[ Page 6989 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Constitutional rights. Ms. Brown –– 6989

Public health inspection fees. Mr. Cocke –– 6990

Moratorium on Crown grazing leases. Mr. Hanson –– 6990

Tussock moth infestation of Douglas firs. Mr. King –– 6991

Shortages of seedlings. Mr. Nicolson –– 6991

Budget Debate

Mr. Barrett –– 6991

On the amendment

Mr. Howard –– 6996

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 6998

Ms. Brown –– 7003

Mr. Kempf –– 7006

Mr. Mitchell –– 7009

Tabling Documents

First Citizens Fund advisory committee annual report, 1981.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 7012

Insurance Corporation of British Columbia annual report, December 31 –– 1981.

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 7012

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 14, 1982

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today there is a group of women who, like me, are wearing black armbands to symbolize their mourning for the forgotten women of Canada. They, are members of the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, which is joining Indian women in a day of mourning and demonstration across Canada today to mark the fact that it has been 14 years since the issue of equal rights for Indian women was raised by the report of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women. That report recommended that section 12(1)(b) of the Indian Act be amended to eliminate the loss of status of Indian women when they married non-Indian men. I would like the House to join me in marking this day and in recognizing Lucy Al phonse, Pat Elander, Ruth Harding, Shirley Avril and Valerie Naiad.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today is a group of ladies and gentlemen who are part of the Defend Educational Services Coalition, some of whom are well known. I'd like to introduce them. I think most of them are in the gallery, but they are all in the precinct: Mr. Larry Kuehn, who is president of the B.C. Teachers Federation; Mr. Gordon Bryenton, president of the College Institute Educators Association; Mr. John Conklin, president of the Camosun College Faculty Association; Janet Laxton, vice-president of Local 7 of the Association of University and College Employees; Josie Bannerman, also a member of Local 7; Maxine Zurbrigg, first vice-president of CUPE; Mr. David Cadman, president of the Vancouver Municipal and Regional Employees Union; and Sophia Hanafi, chairperson of the Canadian Federation of Students, Pacific region. I'd ask the House to make them welcome.

MR. LAUK: I'd like to join the Minister of Education in welcoming these people to the gallery. He just mumbled over the name of this group — I'm sure not deliberately. It is the Defence of Educational Services Coalition, and it is the only province in which that exists.

MR. STRACHAN: On a happier note, I wonder if all members would join me in wishing the hon. member for Okanagan South, our Premier, a very happy birthday today.

HON. MR. CHABOT: This morning I witnessed the greatest performance of skating I've ever experienced in my lifetime, and I'm fairly adept at skating, having been brought up in French Canada. However, I've decided to hang up my skates because there is a new champion of ice skating here in this Legislature. I am prepared to turn over to him my ice skates because of his performance on CBC radio this morning in his response to the restraint program. I'd like to send my skates over to the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. BARRETT: If I may respond to the ministerial statement, considering the source of this award, I want to tell you that this is one of the finest moments I've had in my 22 years in this House. For that member to send me his skates when this government is on thin ice is an incredible performance. If I may, I'll carry the metaphor further and say: "Why don't we test the water on that issue?"

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. May we now return to introductions.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce to the House a situation which is maybe a little closer to the sunnier side of the mountain. The member for Alberni, the hon. Bob Skelly, is also celebrating his birthday today. Will everybody give him a Happy Birthday.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of good humour of the House I rise to ask leave of the House to make a statement.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it a ministerial statement?

HON. MRS. JORDAN: No, it's not, Mr. Speaker; it's a statement related to an apology.

Leave granted.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, during the budget debate a few days ago I recounted an incident with which the hon. member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) took exception. I wish you, sir, and the hon. members in this House to know that my remarks were based upon information which I considered reliable. The hon. member for Shuswap-Revelstoke has denied the circumstances to which I made reference, and as an honourable member I unquestionably and unhesitatingly accept the hon. member's denial. I wish to tender to that hon. member for Shuswap-Revelstoke and to this House an apology for any offence which might have been occasioned by my remarks.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I would like to ask the members to join me in welcoming His Worship Mayor Popovich from Alert Bay.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, it would of course be my wish that all hon. members would be present at 2 o'clock, he appointed time when we call upon a visiting clergyman for prayers. However, to those who find themselves unable to be here and who are gathering outside in the Speaker's corridor, would it be too much to ask for your cooperation and consideration, so that the noise level would be such that prayers being offered would not be interrupted? So ordered.

Oral Questions

CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS

MS. BROWN: I have a question for the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations, having to do with section 12(1)(b) of the Indian Act. Can the minister tell us what steps he or his government are taking to ensure that the protection of Indian women is incorporated in our new constitution?

HON. MR. GARDOM: In response to the hon. member's question, I have to mention that separate and apart from he specific issue you're speaking of, there is built into the constitution itself the requirement for a constitutional conference, which is to be held within 12 months of the pro-

[ Page 6990 ]

clamation of the Canada bill by Her Majesty in Ottawa on Saturday. Insofar as the specific issue is concerned, the Indian Act, being a federal statute, will have to be considered, as will provincial statutes, in the light of the new bill of rights. I would like to assure the hon. member and all members of the House that work is already being started in our province vis-à-vis an examination of our existing statutes. It will be a difficult task, but it is underway and it has started.

PUBLIC HEALTH INSPECTION FEES

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health. The government has stated its intention to extend the principle of user-pay for health programs. The latest example of this is the creation of an entirely new set of public health inspection fees which the minister has estimated will provide a new $3 million in revenue to his department. As this new user fee is being discussed today at a meeting of chief health inspectors, will the minister tell the House who will be asked to begin paying for the public health inspection services?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, if I heard the question correctly, the people who would be asked to pay would be those persons who are receiving the service from the health inspectors. That would be a wide spectrum of citizens in the province. It would include restaurants, campsites, commercial swimming pools and other organizations where they require inspections by health inspectors, and a schedule of fees is being worked on at this time.

MR. COCKE: I have a supplementary question. I would ask the minister what the rationale is for penalizing in this fashion the preventive aspects of public health. They are not going out to provide a service to the restaurant; they're going out to provide a service to the public — to protect the public. Why are those people to be inspected being penalized so that the public can't be as well served?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I don't consider it a penalty to be inspected by a public health inspector with respect to services offered to the public. I don't agree that it's a penalty to ask these people who are offering the service to the public to assist in some relatively small way to cover the costs, to ensure that they are providing services consistent with the standards required.

MR. COCKE: What we see before us is indirect taxation. The money will be raised from the public. I ask the minister why he doesn't take the money out of the tax dollars that are directed rather than indirectly taxing the customers all over the province. It is sneaky taxation.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: In a very direct way, those organizations and individuals who offer these services to the public will be participating in the recovery of some of the cost, which is paid for by the taxpayer. The inspectors are paid from the public payroll; therefore, at the present time, 100 percent of those costs are borne by the taxpayers of the province. In this manner, by permitting fees to be established for the actual inspection, a greater portion of that cost will be borne directly by the person who is offering that service to the public and therefore benefiting from that operation. It also ensures that the standards required by law will be upheld at a cost that will to some degree reflect actual cost, but in other instances probably will represent only a portion of the actual cost to the taxpayer. I might add that it is certainly not new to many, many jurisdictions, where cost recovery for inspections is very common.

MORATORIUM ON CROWN GRAZING LEASES

MR. HANSON: I have a question for the Minister of Lands, Parks and skating. In January of this year, the minister instituted a new form of Crown grazing lease. Under the old lease arrangement, all existing roads and trails were excluded in a blanket exclusion. In the new lease arrangement, these roads must be specifically excluded for the public to have access.

My question for the minister is, has he decided to heed the numerous representations he has received from outdoor recreation organizations, such as the B.C. Wildlife Federation, the Outdoor Recreation Council of British Columbia, to institute a moratorium on any new leases and allow public meetings to be held in the various regions so that this important change can be debated?

HON. MR. CHABOT: I'm sure the member wants to ask the question to back up his TV interview earlier this afternoon. I do want to say that when we're talking about grazing leases we're talking about only 2.5 percent of that land which is held by grazing tenure. There are forms of grazing tenure other than grazing leases: there are licences and permits as well. There are 10 million acres of Crown land committed to grazing here in British Columbia. Of that 10 million acres, only 250,000 acres — 2.5 percent — of that portion is committed to grazing lease, which is a more secure form of tenure. There is a justifiable reason for a particular ranch needing this form of tenure. There was an attempt to convert these grazing leases to licences. However, because of the concern of ranchers who had held these leases, in many instances since the turn of the century, they felt it was jeopardizing the kind of security and the kind of ability they would have for fencing and range improvement. Therefore, on behalf of the ranchers, we felt that we should restore these leases which make up only 2.5 percent of the 10 million acres of land that is committed to grazing here in British Columbia.

We have taken certain steps to make sure that recreationists have a greater opportunity than ever before to have access through these grazing leases that have been attached to ranches in this province since, in many instances, the turn of the century. We've asked interested groups, such as the B.C. Wildlife Federation, the rod and gun club and other recreational and environmental groups, to bring forward to us their interest in having access, be it by road or trail, through this grazing lease. We're prepared to wait until such time as representations have been made to this ministry through its regional offices before we renew these grazing leases, to ensure that access is provided to land beyond.

I'm not here to educate the second member for Victoria, who tries to confuse the issue, is not very knowledgeable of the Land Act and doesn't understand the provisions of the Land Act, wherein there is the authority to exclude certain lands from grazing leases. But I do want to say that a moratorium, which he's suggested should be put in place, is not necessary because we've taken the necessary steps to ensure that access will be provided through grazing leases in this province. Never before have I heard such nonsense.

[ Page 6991 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, questions with a scope that perhaps would lead the answer beyond the ability of a question period to embrace maybe should be asked in another form.

MR. HANSON: Supplementary. Can the minister confirm the reports that are now coming in to these interested recreational organizations that ranches in the Kamloops area, well known to my friend on the opposite side, such as the Chutter ranch, the Inskip ranch, and the Seven-O ranch, are now denying public access? Is he aware of that?

HON. MR. CHABOT: The member says that these ranches are denying access to the recreationists. I don't know whether he's talking about deeded land or leased land. He didn't identify it. I guess they have that authority if it's privately held, Crown-granted land at some period of time. Maybe it's justifiable. The member never suggested that he's talking about grazing leases. I don't know what he's talking about. Please be more specific when you ask questions.

MR. HANSON: These lands are under Crown grazing leases. A member of my constituency brought to my attention a five-page computer printout provided by your branch, to go from A to B in the Chilcotin. Is this the policy of your government for the access to recreational attributes of Crown grazing land? Yes or no.

HON. MR. CHABOT: What's the question?

MR. SPEAKER: The question was whether or not it was a policy.

TUSSOCK MOTH INFESTATION OF DOUGLAS FIRS

MR. KING: I have a question for the Minister of Forests. There is a major outbreak of tussock moth infestation in the Chase-Pritchard area. This is a pest which attacks the Douglas fir. I would ask the minister, Mr. Speaker, what treatment program he has designed to combat this second year of this very serious insect infestation, and when this program might be initiated.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Yes, I am fully aware of the infestation of tussock moth in the Chase-Pritchard area, and also the tussock moth infestation in the Hedley and Cache Creek areas and in many other areas of that part of the province. The member knows well that we are considerably constrained in the control measures that we can take, as opposed to those available to us a few years ago. We are, however, designing a program and we're working in very close cooperation with the regional districts insofar as private land holdings are concerned. We will be initiating a program when the proper time is here, and that time is determined by the development of the insect, not by a time that a politician or anyone else may put on it. When the time comes, we will have a control program; we are working out what would be the best program to use.

SHORTAGES OF SEEDLINGS

MR. NICOLSON: I have a question to the Minister of Forests, Mr. Speaker. Seedling shortages have been a major constraint in meeting planned levels of tree-planting in B.C. For example, in 1980 the minister recalls that there was a shortfall of 2.5 million seedlings in the Prince George forest region, 1.3 million in the Caribou forest region, 3.5 million in the Nelson forest region, and 6 million in the Vancouver forest region.

An opportunity appears to have presented itself in that the U.S. Forest Service, which recently announced it would plough under 10 percent of the 57 million conifer seedlings available for planting in Washington this year, has said it is willing to sell them rather than plough them under. Has the minister investigated the possibility of purchasing some or all of the seedlings to ensure that shortages do not occur in British Columbia this year?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, we have not had shortages of seedlings in planned levels of planting. We have perhaps at times had shortages in requested levels of planting which are outside the silvicultural prescription for a particular area.

Yes, indeed, we are aware of the situation in Washington state where they may destroy seedlings, and ministry staff are discussing with those seedling producers whether or not the seedlings would be appropriate for British Columbia. If they are, we would hope to make some arrangements with them.

Orders of the Day

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

MR. BARRETT: I am pleased to take my place in this debate on the very last budget to ever be brought down in this House by a Social Credit government, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Do you want to bet?

MR. BARRETT: Well, Mr. Speaker, the former Attorney-General, the former Liberal, has said: "Do you want to bet?" I find it interesting that that member becomes extremely agitated about the fact that he has painted himself into a political comer. The only party left for him to jump to now is the separatists — that's the only group left. But the way things are going in British Columbia you might have a chance to become their leader. It is the Premier who has invited the separatists to support Social Credit. There is a quote in the newspaper saying that he reached out his hand to the separatists and said: "Come and join Social Credit in the battle against Ottawa." I find that a most interesting observation — that the Premier would encourage anyone who has a commitment to separate this province from Confederation by asking him to come and join and support Social Credit in their fight with Ottawa.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: The agitation of the former Attorney-General is something to behold. I hope that he will participate in this debate, because it will be his last, as I pointed out. If you don't lose the election....

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: You won't get nominated; it's Diane what's-her-name.

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: I've been through that hurdle; he hasn't been through one yet.

[ Page 6992 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. Let the hon. member get on with his debate.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I hope my time is not interrupted.

I just want to say a few words about the impending constitution that will now be a part of Canada's history, and make a couple of comments about the prolonged debate toward that point. Nine of the ten Premiers signed the agreement that will return the British North America Act to Canada after these many years, and I welcome its return. I am disappointed, and was disappointed at the time, that the province of Quebec did not see fit to participate in the final decision, and I regret that there is still a sentiment in that province, led by the Premier of that province, towards separation.

Mr. Speaker, all is not joy and happiness on what should be a very happy occasion. There are serious concerns in western Canada, and there is a growing populist movement around separatism in this part of our wonderful country. I want to go on record as expressing the opinion that part of the reason that the western separatists have found succour and comfort in the communities within which they espouse their particular point of view is the behaviour of the Premier of British Columbia during the debate leading up to the return of the British North America Act and the establishment of our constitution. It was that Premier who went around this province calling the Prime Minister of this country an arsonist. It was that Premier who set the atmosphere of seeds of doubt about the nature and personality of the present government of Canada — governments come and go — and then, having done all of that in arguing against Ottawa, flipped overnight, signed the agreement and became one of the greatest supporters of Pierre Elliott Trudeau on this issue. Hopping into political bed with Prime Minister Trudeau and expecting no fallout from the poisonous statements that were made in terms of the atmosphere around this debate is naivete at very best and recklessness at worst.

Those people who espouse separatism in western Canada have been fostered in that direction by the statements of the Premier of the province of British Columbia, and we are now reaping the results of his statements.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Well, to indicate that he wants their support in Social Credit.

Let me go on record here and now: regardless of any differences my party may have with the federal government of the day, let it be clearly understood that we are Canadians first here in British Columbia. We will fight tooth and nail for British Columbia's needs, but we will never abandon the concept of a united Canada for short-term political gain.

The Premier has not taken a definitive stand against the Western Canada Concept. The Premier has not clearly spelled out that the Western Canada Concept does not enjoy his support in any way, shape or form. The Premier of British Columbia has not stated clearly that he does not want any truck or trade with any members of the Western Canada Concept, including their support within his party, unless within his party he agrees to the idea of eventual separation from the rest of Canada.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: The former Attorney-General goes "hah." This is the only time that he gets to participate in any debate about intergovernmental affairs. Other than being the administrative office for the arrangements to Ottawa.... Every statement on intergovernmental affairs comes out of the Premier's mouth, not from that minister. He has been sidetracked. He has been reduced to the minister of fetch-and-carry — the gopher minister. He's been told: "Go for this and go for that, and don't ever open your mouth on any issue that I've got to say in terms of Canadian Confederation or the unity of this country." I know that minister must have been embarrassed by the Premier's statements on the Western Canada Concept.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Well, no, he's not a closet minister. No matter what you do, you could never keep that minister in a closet. But his comments are left hanging crape more than anything else.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's light work.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, it's light work, I understand that. But we don't want to burden him with those problems.

I want to address some comments directly to the debate at hand, and express regret that the government turned down an emergency debate on unemployment in the province of British Columbia.

There are over 150,000 people unemployed in this province. There are thousands of people who had expected some leadership from this government at a time of deep economic downturn, and have had absolutely no leadership from this government. It spreads all the way from Fort St. John right down to the comers of Vancouver Island. I want to point out that the largest single meeting of the western separatists took place some six weeks ago in Fort St. John, where 500 people jammed into a hall to hear the speaker espousing western separatism, and the member from the constituency has not yet publicly stated his position on the question of western separatism. Is he one of the Social Credit backbenchers who have been reported as having been speaking quietly with the separatists? Is he one of the ones? Are you or anyone else on the back bench? Stand up here now and declare that there have been no deals, arrangements or conversations with those separatists so we know exactly where you stand. There were 500 people at a meeting in Fort St. John. What were they angry about?

AN HON. MEMBER: The national energy program.

MR. BARRETT: That's what they're angry about. My good friend says they're angry about the National Energy Board. They're angry at their MLA, who has produced absolutely nothing for those people in that area. They are angry at a government that has produced absolutely nothing for the north — shutdowns, closures and bankruptcies, all under the aegis of Social Credit.

The one northern member on that back bench who understands this more than anyone else is the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf). When it comes to survival, that member has instincts that are unparalleled in that group. It is my prediction that he will be the first to jump to the separatists. As a matter of fact, considering the nature of that party, they might

[ Page 6993 ]

even consider him as leader. I can see it now: Frank Oberle and his pal leading the northern separatists, fighting against Social Credit.

A more serious note, though, is the fact that 500 people were attracted to a separatist meeting in Fort St. John — and many more attempted to attend that meeting and were turned away — and we have had absolutely no statement from the individual MLAs concerned saying that they are absolutely opposed to separatism. That statement should be made here in this House and in their ridings as well. You can't ride that dangerous hobby-horse. Once that bandwagon gets moving around separatism and that populism gets going and politicians make silly statements like, "Come and join us in our fight against Ottawa," you lead to the tacit support of something that bears the seeds of destruction of this country.

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about the Premier's contribution in the budget debate last year, and I want to go through some of the statements that he made, particularly the personal attack he made against the member for Vancouver Centre. Before getting to that, I want to take out a couple of statements the Premier made to this House last year at a time when the economy appeared to be booming, when employment opportunities appeared to be unlimited and when Social Credit appeared to be riding high, just faintly pushing away from its political skirts the last memories of the dirty tricks campaign — the cover-ups, the Eckardt commission and everything else.

On page 4529 of Hansard, on March 13, 1981, he said: "I want to say now that this government rejects increasing the debt." He really said that. In this budget, presented by this government to this House, as evidence to the people of British Columbia where we stand fiscally, we have discovered that the debt of the Crown corporations of British Columbia lids doubled in the past six years under the leadership of that Premier and that Social Credit government. He said that he didn't want to see the debt increased, but he didn't mention the figure of doubling the debt.

This budget not only reveals that the debt has been doubling, but every single penny that was set aside by previous administrations, including W.A.C. Bennett's and a New Democratic Party government, has been squandered by this government. There won't be a penny left out of those special funds in a year's time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to refer you to some other comments that he made a year ago in flights of fancy and absolute promise. The Premier said last year about the silviculture program — I'd like the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) to hear this; this was a promise to the House:

What about the other areas — reforestation and silviculture? I can remember great speeches being made...by the former Minister of Forests...when the New Democratic Party was in. But I'll tell you, his rhetoric couldn't even match the solid performance of the commitment to reforestation of this government that's in this budget.

Within one year after making that promise and presenting those figures in a budget, that whole reforestation program is in serious danger of even total elimination after serious cutbacks in one year alone. The Premier says one thing one year and another thing another year. Things were good last year, so he was rolling around making all these promises and comments.

I believe too that he had some things to say about the mining industry. He was bragging about how well the mining industry was doing in British Columbia under Social Credit. He was commenting in his usual fair-handed approach, without any personal allusions to people, saying that the former Minister of Mines had misguided the mining industry in this province and that the Social Credit government itself, alone, had been responsible for the revitalization of the mining industry.

I want to hold up a headline from that notorious independent newspaper known as the Vancouver Province. I quote from the headline of Wednesday, March 31, 1982: "Only the Thirties Were Worse for Mining in British Columbia." For those of you who have some memory of behaviour and tenor of the debates in this House, I ask: what would have been the reaction of the Social Credit opposition had the NDP been in government and this headline came out? They would have said that the socialists had turned the oil rotten in the ground; they would have said that the socialists had driven out every mining investment in British Columbia; they would have said that the red barons of the New Democratic Party had destroyed the mining industry of British Columbia. But when it all happens under Social Credit, what is the excuse? Oh, it's the London metal exchange. I want every British Columbian who has lost his job in the mining industry to write a letter to the London metal exchange and tell them how angry they are at that metal exchange turning socialist and ruining the mining industry in British Columbia.

We all know that it's world conditions that influence the markets for our products; but it's funny that we only know them at some times and at others we don't. When they were in opposition they were so irresponsible, so wild and so bitter politically that they even blamed any change or fluctuation in the international metals market on New Democratic Party policies. If they really believe that it was the provincial government that caused the problem — they are the provincial government today, and only the thirties were worse for mining — they should resign and call an election right now, as a result of their policies. There's not a word about this now. I want to read you a few quotes, if you can handle it, Mr. Speaker. I ask your indulgence. I won't read too many. You may have known someone yourself who was in opposition in those days making wild charges and accusations. It might be only a memory in Hansard. It says here: "I believe the system of taxation we've put in for mining is both just and fair." He believed that the system they put in for mining taxation was just and fair. Look at the result of his taxation policy on mining. Taking your theory when you were in opposition, that the provincial government is responsible, then your policies are responsible for the closure of mines in British Columbia. Can you have it one way in opposition and another way in government? That's known as hypocrisy or, to use a new favourite buzzword of the Premier, cynicism. That's a $50 Ontario word. It costs us $65,000 a year to dig up those $50 Ontario words. Let me read what it goes on to say:

We do not create a high fixed cost for products when a volatile market goes up and down, one that would make companies face the possibility of shutdowns or remove the possibility of workers getting their fair share of the value. You've got to remember that government competes for the same dollars that profits are competing for and the workers are competing for when they ask for wage increases. Government's hands should never get so large at the table that it leaves no money for either profits or wage increases.

My dear friends, that was the Premier of British Columbia who said that government's hands should never get so large as to take away any profits or wage increases. I'm glad the Premier agrees. He nods his head — it's good stuff. You bet

[ Page 6994 ]

your life it's good stuff; but there's a great gap between saying the words and meaning them.

Let's take a look at the practice of this government, which has a real ability to perform sleight of hand — words going one way and practices another way.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: The hand in your pocket? It's a hand in the pocket that extends all the way through these particular increases.

There is a hidden list of recent tax increases through user fees and charges, hiked by the government without even reference to the Legislative Assembly. In the last while, under Social Credit, there have been 130 separate increases in charges, fees and licences that this government and that Premier have stuck their hands into people's pockets to grab, without a single reference back to this Legislature.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: No, he didn't know it.

Our researcher phoned the Deputy Minister of Finance and asked Mr. Bell, by way of Mr. Bell's press spokesperson, Ms. Temple, if they would please give the opposition an official list of every fee, licence and program that has had an increase in the past 18 months. The answer over the phone to our research staff — perhaps because it was a bureaucrat; you'll correct this, Mr. Premier — was: "This information will not be made available at this time." We asked for a complete list of every increase and we were told, probably by a bureaucrat, not to give the information out at this time.

Let's go through some of the increases: coloured gasoline tax to farmers and fishermen, a 26 percent increase between October 1981 and March 1982 — now I go back to the Premier's statement, saying that we don't want our hands in pockets; the business licence fee, 15 percent increase; the free miner's certificate, up 150 percent to the corporation, up 400 percent for the individual; all placer mining fees up 100 percent; guide outfitters, assistant guide and angler guides,100 percent increase; fisheries small storage plants,100 percent increase; fish buying stations, $50 — a new fee; and fish processing plants,100 to 300 percent.

No. 7 out of 130 — this is just a little item that shows up on everybody's light bill every month now; this is known as the water rate increase — 300 percent. This is the government that said that its taxation policies for the mining industry were fair. The pass-on cost of the water rate increase to Cominco mines alone will be an additional bill of $9 million a year. What is the direct result, a contributing factor to this? For the first time in its operation — and it has happened under a Social Credit government — Cominco will be closing down its whole operation this summer. We still don't know when it will reopen. Will Bill Bennett be there at the ceremony for the closing? He loves these kinds of ceremonies. He loves the ribbon cutting.

MR. SKELLY: He loves the B.C. spirit.

MR. BARRETT: That's it! Will he show up at the number of closings that are going on? Or will he go to Trail and announce a new lottery to keep Cominco going? You can count on it. Patrick Kinsella and Doug Heal and the boys will figure out that this lottery thing is a pretty good deal. I can see it now. "Keep Cominco going. Buy a lottery on the date when you see its reopening." It'll be a whole new twist on the Yukon freeze-breakup on the river. "Take your chance on the exact hour and day that you will see your jobs return here in Comino. Three chances for a buck, five for two dollars. Buy them in bulk under Social Credit." If you say it fast enough they'll go for the two dollar deal.

You know, that great Social Credit leadership, in a time of crisis when thousands of jobs are being lost, have also discovered another way of hyping up the public: announce a project, cancel it; announce a project, cancel it; announce a project and then mean it this time. We could have a new lottery on that alone. Take a guess whether or not the government really means this announcement today. Buy a chance for a buck and see if denticare fees will go up. Buy a buck ticket on this promise by the Premier and two to one he doesn't keep it. Take a chance on getting an invitation to the announcements, not the announcements made here in Victoria in front of a cynical, hard-bitten, wizened old press gallery. No, Mr. Speaker, the government would never take a chance on announcing anything to skeptical, crying reporters, all of whom have not yet been converted through the coffee-clutch experience. I say "coffee clutch." Some call it "clatch," but I call it "clutch", with appropriate kisses, appropriate leaks and appropriate little cream in the coffee. "Come down to my office," says the spider to the press gallery fly, "and I will let you into a secret by and by." And then we will see the poetry flow from the Premier's lips. "Why, I'll have a debate with the Leader of the Opposition." What a joke. He says: "I'll debate the leader if he promises only to talk about what I want to talk about, because I've got the most important things to talk about. Naughty, naughty if he raises anything that's of real consequence to the people, like jobs, investment or debt or what's going on in the province of British Columbia."

Yes, but to save the children of British Columbia any traumatic experience of seeing two politicians debate, suppose we can go on after 11 o'clock, right after "Second City TV." We could be the two new western hosers, a whole new version of the McKenzie brothers. There we are, frying the back bacon and laughing at the taxpayers. "Didn't we do very well here in Victoria," playing our little game, wink and a nod, nudge, nudge. "Everything is okay out there because I said so last year."

You know, Mr. Speaker, my colleague the member for Vancouver Centre was the subject of personal ridicule and putdown and a sort of small-town jingoism attack on a serious statement that he made about a prediction for the economy. It's a pretty risky thing for a politician to stick his neck out. I know of a whole generation of politicians who wait to take polls before they decide what their policy is going to be. They've given up the old business of licking one's finger in the wind and hoping for the best. They hire the best pollsters in the country and ask: "Now what should I say?" In the old days, it used to be: "Mirror, mirror, on the wall, who's the fairest of them all?" The answer always came back the same way. Now it's "Healy, Healy, on the wall, what does Kinsella say that's best for all?" That's what we get, Mr. Speaker, that kind of response.

It's that member for Vancouver Centre who predicted that we would be bordering on a recession at this time this year. Every single one of the specific predictions made by that member two years ago at a political convention has tragically come true because he saw through the fiscal, monetary and

[ Page 6995 ]

political irresponsibility of that government and that Premier which has led to the problem we have today.

My colleague from Vancouver Centre predicted that there would be massive closures and layoffs in the mining industry, and the Premier said: "Ha, ha, ha!"

My friend predicted that there would be massive layoffs in the industrial sector in this province, and the Premier said: "Oh, there's the New Democratic Party and its spokesman. Don't know what they're talking about. Negative! What are your plans?" I'll come to them shortly.

Then when my friend predicted the highest number of bankruptcies ever in the province of British Columbia, the Premier got up and said: "There's the NDP — doom and gloom boys. Everything is wonderful. It's going to be terrific."

The record, tragically, because of the Social Credit governments in action, has been exactly as predicted by the member for Vancouver Centre and ridiculed by the Premier. If you stand by those words you said a year ago, you should hang your head in shame and resign as the leader of that government. When you read the litany of personal comments against the member for Vancouver Centre without any critical analysis of what the member was saying, it seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the Premier doesn't have a grip on anything — absolutely nothing — in terms of understanding the economy.

I was going to read the 130 fees spelled out and raised by the government, Mr. Speaker, but I don't have time. But here's a whole list in case anybody hasn't heard anything about any one of these. It's interesting, as I go through page and page of these: not one of these is specifically designed as an increase in fees to millionaires in governments. As I rip off every one of these lists of increases in costs, not one of them affects millionaires. I wonder if that has any influence at all with the government and its own philosophy.

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, let the record show that they laughed and giggled when they were faced with the litany of what they've done. Oh, I know the bitterest of them all are those two double-twins over there: the urban-rich twins who abandoned the Liberal Party for power at any moment, and now they get exercised.... I want to see the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) get so exercised that his hair turns blue. I know there are very few people who can get under the skin of the Attorney-General. I thank myself that when I remind him of his past in this House I am one of them. Things must be really rough when you've got the Attorney-General interrupting the debate. Things must be really rough when you've got him agitated to that point.

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I have never seen the member from West Vancouver so agitated. Perhaps he will participate in this debate and tell us what jobs he's going to create for the unemployed in British Columbia, and how he justifies sitting there and participating in a government that provides the substance of headlines in today's newspaper: "300 to Lose Jobs in a Copper Mine Shutdown." That's under Social Credit.

The date is 1982. It's the Premier's birthday: April 14. Here's the birthday present for the students of British Columbia. Happy birthday, kids: "Student Job Scheme Cancelled." Thousands of students will be out of work this summer as they try to get their education. Here's the real birthday gift. of them all — the catch-22 in the budget that even the scrupulous, doubting opposition missed. Even this group that has learned a long time ago never to accept anything on face value from the Social Credit government missed this one, Mr. Speaker. I don't say shame on our group for missing this. You have still a bit of goodness left in your heart to believe that the government would make a statement it would carry through on.

Look what those reporters found out. The welfare aid has a catch.

"Local mayors, who last week applauded the B.C. government's pledge to assume responsibility for welfare costs, discovered Tuesday that Social Credit's fiscal largess comes with a catch. The government revealed that it will pay the local share of the welfare cost by diverting $17 million from the Revenue Sharing Fund, which means less money for the municipalities."

What they are going to do is take the pea from this pod, shove it over to this one and move it around three times and say: "Oh, what a lucky group you are." It's the old Social Credit shell game. I don't blame you for believing them for a while; but aren't we embarrassed to have that bastion of left-wing politics, the Vancouver Province, expose this. My goodness gracious me, had we done it in question period it would have been ignored. But here it is right on the front page of the Vancouver Province.

I'm going to write Mr. Sherman myself and express to him my shock that he wrote an editorial last Sunday — or caused an editorial to be written — cautioning the government not to have an election, If we need anything more from a newspaper that would expose daily scandals like this, we need the courage of an editorial board that says enough is enough. Let's have an election in British Columbia as soon as possible,

Mr. Speaker, just to keep in the spirit of the lotteries in British Columbia — just to keep in the spirit of understanding how you must fight your way through the maze out there.... Again. I stick to the one newspaper, the morning newspaper, theVancouver Province, and a headline of March 31: "Chances of Getting a Job 8 to 1." That's better than a lottery ticket. Up in the East Kootenays the unemployment is 10.6 percent; in the West Kootenays it's 10.4 percent; in the Okanagan it's 11.8 percent; in the southern interior 10.8 percent; 13.4 percent on Vancouver Island; 15.1 percent in the central interior; 13.6 percent in the Peace River country; and not a peep out of this government in terms of concern or care or action for the problems they've caused, directly related to their fiscal policies in this province.

One direct example is the whole fiasco around BCRIC. Tens of millions of dollars were gulled out of people's savings in investments and loans to put into a company that the Premier espoused — shares to be bought right from his office. The Premier sent a letter from his office and told people, especially young people, some of whom may have had mortgage payments to make and car payments to make, to go out and buy these shares because it was a good deal and it would be an investment in British Columbia's future. The Premier of this province directly intervened by misdirecting private investment funds into a corporation that was espoused in a letter from his office, and I quote: "I'm writing today to

[ Page 6996 ]

you personally to invite you and your family to participate in this development as shareholders in the British Columbia Resources Investment Corporation — you the individual citizen. The shares represent real ownership of a portion of our province's resource industries. The move will mean a greater opportunity for British Columbians to guide their own destiny and, through ownership, stop acting as moneylenders to others." Mr. Speaker, this government has driven a whole generation of British Columbia into the hands of the moneylenders — money that was borrowed from the banks, on the advice of this letter, to buy shares in BCRIC.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier cannot escape personal and direct responsibility for using the Premier's office to directly involve himself in the marketplace and direct investments of that corporation. At the time they were put in, BCRIC had debts of less than $100 million in total and assets worth $400 million. That corporation now has $718 million in debt, every penny of it owed by the shareholders, many of whom he gulled into becoming shareholders in a letter right out of his own office.

He never talks about BCRIC anymore: "It's got nothing to do with me anymore." It appears that it was a miracle. All of a sudden it disappears. If BCRIC shares tripled in value tomorrow, guess who would be the first one on television? Carefully, mind you, nowadays; rehearsed, mind you, nowadays; but the first would be our shining Premier saying, "See, I told you so. I knew it was going to be all right." The most eloquent testimony of the Premier's consideration of the worth of BCRIC was when he was offered BCRIC shares as payment of a fine that he won in a court case. He said, "Don't hand that stuff to me. I want money. I don't want BCRIC shares. They're not worth anything."

At least one thing has happened in his home town. There were 1,000 people out at a barbecue for the unemployed in Kelowna. It's the biggest social event of the year. The Social Credit annual strawberry festival in Kelowna has now been surpassed by the barbecue for the unemployed. One thousand people came, uninvited. It's the highlight of the social calendar in Kelowna to be unemployed and get a free meal under Social Credit.

MR. SPEAKER: Your time has expired, hon. member.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I understand my time is expired, but that is only in the House. I have much more to say, but to save embarrassing the Premier I will keep the skates and send over for his perusal a thoughtful program of employment that could be developed in British Columbia.

Because the government has not done that, I am compelled at this point to move that the motion that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the House to go into Committee of Supply be amended by adding the following: This House regrets that, in the opinion of this House, the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), as a result of extravagant budgetary increases of more than 40 percent in the past two fiscal years, and by encouraging uncontrolled budgetary overruns totalling more than $1 billion, has not only contributed to the economic difficulties in this province but has failed to take steps to preserve the jobs of workers in basic industries such as forestry, pulp, paper, mining and smelting; has neglected to mobilize our human and natural resources towards a strategy of full employment embracing manufacturing and secondary industry; has failed to establish policies helpful to small business people; and has also made no attempt to relieve our citizens of the onerous burden of continued increases in the cost of living.

I move this motion in the traditional spirit of non-confidence in the government, and I ask every single member, particularly the government backbenchers, to support this amendment to the budget. Let us get on to having the people of British Columbia decide whether or not this government is fit to serve. Let us have an election over this amendment, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion appears to be in order. It is seconded by the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) who, according to the practice of this House, now has the floor.

On the amendment.

MR. HOWARD: I couldn't help thinking, when the Leader of the Opposition was concluding his remarks about the lottery program and BCRIC, that the same guy who sold us BCRIC is the one who's about to sell us on the lottery program. That should make the whole program as suspect as anything.

Interjections.

MR. HOWARD: Well, the same salesman.

Earlier in the day, we had in the gallery some visitors representing the native Indian community, people who are concerned about a particular aspect of the federal statute and what this government is going to do about it. I would, as a preliminary, like to point out to the House that for some time we have operated in this province a fund called the First Citizens Fund. In looking at what has happened to that First Citizens Fund, it is obvious that it has been grossly mismanaged, and that careless attention has been paid to the First Citizens Fund by this government — by the Minister of Finance particularly, because the Minister of Finance is the one charged with the responsibility of investing the $25 million so that the interest it earns is available for people of native Indian origin in this province. All that this $25 million has been able to earn in the last year or two, and all that it is projected to earn in this coming year, is something in the neighbourhood of an 8 percent yield.

ICBC, for instance, revealed in a public hearing to the Crown corporations committee a month or so ago that it was able to earn 15 percent last year on its investments, and if ICBC — a maligned corporation — can earn 15 percent on the money it has, surely the First Citizens Fund can do better than has been done up until now. I mention that only because it is a subject matter of interest and because there were people in the gallery today who had some concern about that matter.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Apropos of the amendment, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to discuss the question of budget increases over the past few years, because I don't think it's fair to look at just one budget in one period of time completely isolated from any other activity of government. We need to go back to the time when this Minister of Finance became the Minister of Finance and presented his first budget. In that year, this Minister of Finance increased public expenditures, increased the expenditure of taxpayers' money, by 21.5 percent over the year before. The Premier, some time back, had always said and

[ Page 6997 ]

always announced that it was government policy not to increase the level of government expenditure above the inflation rate, and this Minister of Finance in his first year in office increased expenditures by double the inflation rate — 21.5 percent. That averaged out to $450 extra expenditure for every man, woman and child in this province.

In the following year — his second budget — he increased it again, this time by 19.1 percent; that represented $490 for every man, woman and child in this province.

This year he's trying to lead us to believe from the budget figures on page 10 that the increase in expenditure is 7.2 percent. That's an erroneous figure, Mr. Speaker; that's an adjusted figure, juggled to present something which is not in accordance with the facts. This year at the very best — and that doesn't include the $358 million that he's pulling out of special purpose funds — the budgetary increase is 13.3 percent, not 7.2 percent, as the minister indicated in his budget speech — another $400 per man, woman and child.

Mr. Speaker, when you put all those together, that excessive squandering of public money, that approach to spending taxpayers' money in somewhat the same way an alcoholic would approach a free bottle of booze, is the reason why we are in economic difficulties these days — just a complete disdain for the position of the general public and the taxpayer. They're dipping into their pockets with complete abandon and spending everything they can get their hands on.

Let me just mention a few individual instances which I think need to be reiterated. The result of things like that is the closing down of Cominco — 6,300 workers out of work. There's not a care on the part of this government about that. It's the first time in the minds, I believe, of anybody who has known about Cominco — or Consolidated, as it was known in the earlier days — that it has had that kind of difficulty. I was born and raised in the mining community of Kimberley, where Cominco exists and where Cominco was mining. I was just a young kid during the 1930s. It didn't close down then, but it's closed now, and the government sits quietly by and lets it happen; they ignore the plight of those 6,300 people in the mining game.

My colleague, the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), today referred to the Vancouver Province, indicating that Granisle Copper, in the constituency of my confrere from Omineca (Mr. Kempf), was going to shut down for a year — 300 additional miners out of work. Not a cry, not a worry, not a word was expressed on the part of this government about that. Granisle Copper, as you may know, Mr. Speaker, is owned by Noranda, the same group that was virtually invited into this province to take over MacMillan Bloedel, a company that has not had a very savoury record insofar as its concern about its employees. But that's down.

Kamloops is another example in another riding of a Weyerhaeuser pulp mill shutting down. There are people out of work there as well, and not a whisper out of this government that it has a concern about it.

B.C. Timber at one time had a responsibility to the general public until our Premier gave it away for a handful of paper. B.C. Timber has a number of sawmills in this province: some in Skeena; one, I believe, in the riding of my colleague for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy) ; one or two in Nelson-Creston; and one in Omineca. Every one of those sawmills except one are shut down. All the sawmill workers are out of work. They have a pulp mill in Prince Rupert on the verge of closing, I am told, and not a whisper out of this government that it cares a fig about the thousands and thousands of workers in this province who are losing jobs every day of the week. The Eurocan mill in Kitimat is shutting down its wood operation, and not a word from this government, not an expression of concern at all.

To show you how hypocritical or cynical — whichever is the appropriate word that Your Honour will accept — the Premier is about this matter, he went to Japan before Christmas upon invitation, I am told, of the Japanese government. Upon his return he said: "I asked the Japanese government if it would reduce or eliminate the 10 percent Japanese tariff against white wood." Of course the Japanese politely smiled at him and said no, they weren't interested in doing that. But if we had had a government or a Premier who had any concern whatever about the well-being of this province and the lumber industry.... At the time that this government was giving away and preparing to subsidize to the extent of $1 billion the export of northeast coal, the government should have been in those discussions about coal and said to the Japanese government: "If you want our coal, then we'd like you to take some of our wood as well." And that would have been the time to negotiate on the 10 percent tariff, not to go over before Christmas upon invitation and then come back and say: "Oh, I asked them to reduce the 10 percent tariff on wood." That is hypocritical for the Premier to have done that. It would have been more meaningful if he and the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) had shown enough concern about employment possibilities in this province for British Columbia workers as they did about the employment possibilities of Japanese workers on the coal deal. If they would have moved to deal with the Japanese government on that 10 percent tariff, we would have had more people working in our sawmills today than exists at the moment.

Do you know what we're doing? Here is a government subsidizing northeast coal to the extent of $1 billion over the next 15 years. At the time when it counted they completely ignored the 10 percent tariff on white wood but issued permits to people to export raw logs to Japan so the Japanese can take the logs and run them through their sawmills, while our sawmill workers are out of work here. We've got $5 million set aside in this budget for something called "trade." Take the $5 million and instead of just wasting it upon a group of civil servants here in Victoria, who so far don't appear to have accomplished anything in the area of trade, work out an arrangement with COFI to try to find offshore markets for our lumber instead of continuing the practice of putting 60 percent of our market in the United States basket and running into difficulty every time they have difficulty in the United States.

Deal with housing. Try to promote some affordable housing in this province. It is possible to do it. The Leader of the Opposition has outlined on more than one occasion in the last few months a mechanism for doing that, for giving people the opportunity to borrow money at reasonable and decent interest rates so that they can acquire, or have built, affordable housing, accomplishing not only the provision of housing to people who need it at affordable rates and affordable interest rates as well, but also providing job opportunities for the forest industry.

A while ago the Premier sent a report to his constituents: "William R. Bennett, Your MLA Reports." There are a number of pages. He talks about all sorts of things but there is not a single, solitary word about housing. Yet this is a report to his constituents, people he represents, while there are

[ Page 6998 ]

hundreds and hundreds of people out of work and people have difficulty in acquiring affordable housing. The Premier doesn't deign to consider that a worthwhile thing to talk about in his report to his own constituency. He isn't interested in housing, Mr. Speaker. He isn't interested in attempting to provide jobs for the people in this province.

In the forest industry we have 15,000 to 20,000 people out of work. In the mining industry we have about 8,000 people out of work. Forestry has always been considered the backbone of the economy in this province, and when it slows down and when thousands of loggers and sawmill workers and pulpmill workers are out Of work, it finds its way all through the rest of the economy.

That's one of the reasons the newspaper reported just the other day a 60 percent increase in bankruptcies of small business — the direct responsibility and result of this government's complete aloofness from the whole program of trying to provide work in this province.

I see the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) is on his feet. I see he's not doing anything in any event, but I'm sure he reads the newspaper. I'd like to draw to your attention — before he does leave, Mr. Speaker — theVancouver Province, in which the headline says this. Can you read it, Mr. Minister, from across there? He's not interested even in looking at the paper, Mr. Speaker. That shows how little he cares about the fact that it's a cold spring for Prince George. It shows how little he, the Minister of Labour, representing the constituency of Prince George, cares that 10,000 people in his own city are unemployed. It shows how little he cares about the fact that there is an 18 percent unemployment rate in the workforce in Prince George, the very city from which the Minister of Labour comes. It shows how little he cares about the fact that Prince George has the highest percentage of unemployment anywhere west of the province of Quebec.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's in charge of manpower.

MR. HOWARD: He's in charge of unemployment, not in charge of manpower. And he's doing very well at being in charge of unemployment, having created that situation in his own constituency.

He spoke the other day in the budget debate. I didn't hear him indicate he even knew how to pronounce the word unemployment.

It is a shameful performance on his part and on the part of the government. And of course his colleague the member for Prince George South (Mr. Strachan) is in the same category: he hasn't yet deigned to say anything about this either.

There's apparently no point in doing this, Mr. Speaker, to try to convince the government of anything, because they obviously aren't interested. But I have a sheaf of newspaper clippings over the last few weeks showing instance after instance throughout this province, in every constituency, of operations shutting down, of people being laid off, of companies going out of business. There are dozens and dozens of them. For 150,000 people being out of work in this province, you need to have headlines like that in order to show the case visually, and to show how, as a result of complete disinterest, complete lack of attention, complete carelessness on the part of this government, they can sit idly by and let it happen and almost relish the fact that people are losing jobs in this province.

It's very fundamental to the economy of any area that we need to deal with the question of wealth production. That's the foundation of our economic activity. It's the loggers, miners, fishermen, sawmill workers, pulpmill workers and farmers — those are the people who produce the wealth in this province. And it's that wealth that the rest of us who are not wealth-producers live off of. It's that wealth that keeps government alive, and for a government to have done as this government did over the earlier two budgets — virtually to rape the people of this province in terms of taxes and squander a 40 percent increase in public spending over a two-year period — is unconscionable. For a government to do that sort of thing and not have the courage afterwards to be able to say: "We did that because we believed it was right, and we are now prepared to go to the country in an election to ask the people whether they thought we were right or not...." That's the unconscionable part of it. Having created difficulties, caused unemployment and permitted sawmills, pulpmills and mines to shut down every day of the week, and not to have the courage to say that they're prepared to take their case to the people — that's the unconscionable and miserable part of it.

Here is a government that is more interested in providing employment in Japan than in British Columbia; here is a government that exports logs in the round — raw logs — to Japan to employ sawmill workers there while our own sawmill workers are out of work; here is a government that has enjoyed exporting every single pound of copper concentrates that we produce in this province to Japan to create employment for workers in Japan so that we can buy the finished product — copper wiring and copper tubing — back again and lose in the process; here is a government that enjoys very much the prospect of taking a billion dollars from the taxpayers of this province and subsidizing northeast coal in order to create employment in Japan, not in order to create jobs here in B.C.

If I can put it in summation and in its form, the budget is just a miserable recitation of despair. Recession has been identified in a loose way as being when your neighbour is out of work. When your neighbour loses his job it's a recession. When you lose your job it's a depression. Recovery will only come about when Premier Bennett loses his job.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you finished?

MR. HOWARD: The only thing that's finished here is the integrity of the government of which you are a member, and your own morality in politics.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House to speak against the amendment. I've listened with a great deal of interest to the debate on the budget, and I must say that it's been the weakest debate that I have ever heard in this Legislature, because the opposition knows full well that this is a good budget. It is a budget that provides leadership in this province and that is envied by every jurisdiction, not only in Canada but in North America, because of the prudent leadership and fiscal responsibility of this government during the past six years. We will see this province through some difficult economic times that are caused not by the policies of this government but by world economic conditions. Had it not been for the measures taken by this government — the economic thrust taken by this government — this province would really be in far more difficulty than it is today.

I have to recognize that the opposition is frustrated — very frustrated indeed. I watched their faces on the day the

[ Page 6999 ]

budget was brought down. You could see the frustration forming because they knew that this indeed was a good budget. There are no tax increases in a difficult time in this province. It is indeed a balanced budget, one of the only balanced budgets of any jurisdiction in North America, a budget only possible because this government has planned and planned well. Our financial ship is sound and based on sound fiscal planks; and I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, our fiscal planks are in place and will see us through the difficult storms which the entire world is experiencing today.

I also had to listen with a great deal of interest to the Leader of the Opposition. I'm not really sure whether or not he is the leader, because they're fighting among themselves as to who should be the leader. They are disunited, disorganized, fighting among themselves on policy. They've been all over the mat on northeast coal; they don't know whether they're for it. But one thing they are united on, Mr. Speaker, is that they would close it down if they were government.

I doubt if we should any longer call the opposition the loyal opposition, because they're not a credible opposition, and I don't think they do credit to what we have seen in this Legislature as some good oppositions in the past.

I listened to the Leader of the Opposition, a man who has high hopes of some day being Premier and leading this province, and yet he goes around and publicly criticizes and chastises and mocks — yes, mocks — our number two trading partner, the Japanese. Now I ask you, Mr. Speaker, how that man could ever lead this province and negotiate with our number two trading partner after some of the public statements that that man, who has aspirations of being the Premier of this province, has made.

I also listened with a great deal of interest to his condemnation of our Premier in the way he handled the constitution. But where were the opposition when the constitution debate was going on in this Legislature, Mr. Speaker? They were silent; they didn't have a word to say; they couldn't make up their minds whether they wanted to support it or be against it. There was no leadership at all emanating from that side of the House. It was the leadership ability of our Premier as chairman of the premiers' conference of Canada that saved this country from ruination. For that man over there, the Leader of the Opposition, to stand and make some of the statements in this House that he made today on our Premier's stewardship during the last six years leaves me somewhat dismayed.

Our Premier, Mr. Speaker, has represented British Columbia and represented British Columbia well in Ottawa and on the constitution talks. And as I say, it's his leadership that he showed....

AN HON. MEMBER: That's lacking.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: His leadership, my friend, of which you're very envious, and of which your leader is very envious. You are very frustrated with the leadership that our Premier has shown, that this weekend we'll have the constitution repatriated to Canada.

I also listened with a great deal of interest today to the Leader of the Opposition's remarks about the troubles that we're facing in the mining and lumber industries today, But the difference between now and when they were government is that the mining industry in British Columbia was facing difficulty when they were government because of the policies of the socialist government of the day. There was never a higher demand for minerals or higher prices in the history of the mining industry than during the time that they were government. With that, because of their policies, the mining industry was pulling out of British Columbia.

In 1973, after the first energy crisis in the world, when they had an opportunity to get the petroleum industry in this province rolling, what was happening, Mr. Speaker, because of their policies? Because of their policies the petroleum industry was leaving the province. As a matter of fact, it wasn't safe to be on the road between British Columbia and Alberta. You would be run over by oil-rigs pulling out of British Columbia at a time when there was an energy crisis in the world and they had the opportunity to do something with that natural resource for the benefit of the people of British Columbia. They blew it. There's a big difference today in the problems being experienced by the petroleum industry, the mining industry and lumber industry than when they were government, because it was their policies, not world economic conditions. It was their policies that drove the industry out of this province.

Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you something else, and make no mistake about it. If there was an election tomorrow, the mining industry of British Columbia would support this government, and that's a far cry from the attitude of the mining industry when they were government. Today there are plans being formulated and in the formulation stage that when the world mining industry and the demand for our metals picks up there will be new mines coming onstream. Those plans are being formulated today. That's a far cry from when they were government; there were no plans. Our mining engineers were seeking employment in the Yukon and indeed in other countries. The difference between today, Mr. Speaker, because of world conditions, and when they were government is that today investors are still flocking to the province of British Columbia. Every day, in spite of the recession in the world, new plants are being opened up in British Columbia, new investment is coming to British Columbia, and the only downside to that investment and to the plans that are being made for future investment is the threat of socialism still hanging over this province.

Mr. Speaker, I was somewhat disillusioned by the Leader of the Opposition, because he showed me during his speech today that indeed he is afraid. He is afraid of our Premier who has shown leadership and statesmanship. I can remember, when the Leader of the Opposition used to get up in this Legislature and poke fun; oh, yes, frivolous remarks about our Premier. There was one today. No, all he could do was read last year's Hansard, and not one single, solitary policy did he outline from his side of the Legislature.

I listened also, with a great deal of interest to the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), and he continues to say that northeast coal is a billion dollar subsidy. I suppose he thinks that if he states that falsehood enough times people will believe it. I want to tell you that there is no subsidy to northeast coal. As a matter of fact, the price for northeast coal is being paid by the Japanese steel industry, and has indeed led the prices and new negotiations for the southeast that will put hundreds of millions of dollars into that area. Yes, it was because of the prices negotiated for northeast coal that southeast coal was able to negotiate not a 5 percent increase, not a 10 percent increase, but in some cases a 25 percent increase. It was the highest increase ever negotiated, because of the price being paid for northeast coal. Yet the socialists over there continue to rant and rave that it's a subsidy.

[ Page 7000 ]

Is it a subsidy when there will be a surplus return to the taxpayers of Canada, to the federal government, over the 15-year term of contract of $94 billion in escalated dollars? Mr. Speaker, I ask you: do you call that a subsidy? Is it a subsidy when surplus revenues to the provincial government over the 15-year contract on northeast coal will return $5.5 billion to the taxpayers of British Columbia? They say they would renegotiate northeast coal. Well, I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, after some of the statements that have emanated from that side of the House, I wouldn't trust them to negotiate the purchase of a needle and thread for me.

What did they do when they were government? The coal buyers came to British Columbia from around the world, and they said the coal wasn't for sale. Then in a last-minute attempt, a month before the election, they announced northeast coal. They hadn't done any studies, they hadn't done any planning, they didn't have any sales contracts, but in a last minute attempt to try and get a few votes to win the election because they knew they were in financial trouble, they announced northeast coal. Now that northeast coal is one of the most successful projects ever undertaken by any government in Canada, they're trying to criticize it. They're trying to say that it's a subsidy. That's only one of their criticisms, but the fact of the matter is — and make no mistake about it — that that gentleman who stood here this afternoon, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett), has waffled ever since he made the statement on July 8, 1981, that one of the first things he would do if elected Premier of this province would be to close northeast coal down. Then what happened?

MR. HOWARD: That's another lie, Don.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You're calling the Premier a liar! You're calling him a liar, are you?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'll ask the minister to come to order. I would ask the member for Skeena to withdraw his remark.

MR. HOWARD: Gladly, but also the minister should be denied the opportunity to continue to make those erroneous statements. That's all I'm saying. He continues, unabated, to utter things which are not true, and he needs to be brought to order because of that. I know the minister enjoys doing this.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I have asked the member to withdraw the remark. The member has withdrawn the remark. That concludes the matter. The member has spoken, he will now resume his seat, and I will recognize the minister. I would advise all members that the use of that word which has been used very frequently in this chamber in one form or another is not to be allowed in parliamentary debate in this House or any other House. The member continues.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I want to go on to say — and I want to put it firmly on the record — that the Leader of the Opposition answered a question in an interview in the Financial Times, June 8, 1981: "If you were Premier, what would you do about it?" — in reference to northeast coal.

"If we were in, we'd stop it tomorrow."

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, you're denying your leader said it? I didn't hear the Leader of the Opposition come out and deny it when it was in cold print last June, but I'll tell you what happened, Mr. Speaker: the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) and the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) got the Leader of the Opposition in a comer and said: "Oh, you can't say that."

In the debate last year during my estimates, the member for Coquitlam said one thing, the member for Prince Rupert said another, the member for Skeena said another, the Leader of the Opposition said another. They have been all over the map. I'll tell you, I've never seen such a disorganized group of crape-hangers in my life. Then in an article in my own newspaper last spring it said: "The New Democratic government would cancel the northeast coal development." I tell you, Mr. Speaker, I offered the member for Prince Rupert to pay the way of the Leader of the Opposition if he would travel the line from the Peace River country to Prince Rupert and make those statements at public forums. He didn't do it.

He wouldn't go up there, but he thinks it's good to say down in the southeast that he'd cancel northeast coal. Who stood in this Legislature, Mr. Speaker, and said: "Oh, if you open up northeast coal you're going to ruin the southeast"? What has happened? Not only have southeast coal prices gone up, but more contracts have been signed. Why? Because this government has shown leadership in putting British Columbia into the world coal markets. We are recognized around the world today as one of the most aggressive jurisdictions in the world.

What are the benefits, Mr. Speaker? A new port. Upgrading a rail line. Putting British Columbia into the world coal market. They chastise it and criticize it and they're all over the map. They don't know whether they're for it, against it or where they are. Their leader says that they'd close it down tomorrow. What is the most stable commodity being exported out of British Columbia? I'll give you three guesses. It certainly isn't socialism.

MR. RICHMOND: Uranium?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: No, it's not uranium. Uranium from Saskatchewan? No, I don't think it's uranium from Saskatchewan. What is the most stable commodity? It's coal, and they would close the project down.

I want to go on to talk for just a few moments about some of the projects that we planned for that are in the planning stages and are going ahead today and providing thousands and thousands of jobs for British Columbians. These are projects the opposition has a tendency to forget. I don't want to go up north. I don't even want to refer to the new southeast coal mines that are being brought onstream down there, the new investment and the stability of that area. It's one of the most stable areas in the province of British Columbia.

MR. SEGARTY: What about the Crow rate?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: There again, they don't know whether they're for it or against.

MR. SEGARTY: They think they're for it.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: No, they don't know. You can't listen to anything they say because they change depending on which way the wind is blowing.

[ Page 7001 ]

But I'm not going to talk about the north, the southeast or Vancouver Island. I just want to talk about the lower mainland for a little while. I want to tell you about just a few of the projects that are presently going on due to the planning of this government and the vision and courage of our leader. They are providing literally thousands and thousands of jobs.

B.C. Place. Were the NDP for or against a project that is providing thousands of jobs today and is projected into the future? It's not a make-work project. Certainly they were against it. It's a project that today is providing thousands of jobs, yet they stand up here and frivolously talk about jobs. They were against B.C. Place and the thousands of jobs it is creating today.

AN. HON. MEMBER: Like housing.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: And all the housing that it will create for the people. They were against it — those negative nellies, those crape hangers, those socialists over on the other side of the House. They were against the stadium that will serve the people of this province for generations to come and provide thousands of jobs. Those negative nellies and crape hangers from the other side of the House, those socialists over there, those negative, harping, carping socialists were against the stadium. They were against B.C. Place and the stadium.

What about the trade and convention centre? They were against the trade and convention centre, a project that during construction will provide thousands of man-years of employment in our construction industry, ongoing employment for decades to come and will be the showplace for trade not only for British Columbia but for all of Canada. It's going into the fastest growing area in the world, the Pacific Rim. They were against B.C. Place, the stadium and the trade and convention centre.

What about light rapid transit? They were against that too. Those negative, harping, carping socialists, those crape hangers on the other side of the House were against the development of a light rapid transit system in the lower mainland which, again, will serve the population of the lower mainland for generations to come. Those negative nellies, those negative, crepe-hanging socialists were against the light rapid transit system, the trade and convention centre, the stadium and B.C. Place. Yet they stand here and talk about jobs.

We seem to forget sometimes all the things that have been going on for years. For instance, let's take Lonsdale Quay. Who started that? It was started by the British Columbia Development Corporation under the leadership of the Social Credit government. It's providing literally thousands and thousands of man-years of construction and will provide jobs for generations. Those negative, carping, harping socialists were against the development of Lonsdale Quay, the light rapid transit system, the trade and convention centre, the stadium and B.C. Place, yet they dare stand in this House and say that we haven't done anything to create jobs. They've been against all those projects that have created thousands and thousands of jobs not only during construction but for generations to come. How dare they stand in this House and state that they are against these projects and still talk about employment.

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, there is the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) mouthing off.

What are we doing in New Westminster? A complete downtown redevelopment, something that has courage and guts, and it's happening with the private sector in it.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. HALL: Where?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: And you say: "Where?" I want to tell you that is one of the greatest developments taking place in this province, and it's because of the courage, the vision and the guts of this government — providing thousands and thousands....

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Are you against it, my friend? Sure, I'll go to New Westminster and I'll tell them you're against it. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, they were against the great development that's taking place in New Westminster, providing thousands of jobs today and long-term jobs into the future. Those negative, harping, carping socialists over on the other side of the House were against the development of New Westminster; they were against the development of Lonsdale Quay; they were against the development of a light rapid transit system; they were against the development of the trade and convention centre; they were against the development of B.C. Place; they were against the development of the stadium; and they stand here in this Legislature and talk about jobs.

I want to tell you a couple of other things, Mr. Speaker. When we were building a great new drydock facility in Vancouver, the member for New Westminster stood in this House and he was against that development — a drydock that is today providing literally thousands and thousands of jobs. Oh, we had all kinds of criticism.

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Now he's trying to renege.

Those negative, harping, carping socialists have been against everything that has ever happened in this province. The Leader of the Opposition says: "So you're going to ship coal. You've got to ship it" — he demanded that it be shipped — "in B.C. bottoms." Oh, we're going to build a giant-sized shipbuilding facility just to build five or six boats to ship northeast coal in? Then he'd say: "Well, if you subsidize the shipbuilding facility, that's another subsidy." That gentleman — I use the word loosely — well, anyway, the Leader of the Opposition, who is going to be the great negotiator, did he negotiate, did he demand that coal from the southeast, long established and shipped since 1968, go in B.C. bottoms? No. Did he demand that the minerals that had been shipped out of British Columbia for decades and decades be shipped in Canadian bottoms? Did he ever demand that the lumber shipped from British Columbia be shipped in Canadian bottoms? The answer is no. Did he demand that wheat from Canada be shipped in Canadian bottoms? But he thinks that he can go out there with all his huff and puff and influence those who may not be informed about the real facts of life.

I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, we have a small but growing merchant marine in Canada.

[ Page 7002 ]

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, we have — small but growing — and if the federal government would change their tax laws a little bit, those ships could be registered under a Canadian flag. And maybe some day that will happen — but they expect miracles — and I would like to see it happen. But the Leader of the Opposition, looking in every nook and cranny, trying to find some little thing to criticize about the greatest project in the history of British Columbia, has had to come out with something so frivolous.

" Oh," he said, "we demand there be a steel mill built in British Columbia." You know, you'd think that British Columbia was the only country in the world that had coal. But I want to tell you, they thought that.when they were in government.... When the coal buyers came here to buy coal, which would have provided jobs which today would have been developed and would have increased our employment by thousands of jobs, they sent them home and said: "Leave the coal in the ground." Well, I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that coal is an international commodity, and the Japanese don't have to buy coal from British Columbia. They can buy lots of coal from China, Poland, the United States or Australia. But they bought it from British Columbia, and they paid a bonus. On the backs of the Japanese steel industry, we will have what left for future generations? We will have a new port and an upgraded railway system from Prince George to Prince Rupert, plus 77 kilometres of new branch line from Prince George to the townsite of Tumbler Ridge. We will have a new townsite in Tumbler Ridge. We will have new highways and a new power line, all on the backs of the first two contracts, all on the backs of the Japanese steel industry. Those negative, harping, carping socialists over there never put a project together in all their life, never did a thing to show any leadership when they were government. All they did was go around and buy something that had already been put together by the private sector. Yet they call it a subsidy. No wonder nobody pays any attention to them. No wonder.

I listened to the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) again trying to perpetuate the myth that we ship round logs to Japan, to the Japanese lumber industry. Well, I know one thing: nobody pays much attention to the member for Skeena because he does try to perpetuate these myths, and when people find out the facts they realize he's all wrong. We export less than 5 percent of the logs that we cut down in British Columbia. Logs that are exported have to be surplus to our needs before they are exported. I have gone to Japan and sat in their ministry of forestry and agriculture, and they have said: "We want to buy your round logs." And I have said, "No, you will not buy our round logs because the forest industry is the number one industry in British Columbia, and we're not going to export our round logs to you." At the same time, being firm on that, we have increased the export of sawn lumber, of 2-by-4s, to Japan, and that market is growing.

No, we're not exporting our round logs. We're one country, one province in the world that doesn't export. The United States has taken a leaf out of our book and they're stopping the export of round logs. The Philippines have stopped the export of round logs; Indonesia has stopped the export of round logs. They're taking a leaf out of British Columbia's book. We have had delegation after delegation come here in the last four years to learn from British Columbia because we have the best forestry industry in the world. And it's a forest industry that's not under threat of being bought up by the government, as it was between '72 and '75. It's a forest industry that is under the auspices of the private sector.

I listened with a great deal of interest to the argument from the members on the opposite side about small business development. This government has done more for the small business community in this province than any jurisdiction did before it. You will recall what happened when the socialists were in government. They brought in a tax called the Corporation Capital Tax Act, whereby they took all of the capital employed by every small business in this province and put a tax on it, including equity and including borrowed capital. And now they yack about wanting to help the small businessman.

It was a punitive taxation that they brought in when they were government. Those socialists over there did more damage to the small business community in this province than was ever done before. Now they're going around talking to the small business community. They're putting on the blue suits and they're putting on the vests to try to cover up the red underwear, but it isn't working.

This government has done away with that punitive taxation to the small businessman. This government has brought in one of the lowest income taxes to the small business community of any jurisdiction in Canada. It is this government that brought in business information centres throughout the province to work with the small business community and to work with the Chamber of Commerce — not going out and setting up a bureaucracy in every hamlet and city in the province, but working with the small business community, helping them to put on seminars. It is this government that brought in the industrial commissioner program so as to have people out there in the community to help the small businessman, to give him information, to help him if he wanted to apply for one of our numerous programs. That was done by this government.

What did they do to help the small businessman? They put up the income tax and bought in taxes on the capital that the small businessman employed. Yet they have the audacity to stand up in this Legislature and say we haven't done anything for the small businessman. And what would they do?

I want to tell you what we have done for the small businessman. We have created an economic climate in British Columbia such that we've one of the best economies of any jurisdiction in Canada where the small businessman can flourish.

MR. LAUK: Right now?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, even now, my friend, it's a better climate than in any other jurisdiction in North America, or any other jurisdiction in Canada, and it's because of the policies of this government. We have one of the strongest economies in North America right here in British Columbia today. That's a fact. It was this government that put on a business seminar to assist the small businessman with his management; it was this government that put out booklets and information and guides for the small businessman; it was this government that brought in the low-interest loans assistance program to help the small businessman; it was this government that brought in the assistance to small enterprise program to help the small businessman in this province; it was this government that brought in the small manufacturers assistance program to help the small businessman in this

[ Page 7003 ]

province; and it was this government that started the incoming buyers program to assist the small manufacturer to bring customers in and to sell, and it's been successful.

What did they do, Mr. Speaker? The first hundred loans they put out from BCDC all went bankrupt because they were put out on political patronage and not on good business principles. What we have done to assist the small business community has been unequalled in any province in Canada. We have a market assistance program that assists the small businessman to go out into the international marketplace and find new markets.

Oh, I notice the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) squirming. Yes, that's a fact, my friend. Nearly the first hundred loans that were put out by BCDC when he was running it went broke because it was put out on political patronage and not on good business principles.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I'll remind the hon. member that....

MR. COCKE: Tell us about the Waddling Dog.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, I'll tell you about the Waddling Dog, my friend.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Political patronage has been ruled before to be unparliamentary, and I'd ask the member to withdraw that.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I'll withdraw political patronage and say "not on good business principles."

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the comments by the hon. minister are a slander not only to me and the board of directors of the BCDC but are a slander to the many people that receive loans from the BCDC, a great many of whom were identified quite clearly in their communities as supporters of that member's party. I thank the hon. Speaker....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, that is not a point of order. The comment has been withdrawn and that's satisfactory.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'm sorry if I got under the member's skin, but I know he's a little touchy about the terrible job that he did when he was....

Interjections.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, it was this government that started the tourist industry development subsidiary agreement.

MR. LAUK: No, we didn't.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: It was this government that signed the first program with Ottawa.

MR. LAUK: No.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: They sat with it. They signed the general development agreement and then put it under ice and left it for three or four years, or however long it was.

MR. LAUK: Tell the truth.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You didn't sign one subsidiary agreement — not one were you able to negotiate. You talk about our Premier being able to negotiate with Ottawa. When your leader went down there, what was he called in Ottawa? "The big buffoon." He went down and represented the people of British Columbia and got the name of "the big buffoon."

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. minister, I'll have to ask you to withdraw that too, please.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'll withdraw "the big buffoon."

Mr. Speaker, there are so many things that I would like to talk about today, like the great things that are going on in the great province of British Columbia, but I realize that my time is drawing to a close. I just want to state once more for the record that one of the greatest projects in British Columbia is northeast coal. I want to state it again. The question was: "What would you do if you were Premier? What would you do about northeast coal?" The Leader of the Opposition said: "If we were in, we'd stop it tomorrow." Thank you very much.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, the minister's voice is a hazard to the health of every member in this chamber and even to those in the galleries. He is so loud and so empty. There is so much noise and so little substance that whenever he speaks all we get is noise pollution, in addition to facts which he knows are incorrect. Every time he stands on his feet he repeats that the NDP says the first thing it will do when it becomes government is close the northeast coal project. He knows — he has heard and he has been told — that that is not correct, which leads one to believe that he is deliberately trying to mislead the House and deliberately trying to mislead the people of British Columbia. The only way to get him to shut up and tell the truth is going to have to be to put a substantive motion on the table censuring him for deliberately misleading the House. That's the only way we're going to get the truth out of that minister.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. member has stated that the member might be deliberately misleading the House, and I'm afraid I'll have to ask for that comment to be withdrawn. Will the member withdraw? That is unparliamentary.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, if you concluded that that was what I was doing, I withdraw it. I was saying that one is being forced to believe that that is what the minister is trying to do — that the minister is trying to deliberately mislead not only the House but all the people of British Columbia as well.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I'm sorry, that must be withdrawn.

MS. BROWN: However, if you misunderstood my statement, I will withdraw it, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The minister will come to order.

[ Page 7004 ]

MS. BROWN: I think we should remind ourselves that we are talking about unemployment in this province. Just to refresh the memory of the government members who are sitting here, and those people in the galleries, what we are talking about is over 200,000 British Columbians who want to work and who cannot find work. After today's statement about the cutbacks in funds for the youth employment program, and with more and more mills and mines mentioning their layoffs each day, that figure is increasing daily. We're not talking about world conditions; we're talking about this government's actions and the result of this government's actions in terms of massive unemployment in this province at this time. For that minister to stand on his feet and talk about this great government and the good things that it's doing clearly indicates that either he does not understand the damage his government's policies are doing to this province or else he does not care.

I think we should remind ourselves again of the figures. According to the statistics for March 1982, there are 143,000 plus the 64,000 hidden unemployed, for a total of 207,000 or 14.7 percent of all British Columbians who can work and who want to work. They are unable to work because that government's policies have resulted in massive unemployment in this province.

If he wants to be reminded of some of the areas, most of which are represented by some of his own members, there is of course the Okanagan which has 11.8 percent unemployment, the central interior which has 18.1 and the minister's own Peace River riding which has 13.6 percent unemployment. That's what the opposition is addressing itself to, and trying to somehow encourage that government to get on with the business of creating jobs, rather than continuing its practice of destroying jobs — wiping out employment as a result of its very short-sighted policies.

On Friday when I was home, I was walking in my riding and one of the millionaire Socreds living in that riding stopped to have a talk with me. I asked him what he thought his government was doing. He revealed that he is no longer a Social Crediter; in fact, he is now a member of the western Canada party. He started to tell me that the two seats that he was sure would not be represented by Social Credit in the next election were South Peace River and North Peace River. This is an active member of the western Canada separatist party, who was a very active Social Crediter. He's one of the millionaire Social Crediters who are hurting as a result of this government's policy. He has assured us that neither North Peace River nor South Peace River will be represented by Social Credit whenever the election is called. As a matter of fact, he said: "Don't press for an election now. We need more time. The more time we can get, the more of those Socreds we can wipe out. So don't press for an election. Get the word to Barrett, because the western Canada party are getting their act together."

What I really wanted to talk about today is one particular group of unemployed who don't get discussed very often on the floor of this House, and certainly never get mentioned by the government. I want to talk about unemployment among women. It's not possible, of course, when one talks about women, to talk about anything else but poverty, since we constitute most of the poor people in this country. But then when you start to analyze the poverty of women, what it comes down to, of course, is the absence of jobs.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: The member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet) is so exercised by the information which I've just brought to his attention about the jeopardy in which his seat is that he will not shut up. If he were smart, he would go home and start campaigning. Not that that would make any difference whatsoever; he's still going to lose that seat to the western Canada party. Nonetheless, he would lose by a smaller majority if he would go home and start campaigning, rather than sitting down here and hassling the very gentle member for Cowichan.

I want to talk about unemployment, as I said, among the women of British Columbia. Those figures which I gave you represent a large percentage of women. We are told that 10.3 percent of the women in this province are unemployed. In other words, 63 percent of the adult poor people in British Columbia are women. Some of them, of course, cannot work, because that includes a number of older and retired women. But of the ones who do want to work and can work, as of the March 1982 statistics, 10.3 percent are unable to find employment.

What we have in this province is a Minister of Human Resources and a government which says women should go to work, women with small babies should go to work. Once an infant has reached the age of six months you should leave that infant somewhere and go to work. To ensure that the woman goes to work the minister says, "If you don't work, we will deduct $55 a month from your income assistance," knowing full well that that money is going to be taken not from the woman but from the money spent for food and other necessities for that infant. Despite that, we have a government which, at a time when its own policies are creating massive unemployment in this province, is deliberately sending people out to work when it knows that there are no jobs for them.

In addition to the 10.3 percent of women who are registered as looking for work, we now have all of those women who are in receipt of income assistance and whose babies have now reached the age of six months and one day who are also going to join the ranks of the unemployed because they have to go and seek work too, since the minister insists that their income assistance is going to be cut back $55 a month. I think we should remind ourselves of the kinds of figures we are talking about. We are talking about people who are trying to live on just over $300 a month, and who are now finding that their income assistance is going to be cut either by $55 a month or $35 a month if they have a family.

As I said before, 63 percent of the adult poor in this province are women; 10.3 percent of the women in this province are seeking and unable to find employment. At the same time, we have a government which brings in a budget which doubles the debt and doubles the burden under which all British Columbians have to exist. They are creating, through hidden user fees and hidden taxes, an additional burden on people at a time when their own policies are increasing unemployment and when people are going bankrupt faster than ever.

Some interesting things are happening, as I said before. More and more we're reading articles that talk about the fact that women are the last hired and the first fired. We're finding retraining programs, apprenticeship programs and all the money for job-creation programs being cut back, eliminated or wiped out at the same time as the statistics are increasing.

For years and years we were told that women work to buy frivolous things they work so they can have their hair done every Thursday, or they work so that the family can take a

[ Page 7005 ]

vacation. That's not true anymore. That is not true anywhere in British Columbia. Women work now because, despite the fact that families have two incomes, they still can't make ends meet under the policies of this government. Despite the fact that there are two full-time wage earners in most families, they are still not making ends meet. Women are also working because there are so many men who are not working. A large number of the poor women in this country are married to unemployed men or to men whose incomes are less than $10,000 a year. That's the reality of the situation.

When we talk about women and poverty, we talk about a government that doesn't care about people, a government that introduces policies that deliberately exacerbate unemployment. It not only creates it, it makes it worse and then it turns around and wipes out the kinds of programs — whether they are retraining, upgrading of skills, or re-entry programs — that women need to get back into whatever labour market there is. The government wipes out funding for those kinds of programs.

We find that you run into things like the article written by Helen Bateson in the Province on December 13, last year, in which she was talking about the sickness of unemployment. What she was saying was that doctors are finding that their waiting rooms are filling with both men and women who are depressed, who are suffering from lack of sleep and other stress-related illnesses. When they tried to find out what the root cause of this is, they found that people are despondent over their loss of jobs. They're finding that in many communities where, as a result of the slump in the industry in that community — whether it's in the forest industry or mining industry or whatever — people, because they're losing their jobs, are becoming depressed, despondent, and they're showing up in doctors' offices more and more often with these symptoms. What the doctors are also saying is that they're finding that there is an increase in the number of tranquilizers which they're having to prescribe.

So we're becoming a nation of drug addicts, really. That's what it's all about. More and more, people are having to turn to tranquilizers and to drugs to deal with unemployment and their depression as a result of this government's policies.

We also have a couple of things happening in this province that haven't happened since the Depression — and I'm talking about the soup kitchens. I'm talking about the fact that for the first time, I guess, since the 1930s, we now have soup kitchens in the province — not just the ones attached to the Salvation Army, and not just the ones attached to the Catholic Missions, but in other communities, other community groups are finding that they have to start feeding people. Again, most of the people using these soup kitchens are women and their children, not only because the income assistance is not going far enough, but, in fact, because in many instances, because of unemployment in the family — whether their spouse is unemployed or whether they are — they're finding that there just isn't enough money to meet the basic necessities.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

The Ministry of Human Resources did a survey in which it questioned people on income assistance — primarily single mothers — about their priorities: if you could have what you wanted, in order, what would be your priority? What they found was that 71 percent of the people interviewed said they wanted jobs. They wanted to work. They wanted employment. That was their number one priority. They didn't ask for an increase in the GAIN rate, they didn't ask for an increase in income assistance; they asked for work, employment, and that's not possible. That is not going to happen, because once again this government has brought a budget down which has no job creation in it whatsoever. It's a deceptive budget which talks about creating 9,000 jobs. Even if that were true, it would still be a drop in the bucket with 207,000 people out of work. It's a budget that talks about creating 9,000 jobs, and then when we examine it more closely, as we always must examine any statement made by Social Credit, we find that that is not the case at all; in fact, there is not going to be one new job resulting from it. All the Minister of Finance has done has been to go around and add up all the jobs which were already being budgeted for in the Ministry of Labour and other ministries, put them together and make a speech stating that they're now going to be creating 9,000 jobs. That's a very, very cruel joke to visit on the people of British Columbia. It's not true. It's dishonest. It's not a fact. Not one single new job is going to be created. But even if it were true — even if, in fact, there were 9,000 jobs being created — it would still be totally inadequate when we realize that what we're looking at is a figure of 207,000 people, the largest number of people out of work in the history of this province, certainly since the days of the Depression.

Do you realize that for the first time in the history of British Columbia there are more families leaving British Columbia than there are families entering British Columbia? Did you know that, Mr. Speaker? Never before in the history of this province, under any administration as far back as one can go — to the beginning of time and the beginning of government — has there ever been a phenomenon like the one we're experiencing now. There are more families leaving British Columbia than there are families entering British Columbia.

Did you also know, Mr. Speaker, that for the first time in the history of this province there are more senior citizens leaving British Columbia than entering it? You realize that British Columbia is the retirement centre for people who all their lives have been freezing on the Prairies and in eastern Canada. Everyone looked forward to growing old and retiring to British Columbia. It's not possible any more, and after this budget even more impossible. Now we find that there are British Columbia senior citizens seeking other parts of Canada to live in, because they cannot survive under the burden of taxes and hidden user fees and upfront user fees visited by this government on senior citizens.

I don't want to talk about senior citizens, because the way they have been treated by this government is so disgraceful that my pride in British Columbia doesn't let me want anyone to find out about it. I don't want anyone to know how badly senior citizens are treated by this government. I don't want anyone to know that they have not had an increase in their supplement since 1976; that on January 1, 1976, they started getting $38.88, and they have not received one penny of increase since then. I don't want anybody to know that, and I hope that the senior citizens who are leaving British Columbia are not telling anyone about that, because that is a shame and a disgrace. This government just brought down an $8.5 billion budget, and when you look under the seniors' supplement you will find that that figure has once again decreased, at a time when the seniors' population in this province is growing by 11,000 per year — every year 11,000 people become eligible. Yet despite that, the amount of money

[ Page 7006 ]

allotted for that has decreased. So I don't want to talk about senior citizens. I want to talk about the lack of employment for women. I have never heard any member on the government side ever get up and speak in support of women on any issue. As far as that government is concerned, they don't even exist, which may be just as well, because as soon as they find out that someone exists, they bring the hammer down on them — another hidden user tax, another hidden user fee or something. So it's just as well, Mr. Speaker, that they don't do that.

The other thing about the unemployment figure is what it means to the young people of this province — people between the ages of 15 and 24. Of these, 19.4 percent, nearly 20 percent, can't find work. They want to work, must work, need work and can't find work, as a result of the deliberate policies of that government over there.

I don't buy the argument often used by the government that they're dealing with world forces over which they have no control. When they need $100,000 to go off and have a retreat, the world forces don't seem to be able to stop them from finding that $100,000. They can take a ferry, they can find helicopters. When they want to refurnish their offices — the Minister of Labour, $1,000 per employee in his office — when they want that kind of money, world forces somehow don't seem to interfere.

MR. HALL: Where is the London metal market then?

MS. BROWN: That's right: where is the London metal market then? But when it comes to services to seniors, when it comes to creating jobs for the youth of this province, suddenly it's world forces, Mr. Speaker — these mysterious world forces interfere.

We had a visit recently from the recreation people, and they told us that originally under the youth employment program they used to be able to hire 2,000 students every summer. Now we are finding out that that program has been eliminated, wiped out. How are those students going to survive? They're told: "Don't go on welfare; you're a lazy burn if you go on welfare. Don't go on unemployment insurance; you're a lazy burn if you go on unemployment insurance."

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: That's right, yet we find that 20 percent of those students — eager, anxious, willing and wanting to work — are not going to be able to find employment as a direct result of the policies of that Premier and this government. That's the kind of reason why the opposition moved that amendment to the Speech from the Throne. It's because we are appalled that at the time, as I said before, when that government had the gall to increase medicare by 21 percent, Pharmacare by 24 percent, the fuel tax by 38 percent, the motor vehicle licence by 16 percent, the water licence by 10 percent and bus passes for seniors by 60 percent....

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: That's the increase on the bus passes. Do you know that if world forces hadn't interfered...? If seniors had been protected the way furniture in ministers' offices is protected, no senior citizen in this province would even need a bus pass — the government could say that everyone over the age of 65 or disabled can ride the buses free. The government would have been able to do that with all the money squandered on its furniture, its holidays, its retreats, its travel and its this and its that. But they have their priorities, and people have never been a priority with this government — only themselves.

There's a 35 percent increase for long-term care. Even the sick — the dead and the dying. Nobody is safe from this government. They have the gall to come into this House and say: "Aren't we wonderful. We didn't increase your income tax. We didn't increase the sales tax." You have indexed and mortgaged every British Columbian with your hidden taxes and your user fees. Then you have the nerve to come in here and say: "Congratulate us because we didn't raise sales tax or increase your income tax."

MR. HANSON: It's the best government Japan's ever had.

MS. BROWN: That's right.

The statistics bear repeating. The public debt has more than doubled since these people became government in 1975. I think that the gallery should hear, and the public should know what figures we are talking about. In 1976, when this government took over, there was a guaranteed funded debt of over $4.6 billion. In 1978 it jumped to $6.3 billion. In 1979 that debt jumped to $7.5 billion. I'm talking about the debt, the burden, the mortgage that this government is placing on the people of British Columbia. In 1980 the province is staggering under a debt load of $8.3 billion. We thought that it couldn't — that what goes up must come down — but not when you're dealing with debt and this government. We have been told by the people who can compute and permutate these things that the provincial debt for this fiscal year is going to increase to an astounding $10.4 billion. As a very wise and clever accountant who speaks on behalf of this party worked out, that was and remains the equivalent of $6,500 for every man, woman and child in British Columbia.

British Columbia cannot afford this government. It is as simple as that. The people of British Columbia cannot afford this government when one looks at the debt. The interesting thing about this is that we've always been told that you get what you pay for. So you figure that for $6,500 you'd be getting something. But do you know what the people of British Columbia get for $6,500? They get 207,000 British Columbians out of work for the $6,500 debt that every man, woman and child in this province has to carry as a direct result of the policies of that particular government over there. For that reason, I am hoping that those members on the back bench, especially the two from the Peace River who are going to lose their seats when the western separatists move in there — as they have already — who still have the ability to think and act on behalf of their constituents will support this amendment.

MR. KEMPF: It's always very interesting to listen to, and of course even more interesting to follow, that member for Burnaby-Edmonds, who was born with a silver spoon in her mouth and stands in this House and speaks of the common people. It is very interesting and very amusing for me to listen to that member.

Mr. Speaker, as I stand once again to speak and debate in this House, I'm reminded — and I would suggest that the members opposite would remind themselves of this once in a

[ Page 7007 ]

while — of why it is that I am here and why it is that we are all here in this House. We are here, hon. members, to speak for and to carry out the wishes of those who through the democratic process chose us and sent us here to represent them. Often that purpose is lost, unfortunately, in the rhetoric of heated debate in this chamber by members on both sides, including myself.

We are here to speak as elected representatives and not as individuals, as I heard the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) do. I'm sure that many of his constituents would not agree with what he has expounded on in this chamber on many occasions.

AN HON. MEMBER: Name one.

MR. KEMPF: Northeast coal.

We are here to speak as elected representatives and not as individuals wishing to put forward our own philosophy, and certainly not to put personal philosophy or party line ahead of those we are bound through due process to represent.

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the people of Omineca to speak for the budget and against this motion.

MRS. WALLACE: All the people of Omineca?

MR. KEMPF: No, the majority, Madam Member.

When last in budget debate, just over a year ago, I spoke these words, and I would like to quote from Hansard of March 17, 1981, page 4592:

I stand today to speak in support of this budget. Although it's not the kind of budget which I would prefer to have in this province, it's a budget which is a product of our time. It is basically the result of two things: spiralling costs, which of course include the cost of government, and declining revenues to government. A combination of these two phenomena left the Minister of Finance's task a very tough one.

Last year, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance had a tough job. He had tough decisions to make, but not half as tough as those he had to make in this budget before us, the budget which was just brought in in this province. There were three options, with waning revenues from all of our major resources. The minister could have considered cutting services, he could have heaped yet further burdens of taxation upon the citizens of British Columbia — citizens which I believe are already taxed to the limit — or, it would appear by what has been said by some members on the other side of the floor, he could have opted for deficit financing, an option that no sane government, in my estimation, should ever consider.

Just take a look at what deficit financing has done to us federally — $16.7 billion in one year alone taken from the taxpayers of this country just to pay the interest on money borrowed. Borrowed for what? Borrowed for services that we can't afford; borrowed to meet exorbitant wage demands that our natural resources can no longer provide; borrowed to nationalize our oil and gas industry, driving the private sector and private money from this nation; borrowed to provide foreign aid and foreign development in order to promote the cause of socialism beyond our borders. Deficit financing is an absolute disaster, by whatever means — $16.7 billion taken from the pockets of Canadians to pay the interest on debt in one year alone; not to retire or even begin to retire that $96.7 billion debt, but merely to pay interest on something we couldn't afford in the first place. That certainly is not an option as far as this government and this budget are concerned.

We in British Columbia have opted for restraint in the areas where government has control: provincial government spending and spending by other levels of government and government agencies. It's long overdue and, in the view of the majority of my constituents, this restraint program is still not tough enough. Restraint comes naturally in the private sector, as the world economy experiences a slump. Sales of our natural resource products fall off, orders decline, inventories build and plants close, workers are laid off or hours are reduced. Restraints come naturally in the private sector. In the public sector the story is different. Do we see corresponding reductions in government service when revenues are reduced to government? Certainly not. What we see, in fact, is union leadership — I use that word "leadership" very loosely — playing their little political games in order to justify their high-priced executive positions. Restraint in the public sector demands government action — action which this administration has taken in this province and action which, incidentally, is understood and, for the most part, accepted.

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF: No, not by the high-priced union help or the members of the opposition, but by the rank and file employees: the civil servants. the teachers, and all of those countless thousands of public sector employees all over this province who understand even if their leaders do not, and even if the official opposition does not. They understand the seriousness of the present world economic position. They understand that British Columbia is not an island unto itself but is, rather, a partner and a participant in the total world economic picture. They know that they too must accept some responsibility and do their part to bring us through these most difficult years. They know they have to do their part, along with their brothers and sisters in the private sector, through both wage restraints and increased productivity, if we are to survive the times we are in.

I would pay tribute at this time to the workers all over this province in the forest and mining industries who have opted to cut back to four and even three days a week, to take extended holiday leave; and some have even, as in the case of a group of sawmill workers at Vanderhoof in my constituency, opted to take a 10 percent cut in their wages just to keep the plant operational. That's a 10 percent cut, hon. members, not a restraint program to hold to a 10 percent increase. I said a 10 percent cut, a real, honest-to-goodness 10 percent cut freely given in order that the employer might stay in business, thus saving all of their jobs, the philosophy being that half a loaf of bread is better than none at all.

Yes, I support this budget and I'll vote against this motion, and not only because it speaks of restraint, which in our entire society is long overdue, and which I have advocated for quite some time. I'll also vote against this motion because the budget speaks of jobs in new areas and new industries at a time when our historical industries are hard hit by world recession. Jobs? Mr. Speaker, there are thousands of them in northeast coal. There are jobs for all British Colombians who wish to take part in the building, as some of us here have done, of the northern and north-central parts of this province.

Mr. Speaker, I heard the member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell). It's too bad he's not in his seat today. He must be taking an extended Easter holiday, as he hasn't been back since the weekend. I wish he were in his seat today. I heard the member

[ Page 7008 ]

for Atlin speak of building the north. I don't think that member has ever built anything in the north, or anything in Canada for that matter. I find it very strange to believe he has ever built anything, because he's anti-everything. Any time he ever stands in this House, it's to be against anything which could be taken as development. There are thousands of jobs in northeast coal; there are thousands of jobs in the construction stages and then in the extraction and transportation of the northeast coal resources. The critics — not all of them now, mind you.... The member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) — and unfortunately he is not in his seat either — who originally opposed the project and who must have recently made one of his rare visits to his constituency, has now come down with one foot squarely planted on either side of the fence; he's not sure which way to fall.

The Leader of the Opposition — the once boisterous, once leader of that once proud opposition; the leader of that now ragtag group over there; the leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, of whom the Times-Colonist reporter Jim Hume said on November 29, 1980: "Old Dave Barrett still lurks there underneath the thin coat of varnish his handlers have persuaded him to wear" — what does he, that leader of the once proud opposition, say about northeast coal? What is the reaction of the NDP to a positive job-creating project, during these difficult times? This is what was quoted by the Vancouver Sun. That Leader of the Opposition said on February 1, 1982: "Northeast coal developments didn't make sense 50 years ago, and today they're absurd." Mr. Leader of the Opposition, I'm sure you're listening in your office. "Absurd," hon. members.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Is that coking coal?

MR. KEMPF: Things don't go better with coke any more, Mr. Premier, not in this province.

Mr. Speaker, I'd just like to tell you a few things about northeast coal, and I'd like to read you some facts. The economic activity generated over the 15-year life of the contract will contribute the staggering figure of $37 billion to Canada's economy — a figure nearly five times greater than the entire current budget of British Columbia. In other words, the Japanese are expanding our economy by providing thousands of real and ongoing jobs for the people of the province of British Columbia. And to what extent does this contract deplete the coal resources? Less than one percent of known coal reserves over the life of the 15-year contract.

The Leader of the Opposition says that's absurd, and in his confusion, he too, much like the member for Prince Rupert, has tried desperately to stand on both sides of the issue. The Leader of the Opposition has been all hung up on price, obviously not aware that the Australians have just signed a contract to supply coal to Japan at $78 Canadian per tonne, while the price of northeast coal is already set at $87 per tonne.

That Leader of the Opposition is quoted in the January 26, 1982, edition of the Times-Colonist:

"Capitalists, he said, should drive better bargains. They should, if necessary, consider the formation of price cartels to protect the public's interests. For example, Canada should follow the example of OPEC and set coal prices and export volumes in cooperation with the U.S. and Australia, the two main competitors in the lucrative Japanese market."

The Vancouver Sun editorial of the following day, January 27, 1982, said it all:

"Can he, Barrett, actually believe that cartels, designed to raise prices and foment inflation, are the answer to the world's economic problems, that the general agreement on tariffs and trade should be scrapped in favour of a dog-eat-dog agreement, that the importing nations blackmailed by a combination of exporters would not retaliate and form their own combine and further demoralize the international market? Is all this the new ideology of Canadian socialism that used to denounce combines and preach the brotherhood of man? Is Canada imaginable, except for Mr. Barrett, as the imitator of OPEC, whose extortion has already played havoc with the entire world economy?"

That editorial brought into question what the Leader of the Opposition in this province really believes and stands for. It just boggles my mind that there should be that kind of philosophical turnaround by that Leader of the Opposition for cheap, short-term political gain. Unbelievable! Brotherhood of man. These great socialists over there think that the entire economic situation today in the world is just one big joke, a tool to be used politically. The great defenders of the brotherhood of man. They speak against jobs and against development at a time when every means possible and every energy at our disposal should be directed to the creation of jobs to take the places of those lost in industries which, because of world recession, are curtailing operations or shutting down. It's no joke that 300 miners — I heard it mentioned earlier here this afternoon — in Granisle, in my constituency, are losing their jobs on July 2. That's no joke. They don't think it's a joke. They don't think it's such a bad idea to have projects, such as northeast coal, to which they can go as miners and experienced people in that industry. They've lost their jobs in an industry that has shut down because the price of copper is now 68 cents. That company has been operating at a loss for over 18 months; the break-even point for the sale of their copper is 92 cents. Those people don't think it's a joke.

I've seen the burnper sticker "Let's Get To Work." It's a great NDP motto. We've seen the red burnper sticker; it's the right colour. That's a joke. They've got a burnper sticker that says, "Let's Get To Work," yet they come into this chamber and speak against every project that is proposed to produce jobs in the province of British Columbia. Let's get to work, indeed, Mr. Member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke). Have you got one of those on your car?

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF: Hang your head in shame! "Let's get to work," when the Leader of the Opposition says that northeast coal, creating 5,800 new jobs in this province, is absurd. All those socialists over there, Mr. Speaker, can think about is an election. Let's go to a poll! Sure, when times are tough in the province of British Columbia, let's subject the people — the taxpayers of this province — to an additional $6 million to $10 million. Yes, let's go to the polls and spend that kind of money, or whatever. Let's get to work! What a joke that opposition over there is.

MR. COCKE: Are you afraid?

MR. KEMPF: No, I'm not afraid, Mr. Member for New Westminster — not at all. With all the surveys you've ever done you can't even find out.

[ Page 7009 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. Let's not interrupt the member who has the floor.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, several members opposite seem lately to be a little preoccupied by a new separatist party. What are they called? The WCC. They should be a little worried about that party, because if the numbers of their membership, if the numbers of the NDP....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, I've hit a soft spot over there. The members opposite should be worried about the WCC, if the numbers of their membership joining that party in my constituency is any indication. But why shouldn't members of the NDP join the WCC? Why shouldn't they support a separatist movement? For several years the federal NDP has been supporting Pierre Elliott Trudeau, who has done more in 11 years in this country to separate it than anything or anybody in its 114-year history. Separatists should all join, because they all march to the beat of the same drummer.

Mr. Speaker, enough on northeast coal. It's only one aspect of this budget which seeks to provide jobs at a time when they are most needed in the province of British Columbia. There are other areas in the budget which, even as a northerner speaking for northerners, I must agree with. Job creation is provided in the very heart of the province's largest city — largest and, I might add, most beautiful city — downtown Vancouver. Expo 86 creates 15,000 man-years of new employment — a project which will not only pay its own way but which as well will provide an estimated $187 million in direct tax revenues to senior levels of government. The trade and convention centre provides 1,000 on-site construction jobs and an additional 1,000 full-time and 1,000 part-time operating jobs. B.C. Place provides 2,000 construction jobs per year for 20 years. ALRT provides 1,700 on-site construction jobs between now and 1986 and an additional 1,000 jobs in the manufacturing sector. Jobs, Mr. Speaker, and the opposition says: "Let's get to work!" They speak against every one of these projects. I've sat here and listened to them since this House opened. There isn't one they've left out. They've spoken against them all.

It's a budget which also provides for a continuation of the massive capital spending program for schools, hospitals, court houses and many other needed facilities in this province — projects that will all provide jobs for today, while building our economic and social capital facilities for tomorrow. All of this is in a budget which holds the line. The Leader of the Opposition brings in a frivolous motion such as this and talks about jobs, planting trees and creating jobs, and he can't even see these jobs being created before his eyes. All of this is in a budget that holds the line on sales tax, income tax, corporate income tax and several other taxation areas commonly considered by all governments when revenues are being sought.

Again I say I support this budget, and I will vote against this motion. I support this budget because it's a step in the direction in which all governments today must proceed if we are to bring some small bit of logic to an otherwise chaotic economic situation. It's a tough budget, and some say not tough enough, but it's a start.

No wonder it was the wish of the opposition.... I'll never forget the debate which went on here on budget day in the province of British Columbia — April 5, 1982, which will go down in history. I'll never forget how it was that the official opposition....

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Member, you are never here.

I'll never forget how it was that the official opposition of this province prohibited the people of British Columbia from viewing and hearing live what it was that the budget held in store for them. They wouldn't allow the people of British Columbia to see it. If I were them, considering the budget that the Minister of Finance brought down on that day in this province, I wouldn't have wanted the people of British Columbia to see it either.

MR. MITCHELL: I always find it very humorous in some ways but very sad when I listen to some of the speeches that are made from the other side of the House. One of the reasons I feel so sad is that within the chambers here we have Pages who are listening to grown men and women sitting on that side who have done nothing else but make personal attacks against members of this House. When I listen to the complete lack of any serious, solid, positive programs for the 207,000 unemployed in this province, nothing but attacks that started when they first cut $55 off those who were injured in industrial accidents, those who no longer could hold a job because they were injured, incapable and on welfare.... This government took the position that they were going to be declared employable and they cut $55 off their allowances There is not one person from that side who stood up and fought for anything positive for those who are unfortunate to be living in British Columbia with our high cost of living without a wage, without an income, on which they can live in dignity.

I find that I listen in disgust to the personal attacks from my good friend down here, harping away: "What's your bank account?" We're here to give ideas, not to make personal attacks on one another. I say this, Mr. Speaker: we are here to give ideas, to give programs for the people, to cure in one way or another the 207,000 people who are unemployed in this province.

I listened to the attack on the federal government, and the quoting of figures. I thought when he finished it sounded just like the hotline I heard with the WCC. I thought, he's going to walk across the floor and be the leader of it.

We are not going to accomplish one thing unless we come here with positive ideas. I remember before last Christmas when we spoke in this House until dawn. We asked that this government take positive programs to create employment, to cure some of the ills that are facing the people in this province. What did we get? All we got was a lot of garbage, a lot of attacks. The people sitting there were writing their Christmas cards, and they didn't do a damn thing until they came back here with a budget that doesn't even balance

MR. SPEAKER: I would suggest that the vocabulary of the English language is sufficiently broad that an expression can be made without resorting to profanity.

MR. MITCHELL: I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker. I guess I worked on the road for so long that the odd one sneaks in

This is why we have to look at this government. We have to look at this Legislature. We have to pick the brains of every

[ Page 7010 ]

man and woman who sits here, who has been honoured to be elected. We have to work and we have to share ideas. We can't afford the pleasure of sitting here and causing the personal abuses that go on and on from that side of the House.

I say this, Mr. Speaker, because I looked for leadership Of positive programs from the cabinet. One of the members of that cabinet whom I really do respect — one of the members I feel has a bit of influence and a bit of compassion, who is going to give us some leadership.... But yesterday the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) spent the whole program attacking the opposition. I was looking for leadership from that minister, who knows better than the rest of us the complete lack of ability of youth to get apprenticeships in this province. I was expecting something positive to come in when the federal government of this country said that we must bring 20,000 tradesmen into this country, because we do not have enough apprentices being trained to fill the jobs that are predicted for this country. After 30 years of Social Credit, 30 years of inaction, 30 years of no planning for apprenticeship training or industrial schools to fulfill the growing population we have here, not one idea has come from that whole side of the House and the two hon. gentlemen that sit on this side. What are we going to do to provide apprenticeship training for the youth of this country?

If we don't get some positive ideas and leadership instead of personal abuse, this province will not progress to what it can be. When we look at where we're going and where we're at, I can't help but think that.... We have 207,000 people unemployed and people are the resources of this province. I know that if the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) found out that some of the companies were cutting down trees and taking one 2-by-4 out of each one, he would scream. He would demand that the resources of the country be developed and utilized properly. When we have 207,000 people out of work, we are wasting their ability, we are wasting their manpower. We have in this province the need for social projects, projects that citizens have a right to demand, that citizens need, and we are wasting them. We have resources in this province that are second to none in the whole country of Canada. We have 207,000 people unemployed, we have timber and we have a need for affordable housing. Do I hear anyone from the government saying we could have a program to provide affordable housing? Nothing. We have personal attacks on individuals.

We cannot afford to waste manpower. Instead of attacking interest payments, we must provide some economic planning. I am not here to give this House a lecture on economics, but we must have a program that is going to give leadership, that is going to stimulate the economy, that is going to provide the necessities. Every dollar that is wasted on unemployment benefits or on GAIN allowances is a dollar that is wasted and that is fuelling our inflation. I say to you very honestly and very truthfully that if we had a war tomorrow we would be preparing jobs and everyone would be working. We would have economic planning and we would create the jobs, we would develop the resources so that the people of this province would be working full time. Here we have a government that says we cannot have economic planning, we cannot have leadership, we must have restraint and depression. I say that we cannot afford to waste those resources. We cannot afford to fritter away the most important thing that we have, and that is people. Yet that is what we are doing when we fritter away these programs.

As the hon. member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) says, we represent our own ridings. We have to speak up for what is needed in our areas. I brought to your attention, Mr. Speaker, that we do need affordable housing. I have subdivisions with $180,000 homes sitting there. They can't be sold. They're putting liens on them. But we have a need for homes for the senior citizens. Two years ago this government promised a 50-unit senior citizen housing in Langford, and we're still waiting for it. We have the resources, we have the manpower, we have the need, and this government says we must have restraint.

In my own riding — the Western Community — we have only one publicly funded extended-care facility, and it has a waiting list. Every community should have extended-care facilities so we can relieve the pressure from our hospitals and those who are in need of operations can get beds. We can get those who need the facilities of extended care out into the community where their families can visit them and be available. They should not be forced to either occupy a bed in an emergency hospital or an acute-care hospital or have to stay home where they are not receiving the treatment that Canadians — and especially British Columbians — have a right to have.

We have the ability, we have the resources, and we have a government that says we are going to sit back and do nothing. "We are going to have restraint and depression." We've gone through that. It wasn't only in the thirties. If you go back in history.... We want nothing radical, nothing extraordinary, but just some simple economic planning.

I'm not trying to say I've got a display here, and I don't want to be thrown out of the House. I'm just bringing it up. We'll say I'm introducing it as evidence, so it's not a display. I remember last year when we were trying to save and take the fat out of this budget, this waste. We brought in resolution after resolution to cut out the propaganda, the new furniture, the advertising: out of the Attorney-General's budget, $11 million: out of Finance, $22 million — and they had the largest overrun for new furniture of any ministry. We tried to save and have available for a rainy day nearly $82 million, and that government, in their wisdom, turned it down. This is the economic planning, this is the stimulation that we must be prepared to look after. This is the program that every one of us should be working on. We should be working on creating jobs; we should be giving the leadership.

I listened to the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips). I am not going to try and take some of the material I know that the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) will be bringing to this House, because the NDP does have compassion for working people. Among those working people are not only trade-unionists, not only the injured, but also the small business community of this province. What kind of leadership do we get? travelling through this province, our task force on small business listened to the plight of the small business community — no plan, no programs. When the leader of the NDP brought in a program containing some of the things that we need to stimulate and protect the small business community, one of them was to review and expand the sector of small business where a majority of the new jobs can be developed by an enactment of a small business protection act, to force banks to obtain court permission before any small business is put into receivership; to implement rescue plans with a court-appointed consultant, where feasible, and establish regional storefront offices to assist small business.

[ Page 7011 ]

I'll tell you one case, Mr. Speaker. I could give you more horror stories that are happening in the small business community in my riding — bankruptcies and foreclosures — but I'll give you one that could have been solved with the program that the leader of the NDP promoted. You could have the provision of a small-business protection act that before you close a business out of operation there has to be a proper study made. I'll give you an example. This was a business that sold recreational vehicles. It sold trailers, tent trailers, the low-priced recreational vehicles for those who are living in restraint, those who are forced to live on lower incomes, those who cannot afford the $30,000 motor homes. This was a business that had been in operation for three years. In 1980 it had a gross sale of over $433,000, It paid to the province of British Columbia around $20,000 in sales tax. In 1981, because of the poor management of this province it only had a $397,000 business but it still paid close to $18,000 to the province in sales tax. The whole time of its operation it had a line of credit from the bank of $75,000. It also had a start-up loan of $30,000 when he first got into business. During the three years it was in operation it never missed one payment to the province with its sales tax, to Revenue Canada for all the deductions that he had to take off for his ten part-time employees or to the banks for his line of credit. But because he felt that there was going to be a certain increase in sales this year — in January his sales were increased by 14 percent, in February 11 percent — he extended his line of credit for $20,000. He went up to $106,000. He has never missed a payment to the bank, the province or the government. What happened? The bank came in on March 17. At 12 noon they walked in the door and they gave him exactly three hours to liquidate his line of credit, and he's a small, working businessman.

He was given three hours. The whole loan was foreclosed; it was a demand loan, and he couldn't make it. In three hours to the minute the bank manager was at his door with someone who had been appointed for receivership, and they started to liquidate his complete business. They were selling trucks for $400 that he had paid $2,000 for; racks that he had built to carry his campers on which had cost him $1,000 to build, they were selling for $10, and this was a small businessman, Mr. Speaker. Maybe in some cases he was not the type who would normally come to an NDPer and say: "Now, this is the problem; we need help." But were there any ideas for protection of the small businessman? I'll be more than happy to supply anyone his name. He is on the board of directors of the chamber of commerce in the Langford area; he's a very upstanding free-enterpriser, but his business was wiped out. He will end up owing $20,000 or more, and this was on March 17, at the beginning of the recreational vehicle industry season. You start selling trailers and tents at that time in the early spring. But did we have any idea of protection from that ministry? No, we had personal attacks. I say that we must have some type of legislation that will protect small business and those who are employed in it, and that will protect those who have an investment in making employment.

But what did this government do? The only thing the government did is that it's going to tax the banks $15 million. Mr. Speaker, that $15 million is basically only a licence to steal from the small business community, and I say that is wrong. Government must give leadership; it must bring in something not only to create jobs but to protect those small industries, those small businesses that are there. But what do they do? We just don't seem to have anything that's a longrange program.

I was quite interested in listening to my good friend who, I imagine, sold a lot of used cars in his time, but when he goes on.... After 30 years of Social Credit.... One of the programs that we in the NDP believe in, because it's going to create jobs for Canadians, is the development of a merchant marine for Canada. Our program calls for — and I feel it may be a little conservative — at least 25 percent of the resources in northeast coal to be shipped out on Canadian ships, employing Canadian youth and creating jobs. The money will come back and the spinoff will go into the business community of Canada. If you're going to develop a merchant navy, after 30 years of doing nothing, you're not going to accomplish it now by attacking the opposition. We have to start planning today. If we are going to have coal shipped out, the planning for a merchant navy has to start now, and the leadership has to come from this government for the time being.

Look at the record of this government. They wasted $20 million on the Marguerite to create $6 million of employment for American seamen. Now you can understand why this government has no intention of making a merchant navy to employ Canadians and keep shipyard workers, who live in my riding, employed. These are the jobs that we have to be looking at. This is the leadership that has to come from this government.

In closing, I will say that because of the leadership of this government. one Crown corporation has created some jobs. Because of the leadership of this government, by increasing marriage licences, fishing licences — all these petty indirect taxes — they go into the pockets of the householder. the worker.... This government has led the Crown corporations to follow in their footsteps, to go out of their way to take some more money out of the pockets of the workers. Because of that leadership, this government has created at least a few jobs. I prefer to call these few jobs, for lack of a better word, bounty hunters.

B.C. Hydro has now come down with a policy whereby, if someone out in the community.... There are a lot of people running cottage industries. They're running businesses out of their houses. One example is a senior citizen living on a pension who has the audacity to repair and sharpen lawnmowers in the summertime. So B.C. Hydro, with one of their new rulings that came down through their meter-readers. If they see any business being conducted in a house, or if there's an illegal suite in the basement for a son-in-law or mother, or if they're doing any business, then you report them.

For every one they report, they get a $5 bounty. This is from B.C. Hydro, led by this government, following in the footsteps of trying to get an extra buck off them.

Not only do they get a $5 bounty, Mr. Speaker, they also raise the rate of that home. They may only have one light, as my senior citizen has. He has a light in his garage so he can work on sharpening lawnmowers at night. He has to pay the commercial rate for all the hydro that he uses in his business. Not only that, he has to pay the commercial rate for the hydro in his house, and in this particular case he has electric heating. He also has to pay, because of this government's dumping of the transit levy on to the hydro users in my riding, the commercial rate for his transit levy.

This government and its Crown corporations are going out there and preying like a lot of bounty hunters so that they

[ Page 7012 ]

can get their $5 and get some more money out of the pockets of the working poor, the small business people, and the people who are trying to make a few extra dollars in their own homes. This is the leadership that came from this government. They've created these $5 bounties, and I wonder if this is going to be taken off their 8 percent or 10 percent restraint. When they settle their final wage, are they going to deduct this $5 that they get? Some get $10 or $20. I've talked to the people in Hydro and they've got 200 or 300 appeals right now.

As I say, it is with great pleasure and honour that I stand here and say I'm going to support the amendment to the resolution that we must create jobs, we must utilize the resources of this province, and we must give that leadership without the personal attacks. Leadership is not coming from this government, and if this amendment is a vote of nonconfidence then I am going to vote non-confidence in this government.

MR. RITCHIE: After listening to that one, I am reminded of the Scot who, when asked to speak, said, "I'm not a good speaker but I could sing you a song." He sang, "Ye banks and braes o' bonny Doon, I'm no long up that I'm going to sit doon." I think we're all due a break after that so I would move that we adjourn the debate on the motion until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe tabled the annual report of the First Citizens Fund advisory committee for the year 1981.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I have the honour to file the ninth annual report of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia for the 12 months ending December 31, 1981. I may advise Mr. Speaker that the corporation in 1981 lived up to its mandate. The revenues derived from premiums covered claims expense, and we have a net revenue over expenditure of $1.6 million on the automobile insurance fund.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. No debate is permitted on the presenting of reports.

Hon. Mr. McClelland moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:00 p.m.