooet I had the

pleasure to speak with the late Ma Murray and to receive some of her

wisdom, honour and integrity. She was one of the most delightful,

honest and forthright persons this province has ever known. People not

only in the newspaper world, but in politics and all walks of life,

have been left a legacy of candour and integrity that we should take as

our guideline into the future, and we should always pay respect to Ma

Murray and the legacy she's left to us.

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

Mr. Speaker, Ma Murray was a constituent of mine and I must echo the

remarks made by the Premier and the member for Skeena. It's interesting

to note that as late as May of this year, Ma Murray rode in the May Day

parade in Lillooet at the age of 95. She'll be sorely missed by all her

friends in Lillooet, and throughout the province, I'm sure. I know she

will be missed by me.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker,

Mrs. Murray was long known to me and even longer to members of my

family, and I would very much like to add my personal expression of

sorrow on her passing. She was a great lady and she'll be sorely

missed. As she would say: "That's for damshur."

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, if it is the wish of the House, the Chair will undertake to send the appropriate message.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

MR. REE: Mr. Speaker, for the first time since I've sat in this

House I have the pleasure of having my daughter, Deanna, in the gallery today.

I ask this House to welcome her and the young gentleman with her, Mr. Michael

Marti, to the House and to Victoria.

MR. LAUK:

Mr. Speaker, under standing orders it would be appropriate somewhere

soon to have a question period; and under those standing orders it is

appropriate to have cabinet ministers in their seats to answer

questions about important issues of the day.

MR. SPEAKER:

Hon. member, at this point we are in introductions, and until orders

have been called I will entertain any point of order that the member

feels he might have.

Oral Questions

MR. LAUK:

On a point of order before question period starts, Mr. Speaker, several

cabinet ministers are absent from their seats, perhaps because of the

problem we've been having with division bells ringing in cabinet

ministers' offices. There have been complaints by several cabinet

ministers both to you privately and as questions of privilege. I would

ask — in good spirit — that we ring the division bells to remind

cabinet ministers, who may not have heard the bells, that the House is

now in session.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member.

The Chair has no authority to force members to be in the chamber. The

standing orders are well known. It is each member's responsibility to

be in the chamber.

MR. LAUK: With respect, Mr.

Speaker, the Speaker does have the authority to ring the division bells

in accordance with standing orders, and I ask the Speaker to do so now.

MR. SPEAKER: Question period is proceeding, hon. members.

MR. LAUK:

It's established that when someone raises a point of order before

question period commences, it does not come off the time of question

period.

MR. SPEAKER: It helps, hon. member, if the point of order is at all valid.

MR. LAUK: With respect, Mr. Speaker, is it your ruling that my point of order is not in accordance with the standing orders?

MR. SPEAKER: It's not a ruling, hon. member.

MR. LAUK: Well, then, I will continue with the point of order, and it should not come off the time of question period.

MR. SPEAKER: That's fine, hon. member, but question period is being used up. I would advise the member accordingly.

MR. LAUK: With respect, Mr. Speaker, that is totally unfair to the members on this side of the House.

[ Page 9404 ]

COST OF GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

MR. STUPICH:

I have a question for the Minister of Finance. In recent weeks British

Columbians have been subjected to a major onslaught of printed

advertising, electronic advertising and direct mailing of glossy

pamphlets, as the Social Credit Party attempts to improve its standing

in the public opinion polls. Can the Finance minister advise the House

as to the total cost of this public education program?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I take issue with some of the

preamble.

MR. COCKE: I guess you would.

HON. MR. CURTIS: The member for New Westminster is testy today.

think that the member for Nanaimo would know that there are individual

votes assigned to individual ministries. I can undertake to take the

question as notice or, on the other hand, the member or other members

may wish to ask individual ministers with respect to expenditures of

this kind. I might say, however, that, generally speaking, restraint

across government has included a variety of publications — and very

successfully so.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, can the

minister confirm that no limit has been placed on spending in these

areas, and that ministers have "open sesame" on the public purse when

it comes to spending for propaganda purposes?

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Again, Mr. Speaker, I can take issue with some of the comments or some

of the adjectives used; but it is incorrect to make that assumption.

EFFECT OF WATER-LICENCE

FEE INCREASE ON METAL MINES

MR. D'ARCY: I have a

question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources in

his capacity as Minister of Mines. Since the Socred mining royalty in

1982 in the form of water-rental licence increases is going to extract

approximately $25 million from the mining industry this year alone,

and, as the minister knows, since every metal mine in the province is

either shut down or operating in the red, has the minister decided to

approach his colleague the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers)

and ask him to defer the water-licence fee increase scheduled for

January 1?

HON. MR. SMITH: Well, the short answer to

the long, convoluted question is no. The long answer to it is that the

member is well aware that the problem the mining industry faces in this

province — indeed, across the world — is not that problem, but is a

problem with the fall in the market for metals and the price of metals.

The recovery of the mining industry is a complex one. I have had

meetings with members of that industry who have made submissions to me

concerning water rentals and a number of other subjects. Those are

undergoing review, and we are having more meetings with that industry.

I find, Mr. Speaker, that one thing that does bother that industry is the faint

prospect that the gentlemen opposite might at some time have an opportunity

to bring in their old mining policies.

MR. D'ARCY:

The reason that the mining industry objects to this royalty is that it

is a tax on production, Mr. Speaker — exactly the same reason that they

objected to the royalty that was in effect in 1974 and 1975, to which

the minister has referred. The reason they are so annoyed now is that

the industry is in far more trouble that it was then, and yet the

government, through this royalty, is taking twice as much money out of

the industry as the former royalty took in 1974-75.

Has the

minister decided to change the policy of royalties charged to the

mining industry? Because clearly those royalties are costing the

industry twice as much as the former royalty, which that government

removed in 1976.

HON. MR. SMITH: It is not a royalty, Mr. Speaker. I've already answered the first question. The second question is just a political statement.

GOVERNMENT APPOINTEES

RUNNING FOR POLITICAL OFFICE

MR. LAUK: In the absence of the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), I direct this question to the Premier of British Columbia.

AN. HON. MEMBER: He won't know.

MR. LAUK: He knows, because he's in charge of political affairs.

Has

the Premier decided to conduct an investigation into whether the Social

Credit Party is putting pressure on educational institutions to provide

job security for Social Credit candidates running in the impending

election?

HON. MR. BENNETT: It must have been a hot

sun in Spain this summer, Mr. Speaker. If I could understand the

relevance or even the nature of your question I'd love to respond. But

I'll leave the question to answer itself before the people of B.C. as

to what the member for Vancouver Centre considers important in these

difficult times in British Columbia.

MR. LAUK: It's no surprise to me that the Premier gave an intelligible answer, but it's a surprise that some people applauded it.

I'll

ask the question in a different way that will perhaps make it clearer

for the Premier. The Pacific Vocational Institute board has curiously

granted Social Credit provincial candidate Elwood Veitch an indefinite

leave of absence to run for office, and guarantees him a job on his

inevitable defeat at the polls. Can the Premier guarantee that the

Pacific Vocational Institute government-appointed board acted out of

the interests of that vocational institution without political

interference?

HON. MR. BENNETT: There's no political

interference. This is a question that should be answered, because one

of the rights that has been given under all governments is leave for

people who work in the public to freely take

part in the political

process. The present Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland), much to

their regret — but maybe they hoped he would represent that area — was

given leave by the former New Democratic Party government to contest

the 1975 election when he worked for the government. I think the New

[ Page

9405 ]

Democratic Party candidate in Surrey — not the

sitting member, but his running mate — may have a similar opportunity.

I think that boards and governments should not interfere politically

and prevent people from running. Are we interfering? No. Is the member

suggesting that we should interfere?

MR. LAUK: The

examples raised by the Premier are civil servants, not government

appointees to boards. Now that he has raised the issue, let me ask

another question. We're talking about a government that appointed

Veitch bursar as soon as he lost the election. Let's talk about another

example, and ask the Premier whether he can answer this. The

government-appointed board at this specific vocational institution gave

indefinite leave to Mr. Veitch, together with a guarantee of a job on

his return. No other board or institution has granted that to anyone,

except someone else in this Legislature. Can the Premier confirm that

Elwood Veitch sought advice from the Minister of Universities (Hon. Mr.

McGeer) on how to obtain job security?

HON. MR. BENNETT:

I'm sure if he sought advice from me on how to obtain job security, I

would say: run as a Social Credit candidate in the next election.

EXPORT OF ELECTRICITY

MR. D'ARCY:

The Socreds' recently published, taxpayer-funded policy statement

declares on page 10 that the Socreds will launch a marketing program to

establish electricity export markets. Has the minister done any

cost-benefit analysis studies to show that the export of jobs by means

of electricity is a benefit to the province of British Columbia?

HON. MR. SMITH: I'll take the question as notice.

UNEMPLOYMENT IN B.C.

MS. SANFORD:

I have a question for the Minister of Human Resources. In the spring of

this year the minister was appointed to chair a cabinet committee on

job creation. There are now 200,000 British Columbians on UIC benefits,

and a further 70,000 on welfare — and that figure is climbing — giving

a total of something in the neighbourhood of 300,000 people who are

living on public support as a result of the Socred-generated

depression. Can the minister confirm that the bridging job-creation

program, which the minister promised would provide 10,000 jobs, has

provided work for only 1,300 of the 300,000 British Columbians looking

for work?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: No, I cannot confirm

that figure. I am aware that it is more than that. I'd be pleased to

bring the figure to the House, but I'm also pleased that the members

opposite have supported all the legislation for the recovery program

that has been before this House.

IMPAIRED-DRIVING COURSES

MR. MACDONALD:

Mr. Speaker, there has been an impaired-driving course in Victoria for

the rehabilitation and education of people convicted of impaired

driving. Has the Attorney-General, on two weeks' notice, completely cut

off the funding for that successful program in Victoria?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The matter of impaired-driving courses has been

under examination by the interministerial committee on traffic safety. An assessment

has been made of the advisability of continuing that program, comparing it,

with other initiatives that are underway, sponsored by that committee and by

ICBC. Yes, the program has been discontinued.

MR. MACDONALD:

Some 3,000 people have been put through that program since 1974. No

doubt it has saved life and limb on the highways in this province at a

cost of $11,000 in Victoria. Is it not a mixup in priorities to spend

all the money that is being spent for political propaganda by this

government and cut off that essential service? Was the minister

involved in that kind of priority-setting?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Perhaps I should repeat what I said, and perhaps the member would

listen. An analysis has been made of the effects of the program

throughout the province, and it has been determined that there are

other initiatives underway by the committee, as I mentioned, and by

ICBC that will supplant it to much greater effect. Let me simply say

that we don't believe it appropriate to give courses in impaired

driving. We're trying to stop people from being impaired at all.

MR. STRACHAN:

Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to introduce the amendments to the Vancouver

Charter, which is motion 29, standing in my name on the order paper.

Leave not granted.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 86, Mr. Speaker.

FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION

AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1982

(continued)

MR. KEMPF: Just prior to adjournment last

Friday, I was talking about the serious worldwide recession in which

the province of British Columbia is caught up, explaining that this

government — unlike the socialists in 1975 — will not run from our

responsibilities. We will not run and hide behind an election writ in

order not to face the problems of the day in regard to the economy of

British Columbia. We will not shirk our responsibilities for the

provision of essential services, which the people of British Columbia

have grown used to and are reliant upon, even during tough economic

times. Resource revenues to the province of British Columbia have

decreased by some 60 percent in the past few months, but the costs of

essential services — of which I spoke — continue on. We've entered into

a restraint program, and yes, despite the socialist-inspired

demonstrations and attempts to discredit our every move, it is working.

I was out in my constituency over the weekend....

MR. COCKE: First time!

MR. KEMPF:

It's not the first time, Mr. Member for New Westminster. I want to tell

you something: if you get out into your constituency as often as I do

mine, your people will be very fortunate indeed.

[ Page 9406 ]

Mr.

Speaker, the restraint program is working. It is being accepted, and I

would like a chance to prove that. I'd like a chance to go to the polls

and prove that. You bet I would, and I look forward to that event.

The

general public has accepted the need for a restraint program in this

province. It's too bad that it isn't Canada-wide, that it isn't

throughout this nation, because there is a need, and the public is

aware of that. The public have accepted the fact that restraint is

needed, because we do not know and they do not know exactly where the

situation — the worldwide economic situation in which we find ourselves

— may end.

It is necessary through Bill 86 to ensure the

continuation of essential services in British Columbia. The socialists

would run and hide, as they did in 1975. They'd run and hide and call

an election. That's all they've been talking about in the last two

weeks, now going into the third, on that side of the floor, yet where

is their leader? He's not here again today. Where was he the week

before last, where was he last week and where is he today? He's not in

the chamber debating the economic situation in British Columbia. Where

is he? I would suggest that he should really be....

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please, hon. member. While there is some latitude under the

present bill, I think that the member will recognize that the bounds of

that have been passed.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, I was

just pointing out the necessity for Bill 86 in this chamber — pointing

out why it is that the government is bringing in Bill 86 at this time.

Mr. Speaker, it's bringing in Bill 86 so as not to run from its

responsibilities, as the socialists opposite did in 1975. They called a

winter election in 1975 because they were broke, a slap in the face for

the people who live in the northern two thirds of the province of

British Columbia. A December 11 election, an election just before

Christmas — some Christmas present, Mr. Member for Revelstoke- Shuswap.

They were broke and totally disorganized as a government, just as they

are totally disorganized as an opposition.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, they were worse.

MR. KEMPF:

Well, I don't think they could have been any worse than they are in

opposition. I wasn't here in those days, but there's that possibility,

I suppose. They were bankrupt of dollars and bankrupt of the ability to

govern the province of British Columbia when they hid behind the writ

in 1975, not wanting to bring in such a bill as Bill 86, not wanting to

live up to their responsibilities as the government of the province of

British Columbia.

I heard members opposite speak, in debate

last week on this bill, of the millions of dollars that they left when

they ran and hid in 1975. What utter hypocrisy! I remember those early

days of 1976. If in fact millions of dollars were left by that

administration when they were fired out of office, where did they leave

it? The member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) was here in those days

and he should have known where it was left. We couldn't find it; it

wasn't there. All we found were unpaid bills, unsigned cheques, when we

came into office in early 1976. They left millions of dollars in the

coffers — what hypocrisy! If they left anything it was an absolutely

bare cupboard. There wasn't even a crumb. Not only was the cupboard

bare, but the socialists opposite left, as a legacy to the people of

British Columbia, a $250 million debt. I remember that, and the people

of the province of British Columbia will never forget it. That was

their heritage fund. The member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) talks

about a heritage fund; that was the heritage fund you people left to

the people of British Columbia — a legacy of debt.

That

social welfare party, with their social welfare leader who never shows

up in this House.... He shows up once in a while and stands up out of

order, wanting to debate the economy. We're on a bill — and we've been

on several others — where there is opportunity to debate the economy of

the province, and where is the opposition leader, Mr. Member for

Shuswap-Revelstoke? You're part of that caucus; where is he? In this

debate.... Yes, Mr. Speaker, it's applicable to the debate on this

bill. It must be. You allowed it in debate from that side of the floor,

so it must be applicable. I heard the member for Coquitlam-Moody

expound in this chamber on Friday on the merits of socialism. He does

it...

AN HON. MEMBER: Very well.

MR. KEMPF: ...very

often. Yes, he does it very well too. As socialists know, socialists

should be able to say, and he does it very well, I agree. I heard him

expound on the merits of socialism just last Friday when debating this

bill. We all know the merits of socialism, Mr. Speaker; even the

Russians.... The members opposite laugh, but it's no laughing matter.

Even the communists in Russia have to come to the capitalist countries

of Canada and the United States to buy enough wheat to feed themselves,

and that is after over 60 years of a state-controlled economy — and the

member for Coquitlam-Moody comes into this House and expounds on the

merits of socialism.

Mr. Speaker, I said on Friday in this

same debate that I don't believe in government borrowing. But we are

not in an ordinary situation in British Columbia in regard to the

worldwide recession that we face. It is not an ordinary situation; we

are caught up in world recessionary problems. I know that the members

opposite would like the people of British Columbia not to understand

that. But I'll tell you — and I've said it before — that I was in my

constituency for two long days on the weekend and they understand more

than even we on this side of the House would like to admit. You bet

they understand.

In debate on Friday — and the member is in

his seat — I heard the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly), when someone

from this side of the floor was talking about our dollar now being

worth more than 80 cents in comparison to the American dollar.... Mr.

Speaker, the remark I heard from that member for Alberni, in response

to that particular question, I couldn't believe even from a socialist.

The member said — and it is in Hansard , but I'll quote, again

putting it into the record of this House: "No wonder our lumber isn't

selling." Is that what the member believes to be a good economy, when

our dollar is only worth 75 cents compared to other currencies in the

world? Is that what you believe to be the answer to the economic woes

of this country and this world today — that our dollar be further

devalued — Mr. Member for Alberni? Is that really what the member

believes? Is that where the member believes our dollar should be?

Mr.

Speaker, we have priced ourselves out of world markets in the province

of British Columbia because of our greed. Because of our never-ending

thirst for more and more, we have priced ourselves out of world markets

to the point

[ Page 9407 ]

that

we've had to devalue the dollar in order to sell to those world

markets. But even now, with the devalued dollar, with a dollar worth

only 80 cents compared to the dollar across our border to the south, we

can't compete. We've priced ourselves out of the markets of the world,

and we can no longer compete in our natural resource industries.

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF:

We can no longer provide more for some who greedily look for it, Mr.

Member for Vancouver Centre. Those resource industries can no longer

provide for the more that those people on the other side of the floor

still want to give away. We heard of a gross giveaway program that the

members of the opposition suggested.... His government, if he were to

be so successful as to form the next government of the province of

British Columbia, would give away another $300 million. Mr. Speaker,

where was that Leader of the Opposition suggesting they get that $300

million? He doesn't come into this House, so he cannot answer some of

these questions. But where — I leave that question with the members

opposite — did he expect to get those $300 million? The only solution

that the member for Alberni has is to further devalue the Canadian

dollar on world markets, below the 80-cent figure, so that some greedy

people in British Columbia and in this country can have more. Mr.

Speaker, all I can say is: God forgive him, for he knows not what he

says. He really doesn't know what he says.

MR. LAUK: You certainly have a way with words.

MR. KEMPF:

A way with words or not, Mr. Member for Vancouver Centre.... Maybe I

don't have the great education that you have, but from what you

recently did to the Bank of Commerce in this country, I don't want your

education. I can do without it, thank you, words or not.

Unlike

that group over there, who showed their ability to govern when they

were the government of the province of British Columbia.... The people

of this province know who can best look after their interests, their

tax dollars. I say again that I look forward to the opportunity — I

wish it would come next week — to go to the people and let them decide

who has their best interests at heart.

MR. LAUK: Is that why you want to borrow?

MR. KEMPF:

As I said previously, I don't believe in government borrowing. But

we're not in a normal situation. Even you should know that — even you

with your great education, Mr. Member for Vancouver Centre.

Last

week we heard some talk from the members opposite about when W.A.C.

Bennett was Premier and burned a barge load of paid-up debts. Yes, he

did, and so will we. We have proven our ability to pay our bills,

unlike the socialists opposite. We have already proven that. We don't

have to prove it again to the people of the province of British

Columbia. We know who left the heritage fund to the province of British

Columbia — a heritage of debt. It wasn't W.A.C. Bennett, and it won't

be this Social Credit government either. The people of British Columbia

aren't stupid. They aren't as stupid as the members opposite would like

to think they are — not by a long shot. The people of British Columbia

will compare the records. The people of British Columbia will agree

with restraint — and they do agree with it. They know that we're taking

the responsible route. We're taking our responsibility seriously,

because we're not in a good situation worldwide. People understand

that. That's why the members opposite are so jittery. Whenever the

socialists chalk up a deficit, incur bills, they're never able to repay

it. They judge everyone else as they themselves would be judged. Let

the dogs bark, but the caravan must move on.

On Friday we

heard the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) present the

challenge to this House to go to the polls. I accept that challenge.

I'll go to the polls any day and expound the merits of the government

on this side of the floor. I support Bill 86.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. LAUK:

We've heard the member for Omineca, with a lot more heat than light,

explain why he's going to take a position on Bill 86 that is opposite

to his fundamental beliefs. I'm reminded of the member's speech — and I

read his speeches very carefully — on April 1, 1976, in this chamber,

which is available on page 499 of Hansard .

Where did he go?

Interjections.

MR. LAUK:

On that day the member said: "Pay as you go, Mr. Speaker, is the only

method which I believe to be good and fair and good enough for the

people of the province of British Columbia. To borrow for the payment

of back debts, Mr. Speaker, is like having to pay for a horse that has

already passed away."

I'll try to get other portions of the

hon. member's speech — those portions that have a subject and predicate

within striking distance of one another. He said that it was no small

thing for the people of Omineca to borrow to pay debts. "It's a

disgrace to the people of British Columbia." He certainly has changed

his tune today. He's going to borrow. He argues that this is a world

recession, a world problem, and the poor little government in British

Columbia can't do anything about it. This poor little government is

caught up in a world recession. Can the hon. members opposite explain

why it is then that in the last six, seven or eight years Canada has

slipped from being the second wealthiest industrial nation of the

world, from being second in standard of living...?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Socialist policies!

MR. LAUK:

I'm glad you pointed that out. The Right Hon. Barney Rubble has pointed

out that it was socialist policies that lowered the standard of living.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Personal allusions are most unparliamentary. I'm sure the hon. member is aware of that.

MR. LAUK: I thought that was a compliment, Mr. Speaker. I apologize to the minister if any offence is taken.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: And I'll ask the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing to not offer interjections.

MR. LAUK: That may be a solution to the problem.

Why then, if British Columbia is caught up in a world problem, has Canada slipped from number two in the world

[ Page 9408 ]

number eleven? Germany, Sweden, Japan and Denmark moved ahead of

Canada. How did they move ahead? They all have social democratic

planned economies — all of them. Most of the countries I've mentioned

have well under 5 percent unemployment in the middle of this so-called

world recession. It's a recession out there, Mr. Speaker. It's even a

recession in the other Canadian provinces, but it's a depression in

British Columbia.

You've got to start asking yourselves why

this government is hiding behind world conditions when they've brought

British Columbia practically to her knees through their inept policies.

Need I remind this chamber that once before, under the auspices of the

Premier of this province.... In 1978 the Premier and his Finance

minister trooped to Ottawa and demanded that the federal government

take a policy of high interest rates to solve what they perceived to be

the inflationary problem with the country. They were warned. They were

told that high interest rates would bring this country to its knees. No

one can deny that in 1978 the Premier of this province demanded that

the federal government raise high interest rates, and Trudeau, always

willing to cooperate with his old buddy, did precisely that.

There

are other speeches in this House that I want to bring to the chamber's

attention when they're voting upon Bill 86. What is Bill 86? It is a

Trudeau credit card. It's giving to this government, without any

accountability from this Legislature or the public of British Columbia,

the power to borrow unlimited funds, for unlimited purposes, at any

time. It can borrow to buy the groceries, it can borrow to fund

election promises, government advertising, ministerial travel and

restaurant expenses. It can borrow for any purpose, in secret, without

debate before this chamber.

The traditions of the British

parliamentary system were primarily that the House of Commons in

Westminster, and subsequently the House of Commons and legislatures

across Canada, were established to keep a watchdog on the public purse.

We're here to debate budgets, not to pass the authority and

responsibility given to us by the people of this province to a small

group of cabinet ministers to print money in the basement in secret.

That's what it is for, Mr. Speaker: the Premier and the Minister of

Finance in their basement cranking out treasury bills — paper, paper,

paper. If we allow them this legislation, they'll print treasury bills

in the same way they print glossy pamphlets. I suppose it's a new

Socred definition of freedom of the press. Freedom of the press, to the

Social Credit administration, means freedom to print treasury bills,

piling debt upon debt upon debt — with no accountability.

What

happened to that great slogan, "Not a dime without debate"? It's gone.

The Legislature was established to provide that kind of scrutiny of the

expenditure of public funds. Look how difficult it was for the NDP

opposition to determine just the expense accounts of cabinet ministers.

With this further secret production of credit — Social Credit — we're

going to be hard-pressed in future legislatures to find out where the

money is going, and for what purposes. Borrowing to buy the groceries —

what a devastating thing to do in the middle of a depression.

I want those who are left in the chamber to guess who gave this speech in 1976:

"To

borrow is the easy way out, but against that is the burden it creates

for future generations. We will leave our children and their children a

large enough legacy of problems without this additional one of paying

for government deficits, when with determination and sacrifice we can

overcome our problem now."

Can anyone tell me who said that?

Who said that, Mr. Speaker? It was the former Minister of Finance (Mr.

Wolfe), who has now left the cabinet. Mr. Speaker, I wonder why he has

left the cabinet. Is it any wonder that he would leave the cabinet of

the province of British Columbia? He gave that speech. They're going

against principles.

Here's something else he said at that time, Mr. Speaker:

"Government,

like people, can not go on spending more than it makes. What comes in

must balance what goes out. If balance is not achieved, then

governments must borrow to pay the bills, but Bank of Canada governor

Gerald Bouey warned us only the other day that too much borrowing by

governments will stifle growth of the economy. The competition by the

public and private sectors for available funds will, in a period of

monetary restraint, force interest rates to a higher level."

Mr.

Speaker, that's the nub of this problem. For political expediency the

government wants to print treasury bills and borrow money — charged

against the public treasury. Their own Finance minister of a few years

ago said: "You know what that'll do if you borrow money? It will take

available money out of the marketplace and force interest rates

higher." Can you see the insanity of this? This comes right from Alice

in Wonderland; Lewis Carroll wrote the new Minister of Finance's

script. On the one hand, they bring in a mortgage aid program to help

people pay for high interest rates on their mortgages. On the other

hand, they're going to be borrowing to pay for that mortgage program,

which will force interest rates higher.

Can you see the

basic economic nonsense that that is? This vicious cycle of debt, which

we thought at least philosophically the party opposite was committed

against, now is going to be further inflamed. If you think that pre-war

Germany had an inflation rate, just wait until these birds get into

their basement with that printing press, Mr. Speaker. The inflaming of

inflation in this economy will be something to be seen. I mean, we will

not have seen anything like it before. You cannot hand a credit card to

those folks. You cannot give them credit cards to supply money to their

big megaprojects and have them cut social services back to the bone,

which is the proper area in which government should be involved. You've

heard some criticism, Mr. Speaker, of the New Democratic Party proposal

of projects at the municipal level. I've heard some criticism, and I

think it should be answered. I will not answer the blind, partisan

attacks on such a project, but some people are asking: what about

operational expenditures? If the project proceeds, where money is

provided to municipalities to build sewers, roads, perhaps some public

buildings, fire halls, and what have you, what about the operational

expenditures? If a municipal council cannot see its way clear to

building public institutions or buildings, they can see their way clear

to building roads and sewers that are badly needed in some of these

areas. That does not involve subsequent operational costs to the

municipality. That involves a legitimate purpose and creates real jobs,

not pie in the sky, "Billy bond," BCRIC II jobs; not the roulette

wheel, the throwing-of-the-dice approach to economic recovery proposed

by the government opposite, but real jobs.

You see, Mr. Speaker, they're just like the Trudeau Liberals. On the weekend the Trudeau Liberals offered Dome

[ Page 9409 ]

Petroleum

hundreds of millions of the federal taxpayers' dollars to bail them

out. In the same breath they said they're going to cut back

unemployment insurance, family allowance, and the social programs

available to ordinary people. If you analyze Bennett and Trudeau

economics, it's very simple. They say that the rich are not working

because they're not getting enough money, and they say that the poor

are not working because they're getting too much. The solution to the

problem is to give the rich — Massey-Ferguson, Dome Petroleum and the

northeast coal project — more money and to cut back on the money you're

giving to the ordinary people. That made a lot of sense to Simon Fraser

Tolmie, Herbert Hoover and R.B. Bennett at the beginning of the Great

Depression.

MS. SANFORD: And to Reagan.

MR. LAUK: And to Reagan now, Trudeau now and Bennett now.

But

I'll tell you something, Mr. Speaker: what it leads to is a greater

depression; what it leads to is demoralization and devastation at all

levels of society. It creates a demoralization and a soul-destroying

poverty among the ordinary people in our province from which it takes

years to recover. It was not until Roosevelt's New Deal program that

people began to realize that you don't put money into big corporations

like Massey-Ferguson and Dome; you put money at the consumer level to

be spent and to create economic activity. This is what the small

businessmen of this community want, this is what the medium-sized

British Columbia companies want, and this is what the ordinary people

of British Columbia need — money at their level, not the trickle-down

theory of giving money to Massey-Ferguson and Dome and the chartered

banks and the people who don't need it but are going to keep it and not

spend it. The ordinary folks in the street need it to buy their

groceries, to provide their shelter, and perhaps even to build new

homes.

That's why the NDP has proposed a municipal works

project that people can see and feel and touch. Real jobs would be

provided by those programs — not the phony promise of pie in the sky,

with the issuance of "Billy bonds" that are going to work not nearly as

well as the first BCRIC shares. You know what happened to them, Mr.

Speaker: dissipation of our own heritage fund in B.C. That's what

happened as a result of the BCRIC share program. We're tired of this

government considering the public purse a giant casino where they can

play their so-called boardroom casino games, roll the dice, roll the

roulette wheel and say: "Gee, we've taught you a great lesson of the

free market system: the stock market." We've had enough of those

lessons; we want jobs on the ground — jobs on Main Street, not jobs on

Howe Street. There's a difference.

What is the result of

this printing-press legislation that the Socreds want us to support?

The result will be no benefit to the ordinary people; it'll be

borrowing to the extent where it will inflame inflation and continuing

unemployment in this province. It is a devastating step.

The

Premier came in here on Friday with one of his better political

speeches. He said: "I won't be the one to close hospitals and schools.

If you're against this act to borrow money for hospitals and schools,

let you be blamed for it, not me — it's not my fault." I have not heard

such a cynical, specious speech in a long time. No one believes that

what the Premier has suggested is true; no one believes that the New

Democratic Party is against keeping the health-care system going. It

has been this administration that has attempted to dismantle both the

health-care system and the public education system in order to pour

money down the hole, to export jobs in northeast coal, to export jobs

with cheap power abroad. They have not heeded the warning from this

side of the House; we suggested using some of that resource to create

jobs at home.

MR. KEMPF: Export jobs I What are you talking about?

MR. LAUK: The northeast coal project is taking more and more taxpayers' money; it's inflaming inflation.

MR. KEMPF: Garbage!

MR. LAUK: To fund that project they're cutting back on health care and on education in this province, and they know it.

MR. KEMPF: Garbage!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) will come to order.

MR. LAUK:

What's more, the people of this province know it, so when the Premier

comes here and argues that this borrowing bill is going to fund

hospitals and education, the Minister of Finance knows that's a

terribly cynical and political speech by the Premier. It's a speech

that did not honestly and straightforwardly set before the people of

this province the issues that are at stake. As soon as this House was

recalled on September 10, we said: "Bring in a budget. We know you're

in trouble; tell us what the problem is. This is where it's to be

debated; here is where we can discuss hospital care and education." But

no, they fired the soft Minister of Education and hired someone who

could be the hatchet man on the education system. That's what they did,

in the hope that the Premier could swoop in on his white horse and save

the day, as he did with the civil service. He's the fellow that goes

around lighting fires and then rushes around putting them out so he can

be the hero. He's the fellow that ran in and saved the day with the

civil service. After union-bashing for six weeks, in comes the Premier

to save the day. He hires a new Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Vander

Zalm), who bludgeons not only the teachers but the students and parents

and trustees — bludgeons them for six weeks and makes the attempt on

Friday to save the day.

This is the kind of atmosphere in

which the Premier came in on this bill on Friday and delivered his

remarks to us. He said: "Oh. I'm not the one who's going to close

hospitals and schools; if you vote against this bill you're going to be

responsible." But everybody knows that if he wants money to pay for

hospitals and schools he can bring in a budget and have it debated

where the people of this province expect it to be debated, with every

dime and every dollar debated so that we can determine that it is, in

truth, going to go for hospitals and schools and not down that big

black hole in the northeast coal project — not for his big

megaprojects, not to waste money on debt and borrowing and interest

rates, but every available dollar being used to provide the services

that are going to be so necessary for the people of this province.

[ Page 9410 ]

This

bill is a bill that is on the basic issue of accountability and

responsible government. The amendment that the Minister of Finance is

seeking is a direct attack on responsible government. It is an attack

on the democratic process and the British parliamentary system. It is

to borrow in secret unlimited funds for any purpose. It is a Trudeau

credit card, and the Trudeau credit card has led the federal government

into a $20 billion deficit. And they ask for the same thing.

Mr.

Speaker, I want to recite another speech for you. This is the speech of

the hon. Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen), as he now is, but then,

in 1976, he was another minister and he was giving this speech. He said

— page 462 of Hansard :

The

philosophy of this government is most basic to sound management of the

economy: the recognition, and the simple recognition, that you must pay

for that which you receive. Suggestions that deficit financing is the

answer, as has been proposed...leaves much to be desired. The concept

that we can put off until tomorrow that which is required to be

accounted for today is misleading and dangerous. The idea that others

are doing it, therefore we should do it, or therefore it's all right

for us to do it, is folly. This very fantasy has contributed greatly to

the decline in our standards of living and habits right across this

country. The follow-the-leader concept of the lemmings is well

established. Let us be at least one voice that says: "Enough is enough.

Let's get on with the job that must be done."

Now that was

the Minister of Health, as he now is, and I agree with every word he

said in that speech in 1976. It will be interesting to see how he votes

on this bill that will give carte blanche to the government, the

Premier and the Minister of Finance to print debt for the future

generations of this province.

The answer to the argument,

"Well, what are you fighting the Social Credit government for? Other

provinces issue treasury bills," is first of all, not like this one,

not without accountability to the chamber. More importantly, what about

the Minister of Health's speech in 1976? Why should we follow the

leader and fan inflation at the first sign of economic adversity?

Mr.

Speaker, that is the issue before us today in this bill. Are we going

to give a Trudeau credit card to a government, particularly this

government? Are we going to give a credit card to people who have said

one thing and done another? Are we going to give a credit card to a

Premier who has said one thing in February, another totally opposite

thing in July, and now another totally opposite thing in September? Is

that the kind of person, is that the kind of government, we are going

to give carte blanche to, to get future generations of British Columbia

into a debt that will be so exponential — that will increase debt upon

debt with interest charges in the future — that we will never get out

of it? Is that the kind of government we are going to give a credit

card to? We shouldn't give anybody, any government, that credit card,

but least of all the Social Credit administration. It is for that

reason, Mr. Speaker, that I will be voting against this bill.

HON. MR. RICHMOND:

I just want to say a few words in this debate on Bill 86, maybe to

explain and outline just a little bit about where we are and why we are

doing this, and some of the reasons for it, because we certainly didn't

hear any of the reasons from the first member for Vancouver Centre, who

expounded on debt, and the adding of debt upon debt, but who failed to

expound on his leader's desperation offer last week to the UBCM of a

$300 million bail-out. I'll touch on that in a few minutes.

First,

I think people should understand the reasons behind some of the

problems that British Columbia and others throughout the world are

experiencing regarding revenues. During our forest industry's peak

periods, it returns in the neighbourhood of $70 million per month to

this province. That is not an average; $70 million is a peak. In May of

this year the forest industry returned $5 million to the coffers of

this province. I think that speaks for itself. I don't think I have to

expound on why the provincial treasury is in trouble. The forest

industry is in that kind of trouble through no fault of its own. It's

in that kind of trouble because the markets aren't there. There are

signs that the markets are turning around and coming back. Hopefully

that will happen in the not-too-distant future.

I don't have

to add that the mining industry has much the same problem in this

province. Most thinking people are aware that we are a resource-based

economy, and that when there is no market for those resources, or when

the market is down, our economy is in a lot of trouble. Right now mines

such as Highmont in the Highland Valley are losing hundreds of

thousands of dollars per month because of world copper prices. The

management is trying desperately to keep those mines open and the

people working. In some cases they are successful, and in some they're

not. Unfortunately, in the case of Afton mine near Kamloops they were

not. The workers in that mine realize what has happened to world metal

prices. They know that if world metal prices, particularly that for

copper, go up by about 20 cents per pound, they will all be back to

work; if it doesn't, they won't.

I don't think I have to

explain to the average British Columbian the domino effect that takes

place when these industries are in trouble. Not only do we not realize

the revenues from the stumpage and royalties that they pay, but the

payrolls are also missing from the retail market; therefore retail

business is down and the businessman is suffering. I don't have to

explain that to the people in my constituency or yours, I'm sure,

although some members across the floor don't seem to understand it.

They don't understand that gas revenues, which are part of mining, are

down. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) doesn't seem to

understand it. He goes over to the UBCM convention and offers them $300

million as a gift out of future gas revenues — revenues, I might add,

that aren't there, that have not yet been realized. If those revenues

were there, I venture to suggest that we wouldn't be in our present

economic difficulty. He is giving away future sales of British Columbia

Petroleum Corporation to municipalities as a gift, a gift which, I

hasten to add, they were reluctant to receive with open arms. They

already have most of the facilities that were promised. I think they

would prefer that he pick up the operating costs of some of those

facilities, rather than offer to build more.

Bill 86 is

designed to ensure, when and if we have to borrow money for this

province to ensure that vital services are not affected, that we will

be able to plan our borrowing and it will not be a last-minute, panic

situation. Through our Minister of Finance the mechanisms will be in

place for this government to borrow the necessary funds, to ensure that

things like health care and education continue at the level we've

become accustomed to. Yes, we've trimmed a lot of fat out of education

and health services. Through the cooperation of hospital boards and

school boards, etc., we've trimmed about as much as we can; they are

becoming very lean and efficient, as they should be. But we must have

the flexibility to move very quickly if we have to, if revenues

[ Page 9411 ]

continue to stay down or, heaven forbid, if they should fall any further.

Like

my colleague for Omineca, I am not particularly fond of having to

borrow money to operate this province. It doesn't go down easily. I

don't think it does with anyone. I don't think it does when people have

to borrow on a personal basis, and it certainly doesn't when we as the

government have to borrow. But I guess we have to face reality. We have

to face the fact that our forestry and mining revenues are way down,

and that sooner or later we'll have to go to the banks of the world and

borrow some money. If we have to, we will.

Mr. Speaker, this

bill gives us the power to be able to do that. It will be done properly

and in a very planned manner, as is our custom on this side of the

House. It won't be done in the form of $300 million giveaways, offered

as a desperation move, I suggest, to the mayors and aldermen of this

province to garner their support last week. If we have to borrow this

money, it will be done as an investment. It will be done to make sure

that schemes like our mortgage assistance plan can work. That's a plan

which, I might add, is an excellent one, and which, I might also add,

has received very favourable comment in my constituency — hundreds of

phone calls asking about the plan.

Interjection.

HON. MR. RICHMOND:

The opposition spoke against it, but they voted for it, if you'll

recall — as they've done with much of our legislation, Mr. Speaker.

They speak against it, but they vote for it as they did with our

mortgage plan. The phones are ringing in my office asking about the

mortgage plan, because a lot of people want to take advantage of it.

They realize that it's not a handout, that it's not a gift. It's a

helping hand, not a handout. It's a helping hand to help them through a

very difficult period — perhaps the next couple of years — to ease

their mortgage commitments. They don't want us taking from one segment

of taxpayers and giving it to another segment of taxpayers. The last

thing they want is government's hand in their pocket to hand to someone

else.

MR. COCKE: Ask Mr. Chicken to go for an election.

HON. MR. RICHMOND:

The member for New Westminster says: "Let's go for an election." We

will go for an election, I'm sure, and it doesn't really matter to me

when that happens. When we go to an election, the people of British

Columbia will decide who is best able to manage their financial

affairs. All they have to do is look at the record of the members

opposite — both of them; I hasten to point out that there are two of

them sitting opposite with big smiles on their faces. All two of them

are not waving their financial record in the air very highly at the

moment. They're not talking about the Leader of the Opposition's $300

million offer to the UBCM last week. Nobody's talking about it, as a

matter of fact.

The people of this province are fully aware

that this government does not borrow recklessly. If we do, and when we

do, we'll do it properly in a well-planned manner. When we do, we won't

be giving it away to one segment of society after having taken it from

another. I also hasten to point out that if we examine the financial

records of both parties in this House, we'll realize that the NDP have

difficulty managing in good times, let alone in bad times. I'm sure we

all remember the burnper stickers that were prominent around this

province, with good cause, in 1974-75: "Will the last one out please

turn out the lights." I remember what happened to the mining industry

when metal prices were up and the mines were closing down, or having to

high-grade to stay in operation. The mining industry remembers what the

NDP policy was toward mining.

The first member for Vancouver

Centre (Mr. Lauk) mentioned a credit card. Perhaps he's right. Perhaps

this bill could be compared to applying for a credit card, so that when

we require the uses of that card we will have it. Some of us know how

to use credit cards, Mr. Speaker, and some of us don't. As I said, if

we do have to borrow and use our credit card, it will be used wisely.

It will be used to invest in the future of this province, such as our

northeast coal project, which they all speak against, but nobody gets

up and votes against it. I ask the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea)

if he's against it and the Ridley Island coal port. It's an investment

in the future of this province; it's not a liability, as the member for

Vancouver Centre would have us believe. Northeast coal is what will be

paying for social services in this province for generations to come —

for your children, Mr. Speaker, and mine, and theirs too.

MR. COCKE: Not now you're giving it away; it could have been.

HON. MR. RICHMOND:

I suggest that the member for New Westminster look up the prices that

we're getting for northeast coal and compare them with coal prices in

the rest of the world, and then come back and tell us we're giving it

away. We aren't as prone to giving away money, Mr. Speaker, as the

Leader of the Opposition is, who is going to hand out $300 million that

he doesn't have and never will have. He talks about buying up all the

sawmills that are going to close down. They tend to forget that from a

few months ago: "We will buy up all the sawmills if they close down,

and we'll put people to work." People aren't quite that gullible, Mr.

Speaker.

The first member for Vancouver Centre talks about

real jobs. I don't think he knows what real jobs are. You don't buy

real jobs, Mr. Speaker; you invest in this province and the private

sector provides real jobs. You don't buy them with $300 million

promises.

He talks about a horrendous deficit run up by the

Trudeau government in Ottawa, a government that is totally out of

control where spending is concerned. I say that without fear of

contradiction. They budgeted for a $10 billion deficit, and it will now

run to $20 billion, and if that isn't out of control I'd like to know

what is. But I shudder to think how far in debt this province would be

if we ever returned that socialist government to British Columbia. We

would be in debt to the tune of billions of dollars so fast, we'd be in

the same boat as the province of Quebec at this time.

They

talk about their 26-point program. You try to put a figure on it, Mr.

Speaker, and see what that 26-point program would cost. The $300

million that the Leader of the Opposition talked about last week wasn't

even included in that program. That's just a start. They warm up on

$300 million giveaways. That's just the opener; then they get into the

26 points. I tell you, we would be $5 billion in debt in this province

so fast that we would be in the same boat as many other

administrations, not only in this country but around the globe.

[ Page 9412 ]

Mr.

Speaker, Bill 86 is a bill that I suppose none of us like to have to

bring into this House, but we recognize the necessity for it. It is

being done in the proper manner, in a planned fashion, so that if we

have to go to the banks of the world to keep the vital services of this

province operating, we will. If we don't have to, we won't. But at

least the hands of this government and our Minister of Finance will not

be tied; that's something. Secondly, if we do have to borrow money, we

will not give it away or shovel it out of the back of a truck or make

$300 million promises just for starters, as a desperation move leading

up to what I'm sure the Leader of the Opposition deems as an election

just around the corner. That was just his opening shot, that $300

million giveaway.

Mr. Speaker, I am in favour of Bill 86. I am totally behind the policies of this government and this minister.

MR. LORIMER:

Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few things about our last speaker from

Kamloops (Hon. Mr. Richmond). I don't want to spend too much time with

him. He's basically new here and hasn't been around to hear all the

claptrap that has come across from his side of the House over the

years. He has memorized a few slogans that he's heard someone tell him.

He throws them out. Another thing, of course, is that like some of the

others, he's a one-timer — he won't be back so I would like him to

enjoy his stay while he's here.

In any event, he criticized

the proposal made to the Union of B.C. Municipalities with reference to

job-creating opportunities for municipalities to do work with permanent

benefits to the people of the province. It's an investment in the

future. It is not a giveaway by any manner of terms.

What we

are dealing with here is a bill to borrow money, mainly to be used to

pay off interest payments on the deadweight debt that has been

accumulated by this administration through the Crown corporations and

the government.

I know the Minister of Finance is just

carrying the ball for the government. He's the one who is sponsoring

this bill, and when he brought it into the House, he ran down the

corridor to avoid the media. I don't blame him for that. He's been here

long enough to hear all the statements that were made from his side of

the House, and it was a very embarrassing day for him. I don't fault

him one little bit for running down the hallway. I'm sure I would have

done the same thing if I had been in his position. I would have done

the same thing. But then he said that he is not going to use this bill;

he just wants it in his hip pocket; he may want to use it some time in

a great emergency. Then the Premier says that that is not correct. He

says: "No, no, we're going to use it for a housing program" — a housing

program that isn't flying and won't fly, due to the fact that it's not

helping those who need the help. It may help a few people — I'll

concede that point — but by and large....

The member for

Kamloops mentioned that he had received hundreds of phone calls from

people wanting to take advantage of the new proposal. I received some

phone calls as well, but the people who phoned me weren't in need of

mortgage moneys; they were people who took out their pocket calculators

and figured that by putting on a mortgage for $60,000 they could

accumulate $2,500 to $3,000, interest-free, by investing the money in

term deposits or whatever. So they were quite interested in the

program. But surely that is not a mortgage program. A mortgage program

should be one that helps those in need, not those who want to build up

their own private preserves.

The minister is proposing

deficit financing; he is proposing deadweight debt to pay off, in

general, interest on moneys borrowed in the past and to be borrowed in

the future. This is nothing new to this government; this government has

been going in the hole for the last five years. Their receipts don't

match their expenses. As an example, debts of Crown corporations have

increased from somewhere around $4 billion to $8 billion in the last

seven years, and that was during good times. This administration,

through inadequate planning and faulty administration, has brought the

province to its knees. The special funds that have been built up over

the years have been drained dry. The cupboard is bare.

Interjection.

MR. LORIMER:

There's the chatter from that person over there from Kootenay (Mr.

Segarty). He won't be back — he's another one-timer. I hope he enjoys

his stay here as well. The people in Kootenay are not going to support

the policies of this government.

This spendthrift minister,

spendthrift government and spendthrift Premier have blown the

provincial revenues over the good years. They're now in a crunch, and

they have to come out with some solutions. Instead of trusting the

people to assist by giving them an opportunity to go to work, to

increase the revenues of the province, they go back to the old idea,

which has come from Trudeau and his Liberals, of borrowing money.

MacEachen would have been proud of this bill. There's no difference

between the fiscal policies of this government and those of the Trudeau

Liberals. They borrow their way out of problems. It's obvious to me

that the Liberal rump group in this coalition has taken control, and

we're seeing a repetition of the financial policies of the Trudeau

Liberals.

From the other side we hear a lot of statements

about how fiscally irresponsible the federal people are and how much

debt they have, but when you work out the per capita debt in this

province, B.C. isn't very far behind the federal government. So their

policies aren't much different.

The member for Omineca (Mr.

Kempf) has a hard time supporting this kind of legislation. I have some

quotes from a speech he made in 1976, I believe it was.

MR. KEMPF: You've already read it, but go ahead and read it again! It was a good speech.

MR. LORIMER:

I got a great amount of amusement.... I didn't know my colleague was

going to read this, but there's one part that can bear repeating. He

said: "To borrow for the payment of back debts is like having to pay

for a horse that has already passed away."

MR. KEMPF: Right!

MR. LORIMER:

That's exactly right, and that's what we're doing in this bill. We're

going to be borrowing to pay for a horse that's already passed away.

That

member spoke for some time on Friday on Monday and had a different

tune. It's Two Story Jack again. He doesn't speak the same way in 1982

as he did in 1976.

The trouble with this is the fiscal

irresponsibility of this government over the past seven years. Here we

have extensive long-term borrowings being given to the cabinet; then we

have this old slogan we used to hear time after time: "Not

[ Page 9413 ]

dime without debate." But what are they proposing here? They're

proposing that borrowings take place in the secrecy of the cabinet

room, with no accountability, no suggestion of any program or plan as

to how and when that money is to be repaid. It's just a shot in the

dark. "Trust us," they say. We find that very difficult.

What

will they do with this money? True enough, they may use some of the

money to reopen the hospital wards that were closed because of their

mismanagement. They may bail out education, and dump the minister. They

may borrow their way back to power; that's the main project of this

whole operation. If successful, after the election, what will we see?

We'll see the hospital wards closed again. We'll see them dump on

education, and we'll see the province closed down once more. It's a

plan to borrow their way back into power, if possible. They're asking

for a blank cheque. They're saying: "Trust us. We want to borrow money.

We're not going to tell you how much. We're not going to tell you how

we're going to spend it. We're not going to tell you how we're going to

repay this money."

There's no accountability here. How is

the Legislature ever going to find out what the money has been used

for, how much has been borrowed, or what the situation is? True enough,

there will be some report a year and a half after the event, which

might be reviewed at that time, but where the money has gone will be

very hard to trace. Again, I say that a province that lived through six

years of plenty should have put aside some funds for a rainy day. They

had warnings of the world economic slump — there were lots of warnings

— but no action was taken to cushion the blow to the people of this

province.

The Minister of Industry and Small Business

Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) said that this depression was only a

hiccup and that it would go away. The Premier said that this bill was

just a safety valve. So here we have a safety valve for a hiccup in

this legislation. But we're not prepared to give a blank cheque to this

government, to the minister in charge, to the Premier, or to the

cabinet. As a result of this type of legislation, as the result of the

mismanagement over the years, the people of this province are going to

react at the ballot box and the Social Credit Party will lose power. In

a few short years it will disappear from the provincial scene and

probably from the whole of Canada. Social Credit was born in a

depression and it's going to die in a depression. I think it's about

time that the government acknowledged the fact that they're incapable

of managing the affairs of this province during this period. They

should step aside and let some other government take over, a government

that has some faith in the people of this province, a government that

given half a chance.... The people of this province will lift the

economy by its bootstraps and get the province moving again.

The

Premier has been suggesting that there's going to be an election in the

next few days, but again the government is unable to make up its mind.

The government cannot make a decision; that is one of the big faults of

this government. So we're hedging around.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's chicken.

MR. LORIMER:

Well, the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) said that the

cabinet and the Premier were gutless. You know, he doesn't know what to

do about this election call. He would like to call the election, but

he's afraid to call the election; he can't make up his mind. I think

the terms used by the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) are

becoming more apt every day. I would welcome the opportunity to go to

the people of this province to tell them the way it is — not that they

need much telling; they know the way it is. After the next election

we'll see a lot of new faces in this Legislature.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I wonder if it would be too much to ask that this debate continue without interjections being offered.

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

The member for Burnaby Willingdon never ceases to amaze me. He creeps

into the House every once in a while and gives an address that someone

has written for him, which is not really related to what is taking

place, then sits down and carries on out of the Legislature. On Bill

86, Financial Administration Amendment Act, 1982, I was quite amused at

some of the comments made by the member who just spoke. He said, for

example, that the people of British Columbia will never know for what

purposes these moneys were expended, if indeed they have to be

borrowed. If the member were to look at the legislation before us, I

think he would realize that any authorized borrowing that may be

provided for by this amendment can only be used to pay for expenditures

already authorized by the Legislature of British Columbia. He seems to

think that this government would go on some wild spending spree, such

as happened in British Columbia between 1972 and 1975. The bill clearly

provides only for moneys needed to support those programs and

expenditures which have already been authorized by the Legislative

Assembly, and for nothing else.

The members opposite voted

against the restraint program. On February 18, when the restraint

program was first announced by the Premier, they, came out against it.

They don't want to have restraint in government spending. However, we

have to have restraint in government spending. In spite of all the

restraint we've imposed, the careful monitoring of expenditures by this

government and the paring back of programs where appropriate, it may be

that there are not sufficient funds available to support the essential

programs that must be carried out. This bill will authorize money for

that purpose only, for purposes that have been — I'll say it again —

previously authorized by this Legislative Assembly and the government

of British Columbia.

The members opposite have said that

they are for our housing mortgage-relief program. Yet they are voting

against one of the measures that will probably be necessary to fund

this program until bond issues can be placed by the government. So they

are for the housing mortgage-relief program, but at the same time they

are against the means whereby that program can be put into effect at a

very early date.

I well remember the period when that member

was on the government benches. I well remember having long

conversations with his brother. Mr. Mal Lorimer, who is a very

prominent mining geologist in British Columbia. I well remember a

statement by his brother, and a letter, which was carried by newspapers

in British Columbia. He pleaded with the people of British Columbia:

"Please, send my brother back to the practice of law so that I can

again get back to the practice of mining engineering and geology in

this province." His brother is indeed an astute person.

[ Page 9414 ]

MR. LORIMER: Well. they didn't listen to him, eh?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: You came back — by some means.

was even more amazed by the lesson in economics given to us by the

first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), who only a short time ago

predicted the demise of the the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, and

caused a run on the deposits of that bank and a selloff of its shares

through irresponsible statements made here in these chambers. That

member stands in this House and attempts to give the people of British

Columbia a lesson in economics!

Interjection.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I'm speaking of the bill. Why don't you heckle from your own seat? Now you go back over to your own seat.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Order, please. Perhaps we could return to the principle of Bill 86 and

avoid — and I commend this to all members — personal allusions to other

members.

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

have any objection to that member heckling me, but if he would only do

it from his own seat it would be in order.

It seems strange

that during the debate that has taken place up until now on this bill,

some of which I'm responding to, the members opposite are trying

somehow to tie this government to the ineptitude that is in existence

today in Ottawa. All the things they say are in some way trying to tie

us to the falling star of the Liberal Party — the liberal socialists in

Ottawa. Every time the members of this government objected to policies

brought about by the Liberal government in Ottawa during the last

several years, what did we hear? We heard Ottawa-bashing and

Canada-bashing. At that time they were saying we should not object to

the policies of the federal Liberals, because that was Canada-bashing

and Ottawa-bashing. Now, at the same time, they're trying somehow, with

their distorted logic, to tie us to the fiscal policies of that

government. They're bringing up the economic pack, age which was

presented by this government to Ottawa in 1978, a very comprehensive

attempted to recognize the realities of what is happening in this

country, brought about largely by excessive government spending. That

paper dealt mainly with that subject. It tried to encourage the

realistic and meaningful fiscal and monetary policies in this country.

That series of books was five or six volumes in length, and somewhere

in that book it mentioned interest rates, and all of a sudden the only

thing they can draw from that whole package — out of context — is the

fact that something was said about interest rates.

Mr.

Speaker, this bill is necessary. It's necessary after all of the

constraint and paring back of government programs which we have had to

do, at times at great political expense.... In a fiscally responsible

manner we have pared the expenditures of this government to the bone.

We have had to cut back on many services, which perhaps at better times

are affordable but which now have to be very closely scrutinized, and

expenditures have to be monitored in very great detail indeed. In spite

of these constraint measures, which the opposition were against, it may

be necessary on a short-term basis to borrow money to put into place

those programs which will help the province of British Columbia recover

from this very serious recession we have been in for the better part of

a year.

The members opposite say that in some way we must

shut down all those projects which are underway in British Columbia and

are creating thousands and thousands of jobs today in British Columbia.

We must shut those down so the measure proposed in this bill won't be

necessary. They say, for example: "Turn off the northeast coal." I

would challenge those members to go up to that part of British

Columbia, where today there are thousands of British Columbians

employed directly in the development of that tremendous resource, and

even more thousands working in service and supply industries as a

result of that resource development. I challenge these members to go

out of this Legislature — to an election, if that's the way it would be

— and to tell the people of British Columbia that those people don't

deserve to have work because the NDP don't think they deserve jobs.

Mr.

Speaker, this bill will help get some of the programs for economic

recovery off the ground at a much earlier stage than might otherwise be

possible. The assistance is needed now. The people who are having

difficulty with their mortgage interest rates and who may want to take

part in the mortgage assistance program need the money now. For a short

term some of these funds may be necessary. There will be no wild

spending sprees, as suggested by the members opposite. Because they

operate by shovelling money out of the back of a truck, they seem to

think that is the way every government should operate. For example,

they suggest that we borrow $300 million from the B.C. Petroleum

Corporation and give it away for the purpose of creating some

short-term jobs on unnecessary projects throughout the communities in

British Columbia. That $300 million, if it should be available at some

future time from the B.C. Petroleum Corporation, is already committed

to the ongoing programs of this government. That is part of the general

revenue base that this government has to meet ongoing and future

commitments. By borrowing that money now and spending it now or

sometime in the future, they would be faced with the problem of what

services to cut or where to borrow money from elsewhere to make up the

money they removed from general revenue.

The Minister of

Finance needs this safety valve. He needs this means of putting into

force those programs needed now in British Columbia. He can borrow

these moneys only for the purpose of supporting expenditures already

authorized by the Legislature of this province.

Mr. Speaker,

I have no hesitation whatsoever in fully supporting this bill. I wish

the Minister of Finance well in the use of it should it be necessary.

MR. COCKE:

I'm very interested in this bill. This is a revolutionary bill in our

province, an entirely new approach for the Socreds. I'm surprised at

their earth-shaking method of doing what they've done. They've said to

the Legislature: "Give us carte blanche. Give us an unlimited credit

card. Give us everything we want. Let us make all the decisions behind

closed doors." The Minister of Energy and Mines talks about the

mortgage plan that he hints already has authority from this House. It

hasn't.

Interjection.

[ Page 9415 ]

MR. COCKE: Oh, I keep forgetting the Minister of Forests. You make so little impression that it's very difficult to remember what you do.

What

we are asking for from this side of the House is accountability. That

group over there went from one end of this province to the other

crying, "Not a dime without debate." Now they want the opposition to

lie down and play dead while we give the Minister of Finance and the

Premier of this province a cheque book with unlimited authority to

spend.

They talk about NDP spending. We have sat in this

Legislature over the last six and a half years, and what have we seen?

We've seen Crown corporations borrowing money like you wouldn't

believe, with no precedent as far as I can recall. My colleague says

they're up to $8 billion in borrowings. I think it's closer to $10

billion, and it's probably between $10 and $11 billion. When the NDP

left power it was $4 billion. You talk about shovelling money out the

back of a truck. They've used a drag line; they've used a bulldozer to

push money around. Now they're trying to bulldoze the opposition into

giving them the kind of unlimited authority that no government

deserves. Every government that's had it has proven unable to cope with

it. Look at Pierre. It's getting to the point where there's quite a

truism; if you like Trudeau, you're going to love Bennett. That's about

the situation here. It is incredible. Here they are, trying somehow to

pull themselves away from their federal brothers and sisters. They know

perfectly well.... When they attracted all those Liberals into that

cabinet and into that side of the House, we knew perfectly well exactly

what was going to happen. They would be the messenger in the west for

that great white knight in the east.

I suggest that you have

to think about this very seriously. They talk about northeast coal and

the thousands and thousands of jobs that are up there. They don't count

the thousands and thousands of health care workers who have been laid

off in this province since the Minister of Finance, the Premier and the

Health minister decided to move in on the hospitals and the health

industry. This "restraint" program isn't something new. They started a

year ago April. Who are the first people they moved in on? Home care.

Home care is an area where they should have been really spending money

because that reduces the overall expenditures in the Health department.

But no, that's where they had to go.

Mr. Speaker, I say that a government in our own budgetary system.... Forget

about the Crown corporations: we have gone through, we have spent, $950 million

from our reserves over the past six years. They've gouged every special

fund that this province had — funds which incidentally were increased while

the NDP were in power — and they're spending it. They've been on a wild

spending spree, but in the wrong areas. The Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland)

talks about northeast coal. We don't disagree with the orderly development

of northeast coal. What we do disagree with is the totally thoughtless way they

went in there. The Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon.

Mr. Phillips) in this province obviously has a very close kinship with the Premier.

He said, "Look, I want to get in there and I want to develop that regardless,

and it's got to be done this parliament. Don't bother to look at whether

or not the Japanese are going to need it; don't worry about whether or not

the people of our province have to pick up the tab" — which is what they're

doing.

The

Minister of Finance smiles. I'll bet he's frowning behind that smile.

How would you like to be a minister of finance in a province where the

railway is in such deep debt, and you're going to use some of this

money that we'll be giving you authority for to bail out that poor old

British Columbia Railway. Tell us the annual interest that you've

already developed just on the subsidy of northeast coal, and why we are

subsidizing it. If we were subsidizing it for jobs for people in B.C.,

good on you. But how much of the contracting has gone outside this

province? It's got to be the most regrettable thing that I've heard:

boats being built away from Canada, great portions of the engineering

going outside of Canada, the actual work going to contractors outside

of Canada. It's a bit of a disaster. And what are we doing in the long

run? We are subsidizing Japan, one of the richest nations in the

western world. We're subsidizing their steel industry.

The

Minister of Finance comes in here confidently, hands in his pockets,

and says: "I expect you guys to vote me unlimited borrowing authority."

I'm afraid we can't do that. When the member for Vancouver Centre

talked about a credit card, be wasn't talking about the kind of credit

card that you and I might have. He was talking about an unlimited

credit card. Borrowing authority is one thing, but when you seek to

borrow an unlimited amount for an unlimited time, it strikes me that

there's a bit of trouble abroad. I suggest that when the voters in this

province........ Don't forget that part of this is supposed to be job

creating and so on and so forth. Heaven only knows that people just

keep getting laid off. We've got 250,000, 300,000 people out of work,

and this is the answer? Job creating. Remember when the Minister of

Forests was first elected? He, like many others, had a bumper strip on

his truck that read: "Work with Bill." I ask the question: How do you

like it so far?

MR. RITCHIE: Let's get to work.

MR. COCKE:

Yes, let's get to work. The reason we should be helping is that there

are so many people out of work. "Let's get to work," that member says.

I say yes, lets get to work. Why don't we come in here and do something

constructive? The first week we discussed another employment program, a

program aimed at electing another seven members to this assembly.

That's an employment program, hopefully, the government says, to employ

a few more Socreds. What we need, Mr. Speaker, is something finite — a

Minister of Finance and a First Minister who will come in here and

present actual programs to provide confidence in this province. Those

members over there pooh-poohing the Leader of the Opposition....

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Order! No interjections, please. Perhaps we could avoid interjections

if all members participating in the debate spoke to the principle of

the bill.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, the member's

indicating that the Leader of the Opposition was talking about

borrowing from future revenues of the Petroleum Corporation and

providing $300 million for job creation. It was this party that set up

that Petroleum Corporation. I ask you....

Interjection.

[ Page 9416 ]

MR. COCKE:

That's right. We were getting no revenue, not a nickel, from the

natural gas sales from this province. You were giving it away to the

United States for 30 cents per 1,000 cubic feet.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Come on!

MR. COCKE:

Don't say: "Come on!" We drove the price up to 90 cents and then to

$1.15. What has been the result of that one move the NDP made when we

were in government? We have produced $1.2 billion of revenue for this

province in the past seven years. Not bad!

Mr. Speaker, they

continually carp and harp about 1972-75. The fact is they are

embarrassed about that time. Yes, the gross national product was up

during that period — over and above what it had been during previous

years and over and above what it has been since.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: That's right, no mess at all. You see, Mr. Speaker, that member says it again.

You

know, Goering used to use this old system: if you tell it often enough

it's believed. Franklin Delano Roosevelt said that telling something

often enough doesn't necessarily make it the truth. That's exactly what

those members know: it's not the truth; it's not in the records. It's a

phony record. However, the record stands now, showing that this

government is indictable, for heaven's sake. They have thrown it away

over the last few years.

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Order, hon. members, please. First of all, the member for Central

Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie) will not interject, and I would ask the

hon. member for New Westminster to stick to the bill and to please use

parliamentary terms when referring to other members of the Legislative

Assembly.

MR. COCKE: What was unparliamentary, Mr. Speaker?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: There was reference, as I understood it...maybe a personal reflection on another hon. member. I may have been mistaken.

MR. COCKE: With respect, I believe you were.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: If the member could return to the bill, it would be appreciated.

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Speaker, I'd just like to draw to the attention of the members that

the GPP in our province in 1974-75 was 17.4 percent. Under the former

administration it grew, on an average, 10.9 percent; then the new

administration took over and it grew at 13.2 percent — until now. Lord

knows where it is going now.

Mr. Speaker, just because that

group has gone out and indicated that something mystical or mysterious

happened during the 1972-75 period doesn't make it true. What happened

was the best administration this province has seen. If you don't

believe that, go check with the health-care people, with the educators,

with the people who have been highly involved in people industries and

people businesses. That's where our priority was — not building

monuments, not subsidization for subsidization's sake, not giving our

Crown corporations a carte blanche to go anywhere there want and do

anything they want. I believe that the authorization that we've been

asked to vote for here is unnecessary. I believe that the government

should be asking for limited borrowing authority. I believe that they

should be asking for authority that will provide that there's a time

limit and a spending limit. I believe that they should bring in

concurrently programs telling us exactly what they're going to do with

the money.

The Premier says it will put a little into the

mortgage interest program, the one that's bound to help the rich. It's

not going to provide any jobs, but that's okay. The Minister of

Finance, on the other hand, says it's going to be used for daily

expenditures — possibly. He doesn't really know for sure, but it's nice

to have it in your pocket.

MR. MACDONALD: He wants something on his hip.

MR. COCKE:

He wants it in his hip pocket. Holy doodle, isn't that really

something! If anybody should know, it's the member for Dewdney (Mr.

Mussallem), that fantastic businessman. There's no way that he would

give his son and heir, and the guy who's running his business,

unlimited borrowing authority. Yet he's asking us in this chamber to

give the Minister of Finance and the Premier, both of whom have proven

to be wastrels, unlimited borrowing authority. I can't believe it. I

continue to be mystified. I have heard for so many years that the

Socreds will not borrow.

We know how they've done it up to

now. They've moved public works out of the mandate of the Legislature

and made it a Crown Corporation. Now we call it B.C. Buildings

Corporation, so they can borrow. We moved computers out of the normal

legislative purview and we built a B.C. Systems Corporation, so they

can borrow. Hydro borrows; B.C. Rail borrows; they all borrow. And they

have been borrowing us into the ground. If the track record of that

government were really, truly known, they'd look worse per capita than

the Libs in Ottawa. They talk about this $20 billion deficit. What

about our $10 billion debt, right here in our province?

You

know something, old W.A.C. had a magical way of dealing with things.

When is a debt not a debt? It's not a debt when you sign, co-sign or

whatever, as long as it isn't directly a debt to the Legislature.

Contingent liability, my friend: that's when a debt isn't a debt. I

listened to him talk about that situation — when a debt is not a debt

and so on. It always confused me somehow, because I know the people in

British Columbia are going to have to pay for it. Maybe not in this

generation, but some generation is going to have to pay for it.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Now

I'll tell you when a debt is a debt. They're going to have to admit

that a debt is a debt now, because it's no longer a contingent

liability. The Minister of Finance and the Premier have asked us to

give them a nice sharp pen and a chequebook; all they have to do is

keep writing cheques. The kind of cheques they write are a little

different. They're called treasury bills. They go down to the basement,

crank up the old machine and it's just like printing money — isn't it,

Mr. Minister of Finance? After a while you kind of get used to printing

money. Why didn't he come in here and say: "Look, I need borrowing

authority for a specific period, for a specific amount"? Then, if down

the road times are still tough, come

[ Page 9417 ]

back.

But don't just come in here, change the entire history of our province,

change the entire course of financing in our province and expect us to

be ecstatic about it.

We believe there should be fiscal

responsibility. That's all we're saying in this debate — nothing more,

nothing less; just a little fiscal responsibility. That is not what

we're seeing.

The new Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr.

Richmond) got up supporting this bill. And he got out of here as

quickly as he could after doing so. He got up supporting the bill and

told us it was just for a short term. Well, you know, if I went to my

colleague, the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) and

said, "I'd like to borrow 50 bucks," he would probably say: "Sure." But

he'd like to know when he was going to get it back.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE:

He wouldn't loan it to me. He says my credit is no good. In any event,

Mr. Speaker, should he? I would suggest that there would very likely be

some kind of an agreement about time. What we the opposition would like

to know is: when are you going to pay it back, or are we going to be

forever in debt as a result of this unlimited borrowing authority?

That's the way it looks to me.

I've heard all the speakers

from the government side What have they said? "We need it. We're not

quite sure why." Some are sort of in league with the Minister of

Finance and some are sort of in league with the first minister, who

can't decide between themselves why they need it. One needs it to

finance a program, although he was going to sell "Billy bonds" for that

program. I guess the market might be a little bit shaky at the present

time, because he is the same person, we'll all remember, who went out

there and gave away assets — $450 million worth of assets that the NDP

had accumulated for this province — and made them into BCRIC. We sure

got BCRICed. This is the same Premier who told us he would teach us how

the free enterprise, capitalist system works in terms of the stock

market. Well, we found out. Now he's saying, on the one hand, that he's

going to finance some borrowing directly from the people, in terms of

bonds, and the Minister of Finance comes in here, on the other hand,

and asks us to give him borrowing authority direct. That's a little

different. Those are treasury bills.

I don't think that

I need go on too much longer. I don't believe there's anybody in this

House who's comfortable with this bill...

MR. RITCHIE: Well, I am.

MR.COCKE: ...except

the member for Central Fraser Valley, who says he is comfortable with

the bill. Do you know where he would like to be right now? He'd like to

be under that rock whence he came. No, sir, Mr. Speaker, this is a bill

that is bad news for everybody in our province. I presume that that

member is Just as embarrassed as everybody else.

Take this

bill back, redraft it, bring it in here with some constraints — time,

amounts — and we'll look at it. But we'd also love to know what you're

going to do with the dollars. Oh, the Minister of Finance is going to

tell you. It will all come back to the Legislature. Sure, after it is a

fait accompli. That has got to be a tradition with this government:

"Bring it back after we've done it," and ask for parliamentary

approval. What are their expectations of an opposition? What do they

expect from us?

MR. RITCHIE: Not very much.

MR. COCKE:

The member for Central Fraser Valley is extremely nervous. Listen to

him. He's sitting there, cackling, chortling and nothing, of course, in

defence of this.

I remember when the then member from the

Conservative Party and I were on a particular radio program in 1975,

that his prediction was right. I'm going to make the same prediction to

him now, and mine will be right. When Mr. Premier decides to call an

election, when he comes out of that maze that he's created — all that

money he spent on pre-election...government money that we're asked to

authorize right now.... Don't forget that every one of those ads and

every one of those glossy brochures going out to the people of this

province is going to be paid for out of the debt we're creating in this

bill.

That minister made a prediction in 1975, and it came

true. I make the same prediction now, only the reverse. You're out of

luck. The government has lost its credibility. It's no longer a

government; it's a group of people running from crisis to crisis,

trying to put out fires they've been lighting all through their term of

office. Mr. Speaker, it's time for an election. I hope we have it soon.

I hope the Premier comes out of his office, whips up to the

Lieutenant-Governor's, grabs the writ and gives the people of B.C. a

break.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Speaker, we have here a

bill that is magnificent in its simplicity. Very seldom in the House do

we see a bill that means so much put in such few words. It merely

places the government's position before the public of British Columbia.

Borrowing

money for operation expenses, as this House knows, is more than

repugnant to this party; we like it not in the least. But we are

travelling in dangerous times through uncharted seas. The science of

economics has fallen apart on almost every front; great pundits speak

one day and change what they say the following week; the confidence of

the public has been shattered by statements almost daily from people in

high places, It is more the lack of confidence than the facts that

plagues our society. Ninety percent of the people in British Columbia

are employed, at the highest wages in history. Five percent

unemployment is practically 100 percent employment. In fact, we have

merely 5 to 6 percent unemployment above the regular level, yet we have

a shattering lack of confidence.

I was very pleased to

receive a letter from John Cleghorn, senior vice-president and general

manager of the Royal Bank of Canada. He says: "With all the doom and

gloom around these days, I thought you might appreciate the message of'

confidence in our country's future contained in the attached Royal Bank Letter ."

AN HON. MEMBER: It's a good newsletter,

MR. MUSSALLEM: Yes, a good newsletter. It tells a story of confidence.

One

little point interested me very much: "The Chinese write the word

'crisis' with two characters. One means 'danger,' the other means

'opportunity.'" I thought that was magnificent: a time of crisis is a

time of opportunity. That's

[ Page 9418 ]

where

we find ourselves today. Our problem is that we do not know where we

are turning. The seas are uncharted, the way is dark, and none of us

knows the path.

Right now, as I speak to you, there come to

me the words of King George VI, of honoured memory. In sending a New

Year's message to the people, he said: "I said to the man that stood at

the gates of the year, 'Give me a light, that I may see into the

unknown.'" It was a time of war, and we had just such a crisis. We did

not know which way the war would go. He asked for a light, and the

reply was: "Put your hand in the hand of God. That will be better to

you than light, and safer than the known way." I think those are

magnificent words, and they tell the story today.

Borrowing

money, as established in this bill, is repugnant to our party, but we

must be ready for any eventuality. The Minister of Finance has shared

with the public our financial condition by issuing a quarterly report

for everybody to read. B.C. is doing remarkably well in the face of the

problems of the rest of the world, the rest of North America and the

rest of Canada; yet the situation is unknown. So this bill allows the

Minister of Finance to borrow if necessary. That's what the bill

clearly states: to borrow if necessary. But he must not be hampered or

tied; he must move when it's necessary to move. That's what this bill

asks for. All the words we've heard from the opposition, but they seem

to have lost the main point.

The bill is very little

different from the act it amends. The member for New Westminster (Mr.

Cocke) said the Minister of Finance can borrow anything he wants

without telling anybody. That's not true. The bill clearly says that he

must report to this House within 15 days if it's sitting, or within 15

days after the House first sits, exactly what he borrowed, and what he

borrowed it for. But he must not be tied and hampered in the management

of this province, because it's too important that he move quickly,

without delay and without any restraints. Our party does not like

borrowing for operating costs. It is repugnant to us in the full.

The

minister and the government have tried to put in programs of restraint.

We find difficulty there, however, because we insist that education and

health shall be the highest priority. In doing so, we have asked these

two great facets of our economy to work with restraint, which they are

doing. We are meeting some conditions, some obstacles and problems,

ones not of their making, but the problem of maintaining a high level

of service. A high level of service is being maintained in health and

in schools. Some have been misinterpreted, but we are still asking for

restraint. We want to hold back on any spending that is not absolutely

essential. If restraint works, no borrowing will be necessary. But we

cannot allow health or education to deteriorate; we must keep their

standards high. We must have as much restraint as possible, but it may

not be possible to have sufficient restraint to meet the budget. It may

require additional spending.

Forestry: There are cracks in

the system. You find a light in the tunnel, a small light. In forestry

there was 37 percent unemployed. That's a lot of people unemployed in

forestry. I noticed in a recent report — in fact, the Minister of

Forests said so in this House — that it's gone to 29 percent in the

course of the last six weeks. There's an opening in forestry. There's a

return to business in British Columbia a little bit.

recommend to this House that it read this recent Royal Bank newsletter

— Volume 63, No. 5, September-October 82, "A question of Confidence":

"Confidence, it is said, is a plant of slow growth that

withers easily in a climate of slow growth in the economy. It comes in several

different varieties, the hardiest of which is a cross between faith and hope.

Here we examine it and consider the question that has been on everybody's

mind lately: just what have we got to be confident about?"

This

letter goes on to say what we have to be confident about. It tells

about our forefathers who came to this country and hewed their homes

out of the forest, with nothing but confidence. They built their homes

and their families. They risked all they had to wrestle the reserves

out of the ground, out of the mountains and the trees, the resources of

this country. We speak of the great natural resources of Canada. We

speak of our forests, our seas, our fresh water. None of these has any

value unless the people have confidence, unless they go out and get

them to work for mankind.

That's the story of confidence,

and that's what we are lacking in our society today. The letter goes on

to say that confidence is lower now than it's been since 1866. In the

words of Bruce Hutchison, "Let us confess the truth. In self-confidence

alone we have gone downhill since 1867." That's what he said and I

think it's true. This nation was founded on boldness. That is something

we do not have. We do not have the boldness necessary to wrestle with

this recession. The banks of our nation are bursting with money that is

in savings accounts. People have money they will not spend to keep the

wheels of industry in motion. We lack boldness. The nation was founded

on boldness, but we lack the boldness that is necessary.

The

future is there for us to grasp, but we prefer today not to realize

that. I commend to this House this excellent Royal Bank letter. If the

people of British Columbia would pick up this letter and act on what it

says, and take it to heart, the session would be over in a day. It

takes confidence. The mills will work; they have the confidence to

work. The mines would open up and sell their product. Secondary

industry would start moving again. Stores would be busier; people would

buy new clothes. All these things would happen with confidence alone.

We have the money and the resources; we have the people — customers

offshore and in the United States. Yet we have failed to grasp the

opportunity, because we are afraid of the future. Your forefathers were

not afraid of the future; they grasped the future and built on it. They

built this nation to what it is today. In the midst of plenty, with an

economy that is rich in every way.... Customers want our goods, yet

will not buy them because we're not out there to sell. It is the duty

of every British Columbian to be confident of the future.

have some great programs. The government has some tremendously

effective programs. The Small Business Development Act will encourage

people to develop and construct, to have new ideas.

friends, I want to tell you a short story about a new idea. World War

II came and the Allies were in trouble. The German blitzkrieg had

practically walked over Europe. In due course the Japanese were moving

through Asia, and we thought we were next. One great cry went up. "What

happened?" There was no rubber. The plantations of Borneo and South

America, where the rubber normally came from, had dried up. We needed

rubber and we had none. So one little guy developed an idea for a

substitute for rubber. It was impossible to develop synthetic rubber in

sufficient quantities for the armies of the Allies. Neoprene was

developed and mass-produced. It wasn't a new idea, but it was a new

[ Page 9419 ]

idea for production. The development of neoprene actually won the war. Without rubber the machine would not run.

Let

us not talk about the war. What happened to neoprene after the war?

Today all of our automobiles and computers, the great tractors, the

airplanes.... It's the neoprene seal, developed during the war, that

made all these things possible. The jet engine: without neoprene seals

it wouldn't operate. Your automobile: without neoprene seals it would

have to be lubricated once every 30 days. Now you can run a car for

5,000 miles without lubrication. Imagination is what happened.

Imagination is what we need.

The jet engine was developed.

Everybody knew about the jet engine, but what good was it? It used too

much fuel because there was too much air resistance. Some bright person

decided to take that airplane higher into the stratosphere. So they

developed an airtight airplane. They had atmospheric pressure in the

airplane, so they could fly at 30,000 to 50,000 feet. That was

engineering. It was confidence. That's what we need today. We need the

confidence of the people. We need planning. We need initiative. We need

people to go out and sell. I tell the lumber barons....

Maybe

they're doing it. Why don't they go out and sell the stuff? What about

our mines? I have to give this government credit for northeast coal.

What a tremendous production that is. We were assailed by the

opposition; we're still being assailed.

Today I heard the

member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) say: "You know, we're not

fighting you too hard over northeast coal; we only fight the way you

are doing it." It was only a year ago that they said it was a disaster,

that it wouldn't fly, and that it wouldn't work. It is going to be

money for the people of British Columbia. It will take a year, maybe

two, but northeast coal is going to be one of our greatest assets: coal

for Asia; coal for Japan; coal to keep the furnaces of industry working.

There

is a country that is different. When you heard of a thing being

Japanese, it was considered to be useless to begin with; if it was made

in Japan, it was useless. But what happened? Was it the Japanese who

suddenly got smart? They were just as smart fifty or a hundred years

ago as they are today; they're no smarter. Where did they learn? They

learned from the American Marshall Plan, which showed the Japanese how

to mass produce. The Japanese are smart. They are producing automobiles

and industrial equipment. They're beating the dickens out of the North

American auto and heavy-industry manufacturers. Are we beaten? No. It

was said that the American government was asking for restraints on

automobile production. They wanted to cut down on Japanese imports. Mr.

lacocco of Chrysler Corp. said: "No, we do not want to cut down on the

importing of Japanese automobiles. We want to beat them at their own

game. We want to build a better product." That's what they're doing,

and that's what General Motors and Ford are doing. They are building a

much better product. We have a better product today, but it took us a

number of years.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Where

did they learn? They learned from the Americans who went over on the

Marshall Plan and showed them how to produce. There's a country without

resources that has to import practically everything to their own

shores. All they have is individuals with the will to work, and that's

another thing that we don't have — the will to work. We want to know

how little we can do for as much as we can get, and that's what's

killing us. The Americans are learning. They see their flag flying, and

they are proud of their country and their flag, yet we're prepared to

sit down and say: "Oh, well, somebody somewhere will save us." The

automobile manufacturers in Windsor — General Motors, Ford and Chrysler

— refused to take a cut in wages to get production,

whereas their

American brothers did.

I'm on the bill, Mr. Speaker, but I'm

speaking on confidence. Mr. Speaker, you must understand that the

principle of this bill is a very wide-ranging one. The principle is

confidence and the ability to meet the challenge of what this

government is doing. Do I make myself clear? I give these examples of

what can be done, what industry is doing, but what we're not doing in

Canada. If we do these things in Canada we can sell our products; we

can make it so we do not need to borrow any more. As I said, borrowing

is repugnant to us, but we will have to borrow unless we can change the

current of events.

Only a few days ago, the hon. Leader of

the Opposition said: "If we we're elected" — may it never happen — "we

would get $300 million, and we would give it away to the public." Mayor

Tonn, president of the Union of B.C. Municipalities, replied: "That's a

gift we don't need. That gift is something we can build a stadium or

municipal buildings with, but after we build them who is going to look

after them?" He said: "It would be a load on the public." That's the

difference between our system and what the opposition is talking about.

They're talking about deadweight giveaways. We're talking about

business principles that prime the pump: the Small Business Development

Act and the Rate Increases Restraint Act, holding the Crown

corporations to a level of increase. Those things are the way the

minister is saying.... It's money we may never have to borrow, but if

we must borrow. the bill must be there for that purpose.

just want to say that we look forward.... That sad opposition, Mr.

Speaker — and I say it in the kindest way I know how.... The whole

attitude of this debate has been to hunt down and destroy, with not one

constructive idea of what can be done to save our economy, not one idea

to tell us which way we should go. In a thing like this we should be

together. They should be supporting the government on this bill. This

is a bill where they should say: "Yes, this is necessary. We do not

approve of borrowing either."

HON. MR. LOCKSTEAD: Not a dime without debate.

MR. MUSSALLEM: We are debating it now.

The world conditions are such that we do not know the future — no one does.

If we could get people, the public and the pundits, talking, as is laid out

in this Royal Bank letter of October 1982.... If we could get a few of the

pundits in British Columbia alone talking like that, I want to tell you, Mr.

Speaker, the depression — if you call it that — or recession, whatever you choose,

would be over. Interest rates would come down and the confidence of the

people would be back to where it should be.

think that a time of crisis is the time to grasp the future, and we can

do it. We can do it with the programs that we have in place now, but it

takes time for these programs to take hold. It's a time for

cooperation. We must all cooperate together to develop our economy and

move our province ahead by positive action. The bill is there as a

measure for the Minister of Finance to borrow money if he wishes, if he

needs to and

[ Page 9420 ]

must,

but with the hope that we do not ever need it. It need not be so if we

get together and, as a parliament, move forward as a single person to

develop British Columbia as the province is entitled to be developed —

as it may be and as it can be. This is not a time for division. There

should be no need of division here. We should be together in this one

great purpose, to meet the challenge which we find ourselves in.

have the answers in our government. The Homeowner Interest Assistance

Act is another one to help the people who own homes with heavy

mortgages — people who have been living in fear of for the past year —

to meet their problems and be able to pay the mortgages. Those building

new houses will be able to buy homes at a lower interest rate. But it

is not a giveaway. You see the beauty of our system: it is not a

giveaway. I'm amazed at that thinking. It will be paid back, but it

helps out for the time of crisis. When the people are in crisis, the

government is there to help them, There are no giveaways. All our

programs are for assistance to the people, to assist them to build and

make a better British Columbia. All our programs are like that. There

are no giveaways, just a helping hand when a helping hand is necessary.

I'm

proud of the opportunity of joining in this debate and saying to you,

Mr. Speaker, that the future looks bright indeed. We have everything we

need for a great future and a great British Columbia. But what we need

above all is confidence — not an empty confidence, but confidence to

see what we've got, what we have out there in the hinterland of British

Columbia. The people we have are willing to work, but we must turn our

labour force around. We must forget the idea of, "How little can you

do, how much can you get." We must come back to thinking that we must

work and work hard for what we get. Everyone must be able to get a

dollar's value for a dollar spent. Everyone must do that, not "How many

days off can I get, how many holidays?"

Mr. Speaker, I'm

telling you that these statutory holidays we have today in our system

are killing this province. How many are there? Twelve statutory

holidays? I don't know how many — ten or twelve. They are killing our

province because they are a deadweight on our public. Those holidays

should be reduced to not more than five. The Americans have five

statutory holidays. We have more than ten. That's another deadweight,

and I tell you, Mr. Speaker, that it is time we got together and kicked

these holidays out. Get to work!

MR. NICOLSON: Scrooge! Are you against Christmas?

MR. MUSSALLEM: No. I said we should have five holidays. Christmas is one, New Year's another.

AN HON. MEMBER: Easter?

MR. MUSSALLEM: Perhaps Easter. I'm not too fussy about that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Thanksgiving?

MR. MUSSALLEM:

You can have Thanksgiving if you want. You can have five. But when you

get to ten or twelve, what are they for? What good do they do? Do we

need those holidays? What is a holiday for? I ask you, Mr. Speaker,

what are the holidays for? Do we work that hard that we need them? No,

we just raise the cost of our production. That's what we do. That's

what puts us in a position where we have to borrow.

If we could produce more.... Mr. Speaker, don't point that book.

I'm

saying to you here, Mr. Speaker, that borrowing is only done when

borrowing is necessary. If we can produce, we do not have to borrow.

Does that get across to you, Mr. Speaker? If we produce we don't have

to borrow. I say that the deadweight of ten holidays is too much to

carry and I think that something lips to be changed. We must work more,

not for more money but to give value for the money we earn, not for how

much we do or how little we pay but.... That's got to be reversed.

There is too much at stake in this province. It's regrettable that we

have got to the stage where we do not realize that it is necessary to

work more. We've had too many....

The last contract in the

woods system. You know, the mills wouldn't have lost a day if it wasn't

for the last contract. It was too expensive for the mills to operate.

That's what put 37 percent of the workers out of work. I tell you,

there was no reason.... There should have been a better understanding

between the workers and the mills, because today people are suffering

for the mistake that was made on the last contract. That's why the hon.

minister will find himself in a borrowing position. I like the workers

to get money; but when they get more money than industry can afford to

pay, then we are in trouble. That's why the minister has got to borrow.

That's why he may have to borrow in time.

These are the

things that we must see. We must give more value for our dollar in

British Columbia. There mustn't be any more of these settlements. The

settlement with the teachers is more than 17 percent. That's why our

school system is in trouble, and that's why the Minister of Finance

might have to borrow. That's why we are in trouble today. There is too

much carelessness in settling agreements, too much carelessness in

arbitration, too much giveaway. That's what we must stop. It's the

giveaways that are causing this bill. It's too easy to give away.

That's why we have got to be ready to borrow.

We have to

borrow for education; we have to borrow for health. Why? The

settlements were too heavy. The doctors saw the problem and gave back

$30 million. What did the teachers do? What did the schools do? I'm

just saying it was too rich for the blood of British Columbia at this

time. We must maintain education, we must maintain health, but we must

be very careful that we do not spend more than we've got. We might be

forced to. Well, we're being forced to because of careless settlements

that were made in the past. I blame management as much as I blame

employees and the unions — I blame them both. This province was not

able to sustain the level of those settlements.

With these

few words, Mr. Speaker — I hope I haven't tried you too much.... We

must work together to build up confidence in our country. It can be

done, but it must be done together.

MR. HOWARD: Mr.

Speaker, after listening to those delightful words from George

Cromwell, otherwise known as the member for Dewdney, I really am

somewhat at a loss as to